I think you are elevated to Hall of Fame or Legend status based on either playing or coaching, but not both. Only two Legends for coaching are McHale and Norm Smith.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Because there's something to be said for:
HOF playing career + HOF coaching career = Legend status.
The other obvious SA inclusion is Paul Bagshaw.
Dunstall has done plenty off of the football field in football administration as well. Without him, Hawthorn would be vastly different.Under what criteria is Sheedy more of a coaching legend than Allan Jeans? There were 3 great dynasties in the VFL days: Collingwood during the depression; Melbourne in the 1950's and Hawthorn in the 1980's. Jock McHale and Norm Smith are both legends, so why not Yabby Jeans? He is STILL the only person to have coached St Kilda to a premiership.
As for Michael Tuck, I'd rank him alongside guys like Bruce Doull, Terry Daniher, Stephen Kernahan, Dermott Brereton, Peter Daicos and Robert Flower as legendary footballers from the 70's and 80's, but maybe not quite in the AFL Hall of Fame Legends bracket.
From Hawthorn, I would nominate Jason Dunstall as more deserving of AFL Hall of Fame Legends status. I saw that Lockett, Carey and Ablett were all nominated for legend this year. Dunstall was every bit as good as those three. His record is actually superior to theirs.
Of the bottom 3, only Barker gets in.
As for Tuck, he is fighting for Legend status with Russell Ebert, Kevin Sheedy and Malcolm Blight.
Longevity is not enough - or guys like Craig Bradley would be in like flynn. being a good player is not enough. legends are supposed to be something else entirely. Ebert is absilutely deserving of that, so are guys like Ken Farmer - Ive no doubt we'll get there eventually, but at one a year its going to take some time.
Can't get my head around that the AFL/VFL total games record holder is not Legend .
The player who won the most AFL/VFL premiership medals is not a Legend .
The player who has played in the most AFL/VFL Grand Finals is not legend .
The player who has played the most AFL/VFL finals games is not a legend .
Its all the same guy , its all Michael Tuck , 426 games , 7 premiership medals , 11 Grand Final appearances , 39 Final Games and he even has a medal named after him , a medal won by the likes of Carey , Harvey , McLeod and Selwood .
Can't get my head around why Tuck is not a Legend already , 24 years after his last game . Yet Lockett last played only 13 years ago ,and his claim to fame is he is leading goalkicker .
Also whats up with no Trevor Barker , No Stewart Loewe and No Gary Buckenara ?
Because there's something to be said for:
HOF playing career + HOF coaching career = Legend status.
Ricciuto should have legend status.
Because... Crows.
We should prioritise those potential legends to be who are still with us.Longevity is not enough - or guys like Craig Bradley would be in like flynn. being a good player is not enough. legends are supposed to be something else entirely. Ebert is absilutely deserving of that, so are guys like Ken Farmer - Ive no doubt we'll get there eventually, but at one a year its going to take some time.
Actually your avatar should be there, how can Mr Football not be a Legend?
We should rename the competition the VFL then...and kick out all the interstate sides too?The whole premise of the thread is flawed. The HoF is an AFL group for players from within that comp. Unless a player had an impact in the VFL/AFL the idea they should be included is ridiculous.
This is not an argument that the VFL was better than the SANFL or WAFL, I'm ont trying to open that can of worms. It's simply a matter of the AFL being a competition, not the custodian of the sport. The AFL should remember that and concentrate on running their standiums and TV rights negotiations. They already think they're bigger than the game, and it's surprising that the SANFL and WAFL would have a bar of this question.
Your comment has no logical link to mine. The "interstate" teams play in the AFL and of course will be considered for any award in that competition. Players or teams who did not play in the AFL, or in it's older name the VFL, should not be recognised.We should rename the competition the VFL then...and kick out all the interstate sides too?
The whole premise of the thread is flawed. The HoF is an AFL group for players from within that comp. Unless a player had an impact in the VFL/AFL the idea they should be included is ridiculous.
This is not an argument that the VFL was better than the SANFL or WAFL, I'm ont trying to open that can of worms. It's simply a matter of the AFL being a competition, not the custodian of the sport. The AFL should remember that and concentrate on running their standiums and TV rights negotiations. They already think they're bigger than the game, and it's surprising that the SANFL and WAFL would have a bar of this question.
AFL took over custodianship of the game with a deal with the Australian National Football Council.Your comment has no logical link to mine. The "interstate" teams play in the AFL and of course will be considered for any award in that competition. Players or teams who did not play in the AFL, or in it's older name the VFL, should not be recognised.
The AFL is not the game, however much they might like to think they are. They're simply a league, just like the SANFL or WAFL or the old VFA. There are great players and great clubs that played outside what is now the AFL, and there's no great injustice in that.They have no right to co-opt the history of other leagues and teams that are not their own.
The West Australian Football Commission, among others, might have something to say about that. They are "the caretaker of football throughout the State and is responsible for the overall development of the game" in WA, and other bodies have that responsibility in other states.You can try to wish it away all you like, but the facts are that presently the AFL does run the game. And as such the premise of the thread is valid until that situation changes.
This is not quite right. The ANFC agreed that the Laws of the Game Committee fall under the auspices of the AFL. This was for consistency and to cut red tape, but in no way handed the AFL custodianship of the game, and did not hand the hostory of other leagues to the AFL.AFL took over custodianship of the game with a deal with the Australian National Football Council.
The West Australian Football Commission, among others, might have something to say about that. They are "the caretaker of football throughout the State and is responsible for the overall development of the game" in WA, and other bodies have that responsibility in other states.
http://www.wafootball.com.au/
You can buy into the AFL's self-promotion all you like, but they're simply a league. They're the most successful league, but have no standing as a peak body and are not even the oldest competition.
Don't see Tuck as a Legend. Yes he had longevity, and he was a good player in a great team. But I am dead against giving Legend status or Hall of Fame status for longevity. I think HoF status already smacks of "play 200 and you eventually get in".
Tuck played for 19 years and never even won his clubs best and fairest. His name just does not sit at the same level as the current group of Legends.
Good player who lucked out in an incredibly good team.