Current Champions of the Game?

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Apologies then, I thought I remembered seeing you post that a few times.

EDIT: My memory wins.

Oops I think that would be the only time I have said it, and definitely haven't said it recently! However, most of Buddys touches are well earnt. As I stated in my previous post, the guy is a workhorse.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Lockett & Dunstall would easily get a game in the current era. Simplify it down to football skill and they'd still be one of the best in the game. Fitness, atheltic ability etc, are all second to ability. Crazy to say they wouldn't get a game.

Hawkins is a poor mans version of both and he showed that he could have an impact as the leading FF. Multiply that a considerable amount for Dunstall's/Lockett's footballing ability and you still have a phenomenal footballer.

I'm not 100% sold on that, but perhaps wouldn't get a game was a bit strong. I should have said, unless they added extra strings to their bows, they would struggle to have much of an impact in the modern game. Players like Lockett & Dunstall who don't really work defensively, have round bodyshapes and are very one-dimensional players, wouldn't go very well swarmed by zones, multiple athletic defenders and if they are made to work further up the ground and gut run.

 

[AG]

Zones wouldn't do to well around them. Dunstall and Lockett would obliterate them. No need to add extra strings to their bows, if the strings they already have are.......quality strings? (didn't know where to take that sentence).

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Zones wouldn't do to well around them. Dunstall and Lockett would obliterate them. No need to add extra strings to their bows, if the strings they already have are.......quality strings? (didn't know where to take that sentence).

I know my comments wont be popular, but I stand by them.

Anyway, agree to disagree. I just think the game has evolved in a massive way the past 10 years, and players are now stronger, quicker, more skilled, more multi-skilled and the game is played at a much quicker pace and is more demanding in every way. Past and present players have said as much. Overweight one dimensional, one way runners wouldn't go well in the mordern game.

 

[pacman]

Except Ablett wasn't a forward permanently until his last few years of competing so a silly comparision imo.

So he was around the ball alot more and still couldn't win B&F's?

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

So he was around the ball alot more and still couldn't win B&F's?

Ablett is another player whose reputation and legend status grow by the day. He had a very good team around him some years and was unable to lead his team to glory. Wayne Carey is at least two times the player Ablett ever was. Carey routinely dragged his team over the line, time and time again. Ablett couldn't do this. Sure, he was mecurial and exciting, but he is shockingly overrated in my books.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Errrr, I really think some people on here don't understand the difference between todays game and the 80s/90s. Scores are much lower, teams are much more defensive, whilst coaches actively discourage reliance on one major goalkicker. Of course players are going to kick less goals in 2011 than they would have in 1989. I really think some people struggle to understand the way the game is being played at the moment.

Who are you arguing with? I was under the impression that it was me (since you quoted my post), but I was pointing out the obvious problems with comparing players of different eras...which is exactly what you have said.

Anywhow, lets change the topic a bit.

Cool, back on topic? 'Current Champions...'

Ablett is another player whose reputation and legend status grow by the day. He had a very good team around him some years and was unable to lead his team to glory. Wayne Carey is at least two times the player Ablett ever was. Carey routinely dragged his team over the line, time and time again. Ablett couldn't do this. Sure, he was mecurial and exciting, but he is shockingly overrated in my books.

Ah...still on a bloke who retired fifteen years ago. Yep, your opinion. I'll go with the countless teammates, opponents, coaches and journalists (as well as supporters), who speak about him with complete awe.

 

[Thrawn]

Brown, a champion of the game?

The myth continues.

 

[Stucky]

Ablett is another player whose reputation and legend status grow by the day. He had a very good team around him some years and was unable to lead his team to glory. Wayne Carey is at least two times the player Ablett ever was. Carey routinely dragged his team over the line, time and time again. Ablett couldn't do this. Sure, he was mecurial and exciting, but he is shockingly overrated in my books.

Overrated as a leader yes i would agree, but there`s no doubt he is the greatest individual talent there has ever.

How many games did you see him play?

 

[GoTheSwannies]

How do you workout Riewoldt isn't a champion but if his team kicks one more point he becomes one?

You'd think his five B&F's four all Australians at CHF one as Captain abc a MVP not to mention being one of the best CHF ever would get you there alone.

I personally think Reiwoldt's a flake when the going gets tough.

There's no doubt he's a great player, his individual accolades attest to that. But it still stands, he failed to get his team over the line (as a captain and as a player), and he had 3 bites at the cherry. Sure, it was the entire unit that lost. But Reiwoldt failed to get them over the line. In the drawn GF, I saw Hayes & Goddard step up and make some big plays. I did not see the same impact from Reiwoldt.

2 incidents stand in my mind. 1. in the 4th quarter of the drawn GF where Reiwoldt had a shot on goal, Maxwell got to the goal line in time to rush it through for a behind. Reiwoldt had a chance, he almost got there, but was beaten by the opposing captain. 2. the replay where Reiwoldt was in the clear and Shaw came from behind to spoil on the goal line. They were two opportunities where he could've stamped himself on the game in a big moment and he failed. Yes, he's done some amazing things, he comes incredibly close, but just falls short on the final hurdle. They're the measure of a true champion imo.

imo, there's a huge difference between performing consistently over the course of a season and making crucial plays at the big dance. It takes a mental toughness to be able to perform when it really counts, and I think Reiwoldt lacks that. There are also countless examples of Reiwoldt going into his shell in front of goal when St Kilda needed a goal.
That's why I don't class him as a champion, he comes close, but hasn't been able to perform when it mattered most.

 

[Bollox]

Riewoldt ? Walks into this class.
Ball sits up for Milne in the square...premiership player to add to the list. Rating key fwds on flags or even gf performances doesnt come into it for mine. He has played a huge number of finals and been dominant in many including v tight prelims. Damn good finals player overall i woulda thought. I recall Franklin and Roughead having a bumper 2008 yet didnt light the ground up on gf day at all...even Carey never seemed at his best in gf's.

Pavlich has been a bit disappointing in recent seasons, all sorts of excuses made for him but just not a dominant figure when he was technically right in his prime late 20's. People say he chokes in big games, and he's been known to go missing when it matters ...but i remember one final against us up here where he was superb in a losing team. I can easy see both Pav and Riewoldt as champions...if they stopped playing now they'd both be thought of that way.

Browns the one i dont know...i see him as a champion but can only recall few times when he's gone ballistic as a matchwinner over extended periods, like guys such as Riewoldt have done...string entire seasons together and drag their teams into finals. Sporadic form but when on song he's easy champion class..to me he's a champion.

Simon Black..also walks in.

You cant just turn around and take a champion tag away from a player...they earnt it.

 

[doppleganger]

Pendlebury is way young to be considered a champion. He's had a couple of good years. Come back in 5 years time and we'll consider it.

Agree it is too early for Pendles.

However, Pendles already has 4 top 3 finishes in the BnF, and if he wasn't injured at the end of 2009 it would have been 5 top 3 finishes from his first 5 full seasons!! He has already had 5 good years, with the last two being elite.

Fletcher is definitely a champion, as is Harvey. You don't play over 300 games without being a champion.

S.Grant, R.Smith, M.Ashcroft, M.Martyn, P.Williams are these blokes champions??

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

Agree it is too early for Pendles.

However, Pendles already has 4 top 3 finishes in the BnF, and if he wasn't injured at the end of 2009 it would have been 5 top 3 finishes from his first 5 full seasons!! He has already had 5 good years, with the last two being elite.


S.Grant, R.Smith, M.Ashcroft, M.Martyn, P.Williams are these blokes champions??

Fletcher had better careers than all of them, and is about to reach 350

 

[vWestCoast]

Surely you have to include Cox in easily? One of the best ruckman of all time.

Also Simon Black is ridiculously underrated. Has had one of the best careers in the modern era. Surely worth a mention.

 

[Nick Lions]

Riewoldt ? Walks into this class.
Ball sits up for Milne in the square...premiership player to add to the list. Rating key fwds on flags or even gf performances doesnt come into it for mine. He has played a huge number of finals and been dominant in many including v tight prelims. Damn good finals player overall i woulda thought. I recall Franklin and Roughead having a bumper 2008 yet didnt light the ground up on gf day at all...even Carey never seemed at his best in gf's.

Pavlich has been a bit disappointing in recent seasons, all sorts of excuses made for him but just not a dominant figure when he was technically right in his prime late 20's. People say he chokes in big games, and he's been known to go missing when it matters ...but i remember one final against us up here where he was superb in a losing team. I can easy see both Pav and Riewoldt as champions...if they stopped playing now they'd both be thought of that way.

Browns the one i dont know...i see him as a champion but can only recall few times when he's gone ballistic as a matchwinner over extended periods, like guys such as Riewoldt have done...string entire seasons together and drag their teams into finals. Sporadic form but when on song he's easy champion class..to me he's a champion.

Simon Black..also walks in.

You cant just turn around and take a champion tag away from a player...they earnt it.

You obviously haven't seen enough of Jonathon Brown to make an informed comment. He has dragged Brisbane over the line, time and time again and if that is what you believe qualifies a player for champion status, then he owns this thread. His lack of B&F's boils down to the fact he has played alongside 3 Brownlow medallists throughout his career. One of the most courageous players to play the game.
He won't ever be recognized as a legend of the game, nor should he. That honour should be reserved for the absolute greatest ever. But to suggest that he isn't a champion is ignorant.

 

[PykeDream]

Ablett, Judd, Black, Cox, Pavlich, Scarlett, Goodes...perhaps Franklin, Fletcher, Riewoldt and Swan but certainly not definite.

 

[The Chiefton]

It pisses me off when people continue to say that Simon Black is underrated. Who's he underrated by? everyone on here says the same thing about him all the time, and acknowledge what a champion he's been and still is.
Talk about myths.

He gets the kudos he deserves, by everybody.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I'm not suggesting Swan is a champion of the game, but without the usual bullshit "Collingwood get favoured by the umpires" cry that seems to be brandied around for any accolades that any one of our players ever seems to achieve, what's the difference between him and Judd/Ablett/Goodes?

Been consistently good for six years now, with 113 Brownlow Votes in that time frame at an average of 18.83 votes a year.

For comparison's sake;
Judd's strike rate is 128 votes between 2006-2011 at 21.33 a season.
Ablett's strike rate is 126 votes between 2006-2011, at 21 a season.

That's, at best, one best on ground a year separating the trio. I'm leaning towards our ratings of champions being also based on intangibles; the class of a player, and the intimidation that a player would implant on his opponent. I know I'd certainly feel more intimidated playing on Judd or Ablett than Swan, without meaning to sound disrespectful to Swan.

Just musing, thoughts?

 

[Chewy]

Players such as Pendlebury, Selwood, Franklin will certainly get there, but are still too young to be called champions.

Disagree. I've never seen a definition of "champion" where longevity is mentioned. Players like Judd and Goodes are enduring champions because they've done it for a long time. Nobody questions John Coleman's status as one of the game's greatest champions. He had only played 98 games when a knee injury ended his career.

The word "champion" simply refers to the best. If a runner wins the race, or if a tennis player wins the tournament, or if a team wins the Grand Final, then they are referred to as the "champions". The definition is slightly looser when discussing stand-out individuals in a team sport. We are basically referring to the best handful of AFL players at any one time. If we are picking a team to represent Australia, then the first players chosen are the game's true champions. It's up to each individual to draw their own line at how many players deserve the tag.

Franklin and Selwood are certainly in the top bracket of players. Franklin has been one of the most consistently damaging forwards for each of the past 5 years. Selwood has been one of the AFL's top midfielders for the past 4 seasons. You can add the names Swan and Pendlebury after these past 3 seasons.

None of these guy are "one year wonders". There is no "flash in the pan" with their success. They're not sneaking up on anybody. The opposition puts more work into nullifying them than anybody else. Their strengths are studied and minimised as much as possible. Their weaknesses have been probed. And still they come out on top most weekends. They don't rest on their laurels. They perform every week. This is what makes them champions.

When Tony Lockett won his Brownlow Medal in 1987 at the age of 21, only a fool would've denied he was already one of the game's champions. His match-winning ability was on display every weekend, there for all to see. We didn't need to wait until he'd kicked 1000 goals before we said, "Plugger, you've done enough to be labelled a champion."

I love the Richmond duo, Trent Cotchin and Dustin Martin. Both of them appear to be champions in the making. They are still young, but they're grabbing games by the scruff of the neck and dominating. But we've got to hold off on labelling these kids as champions after a BOG performance, however tempting it might be, because we need to see how they respond to increased opposition scrutiny. Let's see their weaknesses exposed and let's see how they respond.

Lastly, veterans such as Dustin Fletcher and Brent Harvey are no longer amongst the game's true elite. They can still turn it on occasionally; they are still better than 90% of their teammates, but age has eroded their ability, if not their standing. These guys are described champions as an honorary title for what they've achieved in their careers, the same way that Bill Clinton and George Bush are still addressed as "Mr President" even though they no longer hold that office.

 

[AG]

I'm not suggesting Swan is a champion of the game, but without the usual bullshit "Collingwood get favoured by the umpires" cry that seems to be brandied around for any accolades that any one of our players ever seems to achieve, what's the difference between him and Judd/Ablett/Goodes?

Been consistently good for six years now, with 113 Brownlow Votes in that time frame at an average of 18.83 votes a year.

For comparison's sake;
Judd's strike rate is 128 votes between 2006-2011 at 21.33 a season.
Ablett's strike rate is 126 votes between 2006-2011, at 21 a season.

That's, at best, one best on ground a year separating the trio. I'm leaning towards our ratings of champions being also based on intangibles; the class of a player, and the intimidation that a player would implant on his opponent. I know I'd certainly feel more intimidated playing on Judd or Ablett than Swan, without meaning to sound disrespectful to Swan.

Just musing, thoughts?

Goodes and Judd have been good since 03/04. Ablett has arguably been the no.1 player in the comp for 5 years straight.

Swan has been good for years but only seen as one of the best since 09 probably. 08 was a very good season but not top 10-15 material. I'd put Swan in the champion category, but no doubt in my mind Goodes, Judd and Ablett are a level above.

 

[Bollox]

Goodes and Judd have been good since 03/04. Ablett has arguably been the no.1 player in the comp for 5 years straight.

Swan has been good for years but only seen as one of the best since 09 probably. 08 was a very good season but not top 10-15 material. I'd put Swan in the champion category, but no doubt in my mind Goodes, Judd and Ablett are a level above.

Certainly are. If you;re really picky about the tag champion they'd be the three.
Not difficult though when you realise there's maybe 20 years of champion standard footy between them, 4 flags is it ?, 5 Brownlows, maybe 150 or so true matchwinning individual performances, etc etc.

....looking forward this year to seeing Goodes the first triple Brownlow medallist for a long time. The most complete all round footballer the game has produced. Judd's just a one trick pony by comparison .

 

[Dalphonso]

Nick Riewoldt, Lenny Hayes, Jimmy Bartal, Mathew Scarlett, Corey Enright, Adam Goodes, Chris Judd, Gary Ablett, Simon Black, Jon Brown, Mathew Pavlich, Buddy Franklin, Luke Hodge, Dane Swan, Brent Harvey, Dustin Fletcher,

Pendlebury and Murphy you can add

 

[Dalphonso]

I'm not 100% sold on that, but perhaps wouldn't get a game was a bit strong. I should have said, unless they added extra strings to their bows, they would struggle to have much of an impact in the modern game. Players like Lockett & Dunstall who don't really work defensively, have round bodyshapes and are very one-dimensional players, wouldn't go very well swarmed by zones, multiple athletic defenders and if they are made to work further up the ground and gut run.

Not a problem.
Dunstall and Locket would have to get fitter like all modern footballers and do the team things like chasing or they would'nt get picked.Not too many get carried these days.

 

[Rioli magic]

Not a problem.
Dunstall and Locket would have to get fitter like all modern footballers and do the team things like chasing or they would'nt get picked.Not too many get carried these days.

There was nothing wrong with Dunstall's "team game", he wasn't like Fevola. Would need to improve his fitness (like every player from the past), not his attitude.

 

[The Finger]

I personally think Reiwoldt's a flake when the going gets tough.

There's no doubt he's a great player, his individual accolades attest to that. But it still stands, he failed to get his team over the line (as a captain and as a player), and he had 3 bites at the cherry. Sure, it was the entire unit that lost. But Reiwoldt failed to get them over the line. In the drawn GF, I saw Hayes & Goddard step up and make some big plays. I did not see the same impact from Reiwoldt.

2 incidents stand in my mind. 1. in the 4th quarter of the drawn GF where Reiwoldt had a shot on goal, Maxwell got to the goal line in time to rush it through for a behind. Reiwoldt had a chance, he almost got there, but was beaten by the opposing captain. 2. the replay where Reiwoldt was in the clear and Shaw came from behind to spoil on the goal line. They were two opportunities where he could've stamped himself on the game in a big moment and he failed. Yes, he's done some amazing things, he comes incredibly close, but just falls short on the final hurdle. They're the measure of a true champion imo.

imo, there's a huge difference between performing consistently over the course of a season and making crucial plays at the big dance. It takes a mental toughness to be able to perform when it really counts, and I think Reiwoldt lacks that. There are also countless examples of Reiwoldt going into his shell in front of goal when St Kilda needed a goal.
That's why I don't class him as a champion, he comes close, but hasn't been able to perform when it mattered most.

One of the worst post Ive possibly ever read. You speak of Riewoldt not lifting his side but in the drawn GF he performed two acts alone that no other player in the AFL would have to get his team going. You then have a crack at Riewoldt when he snaped a ball out of a contest and Maxwell ran it down on the line. Do you have any clue at all? The biggest example ofRiewoldts champion status was that he got himself up to even play finals and a GF after his early season injury. Thats what makes champions.