Lockyer > Johns: no contest

[Didgi]

AntiLag if it wasn't for sheer weight of numbers you'd win. But as it is the argument is just going to keep going in circles.

If this argument is who is the better Origin halfback, from the facts posted in this thread it is Thurston.

 

[AuDragon]

Or the logical answer which is Thurston > Johns in origin is more relevant within an interstate thread titled "Lockyer > Johns" than club stats ever will be in determining who the superior origin player is.

Geesh you anti-Thurstons with a hint of Lockyer love aint the sharpest tools in the shed.

At least we're original. :sarcasm:

Where does the title of this thread or the original post from Dazzat mention anything about who the better Origin player is?
It's an Interstate thread because the players in question play(ed) in and for different state clubs and Origin. Hence it is justified to bring their Club, Test and their Origin achievements into the argument, not just Origin because it suits your agenda.

Simple logic really, but I'm not sure whether it's simple enough for you... ](*,)

At least that's the one used by the greats of this game and the people that actually have a say in who becomes and Immortal. I wonder why... :crazy:

 

[ANTiLAG]

AntiLag if it wasn't for sheer weight of numbers you'd win. But as it is the argument is just going to keep going in circles. If this argument is who is the better Origin halfback, from the facts posted in this thread it is Thurston.

I agree it is beyond reasonable doubt Thurston has been the better player within origin parameters. I'm content however to get those who accept 'John's greatest ever tag' without so much as a thought to question it with facts, expose Johns origin myths that lack substantive fact, and respond to any assertions to the counter with logical analysis to facts.

Where people erroneously bring in club achievements then I have discussed not only the lack of relevance but also compare and explore how true the relative assertions are.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Where does the title of this thread or the original post from Dazzat mention anything about who the better Origin player is?

Seeing as you're slow I'll explain the context for you. This is an interstate thread. Origin discussion occur in the interstate thread. For general NRL discussion that occurs in the NRL thread. This thread was created moments after Lockyer became MOTM in Qld's origin win in game 2. It was clearly an Origin related thread or Daz posted in the wrong area. I'll assume Daz was correct. Daz may well have been discussing in general the better player. I was not.

It's an Interstate thread because the players in question play(ed) in and for different state clubs and Origin.

Different state clubs? That is seriously stupid and you're clutching at straws at best. By that logic any thread concerning players for the Warriors should be put in the international thread. NRL is for club. Interstate is for origin. International is for tests. Its really simple. You are completely overcooking it. Also Thurston played for the Bulldogs AND if he had stayed there - by your logic this would not be the thread to compare origin achievements as they played for the same state clubs. Seriously - how dumb are you? "State Clubs" - heard it all now.

Hence it is justified to bring their Club, Test and their Origin achievements into the argument, not just Origin because it suits your agenda.

Well actually my statement is that Thurston is better than Joey at origin. Others have said - not until he wins a premiership. Never understood the relevance of discussing test or club in that statement and never will. Clearly illogical. I do however then explore who has the better club record and fish out factors for this. Agenda? Seriously?

Simple logic really, but I'm not sure whether it's simple enough for you...

Sorry Mr "State Clubs" - whats this about keeping things simple? You cannot discern simple contextual relevance let alone analyse logic. All logic is simple.

At least that's the one used by the greats of this game and the people that actually have a say in who becomes and Immortal. I wonder why... :crazy:

What idea, thought, clue are you trying to communicate here?

 

[Mad Dogg]

Johns at his best is better than Lockyer (or Thurston). To be honest, anybody who disputes that is either a fool or extremely biased. When on the top of his game he's the best I've ever seen.

However, you don't judge players by how good they are at their very best. You judge them on their performances over a long period and how they react in different situations. And that's where Lockyer catches right up to him and, depending on who you listen to, perhaps passes him.

Lockyer has been at the top of the game for longer and has completely mastered two very different positions, being undisputably the best in the world at both.

But the key difference in my eyes is that Johns' best almost always came when his team was already well on top. He'd take what would've been a 20 point win and turn it into a 50 point slaughter. In the same situation Lockyer has always taken his foot off the pedal, he's always just done enough to get the win. However, Locky tended to be at his best when his team was struggling and things weren't going right. Perhaps not so much anymore, but certainly in his earlier days at fullback. His performance in the 2002 qualifying final agaisnt the Roosters is the best performance I've ever seen in a losing team - the Roosters completely and utterly dominated the Broncos everywhere on the field but Lockyer just kept them in it right till the end. The very definition of a player single-handedly keeping his team in a match. That's why, if I was putting together a team and had a choice of a young Johns or a young Lockyer, I'd pick Locky. More likely to be the difference in the tight games.

Thurston is a tough one to rate at the moment. He's had unprecedented success at Origin level, but is part of arguably the greatest ever Origin team up against one of the weakest Origin teams. Meanwhile he has been struggling to exert influence over his club side, but it has been one of the weaker sides in the comp over the last few years. We'll have to wait until further in his career to know where he stands, as more experience will obviously bring more different situations and we'll see how he handles them. But for now someone further up mentioned his biggest weakness - his impatience. When things aren't going right he tends to try to do too much, forces things too early and ends up throwing away the game as often as he wins it.

 

[perverse]

i think antilag is just trolling. clearly can't tell the difference between "more successful origin player" and "better footballer", if not.

 

[ANTiLAG]

i think antilag is just trolling. clearly can't tell the difference between "more successful origin player" and "better footballer", if not.

Hardly trolling. I think Thurston is the more successful origin player and his record supports this. 2008 highlight JT's worth to Queensland immensely if there was any doubt previously. The better footballer in general thus including club achievements is not the argument though people such as yourself Perverse are unable to comprehend this point. However, food for thought - there is no higher stage than origin. It is the toughest test. No salary caps - less squad limitations - just the best players playing at the highest level. As Peter Sterling says "origin is the true test" of a players ability. If my argument was Thurston is the better footballer generally and not just merely better origin career then his origin achievements go a long to way to support this over Joey's benchings, droppings, and continued series losses.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

From 11 pages of posts we have found that:

Thurston has more series wins, and perhaps a greater influence in Origin than Johns
Johns had perhaps more influence on his club side than Thurston, and more premierships
then we say:
Thurston has better Origin players around him than Johns had (this is debateable imo, but I'll go with it)
Johns had better club players around him than Thurston has
so I conclude:
This argument is going around in circles. For every origin argument there is a club argument, and vice-versa.

Who knows, maybe the current QLD side with a Johns style halfback wouldn't be successful (I laugh at that) and maybe the Cowboys with Johns would be successful (I laugh at that too, unfortunately).

All of that = RUGBY LEAGUE IS A TEAM SPORT AND THE BETTER TEAM USUALLY WINS AND THE BETTER TEAM USUALLY HAS THE BETTER PLAYERS!!

 

[Didgi]

If it needs to be simplified for some, then yeah.

 

[Didgi]

i think antilag is just trolling. clearly can't tell the difference between "more successful origin player" and "better footballer", if not.

He's made it clear that he is arguing the better interstate player, not the better footballer.

 

[Big Pete]

2008 game 3 - Who was the ONLY half on the Qld side after Prince's injury early on - How was the dead lock broken? JT's show and go. I think Thurston's post game interview which was described as "arrogant" and "cocky" cost him MOTM in that game.
2008 game 2 - JT wrecked havoc - yes on the back of the props. Who's pass to Inglis put Inglis on the outside of his marker?

Game 3 - I recall Folau scored two tries when nothing else was doing. The second of which only he could have scored. Thurston may of broken the deadlock, but who New South Wales from scoring? I don't remember Thurston coming up with that crucial charge down.

Game 2 - Ashley Harrison.

I don't think Thurston's mouth cost him any awards, in fact he won the Wally Lewis medal. I genuinly believe the judges thought Folau had a superior game.

You guys can talk about your Johns', Thurstons and Lockyers, everybody knows Nate Myles is the best Origin player ever. Just look at his record, MVP stuff.

 

[hellteam]

Game 3 - I recall Folau scored two tries when nothing else was doing. The second of which only he could have scored. Thurston may of broken the deadlock, but who New South Wales from scoring? I don't remember Thurston coming up with that crucial charge down.

Game 2 - Ashley Harrison.

I don't think Thurston's mouth cost him any awards, in fact he won the Wally Lewis medal. I genuinly believe the judges thought Folau had a superior game.

You guys can talk about your Johns', Thurstons and Lockyers, everybody knows Nate Myles is the best Origin player ever. Just look at his record, MVP stuff.

Nate Myles - 10 wins 3 losses. Wow thats good.

Boyd and Folau are both 6 and 1.

 

[typicalfan]

I agree it is beyond reasonable doubt Thurston has been the better player within origin parameters. I'm content however to get those who accept 'John's greatest ever tag' without so much as a thought to question it with facts, expose Johns origin myths that lack substantive fact, and respond to any assertions to the counter with logical analysis to facts.

Where people erroneously bring in club achievements then I have discussed not only the lack of relevance but also compare and explore how true the relative assertions are.

But Joey doing it from the 9 jersey playing halfback and also a brief stint off the bench doesn't count even if he was the difference between the teams.

 

[ANTiLAG]

in fact he won the Wally Lewis medal.

Yes - In 2008 Thurston was supreme in guiding Qld to victory with no Lockyer.

You guys can talk about your Johns', Thurstons and Lockyers, everybody knows Nate Myles is the best Origin player ever. Just look at his record, MVP stuff.

Cute point. I'm discussing halves. But you sure have an argument that Myles has been better in Origin than Creagh or another NSW forward.

 

[ANTiLAG]

But Joey doing it from the 9 jersey playing halfback and also a brief stint off the bench doesn't count even if he was the difference between the teams.

When Joey wore the 9 he primarily played dummy half. Sure he was first receiver at times - he was dummy half a lot more. Even then you cannot ignore the fact that even then Thurston has a better record. The fact Joey was benched shed's doubt on his "undisputed greatest" throughout his career tag - the fact he was dropped prooves this was not the case.

95 - Joey lost the series that could not be lost.
98 - Joey lost with arguably a stronger team
99 - Still cannot win
02 - Joey still could not win

Joey only dominated from halfback for two seasons. Thurston has done it for 5. Thems the facts.

 

[perverse]

i don't even disagree that Thurston is the more successful origin player. he's still not a better footballer, in origin or otherwise. it's a lame argument that is actually really pathetic.

i'm amazed that Thurston winning more origin matches with the most dominate team ever seen in origin history actually weighs so heavily in your mind. sad.

 

[Big Pete]

That isn't the point I'm disputing.

Rather, Thurston carried Queensland.

 

[perverse]

yeah, that's a grand disservice to the likes of Steve Price, Darren Lockyer, Petero Seventycents and others i'm sure if i analysed Queensland to the extent i analyse NSW. Thurston has certainly played his part, no doubt about that, he is an excellent player on his day. ludicrous to suggest he has carried the team, though. he's one cog in their juggernaut.

Thurston carried Queensland... lol... fmd. can someone confirm that ANTiLAG isn't JT himself? this reeks of epic delusions of grandeur... lol.

 

[typicalfan]

Yes - In 2008 Thurston was supreme in guiding Qld to victory with no Lockyer.



Cute point. I'm discussing halves. But you sure have an argument that Myles has been better in Origin than Creagh or another NSW forward.

Like Nate Myles is better than Bradley Clyde because his record is better at origin level? Because this is the path we go down using your logic. No doubt Thurston is a strong factor as to why QLD have been dominant over the last 5 years but at no point was he some sort of sole leading hand not saying Joey ever was. Joey was the more complete package and he showed it at all 3 levels maybe not as consistently as Lockyer or Thurston but in the games he did dominate he did so more dynamically than Lockyer or Thurston ever have. But Lockyer will probably go down as the greatest origin captain of all time and is an example on greatness not over just 5 years but for over a decade. Thurston has a long way to go before we start saying the same about him.

A players record alone cannot determine how great they are. There is more to it than that. Stats and records are to help provide direction but they aren't the first and last call of greatness.

And back on your tiresome Joey playing at hooker argument I still remember Joey playing in the 9 didn't he shine in both 96/97 and 2000 in those games he played? I remember Joey playing mainly at halfback and Toovey playing mainly at hooker game 1 1996 and both carved up the QLD side and proceeded to do so in a series whitewash I also remember they got that tactic from the same thing happening in the Australian side 1995 and it was a masterstroke, Toovey would play dummy half and Joey would be hooker to the extent of packing the scrum only. In 2000 Joey came off the bench and indeed played hooker only but his play won game 2 for the Blues and game 3 he was a major contributor.

 

[perverse]

And back on your tiresome Joey playing at hooker argument I still remember Joey playing in the 9 didn't he shine in both 96/97 and 2000 in those games he played? I remember Joey playing mainly at halfback and Toovey playing mainly at hooker game 1 1996 and both carved up the QLD side and proceeded to do so in a series whitewash I also remember they got that tactic from the same thing happening in the Australian side 1995 and it was a masterstroke, Toovey would play dummy half and Joey would be hooker to the extent of packing the scrum only. In 2000 Joey came off the bench and indeed played hooker only but his play won game 2 for the Blues and game 3 he was a major contributor.

all of this is accurate to my recollection, too. Joeys 2000 series was the most dominate display i've ever seen from the bench. any player you care to name inclusive... Craig Wing... whoever. his influence was astounding... and i think you'll find that nearly all NSW's points came when Joey was on the field, and directly related to the play he brought to the table. Kimmorley did stuff all compared to Johns, but was in stellar form at the time... and when you can have the best of both worlds, why the hell wouldn't you? it's not like they could play Kimmorley at hooker...