What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

BRISBANE 1998 v NEWCASTLE 2001

Who would win between the 1998 Broncos & Knights 2001


  • Total voters
    10

reladith

Juniors
Messages
252
Who would win this big game? The unbridled skill of the 1998 premiers in the Brisbane Broncos or the immencce big match presence of the 2001 Premiers the Newcastle Knights? Here's the match ups.

1. Darren Lockyer v Robbie O'Davis
What a great contest. Lockeyor one of the greatest players to ever play the game and Robbie O, the magistical little man from the Knights. Robbie is a fine player but Lockeyor is great. He gets the nod.

2. Michael De Vere v Timana Tahu

De Vere was just starting out in 1998 and so was Tahu in 2001. Both have went on to represent Australia. De Vere is a no frill mistake free player whereas Tahu is an electritying try machine, whi can have a case of the dropsies. Tough to call. But I'll go with Tahu.

3. Steve Renouf v Mark Hughes
The Pearl v Boozy! Renous was all class and all time great. Hughes was and is one of the most reliable players in the game. Renouf could be exposed in defence whereas Hughes is a brick wall. In saying that Renouf still gets my vote.

4. Darren Smith v Matthew Gidley
Smith was an enforcer one in from the flank and Gidley is one of the most creative centres in the game. Smith was not that fast but neither is Gidley. Smith was quite good in defence whereas Gidley has been unfairly critised in the past. Gidley on the weight of his creativity get my nod.

5. Wendal Sailor v Adam Mc Dougall
Simple facts a fact. Every single game McDougall played Sailor he wiped the floor with him. Simple! Sailor may have been a strong winger but McDougall always had his measure, even the most parochial Broncos supporter would admit that.

6. Kevin Walters v Sean Rudder
Both careers were built on the brilliance of the man inside them. Wlater got the chance in 2000 to prove that he too was a great player winning a grand final. Rudder has also had that chance in Castleford in 2004 where they are languishing in last place and where he has recently been given a release. Walters by heaps.

7. Allan Langer v Andrew Johns
Langer one of the best players to play the game. Andrew Johns, arguably the best player to play the game. Even though Langer is a great player, Johns is better.

8. Shane Webcke v Josh Perry

No contest here. One of the true hard men of the game, Webcke is the bench mark for all modern fowards. Perry is a mistake riddled undisciplined cad. Webcke by heaps.

9. Phillip Lee v Danny Buderus
Phillip who????? Buderus by miles

10. Andrew Gee v Matt Parsons
Andrew Gee was hated south of the border and was in my opinion a dirty -player who was never as good as what those north of the border said. Parsons was a true grafter of the game. Always willing to make that hit up and toil away, for that reason he gets my vote.

11. Gordan Tallis v Steve Simpson
The best running foward in the game. Simpson today when fit is in the top three second rowers and a defensive juggernaut with speed to burn. In 2001 he was too raw to be compared to Tallis. Tallis win here.

12. Brad Thorn v Ben Kennedy

Thorn was a great player and it was a shame to see him go to rugby at his peak. Kennedy is one of the true hardmen in the game and one of the most feared players. He gets my vote.

13. Tony Carroll v Bill Peden
Carroll is probably the best tackler in the comp and in 1998 it was no defferent and he had more pace then to what he has now also. Peden was the ultimate ironman of the game. The most underrated player in this bunch. In saying that Carroll is a very good player and gets my vote.

Michael Hancock, John Plath, Kevin Campion & Petero Civoniceva v
Glenn Grief, Paul Marquet, Daniel Abraham & Clinton O'Brien

The Brisbane Bench was just majestic. I look at it now and think Geez, how did they keep all these blokes under the cap! The Knight bench is good but it doesnt compar to Brisbanes.

The Broncos finished 1st in 1998 with an 18/5 record. They had 688 for and 310 against.

The Knights in 2001 finished 3rd with a 16/1/9 record. They had 782 for and 639 against.

As much as I Like the Knights, I think the Broncos would towel them up.
 

Kiwi

First Grade
Messages
9,471
thickos said:
Raiders of 1994 to demolish both of them :clap:

I wouldn't go that far, but I think the Raiders of 90, 94, Broncos of 92, 93, 98, 2000 could all easily win against any team in history. Against each other it'd be a toss of the coin and one hell of a game.
 

wittyfan

Referee
Messages
29,992
Newcastle's defence in 2001 was the worst by a premiership winning team in history, whereas as the Broncos of 1998 oozed class in both attack and defence.
 

thickos

First Grade
Messages
7,086
Kiwi said:
thickos said:
Raiders of 1994 to demolish both of them :clap:

I wouldn't go that far, but I think the Raiders of 90, 94, Broncos of 92, 93, 98, 2000 could all easily win against any team in history. Against each other it'd be a toss of the coin and one hell of a game.

Broncos of 2000 were good but pretty defensively minded. It wasn't the Broncos of old that year. I'd prefer 92 Broncos v 94 Raiders.
 

JJ

Immortal
Messages
32,481
Whatever happened to John Plath??

Newcastle's first half in the GF was one of the best I have ever seen. But Brisbane were a more consistent side...
 
Messages
17,035
Newcastle has never been a defensive side.. We won games with an attitude of attack an attitude of we can always score more than we let in. The knights side of 2001 obviously had better attacking abilities even though by that for and against we only averages 2 points more per game than the broncos..

Now if you put the knights of 2001 into a big game they will always perform defensively and be on their game for attack. If you put the knights performance of the 2001 GF against the broncos in 1998 you would be in for a great close game of footy.. If it were a regular club game the broncos would win easily, i think they did in 1998, i think they flogged us acutally in the 1997 SL vs ARL grand final replay.
 

Razor

Coach
Messages
10,077
think they did in 1998, i think they flogged us acutally in the 1997 SL vs ARL grand final replay.

They did 26-6. We weren't missing many players either (O'Davis, Albert, Moodie, Peden) so the scoreline did surprise me.
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
the broncs would towel the knights!!
start the 92 Broncs V 94 Raiders... now that would have been a match!!
:clap: :clap:
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
Absolutely no contest whatsoever.

The 1998 Broncos were simply the best of the 90's era.

Simply brilliant!

The 1994 Raiders outfit were very impressive, but IMHO, lacked the completeness from 1-13 that the 1998 Broncos possessed.

The 1998 Broncos VS the 1994 Raiders would have been a crackerjack to watch.

If only.
 

miccle

Bench
Messages
4,334
The 94 Raiders and 92 Broncos were undoubtedly 2 of the best attacking sides of the modern era. But the 98 broncs were the complete package. Attacking flair, grinding defense and awesome team attitude. imo, they were the best team of the 90's, with the 94 raiders just, JUUUSSST, behind (did i mention just?)...
 

salivor

First Grade
Messages
9,804
Why would you even bother comparing these two sides? The 2001 Knights are just about the weakest Premiership winning sides I've seen. They had poor defence and managed to shock an Eels side that had completely dominated the competition up until that point.

The 1998 Broncos on the other hand, while being equal on points with Newie and Melbourne were quite clearly the best side all year and one of the best sides in history. After being shocked by the Eels in the first semi showed their class in demolishing Melbourne, Easts and Canterbury on the road to winning the comp.

98' Brisbane would win easily by 20-30 points.
 
Messages
17,035
salivor said:
The 2001 Knights are just about the weakest Premiership winning sides I've seen. They had poor defence and managed to shock an Eels side that had completely dominated the competition up until that point.

Whats that say about the competition then, if an extremely weak side can win it? And who really cares about defense when you have one of the best attack sides in the comp.. It musnt be a bad way of thinking if we finished 3rd on the ladder and won the comp.

If the eels really dominated the season they would have won it. If they were really as good as everyone makes out then they wouldnt have been shocked in the gf as you put it.

The knights beat the eels twice in 2001 and lost once. We had them accounted for. Statistically the eels of 2001 were the best side since rugby league was born and that is all the eels can claim from 2001.
 

Red Bear

Referee
Messages
20,882
94 raiders v 98 broncs. what a match that would be. I reckon Raiders would win. Look at the bacl;ine

Mullins
Nagas
Meninga
Wiki
Nandruku
Daley
Stuart

then the pack had Furner Clyde Walters Pongia then i think Lazerus and i cant remember the other player. Tp Team
 

Azkatro

First Grade
Messages
6,905
Mate nice comparison. Didn't agree with everything you've said but a fun read nonetheless.

Maybe we should start a comparisons thread where everybody puts in their matchup .... kicking off with Raiders '94 vs Broncos '98 :D
 

Latest posts

Top