All time best team: a personal perspective from players watched from 1931 to 2023

[Exiled Wiganer]

My team of my favourite players…
Sam Tomkins
John Ferguson
Joe Lydon
Steve Ella (I know that’s a bit of a cheat…)
Henderson Gill
Brett Kenny
Adrian Lam
Craig Smith
Nicky Kiss
Kelvin Skerrett
Andy Goodway
Gene Miles (another cheat)
Shaun Wane (the baby faced assassin as he used to be called)*




(*actually Ellery of course.)

[jobo]

McTigue was a wrestler, trained at the snakepit. He was a pack leader, a ball-handling prop, and he understood the game.

None of these attributes are expected of today's 18 stone props, more's the pity. The game has changed due to modern diet, training and fitness regimes. Today's props are finely tuned athletes but don't need a brain, and couldn't last 80 minutes a game.

None of this makes one better than the other, just tells us it's a different game and we accept that.

Brian was also a top class boxer, good enough to be invited over to America.
He then faced the choice of pursuing a pro boxing career or, return to RL.
Think he would have been an all time great no matter what period he played in.

[Wintergreen]

I am not sure that it is right to argue that the game always evolves in a way which requires greater skill. Take my aunt’s choice of Joe Egan at 9. She argues that 1) he was very skilful and very powerful and 2) also had to master traditional hooking skills (and was a great leader of men). So, you could argue that someone who mastered a wider range of skills must be given credit for that.

The beauty of all this of course is that this is a personal perspective.

I didn't say that. I said it evolves to be a more efficient/effective version of itself. It could do this by raising skill levels or reducing the need for them.

[Wintergreen]

my wife very rarely watches rugby as she's not into sport, but commented last week when i had a game on the TV

those players arent what i used to remember them looking like in reference to the prop forwards. I think she watched the odd game with her dad on tv in the late 80s / 90s, when we had Brendan Hill playing the game

back to McTigue and conversations i had with Len McIntyre, and he always said that the players of his generation were better RL players than the current lot (would have been conversations from 90s into 00s with Len). I'm too young to have watched the game in the 50s / 60s / 70s etc but hold many of the players of that generation in high regard, much based on conversations with my dad and friends of his generation, and the odd bit of footage that i've seen over the years

In that case, he's wrong.

The game evolves forwards, not backwards. If something about the game changes, it's because it was better than the existing norms.

He could argue that, for example, props are less skillful than they used to be, and he may have a point, but they are not worse "RL" players

The only way in which his statement may be true is if the salary cap leads to the talented players moving elsewhere, but that only really applies to the top 10% or so.

Your statement above shows that you actually agree with his sentiment but just interpret his wording in a different way than he intended it. I know exactly what he meant by "better RL players" - more skillful ie having a wider range of skills, more highly developed.

Weight and fitness are not skills. To say that Liam Byrne or Kaide Ellis are better RL players than Brian McTigue was would be daft. He would struggle in today's game because of size and fitness, but they're not skills. He would also suffer because no modern coach would know how to incorporate his many skills into a modern game plan. But does that make him an inferior player? Not a bit of it!

No. I am saying that skill is only one factor in a "better RL player". It isn't even the dominant one.

I did say that "assuming they retained their level of fitness for their era" etc. Of course we will never know if they would be suited to today's game or not. We can only speculate (which is of course one of the main reasons for this forum!).


My assertion is that today's teams would wipe the floor with previous era's (beyond a certain time- 15 years maybe? Up for debate). The prime reason for this is that the game develops to an ever more efficient interpretation of the rules over time. It has to. Consider it "natural selection". Imo we are seeing this at the moment with wingers being bigger, taller as they take cross field kicks and are expected to run the ball out of defence more. In 10 years maybe all wingers will be like this? Maybe some other tactic will dictate that they are all small and fast and expected to finish 1 on 1, maybe they will end up like props, who knows? Whatever it is, it will evolve over time as the tactic/formation that, more often than not, wins matches.

Imo, if you took players from the past and asked them to play today's game- some "star" players would struggle, other "average" players would excel.

e.g. Andy Gregory, imo would struggle as his body shape would make it hard for him to get fit enough.

Brian Case would excel as his workrate was immense (though maybe as a SR). *Not saying he was "average" btw!

[Wigan_forever1985]

From those i have watched

1. Sam Tomkins
2. Jason Robinson
3. Martin Gleeson
4. Steve Renouf
5. Pat Richards
6. Trent Barrett
7. Adrian Lam
8. Terry O'Connor
9. Terry Newton
10. Craig Smith
11. Gareth Hock (pre ban)
12. Bryan Fletcher
13. Andy Farrell

[DaveO]

My assertion is that today's teams would wipe the floor with previous era's (beyond a certain time- 15 years maybe? Up for debate). The prime reason for this is that the game develops to an ever more efficient interpretation of the rules over time. It has to. Consider it "natural selection". Imo we are seeing this at the moment with wingers being bigger, taller as they take cross field kicks and are expected to run the ball out of defence more. In 10 years maybe all wingers will be like this? Maybe some other tactic will dictate that they are all small and fast and expected to finish 1 on 1, maybe they will end up like props, who knows? Whatever it is, it will evolve over time as the tactic/formation that, more often than not, wins matches.

I don't agree with that at all. The pack I listed which was Skerrett, Dermot, Platt, Betts, A Farrell and Hanley would wipe the floor with any pack in SL to day. Skerrett would be no different to any of the larger props who can only last 15 minutes a half today, Platt would slot right in as the mobile prop and the back row would terrorise any teams pack today. They would easily adapt but go the other way and send our best pack back in time and play by the rules back then, they would struggle to last 20 minutes.

EDIT: I also don't get this backs are getting bigger idea. Jay Field is literally the exact same weight as Alan Tate was when he was playing (85kg) and a mere one inch taller.

[Wintergreen]

My assertion is that today's teams would wipe the floor with previous era's (beyond a certain time- 15 years maybe? Up for debate). The prime reason for this is that the game develops to an ever more efficient interpretation of the rules over time. It has to. Consider it "natural selection". Imo we are seeing this at the moment with wingers being bigger, taller as they take cross field kicks and are expected to run the ball out of defence more. In 10 years maybe all wingers will be like this? Maybe some other tactic will dictate that they are all small and fast and expected to finish 1 on 1, maybe they will end up like props, who knows? Whatever it is, it will evolve over time as the tactic/formation that, more often than not, wins matches.

I don't agree with that at all. The pack I listed which was Skerrett, Dermot, Platt, Betts, A Farrell and Hanley would wipe the floor with any pack in SL to day. Skerrett would be no different to any of the larger props who can only last 15 minutes a half today, Platt would slot right in as the mobile prop and the back row would terrorise any teams pack today. They would easily adapt but go the other way and send our best pack back in time and play by the rules back then, they would struggle to last 20 minutes.

EDIT: I also don't get this backs are getting bigger idea. Jay Field is literally the exact same weight as Alan Tate was when he was playing (85kg) and a mere one inch taller.

Well 4 of those you mention are in my favourite team. Farrell is essentially in the "modern" era anyway and Hanley was a freak and consumate professional. As I said the time you need to go back in time is debatable. 15 years? 20 years? Certainly any team pre 1985 wouldn't get a look in.

Using Jai Field as an example is also not representative as he is one of the lightest backs around.

Taking your back row who would "terrorise" teams today. Denis Betts was a 15 stone second row.

The Queensland wingers in the recent State of Origin weighed 17 and 16.3 stones.

Not sure why you don't get the "backs are getting bigger" argument?







E

[DaiJones]

I don't agree with that at all. The pack I listed which was Skerrett, Dermot, Platt, Betts, A Farrell and Hanley would wipe the floor with any pack in SL to day. Skerrett would be no different to any of the larger props who can only last 15 minutes a half today, Platt would slot right in as the mobile prop and the back row would terrorise any teams pack today. They would easily adapt but go the other way and send our best pack back in time and play by the rules back then, they would struggle to last 20 minutes.

EDIT: I also don't get this backs are getting bigger idea. Jay Field is literally the exact same weight as Alan Tate was when he was playing (85kg) and a mere one inch taller.
[/quote]


Well 4 of those you mention are in my favourite team. Farrell is essentially in the "modern" era anyway and Hanley was a freak and consumate professional. As I said the time you need to go back in time is debatable. 15 years? 20 years? Certainly any team pre 1985 wouldn't get a look in.

Using Jai Field as an example is also not representative as he is one of the lightest backs around.

Taking your back row who would "terrorise" teams today. Denis Betts was a 15 stone second row.

The Queensland wingers in the recent State of Origin weighed 17 and 16.3 stones.

Not sure why you don't get the "backs are getting bigger" argument?

Minor point: Betts was 15 stone when he first played for us as a teenager but by the time he left for Auckland in 1995 he was basically 17 stone







E
[/quote]

[PJC]

I think it’s the pieman I’m agreeing with. The game has evolved but this has had a detrimental effect on the ability for a player as Bill Ashurst once said to express himself. Fitness and strength have masked flair.
Some may prefer today’s game where statistical analysis seems everything but it’s not the entertainment it used to be. Now that’s off my chest I’ ll list my favourite team. It’s not necessarily the best player for that position but those that have entertained.

1 Tomkins
2 Boston
3 Ashton
4 Miles
5 Offiah
6 Kenny
7 Gregory
8 Skerret
9 Newton
10 Platt
11 Ashurst
12 West
13 Hanley
It’s a difficult choice. For example my best full back would be Radlinski. Hookers a problem if you want to choose a proper hooker.

[DaveO]

My assertion is that today's teams would wipe the floor with previous era's (beyond a certain time- 15 years maybe? Up for debate). The prime reason for this is that the game develops to an ever more efficient interpretation of the rules over time. It has to. Consider it "natural selection". Imo we are seeing this at the moment with wingers being bigger, taller as they take cross field kicks and are expected to run the ball out of defence more. In 10 years maybe all wingers will be like this? Maybe some other tactic will dictate that they are all small and fast and expected to finish 1 on 1, maybe they will end up like props, who knows? Whatever it is, it will evolve over time as the tactic/formation that, more often than not, wins matches.

I don't agree with that at all. The pack I listed which was Skerrett, Dermot, Platt, Betts, A Farrell and Hanley would wipe the floor with any pack in SL to day. Skerrett would be no different to any of the larger props who can only last 15 minutes a half today, Platt would slot right in as the mobile prop and the back row would terrorise any teams pack today. They would easily adapt but go the other way and send our best pack back in time and play by the rules back then, they would struggle to last 20 minutes.

EDIT: I also don't get this backs are getting bigger idea. Jay Field is literally the exact same weight as Alan Tate was when he was playing (85kg) and a mere one inch taller.

Well 4 of those you mention are in my favourite team. Farrell is essentially in the "modern" era anyway and Hanley was a freak and consumate professional. As I said the time you need to go back in time is debatable. 15 years? 20 years? Certainly any team pre 1985 wouldn't get a look in.

Using Jai Field as an example is also not representative as he is one of the lightest backs around.

Taking your back row who would "terrorise" teams today. Denis Betts was a 15 stone second row.

The Queensland wingers in the recent State of Origin weighed 17 and 16.3 stones.

Not sure why you don't get the "backs are getting bigger" argument?

My team is like most others on those i have watched and pre-1985 Wigan were a bit crap anyway so I don't think anyone wold be picking players something like pre 85 anyway.

I went at this the other way around and tried to think of a name of a non-wigan player and Tates name popped into my head. So I looked him up and then looked at our full back and found they are virtually identical in weight and height . As to Field being one of the lightest backs in the league, Matt Dufty is the same height as Tate was and 2kg lighter than Field & Tate. And guess what? Lachlan Coote is also 85kg, Brierley at Salford is 82kg. Bevan French is 86kg. Field is also one of the best, if not the best, full backs in the League despite (not being ) one of the smallest backs in the league.

I am sure there are some a bit heavier than 85kg but your assertion the backs are getting bigger isn't backed up by the facts or at least isn't a universal truth. So the idea someone like Tate could not hack it today because he's too small is clearly not true.

There were also some big backs back then. The late David Myers was 100kg, same as Miski and while he ran like a gazelle Offiah was actually 91kg

As to my back row, Betts would be a modern day Bateman but as I said in an earlier post if you sent our current players back in time who would make the team? Possibly just French with Liam Farrell on the bench IMO.