Agree Bev Red, ok so he misses 1 or 2 tackles but contributes to winning us more games then losing.
That's why Leeds were prepared to pay a transfer fee for the lad.

Dorahy WAS a full back, he just rarely played there for you, he'd be far more effective then Fairbairn who although a great defensive full back and would take the ball up 100% everytime didn't have anything like the skillset or nous of Dorahy.
Kelly I'd have at prop, he was plenty big enough for that role and mobile to boot and needed to be worked, he got sloppy/lazy in the 2nd row but had the attributes to be special.
As for Gene, he'd be the best in that role than anyone else you've had in the last 30 years by some distance, he could pass, he could scoot, he could tackle.

the only thing wrong with Kelly was 2 things one every one thought he was going to be a Phil Lowe and 2 every time he played somebody should have hit him with a baseball bat to get him going

yes but if your picking a best rovers team you cant put a player at full back who never actually played there for us and as for the gene comment thats just bizarre i could pick 5 better hookers in the last 3 years gene wasnt the best passer of the ball neither

Mmm, you sure on your facts about Dorahy not ever playing FB for you? He's still a better player in that position than Fairburn.
And please name the 5 for me so I can have a laugh...

Fisher...I'd give you, but Gene works in the team I chose better In my humble opinion of course.,,

lets get this straight i loved stanley but he wasnt a hooker so fisher hodgson withers for starters thats just in the last year and as for having a laugh anyone who puts kelly in the best rovers team of the last thirty years cant be taken seriously