Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Obviously the list in question is for professional match appearances. I am sure there are many, many amateur players who could surpass all the records ever set in the senior game (apperances, tries, goals, oldest, yoiungest, etc). I suppose the problem is that has anyone ever kept accurate records of them ?

And, of course, if amateur matches are to be included then most of the named professional players will have played at that level before signed for a senior club and so could add those to their tally.  However, how far down the scale of matches do you then go ?  If including amateur games then why not when playing in school events ?

Wasn't there a thing about Pele scoring 1,000 goals, but this included schoolboy matches?!


For more information on the Rugby League Record Keepers' Club please visit our official website at www.rugbyleaguerecords.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil_Ormston said:

Wasn't there a thing about Pele scoring 1,000 goals, but this included schoolboy matches?!

According to the IFFHS (International Federation of Football History and Statistics), Pele is the most successful domestic league goal-scorer in football history scoring 650 goals in 694 League matches. His total of 1281 goals in 1363 games, which included unofficial friendlies, is a Guinness World Record.

Excluding friendlies and unofficial tournaments, Pele has actually scored 767 goals and he is in the third place when it comes to top goal scorers. Josef Bican with 805 goals and Romario with 772 goals take the top two spots. Puskas with 746 goals comes fourth and Muller with 735 goals rounds off the top five list.

It appears a lot of his goals were in arranged friendlies in which he was "allowed" to score goals as it pleased the crowd.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serious note the Pele example just shows how deciding where to set the goalposts can change a lot. If you were unbiased and using a genuine basis to compare players all goals from friendlies would be ignored.  But the Pele scored more than 1000 goals is exactly the sort of factoid that's hard to kill - as with lots of similar guff, whatever gets out first tends to carry most weight.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing another spanner in the works (not to be awkward but just to try and find a possible answer to a prolem) ...

My opening post of this thread was regarding whether guest apperances (ie in the War Emergency Leagues) counted on a player's record as having made an actual apperance for that club That lead to comments regarding trailists and by what name they should be recorded as, both if they did or did not eventually sign for the club in question.

This began because of Willie Horne being shown on a list of "one club" players when he had actually played 2 games for Oldham in the 1942-43 Emergency War League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-club_men_in_rugby_league

I have just discovered that Willie Horne's two apperances for Oldham were actually not as a guest (ie when already registered with another club) but as a trialist before he eventually signed for Barrow. See this link and in particular the fourth paragraph below the photo ...  http://www.tony-collins.org/rugbyreloaded/2014/11/14/willie-horne

Therefore, I believe I am right in assuming that his appearances even as a trialist would still count on any official records, especially as in the first of those games for Oldham he kicked a goal.

However, this is where it might become a bit complicated ...

If he was a trialist for a club (whether or not he eventually signed for them) he would still be given a "club number" and his apperances as both a trialist and (if eventually signed on) under his own name would be merged.  Yet if he was a trialist but then signed for another club (having received a club number from the original club), are that original club then OK to change their records to name that player even though he didn't play for them under that name ?

Furthermore, having received a club number from the club whom he trialled for, does that prevent him from being classed as a one-club player even though he wasn't named when playing for them ?  (ie If he had signed for Oldham then his two trial matches would have been added to his career total there, so why shouldn't they still count as official apperances just because he signs for another club ?)

Yet it would be so complicated - and probably impossible - to trace every player who has ever trialled for one club abd then signed for another so that all those trailists are treated the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely its the status of the match that counts. so if a a trialist in a league or cup game that counts in the players records. theres no other way it can make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kev p said:

surely its the status of the match that counts. so if a a trialist in a league or cup game that counts in the players records. theres no other way it can make sense.

Yes, the status of match itself is no problem ... but if a player is named as "Trialist" and later signs for another club, does the first club then change their records to include his name even though he didn't play for them as that (as they would if he had signed for them) ?

If yes, would it ever be possible to trace every such instance so all players are recorded in the same way ? (Doubtful)

If no, can he still be recoreded as a "one club" player even though he played as "trialist" for another club and scored for them ?

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it as simple as saying that if you know their name, they get counted wherever they played first?  If it was an official game and we know they played then that's that. That's one of the (many) reasons why Neil's 'floating' club number system makes sense - they aren't static and as new evidence comes up they will change.

Discoveries like Willie Horne won't affect Heritage Numbers for the 'main' club, but would for the side they trialled with.  But we've seen clubs do their own thing with those anyway.  Clubs might (and probably will) also choose to ignore such games to say that they view someone as a 'one club' player. Ditto WW2 guest appearances.

Ignoring club bias, why would you treat Willie Horne any differently than say Jimmy Ledgard, who trialled for Leeds under his own name but eventually played elsewhere? The only difference is that one player was trying to hide his name (presumably so he could continue to play RU if his trial didn't work out) and the other wasn't.

I don't see how playing as a triallist under an assumed name is any different to a loan or WW2 guest player. From a record keeping perspective Willie Horne played for someone else. The cat's out of the bag as soon as you know it was him and not Joe Random. 

I guess the real problem is the profile of the player involved. If you were talking about Bob Smith (just made him up BTW!), who played 3 games after trialling elsewhere as AN Other, would anyone make a fuss about Bob being a '1 club' man? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Isn't it as simple as saying that if you know their name, they get counted wherever they played first?  If it was an official game and we know they played then that's that. That's one of the (many) reasons why Neil's 'floating' club number system makes sense - they aren't static and as new evidence comes up they will change.

Discoveries like Willie Horne won't affect Heritage Numbers for the 'main' club, but would for the side they trialled with.  But we've seen clubs do their own thing with those anyway.  Clubs might (and probably will) also choose to ignore such games to say that they view someone as a 'one club' player. Ditto WW2 guest appearances.

Ignoring club bias, why would you treat Willie Horne any differently than say Jimmy Ledgard, who trialled for Leeds under his own name but eventually played elsewhere? The only difference is that one player was trying to hide his name (presumably so he could continue to play RU if his trial didn't work out) and the other wasn't.

I don't see how playing as a triallist under an assumed name is any different to a loan or WW2 guest player. From a record keeping perspective Willie Horne played for someone else. The cat's out of the bag as soon as you know it was him and not Joe Random. 

I guess the real problem is the profile of the player involved. If you were talking about Bob Smith (just made him up BTW!), who played 3 games after trialling elsewhere as AN Other, would anyone make a fuss about Bob being a '1 club' man? 

Willie Horne did actually play under his own name at Oldham - I was just using him as an example as he was ona "one club" list and was trying to determine if by playing as a trialist for Oldham made him ineligable for that.  That is what you refer to in your last paparagraph but, yes, irrespective of the standard of the player, someone has made a fuss about it (regarding a lesser-known player but in a similar situation), hence the enquiry to try and solve the matter.

My post was just to try and see if there is a standard policy which covers such unusual events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - I wasn't trying to have a go. If we basically treat all first class games the same then the records will reflect that.  It will ruffle some feathers no doubt but the records are the records.

Personally I've never quite understood the cult of 'one club players' in any sport.  Playing for someone else doesn't diminish what a player does for my club.  I don't think less of Danny McGuire than Rob Burrow because McGuire played a year or two at KR whilst Burrow retired.  If anything I like knowing how many games he played for KR and tries scored etc.

Maybe that's a function of watching Leeds in the 1980s when the basic approach to being rubbish was to sign someone in the hope they'd make everything good?

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Sorry - I wasn't trying to have a go. If we basically treat all first class games the same then the records will reflect that.  It will ruffle some feathers no doubt but the records are the records.

Personally I've never quite understood the cult of 'one club players' in any sport.  Playing for someone else doesn't diminish what a player does for my club.  I don't think less of Danny McGuire than Rob Burrow because McGuire played a year or two at KR whilst Burrow retired.  If anything I like knowing how many games he played for KR and tries scored etc.

Maybe that's a function of watching Leeds in the 1980s when the basic approach to being rubbish was to sign someone in the hope they'd make everything good?

NO, I never thought for a moment you were having a go . I enjoy a good discussion of alternative viewpoints ... neither of us are right and neither of us are wrong - we just have differing views which by having a chat we can hopefully come to a resolution. I'm not bothered what might finally be decided; I am just trying to find a definite answer for all to be judged by.

I understand and agree with your "one club" comment, yet some others still want such records publishing - but if they do then they should be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/06/2020 at 17:19, RL does what Sky says said:

Just throwing another spanner in the works (not to be awkward but just to try and find a possible answer to a prolem) ...

My opening post of this thread was regarding whether guest apperances (ie in the War Emergency Leagues) counted on a player's record as having made an actual apperance for that club That lead to comments regarding trailists and by what name they should be recorded as, both if they did or did not eventually sign for the club in question.

This began because of Willie Horne being shown on a list of "one club" players when he had actually played 2 games for Oldham in the 1942-43 Emergency War League.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-club_men_in_rugby_league

I have just discovered that Willie Horne's two apperances for Oldham were actually not as a guest (ie when already registered with another club) but as a trialist before he eventually signed for Barrow. See this link and in particular the fourth paragraph below the photo ...  http://www.tony-collins.org/rugbyreloaded/2014/11/14/willie-horne

Therefore, I believe I am right in assuming that his appearances even as a trialist would still count on any official records, especially as in the first of those games for Oldham he kicked a goal.

However, this is where it might become a bit complicated ...

If he was a trialist for a club (whether or not he eventually signed for them) he would still be given a "club number" and his apperances as both a trialist and (if eventually signed on) under his own name would be merged.  Yet if he was a trialist but then signed for another club (having received a club number from the original club), are that original club then OK to change their records to name that player even though he didn't play for them under that name ?

Furthermore, having received a club number from the club whom he trialled for, does that prevent him from being classed as a one-club player even though he wasn't named when playing for them ?  (ie If he had signed for Oldham then his two trial matches would have been added to his career total there, so why shouldn't they still count as official apperances just because he signs for another club ?)

Yet it would be so complicated - and probably impossible - to trace every player who has ever trialled for one club abd then signed for another so that all those trailists are treated the same.

 

19 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes, the status of match itself is no problem ... but if a player is named as "Trialist" and later signs for another club, does the first club then change their records to include his name even though he didn't play for them as that (as they would if he had signed for them) ?

If yes, would it ever be possible to trace every such instance so all players are recorded in the same way ? (Doubtful)

If no, can he still be recoreded as a "one club" player even though he played as "trialist" for another club and scored for them ?

 

19 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes, the status of match itself is no problem ... but if a player is named as "Trialist" and later signs for another club, does the first club then change their records to include his name even though he didn't play for them as that (as they would if he had signed for them) ?

If yes, would it ever be possible to trace every such instance so all players are recorded in the same way ? (Doubtful)

If no, can he still be recoreded as a "one club" player even though he played as "trialist" for another club and scored for them ?

yes if he appears in a competitive game, as a trialist he counts as an appearance for that club & included in that clubs records. i know it will be difficult (or impossible) to tally up all trialists for all clubs, but you can only do the best you can. either way you wont keep everyone happy. i remember in football clive allen signed for arsenal, stayed 28 days, then moved on. would this count him as an arsenal player. even though he didnt play. the issue could easily apply to RL. i think competitive appearances count for all clubs count

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kev p said:

yes if he appears in a competitive game, as a trialist he counts as an appearance for that club & included in that clubs records. i know it will be difficult (or impossible) to tally up all trialists for all clubs, but you can only do the best you can. either way you wont keep everyone happy. i remember in football clive allen signed for arsenal, stayed 28 days, then moved on. would this count him as an arsenal player. even though he didnt play. the issue could easily apply to RL. i think competitive appearances count for all clubs count

Yes, very difficult to trace .. yet that's what makes record keeping interesting - there's always an issue to try and find the answer to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to "AN Others" did clubs historically have to record actual names somewhere? Did triallists have to be registered with the RFL or was that more to do with being paidd?  

On the one club issue, I imagine some clubs will stick with their interpretation. If they caveat with 'excluding games played as a triallist/guest in WW2 when the club wasn't functioning" I don't really mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

With respect to "AN Others" did clubs historically have to record actual names somewhere? Did triallists have to be registered with the RFL or was that more to do with being paidd?  

On the one club issue, I imagine some clubs will stick with their interpretation. If they caveat with 'excluding games played as a triallist/guest in WW2 when the club wasn't functioning" I don't really mind. 

On the first point, I wouldn't really know but I would suspect they would have to keep some kind of record ... even, as you say, if only for the tax office to show them who they paid wages to.

Again, as you say about the "one club" issue ... I am happy to go along with whatever if officially decided - I'd just like everybody to record things in the same way for whatever statistical record it concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion above, but it seems everyone is of a similar opinion which I also concur with - for stats purposes, any appearance in a competitive match count, whether as a trialist or a guest, or as a fully registered player.  This means you get a Club Number & if you have more than one Club Number you can't be a one club man.  Willie Horne is not, IMHO, a one-club man.

I think there's a slightly out-dated view of the 'one-club man' definition that still abounds - trailists or guests would not be registered with the NU/RFL, and as an official source, there's a temptation to ignore these.  It's only fairly recently that things like Heritage Numbers have tried to identify all players, and a desire to include the 'un-named' players has increased.

Of course there will be resistance to any change that has a detrimental impact on any claims being made, but the reality is that these 'facts' always need to be caveated with a comment that they are based on the information available at the time: there is an expectation gap with the wider public here on the accuracy of the data though, not helped when they are emblazoned on stadiums & statues!

  • Like 1

For more information on the Rugby League Record Keepers' Club please visit our official website at www.rugbyleaguerecords.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand why clubs do it, but the by-product is a refusal to countenance changing anything even when the evidence is watertight.  Imagine if you found a record that affected Don Bradman's average - the outcry would be similar to the reaction when people were told Pluto was no longer a planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I fully understand why clubs do it, but the by-product is a refusal to countenance changing anything even when the evidence is watertight.  Imagine if you found a record that affected Don Bradman's average - the outcry would be similar to the reaction when people were told Pluto was no longer a planet. 

Not being sure how much "clout" the RKC have, if at all, in making fully accepted decisions regarding statistical records of the game but I think people (either individually or clubs) will always try and produce figures to show records to be in their favour until there can be one governing body concerning the whole matter who provide definitive answers to all such queries. If any changes then have to be made to existing records due to newly-discovered evidence and if the governing body agrees with it then so be it.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Not being sure how much "clout" the RKC have, if at all, in making fully accepted decisions regarding statistical records of the game but I think people (either individually or clubs) will always try and produce figures to show records to be in their favour until there can be one governing body concerning the whole matter who provide definitive answers to all such queries. If any changes then have to be made to existing records due to newly-discovered evidence and if the governing body agrees with it then so be it.

I guess there's a distinction to be made between errors/new evidence, and changes in principles.  If someone in the RKC, or anyone else for that matter, identifies that say Brian Bevan didn't score a particular try in a certain match, and the evidence is strong enough, then I'd like to think this would be accepted, and quoted records changed - though I think there would be inertia here due to laziness / lack of knowledge of the error being identified though, such that old, long established 'facts' would linger for a long time (the internet is rather unhelpful is this regard IMO).

Changing principles is another matter, and I wouldn't want to suddenly decide that abandoned games aren't included, or the French club games in the 1930s are (to use two contentious examples), without engaging with a lot of stakeholders and getting them on-board.  Crucially, I think if the RKC members accept it, if it were a majority decision for example, then I think it would have a good chance of sticking.  We have the official or de facto stattos for virtually all clubs signed up (there's only 2 or 3 I can think of that haven't), which I think gives the RKC some clout.  But we don't intend to throw our weight about, and our values state that we will work collaboratively with other stakeholders - we already have links with RL Cares and the RFL, so would work with these parties and others on such principle changes.

  • Like 1

For more information on the Rugby League Record Keepers' Club please visit our official website at www.rugbyleaguerecords.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neil_Ormston said:

I guess there's a distinction to be made between errors/new evidence, and changes in principles.  If someone in the RKC, or anyone else for that matter, identifies that say Brian Bevan didn't score a particular try in a certain match, and the evidence is strong enough, then I'd like to think this would be accepted, and quoted records changed - though I think there would be inertia here due to laziness / lack of knowledge of the error being identified though, such that old, long established 'facts' would linger for a long time (the internet is rather unhelpful is this regard IMO).

Changing principles is another matter, and I wouldn't want to suddenly decide that abandoned games aren't included, or the French club games in the 1930s are (to use two contentious examples), without engaging with a lot of stakeholders and getting them on-board.  Crucially, I think if the RKC members accept it, if it were a majority decision for example, then I think it would have a good chance of sticking.  We have the official or de facto stattos for virtually all clubs signed up (there's only 2 or 3 I can think of that haven't), which I think gives the RKC some clout.  But we don't intend to throw our weight about, and our values state that we will work collaboratively with other stakeholders - we already have links with RL Cares and the RFL, so would work with these parties and others on such principle changes.

Thanks for that Neil. I didn't know how far ranging the opinions of the RKC were taken as being the overall decision maker on such matters. Yes, of course, nobody would want people to be forced into changing their opinions about such matters; it's just a case of putting forward all the relevant details to eventually show that the overwhelming evidence concerning such matters point to a final decision which can't really be disputed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...