Discussion in 'NRL' started by RazorRam0n, Feb 27, 2018.
They fell apart without him - he was more key than them
Robert Lui. End of.
Mate, the thread is for Immortal not Immoral.
Mal deserves Immortality for his SOO coaching alone.
Lockyer is going to get this one, we all know it.
It will not be as unbearable as when the testimonial brothers go in together in a few years time. The NRL will probably try and convince us that JT is a one club player again.
IMO no one before Johns should be able to be selected. If you missed out to someone who played after you then I don’t think you should be considered again.
We don’t have to add to the list. If we don’t add anyone for another 10 years I see no problem with that.
# of tests, origins and as captain.
But other than his longevity you can't really contribute any of his victories solely to him. He was never Johns-class in that he could turn a team like Newcastle from wooden spoon level to Premiership material. Queensland only started dominating once Smith and Thurston became the dominant players. And as Australian captain he is the only one to lose a World Cup in the last 40 years.
I don't see why Lockyer should ever be considered an Immortal. Maybe if he had remained at fullback for his entire career and was considered the best fullback of the NRL era. As it is he was the best fullback in the game for a short time, but so was Anthony Minichiello. As a fullback he is behind Slater and as a half he is behind all those players we listed. He was pretty much always second best, whilst the other Immortals had no equal in their respective roles during their eras.
People go a bit overboard with the Immortals. We hear Smith, Thurston, Lockyer, Slater, Inglis, Cronk and even Gallen being classed as 'future Immortals'. At most it should be Smith & Thurston, and they shouldn't be inducted for another 10-20 years yet.
Provan has to be next in. Voted as the greatest second-rower of the century ten years ago and holds the record for most Grand Final wins. There was some doubt about his rep career but it was a different era and he had to retire from rep footy at 28 due to business and family commitments. He didn't have the luxury of playing full-time like Lockyer did and the Kangaroo Tours were months long not a few weeks.
So Beetson shouldn't have been in then?
The error was inducting Johns so soon. Provan should have been in 2012. Johns should be still on the list of candidates.
As much as I think Provan should be one, he was not chosen, Raper, Gasiner, Churchill, Fulton were chosen. Provan was not.
That boat has sailed.
Meninga would be a good choice too, his record speak for itself, but that boat sailed when they went with Johns.
Lockyer would be my choice. Pure class on the field he was. Won a premiership carrying Perry. Started the Maroons dominance.
Id say Brett derp Hodgson started the Maroons dominance
Well just f**k it! If its got to be a Queenslander, I'm going for......
My cousins 3 year old 1 legged daughter would've taken that team to glory. Mal turned the Raiders from a mighty premiership force into a borderline finals one. Massively overrated as a coach.
Fulton was named an immortal 2 years after retiring. I think you have to be retired for 5 years to be included and Johns had been retired long enough.
I was at the Broncos V Cowboys week 1 finals game in 2015 and I showed these kids pictures of Thurston playing for the Bulldogs and their jaws just dropped to the ground in disbelief.
Lockyer or Mal are most certainly no Provan, if it's not Locky or Mal the howls North of the Tweed will be loud & long. The sense of entitlement from this generation of QLD'ers is astounding.
Don't you mean all generations off Queenslanders?
I think Johns deserves to be there at some stage but yeah I agree, too soon and probably could have added couple older players first.
Moving forward I think this is the way to go about it but.
That is Queenslanders for you mate.
I have put it to multiple people on various platforms that JT doesn't meet 2 of the NRL's 3 criteria for a testimonial match (1 club player and clean skin). His off field issues between 2003-2010 they of course minimise (if they even recognise they happened) and they either go silent when presented proof he played for the dogs or just flay our refute it as made up.
They are a weird bunch.
Didn’t mal play for 3 clubs
Canberra and St. Helens
That is correct. However Val was talking about the NRL's criteria for testimonial matches, and not for Immortal Status. There is no real criteria announced for it by the NRL, whilst it varied when RLW had it.
I think the criteria was that they had to play at least 250 games for the club, Thurston did fit that. But yes the other one was rubbish, wonder if people recall Coffs Harbour, his drunken public behaviour resulting in him being arrested, his attacks on the integrity of the NRL and treatment of referees. A protected species if there ever was one.
Also those kids who I showed those pictures to were only preteens who would've aged between 8-13 so they wouldn't have remembered Thurston as a Bulldog or knew of it.
Not kidding. The Raiders would not have won in 1990 without him, and in '93 went from leading the comp and premiership favouritism with one match to play, to out in straight sets after three straight floggings when Sticky was injured. The other three were still there. Sticky ran the side. He's a shit coach though.
None of them should be immortals, but Mal might get a look in. I'm thinking they'll go for Smith.
Separate names with a comma.