The Rugby League GOAT

[Rupert Prince]

34 minutes ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Lewis try on tackle 7 was test 3 at Central Park. Hanley played in neither the club game nor the test at Wigan.

It must have been worrying for the opposition that Meninga was not first choice.

[Wigan Riversider]

17 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It must have been worrying for the opposition that Meninga was not first choice.

Strange selection IMHO.

However, as the original poster indicated: Smith GOAT...no way.

[Mumby Magic]

Thing is for me Smith isn't the best Aussie I've seen. 2 ahead for me are Andrew Johns and Meninga.

[GeordieSaint]

6 hours ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Going off topic slightly.

Please forgive me everyone.

I am delighted that one name hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread and I will not include it.

His son isunion captain.

Not a patch on Sculthorpe...

[GeordieSaint]

Someone has already mentioned... it’s always hard to bridge the generational gap in these types of discussions.

Don’t really remember Hanley (less the ‘90 test match at Wembley. Lockyer and Smith have been amazing in my generation. Sculthorpe and Roby another two from a club point of you; don’t think anyone else from an English perspective have come slower to the standards set by those two IMO. But from those four, I’d plump for Lockyer. Amazing player.

[Dave T]

I would say that as British RL fans (in the main) we shouldn't be under any illusion that our top players shouldn't be held in the same regard as the top NRL players. We have seen throughout history that our top players can do a very good job in the NRL, and we are seeing it now with a few of them. 

The big difference is number of top quality players rather than the quality of those at the very top, although I'd definitely say that the Aussie (and maybe Kiwis) have had the advantage over halves for the last 20 years or so. 

With some of the players that have done OK over there, there is no reason to discount the likes of Sinfield, Farrell, Peacock, Roby and others because they played SL only. 

[Mr Frisky]

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

If Hanley and Smith were in the same side, the coaches message to Smith would be "get it to Hanley".

Great post - thread is now closed.

[The Rocket]

3 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Someone has already mentioned... it’s always hard to bridge the generational gap in these types of discussions.

Don’t really remember Hanley (less the ‘90 test match at Wembley. Lockyer and Smith have been amazing in my generation. Sculthorpe and Roby another two from a club point of you; don’t think anyone else from an English perspective have come slower to the standards set by those two IMO. But from those four, I’d plump for Lockyer. Amazing player.

 

12 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Good debate this. I would have to grudgingly say that someone like Smith is always up there. He makes the right decisions, he picks the right passes, he creates the conditions for the flair players to do their stuff, he just stubbornly refuses to lose.

For me it would be Lockyer. Many of the same characteristics - almost ridiculously spot on with his decisions, complete mastery of the basics - AND with a number of standout moments that make for a hell of a highlights reel.

I had a hard time splitting Lockyer and Thurston, I ended up going for Thurston because I thought he wasn`t in a team surrounded by other stars like Locky, Thurston often had to make it happen for the Cowboys on his own.

Having said that there were plenty of times Locky made it happen on his own as well, you`re dead right about his highlights reel.

 

[The Rocket]

I suppose there are a number of factors to consider when choosing the GOAT.

Does the fact that a player could excel in more than one position outweigh the complete mastery that one player may have had on a single position.

Didn`t see a lot of Hanley, but from what I remember he was very strong and highly evasive with speed as well, could probably play anywhere in the backline, lock and could probably held his own in the second row. That`s quite a range, but was he an organiser, how were his ball skills and ability to put players through gaps. I don`t remember England winning too many Test matches so did he have that ability to get his team home with a last minute bit of brilliance and decision making like Lockyer.

Like I said is this a debate about a bloke who excelled in a number of positions or a bloke who was an out and out stand out in one.

 

[Mr Frisky]

5 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I suppose there are a number of factors to consider when choosing the GOAT.

Does the fact that a player could excel in more than one position outweigh the complete mastery that one player may have had on a single position.

Didn`t see a lot of Hanley, but from what I remember he was very strong and highly evasive with speed as well, could probably play anywhere in the backline, lock and could probably held his own in the second row. That`s quite a range, but was he an organiser, how were his ball skills and ability to put players through gaps. I don`t remember England winning too many Test matches so did he have that ability to get his team home with a last minute bit of brilliance and decision making like Lockyer.

Like I said is this a debate about a bloke who excelled in a number of positions or a bloke who was an out and out stand out in one.

 

To be fair he played most of his international matches for GB - im sure he only played for England a few times....

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

To be fair he played most of his international matches for GB - im sure he only played for England a few times....

Yeah mate their interchangeable to me, more the point I was making was he the type of player that put players through gaps, threw cut-out passes, had the deft kicking game short and long, dragged his team over the line with a last minute bit of brilliance, or was he just exciting to watch because he was so evasive, could break a tackle because he was strong and scored a lot of tries.

As I said in my earlier post does the fact that he could do that in a number of positions outweigh perhaps a bloke who had complete mastery over one position.

 

[Mr Frisky]

3 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah mate their interchangeable to me, more the point I was making was he the type of player that put players through gaps, threw cut-out passes, had the deft kicking game short and long, dragged his team over the line with a last minute bit of brilliance, or was he just exciting to watch because he was so evasive, could break a tackle because he was strong and scored a lot of tries.

As I said in my earlier post does the fact that he could do that in a number of positions outweigh perhaps a bloke who had complete mastery over one position.

 

Think the point with Hanley is that he was the master of just about all the backline positions and was also great to watch- he was that good.

[MrPosh]

Even amongst his contemporaries, the peak of Smith's game wasn't that high. He couldn't do the things that Slater, Thurston and even Inglis could. 

You can extend that out over years and find plenty of players who could find higher highs than Smith.

But I bet you can't find one with a higher average per game rating. Almost every game, out of a very long career, would have been an eight or nine.

Depends whether you want your GOAT to be the one with the most tens or the highest average.

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah mate their interchangeable to me, more the point I was making was he the type of player that put players through gaps, threw cut-out passes, had the deft kicking game short and long, dragged his team over the line with a last minute bit of brilliance, or was he just exciting to watch because he was so evasive, could break a tackle because he was strong and scored a lot of tries.

As I said in my earlier post does the fact that he could do that in a number of positions outweigh perhaps a bloke who had complete mastery over one position.

 

Hanley did have complete mastery over one position though. Arguably he had complete mastery over more than one position too.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Think the point with Hanley is that he was the master of just about all the backline positions and was also great to watch- he was that good.

And that`s the key isn`t it, it`s the number of positions. 

The variation in skills can probably be roughly put into three groups here, backs (fullback, wing, centre), halves (halfback or five-eight, could possibly include hooker) and forwards ( lock and possibly backrow) I think we can discount front row as there is very little latitude for their playing in other positions, although very good centres have gone onto being great props like Arthur Beetson.

Hanley`s claim to GOAT could be that he excelled across three categories, players like Inglis, Daley, Kenny, two categories, Lockyer and Thurston, champion halves, would have made great centres but were never required to, but none of these players were robust enough to play in in the forwards. The only player that comes close would be Wally Lewis, Wally could have played centre, halves or back-row, but I don`t know if Wally had the work ethic, he was a big game player who turned it on for the big occasions. Was Paul Sculthorpe fast enough to be a centre early in his career, he was another match winner who could possibly span categories.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but did Hanley have a similar running style to Jason Robinson, jinking evasive style with acceleration and speed, blokes who have a very good centre of balance, which they use to be evasive and beat the opposition. Kenny, Daley et. al. perhaps more evasive with their speed and swerve, with the step coming after that.

I think there is an important distinction in there, especially when it comes to longevity, proneness to leg injuries and being able to move into the forwards.

My thoughts on Hanley was that he was a black man of African descent, he had that jinking, athleticism, power  and robustness that a lot of black athletes have and we need more of them in the game, and they will be stand-outs in any era.

BTW Wendell Sailor rated Jason Robinson as the best winger he ever played against, the one he feared the most, and he played against quite a few in both codes. It`s that jinking evasive running style that is key.

 

 

[ghost crayfish]

Brad Fittler was another who was equally good at centre, five eighth or lock. He was rated the NRL's best player in each position at different times in his career, and comfortably interchanged between them throughout club and rep career. He was a pure talent. Maybe not quite as brilliant a ball runner as Hanley, but I'd argue a better ball player. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

5 hours ago, The Rocket said:

And that`s the key isn`t it, it`s the number of positions. 

The variation in skills can probably be roughly put into three groups here, backs (fullback, wing, centre), halves (halfback or five-eight, could possibly include hooker) and forwards ( lock and possibly backrow) I think we can discount front row as there is very little latitude for their playing in other positions, although very good centres have gone onto being great props like Arthur Beetson.

Hanley`s claim to GOAT could be that he excelled across three categories, players like Inglis, Daley, Kenny, two categories, Lockyer and Thurston, champion halves, would have made great centres but were never required to, but none of these players were robust enough to play in in the forwards. The only player that comes close would be Wally Lewis, Wally could have played centre, halves or back-row, but I don`t know if Wally had the work ethic, he was a big game player who turned it on for the big occasions. Was Paul Sculthorpe fast enough to be a centre early in his career, he was another match winner who could possibly span categories.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but did Hanley have a similar running style to Jason Robinson, jinking evasive style with acceleration and speed, blokes who have a very good centre of balance, which they use to be evasive and beat the opposition. Kenny, Daley et. al. perhaps more evasive with their speed and swerve, with the step coming after that.

I think there is an important distinction in there, especially when it comes to longevity, proneness to leg injuries and being able to move into the forwards.

My thoughts on Hanley was that he was a black man of African descent, he had that jinking, athleticism, power  and robustness that a lot of black athletes have and we need more of them in the game, and they will be stand-outs in any era.

BTW Wendell Sailor rated Jason Robinson as the best winger he ever played against, the one he feared the most, and he played against quite a few in both codes. It`s that jinking evasive running style that is key.

 

 

The thing about Hanley was that he was much much more than a great athlete.

Sure he had athleticism and in some situations that was enough.

But he also knew how to fully exploit that and bring his teammates into play.

He possessed skill and he had a mind too.

[Dave T]

I think it's an interesting discussion about being able to play various positions, but I dont think that is something that necessarily means you are a better or worse player. I think it is a feature of your play, but doesn't necessarily mean you are better. 

The one thing I really can't get away from though is that anyone classed as GOAT really does need to be a player who excites you, who makes you want to put the tv on, or pay to watch. Coaches may rate 50 tackles and zero errors, but that isn't what excites me. I think this is why I could never class Smith as GOAT, even though I understand why others can. I'd choose Lockyer, Thurston and Slater from the recent Aussie game above him. 

It's an interesting thread, for sure. 

[Live after death]

16 hours ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Strange selection IMHO.

However, as the original poster indicated: Smith GOAT...no way.

The 86 roo’s had king Wally at 6, Gene miles and Kenny at centre, Meninga was coming back from some nasty arm breaks

always though Kenny played in the Modern game would be  Fullback his game would suit the modern fullback.

[Mr Frisky]

An other way to look at this would be to say if you were picking a best ever 13 would your favourite player get in?

In that case Hanley would get in and would be an option for a number of positions but the likes of Smith may not even get in the 13.

[Dunbar]

7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Correct me if I am wrong here, but did Hanley have a similar running style to Jason Robinson, jinking evasive style with acceleration and speed, blokes who have a very good centre of balance, which they use to be evasive and beat the opposition. Kenny, Daley et. al. perhaps more evasive with their speed and swerve, with the step coming after that.

Hanley had a very different running style to Robinson.  While he had good footwork and evasion, he didn't have the jinking style you describe.  The hallmark of Hanley's running style was what happend when someone tried to tackle him... his ability to break tackles is absolutely unprecedented.

How best to describe Hanley's game to someone who didn't see a lot of him.

His main strength was his ball running - without doubt.  The most devastating runner of the ball I have ever seen.  But that didn't mean that he lacked other skills.  He was a skilfull passer of the ball - just he didn't need to pass as often as most, in fact the main goal of any team with Hanley in it was to pass the ball to him.

His kicking game was also excellent - again while not used often.  To get a taste of his ability, watch the first test between Great Britain and Australia in 1990.  For Eastwood's try, Hanley broke the tackles of McGaw and Paul Sironen and chipped over the defence and regathered before being held just before the line (37:15).  Then for Offiah's try Hanley put up a bomb and pressured Belcher who made the mistake (46:40).

(815) Kangaroos vs Great Britain 1990 1st Test - English Commentary - YouTube

Why did Hanley move from the wing to the center?  To get him closer to the ball and the ball closer to Hanley as he was a match winner.  When he moved to 6 he was the most devastating ball runner in the world.

Then when he went to 13 he had a huge engine in attack and defence and was still able to come up with brilliant plays.  To think that Hanley was just about highlights massively underestimates how much work he did in a game.

In modern terms, think of a player like Jason Taumalolo who is the most effective metre eater in the Aussie comp with a massive workrate and then throw in the tries that Wendall Sailor would score and you have a pretty good idea of how Hanley played Rugby League.

If I were picking a team from all the players I have ever seen play the game, I would select Hanley... ask him where he wanted to play and then pick the other 12 (and almost all of them would be Australian). 

[Wigan Riversider]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Hanley had a very different running style to Robinson.  While he had good footwork and evasion, he didn't have the jinking style you describe.  The hallmark of Hanley's running style was what happend when someone tried to tackle him... his ability to break tackles is absolutely unprecedented.

How best to describe Hanley's game to someone who didn't see a lot of him.

His main strength was his ball running - without doubt.  The most devastating runner of the ball I have ever seen.  But that didn't mean that he lacked other skills.  He was a skilfull passer of the ball - just he didn't need to pass as often as most, in fact the main goal of any team with Hanley in it was to pass the ball to him.

His kicking game was also excellent - again while not used often.  To get a taste of his ability, watch the first test between Great Britain and Australia in 1990.  For Eastwood's try, Hanley broke the tackles of McGaw and Paul Sironen and chipped over the defence and regathered before being held just before the line (37:15).  Then for Offiah's try Hanley put up a bomb and pressured Belcher who made the mistake (46:40).

(815) Kangaroos vs Great Britain 1990 1st Test - English Commentary - YouTube

Why did Hanley move from the wing to the center?  To get him closer to the ball and the ball closer to Hanley as he was a match winner.  When he moved to 6 he was the most devastating ball runner in the world.

Then when he went to 13 he had a huge engine in attack and defence and was still able to come up with brilliant plays.  To think that Hanley was just about highlights massively underestimates how much work he did in a game.

In modern terms, think of a player like Jason Taumalolo who is the most effective metre eater in the Aussie comp with a massive workrate and then throw in the tries that Wendall Sailor would score and you have a pretty good idea of how Hanley played Rugby League.

If I were picking a team from all the players I have ever seen play the game, I would select Hanley... ask him where he wanted to play and then pick the other 12 (and almost all of them would be Australian). 

What a superb post

[bobbruce]

The difficulty here is the number of different skills required for different positions means there’s no right answer really. Add to that the number of years the games been played means that if I picked a 13 with who I believe is the GOAT in each position. You could probably pick two or three different teams that you could make a case for. 

[bobbruce]

7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

The difficulty here is the number of different skills required for different positions means there’s no right answer really. Add to that the number of years the games been played means that if I picked a 13 with who I believe is the GOAT in each position. You could probably pick two or three different teams that you could make a case for. 

Thinking about this it’s even harder as I could name a GOAT 13 that I’ve never even seen play. That would be full of legends of the game that are still held in high regard 50,60,70 even 100+ years later. 

[dkw]

42 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Hanley had a very different running style to Robinson.  While he had good footwork and evasion, he didn't have the jinking style you describe.  The hallmark of Hanley's running style was what happend when someone tried to tackle him... his ability to break tackles is absolutely unprecedented.

How best to describe Hanley's game to someone who didn't see a lot of him.

His main strength was his ball running - without doubt.  The most devastating runner of the ball I have ever seen.  But that didn't mean that he lacked other skills.  He was a skilfull passer of the ball - just he didn't need to pass as often as most, in fact the main goal of any team with Hanley in it was to pass the ball to him.

His kicking game was also excellent - again while not used often.  To get a taste of his ability, watch the first test between Great Britain and Australia in 1990.  For Eastwood's try, Hanley broke the tackles of McGaw and Paul Sironen and chipped over the defence and regathered before being held just before the line (37:15).  Then for Offiah's try Hanley put up a bomb and pressured Belcher who made the mistake (46:40).

(815) Kangaroos vs Great Britain 1990 1st Test - English Commentary - YouTube

Why did Hanley move from the wing to the center?  To get him closer to the ball and the ball closer to Hanley as he was a match winner.  When he moved to 6 he was the most devastating ball runner in the world.

Then when he went to 13 he had a huge engine in attack and defence and was still able to come up with brilliant plays.  To think that Hanley was just about highlights massively underestimates how much work he did in a game.

In modern terms, think of a player like Jason Taumalolo who is the most effective metre eater in the Aussie comp with a massive workrate and then throw in the tries that Wendall Sailor would score and you have a pretty good idea of how Hanley played Rugby League.

If I were picking a team from all the players I have ever seen play the game, I would select Hanley... ask him where he wanted to play and then pick the other 12 (and almost all of them would be Australian). 

One thing that stood out for me was how often Hanley was in just the right place at the right time. OK most of that was because he spent half the match offside in attack  but his timing and vision was incredible.  He often went from one side of the pitch to the other to go to the space that was developing. As you say the way he seemed to easily step out of tackles was ridiculous. Some of his more famous tries sees him tackles about 5 times but he just brushes them off and keeps running.