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.

The best player in SL would be the one who collected the most individual awards that are available to all players, with perhaps a nod to finals appearance awards as a tie breaker. That means Dream Team, MoS, international XIII and Golden Boot award or nominations plus international caps won (after all these are recognition of a players ability).

The ridiculous system in the OP advances players who were lucky enough to be part of great teams without necessarily being the best themselves. Ryan Bailey is the poster boy for this - not outright garbage but only good enough to hang onto the coat tails of superior team mates.

GF and CC wins are team awards and largely irrelevant when discussing the best individual players.

Lets march to red hall and demand a change to this points system, anybody joining me....

I'm so mad it's ruined christmas for me.

Willie Mason

Scully and Sinfield not fit to lace his boots, no black n white tints required

Lesley Vainikolo. He came second behind Cunningham in the poll somebody mentioned before a few years back. But i'm biased but he was a BEAST!

Moran, hands down. Mathers pushes him close too.

Knights or Tigers.

Sculthorpe was absolutely awesome and someone i admired greatly (Even if he did play for that shower)
Radlinski, Farrell and Cunningham honourable mentions.