NRL Finals 2015

[Fast Eddie]

Really not seeing what makes him better than a bunch of other halves - Fulton, Sterling, Mortimer, Kenny, Lewis, Daley, Stuart, Langer, Fittler, Lockyer - all great great players in their own right

I've not seen a better pairing than Sterling and Kenny at club level, and despite his huge media profile, I am shocked at how Sterlo is overlooked in these sort sof discussions

Only seen Lockyer and Fittler play regularly out of that list. Thurston seems to have more influence and dominance in games than those 2 did. Johns was better.

 

[jaseg]

Replay? You must be effing joking. How many fans made their way down to Sydney for that one? How many would be able to make the next week? Huge cost to them, and would be the same for 5 of the teams in the NRL. Huge issues with that - the AFL got slammed after their drawn grand final, if you care to remember. No, I think you can rule a replay out totally.

10 mins of extra time (non-golden point) before then going to a golden point (actually, golden try!) decider would be much better IMO

As for immortal status; personally I'd kind of like to reserve that for guys that were either totally singular in their performances over a long period or guys that changed the game (or changed their position) and were really influential in that way. Thurston probably comes under that first category - even Johns didn't manage the long term output Thurston has (although Johns arguably changed the game more than any player in quite a long time). Cameron Smith & Billy Slater also get looks in because of the second category IMO, though their induction will likely be spread over years (and none will start until ~5 years after retirement).

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Really not seeing what makes him better than a bunch of other halves - Fulton, Sterling, Mortimer, Kenny, Lewis, Daley, Stuart, Langer, Fittler, Lockyer - all great great players in their own right

I've not seen a better pairing than Sterling and Kenny at club level, and despite his huge media profile, I am shocked at how Sterlo is overlooked in these sort sof discussions

I wouldn't know the amount of premierships won by each of those guys you've mentioned, but I can't see anyone who'd stick out as winning more than 2? I know JT won the first as a utility but he's also carried sub-standard sides a lot further than some of the outstanding teams every single one of that list played with.

I can't comment properly because I didn't see the first five play.

But I look at the rest (Johns included) and it's probably the intangibles that get the job done for me with JT. All of those guys were competitors but I honestly don't believe they are to JT's level. Last night, JT competed on every play - does that every week. His often fat, often useless outside backs tried to conspire to f**k up all his good work but he kept going to the well. He scrambles, he tackles, he gets belted and gets up..I dunno. As I say, I just feel that he now matches up on paper and that's the final cog in him being the GOAT. I'd need to hear a damn good argument as to why he isn't.

Obviously his Origin record is without peer and I don't think it should be ignored that he is such an outstanding citizen for the game.

 

[TheDMC]

I wouldn't know the amount of premierships won by each of those guys you've mentioned, but I can't see anyone who'd stick out as winning more than 2? I know JT won the first as a utility but he's also carried sub-standard sides a lot further than some of the outstanding teams every single one of that list played with.

I can't comment properly because I didn't see the first five play.

But I look at the rest (Johns included) and it's probably the intangibles that get the job done for me with JT. All of those guys were competitors but I honestly don't believe they are to JT's level. Last night, JT competed on every play - does that every week. His often fat, often useless outside backs tried to conspire to f**k up all his good work but he kept going to the well. He scrambles, he tackles, he gets belted and gets up..I dunno. As I say, I just feel that he now matches up on paper and that's the final cog in him being the GOAT. I'd need to hear a damn good argument as to why he isn't.

Obviously his Origin record is without peer and I don't think it should be ignored that he is such an outstanding citizen for the game.

Best player I've ever seen.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

I am not doubting JT being great, but turn off the hype around him and the game and he was not the best out there.
Caught with the ball a couple of times, Threw a few hard passes that needed softer hands. Kicks went to hands not grass, Bronocs basically had his number all night. The fulltime play was him running backwards no tricks left other than pass to Morgan who worked his magic, angle run, drawing 3 men and offloading.
Oh and missed the sideline conversion that was hyped to a new stratosphere as career defining.

 

[Iafeta]

I agree, some of the commentary on the fellow is just ridiculous. For a start, when he drops off a tackle (which happens a fair bit TBH), the commentators will generally talk about how great a competitor is for chasing back in the line, glossing over his miss. Last night he passed a ball which went to no one, and he dove on it, Phil Gould nearly popped a vein giving himself a wristie as hard as he was. It was an awful play, yet Gould praised him to the high heavens. When old mate Linnett dropped the ball with the line open Gould rubbed one out on how great JT was for putting the play on, but the fact remains he threw it too hard and slightly behind the man on the charge. If he places the ball onto the ballcarriers chest its a try day in day out.

I suspect irrespective of whether the Cowboys won by 1 or 100, and irrespective of JT's performance, he was going to get the Churchill Medal. It was a preordained media pushed destiny.

One question RE the game, how come JT was allowed to take approximately 4.5 minutes to take the last conversion? I've never seen anything quite like it. Even the referee was almost apologetic in asking him to put the ball out wider 5 inches, after he snuck it in 3 foot.

 

[JJ]

I wouldn't know the amount of premierships won by each of those guys you've mentioned, but I can't see anyone who'd stick out as winning more than 2? I know JT won the first as a utility but he's also carried sub-standard sides a lot further than some of the outstanding teams every single one of that list played with.

I can't comment properly because I didn't see the first five play.

But I look at the rest (Johns included) and it's probably the intangibles that get the job done for me with JT. All of those guys were competitors but I honestly don't believe they are to JT's level. Last night, JT competed on every play - does that every week. His often fat, often useless outside backs tried to conspire to f**k up all his good work but he kept going to the well. He scrambles, he tackles, he gets belted and gets up..I dunno. As I say, I just feel that he now matches up on paper and that's the final cog in him being the GOAT. I'd need to hear a damn good argument as to why he isn't.

Obviously his Origin record is without peer and I don't think it should be ignored that he is such an outstanding citizen for the game.

Of course the likes of Lewis won several premierships in a strong Brisbane comp, and dominated at SOO level, more than anyone has imo

Sterling is the one though - several premierships, Dally M's etc, and with Kenny just astonishing. Controlled the game as well as anyone

I watched again, and IMO Thurstone just flat out wasn't that good in the grand final - yes, he tried hard - but they won because of their forwards, and Morgan's last minute play - their execution in general was poor, and the Broncos defence handled him all night.

FWIW imo Sterling > Thurstone, and ditch this media driven Immortal shite to reinvigorate the HoF

 

[Skinner]

Ah yes....the old tall poppy syndrome is alive and well.

 

[JJ]

Ah yes....the old tall poppy syndrome is alive and well.

How so?

No question he is a great player, but greatest of all time, I am not convinced.

The GF wasn't his best game personally, not for lack of effort, but the Broncos handled him well

 

[Rich102]

I thought Thurston had a huge influence on the final.
Doesn't overplay his hand but positions himself beautifully.
In attack he runs right up to the defence and plays very late, so when he gets a man away it is too late for the defence to turn. Takes a few hits for his side as well but doesn't shy away.
Good leader too.
The best of the current halves going around, by some way.

I watched a lot of Sterling and Kenny, as well as the other halves of the day. The thing you have to remember is how much the game has changed since then. Kenny was brilliant; I've seen him come on and win games by himself. But I wonder how he would go in today's defence obsessed game. Plus he could have quiet spells too.
Sterling was a battler, super competitive. Great skills and never gave up. Took a few hammerings too. You also have to bear in mind the great teams they had around them.

For me Thurston has lifted to Cowboys to where they are now. A superb buy by the club.
Will go down as an immortal. But the best ever? Will take a smarter man than me to pick that; or even try to.

 

[JJ]

The game has changed, Benaud's comment about being the best in an era is key

For me I prefer Sterling but it's like Pepsi or Coke, both great, and ultimately both IMO achieved more than Johns. The Eels had s back line for the ages, but the pack were tradesmen. This Cowboys pack is awesome and the back line pretty bloody good too,

Guess I'm just over the sycophantic stuff in the media, his greatness is plain for all to see

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I can't deny JT's impact on the game but he's probably my personal least favourite "great" player from the years that I've watched the game.

This has nothing to do with his achievements, his personality, or anything like that, it's purely about the feeling I get watching him play, how much he worries me as an opposing fan, the "wow" factor and the general aesthetics of his game.

For a "great" half I find some of the distribution aspects of his game surprisingly ungainly. He doesn't really have the longest kicking game and I've always found the way he passes the ball rather awkward. Throws a lot of old-school "end over end" passes.

I'll probably get bagged for this even though I'm not bagging him at all- I'm acknowledging his greatness and acknowledging that it's splitting hairs at this level.

For pure "skill" I prefer Johns...it's kinda like comparing Stuart and Langer actually. Stuart had a beautiful passing and kicking game. Alf was a little awkward in both aspects but had a great running game and a knack of making the right plays.

 

[Auckland4ever]

I am not doubting JT being great, but turn off the hype around him and the game and he was not the best out there.
Caught with the ball a couple of times, Threw a few hard passes that needed softer hands. Kicks went to hands not grass, Bronocs basically had his number all night. The fulltime play was him running backwards no tricks left other than pass to Morgan who worked his magic, angle run, drawing 3 men and offloading.
Oh and missed the sideline conversion that was hyped to a new stratosphere as career defining.

Agree with this 100%. Without Granville and Morgan's clutch plays, the Cowboys don't win that game.

It's a shame players have to be so over-hyped by commentators. People either fawn over them or there's a backlash against the hype and the cliched "overrated" tag comes out, which isn't really a criticism that should be leveled at any player.

I think one of the main reasons we get so much over the top praise from ex-player commentators (in particular) is because, apart from Gould and Sterling, hardly any of them are particularly articulate. It's so much easier to fap on about how amazing someone is than it is to actually critique them with any depth and meaning, in an articulate way.

Hence why we have to endure Thurston getting the credit for a try set up by Granville because of how much respect the opposition have for him or hearing about how competitive he is because he was where the ball was kicked to. Hence why every Andrew Johns commentary has him earmarking every second rookie player as a future superstar or telling us how incredibly big the player's thighs are. As good a player as Johns was and as average a coach as Matt Elliot was, I'd swap the two of them as commentators/analysts in a split second.