Greatest Ever Raiders Front Rower - Second Position

[edabomb]

The only thing that let Davico down when being compared to these other players was his handling. He wasn't the most co-ordinated player in that area. However, I see the 10 years service he gave us as a greater contribution than his rivals. Its hard to seperate the group, and thats what sways it into Davicos favour for me.

PS. How the hell could anyone rate Pongia over Lomax?? Lomax was one of the top props and Kiwi captain for a time between 1993 and 1996. A tendancy to tackle high was his only downfall.

 

[greeneyed]

Let's face it. Davico's handling was pretty awful. Not as bad as Tyran Smith, but not good either.

Length of service shouldn't be overly decisive. As let's face it again. Most of Davico's career with the Raiders he struggled.........

 

[paulquinn49]

I went Todd, He was a champ.

Never saw backo, but davico there is pretty gay

Pongia was better than Davico, Lomax pissed me off too much for me to rate him

 

[edabomb]

Let's face it. Davico's handling was pretty awful. Not as bad as Tyran Smith, but not good either.

Length of service shouldn't be overly decisive. As let's face it again. Most of Davico's career with the Raiders he struggled.........

It wasn't overly decisive, but it swung it! He had 5 excellent seasons for us and was only getting beaten. 5 excellent seasons is more than any of the rest had, the fact he had his struggles with us doesn't make him any less worthy IMO because most props only peak post 25. Why we let him go I will never know, its the second biggest unsolved mystery in life behind who shot Poida_Raider.

 

[greeneyed]

Don't take this thread in funny directions ed......!!!!! [-X

 

[greeneyed]

Let's face it. Davico's handling was pretty awful. Not as bad as Tyran Smith, but not good either.

Length of service shouldn't be overly decisive. As let's face it again. Most of Davico's career with the Raiders he struggled.........

It wasn't overly decisive, but it swung it! He had 5 excellent seasons for us and was only getting beaten. 5 excellent seasons is more than any of the rest had, the fact he had his struggles with us doesn't make him any less worthy IMO because most props only peak post 25. Why we let him go I will never know, its the second biggest unsolved mystery in life behind who shot Poida_Raider.

On the subject, there is no doubt he was a real tryer but he had weaknesses in his game, but most particularly his handling. Also, he had a career interrupted by a lot of injury, remember. His shoulder injuries meant he spent long periods on the sideline. The rose coloured glasses have to be taken off..... just because he just left the club and was popular due to his loyalty does not mean he was a better player than others.......

 

[edabomb]

I judge the players on what I see, not on stats. Look at the stats on Jason Croker, 115 tries. This would not reflect him IMO. He was an awesome attacker in his younger days, but has made more of a career being the hard working lock/second row type. So I've seen a lot of Pongia, Lomax and Davico. I saw Todd when I was young, but was too young to remember anything of substance. Going by this I genuinely rate Davico the best of the three. Lomax was here four seasons, Pongia five. Davico ten. While this shouldn't be the sole factor, it must be considered. Backo may well of been the better prop, but I will not select him based on his rep career. Remember, when people look back at Brett Finch in 20years time they'll say look he played a game for NSW, he must of been really good. Lets nominate him for all time Raiders halfback.

PS. A players character will always reflect in the voting, its what makes us human.

 

[greeneyed]

No no no no no no no.......... Croker was a great attacking strike force. He deserved every single one of his 115 tries. This is what I am saying. People have an impression of this player because of what they see at the moment. Not what they have not seen. What they have not seen themselves is generally reflected in the records.

 

[greeneyed]

I am not saying pick Finch on the back of one Blues jersey. In fact, I am saying don't pick O'Hara on that basis either. However, you must expect that Backo would be pretty good to get to the Queensland and Australian teams, given how the selectors don't like us. They didn't like us back then either. They just couldn't ignore us. Davico gave enough reasons for the selectors not to pick him. Injury.. bad handling... some of it unlucky, fine, but fact is... he didn't do enough. And, frankly, it was probably the right judgement. His ball handling was pretty bad.... you can't afford that in a top flight player. I am yet to hear of the weaknesses of Backo, Todd etc.........

 

[edabomb]

Yes Croker was an excellent attacker between 1992 and 1996. But I say the majority of his career he has made it more as an honest toiler than an attacking force. He scored most of his tries in the above period. I actually think Davico was one of the top props in the game post 2000. You don't give him enough credit greeneyed. This year he made slightly more meterage than Webcke per hit up and made 0.2 more handling errors more per game. Webcke is considered the yard stick (why I'll never know) and Davico stacks up!!!!

 

[Chippo Raiders]

Exactly, Croker or Ben Kennedy skill wise, I go with BK every time and a half, but I choose Croker he wasn't a "skillful" player in the mould of a Mullins, Meninga, Stuart....even now Schif, Rhino, Mogg are all more skillful but I go with Croker......Davico should be looked at as a LAZY forward, lets face it for 6 years from 95-01 he was lazy and only did enough to warrant a first grade spot, he turned the corner after that....yes he had handling issues but always played best against tough opposition...outplaying Webcke and Civoniceva every time we play Brisbane, Dictating the tough Warriors forwards last year in the semi and on and on........he inspired our forward pack to bring us from seasons like 99 and 01 to get us back into contention.....

 

[raiders_boy]

Yeah, that's a couple of good games.

We need not to be naive, but look at the bigger picture. This is a "Greatest Ever Raiders Team." We cannot solely judge on what we have seen. We need to take in everything. It's not "Greatest Ever Raiders Team From What People Have Actually Seen Of The Players."

Stats need to be taken into account. Sam Backo was an Australian prop. This shows us that not only was he one of the best for the Raiders, but he was one of the best ever. At the time, he would have been the best prop in Australia, if not the world. We cannot discount him just because we didn't see him run around every week.

 

[Chippo Raiders]

Lazo was better

 

[edabomb]

So because Jason Croker never played an official test for Australia do we not consider him seriously for a position either? Rep selection is BS, there has been a clear bias against Davico over the past few years. If Davico was a Kiwi he would of played 30 tests, so you can't say Pongia and Lomax are better players because they played test footy. You say time at the club should not be considered greeneyed, but that is clearly hypocritical. You did not include Monaghan in the centers when his record (33 tries in 2 seasons) was exceptional. Many factors have to be considered when voting, and like it or not people aren't going to put blind faith in Backo being the man because he played rep footy. Davico should not be eliminated from consideration based on the fact rep selectors continued to ignore him for the big games.

 

[I Bleed Green]

Aaaaaand, if Davico played in the '94 team at the level he has, then you'd probably be voting for him.

Davico's been a shining light amongst a crappy team (well, crappier than '94's team anyway)... put him in the '94 team and he'd be looked at as a superstar.

 

[raiders_boy]

Why isn't Jason Croker's one test "official?"

 

[edabomb]

Heaps of people here don't consider it an official test match because world cup games didn't used to be test matches. It is an official test though. I think 1995 world cup games became classed as tests.

 

[Kris_man]

i think Davico was awesome in '01 too. well, i watched a replay of the second last round robin match of 2001, i'm sure we all remember it - beating Brisbane 40-12 at ANZ, and Davico was friggin awesome. in my view, in the last couple of years, Luke Davico has been the best prop in the game - bar none. and he's proven this because just about every time he went up against Webcke or one of the other tope, he outplayed them. i believe that if he was given the chance he deserved at State of Origin, he would have totally gunned it, which would have earnt him a Test jersey. i don't have any less of an opinion of Davico 'cos of his lack of a rep career.

on Jason Croker: ed's 100% right, in the last few years, he's had the attacking prowess of a poodle. after 2000, he was on 98 tries. that means in that from 2001-2004, he got 17 tries. he's scored more in a single season.

 

[greeneyed]

So because Jason Croker never played an official test for Australia do we not consider him seriously for a position either? Rep selection is BS, there has been a clear bias against Davico over the past few years. If Davico was a Kiwi he would of played 30 tests, so you can't say Pongia and Lomax are better players because they played test footy. You say time at the club should not be considered greeneyed, but that is clearly hypocritical. You did not include Monaghan in the centers when his record (33 tries in 2 seasons) was exceptional. Many factors have to be considered when voting, and like it or not people aren't going to put blind faith in Backo being the man because he played rep footy. Davico should not be eliminated from consideration based on the fact rep selectors continued to ignore him for the big games.

We considered Croker, just like we are considering Davico. But Croker didn't get selected...... we picked two internationals in Furner and Wiki.

I don't believe Davico got biased treatment from selectors. His form was either bad (as many have pointed out, he was a pretty lazy forward for much of his career) or he was out of the game for extended periods with injury. When available, he didn't merit selection in rep teams. His form was just not good enough.

And Monaghan didn't get nominated as, despite his try scoring effort over a short period, his miserable detraction from the overall performance of the team this year disqualified him, in my view. Thickos was the appeal judge and he didn't put Monaghan in......

 

[greeneyed]

i think Davico was awesome in '01 too. well, i watched a replay of the second last round robin match of 2001, i'm sure we all remember it - beating Brisbane 40-12 at ANZ, and Davico was friggin awesome. in my view, in the last couple of years, Luke Davico has been the best prop in the game - bar none. and he's proven this because just about every time he went up against Webcke or one of the other tope, he outplayed them. i believe that if he was given the chance he deserved at State of Origin, he would have totally gunned it, which would have earnt him a Test jersey. i don't have any less of an opinion of Davico 'cos of his lack of a rep career.

on Jason Croker: ed's 100% right, in the last few years, he's had the attacking prowess of a poodle. after 2000, he was on 98 tries. that means in that from 2001-2004, he got 17 tries. he's scored more in a single season.

The question is whether others like Todd and Backo were better. I think they clearly were, for the reasons outlined.

I am agreeing on Croker. His more recent form is not representative of what he used to do....... when he was scoring lots of tries and was a real attack weapon. Others were saying Croker is not that good, having only seen his later years playing. I was saying, don't forget his earlier career - and the stats are the thing that prove he was really good.