I still struggle with the concept though - and what it adds beyond the Hall of Fame - it's purpose varies, but as Beaver noted I really struggle to understand why Lockyer would be considered ahead of Fittler, Kenny, Sterling, Langer, Daley, Mortimer - # of tests or origins isn't the only criteria
I have no issue with the Meninga or Provan selections - obviously I never saw Provan play, but there seem to be a lot selected from that era, an era when the Dragons were dominant, but Australia wasn't.
Meninga is interesting - I'm a fan, and his longevity and battle through the broken arms was great etc. But, Miles was clearly a better centre early on IMO - Kenny too when he played there, both were huge in big games as well. So while Meninga is a giant of the game in every sense, I am not 100% comfortable with him being elevated above some of his contemporaries. Sadly, the role of centres has been devalued, perhaps to a degree because of the likes of Meninga, Close and Miles - ironically the most skilled of those was Miles who also became a great back rower, where Meninga never moved there
Anyway, again, no great problem with the 5 names (especially the first three), but I think the concept itself is a little problematic and probably still more about money than anything else - Baseball for instance doesn't seem to need another category to arbitrarily separate the (apparently) greaterest from the greatest (who are in the HoF) - and of course many great players miss the HoF.
Guess for me the HoF is enough