No, but it'd be quite entertaining to watch it win and lose by the odd few points out of 80 every week.

I rate JJB's contribution very highly (see previous posts) but I do think it's probably fair to say that there are more players who can do what JJB does/did than can do what Ali did. Ali at his peak was more or less unique in SL. He had size, power, strength, speed (for such a big guy) and probably the best hands I've ever seen in a big forward. Not sayiing he ws the best forward I've ever seen, but I can't recall many playing in this country with that skill set.

Lets be honest here Ali was a unique player when we signed him as there was very few players in the world at that time who had the ball handling skills that he possessed

I disagree about JJB - I think he has been very lucky to part of an excellent team - he makes a contribution and his effort/will to win cannot be questioned and a great servant to the club. We should not let these qualities cloud our judgement.

You and I will always disagree about the importance of attack over defence - I would much rather have a team of Ali's over a team of JJB's

If you had swopped Wilkin and JJB round would the results of he GF's have been different very unlikely IMO

Finally on Langley - look at the Bradford side at the time he was trying to break in - they were huge - the success of the side was primarily built on their ability to bulldozer other sides. If were a head coach I would want my players to be physically suited to my style of play.

Bradford did a couple of things at the time of their dominance. They were ahead of the rest of the league in terms of S&C....was it Carl Jennings they had? Along with that, there was a policy of getting big players - big wingers starting with Jon Scales and then on to Vaikona and Vainakolo and also the first to have four top quality props that would rotate throughout the game.
They weren't all giants though, I don't recall the back row being huge (Peacock just being a skinny lanky lad then) nor Robbie Paul or Paul Deacon of course.

Yet those are precisely the qualities that I am judging him on. And they're important qualities.



Debatable. On pure playing terms? No. But then, in pure playing terms, how much better were we than Saints in 2007? The 2007 and 2008 GF wins were, in my opinion, at least as much about attitude as anything else. Nobody embodied the spirit of those Leeds sides more than JJB. Wilkin was exposed as something of a whinger when the chips were down in those games.

Also, at his peak, Wilkin was a fantastic player, and also a tremendous competitor. His peak didn't last as long, IMO as JJB and I wouldn't consider swapping them now. 2006 vintage Wilkin seemed to have a different attitude to 2007 vintage. I might speculate that success did him no good, but that would just be speculation. After that the ability was still there, but I have not seen the commitment level too often. But in any case rating JJB doesn't prevent me rating other players highly.

If you want a non-Leeds example, I would argue that Chris Joynt was never the most talented back row in the league, not an obvious pick for GB, but he was hugely influential (IMO, and that of some other people around at the time) on that hugely successful Saints side.

A lot of that Bulls team's game was built on territory really. They had players who were so lethal from close range that I usually felt if they played the ball within 10-15 metres of the opposition line they were going to score. Vaikona was virtually unstoppable from 5m.

The gargantuan front row was there to generate yardage up the middle, and by sheer size and power, to suck defenders in, exposing the flanks. Robbie Paul's scampers from around the ruck and Deacon's kicking also helped generate that territory. Then how often did you see one of the "awesome foursome" bash their way within a few metres, play the ball pretty quickly and then the halves move the ball out wide where a huge winger was one on one with their horribly out-muscled opposite number. It was simple, it was brutal and it was incredibly effective.

They played some more flashy rugby on occasion, but that was always the bread and butter that their attack was built on.

Yep, and with other teams behind on the physicality stakes, Bradford would have six big lads (two wingers and four props) working over four opposition (a hooker and the three quality props) players who were typically smaller, over the course of a game. Plenty of skill there from Lowes and Deacon and the Pauls too, plus Forshaw tied things together neatly particularly in defence.

They had a huge threequarter line with Naylor and McAvoy in the centres the two wingers and a full back Michael Withers

The backrow forwards were Gartner, Forshaw and Peacock hardly small blokes

I don't recall Naylor and McAvoy being particularly big, were they? Certainly not compared to Senior and some of the right centres we had. Maybe they just looked smaller next to the rest of the team
We certainly messed up on Forshaw. He looked poor for us but we didn't ask him to perform the role he performed for Bradford. I wouldn't have thought their back row any bigger than most of the rest. Their props and wingers certainly were though.

McAvoy was about 6'4 and Naylor just over 6'0. They were a huge side that 2003 Bulls team.

I still reckon I could 'ave 'em.

If it should be Sir Kevin than arise Lord Alex Murphy. Sinfield wouldn't have been good enough to lace Alex Murphy's boots. If you Loiners don't agree ask Syd Hynes.

LOLZ - Gawd bless the Leigh supporters.

Again we have the same argument. No one is saying that Sinny is the most skillful player to have laced on a pair of boots, but he is certainly one of the greatest Captains in the sport's history. I know Murphy was a great player, how did he do as a Captain?