The Rugby League GOAT

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Mr Frisky said:

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.

That's because when you're talking about the best players for your ultimate dream team, nobody is thinking about consistency, they are thinking about true talent and skill.

IMO the GOAT has to be someone who is first pick in the dream team, someone who played the game in a certain way that his peers couldn't match.

I honestly think if I'd been asked this question in isolation on Thursday, after hearing nobody else's opinions, I couldve sat there all day and wouldn't have even thought of Smith. 

[Maximus Decimus]

I'm interested in how Meninga hasn't been really mentioned in the discussions. I just know that when I was of the age that I could remember, Meninga was a huge force in the game.

It's similar to how I've not seen the name Inglis mentioned really at all. For a long time, his name was up there as the biggest NRL star - maybe it's because he's at Warrington

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I'm interested in how Meninga hasn't been really mentioned in the discussions. I just know that when I was of the age that I could remember, Meninga was a huge force in the game.

It's similar to how I've not seen the name Inglis mentioned really at all. For a long time, his name was up there as the biggest NRL star - maybe it's because he's at Warrington

Similarly, relatively few mentions of Andrew Johns, the most recent retiree to be inducted into the Australian Rugby League immortals.

[AB90]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Similarly, relatively few mentions of Andrew Johns, the most recent retiree to be inducted into the Australian Rugby League immortals.

A lot of good judges would put John's well ahead of Lockyer and Thurston

[Maximus Decimus]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Similarly, relatively few mentions of Andrew Johns, the most recent retiree to be inducted into the Australian Rugby League immortals.

At the time, he was certainly seen as the best in the game. He had everything a half-back would want. 

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Similarly, relatively few mentions of Andrew Johns, the most recent retiree to be inducted into the Australian Rugby League immortals.

Yep, more ant-Wire bias

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep, more ant-Wire bias

Tbf a decision to play for Wire has to put a mark against their decision making ability.

[Bring back the Boyd]

I think Hanley is probably the most consistently best player I have seen in the almost 50 years I have watched the game. I don’t really believe he had any ball handling skills or much of a kicking game— but he had everything else. The try he scored against Wire in the so called WW3 typifies him. I think his best positions were centre or loose forward and because of his great running ability, he wasn’t a slouch at 6.

Schofield seems not to be everyone’s cup of tea but I would certainly place him higher than the likes of Brett Kenny. He was a very skilful, dangerous player who caused problems for every team he played against, including the Aussies.

I only saw Alex Murphy at the back of his career and he must have been some player in his pomp.

 

[Cerulean]

44 minutes ago, Bring back the Boyd said:

I only saw Alex Murphy at the back of his career and he must have been some player in his pomp.

 

One opinion, and I cannot comment on those who came before, but Murphy was the best I’ve ever seen, and no one since has come near to equalling him. Tough, strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, are qualities taken as read, his footwork and eye for an opportunity and kicking were brilliant, his ball-handling, game awareness and organisational craft were unparalleled. In so many areas, he could do things that others could not. He was the boss of every game I saw him in.

Oh, and as a supporter of various Yorkshire sides, I hated him.

[Rupert Prince]

22 minutes ago, Bring back the Boyd said:

I think Hanley is probably the most consistently best player I have seen in the almost 50 years I have watched the game. I don’t really believe he had any ball handling skills or much of a kicking game— but he had everything else. The try he scored against Wire in the so called WW3 typifies him. I think his best positions were centre or loose forward and because of his great running ability, he wasn’t a slouch at 6.

Schofield seems not to be everyone’s cup of tea but I would certainly place him higher than the likes of Brett Kenny. He was a very skilful, dangerous player who caused problems for every team he played against, including the Aussies.

I only saw Alex Murphy at the back of his career and he must have been some player in his pomp.

I'm surprised Murphy has been not listed more.

I can see why Schofield is pointed out and of course this is valid.  But I would put Kenny just that class above.  I don't been more classy, but just one level above. Of course how you measure that is the issue!!

2 things here.  One is that British players are regularly in beaten GB teams. Its difficult to compare.  Two - we are not looking at any older eras.  How can we forget Brian Bevan.  Or Billy Boston, not least the young Boston.  Can we really forget Jim Sullivan.  And to stay neutral, never easy, how can we forget Tom Van Vollenhoven? If only I could forget Alex Murphy...

It's never easy to forget eras where there are no film records.  Fortunately for cricketing buffs they can look at Don Bradman.   So stop and think how say, Murphy for one, would compare, in his pomp, in modern  conditions and conditioning, modern rules. Bevan never played for Australia, he died at Southport, and I suggest that under modern residency rules he might have played for GB.

I think people need to carefully  consider who they think is the greatest.

[Rupert Prince]

3 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

One opinion, and I cannot comment on those who came before, but Murphy was the best I’ve ever seen, and no one since has come near to equalling him. Tough, strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, are qualities taken as read, his footwork and eye for an opportunity and kicking were brilliant, his ball-handling, game awareness and organisational craft were unparalleled. In so many areas, he could do things that others could not. He was the boss of every game I saw him in.

Oh, and as a supporter of various Yorkshire sides, I hated him.

As a Wiganer I can assure you he was a ratbag.  Thats why he was so good of course...

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'm surprised Murphy has been not listed more.

I can see why Schofield is pointed out and of course this is valid.  But I would put Kenny just that class above.  I don't been more classy, but just one level above. Of course how you measure that is the issue!!

2 things here.  One is that British players are regularly in beaten GB teams. Its difficult to compare.  Two - we are not looking at any older eras.  How can we forget Brian Bevan.  Or Billy Boston, not least the young Boston.  Can we really forget Jim Sullivan.  And to stay neutral, never easy, how can we forget Tom Van Vollenhoven? If only I could forget Alex Murphy...

It's never easy to forget eras where there are no film records.  Fortunately for cricketing buffs they can look at Don Bradman.   So stop and think how say, Murphy for one, would compare, in his pomp, in modern  conditions and conditioning, modern rules. Bevan never played for Australia, he died at Southport, and I suggest that under modern residency rules he might have played for GB.

I think people need to carefully  consider who they think is the greatest.

People aren't forgetting those players but anyone under 70 wouldn't have seen those players play at their best. Unless we are just forming opinions based on records and highlights its impossible for most to consider them.

I think players today are light years ahead of players of yesteryear, once we get to the 80s it becomes a fundamentally different game with different conditioning. The Aussies and those great sides of the 80s changed everything. That is not to say that players from the 50s and 60s and beyond weren't good in their own right but they were very much of their time. Skills, fitness and practically everything was inferior. You are comparing players that trained a few nights a week with players that have received professional coaching and full time professional training methods from an early age. Even now some of the basic skills like how to hold a ball and pass it properly were practically unheard of in coaching kids just 30 years ago. Some of the greats may have made it in todays game with modern training and coaching but not all would.

[Rupert Prince]

Dear Damien...   in other words 'The Greatest Of ALL Time' is pointless.

[Damien]

Just now, Rupert Prince said:

Dear Damien...   in other words 'The Greatest Of ALL Time' is pointless.

In other words you didn't understand what I wrote. As rugby players the players you mention were inferior. They were greats of their time and legends of the game. They aren't the greatest of all time though.

[Mr Frisky]

9 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Dear Damien...   in other words 'The Greatest Of ALL Time' is pointless.

Spoilsport 

[Wigan Riversider]

3 hours ago, Bring back the Boyd said:

I think Hanley is probably the most consistently best player I have seen in the almost 50 years I have watched the game. I don’t really believe he had any ball handling skills or much of a kicking game— but he had everything else. The try he scored against Wire in the so called WW3 typifies him. I think his best positions were centre or loose forward and because of his great running ability, he wasn’t a slouch at 6.

Schofield seems not to be everyone’s cup of tea but I would certainly place him higher than the likes of Brett Kenny. He was a very skilful, dangerous player who caused problems for every team he played against, including the Aussies.

I only saw Alex Murphy at the back of his career and he must have been some player in his pomp.

 

Schofield was indeed world class and I believe is/was in the Balmain Hall of Fame and wth good reason.

However. GOAT...nope.

[Wigan Riversider]

2 hours ago, Cerulean said:

One opinion, and I cannot comment on those who came before, but Murphy was the best I’ve ever seen, and no one since has come near to equalling him. Tough, strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, are qualities taken as read, his footwork and eye for an opportunity and kicking were brilliant, his ball-handling, game awareness and organisational craft were unparalleled. In so many areas, he could do things that others could not. He was the boss of every game I saw him in.

Oh, and as a supporter of various Yorkshire sides, I hated him.

I am too young() to have seen Murphy the player but I am of the belief that he was a great number 7Met him once.

Best number 7 I saw and met personally was Sterling.

IMHO neither are GOAT. Smith doesn't figure.

 

 

[Maximus Decimus]

12 minutes ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Schofield was indeed world class and I believe is/was in the Balmain Hall of Fame and wth good reason.

However. GOAT...nope.

Surely you have to win a trophy to be GOAT. 

[Cerulean]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

I think players today are light years ahead of players of yesteryear, once we get to the 80s it becomes a fundamentally different game with different conditioning. The Aussies and those great sides of the 80s changed everything. That is not to say that players from the 50s and 60s and beyond weren't good in their own right but they were very much of their time. Skills, fitness and practically everything was inferior. You are comparing players that trained a few nights a week with players that have received professional coaching and full time professional training methods from an early age. Even now some of the basic skills like how to hold a ball and pass it properly were practically unheard of in coaching kids just 30 years ago. Some of the greats may have made it in todays game with modern training and coaching but not all would.

Brought up in a Rugby League town the 50s and 60, kids played rugby league - touch and pass, grab, full contact; in parks, gardens, streets, fields, playgrounds - to such exclusivity that they clocked up hundreds of hours a year, thousands of hours of adolescence, of passing and catching, running and footwork, reading the structure, finding the spaces, evaluating the opposition. It was all-enveloping, from setting off for school until being called in after dark. (I believe there are stories of Murphy being trained by his junior school headteacher during playtime) So widespread was the amateur game then that by the mid teens, the best and toughest  had a wide choice of pathways for progress. I can assure you that their skills - in these areas - were far, far in excess of those of modern players who mostly arrive at the sport by a much different route.

Strength, stamina, endurance, power, even speed, are attributes - not skills - attainable to those with the right attitude and genes, and those players of the 50s and 60s would have obtained them, with the same opportunities as the modern players.

As you say, different eras, different games. An enjoyable discussion, though.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

People aren't forgetting those players but anyone under 70 wouldn't have seen those players play at their best. Unless we are just forming opinions based on records and highlights its impossible for most to consider them.

I think players today are light years ahead of players of yesteryear, once we get to the 80s it becomes a fundamentally different game with different conditioning. The Aussies and those great sides of the 80s changed everything. That is not to say that players from the 50s and 60s and beyond weren't good in their own right but they were very much of their time. Skills, fitness and practically everything was inferior. You are comparing players that trained a few nights a week with players that have received professional coaching and full time professional training methods from an early age. Even now some of the basic skills like how to hold a ball and pass it properly were practically unheard of in coaching kids just 30 years ago. Some of the greats may have made it in todays game with modern training and coaching but not all would.

I once heard that they marvelled about an Aussie team (maybe 82 Kangaroos?) because they could run and pass at the same time.

I thought this was ridiculous and went and watched some classic games and would you know... they stopped still every time they got the ball. 

[Wigan Riversider]

20 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Surely you have to win a trophy to be GOAT. 

Think he won Yorkshire Cup, Regal/JPS trophy

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Brought up in a Rugby League town the 50s and 60, kids played rugby league - touch and pass, grab, full contact; in parks, gardens, streets, fields, playgrounds - to such exclusivity that they clocked up hundreds of hours a year, thousands of hours of adolescence, of passing and catching, running and footwork, reading the structure, finding the spaces, evaluating the opposition. It was all-enveloping, from setting off for school until being called in after dark. (I believe there are stories of Murphy being trained by his junior school headteacher during playtime) So widespread was the amateur game then that by the mid teens, the best and toughest  had a wide choice of pathways for progress. I can assure you that their skills - in these areas - were far, far in excess of those of modern players who mostly arrive at the sport by a much different route.

Strength, stamina, endurance, power, even speed, are attributes - not skills - attainable to those with the right attitude and genes, and those players of the 50s and 60s would have obtained them, with the same opportunities as the modern players.

As you say, different eras, different games. An enjoyable discussion, though.

It is an interesting discussion. 

I would say with your description of kids being immersed in the game and drawing out their ability it talent you are describing, not necessarily skills. The talented players came to the fore in these eras and yes they were very skilful.

But alongside strength, power, endurance, power and speed, skills can be coached. Talent is natural but skills, across all sports, are the the combination of talent and application. You can become more skilful if you are well coached and you work hard. You cannot become more talented.

This is one of the misconceptions of the game in the 80's and 90's. People say that the Aussies were so far ahead of us because of their conditioning and professional attitude. But it was more than that, it was because they were much more skilful as well. This is because the game had gone through a revolution in professionalism and coaching skills had become part of the norm rather than just identifying talent.

I have no doubts that the greats of yesteryear would be greats today but on average the modern players are much more skilful because they have been coached far better.

[Wigan Riversider]

25 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I once heard that they marvelled about an Aussie team (maybe 82 Kangaroos?) because they could run and pass at the same time.

I thought this was ridiculous and went and watched some classic games and would you know... they stopped still every time they got the ball. 

Andy Goodway was a classic example of running-stopping-passing

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

In other words you didn't understand what I wrote. As rugby players the players you mention were inferior. They were greats of their time and legends of the game. They aren't the greatest of all time though.

I was following you.  And it's fair enough.  But we are talking about ALL time.  Not just looking at players who have just got to be considered at a small siver of time.  You cannot ignore 100years+ of history.  

[Damien]

50 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Brought up in a Rugby League town the 50s and 60, kids played rugby league - touch and pass, grab, full contact; in parks, gardens, streets, fields, playgrounds - to such exclusivity that they clocked up hundreds of hours a year, thousands of hours of adolescence, of passing and catching, running and footwork, reading the structure, finding the spaces, evaluating the opposition. It was all-enveloping, from setting off for school until being called in after dark. (I believe there are stories of Murphy being trained by his junior school headteacher during playtime) So widespread was the amateur game then that by the mid teens, the best and toughest  had a wide choice of pathways for progress. I can assure you that their skills - in these areas - were far, far in excess of those of modern players who mostly arrive at the sport by a much different route.

Strength, stamina, endurance, power, even speed, are attributes - not skills - attainable to those with the right attitude and genes, and those players of the 50s and 60s would have obtained them, with the same opportunities as the modern players.

As you say, different eras, different games. An enjoyable discussion, though.

An awful lot of rose tinted nostalgia there. The footage simply does not back that up.