Peacock, Burgess, Morley, Sculthorpe.

I'd include Fielden if his form hadn't flat-lined.

When did Burgess beat Australia?

Well he did only play one game, if you ignore the other 11, plus 4 substitute appearances.

Your lack of attention to detail is as alarming as Wellen's lack of ability.

He was outstanding against NZ, who today are around the same level as Australia.

The point is - this notion that the 80s and 90s were packed full of rugby talent is purely fanciful. For a start, we didn't beat the Aussies in a single test series. We couldn't beat them at the very start of SL when they only had half a team (with arguably their best players absent!). The truth is - during this period GB survived on the backs of a handful of outstanding players - Offiah, Hanley, Schofield and Ward. Without them we would have been trounced even harder. I mean, how can anyone think teams containing the likes of Deryck Fox, Paul Eastwood, Graeme Hallas, Karl Fairbank, Paul Loughlin, David Plange, Paul Hulme, Peter Williams, Chris Bibb etc. were an outstanding advert for player development is beyond me.

And as for the stupid argument that the scores were closer between GB & Aus - of course they were. A) The Aussies weren't as professional as they are now and B) we were playing under the 5 metre rule.

So, players can now be called "Aussie beaters" after they have beaten New Zealand?

C'mon, Burgess has a long way to go before he can even be mentioned in the same breath as some of those others.

Agreed - if that series was an indicator of greatness then you can throw Pryce and Burrow in.

Burgess has to perform well in the 4-Nations to elevate his status to top international performer IMO, as do all of England's current players with the exception of Peacock and Morley.

I've not rubbished the double-winning 1996 squad, however, compared with the 2006 Saints squad it would struggle to compete.



Indeed.

Merely having the ability to lace up your boots without assistance is enough to be a Saints legend.

Prior to 1996 GB usually won one in a series and lost two.
What it is now? One win in fourteen attempts?
The idea that the SL era with the SC is bringing in a better standard of player, or equal and that we are as competitive than before against the Aussies is total nonsense.

It has been and still is the RFL/SL's aim to lower the standard of SL and Rugby League. Hence their policy of levelling. They say it has been successful and it is successful. The standard is of a lower level now than it used to be and it is declining each year.
The rules are brought in by the SL Clubs and their Chairmen.

A very good player. But not in Hanley's league. For heaven's sake - he had to turn his back to pass to the left!



Don't recall Denis Betts ever breaking any Aussie pots.



Extremely talented (probably the most balanced centre I've seen) but underachieved in the big games.



For a centre, one try in god knows how many games is pretty poor.



I can't believe anyone would suggest Edwards. He's not even in Gregory's league.



Had one good game? Two?



Played well in his last series against Australia. Prior to that he underachieved.



Robinson was a great player against semi-pro defences. In his last couple of seasons he didn't carry anywhere near his early threat. Basically, he was worked out.



Errr ... no.

Christ almighty! This place is something else. You guys huddle together re-inforcing these crazy things-were-better-when-Wigan-destabalised-the-league(and bankrupted itself)-by-buying-all-the-best-players belief systems like something out of Waco or Jonestown. The reason the Aussies tonk us more often these days has bugger all to do with the salary cap.

Remember, WE were the first nation to introduce fully professional RL - not Australia. Back in the day GB were fielding players (the Wigan players) who did nothing but train all day against Aussies who were still semi-pro. Is it any wonder some of these guys looked good? Add to this the oft-forgotten fact that we used to play under the 5m rule, which helped keep the score down. Under the 10m rule even a good side can have 50 points put past it (look at the Kiwis).

And when the Aussies became fully pro they started to take the game far more seriously than us. Look at the difference in how they develop at grass roots level. It's a million times more professional than back in the 80s and early 90s. Today some of the leagues clubs (Brisbane's especially) can give premiership football acadamies a run for their money. Which means instead of producing a handful of good players each season (Lewis, Meninga, Grothe, Sterling, Kenny) they turn out two teams' worth. It's a numbers game and they've got all the numbers.

And what's this 'one win in fourteen attempts' craziness? Whilst GB hasn't looked like winning a series it has managed to steal the odd test from Australia - at home and in Australia. How do you account for this - given your opinions on the diminishing standard of SL?

As for this "SL's aim is to lower the standard of SL and Rugby League" - why the PHUCK would they want to do that? Your crazier than a chithouse rat. Seriously.

Yet, sadly, it seems to have a fascination for you, doesn't it?

Jukesays wroteJukesays Replies with Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!! I think you'll find he turned his back "Sometimes" to pass to the right! Still better than anything this country's produced in the 20 years since!

Betts?
Mugwump says
Don't recall Denis Betts ever breaking any Aussie pots.

Jukesays Replies with Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!! Selective memory my friend, immensely respected and was a target for the Aussie clubs for years. Steve Roach told me at the World Cup he actually thought for a spell early to mid 90's he was in the Top 3 forwards in the world at that time!

Newlove?
Mugwump says
Extremely talented (probably the most balanced centre I've seen) but underachieved in the big games.

Jukesays wrote
And still better than anything this country has produced in the last 5 years!

Connolly?
Mugwump says
For a centre, one try in god knows how many games is pretty poor.

Jukesays WroteThat old chestnut! Nothing got past him though! Wonder if Keith Senior can tackle like that!
I'll tell you what I''ll do!
Give me the Nod when you have picked a Team of players that Played/Came through the SL Ranks in the last 10 years and I'll do the same for say 85/95????

Lets see who comes up with the best team/teams eh?

Unbelievable. There have been some astonishing posts on this thread, but that tops saying Wellens was the equal of Davies for sheer lack of credibility.

I'm so shocked by this ludicrous comment about Robinson that I'm actually finding it difficult to type anything in response.

I daren't even put that quote in my sig because anyone who hadn't seen this thread would not be able to believe that anyone could ever say that about Robinson, one of the greatest players in the history of world rugby.