AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

Remove this Banner Ad

Seeds said:
Yes cyril got some goals from tackle run downs. those count in his very low goal count already. All it does is make his goal from offensive plays even worse then they already look.
Click to expand...

I think you are running a losing argument trying to downplay Cyril’s offensive play in big games here Seeds. We have already shown pretty clearly his goal involvements in the biggest games are right up with the best any small specialist forward has recorded this century. Unless you can provide someone who has done better in the biggest matches I think you need to accept he has a tremendous record in the biggest games he played in, and he played in plenty. Or you might need to explain to us why kicking a goal is a more useful achievement than being the second last touch in a goal.

Who are you playing in the small forward role ahead of him? You seem to have already sensibly agreed Dangerfield isn’t the right choice, so maybe throw us a name and why he is better than Cyril.
 
Dangerfield has no right to be in there with his finals performances. I think match-winning finals performances is a prerequisite for getting in this team.

I think the obvious ones to compete for that spot are Rioli, Chapman and 2x Johnsons (Brad and Steve). I'm probably picking Chapman to shade out Rioli purely on the basis of longevity.

I also don't think these gun forwards should be hurt by playing in great teams where lesser players who weren't as versatile stopped them playing midfield. Rioli, Chapman and SJ all showed themselves to be elite mids when given the chance but didn't play there because the teams were better off with lesser (but still gun) players like Sewell, Lewis, Corey and Ling playing midfield instead. Dangerfield has always had the luxury of being the main man and as good as he's been in the H&A rounds his finals failures are hard to ignore.
 
Footy Smarts said:
Dangerfield has no right to be in there with his finals performances. I think match-winning finals performances is a prerequisite for getting in this team.

I think the obvious ones to compete for that spot are Rioli, Chapman and 2x Johnsons (Brad and Steve). I'm probably picking Chapman to shade out Rioli purely on the basis of longevity.

I also don't think these gun forwards should be hurt by playing in great teams where lesser players who weren't as versatile stopped them playing midfield. Rioli, Chapman and SJ all showed themselves to be elite mids when given the chance but didn't play there because the teams were better off with lesser (but still gun) players like Sewell, Lewis, Corey and Ling playing midfield instead. Dangerfield has always had the luxury of being the main man and as good as he's been in the H&A rounds his finals failures are hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Arguably one of the best athletes I've seen play AFL - he'd smoke players from 20-30 years ago with pure agility & speed.
.. but I've never been a huge fan of his disposal, his kicking is average compared legends of the past - IMO, he's a far better athlete than he is a footballer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Meteoric Rise said:

Focus if you like just on Rioli's 10 x Preliminary Finals+Grand Finals. Here Rioli is playing the best teams in the biggest games. He played in 10 of those matches, two of which were in his very first season so well prior to his prime as a footballer, and one was first up off a long term injury. He scored 13 goals in PF/GFs and had 11 goal assists. From where I sit goals and goal assists are more or less of equal value. So 24 goals + goal assists total in 10 Preliminary Finals/Grand Finals. I know without checking this is very high for a small forward, but when you add to that his renowned elite defensive skills it is easy to see why he has a strong reputation as a big game player. You make the statement he massively under-performed in finals, what are you basing that on? It seems demonstrably and obviously wrong to me.

Dangerfield has played in 7 Prelims+GF’s. He has 9 goals+goal assists in those games.

For comparison with elite mids who rarely if ever played forward, Pendlebury got 7 goal+goal assists from 10 PF + GF’s. Chris Judd got 2 from 4 such games. Cousins 7 from 4 such games. Voss scored 10 goals from 8 such games and had 1 goal assist but goal assists were not recorded in 2001-02 when he played in 4 of the matches. Buckley 5 from 5 matches(but goal assists not recorded in 2 of his so his figure like Voss’s is likely higher.) Fyfe 3 from 3 such games. Dane Swan 8 from 8 such games.

It can vary according to your precise role in the midfield and other factors of course. Trent Cotchin has 2 goal + goal assists from his 7 PF+GF’s, whereas Dion Prestia from the same 7 games has 12 goals+goal assists(just about leading from all the pure inside mids I have looked at, surprisingly.) Sam Mitchell had 10 from 11. Joel Selwood 21 from 16.

So we can see from this basket of pretty much elite pure midfielders they are returning around or just below the goal impact figures of Dangerfield in the biggest games despite him spending much more time deep forward, sometimes isolated there and targeted.

But let's compare Cyril Rioli with say Stevie Johnson, who would be a more legit choice than Dangerfield as a small forward in the team of the 21st century I would think. Johnson played in 11 Preliminary+Grand Finals. He had 25 goals+goal assists in those. His average for goals+goal assists in PF and GFs is lower than Cyril Rioli’s, albeit a close run thing.

Paul Chapman is another genuine contender imo, had 25 goals + goal assists from 9 PF+GF’s, at a little better rate than Rioli. But both he and Johnson have filled their boots a bit in the total walkover 2007 GF, I am not sure Rioli got the benefit of a match like that. But if you take out each player’s best and worst match from the sample they will all sit pretty close.

Luke Breust is a specialist small forward team-mate of Rioli, he had a very strong 20 goals+goal assists from 8 PF/GF’s, but I would think most people would consider Rioli the better all round player based on his ability to win big contests and his brutal defensive game.

For the record Stephen Milne had 12 goal+goal assists in his 8 appearances in PF+GFs, so Cyril and the two Geelong forwards seem to be well ahead of him for scoreboard impact in these matches.

“The greatest of all time” Gary Ablett Jnr? 18 goals+goal assists from 11 PF + GFs. Well ahead of Dangerfield, well behind Cyril, Johnson, Chapman for scoreboard impact in these biggest games. Another big elite forward/mid for the Cats, Bartel had 18 from his 12 biggest games. Dion Prestia is ahead of all of Bartel, Ablett Jnr and Dangerfield for scoreboard impact from all of their Preliminary and Grand Finals. And between you and I, Kane Lambert with 14 from 7 is ahead of the lot of them. 😱

Of all of them, if you want a small forward in a big game, I am selecting Cyril ahead of Chapman and Johnson, either of whom would also be worthy candidates. Of the elite mids maybe Ablett Junior is the only one I would consider, but I am guessing he has played most of his Preliminary and Grand Finals as a forward and not had near the scoreboard impact of Rioli.
Click to expand...
Ok you are really trying to cherry pick stats now. Goal assists are not the same as goals because opposition teams have to stop shots on goals at all cost where they dont try to stop passes from 70 metres out at all costs as they still have another chance to stop a goal if they stop the opponent who the player is passing too from getting the ball. You also cant handball a goal either but you can handball a goal assist. Much easier to get a handball out of a pack in a crowded foward line then a shot on goal. Your assumption is wrong.

And even if you ignore all that and do assume they are the same (they are definately not) 24 combined goals plus goal assists in 10 finals is not special at all. Very similar to chapman and johnsons combination per game. Noticably lower then johnsons. and chapmans and johnsons were far more weighted to actual goals then goal assits and they spent more time up the ground then cyril as well playing partial midfield roles.

oh and cyril never played finals in his declining years after the age of 29 like other players so your argument that he played a couple of finals in his youth is more then offset by the fact he played zero in what should of been his declining years. Cyril played virtually all of his finals in the peak age of career. Johnson and chapmans averages brought down by a number of finals near the end of their careers post 30 as well as some in their early career.
 
HairyO said:
I think in the 2015 GF it was 2 goals, 4 goal assists, but 12 or 13 score involvements. He had a hand in half our scores.
Click to expand...
Yes and that was by far his best game. Score involvements are overrated. 12-13 isnt amazing in a massive thumping. Half a dozen players can get a score involvement with one goal. There was a geelong game this year where 4 players had around a dozen score involvements and 5 of our defenders had 6 score involvements or more.

He played 19 finals all up. 65 percent of them wins with a handful of monster wins. There are only a couple of good games in that lot (the 2015 grand final and the freemantle prelim), some ok ones where he had some cameos and the majority are games where he went missing. 22 goals in 19 games (this is terrible for a permanent foward with his reputation).
 
Ugh, I can't believe I'm doing this (given I don't like Geelong, Danger gives me massive 'flog' vibes and generally I much prefer footballer types like Sam Mitchell to athletic types like Danger) but I do think Dangerfield has every right to be in the conversation.

Firstly, he is an 8 time All Australian (the equal most of anyone in history). He has won every main whole of season award - Brownlow, AFLCA MVP, AFLPA MVP and 4 B&F's. He has the second most Brownlow votes in history, the 2nd most BOG's in history (both behind only GAJ) and would be similar in the Coaches votes. He's kicked over 300 goals whilst averaging 24 disposals, 14 contested, 6 clearances and 4 tackles. Until Martin edged past at the end of 2017, most considered him the best player in the game for a period (2015-2017).

The arguments presented here against him focus on 2 main areas:

1. Lack of team success (i.e. premierships)
Whilst it is what every player wants and plays for, I believe this to be one of the biggest furphies in our game. An individual has less impact on an AFL side's fortunes that perhaps any other sport in the world. IN basketball, one player significantly alters your fortunes. In American football, a star quarterback can dramatically alter a side's fortunes. In cricket, if you have the best batsmen or the best bowler in the world, that one individual can regularly save and win matches on their own by taking big bags of wickets or making big hundreds. In soccer, 1 goal is the difference between wins, draws and losses so 1 star player can make all the difference (every world class player in history has won trophies). AFL is not the same - it is the ultimate team game. Leading goalscorers can come from poor teams and in fact, wooden spoon teams. Some of the best players in history never won a single title. Skilton, Lockett, Ablett Snr and Robbie Flower were all the best player in the game at one point and none won anything - some not even close. Ablett Jnr was the best player in the competition when he went to the Gold Coast and he got even better whilst there - but their team fortunes did not change at all and they never finished higher than 12th. Honestly get sick of AA teams having such a focus on the best teams rather than necessarily the best players and the same when we evaluate individual performances. A quiet game is "played his role" when they win and "terrible" when they lose, an average game is "good" when they win and a great game is "average" or "didn't do enough" when they lose.

2. Poor performances in finals.
Whilst there is no doubt Dangerfield has had some poor finals, he has also had more than his fair share of very good finals. Much of the "Danger is no good in finals" comes from the above - i,e, had his teammates performed better and they wn, he would be lauded as havinga great game but becuase the keep losing, it is Danger's fault even though he does his bit more often than not.
IN fact, it might surprise people to learn that his averages in finals are almost exactly the same as they are in the home and away (despite his team generally having less of the ball)

Take the Prelim this year - Danger was mocked again (and he did make some errors) but he had 30 disposals (easily most of any Cat), 16 contested possessions (most on the ground) and 10 clearances (most on the ground). Had his teammates been better (but he been exactly the same) he would have been heralded as a match winner.

or the Prelim they lost in 2019 - Danger had 27 disposals, 16 contested, 7 clearances, 5 tackles and a goal. BOG had Geelong won.

or the QF the same year - 32 disposals, 17 contested, 7 clearances, a goal and an assist. Again, BOG had they won. or their previous QF loss where he had 31 disposals and a goal.

or the Prelim they lost back in 2016 at his peak - 39 disposals, 21 contested, 9 clearances, 5 tackles and a goal. Probably BOG regardless of a 6 goal loss.

In his Adelaide days, they lost 2 finals to the Hawks - in the first he had 28 disposals, 16 contested and 9 clearances to almost cause a Prelim boilover and he had 29 disposals, 14 contested, 10 clearances and a goal in the second one when Adelaide were well beaten.

and in the above I am only documenting times his side has lost, not counting all of the times his side has won and he has been a clear BOG.

I am happy with other suggestions for the HFF (such as Paul Chapman) but I think Danger has every right to be in contention for a spot and should probably be the front runer.
 
Shaun Burgoyne, Matthew Scarlett, Andrew McLeod.
Corey Enright, Darren Glass, Luke Hodge(VC).

Dean Cox, Chris Judd, Simon Black.
Michael Voss(C), Sam Mitchell, Gary Ablett.

Jason Akermanis, Nick Reiwoldt, Lance Franklin.
Brad Johnson, Matthew Lloyd, Eddie Betts.

Nathan Buckley, Adam Goodes, Mark Ricciuto, Dustin Martin.
 
Seeds said:
Yes and that was by far his best game. Score involvements are overrated. 12-13 isnt amazing in a massive thumping. Half a dozen players can get a score involvement with one goal. There was a geelong game this year where 4 players had around a dozen score involvements and 5 of our defenders had 6 score involvements or more.

He played 19 finals all up. 65 percent of them wins with a handful of monster wins. There are only a couple of good games in that lot (the 2015 grand final and the freemantle prelim), some ok ones where he had some cameos and the majority are games where he went missing. 22 goals in 19 games (this is terrible for a permanent foward with his reputation).
Click to expand...

Just not true. You seem obsessed with 'number of goals kicked' and nothing else.

To address some of your points - no one in the entire league averaged even 9 score involvements a game in 2015 (the first year of this stat unfortunately) so to say 12-13 is not significant is not accurate at all. Especially considering he had the most score involvements in the grand final and the 2nd most over the finals series as a whole. He was prolifically involved in setting up Hawthorn's scores throughout the series despite not registering overly large numbers of goals kicked.

IN terms of that Grand Final, he comfortably won the Norm Smith medal and was named best on ground by nearly every voter (and second best on ground by the remainder). The crowd started chanting 'Cyril' as soon as it was time to announce the NS winner. He was obviously the best player on the ground, despite only kicking the 2 goals. (To address another of your earlier points about chase down tackles resulting in goals, etc) His most famous passage was when he pressured multiple opponents and then chased down an Eagle (starting in the pocket) and catching him on the wing. This turned an Eagle attack and likely goal into a direct Hawthorn goal but did not register as a goal or an assist for Cyril. These influential moments that don't register on the stat sheet were common, such as the the two famous interceptions in another Grand Final against Kurt Tippett. On both occasions, it turned a Sydney possession into an immediate Hawthorn goal but neither even registered as a possession for Cyril as he pressured, intercepted a handpass/kick and tapped the ball to team mate who kicked the goal. Also, mentioning that it was a big win is not really fair either given all of Rioli's influence came at the beginning of the match when the game was up for grabs. He's never been one to feast on junk time and was obviously the match winner, hence his clear cut Norm Smith win.

Also, the idea he only played 2 good finals (BOG and the match winner in both those named, one a GF and one an away Prelim is better than good IMO) is also false. For example, in the 2012 Prelim, Cyril had 26 disposals, 16 contested, 5 tackles, kicked 2 goals 3 and had an assist. What the stats don't tell you is that Adelaide had kicked the last 4 goals and were in front in the last with all the momentum when Cyril took the game by the scruff of the neck. He went in the middle and got 4 clearances in the last quarter. He went forward and took some big speccies whilst outnumbered. He kicked the match winner (after 4 Adelaide goals) to put the Hawks back in front late in the last. He kicked 2 of Hawthorn's last 3 goals. He was the match winner and clear best on ground.

In the 3 examples used above, Cyril was BOG but didn't kick more than 2 goals in any of those games. See how using goals as your only measuring stick is misleading?

In another final (vs Sydney, 2011), Cyril 'only' had 20 disposals, 10 contested, 1 goal and 3 assists but if you go back and watch the game, you will see he was one of the most influential players on the ground. There are other similar examples.

For a guy playing the hardest position to have an impact in finals, Rioli was consistently more impactful in finals that most of his peers and had several BOG/match winning performances, including the first small forward to win a Norm Smith in God knows how long.
 
Guardian Hawk said:
Ugh, I can't believe I'm doing this (given I don't like Geelong, Danger gives me massive 'flog' vibes and generally I much prefer footballer types like Sam Mitchell to athletic types like Danger) but I do think Dangerfield has every right to be in the conversation.

Firstly, he is an 8 time All Australian (the equal most of anyone in history). He has won every main whole of season award - Brownlow, AFLCA MVP, AFLPA MVP and 4 B&F's. He has the second most Brownlow votes in history, the 2nd most BOG's in history (both behind only GAJ) and would be similar in the Coaches votes. He's kicked over 300 goals whilst averaging 24 disposals, 14 contested, 6 clearances and 4 tackles. Until Martin edged past at the end of 2017, most considered him the best player in the game for a period (2015-2017).

The arguments presented here against him focus on 2 main areas:

1. Lack of team success (i.e. premierships)
Whilst it is what every player wants and plays for, I believe this to be one of the biggest furphies in our game. An individual has less impact on an AFL side's fortunes that perhaps any other sport in the world. IN basketball, one player significantly alters your fortunes. In American football, a star quarterback can dramatically alter a side's fortunes. In cricket, if you have the best batsmen or the best bowler in the world, that one individual can regularly save and win matches on their own by taking big bags of wickets or making big hundreds. In soccer, 1 goal is the difference between wins, draws and losses so 1 star player can make all the difference (every world class player in history has won trophies). AFL is not the same - it is the ultimate team game. Leading goalscorers can come from poor teams and in fact, wooden spoon teams. Some of the best players in history never won a single title. Skilton, Lockett, Ablett Snr and Robbie Flower were all the best player in the game at one point and none won anything - some not even close. Ablett Jnr was the best player in the competition when he went to the Gold Coast and he got even better whilst there - but their team fortunes did not change at all and they never finished higher than 12th. Honestly get sick of AA teams having such a focus on the best teams rather than necessarily the best players and the same when we evaluate individual performances. A quiet game is "played his role" when they win and "terrible" when they lose, an average game is "good" when they win and a great game is "average" or "didn't do enough" when they lose.

2. Poor performances in finals.
Whilst there is no doubt Dangerfield has had some poor finals, he has also had more than his fair share of very good finals. Much of the "Danger is no good in finals" comes from the above - i,e, had his teammates performed better and they wn, he would be lauded as havinga great game but becuase the keep losing, it is Danger's fault even though he does his bit more often than not.
IN fact, it might surprise people to learn that his averages in finals are almost exactly the same as they are in the home and away (despite his team generally having less of the ball)

Take the Prelim this year - Danger was mocked again (and he did make some errors) but he had 30 disposals (easily most of any Cat), 16 contested possessions (most on the ground) and 10 clearances (most on the ground). Had his teammates been better (but he been exactly the same) he would have been heralded as a match winner.

or the Prelim they lost in 2019 - Danger had 27 disposals, 16 contested, 7 clearances, 5 tackles and a goal. BOG had Geelong won.

or the QF the same year - 32 disposals, 17 contested, 7 clearances, a goal and an assist. Again, BOG had they won. or their previous QF loss where he had 31 disposals and a goal.

or the Prelim they lost back in 2016 at his peak - 39 disposals, 21 contested, 9 clearances, 5 tackles and a goal. Probably BOG regardless of a 6 goal loss.

In his Adelaide days, they lost 2 finals to the Hawks - in the first he had 28 disposals, 16 contested and 9 clearances to almost cause a Prelim boilover and he had 29 disposals, 14 contested, 10 clearances and a goal in the second one when Adelaide were well beaten.

and in the above I am only documenting times his side has lost, not counting all of the times his side has won and he has been a clear BOG.

I am happy with other suggestions for the HFF (such as Paul Chapman) but I think Danger has every right to be in contention for a spot and should probably be the front runer.
Click to expand...

Good to see you making an effort to argue the unarguable GH, however I demur on several points..

I would counter your points simply by saying the following:

- One player can and does often make a big difference in a game of footy if they can make goal creating or goal saving plays. This is why clubs pay big money and draft picks to recruit players they see as game breakers. It matters not that one player can make more of a difference in a 5 person or 11 person team sport. Individual players in the AFL have a value and the best players have by far the biggest value. The best players imo would be correctly defined as the ones who could make the most difference towards winning you the most important matches. AFL player salaries are somewhat falsely compacted by the level of the salary cap. Every player on a list has to make enough to live on. If the cap was say $50m then we would really see how much the clubs value the very best players. The best ones would be on $5-8m I would guess while the list fillers might be on $250k max.

- Dangerfield being an 8 time AA is imo at least, controversial. It has been stated and not challenged on this thread he has been selected on a HFF 5 times. There is almost no evidence to suggest he is or ever has been in the best 2-3 small forwards in the competition at any given time, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest he hasn’t been, his stints forward in PF and GF’s have been almost wholly unproductive, save for the odd free kick he earned by becoming a shooting stars meme.

- The lack of team success argument I agree with to a point. Robert Flower, there is zero evidence to say he could not play very well on the biggest stage, and what little chance he got he fired. But a person who has been put in the position year after year and come away with a damaged reputation cannot be considered in the best 22 players to have played this century. I wasn’t able to follow footy closely around this time but let’s say take Lenny Hayes. What few of the big finals I did get to see him play he didn’t seem to have tarnished his excellent reputation due to a lack of ultimate team success. In fact I would say he enhanced his reputation in the biggest games he played despite his team not winning a flag. So I think where your argument regarding lack of team success is true for a Flower or a Hayes, it is not true for Dangerfield.

- Quoting quantity of possessions and even contested possessions for Dangerfield in finals does not help his argument imo. We all know he is a very good contest winner, well at least until he tires, which he always seems to in the biggest finals. It is the next bit that is the problem. He doesn’t do sufficient damage with his disposals because he has no poise and is not a polished kick. It is a crucial part of footy. And he is no good at it, and this seems to be most exposed in the biggest matches. You say had his teammates been better he would have been heralded as a match winner in this years Prelim. The thing is they are not going to be better if he is pumping it either onto the opposition players’ chests or chipping it slowly sideways 30 times per match. Football is a game that requires synergy between teammates, but where is the evidence anyone can find synergy with Dangerfield in the biggest matches? How many times do you watch these big games he has played in and after he has disposed of the ball say “jeez, that was brilliant play?” Compare and contrast with players playing similar roles like Petracca, and Martin. Or if you like, compare with consistently great midfielders like Hayes and Pendlebury. Or Judd, or Cousins, Voss, Black, Mitchell and so on. It is a high bar, and Dangerfield is nowhere near it.

- Dangerfield having won every major award in footy is undoubtedly an impressive achievement. But most years someone achieves that and all of his came in 2016, so one year.
 
Seeds said:
Ok you are really trying to cherry pick stats now. Goal assists are not the same as goals because opposition teams have to stop shots on goals at all cost where they dont try to stop passes from 70 metres out at all costs as they still have another chance to stop a goal if they stop the opponent who the player is passing too from getting the ball. You also cant handball a goal either but you can handball a goal assist. Much easier to get a handball out of a pack in a crowded foward line then a shot on goal. Your assumption is wrong.

And even if you ignore all that and do assume they are the same (they are definately not) 24 combined goals plus goal assists in 10 finals is not special at all. Very similar to chapman and johnsons combination per game. Noticably lower then johnsons. and chapmans and johnsons were far more weighted to actual goals then goal assits and they spent more time up the ground then cyril as well playing partial midfield roles.

oh and cyril never played finals in his declining years after the age of 29 like other players so your argument that he played a couple of finals in his youth is more then offset by the fact he played zero in what should of been his declining years. Cyril played virtually all of his finals in the peak age of career. Johnson and chapmans averages brought down by a number of finals near the end of their careers post 30 as well as some in their early career.
Click to expand...

OK, so goal assists are not of equal value to goals because they are not as well defended by opponents.

So show us the guys out there getting truckloads more goal assists than the leading goal kickers score…..just a hint, you will be looking for a while. 😉

And why exactly is a handballed goal assist somehow worth less than a kicked goal assist or goal?

And 24 goal assists + goals in 10 finals you may consider not special, but show us all the small forward players well above that figure this century….I couldn’t find any, but I could find loads of highly rated players below it. Those i found above that figure were marginally above, and had nowhere near the tackle numbers of Rioli.

As for your declining years argument, how many Prelims and GF’s did those guys play after age 29? And what was the effect on their overall averages? And what effect did say filling their boots with big numbers in the 07 walkover GF have? And how many PF’s and GF’s did they play before they entered their prime say from 23yo?

Rioli actually played 7 of his 19 finals before his 5th season when most layers are thought to be entering their prime. He played another first up off a long term injury. So a very significant number of his finals were not at the “peak of his career," contrary to your claim. He had 15 goals + goal assists in his 8 finals I would think could be fairly defined as being outside his peak. Which means in his 11 “at peak" finals he had 29 goals + goal assists at an average of 2.63 per final. His at peak GF+PF figures are also around that level, 2.66 per match.

Obviously if you are picking guys for these teams you are looking at their peak performance, and I can’t see how a player who played in 19 finals and 4 flags spanning 8 seasons could possibly be said to have not had sufficient longevity to be fairly judged.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to have a go at alternate team to take on the OP's team. Given he got first pick on every player, the only concession I will afford myself is that I can select anybody who played in the 2000's and assume they are at their best (even if their best came in the mid to late 90's). I also think this is faor given the last team of the century was picked in 1996.

My 'alternate' team (not counting anyone from the OP):

B: G. Wanganeen, S. Silvagni, D.Glass
HB: N.Lappin, G.Jakovich, R.Harvey
C: P.Matera, S.Mitchell, S.Crawford
HF: J.Hird, W.Carey, B.Johnson
F: J.Kennedy, T.Lockett, D.Jarman
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, L.Hayes, J.Selwood, A. Sandilands

A lot of big game players in that lot. Do you think they'd beat the OP's team?

and my go at an alternate team, only counting performances in the 2000's:

B: G.Wanganeen, D.Glass, B.Lake
HB: N.Lappin, J.Leppitsch, S.Goodwin
C: S.Crawford, S.Mitchell, L.Hayes
HF: B.Johnson, W.Treadrea, J.Hird
F: B.Fevola, J.Kennedy, E.Betts
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, J.Selwood, J.Bartel, A.Sandilands

Would this team stand a chance against the OP's?

Have I left anyone obvious out?
 
Guardian Hawk said:
I'd like to have a go at alternate team to take on the OP's team. Given he got first pick on every player, the only concession I will afford myself is that I can select anybody who played in the 2000's and assume they are at their best (even if their best came in the mid to late 90's). I also think this is faor given the last team of the century was picked in 1996.

My 'alternate' team (not counting anyone from the OP):

B: G. Wanganeen, S. Silvagni, D.Glass
HB: N.Lappin, G.Jakovich, R.Harvey
C: P.Matera, S.Mitchell, S.Crawford
HF: J.Hird, W.Carey, B.Johnson
F: J.Kennedy, T.Lockett, D.Jarman
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, L.Hayes, J.Selwood, A. Sandilands

A lot of big game players in that lot. Do you think they'd beat the OP's team?

and my go at an alternate team, only counting performances in the 2000's:

B: G.Wanganeen, D.Glass, B.Lake
HB: N.Lappin, J.Leppitsch, S.Goodwin
C: S.Crawford, S.Mitchell, L.Hayes
HF: B.Johnson, W.Treadrea, J.Hird
F: B.Fevola, J.Kennedy, E.Betts
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, J.Selwood, J.Bartel, A.Sandilands

Would this team stand a chance against the OP's?

Have I left anyone obvious out?
Click to expand...
Glenn archer.

koutafides

Ps. robert harvey didnt play a single game on the half back flank in his entire career. He would of been terrible at it.

lenny hayes also not at this level.
 
Seeds said:
Glenn archer.

koutafides

Ps. robert harvey didnt play a single game on the half back flank in his entire career. He would of been terrible at it.

lenny hayes also not at this level.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Both Archer and Kouta came in to heavy consideration for that first side. I wanted to put Kouta on the bench as a guy who could play every position well but preferred Pavlich as the play anywhere guy and the others as positional specialists who were most unlucky not to be named on ground (or make the first team) - and in the case of Sandi, needing a second ruck.

Lenny Hayes I chose as a point of difference as a defensive midfield specialist and big game specialist (over Cameron Ling and Brett Kirk) as this side was chosen to play the side in the OP. I didn't want a midfield full of 'attack only' mindset players, particularly against a midfield of GAJ, Judd, Voss, Buckley, etc.

Archer was unlucky to be left out but I felt with Jakovich, Lockett, etc I already had a very tough, enforcing side and preferred the class of Wanganeen.

I take your point on Robert Harvey. You'll note every other position was chosen according to where players actually played but I really struggled with the last half back flank. I planned to pick whoever was left out of Enright, Hodge and McLeod from the OP team but then noticed he was cheeky and picked all 3, putting Enright in a pocket. I considered positional specialists but found it hard to find anyone in that class. The closest I came up with was Andy McKay (who I rate but I don't think others do). I could have swapped Mitchell (who spent some time on a half back flank and was AA there) but wanted to reward Mitchell as the best centreman and deserving of being in the OP's team IMO (plus I assumed I would face the same criticism as he wasn't really a HBF'er). The next best options I thought were Birchall and Burgoyne but I didn't know if that was club bias or if they were in the same class. Another option was to put Archer in the back pocket and move Wanganeen to the HBF but that felt like it was creating more positional isues and Harvey is more deserving than Archer overall IMO. I did notice that I could have put Ashley McIntosh in as he officially qaulifies (played until 2003).

What do you reckon is the best option? McKay to the HBF, Harvey to the bench and Hayes out?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Guardian Hawk said:
Thanks. Both Archer and Kouta came in to heavy consideration for that first side. I wanted to put Kouta on the bench as a guy who could play every position well but preferred Pavlich as the play anywhere guy and the others as positional specialists who were most unlucky not to be named on ground (or make the first team) - and in the case of Sandi, needing a second ruck.

Lenny Hayes I chose as a point of difference as a defensive midfield specialist and big game specialist (over Cameron Ling and Brett Kirk) as this side was chosen to play the side in the OP. I didn't want a midfield full of 'attack only' mindset players, particularly against a midfield of GAJ, Judd, Voss, Buckley, etc.

Archer was unlucky to be left out but I felt with Jakovich, Lockett, etc I already had a very tough, enforcing side and preferred the class of Wanganeen.

I take your point on Robert Harvey. You'll note every other position was chosen according to where players actually played but I really struggled with the last half back flank. I planned to pick whoever was left out of Enright, Hodge and McLeod from the OP team but then noticed he was cheeky and picked all 3, putting Enright in a pocket. I considered positional specialists but found it hard to find anyone in that class. The closest I came up with was Andy McKay (who I rate but I don't think others do). I could have swapped Mitchell (who spent some time on a half back flank and was AA there) but wanted to reward Mitchell as the best centreman and deserving of being in the OP's team IMO (plus I assumed I would face the same criticism as he wasn't really a HBF'er). The next best options I thought were Birchall and Burgoyne but I didn't know if that was club bias or if they were in the same class. Another option was to put Archer in the back pocket and move Wanganeen to the HBF but that felt like it was creating more positional isues and Harvey is more deserving than Archer overall IMO. I did notice that I could have put Ashley McIntosh in as he officially qaulifies (played until 2003).

What do you reckon is the best option? McKay to the HBF, Harvey to the bench and Hayes out?
Click to expand...
You have two genuine full backs. I would of only had just one and archer in the back pocket instead. Archer is arguably the best third defender of the past 40 years. Also much more adaptable then Glass. He can play tall, medium and move up the field.

mckay is a good call. i would play him over harvey in the backline. He has been forgotton with time. Up there with enright. in saying that harvey probably deserves to start in the midfield. He was along with williams streets ahead of the rest as the best midfielder of the nineties. Simon black and sam mitchell are very similar players. Maybe move black to the bench ans slot harvey in who offers a bit More drive.
 
Guardian Hawk said:
I'd like to have a go at alternate team to take on the OP's team. Given he got first pick on every player, the only concession I will afford myself is that I can select anybody who played in the 2000's and assume they are at their best (even if their best came in the mid to late 90's). I also think this is faor given the last team of the century was picked in 1996.

My 'alternate' team (not counting anyone from the OP):

B: G. Wanganeen, S. Silvagni, D.Glass
HB: N.Lappin, G.Jakovich, R.Harvey
C: P.Matera, S.Mitchell, S.Crawford
HF: J.Hird, W.Carey, B.Johnson
F: J.Kennedy, T.Lockett, D.Jarman
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, L.Hayes, J.Selwood, A. Sandilands

A lot of big game players in that lot. Do you think they'd beat the OP's team?

and my go at an alternate team, only counting performances in the 2000's:

B: G.Wanganeen, D.Glass, B.Lake
HB: N.Lappin, J.Leppitsch, S.Goodwin
C: S.Crawford, S.Mitchell, L.Hayes
HF: B.Johnson, W.Treadrea, J.Hird
F: B.Fevola, J.Kennedy, E.Betts
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, J.Selwood, J.Bartel, A.Sandilands

Would this team stand a chance against the OP's?

Have I left anyone obvious out?
Click to expand...
Silvagni played for 17 seasons, but only two in the 2000s.

None of his AA or B&Fs were in the 2000s. He wouldn't be close in this century for a berth.

EDIT: just read your proviso re anyone in the 2000s assuming they're at their best.

It's silly, but it fits your stated criteria.
 
Last edited:
Trav 20 said:
Silvagni played for 17 seasons, but only two in the 2000s.

None of his AA or B&Fs were in the 2000s. He wouldn't be close in this century for a berth.

EDIT: just read your proviso re anyone in the 2000s assuming they're at their best.

It's silly, but it fits your stated criteria.
Click to expand...

It is somewhat 'silly' which is why I created a 2nd team that better fits the standard criteria.

The reason for the first team is to try and create a team capable of beating the team in the OP that could still technically be picked from players who played in the 2000's. I didn't think that if I did a straight second choice 22 (as per the 2nd team), that would be possible.
 
Guardian Hawk said:
I'd like to have a go at alternate team to take on the OP's team. Given he got first pick on every player, the only concession I will afford myself is that I can select anybody who played in the 2000's and assume they are at their best (even if their best came in the mid to late 90's). I also think this is faor given the last team of the century was picked in 1996.

My 'alternate' team (not counting anyone from the OP):

B: G. Wanganeen, S. Silvagni, D.Glass
HB: N.Lappin, G.Jakovich, R.Harvey
C: P.Matera, S.Mitchell, S.Crawford
HF: J.Hird, W.Carey, B.Johnson
F: J.Kennedy, T.Lockett, D.Jarman
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, L.Hayes, J.Selwood, A. Sandilands

A lot of big game players in that lot. Do you think they'd beat the OP's team?

and my go at an alternate team, only counting performances in the 2000's:

B: G.Wanganeen, D.Glass, B.Lake
HB: N.Lappin, J.Leppitsch, S.Goodwin
C: S.Crawford, S.Mitchell, L.Hayes
HF: B.Johnson, W.Treadrea, J.Hird
F: B.Fevola, J.Kennedy, E.Betts
R: D.Cox, M.Ricciuto, S.Black
I: M.Pavlich, J.Selwood, J.Bartel, A.Sandilands

Would this team stand a chance against the OP's?

Have I left anyone obvious out?
Click to expand...

You have team + alternate teams of century:

8 Eagles
6 Cats
6 Hawks
5 Lions
5 Blues
5 Crows
4 Saints
3 Bulldogs
3 Dockers
3 Magpies
3 Swans
2 Port
2 Bombers


2 Tigers

1 Roos
1 Suns
1 Demon(added this season)

Zero: GWS

My question is what made Richmond win 3 flags and a minor premiership in 4 seasons, with one of the Tigers named only playing in one of the flags? Can’t be the players, only one triple flag player named. Can’t be the coach, the only coach named is Clarkson. So it must be the Tiger Army, or the MCG, or the “VFL.” Why are Dangerfield, Betts, Johnson better small forwards than Toby Greene? Why are Goodwin, Lappin, Hayes better half back/wing options than Whitfield, or Kelly? Why are all of Lloyd, Pavlich, Kennedy and Fevola better key forward options than Jack Riewoldt? What about someone like Matthew Richardson? Why for example is 926 goals in 270 games(win 58%) Lloyd better than his contemporary Richardson who kicked 800 goals in 282 games playing in teams who won only 41% of their matches? And didn’t Richardson also spend a couple of seasons on the wing, finishing runner-up in the Brownlow in one of those? What about a player like David Neitz, was he considered? Why is say Pavlich for example better than him?

Difficult process I know, but you have 51 players from 11 clubs combined, and 9 players from the other 7 clubs combined. These 7 clubs include 3 flag and 1 Minor Premiership Richmond, 2 flag and one runner up North, flag winners Port, Demons and Bombers(multiple flags and runner-up,) and all of the uber-talented GWS players. Ok, I have double counted players that played for two clubs, but this is applied to all the teams.

You could fairly ask me to do better. I would struggle to be honest because I was out of the country and not able to follow footy for many years during the qualifying period/s. But the above are my queries on your teams off the top of my head.

Edit: there are only 9 current players named across your two teams and the O/P’s team.

Martin, Gawn, Franklin, Fyfe, Pendlebury, McGovern, Selwood, Kennedy(WCE) and Dangerfield.

Of those only Martin, Gawn, McGovern look to have any top end capacity left in them, maybe Fyfe if you rate him, I don’t.

Players who weren’t already qualified but have been included based mainly on 2015-onwards, you would maybe say Martin, Gawn, Fyfe, McGovern, Dangerfield and possibly Kennedy are the only ones selected across the 3 teams. 6 players from around 50. In your two teams you have at best Kennedy and Betts but I am guessing they would be borderline included for deeds prior to 2016.

What happened after 2015? AFL footballers got worse? Or what? This period makes up about 20% of the qualifying periods(more or less depending on the criteria for selection,) but you can only find 2 players max to fit into your 25+ players named….
 
Last edited:
Seeds said:
You have two genuine full backs. I would of only had just one and archer in the back pocket instead. Archer is arguably the best third defender of the past 40 years. Also much more adaptable then Glass. He can play tall, medium and move up the field.

mckay is a good call. i would play him over harvey in the backline. He has been forgotton with time. Up there with enright. in saying that harvey probably deserves to start in the midfield. He was along with williams streets ahead of the rest as the best midfielder of the nineties. Simon black and sam mitchell are very similar players. Maybe move black to the bench ans slot harvey in who offers a bit More drive.
Click to expand...

Yes, the more I consider McKay - the more I believe he is deserving of inclusion on the HBF. He was All Australian 4 times in that role and won a best and fairest, with 2 AA's and a B&F coming in the 2000's as well. I think I'll make those changes, including the Harvey move.

In terms of Glass and Archer - I don't agree that Archer was a "3rd tall" in the sense of how that is used these days. He was a courageous, hard at it back pocket that could play on a variety of opponents. I picked the side to play against Riewoldt, Lloyd and Franklin. Glass, in his latter years, played in a back pocket and was deployed as a 'third tall', much like Dustin Fletcher and Scarlett were in their latter years (given their ability with the ball). If I were to take out Glass it would be to put in Dustin Fletcher or Brian Lake as genuine talls (or if seeking a true 3rd defender, Josh Gibson - don't laugh). I loved Archer but hew was a true back pocket rather than a 3rd tall in my view (hope that makes sense).
 
Trav 20 said:
Silvagni played for 17 seasons, but only two in the 2000s.

None of his AA or B&Fs were in the 2000s. He wouldn't be close in this century for a berth.

EDIT: just read your proviso re anyone in the 2000s assuming they're at their best.

It's silly, but it fits your stated criteria.
Click to expand...
Its not silly. all players comsidered should be considered equally and not have a whole bunch of players who we only count 1-5 years of their career.

teams of the decades are ruined by this problem. A player whose peak fits perfectly within a decade gets in whilst a slightly better player whose peak is spread across two decades often just miss. Now thats silly.
 
Seeds said:
Its not silly. all players comsidered should be considered equally and not have a whole bunch of players who we only count 1-5 years of their career.

teams of the decades are ruined by this problem. A player whose peak fits perfectly within a decade gets in whilst a slightly better player whose peak is spread across two decades often just miss. Now thats silly.
Click to expand...
Nay, it's silly. The other poster acknowledged this.

A player's career shouldn't have to fit perfecly into a decade, as you say, however, in Silvagni's case the years in question are his 16th and 17th seasons when he was (rightfully) nowhere near his best.

It's beyond silly.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
You have team + alternate teams of century:

8 Eagles
6 Cats
6 Hawks
5 Lions
5 Blues
5 Crows
4 Saints
3 Bulldogs
3 Dockers
3 Magpies
3 Swans
2 Port
2 Bombers


2 Tigers

1 Roos
1 Suns
1 Demon(added this season)

Zero: GWS

My question is what made Richmond win 3 flags and a minor premiership in 4 seasons, with one of the Tigers named only playing in one of the flags? Can’t be the players, only one triple flag player named. Can’t be the coach, the only coach named is Clarkson. So it must be the Tiger Army, or the MCG, or the “VFL.” Why are Dangerfield, Betts, Johnson better small forwards than Toby Greene? Why are Goodwin, Lappin, Hayes better half back/wing options than Whitfield, or Kelly? Why are all of Lloyd, Pavlich, Kennedy and Fevola better key forward options than Jack Riewoldt? What about someone like Matthew Richardson? Why for example is 926 goals in 270 games(win 58%) Lloyd better than his contemporary Richardson who kicked 800 goals in 282 games playing in teams who won only 41% of their matches? And didn’t Richardson also spend a couple of seasons on the wing, finishing runner-up in the Brownlow in one of those? What about a player like David Neitz, was he considered? Why is say Pavlich for example better than him?

Difficult process I know, but you have a lot of players 51 players from 11 clubs, and 9 players from the other 7 clubs, who include 3 flag and 1 Minor Premiership Richmond, 2 flag and one runner up North, flag winners Port, Demons and Bombers(multiple flags and runner-up,) and all of the uber-talented GWS players. Ok, I have double counted players that played for two clubs, but this is applied to all the teams.

You could fairly ask me to do better. I would struggle to be honest because I was out of the country and not able to follow footy for many years during the qualifying period/s. But the above are my queries on your teams off the top of my head.

Edit: there are only 9 current players named across your two teams and the O/P’s team.

Martin, Gawn, Franklin, Fyfe, Pendlebury, McGovern, Selwood, Kennedy(WCE) and Dangerfield.

Of those only Martin, Gawn, McGovern look to have any top end capacity left in them, maybe Fyfe if you rate him, I don’t.

Players who weren’t already qualified but have been included based mainly on 2015-onwards, you would maybe say Martin, Gawn, Fyfe, McGovern, Dangerfield and possibly Kennedy are the only ones selected across the 3 teams. 6 players from over 50. In your two teams you have at best Kennedy and Betts but I am guessing they would be borderline included for deeds prior to 2016.

What happened after 2015? AFL footballers got worse? Or what? This period makes up about 20% of the qualifying periods(more or less depending on the criteria for selection,) but you can only find 2 players max to fit into your 25+ players named….
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot of questions.

On the Richmond 2017-2021 query, Martin and Rance were already included. Riewoldt got plenty of consideration too but there were a lot of elite tall forwards to pick from and the likes of Lockett, Carey, Franklin, etc being available for selection meant I had a lot of worthy candidates vying for only a couple of remaining spots. Hawthorn's triple premiership side only has 2 players as well - Hodge and Mitchell. These are very hard sides to get into - only the absolute best in a position for a generation get in. Who else do you propose from Richmond's 2017-2021 side should be included (and ahead of who)?

As for the query about Riewoldt and Richo vs the players selected - this was tough. I didn't choose Lloyd but I would have him ahead. He kicked 126 goals more than Richo and 200+ goals more than Riewoldt. He had 2 more AA's than either. Yes, Richo played wing (and did so very well) but that was only really in 2008 and his goal average remained the same so it didn't really affect his tally. Richo had one season over 67 goals, Riewoldt 2 and Lloyd 6. He made sense for me at FF. You mentioned Pavlich and I didn't select him over either as a key forward. I put him on my bench as he could play forward, midfield and key defence to shore up any area the side was being beaten. You could argue Richo could too but I though Pavlich was the more versatile and more proven in different areas.

That really only leaves a spot in the forward pocket which I gave to Fevola. I think that is really iffy tbh but I chose him for his peak performance and the fact that I thought he would fit best as a pocket alongside the 'gorillas' as someone quality at ground level too. Richo I thought needed a key positon (specifically CHF) due to his style and presence and I favoured Carey (obviously) and Tredrea (though very tough to split and I did have ot the other way around at first). On reflection, Riewoldt may have been a better choice for a pocket that Fevola given he is also very good at ground level and can push up the ground and be an assist player if needed. I didn't spend hours analysing every position and every player but don't forget that the likes of Jonathon Brown, Barry Hall, Tom Hawkins, Jarryd Roughead as well as Richo and Riewoldt were overlooked. THere's been some absolute quality and only s many spots. Given the KPF talent, Neitz wasn't a strong consideration against those guys, nor for CHB where Jakovich, Leppitsch and others were better. If I were to pick a part time CHB I would have gone Chris Grant over Neitz too.

On the current players argument, you are correct. I favoured players for whom we have seen their whole careers rather than those who are half way through. Except in very exceptional circumstances, players who have a full body of work are going to have achieved more than those who haven't if we are comparing the very top end of players. To take your first example (Toby Greene) - he has 2 AA's, 1 B&F (playing midfield in a spoon side) and 228 goals. Yes I would take Johnson (6xAA, 3xB&F, 500+ goals) and Betts (600+ goals, 3xAA) ahead of him in my forward line. I would have opted for Steve Johnson or Paul Chapman or Robbie Gray before I picked Toby Greene as well. I won't go through every other player you mentioned but the thinking was similar.
 
Last edited:
Trav 20 said:
Nay, it's silly. The other poster acknowledged this.

A player's career shouldn't have to fit perfecly into a decade, as you say, however, in Silvagni's case the years in question are his 16th and 17th seasons when he was (rightfully) nowhere near his best.

It's beyond silly.
Click to expand...
Small price to pay so that players who only played 5-7 years in the 2000s arent excluded For inferior players. The cut off always has to be somewhere.
 
Guardian Hawk said:
or the Prelim they lost in 2019 - Danger had 27 disposals, 16 contested, 7 clearances, 5 tackles and a goal. BOG had Geelong won.
Click to expand...

On that final he was no where near BOG if they won. Tim Kelly carried them single handidly that night and surely played his career best game. Dangerfield had 1 kick in the second half after Geelong led comfortably at half time and that is probably the final he cops most criticism for as there was a premiership there for the taking.
 
Guardian Hawk said:
Wow, that's a lot of questions.

On the Richmond 2017-2021 query, Martin and Rance were already included. Riewoldt got plenty of consideration too but there were a lot of elite tall forwards to pick from and the likes of Lockett, Carey, Franklin, etc being available for selection meant I had a lot of worthy candidates vying for only a couple of remaining spots. Hawthorn's triple premiership side only has 2 players as well - Hodge and Mitchell. These are very hard sides to get into - only the absolute best in a position for a generation get in. Who else do you propose from Richmond's 2017-2021 side should be included (and ahead of who)?

As for the query about Riewoldt and Richo vs the players selected - this was tough. I didn't choose Lloyd but I would have him ahead. He kicked 126 goals more than Richo and 200+ goals more than Riewoldt. He had 2 more AA's than either. Yes, Richo played wing (and did so very well) but that was only really in 2008 and his goal average remained the same so it didn't really affect his tally. Richo had one season over 67 goals, Riewoldt 2 and Lloyd 6. He made sense for me at FF. You mentioned Pavlich and I didn't select him over either as a key forward. I put him on my bench as he could play forward, midfield and key defence to shore up any area the side was being beaten. You could argue Richo could too but I though Pavlich was the more versatile and more proven in different areas.

That really only leaves a spot in the forward pocket which I gave to Fevola. I think that is really iffy tbh but I chose him for his peak performance and the fact that I thought he would fit best as a pocket alongside the 'gorillas' as someone quality at ground level too. Richo I thought needed a key positon (specifically CHF) due to his style and presence and I favoured Carey (obviously) and Tredrea (though very tough to split and I did have ot the other way around at first). On reflection, Riewoldt may have been a better choice for a pocket that Fevola given he is also very good at ground level and can push up the ground and be an assist player if needed. I didn't spend hours analysing every position and every player but don't forget that the likes of Jonathon Brown, Barry Hall, Tom Hawkins, Jarryd Roughead as well as Richo and Riewoldt were overlooked. THere's been some absolute quality and only s many spots. Given the KPF talent, Neitz wasn't a strong consideration against those guys, nor for CHB where Jakovich, Leppitsch and others were better. If I were to pick a part time CHB I would have gone Chris Grant over Neitz too.

On the current players argument, you are correct. I favoured players for whom we have seen their whole careers rather than those who are half way through. Except in very exceptional circumstances, players who have a full body of work are going to have achieved more than those who haven't if we are comparing the very top end of players. To take your first example (Toby Greene) - he has 2 AA's, 1 B&F (playing midfield in a spoon side) and 228 goals. Yes I would take Johnson (6xAA, 3xB&F, 500+ goals) and Betts (600+ goals, 3xAA) ahead of him in my forward line. I would have opted for Steve Johnson or Paul Chapman or Robbie Gray before I picked Toby Greene as well. I won't go through every other player you mentioned but the thinking was similar.
Click to expand...

Good response, thanks.

The exercise does throw up lots of interesting questions. Your criteria are perfectly legitimate, but mine would be a lot different to yours.

Petracca for eg I have already seen enough to tell me he is better than peak Selwood, as good as that version of Selwood was. But that is unfair on Selwood, I think Petracca beats all your mids, as great as all of them were, but I do like your selection of PMT - Peter Matera. Your inside mids, I cannot recall any of them as dominant as Petracca was in this year’s final series, he regularly cuts even good teams to absolute ribbons.

Toby Greene on his actual playing performances and leaving his moronic acts(enough to probably eliminate him from any real team I picked) aside, I am slotting him onto a HFF without hesitation, he is tough, good on the ground and in the air, and is gifted with vision barely any players possess. He has kicked 194 goals in his last 101 matches since maturing and moving forward, and has 91 goal assists in those matches as well. Forget his first 4 years, he was a kid playing in an uncompetitive team. His finals record is very good with 27 goals plus goal assists in 11 matches, but he has had 3 wipes in that lot, 2 where he might have copped the Dylan Grimes treatment and been moved further up the ground where he was prolific with disposals, and one where I suspect he was injured v Collingwood. So he is a serious finals player. Johnson from his stats looks to have been no more than a solid to good finals performer averaging 18.5 disposals and I am going to say roughly 1.6 goals+goal assists(guided by his GA average in the portion of his career where that stat is recorded.) That is from a large body of 21 finals. Greene averages 2.5 goals+goal assists and 19 disposals in his 11 finals. I am not having Johnson over Greene, Greene is playing in a tougher era for small forwards and is simply a better player than Johnson, if you can overlook his frequent acts of gross stupidity. Betts has a really strong goal+goal assist record in finals with 46 in 13 matches, so about 3.6 per match combined, but goes at under 11 disposals per final v Greene 19 so this probably highlights they have been played in different roles closer and further from goal. You also have Jarman as a small forward. He had two big days in Grand Finals with 6 and 5 goals so it is probably fair enough, but those look outliers to me and I would say Greene has probably been a better overall performer than him as well. For mine, the 3 small forwards look to be Betts(close to goal goal-sneak role,) Greene, and Cyril Rioli, with the latter pair more across half forward. I missed a lot of Johnson, but his overall record to me is not indicating he was superior to these guys on a peak v peak basis.

All Australians as evidence for being in a best of the century team is very unconvincing imo. I think in 2020 Dangerfield was AA and Martin wasn’t. Byrne-Jones was and Martin wasn’t. We could obviously see after the finals who had the biggest impact on the 2020 season of that trio, and it wasn’t the two who gained AA selection. And it wasn’t even close. So I don’t mind if say Robert Flower is named AA winger in seven seasons in succession and this is used as evidence to name him on a wing in the team of the decade/century or whatever, but naming players partly based on AA selection where the number of selections is clearly shown to be misleading in terms of how good the player is in absolute terms, it is bad evidence. Nobody right now would say Dangerfield has been a better footballer than Martin, there is a whole thread about it, and even Dangerfield’s mother came on the thread to say she was terribly disappointed in him and Dusty kicks his sorry ass. 😂 Yet AA = Dangerfield 8, Martin 3. I know all awards throw up anomalies but AA is a fun home and away accolade mainly for stat padding midfielders. Edit: It is has been pointed out to me Martin did make AA in 2020, and now has 4 x AA selection. So I was wrong on that point but the underlying argument is correct, that aggregate AA selections are not a sound indicator or player v player value in many cases, and Dangerfield is a very obvious one.

On the Tigers, I will say the following. I missed most of his career, but I would think Matthew Richardson would be at least in one of your alternative teams. Most Richmond supporters seem to think he would have done massive damage had he played in the later stronger teams, and frankly, it is difficult to imagine that not being true. He had 8 seasons with a goal average around or above 3 per game and another couple of seasons only just below that. His goal average did drop in later years to around 2.5 per game and this may have been down partially to playing wing. The bar as you say is high, but you can equally use that as a reason to exclude others, as you have more or less acknowledged. Not many other of the key forwards being named had anything much Matthew Richardson did not have. Maybe cooler heads and better delivery from up field, that is about it. Nick Riewoldt made the OP’s team. Do you truly believe Nick Riewoldt was a better footballer than Matthew Richardson, such that Riewoldt makes the first chosen team and Richardson doesn’t even make the next 30 odd alternative players you have chosen? Riewoldt averaged 2 extra disposals per game and less than 1 extra mark. Richardson had slightly better goal assists per game in the years it was recorded but far superior goals kicked. Riewoldt seems to have had the greater defensive side to his game with 1.5 v 0.5 tackles per game. Richardson got more Brownlow votes per match. Riewoldt overall played in much stronger teams(51% v Richardson’s 41% win record.)

Jack Riewoldt you conceded is rightly in he discussion, a lot of those guys like him, Hawkins and Kennedy etc are all debatable against each other but I doubt Jack would be swapping his career for any of theirs. Grimes has been an incredible player. He has completely demoralised players from Betts to Charlie Cameron to Toby Greene to Dangerfield in the big games, sometimes to such an extent they struggle to even touch the ball for long periods, despite being targeted by their teams. I would certainly have him in your alternative teams ahead of all the spillover mids you have selected in defence. He would take the most dangerous small/midsized forward in the opposition and put them right out of business, as his record shows, but he doesn’t get many Supercoach points, 😁. Others like Houli, Edwards, Prestia, Lambert, Vlastuin have been tremendous through a lot of the big finals campaigns, but they probably lack the overall football CV’s to come into serious consideration for even your alternative team/s.

Bartel, really good player, no trouble with his him being a well credentialled player worthy of consideration for these teams. But is he really in the best 44 to play this century? His finals stats for eg don’t look any better than Dion Prestia in any respect, and barely better than someone like Lambert. I only quote those guys because I am familiar with them, but I am sure better alternatives could be found.

So many of these things are debatable of course. You have stated your criteria clearly and said why you lean to the players who have completed or almost completed their careers over those who have a way to go. But to me if a player half way through his career is producing better than the best of what a retired player ever produced, then he is a better player.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

Similar threads

C
Best at Peak Team of 21st Century
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
peetoo
peetoo
Cleansweep17
Opinion Your teams 21st century FAB FOUR?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Roscoe44440
R
RUNVS
  • Poll
Which is the best team of the 21st century?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
177
Views
7K
Mr Meow
M
RUNVS
  • Poll
What do you consider to be a 21st century player?
Replies
5
Views
321
Rotayjay
Rotayjay
C
Combined Best 22 of dynasty teams in 21st century
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
534
Views
15K
doppleganger
doppleganger
RUNVS
  • Poll
Who is the best Ruckman of the 21st Century?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
5K
GoldbergsGold
GoldbergsGold
RUNVS
  • Poll
Who is the best midfielder of the 21st century?
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
254
Views
7K
RUNVS
RUNVS

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top