Rugby League Annual Team of the Decade

[ozbash]

I think you will find "Rugby League Annual" is the name of the publication.

and it has named a team of the decade.

thanks Einstien. It gets worse, rlw now goes annual and picks the team of the decade :crazy:

WTF is that over rated, drug taking, thinks he's 'bigger than the game' moron from Newie doing in the 7 spot ?
Stacey Jones was a better player and person...

 

[Charlie124]

thanks Einstien. It gets worse, rlw now goes annual and picks the team of the decade :crazy:

WTF is that over rated, drug taking, thinks he's 'bigger than the game' moron from Newie doing in the 7 spot ?
Stacey Jones was a better player and person...

What aren't you understanding here? :lol:

RLW has an Annual edition, in this years Annual they have decided to name a team of the decade. That doesnt mean they name a team of the decade annually.

 

[Timmah]

Sing, naturally.

Yeah, the Queenslander naturally, couldn't give a NSWmen credit for being a quality player :lol:

I personally would've gone with somebody with a better represenative portfolio (eg. Matt Sing) but I can understand why they went with El Masri given the lack of stand outs.

How is representative football a complete measure of a player? Luke Patten has never played higher than City/Country yet he'd be rated amongst the best fullbacks of our time. Nathan Blacklock was a standout winger, how many times did he play Origin or for Australia? Anthony Mundine, despite his f**kwittery, was a brilliant five-eighth, and how often was he a rep player?

See my point? One only need to see the long list of accolades Hazem achieved to see why he's been named as one of the wingers of the decade.

What aren't you understanding here? :lol:

RLW has an Annual edition, in this years Annual they have decided to name a team of the decade. That doesnt mean they name a team of the decade annually.

Firstly, it's Big League who produce it, not RLW - and anyway, it's actually David Middleton's Annual, Big League just produce it on his behalf.

I'll grab the 99 annual when I get home but I swear they did a retrospective then on the 90's as well...

 

[Big Pete]

Yeah, the Queenslander naturally, couldn't give a NSWmen credit for being a quality player :lol:

...#-o

Are you THAT pety to believe that my opinion of Matt Sing is based on what team he plays for? No, I prefered Matt Sing because of his achievements in all three levels.

Hazem is a fine player and it's a credit to him for being considered given his longetivity but personally I thought there were more talented players ahead of him.

How is representative football a complete measure of a player? Luke Patten has never played higher than City/Country yet he'd be rated amongst the best fullbacks of our time. Nathan Blacklock was a standout winger, how many times did he play Origin or for Australia? Anthony Mundine, despite his f**kwittery, was a brilliant five-eighth, and how often was he a rep player?

Represenative football is the highest level of football and it really seperates the men from the boys. It's why Cameron Smith is currently the best hooker in the world.

All those players you nominated are fine club players but generally they had better players infront of them or failed to impress when given the oppurtunity.

Patten wouldn't rate in the top five fullbacks of the decade, in fact he'd only just make it into the top ten.

 

[Timmah]

...#-o

Are you THAT pety to believe that my opinion of Matt Sing is based on what team he plays for? No, I prefered Matt Sing because of his achievements in all three levels.

Hazem is a fine player and it's a credit to him for being considered given his longetivity but personally I thought there were more talented players ahead of him.

Longevity is the only thing that Hazem had going for him? Are you truly that clueless? Fair dinkum.

Represenative football is the highest level of football and it really seperates the men from the boys. It's why Cameron Smith is currently the best hooker in the world.

All those players you nominated are fine club players but generally they had better players infront of them or failed to impress when given the oppurtunity.

Patten wouldn't rate in the top five fullbacks of the decade, in fact he'd only just make it into the top ten.

Cameron Smith... a Queenslander :shock:

Failed to impress? Your faith in selectors is astounding.

 

[Big Pete]

Longevity is the only thing that Hazem had going for him? Are you truly that clueless? Fair dinkum.


Cameron Smith... a Queenslander :shock:

Failed to impress? Your faith in selectors is astounding.

Did I say it was the only thing going for him?

Again, quit trying to make it about being another State of Origin debate. You're growing delusional.

Yep, Blacklock was pretty ordinary when he got his chance in the green and gold in 2001.

 

[nomis88]

Will they be choosing another team of the decade next year when the decade actually concludes. There was no year zero so the first year of a decade is the year ending with 1 and the last year of a decade is the year ending with zero, therefore 2001- 2010 is the decade. Sorry to be pedantic.:?

 

[Big Pete]

^ That's how centuries are calculated, not decades.

 

[nomis88]

Why was the big celebration on new years eve 1999 and not nye 2000 as it should have been? Both centuries and decades should be calculated the same. Any way lets get on to bigger issues such as how Mark Gasnier the overrated hack made the team.

 

[Johns Magic]

Yeah, the Queenslander naturally, couldn't give a NSWmen credit for being a quality player :lol:

Sing was a far better winger than El Masri

How is representative football a complete measure of a player? Luke Patten has never played higher than City/Country yet he'd be rated amongst the best fullbacks of our time.

By you.

See my point? One only need to see the long list of accolades Hazem achieved to see why he's been named as one of the wingers of the decade.

He was the only winger to hang around for the whole decade. That's the only quality that makes him the "best" winger of the decade.

 

[Timmah]

Not the 317 games, not the 160-odd tries, 2,400-odd points, not the astonishing goalkicking rate over the years, not the excellent defensive reads? None of that counts because Matt Sing could jump in the air a bit?

 

[Big Pete]

...Wow and I thought it couldn't get anymore embarrassing for you.

Maybe you should actually go back and watch some footage of Sing before you try and pass judgement on him, hmmm?

 

[runatme]

if el masri couldnt kick do u seriously think he would have played as many games as he did?

 

[hellteam]

Yeah, the Queenslander naturally, couldn't give a NSWmen credit for being a quality player :lol:

How is representative football a complete measure of a player? Luke Patten has never played higher than City/Country yet he'd be rated amongst the best fullbacks of our time. Nathan Blacklock was a standout winger, how many times did he play Origin or for Australia? Anthony Mundine, despite his f**kwittery, was a brilliant five-eighth, and how often was he a rep player?

See my point? One only need to see the long list of accolades Hazem achieved to see why he's been named as one of the wingers of the decade.

Firstly, it's Big League who produce it, not RLW - and anyway, it's actually David Middleton's Annual, Big League just produce it on his behalf.

I'll grab the 99 annual when I get home but I swear they did a retrospective then on the 90's as well...

In this case it's a perfect measure because it shows that there are/were better players then them playing at the time. That team is a team of the decade. Therefore the best players make it.

 

[hellteam]

if el masri couldnt kick do u seriously think he would have played as many games as he did?

No way. Same as Daryl Halligan

 

[Garts]

Did not need El Masri in the side. The team already has a few players that can kick goals.

 

[Non Terminator]

Will they be choosing another team of the decade next year when the decade actually concludes. There was no year zero so the first year of a decade is the year ending with 1 and the last year of a decade is the year ending with zero, therefore 2001- 2010 is the decade. Sorry to be pedantic.:?

It isn't. The seventies was a decade right? I fail to see how 1980 would be a part of the seventies, and I fail to see how 2010 is part of the noughties.

Why was the big celebration on new years eve 1999 and not nye 2000 as it should have been? Both centuries and decades should be calculated the same. Any way lets get on to bigger issues such as how Mark Gasnier the overrated hack made the team.

Well............
NYE 1999 was going into 2000...it was ending a year, a decade, a century and a millennium.

 

[nomis88]

It isn't. The seventies was a decade right? I fail to see how 1980 would be a part of the seventies, and I fail to see how 2010 is part of the noughties.



Well............
NYE 1999 was going into 2000...it was ending a year, a decade, a century and a millennium.

So at a cricket match why doesn't the crowd cheer when a batsman reaches 99, because according to you he has scored a century ( the century is over at 99)?

 

[Non Terminator]

Two completely different things.
Lets start with years. The first complete one is "0", the 100th complete one is "99".
In cricket, the first complete one is "1", the 100th complete one is "100".

Years = 0 has to occur, it's as long as 1
Cricket = 0 is the starting point, it takes no effort unlike 1

 

[mxlegend99]

Will they be choosing another team of the decade next year when the decade actually concludes. There was no year zero so the first year of a decade is the year ending with 1 and the last year of a decade is the year ending with zero, therefore 2001- 2010 is the decade. Sorry to be pedantic.:?

There's absolutely nothing wrong at all with the way they have measured a decade. A decade is a period of 10 consecutive years, and this team they have chosen was based on 2000 through to 2009... which is 10 consecutive years.

Both centuries and decades should be calculated the same.

A century is measured in the same way as a decade. It's a span of 100 consecutive years. It doesn't matter what group of 100 or 10 years you choose.