Rugby League team of the century?

Question

What do people think of the team of the century? Is that what people were expecting? Does anyone have any problems with it?

Answer 1

It was always going to create great debate between people.  Go to the pub that weekend and people would be talking about it.

My view, I was shocked they went for Johns over Sterling.  Some may say they are from different eras, but had their paths crossed when they were both at their peak, Sterling would have been streets ahead of Johns.

Answer 2

I think it is hard to compare players over a period of 100 years, and no-one is alive today that would be able to say that they watched players every year from 1908.

My opinion though, Langlands should have been in the centres. Fulton should have been 5/8. Lewis is an absolute champion and one of the greatest players I have ever seen at Origin level. I feel that Fulton was more dominant on a week to week basis than lewis though. Lewis coming off the bench at about the 25min mark would have been dynamic. Lazarus in the front row and Walters at hooker. As for Johns, he is the best player I have ever seen. This is just my opinion. But just for the record, anyone who thinks Johns should not be picked because he admitted to taking drugs, wake up and welcome to the year 2008. Ecstacy is not a performance enhancing drug, and he said that he didn't take it before a game. Even if he did, it doesnt make you run faster, stronger, or recover quicker. A "COURSE" of steroids does though, and he wasn't on that. I don't condone drugs, but I wonder what all the champions of the 60s and 70s that hit the grog and loved partying would have done if modern day options were available to them. Should Jonny Raper be excluded from the team because he loved alcohol (also a drug) and as he told me himself, that there were times that he himself was a "Rat". Johns is in because he is the best ever player! Pick it on talent not on your narrow minded morals.

Answer 3

there's always going to be debate when you compare players from 1 era to another, but i think if you asked most people (hypothetically) would you like to coach this team? the general consensus would be yes. my only prob was with Andrew johns, not because of his personal issues, i just always thought he was over-rated, he only looked so good because the rest of the team did their job IE:( the forwards went forward to set a good platform for him and the backs were always chasing threw on his kicks)

Answer 4

players these days alot smarter, fitter and stronger so i dont think they should have  picked the team of the century. It just wasent plausable

But i must say Andrew johns is the best footy player i have ever seen and deserved more then any 1 to be in the team

Answer 5

There will also be debate as the game changed so much. Little do many people know that Clive Churchill never scored a for Australia in 34 tests and only about thirty for South Sydney in career of over two hundred games. When you compare that to players these days even a Fullback not in national contenion such as Luke Patten would have scored at least one try in 34 tests in Australia. Other controveries I heard was Mal Meninga being selected ahead of others such as Bob Fulton, who played alot at 5/8 and wasn't always a center and Graeme Langlands who was a Fullback, why would you play those people out of position because they were a better Fullback or 5/8 then Meninga was a center. Also i thought that Glenn Lazurus and Steve Walters should have been picked instead of Noel Kelly and Duncan Hall and Wayne Bennent should have been the coach.

Answer 6

it lost my respect when they picked Johns.

I didnt know drug cheaters were eligible.

Answer 7

Its okay. The Andrew Johns thing stirred up the media though.

Answer 8

This question has been asked a lot...

[storm girl]