2021 Grand Final: Souths v Penrith Oct 3rd

[Poupou Escobar]

That wasn't the discussion.

It's all part of the discussion. I'm not really interested in Ray Price, he's a historical factoid these days. A bus driver who either should or shouldn't be an Immortal.

But what I am interested in is systems, especially entrenched structures that influence a club's fortunes over time. Why have we historically been so weak but for a couple of decades (mid-70s to mid-80s and late 90s to 2009) in our 75 year history? And have we started another such decade?

He was certainly in demand. We won 3 Premierships under his regime.

That doesn't explain how much demand he was in in 1980. And he left us for another week club in Cronulla. I assume it was just for the short drive to work. And then he didn't win anything while he was there. Was he that great? I'm just trying to get my head around why the five or six years either side of 1980 was so different. Failure can happen by accident but a decade of success certainly can't. And Gibson was only coach for three years of that.

Sure, we had a lucky spell of amazing juniors come through at the time, but all of them were nobody's until Jack came along. With Ron Massey as well.
If you want to dispute this or discuss Jack's worth at the time, do it with someone else.

Well I'm not actually talking to you, I'm talking to everyone, but using your comments as a springboard for my own. If this was just for you I'd send a DM.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Didn't Manly try and nab Pricey?

Sometimes merkins are indescribably loyal. The fact that Pricey didn't take up an offer elsewhere isn't really evidence of anything.

That said, I agree with the idea that Parra fans overrate that team. I watched all of the GFs again after we lost to Penrith. We were good enough to beat the opposition at the time but watching it again, we were sloppy. I guess all teams were sloppy back then.

I've heard some non-Eels fans describe the early eighties as a real point of decline for Sydney rugby league. The RLD blokes and some of their guests have made convincing arguments about it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don't think our domination is being questioned. Thats not how I read it.

It's not. Some merkins just get defensive about everything. We were obviously dominant. Four premierships in six years is incredible. To put it in perspective, it means we have won four premierships in the past forty years. No club has won more in that time, and only three have matched it.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I've heard some non-Eels fans describe the early eighties as a real point of decline for Sydney rugby league. The RLD blokes and some of their guests have made convincing arguments about it.

You look at the quality of the finals games in the early to mid 80s and they are piss compared to the late 80s and early 90s. The improvement in skill over that short period is phenomenal.

 

[Twizzle]

Didn't Manly try and nab Pricey?

And they ended up with Zorba instead which was pretty funny

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

There goes Pou talking down Parra every chance he gets…….

 

[TheParraboy]

That reminds me of Sri Lankans announcing they had won the 2011 Cricket World Cup Final against Australia despite getting thrashed

Their only logic , was Gilly had a squash ball in one of his batting gloves

 

[hineyrulz]

You look at the quality of the finals games in the early to mid 80s and they are piss compared to the late 80s and early 90s. The improvement in skill over that short period is phenomenal.

Yeah Parra we’re pretty average to be fair, and Gibson was a middle of the road coach because let’s face it we could never afford anyone decent. We were just really lucky.

 

[TheRam]

Or 3 in a row.

I don't think our domination is being questioned. Thats not how I read it.

My take is the whole team of champions v champion team concept with some cheeky commentary on where our individual players sat relative to other individuals.

The reason we were great was becuase of the combination of all players. If you look at every individual, we did not have a single player that you could comfortably argue was the best in their position at the time.

Pricey, in fairness is probably the closest example.

What?

Grothe was considered the best winger of all time while he was playing and for quite a while after too.

Cronin and Rogers were considered the best centres and combination in the game for a while in their early years.

Kenny was considered equal to Lewis, but Lewis only pulled away due to his stellar performances in origin, but as we all know there are special reasons for that which I won't get into in this discussion.

Sterling was considered the best halfback in the world and the "best many had ever seen" was a statement commonly used in the media at the time.

As for Price, well I have already stated that he was the best forward in the game across two codes for the first half of his career and then just the best lock for the majority of the rest of it.

Many in the game have a habit of forgetting or under estimate our team of many champions. I think probably because of two main reasons.

One, we had by enlarge a hard working pack but not a standout aggressive or ferocious one for much of that era. Therefore we didn't have the fire power up front to smash the better teams but they were good enough to hold their own and allow our unparalleled backline to do its magic. Can you imagine if we had a couple of forwards in the Peter Tunks or Peter Kelly mould? What that would have a allowed our backline to do? The Raiders and Broncos who everyone rates the best two overall teams had just that. Superstars up front and superstars at the back. We mostly had superstars from lock down. And yet our team achieved more then both those teams in an era where it was catch and kill.

Two, the media. We have never enjoyed bias and continual praise like many other teams do due to having ex-players saturating the media airwaves. By enlarge we have had mainly Sterlo who as we all know was the straightest bat commentator in the business. But other teams have cheerleaders and some even cheer squads to keep referencing and reminding us all how good their former players and teams were and how good their opposition teams were that they played against and defeated, thus elevating their team in the process.

It is easy to forget all the little things that contributed or influences that mould opinions. That is sport and life in general I suppose, but some of us haven't forgotten and understand that when assessing teams and players of different eras, which is so freaking hard to do, you can't afford to listen to the noise around today because most times it is clouded one way or another or just plain outright bias and agenda driven.

So what do you do and how do you assess? Well in Parramatta's case we can look at their records and accomplishments. They played in and won more semi finals and Grand Finals then any other team in their golden era and the main stays of those teams Grothe, Cronin, Kenny, Sterling and Price had a mortgage on the Australian jumper in an era of many, many worthy champions. I don't know about you, but in my eyes that tells me that they were the best of the best and worthy of being considered just that.

I don't know what else you need to do? Their record is right up there with the best of all time. The only other clubs achievements that you can definitely state is better is the St George Dragons era of the 50's-60's. Otherwise we are right up there and you can't do that with a champion team alone. You need some champions within to sustain such a long and consistent winning record. You know like a Turbo or Tedesco to break games open or else you just end up like us at present and burn out.

Oh by the way no other team since has come even close to doing what those boys did back then. That should be a clue as to how truly great they really were you plunket.

 

[hineyrulz]

Or 3 in a row.

I don't think our domination is being questioned. Thats not how I read it.

My take is the whole team of champions v champion team concept with some cheeky commentary on where our individual players sat relative to other individuals.

The reason we were great was becuase of the combination of all players. If you look at every individual, we did not have a single player that you could comfortably argue was the best in their position at the time.

Pricey, in fairness is probably the closest example.

Grothe was easily the best winger of those years and you couldn’t say Sterlo wasn’t the best number 7 from at least 81-87.

Let alone Kenny who pushed Wally as the best 6 in the world who is now an immortal. Throw in Pricey and Crow as well. Yeah pretty average and sloppy team to be fair………

And how can you compare eras?? Players then had jobs, trained just 3 times a week and were half the size they are now. They played on cow paddocks with leather balls under the 5 metre rule. Let alone the awful things they called scrums then. Of course the game is much better now, well duh!! How would the Eels of 81-86 gone in today’s game with all its advantages???

Pou’s Shadow lol.

 

[Gary Gutful]

What?

Grothe was considered the best winger of all time while he was playing and for quite a while after too.

Cronin and Rogers were considered the best centres and combination in the game for a while in their early years.

Kenny was considered equal to Lewis, but Lewis only pulled away due to his stellar performances in origin, but as we all know there are special reasons for that which I won't get into in this discussion.

Sterling was considered the best halfback in the world and the "best many had ever seen" was a statement commonly used in the media at the time.

As for Price, well I have already stated that he was the best forward in the game across two codes for the first half of his career and then just the best lock for the majority of the rest of it.

Many in the game have a habit of forgetting or under estimate our team of many champions. I think probably because of two main reasons.

One, we had by enlarge a hard working pack but not a standout aggressive or ferocious one for much of that era. Therefore we didn't have the fire power up front to smash the better teams but they were good enough to hold their own and allow our unparalleled backline to do its magic. Can you imagine if we had a couple of forwards in the Peter Tunks or Peter Kelly mould? What that would have a allowed our backline to do? The Raiders and Broncos who everyone rates the best two overall teams had just that. Superstars up front and superstars at the back. We mostly had superstars from lock down. And yet our team achieved more then both those teams in an era where it was catch and kill.

Two, the media. We have never enjoyed bias and continual praise like many other teams do due to having ex-players saturating the media airwaves. By enlarge we have had mainly Sterlo who as we all know was the straightest bat commentator in the business. But other teams have cheerleaders and some even cheer squads to keep referencing and reminding us all how good their former players and teams were and how good their opposition teams were that they played against and defeated, thus elevating their team in the process.

It is easy to forget all the little things that contributed or influences that mould opinions. That is sport and life in general I suppose, but some of us haven't forgotten and understand that when assessing teams and players of different eras, which is so freaking hard to do, you can't afford to listen to the noise around today because most times it is clouded one way or another or just plain outright bias and agenda driven.

So what do you do and how do you assess? Well in Parramatta's case we can look at their records and accomplishments. They played in and won more semi finals and Grand Finals then any other team in their golden era and the main stays of those teams Grothe, Cronin, Kenny, Sterling and Price had a mortgage on the Australian jumper in an era of many, many worthy champions. I don't know about you, but in my eyes that tells me that they were the best of the best and worthy of being considered just that.

I don't know what else you need to do? Their record is right up there with the best of all time. The only other clubs achievements that you can definitely state is better is the St George Dragons era of the 50's-60's. Otherwise we are right up there and you can't do that with a champion team alone. You need some champions within to sustain such a long and consistent winning record. You know like a Turbo or Tedesco to break games open or else you just end up like us at present and burn out.

Oh by the way no other team since has come even close to doing what those boys did back then. That should be a clue as to how truly great they really were you plunket.

Gibber Gibber insult Gibber insult insult Gibber.

I made a valid point. They were great individual players but there were plenty of other individuals that were great in that era.

Lewis and Meninga are the only immortals from that era so that tells you something (Hint: It isnt that Parra were ripped off).

Steve Rodgers was the best centre in the game around that time. Mortimer kept Sterlo out of plenty of rep teams. Boustead was a gun winger who wasn't as lazy as Grothe.

And what about Gene Miles, Gavin Miller and Terry Lamb? I'd personally rate Miller higher than Price. All of Price's toughness plus an amazing ball player. Arguably one of the most gifted players I have ever seen (along with Jason Smith).

Parramatta's players were great. I'm not suggesting otherwise. All I am saying is that there were plenty of others that were great. The composition of rep teams and the decisions regarding best players of an era (including immortals) supports my opinion.

The reason they were successful is that we had more great players than anyone else. Not because we had individuals that were standouts in their positions.

Take your Blue and Gold glasses of and get some perspective. Once you do that you'll realise I am making sense.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Grothe was easily the best winger of those years and you couldn’t say Sterlo wasn’t the best number 7 from at least 81-87.

Let alone Kenny who pushed Wally as the best 6 in the world who is now an immortal. Throw in Pricey and Crow as well. Yeah pretty average and sloppy team to be fair………

And how can you compare eras?? Players then had jobs, trained just 3 times a week and were half the size they are now. They played on cow paddocks with leather balls under the 5 metre rule. Let alone the awful things they called scrums then. Of course the game is much better now, well duh!! How would the Eels of 81-86 gone in today’s game with all its advantages???

Pou’s Shadow lol.

So you actually agree with me regarding the quality of the game in the 80s and even threw in a "duh!!!".

Why the f**k are you arguing with me then FFS?!!??

Kenny pushed Wally but Wally was better. Crow wasn't as good as Steve Rodgers. Pricey close to the best in his position (and I said as much at the start). I rate Miller higher but he didn't really become elite until after Price had retired.

Boustead was as good as Grothe imo, possibly better. Grothe did some amazing things on the field but he wasnt consistently elite and was a lazy player at times.

Sterlo couldn't keep Mortimer out of Origin so I don't think you can say he was a standout during 81-87. I hate Mortimer, but facts are facts.

The collection of great players at Parra was more powerful than any one individual. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't seen enough rugby league from that era.

 

[TheRam]

You look at the quality of the finals games in the early to mid 80s and they are piss compared to the late 80s and early 90s. The improvement in skill over that short period is phenomenal.

I put this down to three major contributing factors.

1. Jim Comans was appointed to the RL judiciary so as to clean the game up from all the blatant thuggery. It took a while but he really got traction once he suspended Bob Cooper for 15 months in 1982. Then the message finally started to sink in when he suspended Les Boyd for 12 months in 1983 and again for 15 months in 1984. Once players started to feel safe and coaches could then start to coach a more open and expansive game, the football got better from an attacking perspective. Players could show their wears better. Remember, prior to the clamp down coaches like Stanton, Bath and Masters coached brutality and violence as much as they coach football into the players. Fearnely was an exception to this and we used to pay the price for it.

2. The the interchange rule was introduced in 1991 and for obvious reasons changed the game and made it a little quicker and we have been tinkering with it ever since.

3. Then the 10 metre rule was introduced in 1993. It was a massive innovation to the game at the time and really changed everything from a space and movement of the ball perspective. Opposing players for example, couldn't hold hands out in the backline anymore. There was space that the faster and better steppers could utilise at speed. Ball players could see holes that weren't there before. Everything changed and again quickening the game further too.

I wish our squeaky clean glory teams(compared to others at the time) played in the 90's. I think we probably would have won at least another 2-3 GF's. The reason many attributed our lack of GF success even though we were considered the best team of the mid to late 70's was because many would say we weren't aggressive or to put it plainly "dirty" enough to win it when it mattered.

Anyway it's all history now, but I think those three things changed the way our game is played immensely and it took that wanker Bellamy to ruin it all.

 

[Gazzamatta]

Yeah Parra we’re pretty average to be fair, and Gibson was a middle of the road coach because let’s face it we could never afford anyone decent. We were just really lucky.

Gibbos mantra was to only stay at a club for 3 years because he believed the players respond differently to the Coaches message after that. A wise man was Gibbo. Coaches now days only leave if pushed or get a better offer and bugger the consequences. That said most of the ones that stay continually renovate their support crew. Ffs even Ricky has changed his crew but I guess it took a really sh*t year for him to do it. Both Bellamy and Robinson make changes around them but I guess some will argue thats because their supports move onto more senior roles. That in itself means something I suppose.

 

[hineyrulz]

So you actually agree with me regarding the quality of the game in the 80s and even threw in a "duh!!!".

Why the f**k are you arguing with me then FFS?!!??

Kenny pushed Wally but Wally was better. Crow wasn't as good as Steve Rodgers. Pricey close to the best in his position (and I said as much at the start). I rate Miller higher but he didn't really become elite until after Price had retired.

Boustead was as good as Grothe imo, possibly better. Grothe did some amazing things on the field but he wasnt consistently elite and was a lazy player at times.

Sterlo couldn't keep Mortimer out of Origin so I don't think you can say he was a standout during 81-87. I hate Mortimer, but facts are facts.

The collection of great players at Parra was more powerful than any one individual. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't seen enough rugby league from that era.

Only an idiot compares era’s, a champion of one era would be a champion of any other era. Gary and Pou love talking down the club and our past champions. I’m frankly disgusted and appalled and it needs to f**king stop!!

Tells us our players are overrated and then mentions blokes like Lamb and Miller bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

The Townsville heat has melted your brain Guts.

 

[hineyrulz]

Gibbos mantra was to only stay at a club for 3 years because he believed the players respond differently to the Coaches message after that. A wise man was Gibbo. Coaches now days only leave if pushed or get a better offer and bugger the consequences. That said most of the ones that stay continually renovate their support crew. Ffs even Ricky has changed his crew but I guess it took a really sh*t year for him to do it. Both Bellamy and Robinson make changes around them but I guess some will argue thats because their supports move onto more senior roles. That in itself means something I suppose.

Gibbo could of stayed at Parra and won 6 in a row if he wanted. You’d think a middle of the road would of hung around for job security?????

 

[TheRam]

Only an idiot compares era’s, a champion of one era would be a champion of any other era. Gary and Pou love talking down the club and our past champions. I’m frankly disgusted and appalled and it needs to f**king stop!!

Tells us our players are overrated and then mentions blokes like Lamb and Miller bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

The Townsville heat has melted your brain Guts.

Spot on mate. Lamb was a great player, but couldn't hold a candle to Kenny. No one in their right mind would suggest other wise.

P.S. Millers representative career says it all.

 

[hineyrulz]

I put this down to three major contributing factors.

1. Jim Comans was appointed to the RL judiciary so as to clean the game up from all the blatant thuggery. It took a while but he really got traction once he suspended Bob Cooper for 15 months in 1982. Then the message finally started to sink in when he suspended Les Boyd for 12 months in 1983 and again for 15 months in 1984. Once players started to feel safe and coaches could then start to coach a more open and expansive game, the football got better from an attacking perspective. Players could show their wears better. Remember, prior to the clamp down coaches like Stanton, Bath and Masters coached brutality and violence as much as they coach football into the players. Fearnely was an exception to this and we used to pay the price for it.

2. The the interchange rule was introduced in 1991 and for obvious reasons changed the game and made it a little quicker and we have been tinkering with it ever since.

3. Then the 10 metre rule was introduced in 1993. It was a massive innovation to the game at the time and really changed everything from a space and movement of the ball perspective. Opposing players for example, couldn't hold hands out in the backline anymore. There was space that the faster and better steppers could utilise at speed. Ball players could see holes that weren't there before. Everything changed and again quickening the game further too.

I wish our squeaky clean glory teams(compared to others at the time) played in the 90's. I think we probably would have won at least another 2-3 GF's. The reason many attributed our lack of GF success even though we were considered the best team of the mid to late 70's was because many would say we weren't aggressive or to put it plainly "dirty" enough to win it when it mattered.

Anyway it's all history now, but I think those three things changed the way our game is played immensely and it took that wanker Bellamy to ruin it all.

Imagine our Eels team of the 80’s with the 10 Metre and faster game?? We won in an era of defensive football and beat one of the greatest ever in the 80’s dogs. Yeah nah footy was shit in the early 80’s and our players weren’t much chop. Needed more Gavin Miller’s and Terry Lambs lol.

 

[TheRam]

Imagine our Eels team of the 80’s with the 10 Metre and faster game?? We won in an era of defensive football and beat one of the greatest ever in the 80’s dogs. Yeah nah footy was shit in the early 80’s and our players weren’t much chop. Needed more Gavin Miller’s and Terry Lambs lol.

People forget so quickly. For instance, Miller couldn't even crack Easts 3rd grade side when Pricey and the gang were winning Premierships. He was literally dropped to 3rd grade and couldn't crack a Roosters team that only won 5 games all year.

Millers career didn't take off until he came back from his stint in England where he had those 2 stellar seasons back to back in 1988-89. He was a great player at his best and a superb ball player, but a yoyo for much of his career. But sure, like I said, a great player when he was on.

Hardly someone we should be comparing to a player that was so dominant and even brilliant both with the ball and without it for ALL of his nearly 20 year career(including Rugby).

Who are these clowns that have no freaking perspective or clue. I think they have been listening to Matty Johns to much who bangs on about Miller as the best forward he has ever seen. Problem is Matty probably watched Miller during his most impressionable years, late teens and which would have coincided during those two years at Millers peak 1988-89 and saw much less of Ray Price at his best. He would have been to young to have seen Pricey at his peak and taken serious note. So seeing Miller in his 2 season master class moment would have and has left a lopsided view of the mans overall career. It would be like seeing Ben Barba at his season or two peak and thinking that he was the best too.

Millar was a great player at his best, but hardly in the same ball park as the legend that is Ray Price.