Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
not if they lost form since then, no.m1c said:
RLIF Player of the Year Awards
- Thread starter Foordy
- Start date
OXY-351
NRL Player
- Oct 1, 2008
- 2,182
- 916
if orford was playing better, yes.Anonymous person said:
im not sayng that just because Carney won the Dally M he should automatically get chosen - as we all know, people have won dally Ms when they shouldnt have. but even disregarding Carneys dally m win, he was in superb form for the second half of the season, much better than Lockyer.
if orford was in better form than Thurston for half the season leading up to the tests, then sure, drop Thurston for him. no problems with that from me.[/quote:g1h2ikmz]
I'd much rather stick with a proven player at that level (origin, inetrnational), than someone who has had ONE decent season at club level.
Don't forget that combinations play a big part in a side too. You'd have to weigh up whether Carney is actually playing THAT much better than Lockyer to warrant upsetting match winning combinations that have been forged over many seasons.
Yes, Carney had a good season, but I don't think Lockyer has done anything recently to justify him being replaced in the side.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
the australian side doesnt need combinations to win though. test matches are a walk in the park, as we've been seeing.OXY-351 said:
and Lockyer hasnt done anything to justify being picked either. didnt play the last what, 6 weeks of the season? didnt play in the finals either. Carney was on fire for the second half of the season and the finals. won the dally M player of the year too.
rugby league rep selectors have always been too much like the aussie cricket selectors - they just choose the guys who have 'been there done that', despite the fact that there are many other players out there playing better who could get the job done even better. its why players like Gidley keep getting chosen, and its why Lockyer was chosen over Carney. am i upset that Lockyer was chosen? no, hes a champion and i want him to break every rugby league record in the book. but to say he deserved the spot more than Carney just isnt true. what more can a player do to 'deserve' a test spot? take your team from last to the finals on the back of dominating 90% of the season from 2 positions? check. get to the grand final? check. win player of the year? check. win international player of the year? check. to say he doesnt deserve it is a joke.
the australian side doesnt need combinations to win though. test matches are a walk in the park, as we've been seeing.Anonymous person said:
and Lockyer hasnt done anything to justify being picked either. didnt play the last what, 6 weeks of the season? didnt play in the finals either. Carney was on fire for the second half of the season and the finals. won the dally M player of the year too.
rugby league rep selectors have always been too much like the aussie cricket selectors - they just choose the guys who have 'been there done that', despite the fact that there are many other players out there playing better who could get the job done even better. its why players like Gidley keep getting chosen, and its why Lockyer was chosen over Carney. am i upset that Lockyer was chosen? no, hes a champion and i want him to break every rugby league record in the book. but to say he deserved the spot more than Carney just isnt true. what more can a player do to 'deserve' a test spot? take your team from last to the finals on the back of dominating 90% of the season from 2 positions? check. get to the grand final? check. win player of the year? check. win international player of the year? check. to say he doesnt deserve it is a joke.[/quote:3j5gr7u2]
Years of performance and then STILL spitting out quality performances including a MOTM in origin and a quality back end to the season > flash in the pan
Are you also on the Hayne train AP? Going by that shouldn't he have had the fullback position over Slater last year? Maybe we would have won the World Cup..
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
and that comes back to the selectors being idiots, and incumbency being a stupid thing to base decisions on in rugby league.Nashy said:
basically theyre saying 'you have the spot until you dont want it anymore', which is stupid.
m1c - the Hayne/Slater choice is tougher, because even though hayne was carving up, Slater was playing excellent footy too. with Carney/Lockyer, Carney was carving up but Lockyer hadnt played for 3 months. if they hadve chosen Hayne over Slater, i wouldnt have thought much of it because Hayne was playing excellent footy, and deserved a shot.
some of you guys need to realise that Australian jerseys arent some mythical thing that players have to work for years and years and years to attain. its just another game, not even up to the same level as state of origin. if you play well enough for the year, you deserve to be selected for australia.
"Years of performance and then STILL spitting out quality performances including a MOTM in origin and a quality back end to the season"
quality back end to the season? when was the last game he played, like round 20? Carney had what you would call a quality back end of the season, no Lockyer. years of performance from lockyer shouldnt even come into the equation when selecting the team for this 4 nations. how does someone playing well 5 years ago mean they should get selected this year?
OXY-351
NRL Player
- Oct 1, 2008
- 2,182
- 916
Anonymous person said:
I dont' see why you have an issue with the whole incumbent thing. Players should earn the right to be selected for rep duties, and should be rewarded for that hard earnt jumper by still be selected until they bascially un-select themselves.
Lockyer may not have done anything over and above what Carney has done to be selected, but he also hasn't done anything to justify being dropped either. I agree that Carneys recent form has been better than Lockyers, and if they were at the same stage of their careers, I'd say Carney should get first shot, but they're not, and Lockyer has proven time and time again over a decade how valuable he is in rep teams - he should be rewarded for this more than someone who has one good season.
Given you bought cricket in to the argument, I thought this was a good artcile regarding selecting players based on only a short period of performance.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/you ... 5948010784
Lockyer was magnificent for the Broncos this year and is the Australian captain anyone who genuinely believes Carney should be the 5/8th ahead of him after a few very good months in the position at the back end of the season has NFI. You earn a test jumper and when you have been as successful and consistent as Darren has at club/soo/international levels you deserve to walk into the side after an injury especially after the season he was having up to his injury. It is no surprise the team nose dived after he got injured.
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
AP
I know where you are coming from - but Lockyer is just a player that should get picked even if he's in the shittest form ever. He's Locky - you don't just put someone over him because he had a better season. It's just the way it is and rightly so. Locky deserves that spot until he retires. You probably disagree with that concept - which is fair enough. With the current players ATM I think C Smith and Slater also deserve that 'no questions asked selection' process. That's just my 2 cents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The over hype of Carney is nothing new - don't get me wrong, he had a great season but this is like HAYNE 09. Once again gun players who get way too over hyped by the media as the "it" right now... honestly they've got nothing against C Smith, JT and Slater IMO. Those 3 have performed at an amazing consistency for how many seasons now?
Prince not being selected in REP teams? Nothing new - for some reason he's the last resort... I've never understood that.
I know where you are coming from - but Lockyer is just a player that should get picked even if he's in the shittest form ever. He's Locky - you don't just put someone over him because he had a better season. It's just the way it is and rightly so. Locky deserves that spot until he retires. You probably disagree with that concept - which is fair enough. With the current players ATM I think C Smith and Slater also deserve that 'no questions asked selection' process. That's just my 2 cents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The over hype of Carney is nothing new - don't get me wrong, he had a great season but this is like HAYNE 09. Once again gun players who get way too over hyped by the media as the "it" right now... honestly they've got nothing against C Smith, JT and Slater IMO. Those 3 have performed at an amazing consistency for how many seasons now?
Prince not being selected in REP teams? Nothing new - for some reason he's the last resort... I've never understood that.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
The Rock said:
This.
You don't earn a REPRESENTATIVE jumper by simply playing better football for 1 year straight. You earn it by proving yourself at that level, you earn it by playing well for your own team, you earn it by playing quality football over a NUMBER OF YEARS. This is an AUSTRALIAN jumper we're talking about. The highest possible honour you can achieve in rugby league is playing for your country. There is nothing higher. Darren Lockyer should (and probably is) the first one picked in every single Test match there has been for the past 5-10 years, and rightly so.[/quote:2q3jjwz5]
So you disagreed with Israel folaus selection for Australia in his debut year? You disagreed with Greg inglis' selection for Australia in his second year? You disagreed with Thurstons selection in only his second year of starting-line footy?
There were no incumbent players of any really quality holding those players out of the test side when they got into them, they were the best guys positional at the time and thus got a shot. In 2006 Darren Lockyer was winning everything you could possibly win as a captain in Rugby League while Todd Carney was pissing on people and leading police on high speed pursuits, Lockyer is going to become an immortal in a few years time and Carney will probably be picking up the pieces of his career/reputation again.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,207
- 25,950
Different kettle off fish in regard to Folau, Inglis and Thurston.
When Folau made his debut two incumbants were injured (Hodges and Tate) and King's departure to the Super League made him unavailable. Even then, the players Folau was replacing were hardly 50 game veterens.
Not really sure what the circumstances were with Inglis, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear if his incumbant Tahu was injured. The other winger, Grothe jr., was a one game test player (against France of all teams). Again, apples and oranges. (or in my case fresh water and sea water)
Then Thurston took the place of Gower and Barrett who both played apart in the losing Tri Nations in 05 when he made his debut in the May Test, then the representative retirement of Johns left the position vacant. Even then, he was no sure thing, I mean even Hornby displaced him at one point (if you ever wondered why Australia sacked Stuart, just watch this game...seriously one of the worst coaching performances I've ever seen). So again, nothing like the Carney/Lockyer equation.
Lockyer is fit and healthy and over the past seven seasons has proved he still has what it takes to guide Australia to victory. Carney on the other hand has only had one season where he's kept his nose cleaned and played well consistently. He's been rightly awarded a place in the Australian squad, but to say he deserves the No. 6 after only half a seasons great work of playing there over seven seasons of good work is absurd.
When Folau made his debut two incumbants were injured (Hodges and Tate) and King's departure to the Super League made him unavailable. Even then, the players Folau was replacing were hardly 50 game veterens.
Not really sure what the circumstances were with Inglis, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear if his incumbant Tahu was injured. The other winger, Grothe jr., was a one game test player (against France of all teams). Again, apples and oranges. (or in my case fresh water and sea water)
Then Thurston took the place of Gower and Barrett who both played apart in the losing Tri Nations in 05 when he made his debut in the May Test, then the representative retirement of Johns left the position vacant. Even then, he was no sure thing, I mean even Hornby displaced him at one point (if you ever wondered why Australia sacked Stuart, just watch this game...seriously one of the worst coaching performances I've ever seen). So again, nothing like the Carney/Lockyer equation.
Lockyer is fit and healthy and over the past seven seasons has proved he still has what it takes to guide Australia to victory. Carney on the other hand has only had one season where he's kept his nose cleaned and played well consistently. He's been rightly awarded a place in the Australian squad, but to say he deserves the No. 6 after only half a seasons great work of playing there over seven seasons of good work is absurd.
