Western Bulldogs Team of 21st Century

[X_box_X]

Bont's three years are far superior to Nat Browns ffs. The bloke won our B&F in our second ever premiership season, AA in 2016 and finished runners up in the rising star award.
It's not even a comparison, unbelievable the love for Nathan Brown.

Did you even read Hazza's post?

He excluded Brown from his list because he only played four seasons. I was merely pointing out that Bont has only played three seasons, so if you believe to be eligible for this team the criteria includes playing more than four seasons, then Bont shouldn't be included.

Hazza may have other reasons why Brown shouldn't be included, but he didn't mention them in his post.

Had he said, "if you only played four seasons, they should have been at an elite standard or at least a very high standard to be included", I would have given more respect to his opinion (although I would argue Brown did perform at a very high standard in those four years).

 

[X_box_X]

Brown played 89 out of a possible 89 games from 2000-2003.

171 goals at 1.92 per game.
1739 disposals at 19.54 per game.

Bont 63 games.

21.13 disposals and 0.92 goals per game.

If we all agree that Bont is included, despite playing only 63 games, then Brown is a no brainer.

Bont obviously has Brown covered when you throw in other important stats such as effectiveness, clearances, contested possessions, and just about everything else, but you can't not say Brown did not play at a high standard in 89 games.

Let's not exclude someone for playing 89 games. That's a stupid reason. The Coleman Medal is named after a player who played only 98 games.

 

[BulldogJake]

Did you even read Hazza's post?

He excluded Brown from his list because he only played four seasons. I was merely pointing out that Bont has only played three seasons, so if you believe to be eligible for this team the criteria includes playing more than four seasons, then Bont shouldn't be included.

Hazza may have other reasons why Brown shouldn't be included, but he didn't mention them in his post.

Had he said, "if you only played four seasons, they should have been at an elite standard or at least a very high standard to be included", I would have given more respect to his opinion (although I would argue Brown did perform at a very high standard in those four years).

Quoted wrong post

 

[Mattdougie]

Brown played 89 out of a possible 89 games from 2000-2003.

171 goals at 1.92 per game.
1739 disposals at 19.54 per game.

Bont 63 games.

21.13 disposals and 0.92 goals per game.

If we all agree that Bont is included, despite playing only 63 games, then Brown is a no brainer.

Bont obviously has Brown covered when you throw in other important stats such as effectiveness, clearances, contested possessions, and just about everything else, but you can't not say Brown did not play at a high standard in 89 games.

Let's not exclude someone for playing 89 games. That's a stupid reason. The Coleman Medal is named after a player who played only 98 games.

Tory Dickson has played less than 80 so he can't make it either.

Not that he should anyway but by those rules he doesn't qualify

 

[X_box_X]

Quoted wrong post

Which post did you mean to quote?

 

[Here we go dogs]

West has to be #1 for me. He should of won two Brownlow's.

West
Johnson

Daylight

Everyone else.

Best year I've seen from a dogs player was Brian Lake in 2010. He would mark everything.

was a toss of the coin for me that, agree no ones else comes close to these to them yet.

In 2002 darcy was dominant, that would be the best season I've seen from a dog, closely followed by lake

 

[Here we go dogs]

Tory Dickson has played less than 80 so he can't make it either.

Not that he should anyway but by those rules he doesn't qualify

Who would you playahead of him?

 

[Red_White_Blue]

This was harder than I thought it would be.

FB: M Boyd - Lake - Murphy (C)
HB: Gilbee - Morris - Wood
C: Hunter - West - Griffen
HF: Johnson (VC) - C. Grant - N. Brown
FF: Stringer - Hall - Dickson
Foll: Darcy - Bontempelli - Tom Liberatore
Int: Roughead - JJ - Picken - Cooney
Coach: Beveridge

Unlucky: Gia, Cross, Hudson, Akermanis, Macrae, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Rohan Smith

I dont necessarily think that these were the dogs all time best players for that period, in saying that though this side would be seriously tough to beat.

Backline: has one genuine stopper in Morris the rest are all very good defenders but offer some serious drive out of the back 50.

Midfield: has a good mix of contested ball winners and outside class, most can rest forward and have plenty of support on the bench.

Forward Line: 2 genuine KPP in Hall and Grant, Class on the flanks and Stringer as the 3rd tall. Dickson in over Gia simply for his pressure acts and goal kicking accuracy.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Love Jakey boy BUT.... Team of the Century so early ? He will get there no doubt but an early call imho. If Bont didn't make it ( undoubtedly will ) nor should Stringer.

 

[Mattdougie]

Who would you playahead of him?

I'm no Tory Dickson fan as most know but I wasn't referring to his ability here.

I was saying if you can't pick Nathan Brown because he only played 80 odd games you cannot select Dickson.

 

[Freshwater]

This was harder than I thought it would be.

FB: M Boyd - Lake - Murphy (C)
HB: Gilbee - Morris - Wood
C: Hunter - West - Griffen
HF: Johnson (VC) - C. Grant - N. Brown
FF: Stringer - Hall - Dickson
Foll: Darcy - Bontempelli - Tom Liberatore
Int: Roughead - JJ - Picken - Cooney
Coach: Beveridge

Unlucky: Gia, Cross, Hudson, Akermanis, Macrae, Wallis, Dahlhaus and Rohan Smith

I dont necessarily think that these were the dogs all time best players for that period, in saying that though this side would be seriously tough to beat.

Backline: has one genuine stopper in Morris the rest are all very good defenders but offer some serious drive out of the back 50.

Midfield: has a good mix of contested ball winners and outside class, most can rest forward and have plenty of support on the bench.

Forward Line: 2 genuine KPP in Hall and Grant, Class on the flanks and Stringer as the 3rd tall. Dickson in over Gia simply for his pressure acts and goal kicking accuracy.

Hunter in ahead of Dahlhaus????

 

[Freshwater]

I'm no Tory Dickson fan as most know but I wasn't referring to his ability here.

I was saying if you can't pick Nathan Brown because he only played 80 odd games you cannot select Dickson.

You may not have been a Tory Dickson fan, but surely after his finals performances you must now rate him. Home and away games are important, but finals are way more. Finals have been the main problem at our club for too long to remember. We've desperately needed guys who could perform in September and this guy does. This is an interesting thread, but from where we've been, I'd say last years grand final side! Most of the big names miss out, but it's a team game, and to be part of the winning team is way more important than being a big superstar.

 

[hazza21]

Brown played 89 out of a possible 89 games from 2000-2003.

171 goals at 1.92 per game.
1739 disposals at 19.54 per game.

Bont 63 games.

21.13 disposals and 0.92 goals per game.

If we all agree that Bont is included, despite playing only 63 games, then Brown is a no brainer.

Bont obviously has Brown covered when you throw in other important stats such as effectiveness, clearances, contested possessions, and just about everything else, but you can't not say Brown did not play at a high standard in 89 games.

Let's not exclude someone for playing 89 games. That's a stupid reason. The Coleman Medal is named after a player who played only 98 games.

My memory probably escaped me a little, didnt realise Brown had such an impact. A case could definitely be made for his inclusion then. Perhaps my inner child never subconsciously forgave him after I purchased a #17 jumper in what would turn out to be his last season at the club

 

[Red_White_Blue]

Hunter in ahead of Dahlhaus????

daulhaus is a jet don't get me wrong, just prefer hunter on the wing

 

[Here we go dogs]

I was saying if you can't pick Nathan Brown because he only played 80 odd games you cannot select Dickson.

Yeah agree with that mate

 

[Super Hans]

Boyd - Lake - Wood
Murphy - Morris - Gilbee
Griffen - West - Cooney
Johnson - Grant - Dahlhaus
Stringer - Hall - Brown
Darcy - Liberatore - Bontempelli

Smith, Cross, Macrae, Picken

 

[Leon]

B - Dale Morris, Brian Lake, Easton Wood
HB - Robert Murphy, Chris Grant, Lindsay Gilbee
C - Ryan Griffen, Scott West, Daniel Cross
HF - Liam Picken, Jake Stringer, Luke Dahlhaus
F - Brad Johnson, Barry Hall, Nathan Brown
R - Luke Darcy, Marcus Bontempelli, Adam Cooney
INT - Matthew Boyd, Rohan Smith, Jason Johannisen, Tom Liberatore

COACH - Luke Beveridge (duh)


A couple of points with my team:

- The half back flank has been a position that we've been utterly blessed with in the noughties - Murph, Gilbee, JJ, Easton, Smith and Matty Boyd. All excellent players who have made the half back flank their own. Bloody hard to fit them all in - feel bad having players the calibre of Boyd, Smith and JJ on the bench.

- The following players are very stiff to miss out: Will Minson, Nathan Eagleton, Daniel Giansiracusa, Jack Macrae, Jordan Roughead, Lachie Hunter, Tory Dickson

- There are a few players out of position in my team. For example, I'm fully aware Jake Stringer isn't a Centre Half Forward. However, Chris Grant was far and away the best Centre Half Back we've had in the noughties. Couldn't justify putting him at CHF when he owned CHB and very rarely played forward.

- Not sure about Crossy on the wing but not sure where else to put him

- Regarding the Nathan Brown argument, I have no hesitation selecting him. Best forward we had in the early part of noughties.

- Looking at my side, there's only 9 premiership players in there. Fairly sure in 10 years time, this team will have changed somewhat.

 

[Wetdog]

I can't wait for the time when Aker isn't even considered because we have so many small forward premiership winning stars in the history books.

 

[Mattdougie]

You may not have been a Tory Dickson fan, but surely after his finals performances you must now rate him. Home and away games are important, but finals are way more. Finals have been the main problem at our club for too long to remember. We've desperately needed guys who could perform in September and this guy does. This is an interesting thread, but from where we've been, I'd say last years grand final side! Most of the big names miss out, but it's a team game, and to be part of the winning team is way more important than being a big superstar.

After going back and watching the finals Clay Smith was much better than Dickson over the whole series.

Clay and Tory were both ok against the Eagles

Tory stunk it up against the Hawks while Clay was very good in the first half.

Clay kept us in the game against the plastics but story was solid.

Both had ok Gfs.


I still don't really love the way he plays but he hits the scoreboard and that's all that matters on the end.

 

[Freshwater]

After going back and watching the finals Clay Smith was much better than Dickson over the whole series.

Clay and Tory were both ok against the Eagles

Tory stunk it up against the Hawks while Clay was very good in the first half.

Clay kept us in the game against the plastics but story was solid.

Both had ok Gfs.


I still don't really love the way he plays but he hits the scoreboard and that's all that matters on the end.

I agree that Clay was better in most finals. Tory better in the GF though. Both completely different types, both their attitudes needed at different times. Tory's coolness (except Hawks game) is very settling when that's needed, and when he slots it through it takes a lot of pressure off the group. When they need that mongrel hard breakthrough goal to lift the lads, enter Clay.