Don't be silly. Farrell's best days where when he moved to prop forward and forgot the pretence that he was a creative player. Sculthorpe was superior in every regard bar possibly kicking.

did he really think cunningham was a prop? just filling in at hooker?

Farrell and Scully played the game in different ways. Scully didn't have Farrell's Leadership, organisation, kicking or strength. Scully was slightly more elusive and quicker. Injuries were starting to take their toll on Farrell's body, but he could have played anywhere in the pack, where Scully would have performed at centre or Stand Off. This said, if there had been a decent Stand Off around between 2000/2004, I'd have played Farrell at second row and Scully at LF.

How on earth did you get to that conclusion from “Was as strong as a prop but had the agility of a hooker”?

At one point, we had a potential back row of Peacock, Farrell and Sculthorpe. It never really materialised, though.

Sculthorpe had times when he really took it to the Aussies. He scored 3 tries in the 2001 series and consistantly impressed despite playing in his 2nd position of standoff throughout the 2001 and 2003 series.

Scully was excellent in that first test, Farrell really took it to them in the second half at the Reebok stadium, but can't remember the other test.

That back row, plus O'Connor, McDermott and Fielden (although I don't think Fielden had hit top form at that stage), if only Morley, Cunningham, Lowes and Newton had been fit in 2001. With the exception of Radlinski I don't remember our backs being great. The lack of a recognised hooker cost us in that series.

People talked up the England pack last season, but man for man I'd say the potential 2001 pack was stronger.

pretty good in his prime was thorman, london, then the NRL came calling (parramatta), also was good for us at huddersfield but it went sour towards the end when asked to go to full back... downhill from there his confidence was gone by time he went to hull fc

I remember when Cunningham was in his prime and the Ozzies used to talk about how he was feared when they came up against him
At his peak one of the best 3 players in the world, as was Scully on his day

Looking back, I'm not sure if Barrie McDermott was as good as we remember. I remeber he used to be slow to fill in in defence. I don't reckon I'd take him over the props in the squad now.

O'Connor was a beast though, much like Graham is now, he just kept coming. The season Wigan had him and Craig Smith (maybe 2003?) they used to really give us a pounding.

Everyone just loved the Biff with Barry Mac.

Didn't Sculthorpe win both his MOS awards playing stand off for Saints? To me loose forward was his 2nd poition.

Oh and I think Scully P was a far better player than Pan face.

I think it is soley the fact that DL didn't play against Gary Hulse that he hasn't made this list. I'm sure he feared the reputation of Hulse

Lockyer is picking the best he faced. On that basis its no surprise Farrell isn't there as he never impressed against Australia, same as Radlinski who was a flimsy turnstile against them. Is Lockyer expected to take into account games and competitions he wasn't involved in? Wigan fans need to realise that there is a rugby league world out there beyond their club.

I understand all fans are guilty of bias when it comes to who is better, and who should play for England etc.. but come on
the Scully v Farrell thing is ridiculous.

Farrell was a great player, but Scully was one of the best in the world on his day

I aren't really questioning who was better between the two, I'm more questioning him not being in Lockyer's top ten international opponents. I'd have thought the GB captain for most of the time he played them (as well as a former Golden Boot winner) would have featured in it.

Forgetting Farrell for a minute.

two out of the top three are:

Cunningham
Sculthorpe

for the remaining space in the 3 leaves:

Andrew Jones
Darren Lockyer
Stacey Jones
Shane Webcke

A slight flaw to your arguement there. Three of that four, I wouldn't swap for Cunningham or Sculthorpe.

It really seems some people on here don't rate Farrell, purely because he played for Wigan, whilst others have a big opinion Sculthorpe because he played for saints. Scully was the headline grabber, Farrell was the driving force.

I don't disagree with his number 1 at all. Sculthorpe's one of the best players to come out of this country and was as tough as a prop. He hit hard and could unlock any defence. He was wanted by a lot of teams down under and would have been successful where ever he played. IMO, he is probably the best British player I have seen since I started watching the game as a 10 year old in '94. He would walk into this team and probably make us a lot closer than we are to the Aussies and this is apparently the best team we have had in some time.

Ill go with Lockyer's judgement on this and i'm a Leeds fan

You only need to look at how much Wigan fell apart after he left to see the impact he had.

Good to see that Lockyer states what everyone outside of Wigan have always known, that Andy Farrell was overated and Sculthorpe was far far superior.

Only if they all had their day at the same time.

Johns, for instance, had seasons when he couldn't get on the pitch.

Im not suggesting both players where in the top 3 at the same time though.

I know, but I think what the poster's point was that there would have been times where it would have been plausible to say "that" about either of those players, not particulary that they were two of the top 3 international players for the period ninety something to two thousand and something.

He hasn't listed Sculthorpe as his number 1. He's just named 10 players and they've been listed in order of nation, hence why all the New Zealanders come after the English.

And you heard this statement where??? Or are you just making things up??