Time has done little to ease my anger (I refuse to use the word hatred) towards Harris - I know the club needed the money his transfer obtained, and I know he cant be blamed for wanting to show his undoubtedly ability in a more substantive and rewarding arena, but his attitude was shabby.

In terms of comparing the two, Briers had the better all-round kicking game, and the better passing game, Harris had the better running game and step. Combine the two and you'd have a half-back to rival anyone.

Briers ultimately went on to fulfill his potential, Harris I feel did not but Harris probably earned more from his career which I'm sure suited him fine.

Of the two, I'd say Briers is the better player. Rugby League changed a lot during those years and he adapted his game accordingly; as his body shape changed and as defences began to target him he acquired new skills.

In terms of skill, I'd say Briers started good and finished Brilliant, Harris started brilliant and finished very good.

Yes - that's a fair assessment I'd say

50% of the game is defending and only of the two can defend. Hence one of the two has 13GB caps the other has zero. And to finish off only one of the two has won Man of Steel. I guess all those GB coaches and all the players who vote for MOS can't be wrong. I rest my case.

Surely no one needs to remind you of other "Capped" stand offs.........

Kevin sinfield
Leon Pryce
Karle Hammond
Danny Orr
Graham Steadman




Harris v Briers both world Class.........Briers was better

Harris.

Harris wasn't picked for GB for his defence. He was never that effective for GB, even in his first spell in league when he was at his best. The Aussies and Kiwis were not the soft defences that Harris tore apart in SL at the time. Classic example was the 1999 Tri Nations, where a GB side packed with top names: Radlinski, Robinson, Connolly, Senior, Sullivan, Harris, Long, Cunningham, Morley, Farrell, Sculthorpe, got hammered by both Aus and NZ. By the time he came back in to the GB team in 2004 and 2005, GB had definitely closed the gap on the southern hemisphere sides and were not easy beats any more, but Harris was a fairly peripheral figure in those series.

Briers missed his GB chance because GB was disbanded after 2007, there were five seasons where Briers was at his peak where there was no GB side and he wouldn't play for England as he'd committed to Wales. Before that there was always debate about should Briers play for GB, but the guys that were picked ahead of him, Sculthorpe, Deacon, Long and McGuire were better players in SL at the time. Briers was still inconsistent back then. Whenever we lost a Test there used always be calls for guys like Briers, Orr, Cooke/Horne and Thorman to be picked but only Briers of that group was good enough for that level and he was up and down.

The last year of GB when Tony Smith was coach, Briers was playing pretty well but Saints and Leeds were head and shoulders the best team and Smith went with Pryce and Burrow who did well and we won 3-0 against NZ so hard to make a case for Briers then.

After GB had been disbanded and it was England, Briers was at his peak and England were using guys like Eastmond, Tomkins, Brown, Robinson, Chase, Myler. If this had been a GB team then Briers would have been in ahead of them I am sure.

That's a really good excuse as to why Briers was never picked for GB. Now take the blinkers off. The only debate about if Briers should play for GB was from Wire fans. Nobody else in the game thought so including all the GB coaches in charge at the time, as much as you like to put the case forward they just can't all be wrong. Conduct this survey in ten years time when neither have played for a long time, as much as Briers has been a good club player- a GB international he was not. Harris on the other hand was many times and as I said before also won MOS.

remember briers giving the aussies the run a round when playing in a wales shirt,,didnt he get the m.o.m in that game...

Harris was a better player. But, if you look from a club perspective, Briers would be the first choice... Sadly, Briers only really showed his full capabilities while under Smith and with a better structure around him.. I'm also sure that Smiths first job was to give him "The hard word". Would have loved to have seen him at Wigan, where he would have been under more pressure to perform, and not be a big fish in a small pond, but you can't fault his loyalty to Warrington.

Harris... Can't remember Briers playing for Rylands.

to be fair your knowledge of the players skill levels, and the 'status' of the man of Steel award is glaringly obvious.

when Harris was voted as man of Steel is was done so by members of the press not player or coaches..... they voted for Adrian Vowles the following year if your interested.

bang yourself on the Wigan and Saints forums and lord it up over Farrell and Sculthorpe with your Adrian vowles chit chat. You could also mention Sean long being better than Andy Gregory while your using the man of steel rule......

Just to clarify, at Warrington Harris was used firstly as a winger, then a centre, and then as a stand off....Briers never had to be moved from the wing slowly but surely into the Middle of the park. Briers was a teenage Standoff that got Saints to a challenge cup final.........Harris never did anything like that with Wires........

Harris went on Strike at Warrington because he wouldn't play full back when Alex Murphy ( a rather Successful coach ) wanted him to...he then Went to Leads and played.....ermm....Fullback it was in this position at leeds that he won his man of steel award... if you can recall as the season wore on he would move from fullback to stand off during the games and it was quite effective....

he had more pace and was stronger in the tackle than briers, every other aspect of the Stand off role Briers was better.

Briers played for Great Britain against France at Agen in 2001, scored a try and kicked a goal, guess David Waite thought he was good enough at the time.

A lot of our fans have strong views on Harris and I think the regime at the club at the time (ie Murphy with Dorahy) did a good job in boxing Harris in to a corner where he was painted as the bad guy amongst the fans. Harris was the most high profile player but a lot of our players were unhappy at that time at the club. The club had seemed a happy place when Brian Johnson and Clive Griffiths were there and we were overachieving, but once those other two came in the mood changed. I think this was around the time the club knew we were in financial trouble and were trying to both cut costs and get revenue for selling players, whilst not wanting to get criticised for being a selling club - the ideal way is to make it look like they were reluctant sellers because a player wanted out.

Harris' story on this was that Warrington had arranged a deal to sell him to Cardiff RU but he said he didn't want to go at that point in his career and he turned the move down and the way he was treated by Murphy/Dorahy deteriorated, he felt they were trying to make him unhappy so he would put in a transfer request and then it wouldn't look like their fault. He then said he wanted to go to another rugby league club and the club said no you're on a five year contract and we can put you in the reserves for five years, you won't play for anyone else. And the banning him from training with the other players, making him get up at 4am to go running with Chadders: just sounds like bullying to me and probably they didn't want to pay his wages and were needing an excuse to say he'd breached his contract so they wanted him to not turn up to training. In his book he said both Chadders was apologetic and embarassed for what he'd been asked by the club to do to him, and Cullen was supporting him saying don't let the club break you etc.

I know people will say well thats just Harris's side and there must be more to it but if he was acting up like a spoilt teenager and shafting the club then guys who were Warrington through and through like Chadders and Cullen would have sorted him right out, they wouldn't have been supporting him.

The club didn't do its business as professionally as it has done in the last decade or so. It's just a shame that a young Harris and young Sculthorpe came through when they did, had they emerged 10 years later we would have probably kept them and gone on to dominate SL with them, especially Scully.

But on Harris had he not left we wouldn't have signed Briers so alls well that ends well on that front.

Money talks.
Harris moved on because he was offered more money and Wire got a wedge out of it as well.
Sculthorpe moved on for the same reasons
Briers came here because Saints did not want him. Saints do not unload players without a reason.
Briers was loyal because nobody offered him more money. Nobody offered him more money because he was not an eighty minute player and his defence was non existent.
But for Moran and Smith he would have won nothing.
I bet Smith told him that, if he did not buck up he would have followed Gleeson out of the door.
People say he is a legend. I think another word ending in end would be more appropriate because he was a sublimely gifted player who coasted for 80 per cent of his career and was a bad influence on his team mates. Thoroughly unprofessional. The media loved him because he had a innate gift for sound bites and he certainly knew how to talk the talk.
I think Harris was badly advised but he probably made a lot more money that Briers because his contribution, which some of you do not rate, was in demand by those who make a living at the game.
Finally, if you talk about good business, how about selling Briers to Wire then buying Long from Wigan for a song. I know who I would have. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Saints smacked our backsides for so long.