2022 All Aus Predictions and Rolling teams

[Falcon3518]

I think the issue is you try and use parameters for your opinions but then change them to suit whatever your argument is.

Change them? I don’t think so. Give me an example


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Coleman’s are peak performance medals. He has like 4 I think. I’ve said many times I don’t expect non-mids to win Brownlows etc This again falls inline with my logic.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

So how does a small forward be great? A defender? A ruckman? Scott Wynd and Jim Stynes were the last breed of specialist ruckman able to win an award because umpires don’t give a shit about them.

Even more than that, why does your rigid application of these classifications depend, in turn, on the opinion of other people in subjective awards?

 

[PhatBoy]

And the point stands.

How does someone be great when they are ranked slightly behind someone else who is great?

How does the next best CHF playing behind Wayne Carey be considered a great when through no fault of his own, he’s not even the best in his position?

It’s like saying Creedence Clearwater Revival can’t be considered a great musical act because they never had a #1, while Tones and I with that god awful Dance Monkey song had one.


I have never in all my discussion of sport at any level encountered such a curious approach to forming an appraisal.

 

[Sttew]

Change them? I don’t think so. Give me an example


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Here's proof you duck and weave like nobody will notice. Today you're saying that unless you have been rated No.1 you aren't in the conversation of being great. Yesterday, you said the following about Tom Hawkins, "Lemme know when he gets a second Coleman. Until then he is a "

 

[PhatBoy]

Here's proof you duck and weave like nobody will notice. Today you're saying that unless you have been rated No.1 you aren't in the conversation of being great. Yesterday, you said the following about Tom Hawkins, "Lemme know when he gets a second Coleman. Until then he is a "

In the underrated players thread thats doing the rounds on the main board at the moment even now there is an example of what medals and awards etc only carry so much weight.

3 posters - I’m one of them, a Collingwood fan is another, and a Hawks fan is a third - so two neutrals and an actual fan of one of the sides in the drawn grand final - with two different views of the norm smith medal that day. Fadge pretty much said my thoughts exactly when he said he almost assumed that Goddard would win the medal as he produced what he, and I at the time, thought was one of the all time great grand final performances.

Meanwhile Lenny Hayes won the medal. And was no less deserving and as the Hawks fan (HairyO maybe?) said, it was a lion hearted four quarter effort with a tonne of tackling.

Because the people voting on it had contrasting views and leaned one way over the other, Goddard’s performance counts for nought using a black and white set of judgement criteria

 

[Falcon3518]

So how does a small forward be great? A defender? A ruckman? Scott Wynd and Jim Stynes were the last breed of specialist ruckman able to win an award because umpires don’t give a s**t about them.

Even more than that, why does your rigid application of these classifications depend, in turn, on the opinion of other people in subjective awards?

Defenders, smalls and ruckmen just don’t get enough awards so you can’t really make a rule for them (i.e not enough data) Only thing they have is AAs. I know I said AAs represent consistency but you can’t do anything else with them. Rance, Enright, Scarlett have 5/6 so I guess that’s a fair measure, Aker won a Brownlow so there that. Howe gets mark of the years and betts gets goal of the years. I’d use them as well. NS are also peak performance awards that they can all get. Other than that it’s just vibe and maybe B&Fs.

I think ruckmen used to get major awards in the past, but not all awards were around so there is a bit of a grey area. AFL keeps making up new awards which makes it difficult so you adjust the rules a little bit. Eg the Gary Ayers award made in 2016.

Also when people rank the top 10 players of all time very very rarely do they have a defender, ruck or small forward in there. It’s very often FF, CHF and mids. They usually are the best players in the team which is the main reason. Fair enough?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Here's proof you duck and weave like nobody will notice. Today you're saying that unless you have been rated No.1 you aren't in the conversation of being great. Yesterday, you said the following about Tom Hawkins, "Lemme know when he gets a second Coleman. Until then he is a "

Yes I don’t believe he’s a great if he hasn’t been No 1 each to their own. I was referring to his ‘peak’ not being great

The best forwards have multiple Coleman’s. literally look at past players, I have which is why I say it.

Selwood and Hawkins will both be in the HOF. But IMO all greats are in the HOF but not all HOF’ers are greats. You’ve got some ordinary players in there.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Defenders, smalls and ruckmen just don’t get enough awards so you can’t really make a rule for them (i.e not enough data) Only thing they have is AAs. I know I said AAs represent consistency but you can’t do anything else with them. Rance, Enright, Scarlett have 5/6 so I guess that’s a fair measure, Aker won a Brownlow so there that. Howe gets mark of the years and betts gets goal of the years. I’d use them as well. NS are also peak performance awards that they can all get. Other than that it’s just vibe and maybe B&Fs.

I think ruckmen used to get major awards in the past, but not all awards were around so there is a bit of a grey area. AFL keeps making up new awards which makes it difficult so you adjust the rules a little bit. Eg the Gary Ayers award made in 2016.

Also when people rank the top 10 players of all time very very rarely do they have a defender, ruck or small forward in there. It’s very often FF, CHF and mids. They usually are the best players in the team which is the main reason. Fair enough?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

But again goal of the year and mark of the year are subjective they’re voted on. Ablett won mark of the year for a mark he didn’t even control.

And I must have asked you this 100 times and you never ever answer it. I’ll use the obvious elephant in the room example.

The second best CHF of the 1990-2005 era, behind Carey obviously, was Richardson.

He had no hope of ever being either the best player in the league, or in his position. He was behind a guy who may be the best player that ever existed.

Why should he be penalised in your evaluation of him, because of when he was born?

 

[Falcon3518]

And the point stands.

How does someone be great when they are ranked slightly behind someone else who is great?

How does the next best CHF playing behind Wayne Carey be considered a great when through no fault of his own, he’s not even the best in his position?

It’s like saying Creedence Clearwater Revival can’t be considered a great musical act because they never had a #1, while Tones and I with that god awful Dance Monkey song had one.


I have never in all my discussion of sport at any level encountered such a curious approach to forming an appraisal.

That’s your opinion. I think too many people are being called greats nowadays. Like although I love edwards and appreciate what he has done for the club. He isn’t an AFL great imo, his CV isn’t good enough. Club great though is another matter.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sttew]

Yes I don’t believe he’s a great if he hasn’t been No 1 each to their own. I was referring to his ‘peak’ not being great

The best forwards have multiple Coleman’s. literally look at past players, I have which is why I say it.

Selwood and Hawkins will both be in the HOF. But IMO all greats are in the HOF but not all HOF’ers are greats. You’ve got some ordinary players in there.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

If he plays another 2 seasons, Hawkins will finish in the top 15, if not top 10, goalkickers of all time. He is currently ranked 21 out of over 400, and is 3 behind Peter Hudson. I'm not for one moment suggesting he is better than Hudson (he was a freak), but Hawkins should enter the top 20 during this finals campaign. That puts Hawkins in the top 5%, the upper echelon, but you say he cannot be a great because he has one Coleman. Tony Modra only won one Coleman and he is regarded as a great forward of the 90's (kicked over 500 goals). Your own Matthew Richardson kicked 800 goals but never won a Coleman. He is still a great.

 

[PhatBoy]

That’s your opinion. I think too many people are being called greats nowadays. Like although I love edwards and appreciate what he has done for the club. He isn’t an AFL great imo, his CV isn’t good enough. Club great though is another matter.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don’t think it is different to any era.
Even as a kid:

• Williams
• Lockett
• Dunstall
• Ablett
• Matera
• Jakovich
• Carey
• Hocking
• McLeod
• Modra
• Ricciuto
• Winmar
• Harvey
• Silvagni
• Koutoufides
• Roos
• Kelly
• Richardson
• Hird
• Wanganeen
• Grant
• Stynes

That’s just a quick roll call off the top of my head and I’ve missed heaps I’m sure. I don’t know that there is any more of a tendency now to label players as greats of the game than there has been historically

 

[Falcon3518]

If he plays another 2 seasons, Hawkins will finish in the top 15, if not top 10, goalkickers of all time. He is currently ranked 21 out of over 400, and is 3 behind Peter Hudson. I'm not for one moment suggesting he is better than Hudson (he was a freak), but Hawkins should enter the top 20 during this finals campaign. That puts Hawkins in the top 5%, the upper echelon, but you say he cannot be a great because he has one Coleman. Tony Modra only won one Coleman and he is regarded as a great forward of the 90's (kicked over 500 goals). Your own Matthew Richardson kicked 800 goals but never won a Coleman. He is still a great.

Yes very consistent. But is Boomer Harvey the best AFL player cause he played the most games? No, same principle applies to Hawkins.

Richo played other positions. Like Carey and Nick Riewoldt. So that’s fair enough. I don’t think people would have Richo in the top 10 or even 20 forwards in history though. Definitely a club great though.

Hawkins is better than Modra. Modra was more flashy though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes very consistent. But is Boomer Harvey the best AFL player cause he played the most games? No, same principle applies to Hawkins.

Richo played other positions. Like Carey and Nick Riewoldt. So that’s fair enough. I don’t think people would have Richo in the top 10 or even 20 forwards in history though. Definitely a club great though.

Hawkins is better than Modra. Modra was more flashy though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Who said he’s the best?
Harvey was an all time great unquestionably

 

[Sttew]

Yes very consistent. But is Boomer Harvey the best AFL player cause he played the most games? No, same principle applies to Hawkins.

Richo played other positions. Like Carey and Nick Riewoldt. So that’s fair enough. I don’t think people would have Richo in the top 10 or even 20 forwards in history though. Definitely a club great though.

Hawkins is better than Modra. Modra was more flashy though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Did you see Modra? You told us you never saw Simon Black?

When you add Hawkins' 272 goal assists to his 724 goals, he's a great.

 

[Falcon3518]

I don’t think it is different to any era.
Even as a kid:

• Williams
• Lockett
• Dunstall
• Ablett
• Matera
• Jakovich
• Carey
• Hocking
• McLeod
• Modra
• Ricciuto
• Winmar
• Harvey
• Silvagni
• Koutoufides
• Roos
• Kelly
• Richardson
• Hird
• Wanganeen
• Grant
• Stynes

That’s just a quick roll call off the top of my head and I’ve missed heaps I’m sure. I don’t know that there is any more of a tendency now to label players as greats of the game than there has been historically

I dunno to me it feels like they are calling anybody who plays a lot of games a great. Heard it with Hurley, Edwards, the name escapes me but a Carlton player a couple of years ago. I think he never played a final in his career. The quality has definitely dropped from the previous eras you mentioned imo.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Did you see Modra? You told us you never saw Simon Black?

When you add Hawkins' 272 goal assists to his 724 goals, he's a great.

I’ve seen modras games, Hawkins beats him in stats and awards. Should I think the opposite?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I’m just curious as to why you would have such a rigid application of these ‘rules.’

Jason Dunstall was probably never even the best forward in the AFL much less the best player.

I’d struggle to find any criteria under which you couldn’t call him a great.

Whilst I completely agree with the point you are trying to make, Jason Dunstall was not the best example (as "never the best forward or player").

Take his 1992 for example. He kicked 145 goals. He won the Coleman. He was named full forward in the AA team. He won the best and fairest. He won the MVP. He was named at No 1 of the top 50 players in several publications (every one I could find). He even finished runner up in the Brownlow.

He was widely (and fairly) regarded as the best player in the game.

I would argue there were other seasons too (such as when he comfortably won back to back Colemans and back to back best and fairests in premiership years within on of the greatest sides of all time -'88 and '89) but no season is as inarguable as 1992.

Still, I get and agree with your point that you can be a great of the game without necessarily being the best player in the league for any given season.

 

[PhatBoy]

I dunno to me it feels like they are calling anybody who plays a lot of games a great. Heard it with Hurley, Edwards, the name escapes me but a Carlton player a couple of years ago. I think he never played a final in his career. The quality has definitely dropped from the previous eras you mentioned imo.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I’ve not heard those players mentioned above anything other than being a great of their club and I think most people would feel the same about them


.

Whilst I completely agree with the point you are trying to make, Jason Dunstall was not the best example (as "never the best forward or player").

Take his 1992 for example. He kicked 145 goals. He won the Coleman. He was named full forward in the AA team. He won the best and fairest. He won the MVP. He was named at No 1 of the top 50 players in several publications (every one I could find). He even finished runner up in the Brownlow.

He was widely (and fairly) regarded as the best player in the game.

I would argue there were other seasons too (such as when he comfortably won back to back Colemans and back to back best and fairests in premiership years within on of the greatest sides of all time -'88 and '89) but no season is as inarguable as 1992.

Still, I get and agree with your point that you can be a great of the game without necessarily being the best player in the league for any given season.

That’s fair enough and there are probably better examples I could use - even a Dustin Fletcher who spent the first half of his career rated behind Silvagni and the second half of it behind Scarlett is a decent one - and it was in no way a shot at Dunstall who was a simply incredible player and often gets overlooked

 

[Falcon3518]

Whilst I completely agree with the point you are trying to make, Jason Dunstall was not the best example (as "never the best forward or player").

Take his 1992 for example. He kicked 145 goals. He won the Coleman. He was named full forward in the AA team. He won the best and fairest. He won the MVP. He was named at No 1 of the top 50 players in several publications (every one I could find). He even finished runner up in the Brownlow.

He was widely (and fairly) regarded as the best player in the game.

I would argue there were other seasons too (such as when he comfortably won back to back Colemans and back to back best and fairests in premiership years within on of the greatest sides of all time -'88 and '89) but no season is as inarguable as 1992.

Still, I get and agree with your point that you can be a great of the game without necessarily being the best player in the league for any given season.

I agree, he was the best forward every year he won the Coleman. 4 years or whatever plus his MVP. It’s enough to be considered the best player in the comp at a point in time.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Who said he’s the best?
Harvey was an all time great unquestionably

Nobody that’s the point


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Nobody that’s the point


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Well the point is he’s still an all time great and it’s not an un-earned title just because he played for a long time.

It’s one factor
He was durable
He was elite for most of his career
He had recognition via numerous AA selections and a couple of media awards
Best and fairests
Premiership player

There’s not a lot of boxes left for him to tick and he is rightly regarded as an all time great of the club and the game itself.

Why would Tom Hawkins or anyone else in a similar boat be any different?

 

[Falcon3518]

Well the point is he’s still an all time great and it’s not an un-earned title just because he played for a long time.

It’s one factor
He was durable
He was elite for most of his career
He had recognition via numerous AA selections and a couple of media awards
Best and fairests
Premiership player

There’s not a lot of boxes left for him to tick and he is rightly regarded as an all time great of the club and the game itself.

Why would Tom Hawkins or anyone else in a similar boat be any different?

Hawkins is better than Harvey. I wouldn’t consider Harvey a great. Probably not in my top 50. Another example is Silk, 1 AA in over 400 games is suuuuch a bad strike rate. His CV is barebones it’s literally. 4 flags, 1 AA and a showdown medal that’s it not even a B&F. People call him a great just cause he’s been around for a long time. If his CV is considered great the bar is bloody low. On top of that calling him silk given his record is so cringeworthy. Not in my top 100 players. Sorry Hawkins fans don’t want to be mean but I have to be fair.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Hawkins is better than Harvey. I wouldn’t consider Harvey a great. Probably not in my top 50. Another example is Silk, 1 AA in over 400 games is suuuuch a bad strike rate. His CV is barebones it’s literally. 4 flags, 1 AA and a showdown medal that’s it not even a B&F. People call him a great just cause he’s been around for a long time. If his CV is considered great the bar is bloody low. On top of that calling him silk given his record is so cringeworthy. Not in my top 100 players.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

He is called Silk because of how effortless his skills are. It has nothing to do with his standing in the game.


There have been something like 13,000 players to play VFL/AFL.

An arbitrary top 50 would include just 0.004 per cent of them.

I don’t think you have to be in the top 0.004 per cent of players in a code’s history to be considered an all time great of that code.

 

[Falcon3518]

He is called Silk because of how effortless his skills are. It has nothing to do with his standing in the game.


There have been something like 13,000 players to play VFL/AFL.

An arbitrary top 50 would include just 0.004 per cent of them.

I don’t think you have to be in the top 0.004 per cent of players in a code’s history to be considered an all time great of that code.

Yeah maybe. I’d say it’s closer to top 30 though. SOTY didn’t rate Dusty and thus wasn’t in his top 50. Top 50-30 depending on how hard you mark is about right to be considered a great. I think Hawkins is on the cusp but not in my top 30 yet. Another 1-2 Coleman’s and he’s in. He can do it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah maybe. I’d say it’s closer to top 30 though. SOTY didn’t rate Dusty and thus wasn’t in his top 50. Top 50-30 depending on how hard you mark is about right to be considered a great. I think Hawkins is on the cusp but not in my top 30 yet. Another 1-2 Coleman’s and he’s in. He can do it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

From what period?