[Bulliac]

Re: Hall of Fame : Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:50 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Sir Keith is peerless and is too good for the Hall of Fame.

If Offiah isn’t in it then he should be.

Of the other players that have retired recently it’s IMO difficult to say who deserves to be in as they don’t stand out as much as some of the other players already in like Bevan, Boston, Murphy, Karalius, Rosenfeld, Batten etc.

Was Schofield really as good as them? He was good but not in that class.

Adding the likes of Edwards and Schofield cheapens the honour of getting in, they were excellent players but not quite Hall of Famers. If you let them in you lower the standard and you’d have to add others that have been overlooked already like Ernest Ward, Mick Sullivan, Trevor Foster etc.

Obviously agree about Sir Keith, but I think you're letting annoyance and distaste at Schofield's outpourings and current persona colour your opinion on someone who was a super player imo. Certainly wish he'd played for us.

Re: Hall of Fame : Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:54 pm  

Jimmy Fiddler

[Bullseye]

Re: Hall of Fame : Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:11 pm  

Reasons for including Schofield - he performed on the test stage for nearly ten years, unlike many others. He was part of series wins vs NZ and 2 tests vs Australia.

Reasons for not including Schofield - he had only one winners medal in his entire career (Yorkshire Cup). Some say it was down to the clique he was part of in the Leeds dressing room. Had he not gone to Leeds I would venture they'd have won a lot more in the period 87-94.

Re: Hall of Fame : Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:46 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Reasons for not including Schofield

It would potentially push his ego that little bit too far (as it's been at breaking point for a LONG time), and his head could explode.

Hang on, this could be a reason FOR instead.

Re: Hall of Fame : Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:19 am  

It makes you wonder what Schofield could have achieved if he hadn't spent half his life in the Town Hall Tavern while a player.