The Rugby League GOAT

[Damien]

51 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. 

Indeed, they were revolutionary and changed the game.

[Cerulean]

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply.

Only a vague suggestion, but I like the 10,000 hours idea: that to achieve national/international level ability in any field requires something like 10,000 hours of investment. Not to be underestimated is the value of incidental skill acquisition by “playing” 10,000 hours of rugby in its various formats, often in the presence of those already at the top level, which is what the young players of that era did. Of course, only a tiny percentage also had the other qualities required to advance to the top levels, but they took with them an enormously high level of skill. Coaching formalises skill acquisition, but those players had had so much involvement in the parameters of the sport that much of what was required was completely instinctive.

[Cerulean]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

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

We each see what we wish to see.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply.

Only a vague suggestion, but I like the 10,000 hours idea: that to achieve national/international level ability in any field requires something like 10,000 hours of investment. Not to be underestimated is the value of incidental skill acquisition by “playing” 10,000 hours of rugby in its various formats, often in the presence of those already at the top level, which is what the young players of that era did. Of course, only a tiny percentage also had the other qualities required to advance to the top levels, but they took with them an enormously high level of skill. Coaching formalises skill acquisition, but those players had had so much involvement in the parameters of the sport that much of what was required was completely instinctive.

I also agree with the 10,000 hours.  But in many areas of life, 10,000 hours is pretty useless unless someone teaches me how to do something.  I could sit at a piano for 10,000 hours and make noises with the keys but unless someone teaches me to play properly and read music then I would be just as useless at playing the piano at the end of the 10,000 hours than I was at the beginning.

And the same with Rugby.  I could be immersed in the game for many many hours but there would be flaws in my game if someone were not coaching me to get better.

Core skills in the modern game are far better than any era before because players are coached far better than ever - from juniors through to professionals.

I am not arguing this makes the game better overall, there was something evocative about naturally talented players playing off the cuff and by instinct and I have said many times on these boards that I probably enjoyed the game more in the 80's 90's than today while still recognizing that the modern players are technically superior and overall more skillful.

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

We each see what we wish to see.

Indeed. A statement like players in the 50s and 60s having skills far in excess of the modern day player is frankly laughable and shows that. My nostalgic period would be the 80s and early 90s, when players were more skilful than the 50s and 60s, but on the whole most players from that generation couldn't hold a candle to todays player.

We also played RL constantly as you describe through school, amateur and outside in the street but looking back certainly were not developed or taught in the way that kids are today. Even now younger relations are teaching me things I have never known or been taught. It was only in the 80s and early 90s that we had one of the GB greats in Andy Gregory that could only pass one way and turned his back. In a far more professional era than the 50s or 60s too.

I think people put down and don't appreciate just how skilful todays players are and how much time, coaching and effort is required to attain that skill level. The skills of the modern player are a culmination of all the learning and research that has gone before.

[Cerulean]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

 A statement like players in the 50s and 60s having skills far in excess of the modern day player is frankly laughable and shows that.

I think people put down and don't appreciate just how skilful todays players are and how much time, coaching and effort is required to attain that skill level. The skills of the modern player are a culmination of all the learning and research that has gone before.

There’s an inevitable conclusion to this line of thinking: that the present players surpass all those who have gone before, in terms of skill. I’ll keep this in mind when I watch the first round of SL fixtures.

Can I suggest that "frankly laughable" is a disappointing response in a discussion. At least it is in my circles. Please have the last word. I shall not respond.

[Smudger06]

I think the number one criteria to get a group of players you could work with which contains the GOAT would be how many times a player has been selected to represent their country? So I'd group every player whose earned at least 30 caps for England / GB, Aus or NZ as step 1.......

[bobbruce]

5 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

I think the number one criteria to get a group of players you could work with which contains the GOAT would be how many times a player has been selected to represent their country? So I'd group every player whose earned at least 30 caps for England / GB, Aus or NZ as step 1.......

That would immediately rule  Volenhoven and Bevan out and I’m sure others. Now I’m not saying they are the GOAT but they are closer to it than quite a few GB Aussie and Kiwi internationals with 30 caps. 

[Maximus Decimus]

15 hours ago, Cerulean said:

There’s an inevitable conclusion to this line of thinking: that the present players surpass all those who have gone before, in terms of skill. I’ll keep this in mind when I watch the first round of SL fixtures.

Can I suggest that "frankly laughable" is a disappointing response in a discussion. At least it is in my circles. Please have the last word. I shall not respond.

There comes an inevitable point when things can only progress so much. I think it's hard to argue that SL has come on much if at all in the last 10 years.

A good example is something like track and field, where you can objectively look at times. Some events have progressed (100m) but some haven't in 40/50 years (long jump). 

RL also has the problem of declining player numbers and an ever smaller pool to pick from. This is bound to have an effect on standard. 

 

[Maximus Decimus]

15 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

I think the number one criteria to get a group of players you could work with which contains the GOAT would be how many times a player has been selected to represent their country? So I'd group every player whose earned at least 30 caps for England / GB, Aus or NZ as step 1.......

I think this isn't a good way at all as it prioritises longevity over all else.

Fun fact, Sam Burgess only played 26 times for England or GB. 

He was easily the best English player of the last 20 years IMO. 

[Smudger06]

2 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think this isn't a good way at all as it prioritises longevity over all else.

Fun fact, Sam Burgess only played 26 times for England or GB. 

He was easily the best English player of the last 20 years IMO. 

True but longevity at the highest level must surely be a major factor of been GOAT. 

[Wigan Riversider]

3 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think this isn't a good way at all as it prioritises longevity over all else.

Fun fact, Sam Burgess only played 26 times for England or GB. 

He was easily the best English player of the last 20 years IMO. 

Fine player however I rate Samkins higher.

[Damien]

4 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

There comes an inevitable point when things can only progress so much. I think it's hard to argue that SL has come on much if at all in the last 10 years.

A good example is something like track and field, where you can objectively look at times. Some events have progressed (100m) but some haven't in 40/50 years (long jump). 

RL also has the problem of declining player numbers and an ever smaller pool to pick from. This is bound to have an effect on standard. 

 

Agreed. Obviously the biggest leap is going to come from the initial jump from part time to full time then the subsequent gains on the back of that.

I think in terms of sheer athleticism players have been continued to develop over the last two or three decades since the game went full time, particularly in the NRL as training improves and with changes to the rules. The influx of PI athletes has probably distorted that somewhat too. Super League suffers somewhat due to the number of games and weather I feel when it comes to conditioning.

We are now definitely getting into diminishing returns territory though. 

[bobbruce]

7 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think this isn't a good way at all as it prioritises longevity over all else.

Fun fact, Sam Burgess only played 26 times for England or GB. 

He was easily the best English player of the last 20 years IMO. 

Most of the players in the rugby league hall of fame didn’t get to 30 GB caps. 

[Maximus Decimus]

7 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

True but longevity at the highest level must surely be a major factor of been GOAT. 

Not when that longevity is cut short by injury. Whether or not you are the GOAT shouldn't be dependent on when you were forced to retire.

[Smudger06]

40 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Not when that longevity is cut short by injury. Whether or not you are the GOAT shouldn't be dependent on when you were forced to retire.

If your career has been cut short by injury and you haven't got selected and capped enough times in tests for one of the big 3 national teams, that's unfortunate, you simply ain't the GOAT. 

[Maximus Decimus]

15 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

If your career has been cut short by injury and you haven't got selected and capped enough times in tests for one of the big 3 national teams, that's unfortunate, you simply ain't the GOAT. 

Luck with injury isn't something that defines the GOAT. We're not exactly talking about somebody who's career is cut short at 23 but someone who due to injury had to stop a couple of years early or had a couple of seasons cut short due to injury or suspension. 

Take Andrew Johns as the perfect example. One of only 13 RL immortals (and the only one to have played in the 2000s), one of only 3 men to win the RL Golden Boot twice (Thurston did it 3 times) an yet you don't think he can be considered for the GOAT because he had to retire at 32 and didn't get over the required number of games for Australia.

Nonsense.

 

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Luck with injury isn't something that defines the GOAT. We're not exactly talking about somebody who's career is cut short at 23 but someone who due to injury had to stop a couple of years early or had a couple of seasons cut short due to injury or suspension. 

Take Andrew Johns as the perfect example. One of only 13 RL immortals (and the only one to have played in the 2000s), one of only 3 men to win the RL Golden Boot twice (Thurston did it 3 times) an yet you don't think he can be considered for the GOAT because he had to retire at 32 and didn't get over the required number of games for Australia.

Nonsense.

 

I do actually believe that Andrew John's is a truly great player but there are a number of Aussies whom are perhaps stronger contenders for GOAT than him as well as other nationalities. 

[Mr Frisky]

On 14/02/2021 at 17:01, Damien said:

Indeed. A statement like players in the 50s and 60s having skills far in excess of the modern day player is frankly laughable and shows that. My nostalgic period would be the 80s and early 90s, when players were more skilful than the 50s and 60s, but on the whole most players from that generation couldn't hold a candle to todays player.

Totally agree and the same in all sports, modern players stand head and shoulders any player from the 60s and 70s...  In Cricket Sir Garfield Sobers couldbt compete, in golf I bet Nicholas, Player etc wouldn't even make the cut these days.. in Football Jimmy Greaves wouldn't score a goal in today Premier League as the standard is that high and Bobby Moore would be there for the taking for great modern players like Rashford.......Hang on a minute....

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

I'm too young to have seen him, but the greatest player of all time is Alex Murphy. How do I know this? well he told me at a rugby dinner a few years ago.

On a more serious note, a couple of old pros who played against him at the back end of his career told me Murphy was the best they'd ever played against.

I'm not sure who I'd pick, I've been fortunate to have seen so many great players, but in my eyes, Hanley is unquestionably the greatest British player I ever saw and he stands comparison against all the best Aussies. Out of the Aussies I've seen, I struggle to find anyone better than Lockyer, Johns and Thurston, all for different reasons.