In what circumstance would you resurrect an Immortal?

I hear you. It's huge! Just saying there's more to consider than the premiership tally. E.g. No salary cap, most players Kangaroos and a quite a few others State reps. Say you take the 80s/90s Raiders side then add Beetson, Johns and Churchill and remove a couple of the best stars from main opponents? Or you build a team around two thirds of any Kangaroos side of the last 20 years? Means rep career must be a major consideration.

simple, scrap the immortals concept, it was started as a thing to sell magazines! start a more inclusive Hall of Fame ... as every other sport around the world. less elitism recognize the shift from state leagues to a national league as well.

I don’t think I necessarily agree with that. Often, what makes the greatest players the greatest is the rivalries and even the partnerships they form with other players. For that reason, we should not be surprised to see immortals appear in clusters rather than one offs every 10 years or so.

By that measure what is any accolade...

Bigbaz - true.

With the frequency and amount of inductions into the Immortal concept its importance and prestige will be diluted over the coming decades. Theyve shot the concept as far as I'm concerned. 1 inductee every 10 years would have been more appropriate, ensuring it is only for those who were a rare talent, a once in a generation player.

It's funny I think picking the true immortals of yesteryear is easier. In my mind the immortal was the standout player of their era, the one that either redefined their position, the competition or was "the guy" for so long people forgot to even talk about it. Dally M is obviously immortal because his stamp on the game has gone beyond his years or anyone's living memory. I think you could add an extra pre war immortal with each of the three new post war ones and it would balance the rarity with reward. (coote and provan are already post war "eligible")

Its interesting some One like noel Kelly is included in team centuryof but doesI not make hall of fame despite all his work with men of league. You would think all members of team of the century would automatically be immortals but both of these lists were picked by different panels. So go work it out. Whoever it is will not be accepted by everyone.

Supporters of the various clubs will have their favourites amongst the greats in their club history and as such, I guess we could be swamped. Maybe we could have two divisions of immortals? One for pre WW2 and one for post WW2. Regardless, some stand out as must-haves. Players such as Dally Messenger and Clive Churchill fairly jump off the page and there are so many more. Those who spent most of their playing lives overseas should, unfortunately, be left out. I doubt that we will ever sort this out to everybody's satisfaction.

I'm fine with the Hall of Fame being given more importance, and then the immortals being a sub-class within. The get from Hall of Fame to Immortal you have to be very, very special. For what it’s worth, any of Dally Messenger, Frank Burge, Dave Brown, Duncan Thompson, Norm Provan, Ken Irvine, Ron Coote, Mal Meninga or Darren Lockyer would be worthy Hall of Famers. But as Immortals, I'm thinking the pre-war 4 as a one-off, then maybe Irvine and Lockyer would be it. Being in the Hall of Fame should be enough to be considered a great of the game. The concept was actually confused by the great St George side of the 60's, We have this situation of 3 players from the one team in one era being included (Gasnier, Raper and Langlands) and now they are talking about a fourth (Provan). This doesn't feel right, although I've never heard anyone argue that these first three were not superstars of the game. Really for me an immortal should be now more than 1 or 2 players in an era, which is in itself a hard concept to define. Does that exclude Irvine, because Raper, Gasnier and Langlands played in his era? In the 70's we have Fulton and Beetson, hard to argue there. In the Wally Lewis era, is there one other player that should be considered? Meninga or Sterling or Grothe? In the 90's era, is there anyone? Lazarus, Langer, Meninga? On the 2000's, Johns and Lockyer? And then we get to the current era. Would anyone argue against Smith, Thurston and Slater? Which one is only worthy of Hall of Fame status? I'm just glad I don't have to make decisions, but get to critique other's decisions instead. And I would support a separate section in the Hall of Fame for coaches and officials. People like Harry Bath, Frank Facer, Ken Aurthurson, Col Pearce, Jack Gibson and dare I say it Wayne Bennett, should be recognised, but they can't be Immortals. After all the game is about the players.

I would agree with you except that the original immortal concept was to sell magazines. Lewis and then Johns were both inducted while they were still popular with the public (especially Johns). I don't think this should preclude previous players. For example, if they induct Thurston first, will it preclude Smith?

Well said Matt. I agree entirely. Except that I am ok with revisiting Irvine. Why Irvine? Because currently there is a bias towards spine players. I like how the current immortals includes the best lock, front rower, centre, fullback, centre/fullback as well as halves. Irvine was hands down the best winger to have played the majority of his career in this country. It's also why to me Cameron Smith should be a given once his eligibility period is over. He is the best dummy half to have played the game.

I do think an interesting 'immortal' fact to come out in the aftermath of Manly giving Parramatta a touch up was. No side has won the comp after being beaten by over 50 that year. The irony that has been lost is that a side that was beaten by 49-0 was Newcastle. When it's true immortal was injured. They then won the comp that year. That is right with him GF winners without him wooden spoon contenders.

from memory there was very little dissent when the first 4 were named, only Johns has created controversy, all the rest have been welcomed nearly 100% as they should be to make it.

Winning 12 premierships on the bounce is beyond improbable statistically.

Incisive!

Seems like an urban legend. The award was owned by the magazine and awarded by the magazine. Why would they be fearful of introducing clauses that go against their own choices? Also a character clause would be a completely new rabbit hole - what exactly are we looking for here? I mean, topically, no matter how well they play for the rest of their careers guys with violent criminal assaults in their past like Packer and Lodge will likely not be nominated. But there might be a low pool to draw from if you want players who never played up. I doubt Johnny Raper was sober that night with the bowler hat.... I expect the magazine awarded Johns the title because he was clearly the best of his generation and they thought they'd sell more magazines if they did it earlier rather than later.

Yep. HOFers get a bus pass for life. Immortals get bus pass for eternal life.

immortals is not a concept. its an award system

oh no, he did what millions of others do on weekends! some body think of the children