Alec
International Rep
- Mar 4, 2008
- 19,394
- 12,522
Slater's first few Origin years bring him down. I know everyone still blows their load over him, but he was so loose - always good for passes over the sideline and dropped ball.
How can you compare them over their entire time in origin? You either pick Billy's best three series and compare them against Lockys best three at Fullback or you have to compare their first three at fullback Imo. It's difficult to make a direct comparison anyway.
Lockyer imo has been a far better player and more influential overall in the origin arena than Slater but that's over two different positions. It's all about opinions at the end of the day and for me personally I don't see much in Billy's game that Locky didn't do at fullback.
I still think Locky was better in a worse team BP :lalala:
Legitimately surprised by Farah. Small sample size?
That's fine.
I just fail to see how.
Have to disagree with you mate. I think at fullback Locky was more impressive in probably weaker sides. If I recall correctly he won 2 man of the series awards between 2001-2003. The only direct comparison I guess you can really make is how they both went at fullback in their first 3 full series at fullback if you want to compare with Locky from 2001-2003. If Locky never made the switch to 5/8 we wouldn't have seen much of slater at Fullback imo.
Legitimately surprised by Farah. Small sample size?
2. Boyd- 42 tackle breaks, 21 line breaks, most one on one tackles of any winger, and error every 2.5 games.
I don't see anything Billy does that Locky didn't, but I don't see the extra bonus from Billy you get from Locky, a kicking game.
Except perform better in every category that matters for a fullback.
Standards have improved exponentially at the back since Locky played and kicking was more or less a perk.
I'll leave it there.
Nice to see symbol's view vindicated RE: Belcher.
Game 2 2001
Game 2 2006
Game 2 2010
Lockyer's MOTM.