There is always room for unstructured plays/players this is not the point being debated it is that without structure you are rarely any chance.
Look at Inglis he shines when there is good structures around him in Melb and Souths (both teams winning premierships) Hayne as brilliant as he can be has not won a premiership due to not playing in a quality structure at the level of Melb, Manly, Roosters,Souths even Dragons.
The unstructured brilliant players tend to not be as consistent and successful in the modern era where professionalism can suffocate the best of unstructured brilliance with disciplined game plans. (Benji Marshall had one high moment)
If you want prolonged success polished structured halves with a well rounded skillset and at their very core are thinking players tend to have more success than unstructured players---there will always be exceptions to the rule though like Langer.(in a less professional era i may add)
On an individual per player basis i might rate one player over another but pick the "lesser" player who i rate higher in the structured sense, it's all about winning premierships and consistent results in the top 4.
I wouldn't say Brett is a better player than Hayne but a far more consistent structured player that is more likely to win premierships in a structured team environment and is more of a thinking player.
Yes, theres room for unstructured players & even more room for structured players who make up the majority of the NRL...but this is very relevant to the point....because this is the bracket of player Thurston fits into- unstructured (within a structure).
As stated, these other players such as Hayne & Inglis play what they see, not from a generic handbook.
The point is....most NRL players ARE structured....& could never replicate these players, as they lack the natural abilities these STAR players offer.
The structured players COMPETE, but the unstructured players win the big games & this is why they are on the big bucks.
As for Hayne not winning a comp, he was only 1 game away from the it in possibly the best example of an unstructured natural player, the structured defence simply had no answer for.
I certainly agree some of these flamboyant players in the next category down like Barba, young Bird ect offer brilliance that can quickly be replaced by frantic, dumb plays - but Thurstons consistency is top notch.
Yes he gets ridiculous praise where media simply bandwagon, but I find this just as annoying as you.
I rate him up in the top few players personally, but again its all opinion & I respect most...boring if we all agreed on everything.
Like you, I take Snake over Hayne or anyone....but some of the freaky stuff he adds to his structure would have Hayne scratching his head....plus I'm bias as hell....