Cronin Jnr to debut

[lingard]

Now you're just comparing the best players with the best players. I'm talking about comparing the best players of the generation with the worst that they played against.

Some guys back then just couldn't compete.

You're elusive lingard, I'll give you that. But I get paid to sniff out bullsh*t and I'll happily do it for free, here, in my spare time.

You can't stop a stepper lingard. And old man bullsh*t is still bullsh*t. Son.

You don`t actually read my posts, do you? Is there someone more mature I can talk to? Your mum? Your dad?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

In the industry we call that deflection.

 

[CrazyEel]

1. Well, you`re wrong. Lots of stars from the eighties were as good as lots of stars from the 2000`s.

2. I`ve already stated that Jarryd Hayne may well end up being better than Ken Thornett. So, obviously I`m not making the blanket statement that the stars of the sixties are better than today`s stars. I`m saying some were, some weren`t. As an example, Jarryd Hayne, Billy Slater, Darren Lockyer, Benji Marshall, would all be on a par with Fulton, Cronin, Kenny, Lewis, Price, Raper, Thornett, Gasnier, Johns, Beetson, Churchill,.......you get the picture.
3. Overall, I believe that Bob Fulton was the best player I have ever seen. He would play Origin if he was around today; he would play for Australia; he would win Dally M player of the year, etc. In my opinion.

Don't agree with your point 3 choice of Fulton Ivor but do agree with the rest of what you say.

 

[lingard]

In the industry we call that deflection.

Yes, mate, I know what deflection is. But I was merely pointing out that you should read my post more carefully - because if you did, you`d see that I`m not just "comparing the best with the best", I`m saying quite the opposite. I`m saying that - far from there being a great gulf in talent during the sixties - there was actually a lot of competition for positions, and that for every 'champion' player, there were quite a number of other players just below them in ability, speed, fitness, strength, etc,etc,etc. Which, if you take two seconds to think about it, means that these 'champion' players actually did have strong players playing against them (not to mention the fact that they didn`t all play for the same team - they played against each other at club level.)
But all of that is irrelevent. My original point was that a player like, say, Bob Fulton would still be a star in today`s game. We got to this point because of your predilection for deflection.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I agree with you about Fulton but I think he proves my point somewhat.

Fulton's game was based on speed and power, rather than the more subtle skills of the star backs from previous eras. In that way he was more like today's players.

Of course there were other 'power' backs - Grothe, Eadie, etc.

But back then you didn't have all the Polynesians in the game that we have now. The huge numbers of these guys means that current players need, first and foremost, to be able to compete physically. Because they're not coming up against an Eric Grothe Sr type winger two or three times a season; they're coming up against a huge, fast outside back at least every other week.

So it's not just the current training that makes current players bigger and stronger; it's the traits currently selected for (speed and strength is the first thing scouts look for these days, if not the only thing). And while current players mightn't have, on average, the same level of natural football brains that players from earlier times had, it's offset by full-time professionalism, better coaching aids (improved video, etc) and a much greater body of rugby league knowledge (because we continually build on the knowledge of the past).

When you consider Eric Grothe (Sr) used to make 2 or 3 linebreaks a game at his prime; nobody makes that many breaks anymore. Hayne might have managed it at the back end of 2009, but Grothe did it consistently for about 5 years.

It's because Grothe played against a lot of defenders that couldn't compete with him physically. Hayne doesn't have that luxury to the same extent.

 

[lingard]

I agree with you about Fulton but I think he proves my point somewhat.

Fulton's game was based on speed and power, rather than the more subtle skills of the star backs from previous eras. In that way he was more like today's players.

Of course there were other 'power' backs - Grothe, Eadie, etc.

But back then you didn't have all the Polynesians in the game that we have now. The huge numbers of these guys means that current players need, first and foremost, to be able to compete physically. Because they're not coming up against an Eric Grothe Sr type winger two or three times a season; they're coming up against a huge, fast outside back at least every other week.

So it's not just the current training that makes current players bigger and stronger; it's the traits currently selected for (speed and strength is the first thing scouts look for these days, if not the only thing). And while current players mightn't have, on average, the same level of natural football brains that players from earlier times had, it's offset by full-time professionalism, better coaching aids (improved video, etc) and a much greater body of rugby league knowledge (because we continually build on the knowledge of the past).

When you consider Eric Grothe (Sr) used to make 2 or 3 linebreaks a game at his prime; nobody makes that many breaks anymore. Hayne might have managed it at the back end of 2009, but Grothe did it consistently for about 5 years.

It's because Grothe played against a lot of defenders that couldn't compete with him physically. Hayne doesn't have that luxury to the same extent.

I don`t know why you persist in arguing about something you know very little about. Or do I? (In the industry we have a name for it, don`t we?)
See, Bob Fulton`s game was never based on speed and strength. But you wouldn`t know, because you probably never saw him play. You just make things up. Bobby Fulton based his game on acceleration off the mark and dazzling footwork, coupled with a great kicking and passing game. He was, in effect, the Benji Marshall of his day. A real athlete. But if you don`t know that, then chances are you haven`t got the vaguest clue about the quality of the players he played against. Nevertheless, you have your strong opinions.
As for Polynesian players - if what we are led to believe is correct (I don`t know) - they have less stamina than other players, so any advantage they have in the strength department should be quickly nullified. And for every polynesian player we have now, we had a Mick Vievers, John Sattler, Arthur Beetson, John O`Neil, Ray Branigan, Peter Diamond, Bill Mullins, Mark Harris, Jim Morgan, Ron Coote, Johnny Raper, Ron Lynch, Bob McCarthy, etc, etc, etc. Not polynesians, but big, strong, mobile and athetic men.
Going by your 'argument', Don Bradman could never be considered a true great of the game because the training methods and level of professionalism were not the same then as they are now.
In any discussion about the relative merits of players from different eras, it has to be taken as read that the training and physical fitness levels are relatively equal. Otherwise we would have the ludicrous situation of having to say that Todd Lowrie (for example) is a better player than Johnny Raper. But you know that. It`s a pity that you have to turn every conversation into a challenge that you have to win. I was hoping - in a thread about Mick Cronin`s son - that it would be nice to talk about how great Mick Cronin and others from his era were. But no, you have to win an 'argument'. So, despite the fact that you weren`t around at the time, and you`re only privy to half the information, I`m going to declare you the winner. You can trot off now and sleep easy tonight in the knowledge that you have been declared the winner of another 'argument'.
You mentioned in another thread that it isn`t every day that you learn something new. Little wonder.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don`t know why you persist in arguing about something you know very little about. Or do I? (In the industry we have a name for it, don`t we?)
See, Bob Fulton`s game was never based on speed and strength. But you wouldn`t know, because you probably never saw him play. You just make things up. Bobby Fulton based his game on acceleration off the mark and dazzling footwork, coupled with a great kicking and passing game. He was, in effect, the Benji Marshall of his day. A real athlete. But if you don`t know that, then chances are you haven`t got the vaguest clue about the quality of the players he played against. Nevertheless, you have your strong opinions.
As for Polynesian players - if what we are led to believe is correct (I don`t know) - they have less stamina than other players, so any advantage they have in the strength department should be quickly nullified. And for every polynesian player we have now, we had a Mick Vievers, John Sattler, Arthur Beetson, John O`Neil, Ray Branigan, Peter Diamond, Bill Mullins, Mark Harris, Jim Morgan, Ron Coote, Johnny Raper, Ron Lynch, Bob McCarthy, etc, etc, etc. Not polynesians, but big, strong, mobile and athetic men.
Going by your 'argument', Don Bradman could never be considered a true great of the game because the training methods and level of professionalism were not the same then as they are now.
In any discussion about the relative merits of players from different eras, it has to be taken as read that the training and physical fitness levels are relatively equal. Otherwise we would have the ludicrous situation of having to say that Todd Lowrie (for example) is a better player than Johnny Raper. But you know that. It`s a pity that you have to turn every conversation into a challenge that you have to win. I was hoping - in a thread about Mick Cronin`s son - that it would be nice to talk about how great Mick Cronin and others from his era were. But no, you have to win an 'argument'. So, despite the fact that you weren`t around at the time, and you`re only privy to half the information, I`m going to declare you the winner. You can trot off now and sleep easy tonight in the knowledge that you have been declared the winner of another 'argument'.
You mentioned in another thread that it isn`t every day that you learn something new. Little wonder.

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

If you're going to take personally the idea that the quality of rugby league was less in the olden days then of course your arguments are all going to be emotive and we'll end up talking past each other as we obviously are now.

You're already drawing inferences that aren't there, for example, not to mention ignoring specific points in favour of a broad personal attack.

So as a peace offering I leave you with 'highlights' of an interstate game from the early 70s. So you can reminisce...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIFWGCi9MA

 

[lingard]

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

If you're going to take personally the idea that the quality of rugby league was less in the olden days then of course your arguments are all going to be emotive and we'll end up talking past each other as we obviously are now.

You're already drawing inferences that aren't there, for example, not to mention ignoring specific points in favour of a broad personal attack.

So as a peace offering I leave you with 'highlights' of an interstate game from the early 70s. So you can reminisce...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIFWGCi9MA

In the industry we call that sarcasm.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Of course the players from the olden days weren't as good.
Just like sports such as athletics or swimming, the olden day competitors just wouldn't be able to compete with the modern day competitors.

 

[Gronk]

Peter Cronin resigned to rejoining Gerringong Lions

 

[Gronk]

Young Cronin signed a 1 year deal with the Dragons yesterday and then dislocated his knee at training. Looking at a fair time off the field.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...jury-at-training/story-e6frfgbo-1226022837463