Best of the Worst or Worst of the Best!

[lilrocker1990]

So I have a question, not sure if anyone has asked this question before.

The question is: Would you rather be the best player on the Worst team in the AFL and never really have any team success or would you rather be a player that is always outside the best 22 and rarely ever get a game for the best club in the AFL and miss out on the team success??? And why???

 

[t_bond_legend]

Gee that's a terrible question. I'd rather be the best player of the 22 than out of it. That way, at least I'm playing footy.

 

[schnoods]

Definately the best player in the worst team.

Theoretically, it'd be Cameron from GWS vs ___________ from Hawthorn*, which im sure is exactly the reason it draws a blank.


*Currently, top of ladder vs bottom.

 

[Superstar swan]

Best player at Melbourne

 

[WCEbrody]

Who would you rather be Jeremy Cameron or Matt Spangher*?


*May not actually be the worst player on Hawthorns list

 

[timtamWB]

Best player in the worst team. At least you're playing AFL that way.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

Best player in the worst team two years ago was Gary Ablett on over a million a year!

 

[Cmarsh]

Last year, if your name was Israel Falou, neither were true.

He was the worst player in the worst team, and still was paid 1million plus.

 

[fidstar]

close thread, anyone saying anything but best player on the worst team is insane. You might as well go work at Maccas

 

[Slax]

Considering what is on offer at GWS in Jeremy Cameron, it is a no contest. You could make the equation sixth best player of best team and it is still no contest. Cameron would've already had the Coleman medal wrapped up if he was in a half decent side, he's a 10 year key forward you build your side around, if Hawthorn were offered a straight trade of Cameron for Buddy they'd take it.

 

[Schauermann]

A generally bad team has more salary cap space for its best player.

And I have a certain liking for unsucessful champions who gave everything for their team.

Ps And surely I prefer to be an automatic first 22 (better first 2). Better job security...

 

[Lord Eddard]

This would have been a much better question if you said worst of the 22 but still getting a game. Eg would you rather be Jeremy Cameron or a little known role player who plays most games and maybe has won a couple of premierships.

 

[lmach]

And I have a certain liking for unsucessful champions who gave everything for their team.

That's because you support Freo.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Forward Press]

This would have been a much better question if you said worst of the 22 but still getting a game. Eg would you rather be Jeremy Cameron or a little known role player who plays most games and maybe has won a couple of premierships.

If you put into the equation two premierships I would think it edges it back into the role player's favour. Every player says they would trade in *insert individual award/s here* for a flag.

 

[vonn]

If you play for the worse off team at the least you can make easy money and have job security. Just looking at it from a financial view.

 

[Lord Eddard]

If you put into the equation two premierships I would think it edges it back into the role player's favour. Every player says they would trade in *insert individual award/s here* for a flag.

So then looking back over their careers (including the post playing career benefits of playing like a champ) would you rather the career of:

Matthew Richardson
or
Nick Fosdike

 

[underthestars]

Best player In worst team. Insist on trade to best team after a couple of years on moderate money so they can accomadate you. Win flag. Insist on massive pay rise next contract. leave to gws (with their coming 20% c.o.l. allowance). Make lots of money. Retire happy.

 

[Morris Major]

There's not much point being in the best team if you can't even get a game and have no team success. No brainer.

 

[Riccardo11]

If you are the worst player in the best team, the only team success you will be having is at State League level. If you mean worst best 22 player, then the answer is obvious, otherwise it is a moot point, because the worst listed player at the best team is obviously not getting selected and thus is playing in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

If you are the worst player in the best team, the only team success you will be having is at State League level. If you mean worst best 22 player, then the answer is obvious, otherwise it is a moot point, because the worst listed player at the best team is obviously not getting selected and thus is playing in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL.

This is called the Jack Anthony role.

 

[DangerSloane]

close thread, anyone saying anything but best player on the worst team is insane. You might as well go work at Maccas

You're so dumb.
You'd rather sit on the sidelines, and get no team success, no exposure to sponsors or other clubs.
Thats why YOU should be working at Maccas

 

[Zeke]

Would you rather the career of Robert Harvey or Aaron Shattock?

 

[fidstar]

You're so dumb.
You'd rather sit on the sidelines, and get no team success, no exposure to sponsors or other clubs.
Thats why YOU should be working at Maccas

what? Sit on the sidelines, but your playing? Team success is usually cyclical (you don't think GWS are going to have any future team success?), no exposure to sponsors, you don't think Jeremy Cameron will get more sponsors than the last guy on Hawthorn's list? Not really sure what exposure to other clubs means?

The thing is Cameron is going to have a job for 10 plus years. The guy at Hawthorn that can't get a game is probably going to be working at Maccas next year. I think I know who I would rather be.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Best player in a crap team, then pimp my bum to the highest bidder come FA.

 

[Tas]

Best player in the worst team, then I could be stupidly over-paid, there would be zero expectation, wouldn't really have to try can just roll up and get paid a fortune to be a plonker.