nothing bad here to say, omg!
have a look on the rear of the redemptions, WHERE do you send them to.
is that wangys addy.Not sure what you mean there Dave, can you elaborate?
is that wangys addy.
You make good points but anyone judging pre WW2 now would have to be 95-100 + Which means it’s really impossible to do . Fair enough years ago it would of been possible to a degree , but it would be pretty hard to judge players from the 20s and 30s for example, especially with such poor footage if any , and the limited people to actually make the call.The problem with the Immortals concept, it was always post-WWII players, who (pissed up) journos had seen, and was conducted by a RL magazine to sell port.
If they'd just gone with a Hall of Fame concept from the start, then we'd be fine. That they named players pre-WWII recently redresses some of the imbalance of the Immortals concept.
The arguments are long and varied as to who should be in and who should be out. The Hall of Fame would be about the 'best of the best' IMHO and blokes I loved watching like Sterlo and Brandy and Brad Clyde and Brad MacKay and Rod Wishart would get a good shot at inclusion. That Ron Coote has continually missed out, as has Irvine, is a crime - again, IMHO. Funny to think too, that a few years back, Lockyer was dead set automatic odds on 'next' Immortal. Now...you'd probably not say that. Cam Smith, Slater, JT would probably be the top of that list now. So tastes change. I'd have Fittler up there too. Again, again...IMHO.
You make good points but anyone judging pre WW2 now would have to be 95-100 + Which means it’s really impossible to do . Fair enough years ago it would of been possible to a degree , but it would be pretty hard to judge players from the 20s and 30s for example, especially with such poor footage if any , and the limited people to actually make the call.
Maybe the process of selection needed a freshen up but what will happen is every few years another 6 or so will be inducted .
If the NRL is making money off the process , possibly more .
To me personally the immortal tag should be reserved for players that have changed the game . Some of the names you mentioned deserve it in due time but it can’t be for good players , only the greats .
1-2 per decade would be ok . My first ever boss was a Dragons tragic and he used to always say you can only judge players over a decade anyway which I always agreed with .I'm pretty sure the NRL are looking at 1-2 per decade here on in.
The Immortals concept is flawed and it should be scrapped for a complete Hall of Fame, with 2-5 players per playing decade listed as Immortal status. But it's too late now. The horse has bolted.
joel, 666.Heard Joey called a lot of things , but never just a player lol
not aimed at you Joel.joel, 666.
I came from newcastle too, but I rated myslf as just a player.
would of loved to have done a 200th of what he done and survived, and still out ther earning a GREAT living for something he enjoys doing.
he is not a dragons player wish he was.
IMO you can all go jump in what ever water you can find, he deserves every accolade is bestowed upon him.
Hahaha can’t offend me anyway , my wife has taken away my feelings lol. I remember him drawing in a manly team then putting Albert over to win a grand final and also remember Ben Hunt making Thurston a heronot aimed at you Joel.
just love banter.
While I’m pumped to have another Lockyer sig, he’s in a section called Future Famers, yet he is already in the Hall of Fame. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?