LETS PICK THE BEST TEAM EVER

[Kiwi]

everyones team has questionable choices

True, but I just find it annoying that people dismiss Lockyer like he has done nothing. Look at RC, saying Fittler and Johns have achieved more than Lockyer, i'll be damned if I can work that one out, because other than Johns winning a popularity contest for a few years running, Lockyer has achieved more than Johns, and only sits behind Fittler in terms of games played, for now.

Not more than Johns........I will say Johns is better than Lockyer.....but I am not dismissing Lockyer......he is in a bunch of fullbacks with Jack, Belcher, Eadie etc.....if he continues as he goes he will be cement himself as one of the games greatest fullbacks

What has Johns done more than Lockyer? aprt from winning a popularity contest more time? Lockyer has dominated the rep scene/origin more, won more premierships, dominated as many games atleast, doesn't go missing even when his team is losing, is 3 years younger and has played more games, ect I could go on, but i'm yet to see what Johns has done that Lockyer hasn't.

Another thing I find interesting is that people, including the experts, claim Johns as being the best of all time. Generally these same people claim Lockyer is only just behind him, yet when it comes to naming a best ever team, all of a sudden he is not good enough. These teams are more about players of the past and no credit is given to modern players unless your name is Johns.

 

[Chippo Raiders]

Fulton was a Rooster and played when their team were truly champions...don't be fooled Fulton is an immortal and far better than Freddy....but Freddy again will be one of the best....but definitley not the best.

 

[Kiwi]

Fittler's a 5/8 and Johns is a half. You're talking about Lockyer for fullback and he's got two immortals in front of him. WTF has Fittler and Johns got to do with Lockyer's exclusion? Surely you're not pushing him for 5/8. And yes Fittler and Johns have left a far greater impression than Lockyer, most sensible people would agree with that.

This

People, including the experts, claim Johns as being the best of all time. Generally these same people claim Lockyer is only just behind him, yet when it comes to naming a best ever team, all of a sudden he is not good enough.

 

[Rooster Cogburn.]

Fulton was a Rooster and played when their team were truly champions...don't be fooled Fulton is an immortal and far better than Freddy....but Freddy again will be one of the best....but definitley not the best.

Have I excluded Fulton?

 

[Chippo Raiders]

everyones team has questionable choices

True, but I just find it annoying that people dismiss Lockyer like he has done nothing. Look at RC, saying Fittler and Johns have achieved more than Lockyer, i'll be damned if I can work that one out, because other than Johns winning a popularity contest for a few years running, Lockyer has achieved more than Johns, and only sits behind Fittler in terms of games played, for now.

Not more than Johns........I will say Johns is better than Lockyer.....but I am not dismissing Lockyer......he is in a bunch of fullbacks with Jack, Belcher, Eadie etc.....if he continues as he goes he will be cement himself as one of the games greatest fullbacks

What has Johns done more than Lockyer? aprt from winning a popularity contest more time? Lockyer has dominated the rep scene/origin more, won more premierships, dominated as many games atleast, doesn't go missing even when his team is losing, is 3 years younger and has played more games, ect I could go on, but i'm yet to see what Johns has done that Lockyer hasn't.

Another thing I find interesting is that people, including the experts, claim Johns as being the best of all time. Generally these same people claim Lockyer is only just behind him, yet when it comes to naming a best ever team, all of a sudden he is not good enough. These teams are more about players of the past and no credit is given to modern players unless your name is Johns.

You are right........Lockyer is only JUST behind him......Johns has a better all round game.....but since when does being behind Johns make you a bad player......Lockyer is great as I said...I prefer him to Freddy but not to Johns. He has deserved his Dally M's and should have had 4, thank god they changed the rule.

 

[Chippo Raiders]

Fulton was a Rooster and played when their team were truly champions...don't be fooled Fulton is an immortal and far better than Freddy....but Freddy again will be one of the best....but definitley not the best.

Have I excluded Fulton?

You have included three backs on the bench....your bench is in essence weaker than it has to be

 

[Kiwi]

everyones team has questionable choices

True, but I just find it annoying that people dismiss Lockyer like he has done nothing. Look at RC, saying Fittler and Johns have achieved more than Lockyer, i'll be damned if I can work that one out, because other than Johns winning a popularity contest for a few years running, Lockyer has achieved more than Johns, and only sits behind Fittler in terms of games played, for now.

Not more than Johns........I will say Johns is better than Lockyer.....but I am not dismissing Lockyer......he is in a bunch of fullbacks with Jack, Belcher, Eadie etc.....if he continues as he goes he will be cement himself as one of the games greatest fullbacks

What has Johns done more than Lockyer? aprt from winning a popularity contest more time? Lockyer has dominated the rep scene/origin more, won more premierships, dominated as many games atleast, doesn't go missing even when his team is losing, is 3 years younger and has played more games, ect I could go on, but i'm yet to see what Johns has done that Lockyer hasn't.

Another thing I find interesting is that people, including the experts, claim Johns as being the best of all time. Generally these same people claim Lockyer is only just behind him, yet when it comes to naming a best ever team, all of a sudden he is not good enough. These teams are more about players of the past and no credit is given to modern players unless your name is Johns.

You are right........Lockyer is only JUST behind him......Johns has a better all round game.....but since when does being behind Johns make you a bad player......Lockyer is great as I said...I prefer him to Freddy but not to Johns. He has deserved his Dally M's and should have had 4, thank god they changed the rule.

Yet I get laughed at, brushed aside and called names when I argue Lockyer's place in the best ever team. Go figure.

 

[dontmakemeangry]

I realise that open forums are just that, but the whole purpose was to nominate the FULLBACK you thought was best.
If you want to argue about every position wait until that particular position comes up then go for it.
But cmon gut's and gals lets just have fullbacks this week then we can start on wingers next Wednesday.

 

[JJ]

1. Clive Churchill
2. Kerry Boustead
3. Dave Brown
4. Reg Gasnier
5. Ken Irvine
6. Wally Lewis
7. Andrew Johns
13. John Raper
12. Ron Coote
11. Bob McCarthy
10. Arthur Beetson (c)
9. Ian Walsh
8. Glen Lazarus
Inter.
14. Graeme Langlands
15. Brad Fittler
16. Bob Fulton
17. Brad Clyde

Not a bad team coggie

For mine Grothe ahead of Boustead, and you're light on forwards on the bench.

I never saw Raper play, but as far as I am concerned, he couldn't have been better than Clyde at his peak. So Clyde's my lock, Sironen and McCarthy in the back row, and Steve Walters at hooker. Raper, Cleal, and someone like Harragon, Webcke or Roberts on the bench (have to have a prop there.

Coote, Fittler and Langlands don't make my team... Kenny and Sterling are also desperately unlucky

 

[Chippo Raiders]

everyones team has questionable choices

True, but I just find it annoying that people dismiss Lockyer like he has done nothing. Look at RC, saying Fittler and Johns have achieved more than Lockyer, i'll be damned if I can work that one out, because other than Johns winning a popularity contest for a few years running, Lockyer has achieved more than Johns, and only sits behind Fittler in terms of games played, for now.

Not more than Johns........I will say Johns is better than Lockyer.....but I am not dismissing Lockyer......he is in a bunch of fullbacks with Jack, Belcher, Eadie etc.....if he continues as he goes he will be cement himself as one of the games greatest fullbacks

What has Johns done more than Lockyer? aprt from winning a popularity contest more time? Lockyer has dominated the rep scene/origin more, won more premierships, dominated as many games atleast, doesn't go missing even when his team is losing, is 3 years younger and has played more games, ect I could go on, but i'm yet to see what Johns has done that Lockyer hasn't.

Another thing I find interesting is that people, including the experts, claim Johns as being the best of all time. Generally these same people claim Lockyer is only just behind him, yet when it comes to naming a best ever team, all of a sudden he is not good enough. These teams are more about players of the past and no credit is given to modern players unless your name is Johns.

You are right........Lockyer is only JUST behind him......Johns has a better all round game.....but since when does being behind Johns make you a bad player......Lockyer is great as I said...I prefer him to Freddy but not to Johns. He has deserved his Dally M's and should have had 4, thank god they changed the rule.

Yet I get laughed at, brushed aside and called names when I argue Lockyer's place in the best ever team. Go figure.

Your team will be very strong with Lockyer in it.....he offers a different style to Changa and the Little master.....I haven't laughed at you....

 

[Kiwi]

I realise that open forums are just that, but the whole purpose was to nominate the FULLBACK you thought was best.
If you want to argue about every position wait until that particular position comes up then go for it.
But cmon gut's and gals lets just have fullbacks this week then we can start on wingers next Wednesday.

unfortunately too many see things in black and white, they are showing their age, or trying to show how knowledgable they think they are in the game, if it was about who is the best ever fullback, it'd be Lockyer hands down, end of arguement, thanks for coming, move on to wing already.

 

[JJ]

Churchill, Langlands or Lockyer then... any of the three

 

[innsaneink]

unfortunately too many see things in black and white, they are showing their age, or trying to show how knowledgable they think they are in the game, if it was about who is the best ever fullback, it'd be Lockyer hands down, end of arguement, thanks for coming, move on to wing already.

How old are you?

How long have you been watching RL?

 

[Rooster Cogburn.]

I realise that open forums are just that, but the whole purpose was to nominate the FULLBACK you thought was best.
If you want to argue about every position wait until that particular position comes up then go for it.
But cmon gut's and gals lets just have fullbacks this week then we can start on wingers next Wednesday.

unfortunately too many see things in black and white, they are showing their age, or trying to show how knowledgable they think they are in the game, if it was about who is the best ever fullback, it'd be Lockyer hands down, end of arguement, thanks for coming, move on to wing already.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[taxidriver]

there is a point whereby ignorance becomes stupidity....kiwi corossed it a few posts ago

 

[drake]

In keeping with initial idea of this thread, my nomination for position of fullback is Changa Langlands, over Churchill because he's a Dragon and it's tough to split hairs.
Of the Modern era, probably Lockyer or brasher.

 

[Ferocious Dogs]

Churchill by a thousand miles

 

[Anonymous]

In a game that is 100 times faster...

As mentioned, this is irrelevant. Players are subject to the training methods and playing conditions of the day. If Lockyer was playing in the 1960s, he would have been slower. If Grant Hackett was swimming in the 1960s, he would have been slower.

Didn't Langlands play during the Dragons 11 premiership run?

Langlands also played for Australia no less than 90 times, including 34 Tests.
In all, Graeme Langlands MBE played 320 rep and first grade matches scoring 132 tries, 866 goals for a first class career total of 2128 points.
He was Australia's last captain-coach and became the first player to top 100 Ashes Test match points.

Imo, Langlands was the most well balanced runner I've ever seen. And there wasn't a position he couldn't play if the situation called for it. Just the same, I'd never have him wasted on the wing.

Clive Churchill was before any of our times I'd say. So we really only have books to go on.
He revolutionised fullback play - before the 1950s, fullbacks were not noted for being attacking backs... they largely kept out of it. Churchill changed all that.

He played 91 times for Australia including 34 Tests. So there's nothing between Langlands and Churchill in this regard.
Churchill was also and Australian captain coach although his point scoring record is over shadowed by Langlands.

Churchill 34 Tests: 10 goals (20 points)
Langlands 34 Tests: 17 tries, 69 goals (189 points)

As great as Churchill was, and as much as I enjoy watching Lockyer play, I can't go past Langlands as the best fullback of all.

 

[Chippo Raiders]

I think that shows the closeness of the two.......Churchill is for some however, the best player ever.....Churchill is best known for me playing with a broken arm in final with an exercise book used as a splint.....Lockyer doing that, me thinks not

 

[Rooster Cogburn.]

Lockyer tells a mean joke though. :lol: