The Boss wrote: ↑October 23, 2020, 6:49 pm
I agree Lazarus is in the best Raiders team ever but for this tournament I’m doing just to have some fun in the boring offseason. I really appreciate every ones feedback. It’s was a dilemma for me when it came to issues like this. I’m sure Storm fans are going to be upset Greg Inglis will be in the Souths squad. I understand Lazarus is beloved and and local junior but, I couldn’t find another way to do this.
Right, so the whole thing is a farce. You’re up to two teams and it’s already a joke. So why are we even discussing this team list?
Jesus Christ, the guy's told you his criteria and it makes more sense than Matt's Matchups at least!
Just absolutely no need for him to be shouted off the forum like this, you blokes should know better.
Dean Lance is up there with Chris O'Sullivan and Jay Hoffman as our most underrated player of all time, but there is no way you'd select him over Ruben Wiki, who is arguably one of the top 5 Kiwis to have ever played the game. Wiki was unbelievable.
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑October 26, 2020, 11:16 pm
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
How else do you decide which team to assign a player to if you can't have double-ups?
Sounds like a fair system to me, despite the usual complaining and handwringing.
Yeah, if a player can only qualify for one club I guess the only other sensible way would be to base it on players who made their debut for that club.
That shows which club had the best junior system rather than the deepest pockets. Doesn't really cater for imports or players that only kicked on in better systems.
Either way, you can't call it a "greatest ever team" if any number of players don't qualify under some random criteria.
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑October 26, 2020, 11:16 pm
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
How else do you decide which team to assign a player to if you can't have double-ups?
Sounds like a fair system to me, despite the usual complaining and handwringing.
It's a fair system, given that the OP wants to run some sort of imaginary competition once the teams are named. Frankly I'd like to simulate the 90 Raiders against the 94 Raiders if there was an AI capable of doing it. I suspect the 93 raiders would be the ultimate winners.
But with those criteria, it'd want to be absolutely fair dinkum. Did Jacko play more games for us or Norths? I honestly don't know. I'd still be backing the Volcano.
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑October 26, 2020, 11:16 pm
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
Phil Blake was never a great player for us. He was well past it. Same as Scott Gale when he joined us.
Ben Kennedy did come to mind but again played more for Newcastle.
Chicka and Noa were better than Nagas, Hoppe and the Volcano on the wing. I liked Volcano but he played too short for us. Nagas was a beautiful runner to watch, so graceful and effortless in his strides. Glided across the field with extreme pace. Hoppe was a great finisher. But only really one excellent year with us - 1993. Then he went to Norths and Warriors. Sam had one really good year with us -1988 but would never beat the Brick with Eyes or Papa. His career went downhill after joining the Broncos.
Seiffert82 wrote: ↑October 27, 2020, 7:40 pm
Yeah, if a player can only qualify for one club I guess the only other sensible way would be to base it on players who made their debut for that club.
That shows which club had the best junior system rather than the deepest pockets. Doesn't really cater for imports or players that only kicked on in better systems.
Either way, you can't call it a "greatest ever team" if any number of players don't qualify under some random criteria.
If that’s the case Nicoll-Klokstad will be in Warriors team as he debuted for them and is a local Kiwi junior .
Seiffert82 wrote: ↑October 27, 2020, 7:40 pm
Yeah, if a player can only qualify for one club I guess the only other sensible way would be to base it on players who made their debut for that club.
That shows which club had the best junior system rather than the deepest pockets. Doesn't really cater for imports or players that only kicked on in better systems.
Either way, you can't call it a "greatest ever team" if any number of players don't qualify under some random criteria.
If that’s the case Nicoll-Klokstad will be in Warriors team as he debuted for them and is a local Kiwi junior .
Correct. Of perhaps more relevance, it means John Ferguson would qualify for Newtown etc.
Seiffert82 wrote: ↑October 27, 2020, 7:40 pm
Yeah, if a player can only qualify for one club I guess the only other sensible way would be to base it on players who made their debut for that club.
That shows which club had the best junior system rather than the deepest pockets. Doesn't really cater for imports or players that only kicked on in better systems.
Either way, you can't call it a "greatest ever team" if any number of players don't qualify under some random criteria.
If that’s the case Nicoll-Klokstad will be in Warriors team as he debuted for them and is a local Kiwi junior .
Correct. Of perhaps more relevance, it means John Ferguson would qualify for Newtown etc.
Yeah, I don't agree with that system at all. It genuinely needs to be most caps. Terry Lamb shouldn't be in the Wests team and Cliffy Lyons shouldn't play for Norths.
Seiffert82 wrote: ↑October 27, 2020, 7:40 pm
Yeah, if a player can only qualify for one club I guess the only other sensible way would be to base it on players who made their debut for that club.
That shows which club had the best junior system rather than the deepest pockets. Doesn't really cater for imports or players that only kicked on in better systems.
Either way, you can't call it a "greatest ever team" if any number of players don't qualify under some random criteria.
If that’s the case Nicoll-Klokstad will be in Warriors team as he debuted for them and is a local Kiwi junior .
Correct. Of perhaps more relevance, it means John Ferguson would qualify for Newtown etc.
Yeah, I don't agree with that system at all. It genuinely needs to be most caps. Terry Lamb shouldn't be in the Wests team and Cliffy Lyons shouldn't play for Norths.
At the end of the day it's just an imaginary team. No system that excludes particular players can be regarded as a greatest ever team. It's all a bit flawed really.
Anyway, I want to pick a greatest ever Raiders team based on players born overseas, in Spring (southern hemisphere) to parents of mixed cultural heritage.
If this were called... "My draft picks for an imaginary fantasy competition between the NRL teams"... the original poster wouldn't be receiving any criticism for his article. Because, then we would have known, up front, that it was intended to be "a little bit of fun for the off season" and not to be taken as a serious attempt to name the Raiders' best ever team. The story at the link didn't make the basis of selections or the purpose clear at all.
The original poster has called this the "Raiders greatest ever team", when it is not the exercise. We were asked for our views. The selections deserve criticism. They have duly received it. It was all done politely, well within the bounds of our forum guidelines.
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑October 26, 2020, 11:16 pm
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
How else do you decide which team to assign a player to if you can't have double-ups?
Sounds like a fair system to me, despite the usual complaining and handwringing.
It's a fair system, given that the OP wants to run some sort of imaginary competition once the teams are named. Frankly I'd like to simulate the 90 Raiders against the 94 Raiders if there was an AI capable of doing it. I suspect the 93 raiders would be the ultimate winners.
But with those criteria, it'd want to be absolutely fair dinkum. Did Jacko play more games for us or Norths? I honestly don't know. I'd still be backing the Volcano.
Sorry. He's in the Bradford team for the Imaginary World Club Challenge.
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑October 26, 2020, 11:16 pm
I read this days ago and laughed. Apart from Lazarus, Sam Backo and Peter Jackson want their money back. Lesley Vainikolo, Sean Hoppe and Ken Nagas are jostling in the background. Can we claim Phil Blake?
If the criterion is who played the most games for whichever of their clubs, then fair enough. But don't ask supporters of a club that developed a bloke to expect to embrace him as a fantasy great for someone else...
How else do you decide which team to assign a player to if you can't have double-ups?
Sounds like a fair system to me, despite the usual complaining and handwringing.
It's a fair system, given that the OP wants to run some sort of imaginary competition once the teams are named. Frankly I'd like to simulate the 90 Raiders against the 94 Raiders if there was an AI capable of doing it. I suspect the 93 raiders would be the ultimate winners.
But with those criteria, it'd want to be absolutely fair dinkum. Did Jacko play more games for us or Norths? I honestly don't know. I'd still be backing the Volcano.
Sorry. He's in the Bradford team for the Imaginary World Club Challenge.
BJ wrote: ↑October 28, 2020, 2:15 pm
I think the rules such as:
Must have played 50 games for a club
Must have played 20 in a nominated position
Etc
Are better than a simple blanket most games played.
So how do you determine which team Lazarus plays for under this criteria, BJ?
He simply qualifies for both and is probably good enough to make both clubs best ever teams.
Yep that’s the best methodology. If it’s a fantasy team of players from different eras then obviously a time machine is available to grab each player from when they played for the particular team.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.