Allan Langer or Andrew Johns - Which halfback achieved more?

[Rod]

Hey I didn't say we didn't like origin or that it wasn't huge. I just said that we and our media rarely take sides.

 

[JJ]

i've always thought they had a Qld bias...

but what I said about the age of people is true - in the cricket forum you have a number of people saying Waugh was better than Border - but they never saw Border play...

Lewis was very dominant - and yes the game has changed, we now have interchange, 10 m, better balls etc

 

[Kiwi]

Well said.

But the one thing that makes Johns truly stands out is how complete he is.

While Stuart and Langer might have his passing game and kicking game do they have the goal kicking or the defense? No.

While Lewis might have the defense and leadership does he have the passing and Kicking game? No.

I could go on and do this all players throughout history, every skill and trait a great player should have - Johns has it.


Andrew Johns is the most complete player to ever lace a boot.

For mine goal kicking does not come into it. And again the rest is personal opinion. The likes of Langer, Stuart and Sterling may not have done the odd big tackle like Johns does every now and again, but they were pretty good defenders. Johns has the allround kicking game, I think Stuart's Long game and Langer's short game were better. Leadership wise both Langer and Stuart are better leaders.

It could be debated untill the end of time, and it just may be debated for that long, and the result will be the same, everyone will have a different opinion on it. It's great to debate though you Johns loving rat bastard ;-)

 

[RABK]

It could be debated untill the end of time, and it just may be debated for that long, and the result will be the same, everyone will have a different opinion on it. It's great to debate though you Johns loving rat bastard ;-)

:LOL:

 

[Azkatro]

Andrew Johns is the most complete player to ever lace a boot.

But this is the inherent problem when you talk about Andrew Johns - all you can rant about is his skills set. Sure he can do anything, but that's being a talented athlete. Darren Lockyer has way more complete skills than probably the majority of players who have ever taken the field. The game is much more professional nowadays and players' skills will continue to improve in my opinion. It all scales.

But that's where the problem lies too. Despite his inferior skills, Alfie achieved more than Johns. So who is the better rugby league player? The bloke who has more impressive rugby-league skills? The one with more talent? Or the bloke who took what he had and was capable of going out there and just doing it?

Personally, I think it's the latter of the three. It's hard to look past a player's talent, but the best way is to look at results. Being a great sportsperson is about achievement and success, not so much your skills.

My argument is that if a guy like Andrew Johns, or even Lockyer whose skills are incredible, had been able to apply themselves like the greats of the past (eg Allan Langer), then they would have achieved so much more. But they haven't, so there's obviously something missing there. Something that can't be measured or identified.

Johns is a player with superb skills and talent, but there are elements I can't describe which he clearly lacks compared to the greats of the past - otherwise he would have achieved a lot more, wouldn't he?

 

[RABK]

But this is the inherent problem when you talk about Andrew Johns - all you can rant about is his skills set. Sure he can do anything, but that's being a talented athlete. Darren Lockyer has way more complete skills than probably the majority of players who have ever taken the field. The game is much more professional nowadays and players' skills will continue to improve in my opinion. It all scales.

But that's where the problem lies too. Despite his inferior skills, Alfie achieved more than Johns. So who is the better rugby league player? The bloke who has more impressive rugby-league skills? The one with more talent? Or the bloke who took what he had and was capable of going out there and just doing it?

Personally, I think it's the latter of the three. It's hard to look past a player's talent, but the best way is to look at results. Being a great sportsperson is about achievement and success, not so much your skills.

My argument is that if a guy like Andrew Johns, or even Lockyer whose skills are incredible, had been able to apply themselves like the greats of the past (eg Allan Langer), then they would have achieved so much more. But they haven't, so there's obviously something missing there. Something that can't be measured or identified.

Johns is a player with superb skills and talent, but there are elements I can't describe which he clearly lacks compared to the greats of the past - otherwise he would have achieved a lot more, wouldn't he?

Yeh it's called playing with half the Asutralian team your whole career.

 

[Azkatro]

Yeh it's called playing with half the Asutralian team your whole career.

Now THAT'S sour grapes. What about Origin? Johns has played alongside some of the greatest players of this era!

 

[Kiwi]

Yeh it's called playing with half the Asutralian team your whole career.

What was so bad about the 97 Knights? Or alot of the Knights players Johns has played with?

Where would you rate the 97 and 01 Knights against other gf winning teams since 90?

 

[RABK]

Come on you know Langer had more quality players around him.

One thing that never seems to get mentioned in these debates is the half partner.

FFS, Langer had Walters and Stuart had Laurie fricken Daley. Johns had M Johns, Rudder and Kidley!!!

Food for thought eh.

 

[Kiwi]

Come on you know Langer had more quality players around him.

One thing that never seems to get mentioned in these debates is the half partner.

FFS, Langer had Walters and Stuart had Laurie fricken Daley. Johns had M Johns, Rudder and Kidley!!!

Food for thought eh.

Now now

Do you think the 97 or 01 Knights sides were as good as the 92, 93, 97, 98, 00 Broncos, 90, 94 Raiders? Or are you admitting right now that those Bronco and Raider sides were much better than the Knights GF winning teams?

 

[RABK]

Now now

Do you think the 97 or 01 Knights sides were as good as the 92, 93, 97, 98, 00 Broncos, 90, 94 Raiders? Or are you admitting right now that those Bronco and Raider sides were much better than the Knights GF winning teams?

Nope i'm not admitting that, 97 maybe but 2001 at full strength was a great record breaking side. But Johns was so much more important to our side then Langer was to yours.

Get what i'm saying.

 

[Raider_69]

dont knock Matt Johns, IMO Andrew has been on a steady decline since he left, i always rated Matty Johns as a player, majory under-rated and i think without him Andrew wouldnt have been half as dominate in his glory years as he was...

You might say Stuart had Daley, Langer had walters etc but Johns for the most part had a bloke he has played with all his life, they knew each others game like no combination ive seen (not to say they were the best) and Matty was a damn fine player at that
Rudder ill give you but even he played alright for the season they won the comp

 

[RABK]

Johns played his best 3 seasons after Matty left.

 

[Raider_69]

Matty Johns left in 2000 ort 2001 didnt he?

 

[Mr Saab]

M johns last yr was 2000. Thats partly why Andrew was soooo pi$$ed off when they lost to the roosters in 2000 after leading by plenty in the prelim final.
Darren Albert is still kissing cameras!

 

[Kiwi]

Nope i'm not admitting that, 97 maybe but 2001 at full strength was a great record breaking side. But Johns was so much more important to our side then Langer was to yours.

Get what i'm saying.

What you are saying is the Knights GF winning sides were as good as the Bronco and Raider sides Langer and Stuart played in but Langer and Stuart had an avantage because of the players around them. So which is it? The players around Johns were as good or not, pick one.

 

[RABK]

What you are saying is the Knights GF winning sides were as good as the Bronco and Raider sides Langer and Stuart played in but Langer and Stuart had an avantage because of the players around them. So which is it? The players around Johns were as good or not, pick one.

No, im saying that Johns made us that good, you overall had the better side but with Johns in our side we lifted a level. So take out both Langer and Johns from thsoe sides and you'd beat us, but with both playing we would have been pretty damn even.

Does that make sense?

 

[Raider_69]

2001 was andrews best year but since then in the post Matty era i dont think he has been all that spectacular, this years SOO excluded

 

[Kiwi]

No, im saying that Johns made us that good, you overall had the better side but with Johns in our side we lifted a level. So take out both Langer and Johns from thsoe sides and you'd beat us, but with both playing we would have been pretty damn even.

Does that make sense?

If it was actually true it would.

 

[Mr Saab]

johns was great in 2001 and 2002.
2003 was down a touch
2004...he played what..2 games. Season write off
2005 he started badly with injury and his team mates did him no favours...but from the panthers game on he was unbelievable.