It's interesting to note that most people state that the best players are either half backs or loose men. As loose men used to be creative and not additional props.

Yet some of the greatest players of all time have worn the number 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 shirts without ever really getting the appreciation they deserved. It's these guys who laid the platform for the Lewis, Gregory, Johns, Hanley (depending on the position he played) etc to play so well. Yet when it comes to the honours and the accolades they rarely feature.

I've watched the game since the mid 70s and I've seen some truly great players. But only a handful who I really looked forward to watching (out of a Hull shirt). Hanley was my first non Hull hero. Never forget watching him and meeting him. Lewis was awesome (all be it not so good for Trinity or was he too far ahead of his team mates). The Aussie teams of 78 & 82 were full of amazing players.
That said many of the Aussie teams I've seen have had fantastic players in who I feel privileged to have watched.
I've always loved the Kiwis and feel the team of 1980 had some extraordinary talent which gets very little recognition compared to today's greats. Obviously the Hull teams benefited greatly from some of them. Fred Ah Kuoi in his prime was brilliant although his stint in the NRL apparently wasn't so great.
All said and done the five who have given me the greatest pleasure are Knocker Norton, Peter Sterling, Ellery Hanley, James Leuluai and Darren Lockyer.
Not sure any could be absolutely the greatest ever. Today's game is so different to the one I grew up with. I find it amazing how half backs create so little today with 10metres + to play with yet Sterlo, Gregory, Lewis, Millward, Hepworth created so much with so little space.

But I honestly couldn't argue against any that have been mentioned in this thread. Just think of the engine room when thinking about true greats. (Not that I've mentioned many Hahaha)

The reason half backs struggle to create space these days is because it's a fully professional sport, the defences are superbly drilled and the players are awesome athletes. A few extra yards doesn't compensate for this. Also I would argue people get misty eyed over the past and only remember the pieces of brilliance from these players. Peter Sterling was capable of brilliant things but he clearly didn't lead the defence a merry dance every time he had the ball. Probably 95% of what he did got dealt with, but people remember the 5% and so it gets talked about as if it were the norm.

Almost every elite sportsperson will tell you what got them to the top and delivered that extra 1%, or millisecond, or marginally faster reaction is practice, practice, practice, absolute commitment and a little luck. You also need that extra drive, the sort of intensity that sees some players such as Burgess, Graham, and in past times Farrell, Sculthorpe and others being the ones the always seemed to drop on the loose ball or make the last ditch tackle.

For me that is true of any generation. Yes, today's defences are more disciplined and organised than ever, but a good player should still stand out. As a Wigan fan I've watched Gregory and Edwards, and later Green and Smith conduct the team around the park and suddenly go at the line when the tiniest gap opens up - sometimes it comes off, sometimes it doesn't, but they see it and that's what counts. In recent years Barrett is the best I've seen. Hanley didn't always break the line, neither did Meninga or Lewis. As Mr.ZH says, 95% might not come off, but the 5% is what counts. At the highest level very few would manage 1%.

The very best have developed (from practice) that 'sense' - they can tell from the players in their direct and peripheral vision when the line has fragmented just enough to step, or show & go, or hold the ball up, or throw the killer pass, but they can also organise and direct their teams, make the simple plays, they can defend and they have that intensity and drive. In some cases the fact they go out of their way to support makes them valuable - Edwards was probably the best support player, Hanley was no slouch.

If Gregory could have got his head round the modern professional regime he'd have struggled no more than Burrow or Brough have. Gregory was a prodigious talent and with the correct conditioning he'd still have been a fantastic player. Same goes for many others.

Best players I've seen? Hanley, Meninga, Fittler in that order.

Again, why would you think that Gregory, in a modern environment and having to deal with modern defences would be so far ahead of the top players currently?

I think it's massively disrespectful and frankly shows a lack of understanding of the modern game to think that way.

As I said, don't confuse better to watch with better standard.

If you watch footage of Aussie GFs from even 20 years ago its plain to see that not a single forward from either team back then would be first grade today - the defences have huge gaps on almost every tackle. That's down to simple fitness. As a result halfbacks and outside backs had far more room even when the defence was only 5m back, making them look better/different as well.

Players today are far bigger then they used to be. It was quite funny seeing Sam Burgess standing next to John Sattler after the GF - Sattler in his prime would have been 20-30 kilos lighter than Burgess and far less fit. If you could time travel today's players would physically smash past players out of the park.

Size has also increased in the backs. I remember when Eric Grothe was considered enormous at 14 and a half stone. Meninga terrorised defences on the 82 tour when he was less than 16 stone (he put on a lot of weight later of course).

Its impossible to do anything other than rate players in their own era. Who knows if a 13 stone second row from the 60s could ever have beefed up enough to be 'great' today when a lot is down to childhood nutrition?

Completely impossible to say, but some of the best players I have seen are.

Andy Gregory
Gary schofield
Ellery Hanley
Wally Lewis
Brett Kenny
Brad fittler
Peter sterling
Mal meninga
Andrew johns

Who is "Brett Jenny?" Do you mean "me darlin' sportin' Jenny" from the old Irish folk song "Whiskey in the Jar?"

I'd also argue that nobody can state for certain what players from yesteryear as without the TV coverage we didn't see the players (other than the ones who played for our teams) week in week out. I think I saw just about all of Peter Sterlings games for Hull and even his average games were better than the best of most.
That 95 / 5% is true of just about every player. Certainly true today. A video montage of a player on you tube can make players look like world beaters. The reality is often totally different.

It all makes for great debate though.

Based on the players I've seen (either live or on TV) over the last twenty years, I'd say the Paul brothers should both be in contention. Neither of them could be controlled on their day.

Impossible to compare between different era's, also between different positions

If pushed to a name, for a couple of years in the early 80's John Woods was the most ' Complete ' RL player on the planet with top quality at every skill and physical attribute, and also able to perform full of Tetleys mild as well

Okayyyyy......

Wally Lewis

So is schoey but people don't take him seriously, even though between his rants he is often right.

I think you show a massive lack of understanding of life in general and Rugby League in particular. I would say you are 1/100 to have never played at any sort of level..

Please do not confuse having a fat bloke in a mask as your avatar with having any intelligence or worth...self importance is of course excluded...

Clearly you never watched the game that far back or have much knowledge of that era as you'll find that there were plenty of 15 stone second rowers that were upwardly mobile, in fact one of Hull's all time try scorers was a 2nd row from the 20s who was 15+ stone.
In the 50/60s we had a fair few 17stone props. Yes size has increased in the backs but conversely so has their lack of agility, it's the somewhat 'smaller' backs that can jink their way around.

What you will find with forwards of old is that will put themselves/their bodies about a lot more than their modern counterparts, half the forwards in modern rugby run the ball in like a bunch of half hearted fannies and tackle as if they are made of biscuit. I'd say the top forwards of yesteryear would do just fine and backs like Andy Gregory whom has more heart and grit than any back in the game since he stopped playing would be sensational (sorry for the Stevoism) in SL. Burrow is probably the most comparable in the grit dept of modern backs. Gregs had speed off the mark, was a superb passer, had guile, could kick, was a strong tackler and he was facking hard as nails..I didn't particularly like him as an individual but as a player you cannot fail to see he is one of those stand outs that would make the grade in any era.

You and many before you make the classic mistake of thinking it is all about size.. it isn't. It has never just being about crash bang wallop, it's a thinking man's game and one that needs the mentality to overcome your opposition no matter what they look like size wise or what their reputation. You destroy/attack/dismantle the mind-set or out-think your opposition as much as you out-do them physically, hence why you can have blow outs between what on paper are evenly matched teams. You break the mind/spirit and it matters not how strong/fit you are, great players from any era you choose would succeed in any other era you chose to supplant them in because they have it within them to do so.