If we're talking about the present time, he may actually be 3 times the size of Kevin Sinfield if that counts?

Not too bold to suggest at all. But it doesn't alter the fact that success at international level is not the sole barometer to measure greatness and, perhaps, is one of the least important barometers when you consider just how great Hanley was and that he won nothing internationally.



I think it was 2. I don't think he played in the 1989 series did he?



If his international career was his only body of work then Schofield would be one of the greatest. But you cannot ignore his body of work at club level which diminishes his claims somewhat.

The other thing that Hanley did (and Schofield) was to play in the NRL (or the equivalent then) and be a success. I know it was part time contracts in the off season but he did test himself and IIRC get rave reviews, on top of all his other accollades.

That there is even an attempt to compare Sinfield with Hanley shows how high Sinfield is riding at the moment.



Hanley was afterall the greatest British player of his generation and highly regarded on both sides of the globe.

very unfair when they had an opportunity to play as guests that today's players don't have.



Even Hanley and Schofield didn't have the fortitude to go test themselves over there full time like Burgess, Ellis, Mathers, Morley, Reilly etc etc

I was not aware anyone was.



Quite. Which illustrates that results in an international career are not paramount to acheiveing status as a "great".

But they didn't need to since the season's didn't overlap.

Reilly's case (& let's not forget Stevo, Dave Bolton & others) is different because at that time he could earn more over there than over here.

So not really a fair comparison.

To suggest that either lacked to bottle is disingenuous & is a disservice to both Hanley & Schofield, both of whom acquitted themselves admirably when they played over there unlike (IMO) Sean Edwards.

I was the one who was demonstrating it wasn't a fair example.



It was finglas who brought it up.

I would agree that it isn't the sole arbiter of greatness, but I would suggest that it most certainly an important factor. I still maintain that the most important factor is universal acceptance. You can't be a world great if the only people who think this are a bunch of Leeds (or any other club's) fans. Don't you agree that any player would need to be regarded by the majority of fans worldwide as a great to be considered as one? Otherwise what is your criterea given there are no absolutes?

Given that he's been short-listed for the Golden boot and voted the best 13 in the world for this year i'd say it's more than just a bunch of Leeds fans that consider him a great!

I never said it was fair, I just poined out that they had succeeded in the Australian league along with players like Kevinn Ward. They got the respect of their Australian counterparts, which I would expect Sinfield also has. I'm sure that respect would be of greater relevance to them than our opinions on a message board.

Indeed.