Why isn't Ken Irvine an Immortal?

Ken Irvine scored numerous tries with daylight running second (all the runners up also had many more games to achieve their "comparably modest" tallies). Irvine did this playing with a team known as the "Easybeats" - not something like Melbourne Storm where Billy Slater (a fine footballer) comes in second with about 100 extra games!!! Look at the old photos of Irvine scoring: it is no coincidence that most barely ever show a defensive player in the frame.

I agree that it is a total injustice that Ken Irvine has not been named an immortal. His try scoring stats are almost Bradmanesque when compared to other players past and present. Add to that the fact that he played most of his career for the long suffering North Bears, his try scoring ability was second to none.

Lockyer was great but couldn’t tackle his way out of a paper bag; he also played for Brisbane and alongside countless internationals. Sean Rudder would have won 4-5 comps as 5/8 for those Broncos teams and we’d be talking him up. Brett Mullins in 2004 had the best year any FB has had. Brett Kenny outplayed the King almost every time - he should be mentioned in conversation. Messenger and Provan should be the next 2 in my opinion but I agree Ken Irvine was a genius.

If you want to dispute Joeys greatness then go watch origin 2005. He alone smashed QLD! Not ironic that it was our last year of domination.

H David, Will never forget the sheer speed & acceleration of Ken Irvine, after all, he equalled the world 100 yd record of 9.3 s one day at the Sports Ground. For all you people under 50 year old I suggest you watch this short video of the 1963 Kangaroos. It features greats like Irvine, Gasnier, Raper, Langlands., Dick Thornett etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob8GGGy3G_A

Nah, Lockys the best, Fittler sucked and you're obviously mentally deficient!! I win!!

Good chat. We are seeing something different because in most of those stats I see a bees donger difference over 15+ year careers. I could counter some of your points but I get the feeling I’m not going to change your mind (not that I want to) It’s good to have a sensible objective conversation about this though instead of it descending into “why don’t you love Lockyer as much as I do” etc

Yeah, I think we might be seeing different things when we look at those numbers... No player in the leagues modern era has won more then 4 premierships, plenty have won 2. Lockyer also never lost a Grand Final, Fitler lost 4. There might be only 19 games between them (which is still practically a season) but Lockyer broke the all time record for most NRL games played. I've never liked how the Dally M's work so I don't really give them much weight personally but I think its safe to say that both players were dudded by that system. Both have earned practiacally every medal availible apart from that one (though I'm not 100% sure if Fitler has a Churchill medal) Locky might have only played 5 more Origins (which is still nearly 2 series more) but he again broke the record for appearances and was instumental in kickstarting the Maroons dominance. And as for Tests Locky played about 50% more then Fitler in which he broke the records for appearences, most tests as captain and trys scored. None of this is including Super League stats either (apart from premierships obviously). I'm not having a go at Fitler here but if you're going to make comparisons purely on their accomplishments surely the guy who broke so many all time records deservees more then being rated as "on par" with any other player in that regard. If anything overshadows Lockys accomplishments its that he had to be followed by someone the calibre of Smith to break some of those relatively quickly afterwards. I'm not saying that Fitler isn't worth a mention, just that in my opinion Lockyer eclipses him in this particular area. But you're right, if we can't come to an agreement on the single aspect of a players career that can be quantified by numbers how the hell are fans supposed to agree on all the other aspects that are far less quantifiable.

Great comment...

I don't think their records are so markedly different that one is a lock to be an immortal and the other isn't even in the conversation. Grand Finals - Lockyer won 4 from 4 including the SL title Fittler won 2 from 6 They both made the semi finals so often it doesn't bear comparisons First Grade Games - Lockyer 355 Fittler 336 Both scored 122 tries Neither won a Dally M, although both got a Provan / Summons medal Fittler won six Dally M positional awards centre of the year in 92 and 93 lock of the year 94 5/8 of the year 98, 99, 02 Lockyer also won six fullback of the year 98, 01 and 02 5/8 of the year in 04, 06 and 07 A lot's made of Lockyer's versatility (rightfully so) but Fittler was regarded as the best in the game in three positions in the space of five years. Lockyer won two golden boots, Fittler one The golden boot wasn't awarded between 1991 and 1998 Fittler won a RLW player of the year Fittler played 31 Origins and won 17 (55%) Lockyer played 36 and won 19 (53%) Fittler played 38 tests and won 32 (84%) 20 as captain Lockyer played 59 tests and won 49 (83%) 38 as captain So there's a discrepancy in tests but there weren't as many tests played in the 90s as there were in the 00s. Both players were pretty much automatic inclusions in test teams throughout their careers. Fittler won three world cups, two as skipper Lockyer won one world cup and lost one as skipper So, the point of this isn't to start a debate or whatever about who is better...if anything it illustrates the points we made earlier that the concept itself is divisive. But again, the records aren't so dissimilar that Locky should be a lock and Freddy forgotten, which well and truly seems to be the case.

Didn't Churchill do that? Can't say for certain (never saw him funnily enough) but I thought he was a play making and finishing back

Sorry brain fade on my part. Memory must be taking in everyone in QLD saying he should have been. Still think inside a decade is too short

I dunno Barry, if we're talking purely about achievements then you'd have to have a pretty flexible definition of "on par" to compare him to Lockyer...

I'm not too sure on what league life was like post Wally Lewis but with Andrew Johns the fact that his absence to the team had a huge effect is very, very important to his legacy. You see, the immortals should be inducted every 10 years and the players eligible should have retired min of 5 years ago. A player can play well with plenty players around him but his absence is what counts the most, especially at Club level since representative football is when all good players come together. Knights were good when he was around. People say he had rep players all around him but why did the team struggle without him anyways? He was so important to the club that even reps relied on him. Lockyer retired and his counterparts played well. Johnathan Thurston played 2 Grand Final 10 years apart. The first was more like the "Bowen" inspired team and the second one was because he finally had the right players around him and that was proven last year when they even made the Grand Final without him. Slater's absence to the Maroons or Storms team doesn't make much difference but Smith's does. I believe the next immortal from this era should be Cameron Smith. In his absence Storms suffered a record breaking Grand Final loss. And to think the team had Slater, Folau, Inglis, etc... in it you would think they would at least score 1 point but that was impossible even for the reps playing at that time. There are many great players but the effects of their absence is what should be immortalized. Johns and Smith have that effect and their absence amplifies it. Their skills and presence are so required that when they go off everyone misses it even his counterpart, rep players. This is what should be immortalized. We miss them so we keep them forever by inducting them and their achievements.

This is an internet forum, you can't expect 100% of comments to be objective. But again, lack of any official criteria in the absolute highest honour you can recieve in the NRL will always promote a system where people are more focused on why a player doesn't deserve the status as opposed to why they do. They won't cut it but I fear that if they keep adding to it with freshly retired players (as seems to be the plan) there will just be too much discontent surounding the concept that its legitimacy will fade slowly untill it loses it relevence, and we all know how much the media loves to turn on something once public perception begins to shift. It proably wouldn't be such an issue (and selectors could be much more selective) if there were other groups availible to recognise the "elite" players, but as the only option for recognising the best of the best The Immortals falls well short. I don't think the "five year rule" helps either, it just allows players to be thrown into the disscussion based on current form and have their case snowball untill they're elegible.

You’re going to love my comment below then I also made a pretty credible case for Fittler above. His achievements are certainly on par with Lockyer’s

The thing is he didn't do that in his article anyway. He went 1,2,5,3,4,6,7,8,10,9,11,12,13 So he's either not being truthful or he literally is incapable of counting to ten

Rising from the death of his poltical career: Lazarus the Immortal

Terry Lamb is to halves debates for Doggies fans as Rocky Marciano is to white guys talking about boxing...

Simultaneously cheering for a massive coke head...