McLeod but only just.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Two great players near 300 games. Who has been better?
- Thread starter Collins-Langford-Ayres
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes McLeod's 2001 was sensational. As was Crawf's 2003.
I never mentioned anything about Kouta or Cuz. I said Crawf's 1999 was one of the best individual seasons of the last 30 years and I stand by that.
I chose Mcleod for Christ sake, give a guy a break.
Dixie Flatline
Moderator
- Jun 3, 2005
- 36,585
- 37,933
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cartagena C.F., NYJ, A's
- Moderator
- #103
Did you read what you quoted?
Obviously not.
I never said anything about versatility. What I said was that in terms of preparing himself for playing the game of Australian rules, Crawf set the benchmark, particularly amongst his own teammates and probably the league. Garry Lyon, who coached Crawf in the International Rules series a few years back, said as much in his article in the Hun last Monday.
In fairness, Crawford has not had the same ability to influence finals as McLeod has. Put simply, Hawks haven't played in them. I definately take your point about McLeod performing in the big ones, especially the two GF's where he really stamped his dominance, but if you are going to use Crawford's performance in last years elimination final, then you may as well look no further than McLeod's, who was comprehensively blanketed by Richie Vandenberg. Hardly a stunning example.
Crawford played defining games in the 2001 finals series, but McLeod played in a far greater volume of finals, so comparisons are difficult.
- Banned
- #105
Crawford was utterly brilliant from 1996-2003. To dismiss his Best and Fairests in these seasons on the basis that the team sometimes struggled, is to do him a great disservice. Maybe he would've finished out of the top 3 in Hawthorn's B&F a couple of times if they had more good players around him, but the fact remains, Crawf carried the team through these seasons. McLeod never had to single-handedly carry the Crows like Crawford did. He always had the better players around him to get him the ball, or to cover his opponent while he ran forwards.
I rate McLeod as one of the greatest players ever, mainly for his silky running, his ability to shift gears and evade tackles. He also had a great sense of timing and seemed to step up whenever the occasion demanded. But Crawford was also a great runner and could shift gears as well. He could run harder and for longer. He probably didn't set up play as well McLeod with handball, but his kicking skills were on a par.
What sets Crawford apart from McLeod is his defensive capability. McLeod has always been a purely offensive footballer. He never really tackled or ran back hard into defence, whereas this has been one of Crawford's strengths. It's an area too often overlooked when people are rating the great footballers. Crawford was brilliant at giving fast midfielders a head start, then chasing them down and laying a tackle. He used to win Hawthorn games with this ability. He made a number of match-saving clutch tackles in the dying seconds of a match.
When Crawford played in defence, he not only rebounded well (similar to McLeod) but unlike Macca, he also blanketed his dangerous opponents. They never got a sniff. He had foot stress fractures in 1997, but he played through it and was stationed in the back pocket. Every week, he used to shut down the dangerous small forwards: Jeff Farmer and Ronnie Burns when both were at their peak. He also played on James Hird (it was the year after Hirdy's Brownlow.) Both were less than 100%, but Sheedy isolated both in Essendon's forward line, hoping to create a height mismatch. Crawford repeatedly beat Hird in the one-on-one aerial contests.
McLeod was always purely a ground-level player. Crawford has become the same, but this was never always the case. People forget how great an athlete Crawford was before Brad Miller kneed him in the back. He had tremendous spring. His ability to sprint back to the marking contest, leap high, pirouette in mid-air, then make the desperate spoil was incredible. Someone said earlier that McLeod was the more versatile, but this wrong. In my opinion it was Crawford who had more strings to his bow.
In 1998 and 1999, Crawford went head to head with Robert Harvey at his peak and beat him. They also split the points on occasion.
In his prime, Crawford was one of the greatest athletes to ever play the game. McLeod was definitely more creative and had a certain wizardry, but Crawford had the bigger tank and was more rounded as a footballer. I would take McLeod for his ability in one game, but Crawford for his sustained excellence over the duration of his career.
Here is a sample of Shane Crawford's best and fairest placings, plus the team results:
1995 B&F - 2nd - Hawks won 7 games
1996 B&F - 2nd - Hawks won 11.5 games, made the finals
1997 injured - stress fractures
1998 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 8 games
1999 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 10.5 games, finished 9th, thrashed 8th-placed Swans in Rnd 22
2000 B&F - 3rd - Hawks won 13 games, made the finals
2001 B&F - 3rd - Hawks won 15 games, made the finals
2002 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 11 games, finished 10th
2003 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 12 games, finished 9th, missed Top 8 on percentage
2004 injured - broken arm
I rate McLeod as one of the greatest players ever, mainly for his silky running, his ability to shift gears and evade tackles. He also had a great sense of timing and seemed to step up whenever the occasion demanded. But Crawford was also a great runner and could shift gears as well. He could run harder and for longer. He probably didn't set up play as well McLeod with handball, but his kicking skills were on a par.
What sets Crawford apart from McLeod is his defensive capability. McLeod has always been a purely offensive footballer. He never really tackled or ran back hard into defence, whereas this has been one of Crawford's strengths. It's an area too often overlooked when people are rating the great footballers. Crawford was brilliant at giving fast midfielders a head start, then chasing them down and laying a tackle. He used to win Hawthorn games with this ability. He made a number of match-saving clutch tackles in the dying seconds of a match.
When Crawford played in defence, he not only rebounded well (similar to McLeod) but unlike Macca, he also blanketed his dangerous opponents. They never got a sniff. He had foot stress fractures in 1997, but he played through it and was stationed in the back pocket. Every week, he used to shut down the dangerous small forwards: Jeff Farmer and Ronnie Burns when both were at their peak. He also played on James Hird (it was the year after Hirdy's Brownlow.) Both were less than 100%, but Sheedy isolated both in Essendon's forward line, hoping to create a height mismatch. Crawford repeatedly beat Hird in the one-on-one aerial contests.
McLeod was always purely a ground-level player. Crawford has become the same, but this was never always the case. People forget how great an athlete Crawford was before Brad Miller kneed him in the back. He had tremendous spring. His ability to sprint back to the marking contest, leap high, pirouette in mid-air, then make the desperate spoil was incredible. Someone said earlier that McLeod was the more versatile, but this wrong. In my opinion it was Crawford who had more strings to his bow.
In 1998 and 1999, Crawford went head to head with Robert Harvey at his peak and beat him. They also split the points on occasion.
In his prime, Crawford was one of the greatest athletes to ever play the game. McLeod was definitely more creative and had a certain wizardry, but Crawford had the bigger tank and was more rounded as a footballer. I would take McLeod for his ability in one game, but Crawford for his sustained excellence over the duration of his career.
Here is a sample of Shane Crawford's best and fairest placings, plus the team results:
1995 B&F - 2nd - Hawks won 7 games
1996 B&F - 2nd - Hawks won 11.5 games, made the finals
1997 injured - stress fractures
1998 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 8 games
1999 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 10.5 games, finished 9th, thrashed 8th-placed Swans in Rnd 22
2000 B&F - 3rd - Hawks won 13 games, made the finals
2001 B&F - 3rd - Hawks won 15 games, made the finals
2002 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 11 games, finished 10th
2003 B&F - 1st - Hawks won 12 games, finished 9th, missed Top 8 on percentage
2004 injured - broken arm
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,508
- 10,628
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
utter rubbish. In 97 McLeod played on a half back flank and destroyed every opponent he played against. They hardly touched the ball. He out marked them out ran them and out tackled them. McLeod could ve very defensive when needed.
This jsut shows the stupididty of trying to compare two greats of the game. A person with a desire to put one above the other tries to find weanesses in the other player that just aren't there.
McLeod is not an in and under palyer but to say he was not defensive when he needed to be is plain wrong.
Dixie Flatline
Moderator
- Jun 3, 2005
- 36,585
- 37,933
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cartagena C.F., NYJ, A's
- Moderator
- #108
I saw a Collingwood player run away from Crawf on Friday night and kick a goal and turned to my brother in law and said: "Five years ago, Crawf would have caught that bloke."
Time has unfortunately caught up with Crawf this season.
I saw a Collingwood player run away from Crawf on Friday night and kick a goal and turned to my brother in law and said: "Five years ago, Crawf would have caught that bloke."
Time has unfortunately caught up with Crawf this season.
It's caught up with both of them. Hence their roles need to be altered and durations shortened.
Not going one way or the other as they both have advantages over each other.
Suffice to say congrats on great careers gents and good luck with the rest of this season and your respective futures.
Both are champions of the game. I think its awesome when a player plays 300 games, a real credit to them for standing up to all the pressures on and off the field over such a long period of time!
It is also a shame that some champions go through there entire careers without ever winning a flag.. Hopefully Crawf will have his chance this year..
It is also a shame that some champions go through there entire careers without ever winning a flag.. Hopefully Crawf will have his chance this year..
- Banned
- #111
I agree it is folly to compare champions. Not so much looking for weaknesses which aren't there, but you try to split players in different areas and people take offence at perceived slights.
I stand by my comments that Crawford had a more defensive side to his game than McLeod. Perhaps I underestimated McLeod in this area, but Crawford laid more tackles as a midfielder and locked down tighter than McLeod when he played in defence.
Career tackles:
Crawford - 836, av 2.8
McLeod - 654, av 2.2
Career disposals:
Crawford - 6683, av 22.4
McLeod - 5874, av 19.6
Career marks:
Crawford - 1321, av 4.4
McLeod - 926, av 3.1
Career goals:
Crawford - 221, av 0.7
McLeod - 254, av 0.8
Career Brownlow votes:
Crawford - 159
McLeod - 128
I think McLeod is probably the more natural brilliant footballer, but Crawford was able to get more out of himself.
He trained harder and also captained the side. He was a great leader, despite his clownish image.
- Banned
- #112
Hard to split these two, but Im baised Mcleod = GUN
- Banned
- #114
Each to their own, I suppose. But I would've thought that McLeod has a greater ability to split games open with his brilliance, whereas Crawford had the greater consistency.
Crawford was like Buckley and Harvey in terms of consistency. You knew what you were going to get when he ran out there, week in, week out, season after season.
This is illustrated by his best and fairest placings from 1995-2003, which I posted earlier.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,510
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
Nice summary....
also this thread has one of the best and most difficult player comparisons i have seen...
would have to go mcleod, but only just.
Saint77
Rookie
McLeod's way better than Crawford. He is a much stronger player by far.
But if you get the best attributes from both players you get someone of the likes of Robert Harvey.
But if you get the best attributes from both players you get someone of the likes of Robert Harvey.
- Banned
- #117
Crawford and McLeod ran faster and ran to more dangerous places than Harvey.
At their best, they attacked the goals more when they got possession.
They worried the opposition defenders with their attacking run and tended to break apart their opponent's structure.
I'm not saying they are better than Harvey. Just putting your comment into perspective.
Robert Harvey is sort of a combination of the two, albeit more one-paced.
Crawford has been better imo.
Just though, they're very different so it's hard to make the comparison.
Just though, they're very different so it's hard to make the comparison.
Tough to split. Both champions. I'd probably lean slightly toward McLeod, but could understand if others went the other way.
Similar threads
- Poll
