Jump to content

Best GB or England Side in your time watching RL?


Recommended Posts

The OP said ," starting line up" so I take that to mean just that. Maybe not the very best but the '92 Melbourne Ashes test , a 33-10 GB win I remember fondly.

Steadman

Eastwood 

Powell

Newlove

Offiah 

Schofield 

Edwards 

Skerrett 

Dermott 

Platt

Betts

McGinty

Clarke

 

 

Edited by HawkMan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, OMEGA said:

Ahead of who?

was he a better centre than Schoffield or Newlove, no not in my opinion

a better stand off than Tony Myler, not even close

and he wasn’t better than Sculthorpe or Steve Norton at 13

He was an outstanding athlete who could play in many positions but historically he isn’t the master of any of them. 

I would pick Hanley at either 6 or 13 any day of the week in front of anyone I have seen play for Great Britain or England since I started watching (1984).  He was simply the best player of his generation and the best ever in my opinion.  He was the master of all positions because he was a player who didn't need a position, you just needed him on the pitch.

In fact, I wish he had a twin brother so I could pick them at 6 and 13.

  • Thanks 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sorry if I find the notion that Ellery Hanley wasn't a master in any position laughable. I reacted with a laughing emoji because it is laughable. I'm sure others would agree.

If there are players who IMO are better in a position than Ellery was then how can I term him the master of that position. 
 

I find this attitude that Hanley must be picked ahead of everyone else a bit strange. 
 

Yes he was a superb player & a superb athlete but that doesn’t automatically make him the best ever Loose Forward or Greatest ever Stand Off. 
 

There are other candidates for those positions who might not have had Ellerys athleticism but nevertheless played the position better than him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would pick Hanley at either 6 or 13 any day of the week in front of anyone I have seen play for Great Britain or England since I started watching (1984).  He was simply the best player of his generation and the best ever in my opinion.  He was the master of all positions because he was a player who didn't need a position, you just needed him on the pitch.

In fact, I wish he had a twin brother so I could pick them at 6 and 13.

I wouldn’t argue too vehemently against your opinion but I don’t share it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I would pick Hanley at either 6 or 13 any day of the week in front of anyone I have seen play for Great Britain or England since I started watching (1984).  He was simply the best player of his generation and the best ever in my opinion.  He was the master of all positions because he was a player who didn't need a position, you just needed him on the pitch.

In fact, I wish he had a twin brother so I could pick them at 6 and 13.

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

Edited by Saint Toppy

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

That completely ignores that he did it for Bradford when part time and scored 55 tries in 37 appearances in his final season there. Did it internationally against the Aussies, and players that were just as much full time, and in the Winfield Cup, again against players that were conditioned to the same level.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

Well argued but Farrell was never a great IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TBone said:

That's easy, if Hanley can't make the start in your team he should certainly replace Long on the bench!!

That is the logical conclusion. If Hanley is not a starter - he is the perfect bench player and covers a ton of positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Leonard said:

That is the logical conclusion. If Hanley is not a starter - he is the perfect bench player and covers a ton of positions.

Put the best ever RL player on the bench if you play the Aussies? - isn't that like Maradona being a sub in a Football WC final?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 92 World Cup Final team was handy & if Andy Gregory had played in place of Fox I think we’d have won it.

Lydon,Hunte,Connolly,Schofield,Offiah,Edwards,Fox,,Ward,Dermott,Platt,Betts,Clarke,Hanley

Deveraux,Tait,Skerrett,Eyres

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

The 92 World Cup Final team was handy & if Andy Gregory had played in place of Fox I think we’d have won it.

Lydon,Hunte,Connolly,Schofield,Offiah,Edwards,Fox,,Ward,Dermott,Platt,Betts,Clarke,Hanley

Deveraux,Tait,Skerrett,Eyres

Fair point granted.

Think Reilly should have stuck with half back pairing that had done well in 2nd and 3rd tests Down Under in the summer, Schofield and Edwards.

So long ago but remember being devastated when Renouf scored. Oz won 10-6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it’s unquestionably the 1986 side against Australia. Still got beat. Hanley and Schofield didn’t even make the halves, in the centres, and Shaun Edwards only on the bench. The 1990 side got closer, only a miracle try away from winning the series, but I prefer the ‘86 side at Old Trafford

 

 

Edited by Hull Kingston Bronco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

Hanley would have found the way to be the best player in any context or era, that’s one of the major reasons why he was the best British player of his time and I’d argue ever (so far)

Edited by Hull Kingston Bronco
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

Don't agree, I listened to an interview with him a couple of years ago and his work ethic is amazing - no matter what he did in life he would have been the best.

Its just like saying if Gazza was playing football to day he wouldn't get in the England team as you think he would train like they did in the 80s and 90s - just like Hanley, Gazza would still the the best player.

Edited by Mr Frisky
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to pick the best team from all the England/Great Britain players I have seen, I would go with the following... assuming they are all playing at the top of their game.

1. Jonathan Davies 

2. Jason Robinson 

3. Paul Newlove

4. Gary Connolly

5. Martin Offiah

6. Garry Schofield 

7. Andy Gregory 

8. Kevin Ward

9. Keiron Cunningham 

10. Sam Burgess

11. Denis Betts

12. Paul Sculthorpe 

13. Ellery Hanley 

 

14. James Roby

15. Jamie Peacock 

16. Andy Platt

17. Sean Edwards

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The key word in this is 'generation'. Hanley was probably (by a long way) the best player at 6 or 13 of his generation. But the game changes and so do players. You have to remember Hanley was one of the first to be full time professional. He was able to train to the highest standard without work getting in the way and afford to be able to eat better than most other players of that time (where a pie & a pint was their meals many occasions). This enabled him to be far fitter, faster & stronger than most other players of that time. If Hanley was playing now I doubt he would have the same impact he had back then because every player at the top level is full time professional and can train & eat as such.

Its not just his physicality, the game has changed massively. I doubt he would be busing tackles now like he did as defences are so well drilled with multiple players in every tackle.

Players like Farrell & Sculthorpe were equally as great a players of their generation. They had a different skill set to Hanley, one that was suited to the game of the day of their generation.

Maybe Hanley wouldn't be busting as many tackles today as he did in his day.

But he would still be busting more than anyone else. The guy was a phenomenon, I would argue that the better the game got the more obviously better than the rest he would be.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan Robertson said:

In my opinion, the best GB starting line up in my time watching the sport (just over 30 years) was:

Davies, Robinson, Connolly, Hunte, Offiah, Powell, Edwards, Harrison, Jackson, Joynt, Betts, Farrell, Clarke

1st Test, Wembley, 1994

 

Furthermore, Andy Platt was amongst the players ruled out through injury. Ellery Hanley only retired from playing internationals the year earlier.

I'd happily consider arguments that a line-up from another of the 1994 tests was as strong or stronger. The sides on the 92 tour were also a similar level, IMHO. 

Around 2003, there were some strong sides - including Morley, Peacock, Fielden, Farrell, Sculthorpe, Connolly etc. - but without backs that had the calibre of Offiah and Robinson.

 

This team held out an all star Aussie side for 60 minutes with 12 men. Pretty special and arguably GBs greatest performance in the last 30 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Put the best ever RL player on the bench if you play the Aussies? - isn't that like Maradona being a sub in a Football WC final?

I was talking the position of the poster who said he would not start him. IF you take that point, then he still has to make the subs.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This team held out an all star Aussie side for 60 minutes with 12 men. Pretty special and arguably GBs greatest performance in the last 30 years.


Good shout. Now, if we’re talking about best British defensive performances, you can’t look much further than the 2003 side at Wigan who had to play the entire 80 minutes with 12 men against the all-conquering Kangaroos after Morley’s brain explosion. Absolutely my best experience at an international or any rugby match, we were leading with 5 minutes to go. What a side that was.

 

I occasionally wonder what the relative trajectory’s of our sports would have been had Britain won that series (we could have won every match, they were all only separated by one score, instead of getting an undeserved whitewash…), and England not won the World Cup (who on the flipside were generally poor in that tournament, saved by Wilkinson’s boot). ‘Sliding Doors’ moment, and think we all knew it at the time. 
 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I would wager those Aussies of a certain age to watch both Reilly and Hanley would plump for the former.

Reilly was playing against part timers though. Hanley took athleticism, power and strength to a different level, and did so against full time professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I would pick Hanley at either 6 or 13 any day of the week in front of anyone I have seen play for Great Britain or England since I started watching (1984).  He was simply the best player of his generation and the best ever in my opinion. 

Yep. This.

As one of my mates said to me when watching him: "He's like a team on his own, that guy".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...