Excluding AJ, i'm saying Scully.

I'd love to say Langer though from a Wire point of view.

the system is flawed.

This was done by rugby league world a year a two ago, think it was best 50 in Superleague. The winner was Kieran Cunningham can,t remember the others.

No Ricky Bibey isnt better than most. The points system is for the most successful player in SL which has clearly been defined in all my posts. Shaun Edwards played for London in SL for 2 seasons and won sod all, not the most decoreted player

That's exactly how it was worded before the question was changed. So yes, originally, it was exactly like your Peter Falk scenario.

Why did the OP confuse the question in the first place with the rubbish scoring table that has nothing to do with best player, and may have little to do with actual success, depending on your criteria (e.g. is the highest points scorer in SL history not to be considered successful, or the highest try scorer, or the longest serving player, or the highest paid, etc?)

Not if you counted SL players per se. Saints have won five SL titles, as have Leeds. That would put us on a par, except that we have won Challenge Cups as well, something Leeds appear to be incapable of doing.

It was only confusing to people who didnt read the post properly. I simply demonstrated who was the most successful using a chart posted by somebody else on the leeds board and then asked who they thought was the best clarifying that two things are not the same. Quite simple to understand. TPS and TTS were not given points because it gives unfair advantage to kickers and wingers.

Could you please post another chart that would best show who are the most successful players in SL. I would suggest whichever formula you use the top 4 would remain the same.

Quote: rollin thunder "bull. Johns only played one great game on his debut. was not in the game in the play offs against Hull. nothing more than a publicity stunt.'" Johns DID play in the play-off so he had 3 games total, he also was a bit of a kn0b on the night being such a sore loser and all. He like the rest of the Warry team got his ass handed to him www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/se ... ague.sport Great player back home but couldn't quite cut it for the big game over here. I thought Lyons was a top player but best player ever..no my vote goes to Jason Smith, by far the best talent the black & whites have had in SL. Mercurial skills and a decent tackler too. Still plying his trade for Toowoomba Brothers at no.6

Quote: rollin thunder "bull. Johns only played one great game on his debut. was not in the game in the play offs against Hull. nothing more than a publicity stunt.'" Johns DID play in the play-off so he had 3 games total, he also was a bit of a kn0b on the night being such a sore loser and all. He like the rest of the Warry team got his ass handed to him www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/se ... ague.sport Great player back home but couldn't quite cut it for the big game over here. I thought Lyons was a top player but best player ever..no my vote goes to Jason Smith, by far the best talent the black & whites have had in SL. Mercurial skills and a decent tackler too. Still plying his trade for Toowoomba Brothers at no.6

Either Langer, Johns Or Cunningham

best player has to be Andrew Johns followed by Jamie Lyon then Steve Menzies IMO

Gareth Ellis - Wakefield version
David Solomona - Wakefield version

Didn't win anything but their all round performances in attack and DEFENCE coupled with the indominatable spirit and leadership in an unfancied team shouldn't be ignored.

The question was never who is the most successful it has always been who is the best. What I did change was the definition of best so it was just based on SL performances and not NRL players coming over at the end of there careers.

I didnt come up with the formula, but if you put up a new one then I would happy to do the maths to find out who comes top with your formula. If the formula was changed to decrease the value of GFs and CCs and increase the value of individual awards it would work against two of the Greatest players in SL history in JP and KC who have just 1 MoS, and 0 LT or HS between them. As I have said MANY times the formula is just to decide the mos successful player.

THE BEST PLAYER IN SL WILL ALWAYS BE A MATTER OF OPINION, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PLAYER CAN AT LEAST BE NARROWED DOWN TO A SELECT FEW. [iI WOULD SUGGEST EVEN IF YOU CHANGED THE POINTS SYSTEM YOU WOULD STILL BE LEFT WITH THE SAME TOP 4.[/i

Apologies, misread the alteration on the first page, saw something had changed and assumed it had become more relevant to the scoring system.



Then why not ask something less ambiguous if you're going to complain about misinterpretation? For example, if that is what you were after, something like "Who was the best player across their SL/CC careers" or most successful or whatever.



Then you're just adding more problems surelyby looking at the data[/i is probably the quickest route to finding a biased answer, you simply shape worth around who you want to do well.

Realistically, whatever system you come up with is just an indicator anyway, as there is no qualitative answer to be found for a "best" question - success maybe you can get closer. But as a sole indicator it is flawed.



If I came up with a system that approximated my opinion of success, it would probably narrow the field in much the same way, yes. But any system of this nature is still contestable, just as much as contesting opinions on players in the first place. I don't really see the point in trying to apply a system that self admittedly does not apply directly to what is being asked, let alone one with such great ordinal (ranking, whatever) flaws as pointed out by myself and others

Also, calm down: it was only criticism. Was a nice attempt and got some interesting discussion, I just don't agree with what you've tried to apply, either in application or underlying principle.