Matthew Scarlett; Why is it assumed?

[DanA]

DISPOSALS:
Over the course of their respective careers, Fletcher and Scarlett have averaged approximately the same (around 14) disposals per game. But look a little deeper...

Scarlett peaked in disposals in 2007 and 2009, coincidentally in years when Geelong won the flag. So in a great side, Scarlett performed.

Fletcher on the other hand, has gotten his hands on the ball more as Essendon dipped on the ladder. He peaked in 2007.

The inference I'm making here, that Scarlett has gotten his hands on the ball MORE when his team mates are playing well. Fletcher has lifted in deeper times.

OPPONENTS:
This doesn't need much explanation. Scarlett has played on the best of his generation, but Fletcher has played on some of the greatest of all time. Lockett, Dunstall, Modra, Carey, Kernahan amongst others.

LONGEVITY:
I understand I am selling Scarlett short here, as he may very well go on to play as long as Fletcher has. As it is Fletcher has been an exceptional player for a longer period of time.

PREMIERSHIPS:
Both have two premierships. Importantly, Fletcher has his in what would be considered two different sides (ie. 2007 and 2009 Geelong were virtually the same side).

Both have a B&F. Fletcher got his in the most successful season by a team in history.

__________________________________________

I am not trying to downplay Scarlett as a player, but I am absolutely amazed that it is taken as a given that Scarlett is the superior.

What do you think?

Some shit work there.

1. Possessions is a rediculous measure for a fullback except to highlight that both of the players are attacking fullbacks.

2. Opponenets. How does playing on someone make you a better player? Surely it's irrelevant without showing performance.

3. Longevity comparisons. Scarlett's played 75 less games and is 5 years younger. He's a pretty good chance to get a similar sort of total.

4. Premierships. Not really a great indicator in terms of individual talent.

5. B&F & AA appearances migh give a pretty good indication.

Scarlett
1st - 03
2nd - 01, 04, 05

AA apperances: 5

Fletcher
1st - 03
2nd - 07
AA apperances: 2

But the truely unbeliable thing about Scarlett is his finals performances. The guy would have arguably the best finals record of any defender ever to play the game.

Fletcher on any reasonable measure does not compare to Scarlett

 

[blitzer]

I'm too lazy to get involved in a lengthy discussion on this topic but i'll just make the comment that Scarlett's best years have all coincided with the dominance of Geelong's midfield over the last couple. It certainly helps a full back when the ball is not coming in as fast, accurately or as often. We've certainly seen this phenomenon before at the eagles when Glass was regarded as the #1 fullback in the comp and since their midfield got broken apart he hasn't been the same since. I reckon comparing full forwards and full backs is always favourable towards the guys playing on the dominant teams. My final comment would be that i find it laughable that some people are condemning fletch for not playing on the best forwards at the moment. He's 34 and the oldest guy in the AFL, maybe you can give it a rest and let him be a rebounding defender now in his old age without trying to suggest it takes away from his outstanding career.

 

[winty]

I noticed that when reading the article and nearly lost my coffee.

No idea how he can make such an assumption, they are both wonderful players.

I lean towards Fletcher because he has played on better opponents and when he was at his peak he was playing on the best forward every week AND still managed to be an offensive weapon with his incredible kicking and agility.

Scarlett is an amazingly offensive fullback, and an excellent stopper, but I reckon he can only do one at a time. He has spent way too much time not playing on good players in his peak years, I'm happy to let it slide with Fletcher because he is 34.

Scarlett, when asked to play on a good forward, does usually beat them - but his run dissappears to a degree.

As for the fool who said 'AA, scarlett 5, Fletcher 2"

Mal Michael 0, Nick Maxwell 1 - what does this tell you about AA selection?

I think that is actually a positive for Scarlett - his willingness to sacrifice his game for the good of the team. A full back's role is to minimise his direct opponent's influence on the game. Who cares if Scarlett gets 5 or 25 touches when he's doing it? I know I don't.

Jimmy Bartel has recently added another string to his bow where by he can be used as an extra run with player to curb another midfielder's influence on the game (see his effort on Hayes in the last 3 quarters of the grand final for proof of that). Does that make Bartel a lesser midfielder in your eyes than Hayes, Swan or Judd?

Another thing with Scarlett too. We've seen teams use their full forward as a decoy to get Scarlett out of position. In that game in 2008 where Collingwood flogged us, Rocca pushed out to the flank, simply to get Scarlett out of the corridor in the defensive 50. When was the last time someone did that with Fletcher?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Scarlett is a very good full back, who in recent years has been massively over hyped and rated by the result of Geelongs dominance.

If he played for the Eagles and Glass was at Geelong it would be the other way around.

Not many full backs look bad when your team in dominant.

Didn't read the thread? Don't know anything about Geelong of the last 10 years?

All these Geelong players that are overrated because they play in a good team. How does the team get good with all these average players? A question for the ages.

Well watching the Hawks over the years I have seen Buddy not too worried by Scarlett.

There we go, that's all the evidence I need...

Buddy not too worried. Scarlett not great, ignore general consensus in the footy world, H2F has spoken.

He played on Campbell Brown for almost the entire match in Round 2 when taylor and lonergan played on Buddy and Roughead.

Campbell Brown was sensational in Rd 1, and is in better form than both Franklin and Roughead.

Scarlett completely destroyed him, was like he wasn't in the game at all.

I'm too lazy to get involved in a lengthy discussion on this topic but i'll just make the comment that Scarlett's best years have all coincided with the dominance of Geelong's midfield over the last couple.

And here's another one, lined up, so full of himself that he thinks he can make comment on something he has no idea about. Surely no one would have read past this opening gambit. I'm sorry but you've wasted a whole bunch of keystrokes after this bit.

Scarlett must be the best, the only player to get 5 AA jumpers in only a couple of years.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Oh but he does.

Sheahan continually states his opinions as fact.

Just like someone else we know

 

[cradle of filth]

Scarlett is the better Full-back. Fletcher is the better defender.

That is to say, Scarlett concedes less goals and provides alot of rebound.
Fletcher on the other hand concedes more goals, but has definetly provided more rebound from defence.

Both have won many games for their sides, but as much as it pains me to say it, Dustin Fletcher is the better player.

 

[DanA]

I'm too lazy to get involved in a lengthy discussion on this topic but i'll just make the comment that Scarlett's best years have all coincided with the dominance of Geelong's midfield over the last couple. It certainly helps a full back when the ball is not coming in as fast, accurately or as often..

Can you point to his bad years coincided with Geelong's poor play? I can't seem to find them.

Was it 2001 (we finished 12th) when he was runner up in the B&F

Or Was it 2002 (we finished 9th) and he came 4th in the B&F and played for Australia against Ireland.

Perhaps it was 2003 (we finish 12th) and he won the B&F and got his 1st AA nomination?

His worst year (2006 we finished 10th) he came 7th in the B&F.

Please don't mouth off on topics you know nothing about. You end looking kike a muppet.

 

[Lurker1]

he beat him in the 2008 gf (buddy kicked 8 on lake two weeks before) and again in round 1 2009

No he didn't.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Some shit work there.

But the truely unbeliable thing about Scarlett is his finals performances. The guy would have arguably the best finals record of any defender ever to play the game.

Fletcher on any reasonable measure does not compare to Scarlett

Perhaps you're too young to remember that SOS conceded 1 goal for the ENTIRE 95 finals series playing on Daryl White, Wayne Carey and one G Ablett Snr.

Or maybe you have a different definition of "best finals record ever" than most other folks.

How many 100 goal a year full forwards has Scarlett played on over the course of his career? SOS had to play on Modra, Dunstall, Lockett and Ablett, then for good measure there were also the likes of Carey, S. Rocca and a bunch of other high scoring forwards.

Oh, and a lazy 5 AA's along the way.

I think the fact that Fletcher's career overlapped the same era as that of SOS puts him a little ahead of Scarlett, but neither of them are as good as the great man.

 

[scomac]

It is subjective you cant compare either player. Scarlett is a creative Defender whereas Fletcher is a Hard assed spoiler, whos job is just to shut down the oppositions power forward for which he has been fantastic.

 

[goodoldcats]

Fletcher towelled up twice by Kent Kingsley

End thread

 

[Vdubs]

perhaps it's because scarlett is more physically attractive? why is it assumed scarlett is less physically attractive than fletcher (even so scarlett still comes off worse compared to SOS)? fletcher isn't really recognized for his handsomeness, and i think in terms of many of the great full backs (silvagni, langford), it's my personal opinion that fletcher falls somewhat behind in this regard. clearly this is one stat in history that doesn't favor fletcher.

your user name is the only thing that makes sense in that post

 

[wapower]

It's a monumental stretch to say Scarlett is better than Fletcher. Fletcher has been an outstanding player for a long time and is tough as nails. From inside the Essendon rooms I've heard the guy has played through some amazing injuries to ensure Essendon had him.

I'd rather Fletcher but Scarlett has been a gun for many years too.

 

[Meow]

Very difficult to compare as they both play different defensive roles. Saying Scarlett is only rated because he plays in a great side is ridiculous, he plays an equally important role as Fletcher did playing for Essendon when they were a great side. Scarlett's role is to be crafty and provide rebound from defence. Fletcher's main role is to shut down the oppositions key forward, which he does better than Scarlett.

 

[Vdubs]

We are the reigning premiers, possibly the best AFL team around at present, we have some really good players, our out and out star is Gary Ablett, and our 2nd best player and recognized star is Scarlett. #2 in the best team going around according to most GFC supporters. At least until 2010 started. Arguably right now, Harry is in better form. But the point is Scarlett is well recognized as our 2nd true champion.Why argue about the relative importance of Fletcher and Scarlett who are both champions.
Those who say they don't rate Scarlett obviously see things from a hatred perspective and not from a football genius perspective. Scarlett may be many things but as a key defender, he is a genius. Much of our 08/09 and 07 success started from our brilliant defence, not from centre clearances.
I really hope he can last as long as Fletcher, but I have serious doubts about that, so in the longevity/endurance stakes, Fletcher may well be the winner.
This whole thread is based on an opinion by Mike that Scarlett ,widelyrated as the best FB doesn't get a chance toplay in an ANZAC day game. Fletcher is superb. Scarlett is slightly better

 

[Vdubs]

The same comment could be made for Brian Lake, who is a freak defender and also no chance of ANZAC day play.

 

[Jimthegreat]

All Australian Selections:

Fletcher 2
Scarlett 5

For Fletcher's first first half of his career he had arguably the best fullback ever to beat, the full-back of the century and one better than Scarlett. Made it hard to always be AA. In recent times age slowed him

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

For Fletcher's first first half of his career he had arguably the best fullback ever to beat, the full-back of the century and one better than Scarlett. Made it hard to always be AA. In recent times age slowed him

Fletcher was 22 when SOS got his last nod at full back in the AA team.

Scarlett has been a gun defender, whether his team was crap or great. He's proved himself time and again. What more does he have to do? I'm not going to talk down Fletcher, but in my opinion Scarlett is comfortably the best defender of the 2000s.

 

[m0nty]

It is a bit weird that Mike mentioned it almost casually, as if everyone agreed with him.

Having said that, the major difference is that Scarlett has always played on the opposition's best forward, whereas Fletcher has spent too many years on the third forward and zoning off. It hurts his legacy, imo. (And before people bring up Hodge, of course he's not in the Fletcher/Scarlett conversation.)

 

[dumb]

your user name is the only thing that makes sense in that post

so you are saying it is your contention that scarlett is less physically attractive than dustin fletcher? i thought it was a well established fact as any that scarlett was the more attractive of the two. i mean scarlett is no silvagni, but he is reasonably handsome, surely you can see that? in a purely harmless-acknowledgement, heterosexual kind of way? i don't get why it had to be reduced to name-calling, clearly you are unable to argue against the point i was making.

 

[DanA]

Perhaps you're too young to remember that SOS conceded 1 goal for the ENTIRE 95 finals series playing on Daryl White, Wayne Carey and one G Ablett Snr.

Or maybe you have a different definition of "best finals record ever" than most other folks.

How many 100 goal a year full forwards has Scarlett played on over the course of his career? SOS had to play on Modra, Dunstall, Lockett and Ablett, then for good measure there were also the likes of Carey, S. Rocca and a bunch of other high scoring forwards.

Oh, and a lazy 5 AA's along the way.

I think the fact that Fletcher's career overlapped the same era as that of SOS puts him a little ahead of Scarlett, but neither of them are as good as the great man.

Billy Brownless career overlaps Carey's. Does that make him better than Jono Brown?

5 AA's you say? So has Scarlett, either they are easier to get or both are two exception players of the highest pedigree.

And i twasn't all smooth sailing in finals for SOS either.
- Schwartz kicked 4 on him in 04
- Ablett kicked 6 on him on 04
- Salmon kicked 4 & 5 on him in 03
- Lynch kicked 7 on him in 06

Nobody has done anything like that to Scarlett. I doubt more than 10 goals have been kicked on him in his entire finals career (About 12 games). Scarlett's also had a few 30 possesion games in there as well. Granted he hasn't always had guys like Ablett and Carey but he's beaten what has been put up in front of him.

Take nothing away from SOS, gun of the highest order. I'm not saying conclusively he's got a better finals record either. I just saying you could make that argument. He's a big game player.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Fletcher was 22 when SOS got his last nod at full back in the AA team.

Scarlett has been a gun defender, whether his team was crap or great. He's proved himself time and again. What more does he have to do? I'm not going to talk down Fletcher, but in my opinion Scarlett is comfortably the best defender of the 2000s.

But he was playing great footy and would had another 3-4 if SOS wasn't there.

Scarlett is the best defender of the 2000s but it's debatable either way which entire career is best. And it's not worth breaking it down to technicalities given their fine careers.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

But he was playing great footy and would had another 3-4 if SOS wasn't there.

Guaranteed? So, in a competition with Ashley McIntosh, Chris Langford, Mick Martyn...etc...etc...you'r predicting Fletcher would have been selected for a minimum of three AAs between 1994-1997, if it wasn't for Stephen Silvagni? I don't think so. Matty Scarlett has had Fletcher, Michael, Rutten, Presti, Glass and now Lake to contend with and the result is five selections for him.

Scarlett is the best defender of the 2000s but it's debatable either way which entire career is best. And it's not worth breaking it down to technicalities given their fine careers.

Agreed.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

It is a massive spectacle.

When you're there, and 90,000 or more STFU for the Last Post it's electric, patriotic and inspiring.

Tell me another sport in the world can do this.....

I'm home and working as it doesn't seem worth turning on the TV. I have AFL.com running and looking at the scoreline towards half time it doesn't seem to be much of a spectacle.

The Grand Final really means something. This has got a nice bit of ceremony about it. But the game means no more than the seven other H&A games this weekend. I can really see Jon Brown at home today thinking "How did last night happen? But I have more important things to worry about like why I've never been given the chance to line up in my footy gear while the Last Post is played"

 

[Vdubs]

so you are saying it is your contention that scarlett is less physically attractive than dustin fletcher? i thought it was a well established fact as any that scarlett was the more attractive of the two. i mean scarlett is no silvagni, but he is reasonably handsome, surely you can see that? in a purely harmless-acknowledgement, heterosexual kind of way? i don't get why it had to be reduced to name-calling, clearly you are unable to argue against the point i was making.

no name calling needed, username and comments say it all, but can see your aim is all about deflection, well done, dumb.