Only losers judge success by other criteria than what you actually achieve. Ali is the most successful import of the SL era. He has experienced more success than any other player. Its a fairly obvious point. Maybe you want to judge success by some other criteria than winning, but for me game losers, are still losers.
Firstly, Ali had many successful seasons, A Dally M second rower of the year winner, and played in an NRL GF, to say he only had 4 good years is just idiotic. This is a player who has played at the top level for 14 years, played in CC finals, a tri-nations finals, 6 SL grand finals and an NRL grand final.

Secondly, Lauaki as a player is very different from Ali, Lauaki doesnt have the footwork, ball handling, offloading skills, nor the ability to do something amazing like Ali does. Lauaki is bigger, plays a much more direct game, and is probably more dynamic, but he isnt and cant play the same game Ali does. Ali will likely be on a much higher wage at Wakefield than Lauaki at Wigan, if he isnt then your coaches have made a disastrous choice. As I said Lauaki is more like Hock than Ali or Solomona, but not at the same level as either of them.

All that and he still looks a plodder whenever I see him play.

Maybe you rate Bibbey too

I was talking about winning trophies. In SL he is number 1

SL, the start of RL!

Leeds fans. The new Saints fans.

So... Garry Schofield was a loser and Ricky Bibey a winner.

What's the relevance of "success" by your definition to anything? If it's just about who has honours on the board, it's just a pub trivia question.

Actually, Lauaki is a very good ball handler,has good footwork and has a decent offload.It's just that we never got to see it very often at Hull because Agar used him as a battering ram up the middle rather than play him in his best position as a wide running second-rower.

You've got to love some people's absolute insistence that everything pre 1996 (or 2004) doesn't count in Rugby League.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/15671931.stmBet the Hull fans wished he stayed now after their new 2nd row signing.[/url

Fantastic.

Yes. Surely it cant be controversial to say that despite being a very good rugby league player, Garry Schofield wasn’t particularly successful.

The relevance of my definition of success (im yet to see anyone else actually put one forward as of yet, just the same, weird Wigan obsession with Ricky Bibey) is that it was an explanation of why the use of that word by Sgt Wilko was correct. It is fact that Ali Lauitiiti has been the most successful overseas player in the SL era.

Lauaki’s ball handling isn’t, and hasn’t, been anywhere near the level of Ali’s. I remember him bombing a try by failing to make a very very simple pass to give the player outside him a simple run at the line. His actual passing ability is relatively poor. He does have a decent (not great) offload but his footwork is nothing to write home about.

There's no obsession with Ricky Bibey.

He's just an example of how pointless it is to praise a player for being "succcessful" on the basis of trophies won. As I said, your definition of success reduces the the "fact" to one of pub quiz trivia level. The fact that one the greatest players in the modern era of RL, Leeds own Garry Schofield was massively "unsuccessful" on your definition, despite playing international RL and being considered one of the best players in British RL year after year shows how little value there is in your definition.

Other definitions of successful overseas player might for example take into account value for money - in which case George Carmont would fit the bill, he has been a huge success for Wigan.

Other definitions would look at the personal achievements and standard of play shown by the player in question - Garry was successful in terms of achieving international honours and receiving the plaudits of the RL press, players and fans, playing at the top of the sport in this country for many years.. He obviously wasn't a failure as a player (his punditry is a different matter

), although he played in a team which clearly wasn't successful.

From a Wigan perspective Edwards is the most successful player the club (and indeed the British game) has seen but Wigan fans don't particularly go on about it in the context of discussions about the relative merits of Wigan players because it just doesn't mean much. He may have won more medals than Hanley or Boston, but....

Not sure what you are trying to prove, but it's all a non-point in reality.

No he isnt, he is used as a lazy and fatuous argument to denigrate the successes of others. Ricky Bibey earned, deserved, and won his success in the challenge cup. He won it twice, he did that, he should be proud of it. It isnt pointless to praise him for doing so, it is correct to praise him for doing so. He has earnt that praise for his success and he has done it in the only objective way possible.

No it doesnt. It quanitifies success, it is a quantitative judgement. If you want to debate your qualitative opinion of Ali Lauitiiti with some one go ahead. It doesnt alter the success he has earned and the success he has acheived.
schofield didnt earn that success. He doesnt deserve the accolades for successes he didnt acheive. Its a binary question, either you acheived that success or you didnt. Theres no qualification for Schofield to be judged more successful than he was and Lauitiiti less successful than he was on the basis of your own personal opinion, if Schofield had had the comittment, drive and big game temprament of Ali he would likely have been much more successful.

No, that would be a judgement of value for money. I suppose if you wanted you could judge the transfer as 'successful' on the basis of value for money but certainly not the player. But im not sure sport is an area where i would judge economics ahead of trophies when looking at success.

Well yes, that would be a a judgement of success but one you have limited to personal accolades rather than the wider, simpler definition of 'success'.


Wigan fans are constantly banging on about the relative success of their club and their players. They are infamous for it. But you have just clearly described the flaw in your argument. Whilst Edwards has been the most successful player in Wigans history ( a fact he, like Ali, should be proud of. It is, regardless of your attempts to denigrate it, an admirable acheivement) he may not be the best, similarly whilst Ali may be the most successful import of the SL era he may not necessarily be the best

Number of queries with this signing.
Temprement- He's a penalty giving machine.
Endurance- Bitcon can will have to work his magic.
Consistancy- He's either great or biz.
Pronounciation- I can say Lauaki, but his first name from now on will be Ecki-Peki

If you read back Hendy, apparently the penalty machine tag is a myth statistically.

So saying some is successful doesn't really mean much does it? You can be a great player like Edwards and be successful or a great player like Schofield and be unsuccessful or a more limited player like Bibey and be successful or a more limited player like lots of the other Leeds players in Schofield's era and be unsuccessful.

So we can see that describing a player as successful in your terms is simply saying that they have been part of a team or teams that have won trophies. Not something I'd be making a fuss about personally, it's just a bit of a dull, trivial point.

Maybe you play for personal accolades and so people think you are the best. I played to win. I judged my success on whether or not I had won. Ask little Sammy if he would trade his GF win for a MOS award. Ask Garry Schofield if he would trade his Golden Boot for a GF win. Or Harris if his MOS award meant anything whilst he was walking off the pitch in 98, or Farrell what his MOS award meant after Leeds put 40 points on Wigan in a playoff semi-final in 2004. Players play to win, personal accolades and fans views on quality are a ridiculously distant 2nd.

Ali earned the right to be called the most successful import in the SL era. He did that by winning more than any other import in the SL era. He did that. He went out, won those games and became the most successful import in the SL era through his exploits. Well done him, it is a great achievement.

Not sure what my own personal goals have to do with the debate (

), but I don't play to win or for accolades either, for that matter. I was brought up to do my best and without coming over like some oriental cod-philosopher the struggle is with yourself, the goal isn't to defeat others but to make sure you do and are the best that you can be. So there you go!

As for being the most successful player - on your definition it just isn't a great achievement for the individual who has "earned that right". A player who is lucky enough to be in a dominant side will win lots of trophies even if he is a bit of an also-ran in talent terms.

Your use of the word successful seems to be a shorthand for the player with the most trophies in his trophy cabinet - impressive in its way but not really that significant in the great scheme of things.

If I were Garry Schofield I wouldn't swap my career with Ricky Bibey's, league winners medals or no league winners medals.

No Ali was part of the most successful TEAM in the SL era. Fact.

In case you had not noticed rugby is a TEAM sport, being part of a successful TEAM does not make you the most successful individual. God you are stupid.

That was an odd thing to be brought up doing. Doing your best is what losers do, winners win.
A bit of an also ran wouldnt be in a dominant side for that long. Either way it is certainly more of an acheivement than not winning anything (Garry Schofield) or not being paid very much (George Carmont) which are your two examples of success.

If I were Garry Schofield I would. Being a very good player who won nothing sounds pretty much like a failure in my book. But no, success isnt shorthand for winning or achieving your goals, winning and achieving your goals actually defines success. In sport success is winning and your goals are to win trophies/medals/rings etc. If your goals arent to win trophies/medals/rings etc but to benefit yourself, to leave your legacy, so that you are remembered as a good player you end up with.....well.......Garry Schofield, a supremely talented player whose lack of dedication and commitment left him ultimately unsuccessful.

Brett Delany is an import and has been part of the most successful team in the SL era. Yet he hasnt been as successful as Ali Lauitiiti. You know why? Brett Delaney didnt win an SL GF in 2004, 2007, 2008, or 2009. Ali Lauitiiti did. Kylie Lueluia is an import, and he has been part of the most successful team in the SL era, yet he hasnt been as successful as Ali Lauitiiti, you know why? He didnt win a GF in 2004. Ali Lauitiiti did.

In a team sport you make as an individual make an effort towards team success, Ali Lauitiiti, individually contributed to more team success than any other import in the SL era. Ali Lauitiiti experienced more success than any other import. There really are no more ways of saying it, Ali Lauitiiti was more successful than any other import.

To say being part of a successful team doesnt mean you have been successful as an individual is clearly contradictory idiotic nonsense.

Its like saying Sir Steve Redgrave isnt the countries most successful olympian because there were other rowers, or the lead leg of the Jamaican mens 4x100 relay wasnt successful in the 2008 olympic final because Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell were his team-mates.

100% Bang on the money!

TA has proven without doubt who the stupid one is. you would swear black is White if it doesn't fit your agenda.

Ali Lautiti is the most successful import in the SL era but that doesnt make him the [uBEST[/u import in the SL era.

Thats like saying because Leeds won SL last year that Brent Webb is a better full back than Sam Tomkins which he clearly isnt.