2017 World Cup

Its a similar thing with Locky I reckon Dippy.

Lockyer was amazing, his open field running was great and his ball playing at fullback was awesome.

BUT, his ball playing from fullback wasnt as good as what Boyd does, or even what KHunt did. His kick returns weren't as good as hayne's or slater's, and his one on one defence was non existent.
When he moved to 6 he was great, but wasnt as good as Johns or JT in the halves, or even as good as Fittler IMO. Sure, Locky and Fittler had totally different styles tho.

Lockyer was great because he did a bit of everything at a really high, elite level whilst also captaining and organising the team and in two positions - but IMO, he never did anything the best ive ever seen except for maybe having time with the ball. He always looked like he had so much time when he had the ball.

Thats the difference between him and Johns/JT IMO. Johns, especially towards the back end of his career was the fucking best at controlling a set to get the outcome he wanted. The passing game, the pinpoint kicks, the defence, the banana kicks, the passion. Johns just seemed to control everything so perfectly, similarly to JT. Johns and JT both are the best I have ever seen at doing certain things.

No Worries wrote:Why Smith ? He's pedestrian at best compared to the rest of your list

?

Dip wrote:IMO (and I think Johns was fantastic), the lack of NSW success in the last decade has lead their supporters to over romanticise how great things from the past were (namely John's standing in League history). It's a bit like when people talk about how much better the football quality and crowds were back in the 80s. Then you see an old game on fox and in reality they were playing in front of 7000, at least one tackle every set was a jersey sling, and only about 2 players on the team could pass to the right without it being a moonball. Then you'd see a scrum.

See I see it the other way. People discredit anything NSW for every done because QLD have been so dominant. The QLD team gets over praised when they've beat guys like Terry Campese.

And the NSW upset in 2014 doesnt get enough credit IMO.
Beating the greatest team of all time with trent hodkinson and josh fucking reynolds in the halves

You might be right about Locky Pieman (but I disagree). I think Locky is a really good example of my point. As a result of how well he did at 5/8 people forgot how good a runner he was at fullback (he had something insane like 38 line breaks in 1998) and was really the first significant fullback to be a ball player in the modern style that is just about necessary in the modern game.

Hearing people talk about Slater as the best fullback ever to me is surprising. Though he improved since Hunt retired, Hunt was better when they were playing together, and Lockyer was better again.

Honeysett wrote:

See I see it the other way. People discredit anything NSW for every done because QLD have been so dominant. The QLD team gets over praised when they've beat guys like Terry Campese.

If you're going to use guys like Terry Campese as the example of who we beat it's only fair to admit NSW were beaten by guys like Neilsen, Hannah, O'Neill, Harrison, Mogg, Bell, Flannery, Shifkoske, Costigan etc

Dip wrote:You might be right about Locky Pieman (but I disagree). I think Locky is a really good example of my point. As a result of how well he did at 5/8 people forgot how good a runner he was at fullback (he had something insane like 38 line breaks in 1998) and was really the first significant fullback to be a ball player in the modern style that is just about necessary in the modern game.

Hearing people talk about Slater as the best fullback ever to me is surprising. Though he improved since Hunt retired, Hunt was better when they were playing together, and Lockyer was better again.

IMO - lockyer was a 6 that was put in fullback because he couldnt tackle. When he lost a bit of his pace, they put him in 6 and made sure he had excellent defenders around him to help him. The ball playing at fullback came because thats how he naturally played, as he was a 6 his whole life. He was an excellent kick returner, he use to smoke teams when they either 1. went 1 out to pressure his kicks and 2. didnt have a good set line when chasing a kick.

Like I said, he was elite in just about every aspect of attack but:
His fullback ball playing wasnt as good as Boyd or Khunts but people remember him as great because he was one of the first fbs to consistently do it
His kick returning wasnt as good as hayne or slater's use to be, even though it was still amazing
His half ball playing and game managment wasnt as good as Johns or JT and possibly fittler, but people were amazed that he was able to play 2 positions so well
His defence was below average, but people argue that by saying - he slowed them down for someone else to stop them or he had Tonie Chin there to do his tackling for him.

He was so good because he had all those aspects mixed into his game at once, plus he had those intangible's you cant really describe but he has never been the best I have ever seen at anything IMO.

He was the best at winning. Does that count?

Dip wrote:He was the best at winning. Does that count?

was he though?
I mean, he was pretty good at winning things but was he the best ever at it?

Pieman wrote:

was he though?
I mean, he was pretty good at winning things but was he the best ever at it?

I was being a bit of a smart arse, but at a guess I'd say he's won more tests than anyone, probably top 5 in origin and nrl wins, and since people actually had to get on a plane every now and then in club football, his 4 premierships would be up there with not many others.

I guess you could say he was the best at playing games too.

I was too mate..

but yep his longevity was pretty remarkable.

You can do that when you dont have to tackle your whole career

Pieman wrote:I was too mate..

but yep his longevity was pretty remarkable.

You can do that when you dont have to tackle your whole career

The entire Newcastle team should play 500 games then.

Dip wrote:IMO (and I think Johns was fantastic), the lack of NSW success in the last decade has lead their supporters to over romanticise how great things from the past were (namely John's standing in League history). It's a bit like when people talk about how much better the football quality and crowds were back in the 80s. Then you see an old game on fox and in reality they were playing in front of 7000, at least one tackle every set was a jersey sling, and only about 2 players on the team could pass to the right without it being a moonball. Then you'd see a scrum.

Like Wally Lewis. Toss up between him and Choc Mundine who the most over rated 5/8 is.

Dip wrote:
The entire Newcastle team should play 500 games then.

its amazing that, considering the amount and style of defence that johns played - that he played as many games as he did

No Worries wrote:


Like Wally Lewis. Toss up between him and Choc Mundine who the most over rated 5/8 is.

Wally Lewis' prime was before I was a teenager, so I didn't really see a huge amount of him, but from what I recall, when he went to the Sydney comp where it was a much stronger comp week to week, he never really stood out that much on a week to week basis. From what I recall, it was similar in the Brisbane comp, but in the big matches, he was almost unstoppable. Just the sort of guy who really stood out the bigger the game and the better the players. The sort of guy who would never win a Dally M, but was universally accepted as the best player in the game.

I had a work colleague who played in the BRL in the late 70's to mid 80's, who didn't like him, and he said that further than that, he also didn't do that much in club games either. He would do nothing for most of the game, then when it was on the line would do 3 big plays in 5 minutes that would win the game for Wynnum or Valleys. He said he was mom a few times because without him his team wouldn't have won, but he might have made 4 tackles and run the ball 3 times the whole match, but would have 2-3 try assists in a 10 minute period in a 16-10 victory. He says he never did much defence as opponents knew not to run at him, and often he'd be in the second line of defence anyway (as was the style in the day).