Brian Bevan and Ken Irvine both deserve NRL immortal status

I reckon most people on this board would have watched Joeys whole career unfold, great player no doubt, but to say he was better than Wally, that is highly debateable as far as alot of people are concerned. To hold it against Wally that he ONLY performed at origin level against the likes of Kenny, Sterling, Mortimer is a bit silly really, thats putting it mildly. If Joey supposedly performed every week why did he only win 2 premierships? One of those during the Super League War in the weaker ARL competition. Lets not forget that Newcastle were flooded with Test and Origin players during his time, O'davis, Mad Dog, Albert, Gidley Bros., Tahu, Matty Johns, Chief, Steve Walters, Buderus, Kennedy, Simpson, Butterfield, Muir, Hughes etc Joey had alot of help, he didnt do it all by himself. You say Joey was the reason for NSW's last origin win, Wally was the reason for just about every origin series he won.

False, I never once said that I hated RLW, your words, just said that this just a promotion to sell more magazines, just because we disagree with our parents sometimes doesnt mean that we hate them. As far as Andrew Johns, Flo and Pat Jarvis are concerned, read my comments just below re: post 2007.

Okay so you have a problem with the rumoured changes to the immortal system not the immortal system itself? This is completely different to your opening comment. On this we agree. It needs to remain exclusive – though I do find it odd that a guy who hates RLW so much is putting so much stock in reports that stakeholders want blah blah blah and RLW is just going to sign over the rights to them. Still that aside your solutions still says no player post 2007 should ever be formally recognised. Never ever ever. Rugby league ceased to exist as a noteworthy sporting pursuit with Andrew Johns. Now many Novocastrians would agree with that but the general rugby league public probably think the game’s still survived. That is the “relevant” method of honouring players – ensure that gradually not a single living soul will have seen one of these players in the flesh? The if you missed out once your done rule also seems very arbitrary. It should be exclusive but not to the point of lunacy. You would actually end up with a less exclusive club as the only way you could be considered is to be so ordinary that you weren’t considered last time. Pretty soon we’ll have Greg Florimo and Pat Jarvis under this selection method.

barry richards is recognised by the world of cricket as south africa's undisputed bradman look alike, so give this good ozi bloke a fair go and recognise his great achievements - not all the best players get to play tests; just the few lucky to be selected before their peers at the time; so give the guy a fair go, and a VB salute at the same time - immortal, he is !!!

Lordy! .. How about some love for "The Bradman of League" Dave Brown ?

Grand final week mate -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

When do they announce the 2012 induction into the Immortals?

The Greatest Game Of All I annalyse RL for a living and have done for a long while. Andrews Johns is clearly the best player I have seen and in doing ratings and markets, he would influence more than any other player. I have him in front of Wally because I only ever saw the King produce at Origin level where Joey did it every week and rep level. He was the reason why NSW won their last SOO.

David, ' My dad is 85 and he called rugby league on 3 of the Sydney TV channels and he agrees with you. As a kid the 3 players he would talk about most were Langlands, who he introduced to Manly from Wollongong and they knocked him back before going the St George, John Raper and Ken Irvine.

I have actually, so who does deserve to be inducted since 2007? Who is the equal or better than the current Immortals? Johns? fair enough, Mal misses out, Locky not eligible. What about the next induction four years from now, Lockyer? Mal misses out again, Alfie close third. Four years on again, no one from that period is deemed up to standard, so lets put Mal and Alfie in, see what I mean?

If youve been paying attention to the media youd know they are now talking about a four year induction cycle and having multiple inductees. The last time they had the next Immortal discussion, Rogers, Provan, Sterling, all the greats were tossed up but were beaten by Beetson, if they werent good enough then, why are they good enough now? Does this mean they are all eventually going to be inducted?

Thanks Mushi you said everything i wanted to say but had no idea how to say it .I try but i am not real good at putting it all together . Writing was never my strong point , not a bad concretor though . cheers well said

So no player who's peak came after 2007 is allowed to ever be considered for the highest accolade? Wow I can see you've thought this through.

To expand you’ve got two main problems: First is the irrelevance. If something is being discussed regularly especially under the assumption of being perpetuated it clearly it is relevant. That is what the word means. You either have the wrong word or a failed argument. Then there is the argument that they will be the same as the team of the century or it would be hypocritical is flawed. First the selection criteria which automatically rules it out as they start out comparing different eras. Two members of the team of the century cannot make the immortals. Second is the time frame. Stop and think for a second about how often immortals are inducted. It has been on average about one every 7 to 8 years. The last was 9 years ago. So if we say the RLW starts to milk this and goes every 6 years you realise that it will be 54 years from now before they’ve filled out the 17 players that you say “must” be the same as the team fo the century. In other words you will say that we must ignore every players who’s peak will come in the 60 years post the team of the century being announced? Really you think that is the logical outcome? Third is that the team of the century is position based and even then they struggled filling the bench with two 5/8s and a fullback. I think it is fair to say that the dominant ball players are and will continue to be over represented in any list of the top players no matter where you set the bar, so making giving it a position restriction defeats the purpose.

The Greatest Shame of al your comments are a shame i bet you love twitteryou seem like a twitowah .

Oh good one. Sadly no. I failed the test by knowing the meaning of the word irrelevant. There may just be an opening for you though?

Haha, righto mate, i agree to rename the Immortals "steve b and his uncles matter of fact award", im sure Ken Irvine will agree with it.

I understand that Johns off field incidents leave a lot of people cold about him. I also appreciate that Queenslanders like to defend their own and rightfully hold Lockyer, Meninga and Lewis in the highest regard. But seriously, Joey is the best rugby league player of all time. That's my opinion and these things are subjective, but I honestly think he's the greatest player in rugby league history.

Yeh ok mate and opinions vary just like your story !

This is a promotion to sell magazines, my opinion, Wally Lewis was better than Meninga, Sterling, Johns, my opinion. The Immortals as they are now is rugby leagues best and most exclusive club, my opinion. You think my opinion is bs and negative, your opinion, not a fact.