Steve Prescott was a few inches taller than Quinlan and easy had a stone on him and wasn't a weak tackler. So it's a poor comparison.

Prescott's defence (and the early onset of his illness) was the difference between him staying and leaving Knowsley Road.

Aside from Jamie Lyon & Tommy Martyn I haven't seen a more naturally gifted player than Prescott. He was outstanding in all aspects of the game - [iapart from tackling[/i.

He wasn't big enough and he was regularly brushed off. And now you are saying Quinlan is SMALLER than Prescott - playing in a league where the opposition is BIGGER than anything Prescott ever faced.

Yep. That explains it.

Is the opposition bigger now or is that yet another silly sweeping statement???

Prescott's tackling was never an issue from memory.

And Prescott didn't leave the club because of his defence...

Agreed. Prescott defence was never a issue unless he had to defend short to the line but his cover tackling was as good as any fullback.

His kick returns was top class, he often beat the first man and often went on to 60 or 70 meter breaks.

Tbh it's embarrassing to even talk of quinlan in the same breath as prescott as HES not in his league and never Willl be.

Prescott was tough, brave, full of heart and as we know he's a real fighter and Quinlan is non of those.

Quinlan is Leon Felton level of a player.

He left because he was short changed (salary) by Saints.

I can't BELIEVE you are seriously suggesting teams are the same size today as they were when Prescott first emerged.

How many players in the Saints pack were over six-one when Eric Hughes was coach? Even Bomber?

Guys like Ryan Hall, Tom Lineham - even Burgess would have been certain second-row forwards. Hell - some are even big enough to play prop!

EVERYONE was short-changed by Saints in those days. Talk to Les Quirk. He has one or two interesting stories to tell.

Muggers, there was plenty of players over 6"1 when Hughes was in charge.

Players were just as big when Prescott was playing. That Bulls side of 97 was huge including their wingers.

Quote: St pete "Agreed. Prescott defence was never a issue unless he had to defend short to the line but his cover tackling was as good as any fullback. His kick returns was top class, he often beat the first man and often went on to 60 or 70 meter breaks. Tbh it's embarrassing to even talk of quinlan in the same breath as prescott as HES not in his league and never Willl be. Prescott was tough, brave, full of heart and as we know he's a real fighter and Quinlan is non of those. Quinlan is Leon Felton level of a player.'" I think this should put it to bed, on everything said above. Its the 1996 super league game at Wilderspool between Warrinton and Saints 1996. Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZL3BSl200A

Quote: St pete "Agreed. Prescott defence was never a issue unless he had to defend short to the line but his cover tackling was as good as any fullback. His kick returns was top class, he often beat the first man and often went on to 60 or 70 meter breaks. Tbh it's embarrassing to even talk of quinlan in the same breath as prescott as HES not in his league and never Willl be. Prescott was tough, brave, full of heart and as we know he's a real fighter and Quinlan is non of those. Quinlan is Leon Felton level of a player.'" I think this should put it to bed, on everything said above. Its the 1996 super league game at Wilderspool between Warrinton and Saints 1996. Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZL3BSl200A

I don't know why this thread has turned into a discussion about the merits of full backs throughout the ages, but defence wasn't a problem last night.

Indeed our backs did very well against a quality side.
It was our domination by the goon pack that concerned me; it will make an interesting reading looking at the official match stats when it comes to metres made.

Let's face it we hung on heroically and we took most of our few chances.

Fantastic to beat the goons and great to see the ape's reaction but lets not kid ourselves eh?

Yeah, sure - the Bulls were a big side. But let's not forget that a lot of their success was based on everyone else being nowhere near as big and physical.

Wingers topping out over 6'3 was a rarity in that league. There are countless in SL today. We even have a guy playing at 6'7 (Mantellato).

I remember when John Harrison - a second row and sum-time prop - was considered a freak of nature at that height.

Look at the size of our pack. How many of our forwards are 6'3? Greenwood, LMS, Walmsley, probably Vea.

I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point because ANYONE involved in junior development will know kids are handled far better these days. They eat better. They train better. They train smarter. All this has a knock-on effect in terms of size.

I taught two kids in Wigan (both of whom were on Saints books four or five years ago). At age 13 Saints had already given them an advanced training plan. By year 10 they were bloody enormous. I remember speaking to Ian Lucas & Mark Welsby (both ex-Wigan players) who both said they'd struggle to compete physically against the kids in their cohort.

When I was a kid I thought no-one could get bigger than Mal Meninga. Today Meninga wouldn't rank as big in some teams.

Depends how far you go back mate. When it was a part time profession there wasn't as many 'conditioned' big lads so I would agree with your point. However I'd say post 96, the players quickly got much bigger. Bradford certainly set a benchmark for size in 97 though. Didn't stop us grinding them down in the challenge cup final in the rain though

Speaking of Prescott. I'll never forget this moment, this tackle from the 1996 game against Cas. If they score this, we don't win the title. Watch from 12:20, incredible tackle! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAtlHBnCkiY

Speaking of Prescott. I'll never forget this moment, this tackle from the 1996 game against Cas. If they score this, we don't win the title. Watch from 12:20, incredible tackle! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAtlHBnCkiY