Problem. No club greats in current team.

[lmach]

Shuey had his chance and its passed

Chance to what?

 

[QS]

Hang on. Is there not a Brownlow medallist in OP's list? Despite varying opinions, he is still a ****ing good player and our best midfielder. There is potential better quality around him, but in order to take that next step they need to pull their finger out and become elite (e.g. Shuey, Selwood, Yeo).

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Hang on. Is there not a Brownlow medallist in OP's list? Despite varying opinions, he is still a ******* good player and our best midfielder. There is potential better quality around him, but in order to take that next step they need to pull their finger out and become elite (e.g. Shuey, Selwood, Yeo).

Should he go down as a club great and be spoken about in the same breath as Judd, Cousins, Matera etc though? I don't think so.

He can be a 'club good'.

 

[QS]

Should he go down as a club great and be spoken about in the same breath as Judd, Cousins, Matera etc though? I don't think so.

He can be a 'club good'.

I think in his own way, yes. Not on the same level of course, but I think he has been caught in an unfortunate period where we have had a shitty midfield in which his flaws are greatly exposed.

He's not of the same calibre of those guys, however he deserves to be remembered as a great purely for the fact he has been consistent week in week out and managed to win a Brownlow in a, let's be honest, ordinary side. If all the other guys around him were performing at a higher level over period 07-present I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if you know what I mean *wink wink*.

Note: I am being quite careful here with my choice of language in order to not ignite debate which has its own... *insert descriptor here* thread.

 

[The_Reaper]

I think in his own way, yes. Not on the same level of course, but I think he has been caught in an unfortunate period where we have had a shitty midfield in which his flaws are greatly exposed.

He's not of the same calibre of those guys, however he deserves to be remembered as a great purely for the fact he has been consistent week in week out and managed to win a Brownlow in a, let's be honest, ordinary side. If all the other guys around him were performing at a higher level over period 07-present I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if you know what I mean *wink wink*.

Note: I am being quite careful here with my choice of language in order to not ignite debate which has its own... *insert descriptor here* thread.

Would you actually pick Priddis in a West Coast all time team?

I don't think anyone on this board would.

 

[QS]

Would you actually pick Priddis in a West Coast all time team?

I don't think anyone on this board would.

That includes me. But by that logic in 40 years time we will only be able to choose from 22 greats in our entire history; other older clubs have far more than that.

 

[Eagle87]

That includes me. But by that logic in 40 years time we will only be able to choose from 22 greats in our entire history; other older clubs have far more than that.

Huh?

Isn't the point that Matt isn't in it now, the passage of time will just put more players between him and that best 22

 

[Quinz]

Chance to what?

He coulda been a contenda. Instead he's a bum.

 

[QS]

Huh?

Isn't the point that Matt isn't in it now, the passage of time will just put more players between him and that best 22

Aside from my previous post that you quoted, I think you just highlighted the primary issue with the thread title itself, E87.

In my view a player generally (I will explain the emphasis in a minute) isn't regarded as a great until after they finish playing save for exceptional circumstances. The secondary issue is we are still a relatively young club so naturally a lot of the early 'greats' will be the benchmark, i.e. the effluxion of time will make it harder to reach that level.

I say generally in the sense it dovetails with the secondary issue - the VFL clubs, for example Collingwood, will have many greats over the course of their history. Take Swan or Pendlebury - both elite players in most people's estimations. Club greats? Probably not at the moment, but in time on reflection of their career as a whole ... maybe.

The natural reaction when a player is still active is to assess their career in a vacuum, e.g. present day, think Adam Selwood and Andrew Embley - when on their last legs, people were very critical but on the whole their career was better than what was thought at that time. Perhaps you can add some insight to these two points; from what I can gather, you've been around the game as an adult for a lot longer than most of us. No, this is not a dig at your age, merely providing a basis for me asking for your opinion!!

For what it's worth I think the only reason Matt might be thought of as a 'sort-of' great will be because he played most of his career and won the Brownlow in a pretty ordinary midfield. Any other time, Buckley's (no this is not a pun in light of my Collingwood example...).

 

[Eagle87]

Aside from my previous post that you quoted, I think you just highlighted the primary issue with the thread title itself, E87.

In my view a player generally (I will explain the emphasis in a minute) isn't regarded as a great until after they finish playing save for exceptional circumstances. The secondary issue is we are still a relatively young club so naturally a lot of the early 'greats' will be the benchmark, i.e. the effluxion of time will make it harder to reach that level.

I say generally in the sense it dovetails with the secondary issue - the VFL clubs, for example Collingwood, will have many greats over the course of their history. Take Swan or Pendlebury - both elite players in most people's estimations. Club greats? Probably not at the moment, but in time on reflection of their career as a whole ... maybe.

The natural reaction when a player is still active is to assess their career in a vacuum, e.g. present day, think Adam Selwood and Andrew Embley - when on their last legs, people were very critical but on the whole their career was better than what was thought at that time. Perhaps you can add some insight to these two points; from what I can gather, you've been around the game as an adult for a lot longer than most of us. No, this is not a dig at your age, merely providing a basis for me asking for your opinion!!

For what it's worth I think the only reason Matt might be thought of as a 'sort-of' great will be because he played most of his career and won the Brownlow in a pretty ordinary midfield. Any other time, Buckley's (no this is not a pun in light of my Collingwood example...).

Fair points all. Certainly the stats (awards etc) viewed through the prism of time for people who never saw a Kemp or a Priddis might lean towards Priddis....

I'm sure, given my advancing years, I'll be long gone before such a travesty occurs

 

[Keys]

Chance to what?

Fair points all. Certainly the stats (awards etc) viewed through the prism of time for people who never saw a Kemp or a Priddis might lean towards Priddis....

I'm sure, given my advancing years, I'll be long gone before such a travesty occurs

You'd still be spinning in your grave about it though

 

[QS]

Fair points all. Certainly the stats (awards etc) viewed through the prism of time for people who never saw a Kemp or a Priddis might lean towards Priddis....

I am not one of these people... My missus son saw Matt, said he should get a hair cut. Her son is 6.