Most underrated player that I've seen in the P&B. He even played at stand off against Leeds and stopped McGuire from playing.

Grix was a good, solid and dependable player, fantastic for the salary cap era, where getting full value from guys at the bottom end of the salary ladder is crucial. We had quite a few similar in that era, such as Chris Riley and Ben Harrison.

His versatility was a great asset and LF was probably his most natural position. It'd be pushing it to say he was up there with a Mike Gregory or a Nikau though.

i'd say he was up there for nikau when he played for us.

Probably. Though that Nikau was at least 5 years past his peak.

tbf he was outstanding for melbourne in 1999 especially in the GF, which was why he was such a disapointment in 2000 when he just went around cheap shotting people.

That was his swansong. We were his final payday. Castleford saw the best of him earlier in the 90's. Swap him for Shelford or Ellis in our 93/94 side and we would have been miles clear of Wigan and Bradford.

Yes I saw Mike Gregory in his later years as I started watching in 1989 but fair to move him in to the Westwood/Briers/Hill tier on what he achieved over time which is what my tiers are based on.

The big difference between Briers and Ratchford was Briers was a match-winner, even when he was inconsistent in his early years he made a difference in games in a way Ratchford doesn't. Given how Briers improved over the second half of his career those aren't even on the same page in terms of the impact they made for Wire.

If in the past few seasons we had a Briers of comparable age instead of Ratchford we would have won a couple more finals, because all those times when we meander around near the opposition line and are unable to break through, Briers would have made plays that would have led to tries. Ratchford whilst a fine player, doesn't.

Also the number of international caps reflects more about the international coaches at the time. Mark Roberts didn't play for Great Britain, Billy McGinty did, was McGinty really THAT much above Roberts?

He admitted this in his book, that he was frustrated in our team (lets be honest there were some substandard players there at the time) after coming from Melbourne Storm and it came out in those cheap shots.

I do respect Nikau though, because standard procedure for a big name overseas player when they arrive here and don't like it, is to engineer ways of going back home quickly. Nikau stayed through his contract, despite dealing with terrible personal tragedy, and he did show up and make an effort every week, even if in his early days he was giving away penalties out of frustration, he wasn't loafing about. In his second season he was better, and after Langer had gone home during the 2001 season he did step up as a dressing room leader and played quite well, although not the Nikau of Cas/Cronulla/Melbourne days.

Roberts never had a peak to be fair. Injury saw to that. No doubt if injury hadn't intervened, he would have gained GB caps (likely as a Wigan player who would have spent a fortune on him, he was that good). McGinty, while a good player, was merely riding the coat tails of his more illustrious Wigan team mates.

Do you seriously think you could take Ratchford out of our present side and it wouldn't effect results??

I don't, which means yes, he does make a difference to the side in the way you say Briers did.

I appreciate you have a high rating of Briers. Truth is though, he was frustratingly inconsistent until he got better players than him around him.. Small fish in a big pond suited him more perhaps?

International caps were a lot more difficult to get if you weren’t a Wigan player in those days.Mike Gregory deserved his, an exceptional player.

And was a proper house too. Not a bad thing. It's one of the things i miss.

Yes it would affect results. If any one out of Clark, Ratchford, Austin, Hill, Cooper goes down we become significantly weaker, whereas most of the other players I think we could get by for a while. I think we would have won the 2013 Grand Final if Ratchford hadn't got injured in the second half.

The difference between Ratchford and Briers is, if Ratchford were to sign somewhere else, it would be a loss, but he is a player that could be replaced if we made a good signing. It wouldn't radically reduce the threat that we posed to opposition defences, for years ahead, like happened when we lost Briers.

Every time there's a thread on here about why are we so boring and predictable and offer no threat near the opposition line, ask yourself if that would be the case if we had Briers - even the younger Briers from the DVDV era. He always made plays that broke defences.

I'm not trying to diss Ratchford, I'm just trying to be realistic about players, and I think Ratchford is being overrated by some on here whereas Briers is strangely under appreciated given what he was for us over the years. The team was never the same after the point he left.

Sally, I agree to an extent, however, the best way I can put it is simply this,

If you had a side made up of 1 x Lee Briers and 12 x Stefan Ratchford then you would be a much more successful and consistent side than if you had one made up of 12 x Briers and 1 x Ratchford.

The point being that most successful teams (in any sport) are dependent on having a core of reliable, consistent players. The bigger that core is, the more successful a side will be.

Most of Ferguson's Man Utd sides were made up in such a way and this present Liverpool side are also similarly built.

So overall, while Briers was a fine player and good to watch, he needed a good core in order for the side to fire. Ratchford is that core and probably the best of it.

Didn't Nikau play in a cup tie for York against us, where the most interesting thing about the game was a snow ball fight amongst the spectators at half time. If my grey matter is firing, I think the score was a dour 8-1 win, with Fozzie scoring the only try? If (and it's a monumentally large if) I'm correct, he showed class in that game at a very young age.