Buckley V Crawford

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Typical BF crap, "Buckley easily" blah blah blah.

I do believe that Bucks is probably ahead, but not the extent that this is a non event and the Buckley is a mile better the Crawford, when that was not the case. At their prime these were two elite football players, that were in the top echelon of players in the competition.

It is pretty close, but as i said Buckley just ahead.
 
even.

Crawf held together a crap side during the clubs worst era, while buckley still had some help. really, if you look at when crawf was in his prime, the only other decent thing at hawthorn (dunstall) left.

regardless of what buckley did on field, nobody can deny the influence the media had on his perception.
 
People forget how great crawford was, and his off field antics took away from his on field talent.

How good buckley was is brainwashed via the media.

Anyone care to detail Crawford's shortcomings by comparison?

Buckley was a better mark and a much better kick for starters.

More disposals, more goals, more Brownlow votes.
 
Crawford ahs probably tailed off a little bit in the last couple of years - but I rate him much more highly. Whilst Buckley was extremely good with his disposal and got a lot of the ball - much of that was on the half-back flank. IMO Nathan Buckley was a very good player - but definately not in the league of the other two he is compared to - Voss and Hird. Most AFL players who are asked that question in a newspaper/radio/television say Voss or Hird...


And yet he Buckley had more tackles, shepherds, hard ball gets, centre clearances and around the ground clearances than Hird and Voss. Strange about that. By the way I was at a sportsmans night 3 months ago where Voss spoke and he said Buckley was the best he ever played against. Strange about that.
 
Crawford ahs probably tailed off a little bit in the last couple of years - but I rate him much more highly. Whilst Buckley was extremely good with his disposal and got a lot of the ball - much of that was on the half-back flank. IMO Nathan Buckley was a very good player - but definately not in the league of the other two he is compared to - Voss and Hird. Most AFL players who are asked that question in a newspaper/radio/television say Voss or Hird...

Take the black and red glasses off, or at least get contacts or something. Buckley's possesions on a half-back flank? Are you serious? And Buckley is clearly in the same league as Voss and Hird.
 
Buckley was a better mark and a much better kick for starters.

More disposals, more goals, more Brownlow votes.

Much better kick....yeah sure....

Buckley would win more one-on-one marking contests but Crawford was quicker and won more of the hard ball.

It is difficult to compare as they were poles apart in the roles they played as midfielders. But both champions and match winners.

It just annoys me how media exposure can inflate or deflate people's perceptions of a player ability and acheivements.
 
I do believe that Bucks is probably ahead, but not the extent that this is a non event and the Buckley is a mile better the Crawford, when that was not the case. At their prime these were two elite football players, that were in the top echelon of players in the competition.

It is pretty close, but as i said Buckley just ahead.



I agree with this. buckley is currently ahead as a player, but not by as much as a lot of people assume. crawf was consistently dominant in the years around his brownlow.

crawf has him covered for personality, though... :rolleyes::p
 
Much better kick....yeah sure....

Buckley would win more one-on-one marking contests but Crawford was quicker and won more of the hard ball.

It is difficult to compare as they were poles apart in the roles they played as midfielders. But both champions and match winners.

It just annoys me how media exposure can inflate or deflate people's perceptions of a player ability and acheivements.

I'd like to think I had enough of an idea to make my own judgements about footballers. I don't know how you can differentiate between the two when Crawford goes much more out of his way to get his head on television than Buckley does.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Much better kick....yeah sure....

Buckley would win more one-on-one marking contests but Crawford was quicker and won more of the hard ball.

It is difficult to compare as they were poles apart in the roles they played as midfielders. But both champions and match winners.

It just annoys me how media exposure can inflate or deflate people's perceptions of a player ability and acheivements.

Despite the fact that Buckley was the best clearance player in the league [believe he still has the record for the most clearances in a year, just ahead of Judd] and was consistently in the top 2 or 3 for hard ball gets

Crawford will and has ended up with the more satisfying and rewarding career but one on one, Buckley was better in most facets
 
Buckley Hands down...

His kicking ability on both sides was the best in the 90s and early 2000s. He could hit a target from 60m away. Kick goals on the run, take pack marks. Over his head one on one he hardley ever got beaten.

I remember in Carey's prime, bucks would line up on him and teach him a few hard lessons..

Bucks easy!
 
Buckley Hands down...

His kicking ability on both sides was the best in the 90s and early 2000s. He could hit a target from 60m away. Kick goals on the run, take pack marks. Over his head one on one he hardley ever got beaten.

I remember in Carey's prime, bucks would line up on him and teach him a few hard lessons..

Bucks easy!
oh dear :rolleyes:
 
well they had Presy and Michael in defence, williams on half forward rotating through the midfield, and rocca at FF.

now compare that to the hawks, who had tony woods retiring, and thats about it.
Crawf played with plenty of decent players when the Hawks were shit.

Both players played in shit sides, and both players played very well in shit sides (Bucks came 3rd in the brownlow despite missing 5 games when the Pies won a spoon). I don't think holding a shit side together is something Crawf has over Bucks.
 
Buckley is one of the greats of all time.

Crawf is a great bloke and good footballer but is hyped up by the media and his appearances on the footy show etc and all the associated bling add to this perception.

Give Cameron Bruce a seat on the footy show and 300 games and a premiership and who is better between him and Crawford?
 
in 1999 when Crawf won the Brownlow he was only a few votes ahead of Bucks who couldn't vote in 7 games because of a broken jaw (Justin Murphy you thug!) in a team that finished last. Crawf was exceptionally lucky to win that one.
 
Poor form guys.

Crawford's 99 season was the best season by any player in the past 15 years.

No one has ever been shorter to win the Brownlow. His last 5 games were unbelievable.

In short, Crawfords's best was as good as Buckley (maybe even better - Crawf was a matchwinner - would never miss a goal from 50 in the last Q), but Crawf was not as reliable.

Crawf has probably played 100 A grade games out of his 308, where as Buck might have played 200 out of his 280.

Bucks was the better player.
Crawf has had the better career (fair chance to play in 2 premierships)
And Crawf a much better bloke.
 
Bucks was my favorite player outside of Hawthorn, his high possession of disposals were always affective making him a perfect footballer. If he would have a crack at goal on the run, you would expect it to through for a goal once it left Bucks boot.

Buckley was a better player then Crawf, but I have memories of Crawf beating Cousins, Hird, Harvey, and Bucks in shutdown roles during the late 90's and early 2000's.

Crawfs body held up better due to his committed training and determination to succeed. Where Buckley was a little more injury prone towards the end of his career.

Buckley the better all round footballer, but both players dead set champs!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Buckley V Crawford

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top