The possible non-greatness of Cooper Cronk

[Cultured_Bogan]

In those terms, you can make that argument for any player.

Yes and no. In terms of Johns, the question is - do you think Knights could have won the comp if Joey didn't play for them? Who are the players that teams cannot do without? Who are the players that dominate, not just compete, at all levels? Those are the Immortals.

When it comes to Cronk, I think all his teams could manage without him. There's no doubt he's a very good footballer and especially in the area of game management / team organisation, apart from Thurston, he probably hasn't had an equal for a decade. He is a real clutch player in terms of finding the right pass or kick. But he was never cutting teams apart, never a real weapon with the football or a specific headache for opponents to nullify. Rather, he has always been a high-level gritty footballer, competing on every play with a cool head and minimal mistakes.

Thurston, on the other hand, propelled what became a reasonable Cowboys outfit to the finals; when he joined from Canterbury they had a horrendous record. And then based on Thurston's excellence, Cowboys were able to flesh-out their roster, because players were keen to sign on with him. That adds to Thurston's legacy in my opinion.

The same cannot be said about Cronk; at both Storm and Roosters he came into what was already a very successful operation, with a prominent roster. His debut match for the Storm in 2004, their side was: Slater, Geyer, Bell, MacDougall, Dustin Cooper, Hill, Orford, Kearns, Cam Smith, Kearney, Kidwell, Dallas Johnson, Hoffman, Howe, Danny Williams, Reynoldson, Cronk. Slater and Smith had already played a full season; 4 of the players had played in the 1999 premiership.

Cronk will undoubtedly become a Hall Of Fame player and almost certainly not an Immortal. I think he is probably the weakest of the top-tier footballers that made their careers at Melbourne - behind Smith, Slater, Inglis, Folau. I'd even say Munster, at this stage in his career, is a superior footballer to any time in Cronk's career. I think Keary, Latrell and Tedesco outshine Cronk at the Roosters now.

I guess you look at it in the availability of other premiership winning halves in the comp at the time. Would Sticky, Alfie, Toovey, Kimmorley have taken the Knights to premiership glory? You could argue yes because they did with their clubs. Would any of those thrown that pass to Darren Albert? Quite possibly, but alas we'll never know.

Another thought I have is what constitutes a great? Do they absolutely have to have the X-factor, is it mutually exclusive? Can being only a ridiculously solid player who will always put the kick in the right spot or throw the right pass almost without fail and absolute precision preclude you from being a great? Because I don't consider Cameron Smith to possess an X-factor as such either (I am of the belief that Cronk is a no-frills footballer.) For mine I believe him to be an extremely reliable and regimented footballer who can read the game and execute extremely well 99.9% of the time and yet well all know he will be an Immortal.

It's also no surprise that Slater and Smith came on before Cronk. Prior to the former they had Richard Swain and a mixed bag of fullbacks. Hill and Orford were well established at that point so I can understand why Cronk came on later.

I don't mean to be coming across as argumentative as you make some very good points, I feel that they can be openly applied as well. I agree that Cronk has enjoyed a wonderful career as a result of the teams he has played in, they've both been littered with stars, and as a result we cannot assess how he fared in a battler side. I absolutely believe had he played at Wests we would have been a much better team for it though. Would he have won us a premiership? Maybe not. But would we have spent 7 sevens in the bottom 8? I can reason that would be doubtful.

Lastly, I am not interested in the Cronk vs. Brooks comparison like others have been. I did say that I would have taken Cronk if he were on offer in a heartbeat. I don't believe this should be a thread to drive the notion that Brooks is (not) an adequate halfback for us.

 

[2041]

It’s that simple, if we keep Madge and in the next 5 years win at least one premiership ... then you’d have my permission to even ‘try’ comparing Luke Brooks to C. Cronk.

I see what u tried to do there but there’s really no need to deflect on a forum. Back to the OP; Cronk would’ve helped us out (not of his own choice) and made us competitive week in, week out, but we’d still have not had a premiership opportunity yet IN MY opinion - and so, as history shows with both of them - he would’ve pulled a Teddy and left for the Chooks either way.

I'm tempted to say "whoosh" and leave it at that. But let me have a go at simplifying it a bit for you - I probably was a bit verbose as I was typing as I thought.

All I'm saying is that rugby league is still in the dark ages when it comes to understanding what players bring to a side, at least when they're not obviously physical freaks (and even then I think there's room for doubt - look at Latrell Mitchell. What's the value of a transcendent talent who occasionally disappears completely?)

In this case, there's a widespread perception that Cronk is - let's say - a 9/10 player and Brooks is maybe a 6/10 player (putting aside the loonies on here who think Brooks is a 1/10 player). OP is making the point that this potentially gives far too much value to the teams the two have played in. Maybe Cronk is an 8/10 and Brooks a 7/10. Maybe they're actually both 8/10s.

What I'm saying is we still don't have any way of knowing, so we all retreat to our biases. Mine is that Brooks is better than he's often given credit for, whereas Cronk is probably not quite as valuable as it is often suggested. But I could easily be wrong.

If you look at other sports, they are all taking steps towards trying to understand this concept of a player's value as an individual. It's really hard in sports where nothing happens on an individual basis (a quarterback might complete loads of passes but if he has an amazing offensive line and great receivers, and is playing against a terrible defence, that might not mean much).

League still seems to be based far too much on trusting the impressions of 'people who understand the game' - coaches and pundits, in particular. We know definitively from sports like baseball that 'people who understand the game' have their own biases and that there is value to be found in challenging those biases.

 

[Jock Koss]

@2041 great reply, thanks mate, truly appreciating the simplification of your point as it makes a whole lot of sense when conveyed as an opinion!

Hahaha I don’t doubt that brooks and Cronk, as individuals, with their initial skill sets and very different footballers surrounding them are probably close to the same abilities when singled out/analysed with the verification from appropriate stats and not just posts on social media and commentators or coaches views!

Totally agree that we have much to discover via building our own relevant perceptions and subsequently bringing that knowledge forth into the light for betterment of our game...

Thought you may have been saying the opposite actually, but we are definitely in the same boat regarding the ‘question’ itself, I was more insinuating to those who didn’t or don’t think Brooks is of incredible value to our side that if we had had someone like a cooper Cronk (could easily be a few other genuine half-backs too) outside of Brooks from the initial bang back in 2013? Then it may be a totally different conversation today with brooks being referred to as Cronks apprentice and him subsequently becoming the master.

Ala, I think our very own could be one of the best 6’s in recent memory and much better than Cleary/Keary but have my doubts as to how his entire career has unfolded whether he will ever truly be able to add that next level of forethought into his plays/game managing efforts, he has time in his favour. Alas I think Cronk would’ve taken any sum of money less than what we “might’ve” been able to offer to ensure that he never donned our colours. Lol🍻

 

[jirskyr]

@jirskyr hence me confirming that his/her response is off-base, because it does not address your question. Which part of what you ‘read’ in my wording is yet to hit you? Just wondering, Jirskyr!

The post stands and never once did I compare Brooks and Cronk - simply saying that any response mentioning a comparison is off the mark, is totally wrong - whether it has been raised in OP or not. Definitely on topic, struggling to see what doesn’t make sense about “Cronk is 100% proven at the top level” & “would’ve made us more competitive week in, week out” but we wouldn’t have had a premiership window on his abilities alone, future immortal or not. Does this answer your ‘question’ succinctly ???

No, I don't entirely understand where you are coming from, but I appreciate the attempt to explain it.

 

[jirskyr]

Another thought I have is what constitutes a great? Do they absolutely have to have the X-factor, is it mutually exclusive?

Personally I think they do have to have that X-factor. When I think of the greatest players, my mind lights up with memory of matches and events in the history of the game. I ended up watching two retro matches last week - 1974 and 1975 tests Australia vs Great Britain. I'd never seen the footage before, it was just great to watch some of the true legends of the game running around, because so much of rugby league history was laid down well before i was born.

I personally do think Smith has an X-factor, but not in an obvious athletic manner like super fend or blinding speed, but rather a true ability to control football at every level, even now having a reputation for controlling refs. I don't even particularly like the guy, but he just does everything right all the time, to the point where his mistakes are so rare as to be surprising. Then to play 400 games, basically never get injured, always get picked for rep sides, points records etc. There hasn't been a player with his longevity or sustained success before, like a Federer-type career.

I don’t mean to be coming across as argumentative as you make some very good points, I feel that they can be openly applied as well.

Not at all, I appreciate your thought and comments.

 

[Jock Koss]

@jirskyr then I’m not entirely sure you understand the question you’ve posed, as well as what to expect r.e the answer(s) - basically what Cultured has said except that he was willing to be coy on the whole issue of would Cronk have been great at or FOR our club...

I’m truly sorry that you need things put to you in such a manner, all the time, in order to understand a pretty basic point that I even legitimately re-hashed three or four times, and you totally ‘deadbatted’.

It’s fine that you disagree with my points RE cronk’s “possible” non-greatness but I was simply illuminating your straw-man argument and that it cannot even be compared (apples & oranges) nor does it have any basis in fact over simply the opinion’s of others.

This is why the forum is such a great place mate, I really do appreciate your disagreement however, you could’ve been quite clear about that in your first comment - which it seems to me is the issue here. Some people just cannot think with clarity or cut to the issue’s core and that is fine... makes it easier to understand when sometimes people’s comments fly straight over others’ head on here, or are simply ignored as random babbling drivel. Pick your poison 😀

Doesn’t make for great discussion, but thanks again!

 

[jirskyr]

then I’m not entirely sure you understand the question you’ve posed

Yeah that will do. I don't understand my own question...

 

[Jock Koss]

@jirskyr also I meant initially that didn’t answer your question by putting forward ‘confirmation bias’ (although a good theory?) and his response TO brooks being compared with Cronk was off topic in itself. That is all friend. No harm done?

Obviously in ‘our’ conversation Brooks/Cronk comparison is a topic of discussion and in seemingly many other people’s minds too, although you seemed to feel my reply (not to your OP) alone was off topic. As I said there is no comparison in terms of results - obviously that doesn’t factor into account teams or how said player actually improved the teams... as I also said, Cronk has been able to progress a lot due to the prolonged successes he’s had but I would ^^ obviously argue that he was a major, if not, the major part of that dynasty.

In terms of Brooks not having resources and access to the same quality coaching/finances off the field then as I ALSO posted, I agree he is not on a level playing field and given what he’s already been able to produce or show signs of then he could be said to have equal “initial ability” to cooper Cronk - which I believe is somewhat along the lines of your point?

Either way by the next 1-2 years of their respective careers/post careers we will obviously see who is anointed ‘great’. IMO this topic is totally futile because all answers have to be open ended to be respectful but Coops would definitely have been a great one at our club at some point during his career - assuming his notoriously consummate professional was also applied here.

 

[Jock Koss]

@jirskyr Mate, with respect, you’ve picked a single sentence of my response to take issue with... it’s just not very nice 👍 You called me out about my post not making sense & it being devoid of any relation to the topic, which was never a response to your question anyway, as I’d clearly replied to, and tagged @2041

It’s clearly a 50/50 subject and something we’ll have to agree to disagree about but as I said before... no issue with that.

The last comment I left was also in reply to 2041 - who clearly understood how I’d misconstrued his initial post and then simply clarified it in the most helpful, constructive and articulate way for me to digest.