North’s greatest players night. Boomer picked ahead of Blight...embarrassing and disgraceful

[Cursed Cat]

I think until you go through the process with your own club, people overestimate just how many stars their club has produced. It's a very basic way of looking at it, but I think people would be surprised at how few 150 game players most clubs have. There's a reason players get their name on the locker for 100 games at a club: because it's not easy.

I reckon that after picking three top teams of champions for Geelong, it would be players like Brad Sholl, Max Rooke, Liam Pickering and Oysters Kilpatrick coming in around the top 100 and then someone like Mark Blake or Jordan Murdoch getting serious consideration to sneak in the 150.

steady on MCxD!

 

[Nikita Blue]

Richmond deal in the world of alternative facts.

Exhibit A - describing Cunnington as vanilla

 

[BF Tiger]

People are vastly overestimating how many good players have played for their own clubs.

To begin with, picking a top 150 is a doomed task. Why? Well, there have been 1,021 North Melbourne players, ever. To pick the top 150, you're saying to select 15% of the historical playing list. That's the problem, because less that 15% of players are "good".

Let's put that in perspective. Out of 1,021 NMFC players, only 128 (13%) have even played 100 games. Looking at the chart below, 87% of players for NMFC didn't make it to 100 games.

View attachment 722570

That's why it's ridiculous to pick a top 150. People are complaining that guys like Jack Ziebell and Corey Jones are being picked, but the reality is that there's not even enough players in the 100+ game club for North Melbourne to fill out a list of 150. You'd still need 22 more players (150 - 128).

This isn't a unique problem to North, either. Let's look at Richmond:
View attachment 722573

We can see that only 143 players for Richmond have played over 100 games, still 7 off filling a list of 150 if you selected every single 100+ game player to ever play for them. So while people can question North putting players like Ziebell or Wells in their 150, but the reality is that even a big club like Richmond would have to put some bog-average players like Jake King or Reece Conca in their own.

For both North and Richmond, only 3% of their players actually made it to that 200+ game zone. The same can apply for every club, not just North and Richmond. Hopefully this sheds like light on some of the players selections people have been confused about in this thread.

It's simply not possible to pick 150 great players from a club, when such a small percentage of the players actually make a long-term career out of football.

Sources:

AFL Tables - All Time Player List - North Melbourne

AFL Tables - All Time Player List - Richmond

I agree with this post. Where it gets fraught for North is that they have had maybe 50 to 60 premiership players in their history, so it really limits their "achievements". We've mocked Waite being on the list, but that would be a lot harder to do if he'd played in a premiership, which is the ultimate in our game. As a comparision I reckon Richmond would have nearly as many premiership players as they do 100 gamers, given that the teams won in the 20s would've been vastly differently to the teams that won in the 30s and different again to the team in the 43. There would've been a lot of overlap in the 67,69, 73 and 74 teams and 1980 only had Bartlett and Bourke repeating (for the fifth time). And 2017 delivered another 22 premiership players.

 

[The Warlord]

You've written scores of posts telling us how s**t Richmond were for 37 years and then you claim that winning a final against such a s**t side is an achievement. So which way do you want it?

The thread is about North naming our best players in our 150 year anniversary.

 

[The Warlord]

It's actually a masterclass in North's inferiority complex.

What actually happened is someone stated that Boomer probably wouldn't fit into the top ten of most clubs, and then I listed off the top of my head ten Richmond players better than Boomer and a whole bunch of North fans took exception to a Richmond fan listing premiership player, 3x All-Australian, 20 x state representative (3 x captain, Tassie medallist, 2 x EJ Whitten medallist and Simpson medallist) Dale Weightman at number 10.

Yes mate, I hate to tell you this but four time All Australian Brent Harvey was better than Weightman. He also won an EJ Whitten medal, SOG was pretty much dead by the time he came around so your 20 x state rep stuff is meaningless, but Harvey did captain his country and win the Jim Stynes medal.

He's the games record holder, he was an absolute champion, key cog in the great North late 90s side. He was better than Weightman, he's in our top ten players ever, deal with it.

This Richmond 37 year old virgins who finally got laid and now strut around like Casanovas wasmildly amusing last year, now it is just embarassing for all involved.

 

[Topkent]

Grown adults had an affair, yes, it was crap by Carey and Kelli and would have been awful for Stevo, that people go on about two decades later is just mind boggling, especially as when you say the participants have moved on.

3 year old article.
They've moved on

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[The Warlord]

North Melbourne supporters always trying to compare themselves to Richmond quite the inferiority complex, no wonder they haven't won a flag for 2 decades

There's posts in this thread from neutrals laughing at Richmond supporters for comparing their players to North greats.

 

[Engimal v3]

Why did my very on-topic post get deleted? I can still see BF Tiger's response, but my original post was deleted.

Not sure how I can report a deleted post. Can a mod share some light on why it was removed?

 

[Engimal v3]

I agree with this post. Where it gets fraught for North is that they have had maybe 50 to 60 premiership players in their history, so it really limits their "achievements". We've mocked Waite being on the list, but that would be a lot harder to do if he'd played in a premiership, which is the ultimate in our game. As a comparision I reckon Richmond would have nearly as many premiership players as they do 100 gamers, given that the teams won in the 20s would've been vastly differently to the teams that won in the 30s and different again to the team in the 43. There would've been a lot of overlap in the 67,69, 73 and 74 teams and 1980 only had Bartlett and Bourke repeating (for the fifth time). And 2017 delivered another 22 premiership players.

Quoting reply, for reference