Orford didn't have that opportunity, but he performed pretty well in a 40-0 thrashing of a salary-cap busting Melbourne team in a Grand Final.

Asdie from playing a blinder Sunday, playing a blinder in the win at Hull the week before and getting MOM in the game at Cas before that you have a point about Burrow.

No, really.

Donald has also played in and won 3 GFs

HTH

All as usual in your opinion.

Of most relevance would be would Hull KR be as good with Burrow instead of Dobson. I'll leave that to the Hull KR fans to pish themselves with laughter.




Which brings me back to the point on the other page, about players been lucky to play in a challenging team. Does it make them better individually? does it b0ll0cks. You can still be a success (ala Dobson) without winning trophies, only a bandwaggoner would not be able to differentiate between them.

Ricky Bibey has two Challenge Cup winners medals.

Ergo he's twice the player Barrie McDermott was.

And in the 2009 WCC against......... Rob Burrow! (although tbf Burrow wasnt able to play much of a part in that game). Just because our 6 & 7 have done the business for us for the last 6 years doesn't mean they're indestructable. Another half-back (not necessarily antipodean) would make a big difference to us. Burrow starting from the bench would also stop us needing 2 hookers in the team - but that's another story

Worrying times indeed.......I agree with Gocha

Why does Ricky Bibey always get dragged up when someone try's to prove this point?

And if you want to compare him to McDermott why not also mention The GF win ,league leaders shield, WCC, 40ish rep honours, not dropping to the championship at what should be the peak of your career?

Because people (in this case G1) insist on using winner's medals as an example of how good a player is.

Bibey (although you could also use Scott Naylor or Billy McGinty from Wigan's glory years) is the perfect example of how ridiculous that statement is.

That point there is a good example of what I was saying on this thread.

Plenty of trash players have been lucky enough to play for good trophy challenging teams. And then on leaving have been shown up as the player they truely are.

So if a player is putting in good and consistent performances in a lesser team, surely that would be an indicator of been successfull regardless of not winning trophies.

But wouldn't you agree that they have deserved their medals in serving the first team of a very successful squad for many years rather than IMO just being in the right place at the right time like Bibey?

But Warrington have just won the CC for two years on the trot. Are players like, Riley, Vinny Anderson, Louis Anderson, Clarke, and Higham, really proven quality? would you really have had any of those in the Leeds team for example?

Only last year many posters on here were moaning about the potential of signing Atkins. He's just won a CC, therefore a medal to his name.

Arguably Scott Donald was "right place, right time". Would Leeds have been any less successful with Lee Smith on the right wing 2007-09 for example?

I think we would have been just fine with Smith but I also think Donald contributed towards Leeds success.


To be honest I don't think this is going anywhere, It's just the Ricky Bibey thing that's getting a bit boring for me know, He must be used as an example on every forum at least one a week.

Add to that Ian Kirke, who G1 has lambasted for most of the season. Infinitely better player than someone Sam Burgess. In the days of the salary cap the number of medals a player has is not a mark of their quality

Perhaps when Sinfield is ready to retire Leeds will revert to the more traditional scrum half role, 1st receiver, organiser, tactical kicker. The type of scrum half typified by a Michael Dobson type.