Hanley is the best I've seen, he was more than a player, he was a talisman, the 1991 Wembley final is the best example of that, we were not expected to win, we had a few injury's and Hanley was one of them, before kick off saints fans singing and dancing, Ellery walks out of the tunnel runs up and down the touch line in match kit as a "fitness test", saints fans sit down, wigan fans stand up. Ellery plays we won 13-8.

Miles was special too, but like Kenny, Ella, Maninga, not here long enough

in terms of superleague, Sam was and is a special player, if you watch a player and are envious of the opposition Jamie Lyon at saints was a player that had that air of quality every time he touched the ball

I was in the Saints end that day (long story), the groans from that end when he walked out for his on-pitch fitness test was tremendous!

We must have missed the, best of Hanley when he came to Leeds, as although very good we've had beget players since......

Hanley at Leeds, whilst past his absolute peak was still a top top class player. Had he stayed with us he would have won another half a dozen major trophies at least

Botica was so underrated, hust watched the season review of 93-94 and he was class

I've never really understood the hype around Richards.

I'd have Offiah, Robinson, Carney, Dallas all ahead of him as exciting wingers. I'd argue a prime Manfredi and Burgess are better too. Unfortunately Burgess and Manfredi, for different reasons, have never had a good level of consistency.

I think you nailed it with the word ‘exciting’ but I wouldn’t class that to mean they were better. Clearly Offiah and Robinson were better players than Pat Richards and all the others you mention were more exciting to watch but I don’t think any of them were/are better players. I’d have Dallas somewhere close to Richard’s but not Carney, Burgess or Manfredi. Maybe it’s the added impact of Richard’s goal kicking that puts him ahead for me but it’s still a part of the game and it added to him being a better player than those others mentioned. Pat Richards was just so consistently good in all areas of his game.

Wasn't Tomkins the same though? He's a player who gets you out of your seat, takes risks and is probably prone to the odd howler because of the way he played. Richards was steady, didn't make many errors and just went about his business in a professional manner. I know what you're saying but I'd prefer to watch all the other wingers at their best than Richards at his best.

Apologies for the thread drift.

I’d put Tomkins up with Robinson and Offiah in terms of class tbh and as I say, I thought both of those were better players than Richards, so I wouldn’t lump Tomkins in with guys like Carney, Dallas, Burgess etc as he was a far better and more important player for us. I’d have loved to see Sam Tomkins in that Wigan side of the late 80’s and early 90’s. It would’ve been absolute carnage.

I get what you’re saying calling Richards steady but he was far more than that for me. Some of the things he could pull off were far more eye catching than being a solid citizen. Would he make a break like a Carney or Dallas and blitz the full length of the pitch? Not as often for sure but his all round game was superior for me. Solid as a rock defensively, imperious taking the high and low ball, a huge attacking threat in the air at the other end, great hands, made masses of ground from our end and his strike rate was very good. Add in all his kicking abilities and I thought he was a fabulous player.

I can't comment on Offiah or Robinson because I only started watching in 2001, but I'd definitely have Richards ahead of all of the others you mention. So many strings to his bow with his strength, aerial ability, defensive capabilities and the kicking. The only downside I can think of for Richards was his agility - he isn't going to step someone and go the full length like Dallas or Carney might, but he beats those players in so many other areas of the game.

That's all assuming we're talking about the best winger to win games of course, if we are just talking about excitement then it's a different question. Making good metres and finding your front coming out of yardage, making the cross field kick a non-option for the opposition and never being steamrolled by the bigger wingers trying to crash in at the corner aren't eye catching, but Richards did them better than the guys you mention IMO.

Edit - just realised NickyKiss has made pretty much the same points. Promise I wasn't copying!

Impossible question for me considering I have been watching Wigan since 1953 !

I think Dallas was better, an Aussie international and Origin player, speaks volumes

It's all opinions and Dallas was undoubtedly a great winger, but that's a bit of an unfair way to compare them given that Richards was ineligible for origin/international selection for most of his career by playing in SL. Even when he went back to the NRL at 32 years old there were a lot of aussie pundits calling for him to be selected for origin. I don't think there can be any question that he would have been selected if he had been eligible for selection during his prime.