Discussion in 'NRL' started by davi, Apr 17, 2017.
You're trying too hard, try and make it a little more subtle.
Mitchell Moses. Just ask him.
Media personality cult that since the late-90s always has to have a current player (usually a half) rated as the Greatest Player Of All Time.
Can't wait to see who gets the nod after Thurston and Smith retire.
Surely not Hunt, DCE, Milford, Pearce, Moylan.. maybe Cleary has overrated GOAT potential
Well well well. Looks like the LU forum is rewriting the history of Darren Lockyer.
One of (if not the) most clutch players to ever play Rugby League.
But hey, if he played for a team you don't like, he mustn't have been that good.
Overrated. Haha, fmd....
You don't think it's weird that we've had about 5 future immortals in the last 10 years and 7 in the previous 100 years?
Well the immortals was only started in 1981 so that is part of it. But Rugby League is in a golden age period since it's become full time players have been getting better and better and better. The athletes in this game have been getting stronger and faster at such a rate it's largely why they have gotten rid of the shoulder charge because a charge now could do alot more damage then it could 20 years ago. A sideline kick would be converted 1/10 20 years ago, now from the good kickers it gets converted 5/10.
The 80's players could beat 70's players, the 90's players could beat the 80's players, and the 2000 players could beat the 90's players. The standard is getting higher and higher, and it's the reason far more immortals have been propping up then in previous periods in my opinion.
Players should be judged against their own era. Think of it in terms of dominance. I find it hard to see what splits Thurston, Lockyer, Fittler, Daley, or Sterlo - but likely only one of them will be made an Immortal and it will probably be the most recent.
Said nothing about the immortal title
Just laughing at those who are saying 'Lockyer wasn't that good....'
The whole conversation is in comparison to other Immortals or players who have been suggested for it. Pretty high bar. Don't think it's unreasonable for someone to suggest Lockyer might not be Immortal quality.
NRL needs a HoF for sure. How can we take awards seriously when rothfield is attached to it
Can't do it you haven't had your shots.
The problem with "The Immortals" when it first started is part of the criteria was that only players who played after World War 2 were eligible. Hence there are plenty of players who played before then who probably should be immortals (e.g. Dally Messenger, Dave Brown) but were excluded for consideration on that basis that reason alone.
It has one. It was established in 2002. Problem is they haven't inducted anyone into it since 2007. The ARLC and the NRL have let it fall away and have not maintined an online presence for it.
Wikipedia still has a record for it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rugby_League_Hall_of_Fame
as does Sean Fagan's 1908.com website - https://web.archive.org/web/20061107195701/http://rl1908.com:80/Hoffame/index.htm
Yeah but I can see why they excluded players before WWII. Lets be honest the people who make decisions how many of them would have seen players play up from the start of 1908? Just inducting players in as immortals 'because you have heard stories' of how good someone is not very credible.
I'd rather a broader Hall of Fame (or even making Immortals less of a rarity - but I think a fresh start is a better idea) simply for the reason of avoiding impossible comparisons between eras.
The most dominant players of each era should be recognised as such. Rather than arguing about which ONE player from decades of footy should be picked next. We shouldn't need to debate whether Sterling or Lockyer is picked next, they were both supreme footballers of their time.
I guess so.
I don't really know how Immortals are "judged" as of the current ones, I only saw Johns and Lewis play, and Lewis only at the end of his career in the ARL.
If we think of Immortals as being the best two or three players of the 10 or so years around when they played, all the names you mentioned could be Immortals, as could Thurston, Smith, and Slater (hence people say there are 3 or 4 (Cronk? surely not, GI? not really) future Immortals in the Queensland side).
If we think they should be a standout that is much better than those around them, I think Johns earns his spot, but Lewis doesn't, and based on that, I'd only have Cameron Smith as a current player who could be an Immortal.
But Gasnier, Raper and Langlands all largely overlapped in careers (yes, in one incredibly dominant side) so if they were all included as the best of their era, then there is no reason you couldn't include several current Queenslanders as being great and from an incredibly dominant representative side.
But then you'd have to consider a whole heap of players from the underrepresented 70's and 80's as well.
Never been a fan of the Immortals concept.
The original idea was to help promote a new wine label. Churchill, Raper, Gasnier & Fulton were great ambassadors for the game and really there was no need to keep revising the list.
If anything, I would have been fine if every 10 years (eg. 2021, 2031 etc.) you induct a previous generation into the fold as a fun tradition, but this process now where you've got a panel of 18 voting 3-2-1 out of 10 players feels too rich for something that should just be a bit of fun.
I'm completely on board with revisiting the Hall of Fame and honoring the players who helped define and shape the game.
Sterlo has also become widely regarded as one of the better commentators/analysts post playing career and his interviews on his Fox show over the last 2-3 years have elevated him above all other League Media and journo's by some margin.
He has been a quality contributor both on and off the field for a long time
Go dig some gold outta the ground muthaf*cka.
too late to add my favourite lockyer moment?
Separate names with a comma.