Top 100 players since 1980

Remove this Banner Ad

un_eggs said:
End of last season was the first time I had him as a serious consideration. He’s close but a couple of quiet season prior to last year holds him back for mine. If he puts in another cracking season this year he’ll be hard to leave out. A good finals series would help too. As a good comparison he’d need to oust Darren Millane who is one of the toughest players I’ve seen, skilled to boot, and performed in finals.
Click to expand...
He has already surpassed Watson.

He has an MVP, Brownlow, more B&Fs more all Australians. Yet you keep Watson in and only consider Cripps as close?
 
Wild Bill said:
He has already surpassed Watson.

He has an MVP, Brownlow, more B&Fs more all Australians. Yet you keep Watson in and only consider Cripps as close?
Click to expand...

You are obviously talking about Jobe?
Have to agree. Jobe shouldn't be anywhere near the top 100.

Excellent career but he was similar to Mark Bairstow or Terry Wallace and quite a few others.
 
catscollector said:
You are obviously talking about Jobe?
Have to agree. Jobe shouldn't be anywhere near the top 100.

Excellent career but he was similar to Mark Bairstow or Terry Wallace and quite a few others.
Click to expand...
He played 2 good years and even then has a question mark on them. Wouldn’t make my top 200 list.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's essentially down to the top 10 of every decade.
During Jobe's career, he was competing against the likes of Ablett, Judd, Franklin, Goodes, Akermanis, Cousins, Mitchell, Riewoldt, Scarlett, Hodge, Pavlich, Black etc.
 
My lifetime top 100

100-Luke Power- Great attacking midfielder doesn’t get much recognition.
99- Peter Bell- Ball winner very smart and a great career.
98- Josh Francou- Underrated amazing footballer years at the top.
97- Mark Lecras- Masterclass on so many occasions loved watching him.
96- Luke McPharlin - Kpp Backmen could fly and kept the dockers together backline.
95- David Wirrapanda - Was an icon and a beauty to watch. Everyone wanted to kick like wirra.
94- Luke Ball- A leader tough as nails and a great kick on to a lead as well.
93- Chris Mainwaring- Quick tough and classy a pleasure to watch as a youngster.
92- Brendon Fevola- A game winner loved the moment and stood up so many times.
91- Chad Cornes- Was huge in the 2000 era the best chb in my eyes in that era.
90- Daniel Kerr- A top 3 Brownlow medalist multiple times and tough as nails.
89- Jeremy McGovern- Had a 5 year period where he was defending at an amazing level and so good to watch.
88-Luke Darcy- So versatile and an amazing ruckman/forward ahead of his time.
87- Toby Greene- Hasn’t finished but a pleasure to watch and the best small for a long time.
86- Scott West- Ball magnet and leader with so much consistency.
85- Christian Petracca- Still so young but makes the list he is a jet ✈️.
84- Craig Bradley- Just kept going and going run all day and used it amazingly.
83- Paul Kelly- Tough and one of the best leaders to play, walk tall behind him.
82- Jeremy Cameron- ATM ranked here but another few years could be a top 35.
81-Dustin Fletcher- The main FB I remember apart from SOS from younger days.
80- Jack Reiwoldt- Not my favourite but have to give him credit for a great career.
79- Jarryd Roughead- Amazing career and a beautifully skilled player.
78- Corey Enright- Brilliant footballer a master of his position
77- Scott West - Underated by alot but his consistency of being a top player second to not many.
76-Barry Hall- close on 750 goals and could push up the ground and take close on 20 marks a presence that would shape a forward line.
75-Peter Matera- Beautiful to watch a game winner that tore my team a new one multiple times.
74-Aaron Sandilands- So dominant to watch gave the onballers opportunities galore not pretty to watch around the ground but so valuable.
73-Anthony Koutifides- Another level of human for a short period was amazing to watch just not enough length to crack higher.
72-Scott Pendelbury- Captain smooth so many years of being a top 2 percent of players, lovely to watch as well.
71-Sam Mitchell- Not quite as good as diesel but in that sense so smart 2 steps ahead of most plays.
70- Darren Glass- A true leader and a great fullback in the same era as many great fullbacks and should of probably been more recognised.
69- Lenny Hayes- One of the classiest toughest footballers to play the game.
68-Marcus Bontempelli- COuld be a top 30 by the end but atm I have him here a great player only getting better.
67- Josh Kennedy- The eagles jk an amazing career breaking club records.
66- Steve Johnson- One of my favourites to watch so smart on the field and a master of creating and making goals.
65-
50- Matthew Richardson- A beast of a footballer who could play anywhere on the field and dominate.
49-Jimmy Bartel- one of the best overhead marks for a midfielder who achieved everything one of the best cv of all time.
7-Tony Lockett- Big plugger just kicked bags every time you turned on the tv he made it look to easy.
6-Chris Judd- A superhero of a player the flash people couldnt believe when he burst on the scene.
5-Wayne Carey- The swagger the best chf of all time and shaped a team around himself.
4- Lance Franklin- A freak dominant to another level on some days, no bigger name in the 2007-2012 era.
3- Michael Voss- Inspiring the way he played just made you want to play he was th ebest leader I have seen loved watching brisbane because of him.
2- Gary Ablett jnr- Strength skill speed and would find it 50 times on occasions and could add 4-5 goals when he wanted as well, so unbelievably smart and balanced.
1- Gary Ablett snr- The best of the best no one could do what ablett did , was like the Michael Jordan of AFL played like no one had seen and everyone wanted to be Gary!



TBC
 
Last edited:
Lingsface said:
My lifetime top 100

100-Luke Power- Great attacking midfielder doesn’t get much recognition.
99- Peter Bell- Ball winner very smart and a great career.
98- Josh Francou- Underrated amazing footballer years at the top.
97- Mark Lecras- Masterclass on so many occasions loved watching him.
96- Luke McPharlin - Kpp Backmen could fly and kept the dockers together backline.
95- David Wirrapanda - Was an icon and a beauty to watch. Everyone wanted to kick like wirra.
94- Luke Ball- A leader tough as nails and a great kick on to a lead as well.
93- Chris Mainwaring- Quick tough and classy a pleasure to watch as a youngster.
92- Brendon Fevola- A game winner loved the moment and stood up so many times.
91- Chad Cornes- Was huge in the 2000 era the best chb in my eyes in that era.
90- Daniel Kerr- A top 3 Brownlow medalist multiple times and tough as nails.
89- Jeremy McGovern- Had a 5 year period where he was defending at an amazing level and so good to watch.
88-Luke Darcy- So versatile and an amazing ruckman/forward ahead of his time.
87- Toby Greene- Hasn’t finished but a pleasure to watch and the best small for a long time.
86- Scott West- Ball magnet and leader with so much consistency.
85- Christian Petracca- Still so young but makes the list he is a jet ✈️.
84- Craig Bradley- Just kept going and going run all day and used it amazingly.
83- Paul Kelly- Tough and one of the best leaders to play, walk tall behind him.
82- Jeremy Cameron- ATM ranked here but another few years could be a top 35.
81-Dustin Fletcher- The main FB I remember apart from SOS from younger days.
80- Jack Reiwoldt- Not my favourite but have to give him credit for a great career.
79- Jarryd Roughead- Amazing career and a beautifully skilled player.
78- Corey Enright- Brilliant footballer a master of his position
77- Scott West - Underated by alot but his consistency of being a top player second to not many.
76-Barry Hall- close on 750 goals and could push up the ground and take close on 20 marks a presence that would shape a forward line.
75-Peter Matera- Beautiful to watch a game winner that tore my team a new one multiple times.
74-Aaron Sandilands- So dominant to watch gave the onballers opportunities galore not pretty to watch around the ground but so valuable.
73-Anthony Koutifides- Another level of human for a short period was amazing to watch just not enough length to crack higher.
72-Scott Pendelbury- Captain smooth so many years of being a top 2 percent of players, lovely to watch as well.
71-Sam Mitchell- Not quite as good as diesel but in that sense so smart 2 steps ahead of most plays.
70- Darren Glass- A true leader and a great fullback in the same era as many great fullbacks and should of probably been more recognised.
69- Lenny Hayes- One of the classiest toughest footballers to play the game.
68-Marcus Bontempelli- COuld be a top 30 by the end but atm I have him here a great player only getting better.
67- Josh Kennedy- The eagles jk an amazing career breaking club records.
66- Steve Johnson- One of my favourites to watch so smart on the field and a master of creating and making goals.
65-
50- Matthew Richardson- A beast of a footballer who could play anywhere on the field and dominate.
49-Jimmy Bartel- one of the best overhead marks for a midfielder who achieved everything one of the best cv of all time.
7-Tony Lockett- Big plugger just kicked bags every time you turned on the tv he made it look to easy.
6-Chris Judd- A superhero of a player the flash people couldnt believe when he burst on the scene.
5-Wayne Carey- The swagger the best chf of all time and shaped a team around himself.
4- Lance Franklin- A freak dominant to another level on some days, no bigger name in the 2007-2012 era.
3- Michael Voss- Inspiring the way he played just made you want to play he was th ebest leader I have seen loved watching brisbane because of him.
2- Gary Ablett jnr- Strength skill speed and would find it 50 times on occasions and could add 4-5 goals when he wanted as well, so unbelievably smart and balanced.
1- Gary Ablett snr- The best of the best no one could do what ablett did , was like the Michael Jordan of AFL played like no one had seen and everyone wanted to be Gary!



TBC
Click to expand...
Good contribution to the thread. Look forward to reading the rest.

Some interesting choices, especially the ones coming out of WA. Are you a resident there by any chance?
 
As an aside, Cripps is not pushing his claim for a spot this season. He’s had one great season (last year) out of his last 4 seasons. He hasn’t taken his side anywhere as yet and he doesnt hit the scoreboard much.

If you compare him with Jobe and take the 9 consecutive seasons from their breakout years, at their peak, then the stats are almost identical. The difference being that Jobe put together consistently good seasons every year up until his suspension. They both averaged 25 disposals, Jobe had slightly more goals. Cripps won 4 BnFs to Jobe’s 3 but Jobe would almost certainly have won in 2011 and 2013 if not for injury. So, to refute Wild Bill’s nonsense of him only having 2 good seasons, you can safely say he had 5 outstanding seasons plus 4 above-average seasons at worst.
 
Updated for the end of 2023. New entries include; Neale, Greene, Cripps Stewart and Petracca.

Collingwood seem very under-represented in this list which I find interesting as it isn't by design. Millane has just been removed which was painful as he was a great, tough champion. I also toyed with re-entering Sidebottom but Dipper at 100 made me think of who I'd take first and it would always be Dipper if picking a team. So many of their best are just on the fringe of my top 100. Peter Moore is another. Tony Shaw as well. And Nick Daicos is definitely coming into the conversation very quickly.
 
Last edited:
rapidfire7 said:
As good was Watson was, putting him at 11 is way too high. Surely he cannot be ahead of players like Blight, Williams, Madden and many more.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the effort but it's pretty obvious that there's a clear Essendon bias, and stronger than what you'd expect. Vritually every Essendon player on this list is far above what you'd expect.

Terry Daniher at 46, not that I'm old enough to watch him, but just going by accolades it seems strange to have him so far ahead of someone like Lenny Hayes (76), who also was All-Australian three times, or Shane Crawford (70) who was a four time All-Australian and widely considered among the best player or two in the league at least at a point in time around 1999. And at risk of Dogs bias, having Scott West (not on this list, 7x B&F, 5x All-Australian) and Brad Johnson (81, 6x All-Australian) is also kind of ridiculous. Of course Terry Daniher was a good player, but to have him clear top 50 just seems a bit strange.

Similar with Jobe Watson on this list at all. He "only" played 220 games and took a little while to get going and dropped off post-suspension, so there is really only a four-five year window which he could have been considered an elite player. To have him on this list at all - the best players since 1980 - just reeks of absolute bias. There's plenty midfielders that I've watched in the 21st century that are better. Off the top of my head I'd have Travis Boak and even Clayton Oliver, despite having only played 160 games, as already had a greater output than Watson ever has in his career.

I could go on. Wanganeen at 39 when he didn't finish above 5th in the Port best and fairest for an entire 10 years he was on the list, except for the 2003 year that he won it. He was an outstanding player over the course of his career, but merely an excellent-but-not-among-the-aboslute-best at Port for the large majority of it. By definition there have been 40+ Brownlow wins, and well over 400+ players who could be considered their club's best player over a 10-year stretch or so. Again, Wanganeed was excellent but, in my view and just at the top of my head, he's probably around 75th on this list just looking at those best & fairest rankings in his Port career.
 
rapidfire7 said:
As good was Watson was, putting him at 11 is way too high. Surely he cannot be ahead of players like Blight, Williams, Madden and many more.
Click to expand...
To begin with, I, and many Essendon fans of the 80s would rate Watson as our most important, talismanic, driving force of our back-to-back teams. He was the blueprint for your Ricciutos and Petraccas to come. If I were truly biased threenewpadlocks I would also have Madden higher than Watson seeing as big Simon was my footy hero as a kid. But, if I am to be realistic, Watson was the most important player in that team. As I have mentioned previously, Leigh Matthews rated him as the best midfielder of the first half of the 80s and in 1989 there was media debate around who was the best player in the comp between he and Ablett (Ablett’s finals series ended the debate). That was after having 2 seasons ruined by a knee injury. I have no hesitation in rating him that highly.

I have also mentioned previously that seeing players first-hand and following them closely will undoubtedly bring some subjective bias. Full hands up in owning that. But when a team rises to dominate the behemoth that the Hawks were in the 80s you have to expect some of them to figure prominently.

In regards to players like Wanganeen and Fletcher, I give them high ratings due to the innovation of role as well. I also give ratings to the aesthetic of the player which players like Wanga, Blight, Flower, Winmar, Long, Mercuri, Akermanis, Jarman etc get high marks for. Performing in finals also adds to the ranking as well. Blight would probably be higher if I saw his 70s career. I factor all of this into it.

On Daniher, he was close to the best player in the comp in 1983 and won the MVP that year. If players are viewed by contemporaries and media as having been in the best handful of players in the comp at any point in time they rate highly, especially if they’ve excelled consistently over a number of years which Daniher and Watson did.

I appreciate the feedback and I hope I haven’t gone on too much here but thought I would give some justification to my choices. It’s a malleable list and I will take into account what you’ve put on here.
 
un_eggs said:
To begin with, I, and many Essendon fans of the 80s would rate Watson as our most important, talismanic, driving force of our back-to-back teams. He was the blueprint for your Ricciutos and Petraccas to come. If I were truly biased threenewpadlocks I would also have Madden higher than Watson seeing as big Simon was my footy hero as a kid. But, if I am to be realistic, Watson was the most important player in that team. As I have mentioned previously, Leigh Matthews rated him as the best midfielder of the first half of the 80s and in 1989 there was media debate around who was the best player in the comp between he and Ablett (Ablett’s finals series ended the debate). That was after having 2 seasons ruined by a knee injury. I have no hesitation in rating him that highly.

I have also mentioned previously that seeing players first-hand and following them closely will undoubtedly bring some subjective bias. Full hands up in owning that. But when a team rises to dominate the behemoth that the Hawks were in the 80s you have to expect some of them to figure prominently.

In regards to players like Wanganeen and Fletcher, I give them high ratings due to the innovation of role as well. I also give ratings to the aesthetic of the player which players like Wanga, Blight, Flower, Winmar, Long, Mercuri, Akermanis, Jarman etc get high marks for. Performing in finals also adds to the ranking as well. Blight would probably be higher if I saw his 70s career. I factor all of this into it.

On Daniher, he was close to the best player in the comp in 1983 and won the MVP that year. If players are viewed by contemporaries and media as having been in the best handful of players in the comp at any point in time they rate highly, especially if they’ve excelled consistently over a number of years which Daniher and Watson did.

I appreciate the feedback and I hope I haven’t gone on too much here but thought I would give some justification to my choices. It’s a malleable list and I will take into account what you’ve put on here.
Click to expand...
At some point though you have to use accolades and statistics, otherwise it's just an incredibly poor list because nobody's memory is that good, and you didn't watch every game. And then once you do do that, value qualitative elements (which admititng you do put in your original post), things like innovation of role etc. it is through that framework you can introduce bias of the team you support.

And if we're talking innovation of role, Brad Johnson's 6x All-Australians were played across a variety of roles as a midfielder, wingman, and playing as both a small and psuedo-tall forward. For instance, in 2006 when he was All-Australina captain, He took 80 marks inside 50 and 31 total contested marks (6th and equal 9th in the league season) despite being 182cm tall. I'm sure your memory wasn't in the weeds of the Western Bulldogs play style of the 2006 season, so of course your mind is going to forget it, but then it's strange to use your defence as it is.

If we're talking innovation of role, Shane Crawford (who, like Daniher, was clearly 1999's best footballer), arguably ushred in the modern era of rotating players so they can use their running capacity to impact the game. One of the chapters of the excellent historical tactics-in-football books Time and Space covers this very well. There should be no suggestion Crawford innovated the game less than any other player, and from my point of view it's ridiculous to have him as 70 when, as a point of comparison, by definition there can be only less than 50 players in total that were clealry the best player in a given season across the 1980-now timeframe.

I'd almost respect if you doubled down and just said "this ranking is literally just my memory", but it's strange to try and defend the scientific and the various compartments that go into player rating of it when people are pointing out very balance/flawed criticisms.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

threenewpadlocks said:
At some point though you have to use accolades and statistics, otherwise it's just an incredibly poor list because nobody's memory is that good, and you didn't watch every game. And then once you do do that, value qualitative elements (which admititng you do put in your original post), things like innovation of role etc. it is through that framework you can introduce bias of the team you support.

And if we're talking innovation of role, Brad Johnson's 6x All-Australians were played across a variety of roles as a midfielder, wingman, and playing as both a small and psuedo-tall forward. For instance, in 2006 when he was All-Australina captain, He took 80 marks inside 50 and 31 total contested marks (6th and equal 9th in the league season) despite being 182cm tall. I'm sure your memory wasn't in the weeds of the Western Bulldogs play style of the 2006 season, so of course your mind is going to forget it, but then it's strange to use your defence as it is.

If we're talking innovation of role, Shane Crawford (who, like Daniher, was clearly 1999's best footballer), arguably ushred in the modern era of rotating players so they can use their running capacity to impact the game. One of the chapters of the excellent historical tactics-in-football books Time and Space covers this very well. There should be no suggestion Crawford innovated the game less than any other player, and from my point of view it's ridiculous to have him as 70 when, as a point of comparison, by definition there can be only less than 50 players in total that were clealry the best player in a given season across the 1980-now timeframe.

I'd almost respect if you doubled down and just said "this ranking is literally just my memory", but it's strange to try and defend the scientific and the various compartments that go into player rating of it when people are pointing out very balance/flawed criticisms.
Click to expand...
I have never said that this is a perfect ‘scientific’ list. I have always pre-empted it by saying that it’s subjective and I have I always welcomed feedback which has, believe-it-or-not, resulted in me modifying the list. Statistics have also been well and truly in my thinking. I love the statistics in our game. I didn’t think I needed to point it out.

I hope you’re not suggesting this is a ‘poor list’ as I have managed to cram in the greatest players our game has seen over a 44 year period and every single one of them is worthy of a place. The difference between Crawford at around 70 and Daniher at around 50 is miniscule in the scheme of the talent concentration on this list. If someone were to swap them around in their own list it wouldn’t mean much in terms of difference between their impact on the game.

I’ve given this a go in the hope that it would generate discussion. Criticism, in an attempt to degrade the worthiness of a list, says more about the one criticising. If you respectfully discuss the list and I am open to respectfully modifying it.
 
un_eggs said:
I have never said that this is a perfect ‘scientific’ list. I have always pre-empted it by saying that it’s subjective and I have I always welcomed feedback which has, believe-it-or-not, resulted in me modifying the list. Statistics have also been well and truly in my thinking. I love the statistics in our game. I didn’t think I needed to point it out.

I hope you’re not suggesting this is a ‘poor list’ as I have managed to cram in the greatest players our game has seen over a 44 year period and every single one of them is worthy of a place. The difference between Crawford at around 70 and Daniher at around 50 is miniscule in the scheme of the talent concentration on this list. If someone were to swap them around in their own list it wouldn’t mean much in terms of difference between their impact on the game.

I’ve given this a go in the hope that it would generate discussion. Criticism, in an attempt to degrade the worthiness of a list, says more about the one criticising. If you respectfully discuss the list and I am open to respectfully modifying it.
Click to expand...
I'm a little bit confused with what you're trying to achieve with the list then. Are you rating to how good visually these players appeared to be? Are you rating some sort of ability to contribute to winning teams over a period of time, and how their value-add over the player that would replace them (ie how much worse the team would have been if they were injured)? Something in between?

I appreciate the effort and maybe I was a bit aggressive but I suppose it's because I don't really understand the criteria, or some of the logic in applying criteria seems inherently contradictory.

Take a similar rating for tennis players:


  • Nothing subjective - it was all done on match results
  • It balanced a player's peak rating, their average rating over their best five season stretch, and the accumulation of playing above a certain threshold (ie the value of accumulating how good you were above being a top 50-equivalent player)
  • He did this to align what a layperson would describe this tennis player being "better" than the other, but it had a statistical foundation.

This I can respect. For instance, Pete Sampras is outside of the top 20 even though many consider him a top 5-10 GOAT in tennis. But objectively, his winning percentage across an entire tennis season outside of the Grand Slams themselves were generally poor, and the author defends this choice as giving extra weighting for grand slam results does not appear to have better predictive power for winning future games (ie winning a tennis match is still winning a tennis match). The criteria is defined, it began with a statistical basis etc.

But you inherently contradict yourself with your text arguments for where you rate a player:
un_eggs said:
72/ Anthony Koutoufides - his years around 99/2000 were awesome and if he'd done it for 10 years would be top 10.
Click to expand...
So longevity of performance does matter? But you basically don't use it to grade up/down many other players, except for rare occasions.

But take:

un_eggs said:
30/ Darren Jarman - exquisite skills. Made the game look easy like few others.
Click to expand...
Who I'm not disputing this is untrue, comments wise, but I just don't see your logic in making Jarman 30th and Kouta 72nd, a mile apart on this list, if you're going to apply both assessments equally. As players who had sort of similar careers, either they were both freakish players that could combine skill and athleticism in a way that nobody else could on their day that was virtually unmatched since 1980 (so both should be rated highly), or otherwise they were players who only had about 3 years where they were at an absolute elite level among the game's best handful of players and didn't sustain it over a career of 200+/8-9 seasons (so they should both be rated lowly, discounting Kouta post-2003 injury).

So in essence you're just jotting down names on a list because one feels like it should be higher than the other, but I feel like the logic used (both in your text descriptions) but also just on the "visually appealing and/or had output at a peak" vs "this player accumulated value to a team on the direction toward winning" scale seems to be applied differently to different players.

The general Essendon bias across all players has already been touched on but please consider it too.

Again, I appreciate your effort, and because you said to be taking feedback - my feedback is that I can't work out what criteria you're using, because whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be applied evenly across all players.

I do think I can say it's a poor list. At least one relative to the amount of time over several years I think you've put into this.

For example, if I were doing a similar list, I would start off with something likethis:

The most important metric when judging a player's career ?

I know every award is fallible and at least AA is somewhat positional but it still throws up strange results as it is often a relatively static group of selectors, which results in their favourites getting consistently picked (including on reputation or when they don't deserve it) and their non...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com

And work from there. Were there players who had a lot of almost-All-Australian seasons? Which players had the best "peaks"? (ie, literally won a Brownlow). I would look at various placings in B&F top 10's. For instance, I think it's a bit of a joke and clear team bias that you have Mark Mecuri in this list - a Brownlow runner up in one season, but not an outstanding player in literally any other year, shown by 53 total brownlow votes. I wouldn't have him even in the top 200 or 250 players if I were doing a similar list, because you can take that rough guide and consider players like Adam Simpson (72 career votes), Tony Liberatore (112 votes), Paul Couch (99 Brownlow votes), and dozens of others, some of which are in your mentions and most whoa re not. I'm a Dogs fan and I wouldn't have Tony Liberatore in the top 100 either, but the fact of the matter is he got more than double the Brownlow votes of Mecuri, so surely that's pause for thought?
 
Last edited:
threenewpadlocks said:
I'm a little bit confused with what you're trying to achieve with the list then. Are you rating to how good visually these players appeared to be? Are you rating some sort of ability to contribute to winning teams over a period of time, and how their value-add over the player that would replace them (ie how much worse the team would have been if they were injured)? Something in between?

I appreciate the effort and maybe I was a bit aggressive but I suppose it's because I don't really understand the criteria, or some of the logic in applying criteria seems inherently contradictory.

Take a similar rating for tennis players:


  • Nothing subjective - it was all done on match results
  • It balanced a player's peak rating, their average rating over their best five season stretch, and the accumulation of playing above a certain threshold (ie the value of accumulating how good you were above being a top 50-equivalent player)
  • He did this to align what a layperson would describe this tennis player being "better" than the other, but it had a statistical foundation.

This I can respect. For instance, Pete Sampras is outside of the top 20 even though many consider him a top 5-10 GOAT in tennis. But objectively, his winning percentage across an entire tennis season outside of the Grand Slams themselves were generally poor, and the author defends this choice as giving extra weighting for grand slam results does not appear to have better predictive power for winning future games (ie winning a tennis match is still winning a tennis match). The criteria is defined, it began with a statistical basis etc.

But you inherently contradict yourself with your text arguments for where you rate a player:

So longevity of performance does matter? But you basically don't use it to grade up/down many other players, except for rare occasions.

But take:


Who I'm not disputing this is untrue, comments wise, but I just don't see your logic in making Jarman 30th and Kouta 72nd, a mile apart on this list, if you're going to apply both assessments equally. As players who had sort of similar careers, either they were both freakish players that could combine skill and athleticism in a way that nobody else could on their day that was virtually unmatched since 1980 (so both should be rated highly), or otherwise they were players who only had about 3 years where they were at an absolute elite level among the game's best handful of players and didn't sustain it over a career of 200+/8-9 seasons (so they should both be rated lowly, discounting Kouta post-2003 injury).

So in essence you're just jotting down names on a list because one feels like it should be higher than the other, but I feel like the logic used (both in your text descriptions) but also just on the "visually appealing and/or had output at a peak" vs "this player accumulated value to a team on the direction toward winning" scale seems to be applied differently to different players.

The general Essendon bias across all players has already been touched on but please consider it too.

Again, I appreciate your effort, and because you said to be taking feedback - my feedback is that I can't work out what criteria you're using, because whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be applied evenly across all players.

I do think I can say it's a poor list. At least one relative to the amount of time over several years I think you've put into this.

For example, if I were doing a similar list, I would start off with something likethis:

The most important metric when judging a player's career ?

I know every award is fallible and at least AA is somewhat positional but it still throws up strange results as it is often a relatively static group of selectors, which results in their favourites getting consistently picked (including on reputation or when they don't deserve it) and their non...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com

And work from there. Were there players who had a lot of almost-All-Australian seasons? Which players had the best "peaks"? (ie, literally won a Brownlow). I would look at various placings in B&F top 10's. For instance, I think it's a bit of a joke and clear team bias that you have Mark Mecuri in this list - a Brownlow runner up in one season, but not an outstanding player in literally any other year, shown by 53 total brownlow votes. I wouldn't have him even in the top 200 or 250 players if I were doing a similar list, because you can take that rough guide and consider players like Adam Simpson (72 career votes), Tony Liberatore (112 votes), Paul Couch (99 Brownlow votes), and dozens of others, some of which are in your mentions and most whoa re not. I'm a Dogs fan and I wouldn't have Tony Liberatore in the top 100 either, but the fact of the matter is he got more than double the Brownlow votes of Mecuri, so surely that's pause for thought?
Click to expand...
There’s a lot to digest here.

Tennis is an individual pursuit where winning is the ultimate marker for each player. In team sports, the individual can be assessed beyond the marker of accolades because the success depends on the ability of those around you.

If you left Robbie Flower out of a list like this you’d be accused of killing Bambi. His career is statistically unremarkable. But the general concensus of those who followed footy in that era is that he’s one of the best. I rate Mercuri in a similar way when considering the joy of watching our great game. Mercs had team success to add to his pros, and is not dissimilar in status to Nigel Lappin’s career. Brownlow votes don’t reflect finals performances and Mercs had many big game performances. Lappin didn’t have a season that hit the heights of Mercs. You need to bring all of these elements together which is what I’ve tried to do. Aesthetics will inevitably create subjectivity but if you can justify it with other aspects such as Flower rising above the mediocrity around him, or Mercs being a big-game player and dominating the comp for a season, then it can all come together with an element of integrity. A player like Neale Daniher is right up there with the most gifted and aesthetically pleasing players I’ve seen but I’ve left him out on other factors such as longevity, opportunity to display his talents in finals, and having few accolades (other than one BnF). I’m not choosing purely on aesthetics, I’m considering all aspects.

Brownlow votes are considered but unlike some people I rate them much lower than other aspects due to the midfielder bias, umpire favourites, and media hype. Gary Hocking’s multiple close-calls are more impressive than Neale’s 2 wins. Millane was a better player in 1990 (won MVP) than Libba and Kouta was better than Woewodin. On the Kouta topic, he was not at Jarman’s level as a player. Jarman had many more years of high quality and had one of the great GF performances.

I like AA as a criteria but only after 1990 when it wasn’t based on SOO carnivals.

I like BnF as a criteria, especially in premiership teams (Bont and Fletcher for example) but Scott West (who was in the list for a while) is out due to a few factors which include aesthetics, not being considered in the best handful of players during any season, and not having inspired success. However he was rightly considered extremely highly within the club as was shown by him winning 7 BnFs (I loved him as a player believe it or not).

I think it’s slightly unfair to consider this a ‘poor’ list but you have every right to assess it that way. I can only try to justify my inclusions when I put myself out there in such a way. Thanks for the input.
 
un_eggs said:
Scott West (who was in the list for a while) is out due to a few factors which include aesthetics, not being considered in the best handful of players during any season, and not having inspired success.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to unpack the entire post but this speaks to my consistent application or not spending the amount of time considering individual players (given that you could have spent 10+ years considering individual players).

Scott West, only isolating the points that you made, was:

- Brownlow runner-up in both the 2000 and 2006 seasons, individual seasons that he also made the All-Australian team. That's doing something in a season twice that you allowed Mecuri in your list for once doing that.

"aesthetics" - well sure I'm not going to dispute this as it is your list with your criteria but I'm allowed to say I think it's a silly list if you're putting too much weight into this. I'm not saying I don't enjoy football aesthetics, just that it's of 0.1% of why I enjoy football, and 99.9% of why I enjoy is the act of players trying to help their team win games (like West did a lot of).

"not having inspired success" - the inherent difficulty of ensuring, as a criteria, that this is applied to every player equally/fairly is what my post was criticising - you can make certain criteria more important for some players but less than others. Did you also downgrade other players for inspiring success? Did Jobe Watson (zero finals wins in his career) inspire more success more than West did?

What I will say is though that West was a particularly good finals player over his career, such as being considered among our best players with 30+ disposals in the 97 and 98 prelims, clear best on ground in our 2006 elimination final win over Collingwood, etc. etc. how else would you define "inspiring success" than lifting your level in finals?

It's not that I can disagree with your listing/viewing of players, because that's open to interpretation (even if I think it's pretty clear you're interpreting a massive Essendon supporter bias). It's more that the text-based justification for each player you give introduces contradiction to each other, as shown by my Jarman/Kouta examples. I think it's fair to say you shouldn't have those players so far apart if you're applying a set of criteria to both equally. They're not miles apart in the ways that they impacted the game, whatever measurement you want.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
I'm not going to unpack the entire post but this speaks to my consistent application or not spending the amount of time considering individual players (given that you could have spent 10+ years considering individual players).

Scott West, only isolating the points that you made, was:

- Brownlow runner-up in both the 2000 and 2006 seasons, individual seasons that he also made the All-Australian team. That's doing something in a season twice that you allowed Mecuri in your list for once doing that.

"aesthetics" - well sure I'm not going to dispute this as it is your list with your criteria but I'm allowed to say I think it's a silly list if you're putting too much weight into this. I'm not saying I don't enjoy football aesthetics, just that it's of 0.1% of why I enjoy football, and 99.9% of why I enjoy is the act of players trying to help their team win games (like West did a lot of).

"not having inspired success" - the inherent difficulty of ensuring, as a criteria, that this is applied to every player equally/fairly is what my post was criticising - you can make certain criteria more important for some players but less than others. Did you also downgrade other players for inspiring success? Did Jobe Watson (zero finals wins in his career) inspire more success more than West did?

What I will say is though that West was a particularly good finals player over his career, such as being considered among our best players with 30+ disposals in the 97 and 98 prelims, clear best on ground in our 2006 elimination final win over Collingwood, etc. etc. how else would you define "inspiring success" than lifting your level in finals?

It's not that I can disagree with your listing/viewing of players, because that's open to interpretation (even if I think it's pretty clear you're interpreting a massive Essendon supporter bias). It's more that the text-based justification for each player you give introduces contradiction to each other, as shown by my Jarman/Kouta examples. I think it's fair to say you shouldn't have those players so far apart if you're applying a set of criteria to both equally. They're not miles apart in the ways that they impacted the game, whatever measurement you want.
Click to expand...
Scotty West was in this top 100 up until a year or 2 ago. He, Millane and Leppitsch are the more recent difficult omissions. At the end of the day there’s a lot of great talent missing when you take in 40+ years. Tony Shaw is not dissimilar to West (I rate West slightly higher) but he only made it in this list for a year or 2 early on.

As an aside, who do you rate higher out of Isaac Smith and Flower? I find this to be a perfect example of subjectivity over stats and accolades. I had Smith sneak in the year before last based on him almost bringing the wing position back into vogue, winning 4 premierships and winning a Normy Smith on the back of consistently great finals performances. But I will always have Flower ahead of him.
 
un_eggs said:
Scotty West was in this top 100 up until a year or 2 ago. He, Millane and Leppitsch are the more recent difficult omissions. At the end of the day there’s a lot of great talent missing when you take in 40+ years. Tony Shaw is not dissimilar to West (I rate West slightly higher) but he only made it in this list for a year or 2 early on.

As an aside, who do you rate higher out of Isaac Smith and Flower? I find this to be a perfect example of subjectivity over stats and accolades. I had Smith sneak in the year before last based on him almost bringing the wing position back into vogue, winning 4 premierships and winning a Normy Smith on the back of consistently great finals performances. But I will always have Flower ahead of him.
Click to expand...
Flower, and it's miles apart. Smith was a role-playing wingman who did very well in that role, but at the end of the day, Smith only ever got 41 total Bronwlow votes from his 280 games. Flower got 125. Things like "bringing the wing spot back into vogue" is in my view your memory playing tricks on you and I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to it more than any other player, even if I did value it, it seems a bit of a vague statement. Did Tom Scully bring the wing spot back into vogue more than Smith when he was breaking distance-run records every week in 2017? Just because Isaac Smith was a bit of a good runner, was he even a better winger than the likes of Steele Sidebottom over his career? Gaff who was on the wing too? I can present arguments that Sidebottom brought the wing spot into vogue over his career too.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
Flower, and it's miles apart. Smith was a role-playing wingman who did very well in that role, but at the end of the day, Smith only ever got 41 total Bronwlow votes from his 280 games. Flower got 125. Things like "bringing the wing spot back into vogue" is in my view your memory playing tricks on you and I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to it more than any other player, even if I did value it, it seems a bit of a vague statement. Did Tom Scully bring the wing spot back into vogue more than Smith when he was breaking distance-run records every week in 2017? Just because Isaac Smith was a bit of a good runner, was he even a better winger than the likes of Steele Sidebottom over his career? Gaff who was on the wing too? I can present arguments that Sidebottom brought the wing spot into vogue over his career too.
Click to expand...
I had Sidebum in for a couple of years too. They’re very close together. As far as dashing, goalkicking wingmen go Smith is the template if you ask me. Not a bad career. Again, Brownlow votes are not as high in my thinking as great finals contributions. But I was aware of Flower’s total compared to Smith. I looked up on the Footy Tables site when I first put Smith in. I look at all of these things. Smith is underrated imo but Flower, I agree was much better.

But again, are you solely basing your view on Flower being much better on Brownlow votes or is there something intangible or aesthetic that gives him an edge and puts them ‘miles apart’?
 
threenewpadlocks said:
Terry Daniher at 46, not that I'm old enough to watch him, but just going by accolades it seems strange to have him so far ahead of someone like Lenny Hayes (76), who also was All-Australian three times, or Shane Crawford (70) who was a four time All-Australian and widely considered among the best player or two in the league at least at a point in time around 1999.
Click to expand...

Terry Daniher was a champion.
A much better all-round footballer than Hayes. Both were just as courageous and tough as one another too.
Daniher starred in state games & finals. Played a variety of positions.

Not sure I'd have him 46 in the all time great list but he was certainly a better player than Hayes in my opinion.
 
un_eggs said:
I had Sidebum in for a couple of years too. They’re very close together. As far as dashing, goalkicking wingmen go Smith is the template if you ask me. Not a bad career. Again, Brownlow votes are not as high in my thinking as great finals contributions. But I was aware of Flower’s total compared to Smith. I looked up on the Footy Tables site when I first put Smith in. I look at all of these things. Smith is underrated imo but Flower, I agree was much better.

But again, are you solely basing your view on Flower being much better on Brownlow votes or is there something intangible or aesthetic that gives him an edge and puts them ‘miles apart’?
Click to expand...

Flower took the balk and 'gut running' aspect of the game to a whole new level. He was also one of the most brilliant high marks the game has ever known. It's absurd how little footage exists of him. Many games were never televised. Flower was poetry in motion.

A travesty he played in such a poor side. When he finally did get his opportunity to perform in finals, he took 12 marks and booted 9 goals across two finals. He was belted by Dippa in the prelim and had to leave the field in his final ever match.
One of the all-time greats who would have stood out like a sore thumb in today's game.
 
My Tilly said:
Terry Daniher was a champion.
A much better all-round footballer than Hayes. Both were just as courageous and tough as one another too.
Daniher starred in state games & finals. Played a variety of positions.

Not sure I'd have him 46 in the all time great list but he was certainly a better player than Hayes in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Minor correction - greatest since 1980 😊
 
un_eggs said:
Updated for the end of 2023. New entries include; Neale, Greene, Cripps Stewart and Petracca.

Collingwood seem very under-represented in this list which I find interesting as it isn't by design. Millane has just been removed which was painful as he was a great, tough champion. I also toyed with re-entering Sidebottom but Dipper at 100 made me think of who I'd take first and it would always be Dipper if picking a team. So many of their best are just on the fringe of my top 100. Peter Moore is another. Tony Shaw as well. And Nick Daicos is definitely coming into the conversation very quickly.
Click to expand...
Was this update in your OP? I seen the date 2013 and you had Toby Greene at 97! Was going to say he must have made a big impact on you in 12 months in the game haha
 
Tandy said:
Was this update in your OP? I seen the date 2013 and you had Toby Greene at 97! Was going to say he must have made a big impact on you in 12 months in the game haha
Click to expand...
Yes I keep the OP updated. It’s fluid/malleable and a few players even re-entered the top 100 after further reflection.

And no, Greene hadn’t made that much of an impact by 2013 although I do remember thinking he had an uncanny ball-winning ability in his first couple of years when he played a lot more midfield.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top 100 players since 1980

Similar threads

Purple7x08_24
Opinion Select 5 players in order that you would trade to your club
Replies
20
Views
2K
JHF1870
JHF1870
justlookingaround
Glossary of Tactics, Concepts and Player Roles in modern footy
Replies
2
Views
908
SBYM
SBYM

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top