Nobody claims he is.

Kevin Ashcroft does, had to stifle my giggles reading the metro this morning whilst the garry schofield of this side of the pennines proclaimed that sideshow lockers had surpassed farrell's level of greatness.

I dont think that at all. Whats this got to do with Lockers anyway?

FWIW Lockers performed well in the games against NZ - No-one can deny that, im just waiting for him to perform like that for wigan.

In all honesty, i do tend to air on the side of caution when reading stats/information posted by an individual, who, in all honesty, looks to struggle with the spelling of their own personal name.

All you lot seem to do is pick up on my spelling, i am sorry i am dyslexic i will try harder to correct this but it happens i am sorry, if you are unable to understand my post due to poor spelling i am sorry, but if you can at least attempt to give an opinion on the topic in hand.

Now regarding stats nobody anywhere is saying that they are not a valid tool of assessment and here is where you have to use a little brain power and the point you all seem to be missing they have to be used in context.

Comparing stats is not a valid tool between clubs due to many many influencing external factors, ie team orders style of play stengths and weakness of players in your own team game plan etc.....

I advocate stats wholeheartedly but if they are not used or analysed in the correct context they are meaningless.

The try assists comparrison stat is not a valid comparrison between clubs, if he drops to the National League makes 100 assists is he a better player? What i am saying is that if he has a storming season next year but due to the likes of King getting a fair bit of attacking ball as im sure he will, certainly more than Gleeson who is then unable to get his assist stats up is he a worse player?

If he had Calderwood outside him who would not have scored the tries that his outgoing wingpartner has hence would not have generated the same number of assits would this mean Gleeson was a poorer player? No.

I would suggest in this case the only real valid cross club is as stated about ratio of assits to ball carry or meters made per carry average etc.

'periodized process'?

Are you Paul Cullen in disguise?

Incidentally, if you are dyslexic is your name actually John? Just trying to be helpful as nobody may have told you that you are spelling your name incorrectly.

no i am someone who knows about conditioning elite rugby league players, periodization is a basic concept of this. Ny username is correct, cheers if you could read it has already been mentioned in the post above.

as usual some of our posters prefer to try and patronise and gang up on a supporter of another clubs team rather than listen to his views

jonh you make some interesting points about the conditioning, one thing I remember about Gleeson is an interview in RLWorld magazine just after he'd joined Warrington where he said that he'd put on a lot of muscle bulk in the off season (before 2004) because Apollo Perelini had come to Saints and had a superb conditioning routine. I thought his best form was in the seasons 2004-05 (last year at Saints, first year at Warrington), he was less good in 2006 but last season was ok.

Also regardless of what his physical appearance is, the real proof comes in the empirical evidence, eg his on field stats and his gym performance, whilst we don't have access to those, I remember talking to someone at the club a year or so back who told me that Gleeson was the best in the club in lots of the areas where their fitness is assessed.

In Monaghan and Chris Hicks Warrington have signed two players who were very fit in the NRL and time will tell whether they are in as good shape at Warrington next season, although I think a player who really knows what he is doing in terms of keeping his body in peak condition, will keep in that way whatever regime he is under.

See - Jon Clarke.

Cattastic, you may have noticed that I took on your role on TotalRL by pointing out the fallacy of the "Gleeson iz well rubbish since he joined Dire" argument.

Good news for the club, I reckon. I'd like to see Gleeson go on to even bigger and better things in 2008.

Oh, and I was impressed by him in the Test Series, one dropped ball apart.

Regards Apollo he has a reputation for getting players "big" in the same way as ex GB and Bradfrod conditioner currently at Penrith whose name escapes me.

As stated the key to conditioning is conditioning is converting the lean mass from weights to maximal strength then converting that to power. Im sure this would be the case under the controll of Apollo.

For a centre Gleeson is carrying in my opinion excess weight i remember on the tri nations DVD last year seeing him with his shirt off and looking a bit tubby. I appreciate rugby is not body building but non lean mass is detremental to performance fact.

Im not sure Warringtons last conditioner Paul Derbyshire i think was up to much and could be the reason you have not over achieved. Many people point to the head coach but the conditioning of a team is in many ways more important than the technical coaching. A conditioner spends much more time with the players. Last year Harrison lost his job at Salford after a fantastic season the only thing that changed was the conditioner in the backroom staff, since McRea arrived he has now left the club.

My point regarding Gleeson is this at 17/18 he was young hungry and ambitious, motivated to make a career. To make the best of your ability you do have to live the game, i just think once he "made it" he may have lost focus on training and this i feel has shown, although his skills have improved i dont think he has made as much as he could of his ability.

I hope the new conditioner can address this situation as i feel every year he has lost a little in this area, and if he does im sure he will produce his best form of his career for England and Warrington.