Yet these two you quote played against relatively unfit forwards who didnt get the benefit of an interchange rest during the game. Anyone who was fleet of foot and quick off the mark got noticed in those days.

Role of the scrum half has changed. I don't think its a fair comparison

Schofield may talk out his rear end but he was easily the 2nd best player of his generation - behind only Hanley. Did it in internationals, did it in the ARL and rated by the Aussies. His big mistake was to go to a Leeds, who at that time were the epitome of spineless, underachieving losers.

Now I think Gregory & Fox were very good players in British club rugby, but their impact beyond that was less impressive than Schofield. Anyway being a great player isn't a guarantee that they will be a great and intelligent pundit - as indeed Schofield often proves.

Very big on loyalty is the grudge - ask Larroyer and then start working down a long list of those who have received his kindness.

Schofield's job in his 'punditry' to court controversy, but I found the particular comments on Sneyd overly personal against a single player. There may be en element of truth in it, but I don't think the personal attack on him was warranted, especially as it didn't provide anything constructive or insightful to the reader to explain why he had this opinion or what he thought Sneyd could do to improve etc.

Schofield is nothing more than a loud-mouthed moron who's credibility as a pundit is at rock bottom. A drunk idiot watching the game in a pub shouting at the TV provides more insight.

I personally wouldn't have responded if I was Radford as I don't think it's worthy of one, but I can understand why he felt he needed to back his player and call the comments out for what they are.

I said it SOUNDS LIKE, not that he is, given the more than stern response, it's the response usually heard from someone under pressure who goes on the offensive.
Why LR has come out with what he has with his invitation and all the rest of it iincluding foul language is crazy. there's no need for it at all and just falls into the hands of GS.

Schofield is the Katy Hopkins of RL journalism and gets column inches by being controversial and trying to get a bite. Radford has given him exactly wht he wanted by biting back.

Pretty much it really. I'm surprised radford even bothered to respond let alone seeming lose his rag over it

What have we got to do with this thread, how did we enter in the debate !!!

Looks like Marc has rammed somebodys words right back up their big, fat, larddy @rse tonight.
Well done Radders for having his back.

Let's be honest, Schofield does have a point. Sneyd does go missing from time to time. The good news is that he's turned the criticism into a positive - now back it up with some consistency.

Schoey is bang on. Until Sneyd wins a golden boot then he shouldnt be challenging a hall of famer in both hemispheres to anything.

Headline should be "Mark Sneyd makes all his doubters eat their words and sticks two fingers up to Judas"

The only thing you wouldn't want to challenge Schofield to is going toe to toe at an all you can eat buffet.

Why do his opinions have to be at the extreme all of the time? Its for effect rather than being informed, fact driven debate.

No he's just honest. He says what most of us think. Sneyd with ball in hand for the most part is Crap. Good kicking game, great goal kicker. Average defender.

Why is he a Judus? Hull sold him and Crooksy as the club was going under. Schoey openly says he never wanted to leave but don't let that cloud your paranoia.