Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[Caligo]

No way are they as tough as they use to be. Going out on the field knowing you could be cleaned up intentionally by an opposition player was tougher than now. There is still courage, as per any elite sport, but I think the toughness has significantly reduced because you can walk out on the field with no fear these days. There's a reason clubs refused to recruit private school boys back in the day and now they make up the majority of the competition, because toughness isn't a requirement anymore.

Different sort of toughness now. The players run more than ever before, train more than ever before and are still getting hit constantly. They also are being hit by bigger bodies with more momentum (although being bigger themselves helps). What they don't have are the off the ball king hits and general head high violence.

It absolutely takes a certain kind of toughness to run 15k whilst being constantly bashed and not quit.

 

[p4p1]

No way are they as tough as they use to be. Going out on the field knowing you could be cleaned up intentionally by an opposition player was tougher than now. There is still courage, as per any elite sport, but I think the toughness has significantly reduced because you can walk out on the field with no fear these days. There's a reason clubs refused to recruit private school boys back in the day and now they make up the majority of the competition, because toughness isn't a requirement anymore.

This is a hilariously bad take.
Players are still cleaned up with regularity because of the higher speed of the game. All the players know if can happen to them. But you don't make it in any elite contact sport without toughness, both mental and physical.

 

[Bjo187]

This is a hilariously bad take.
Players are still cleaned up with regularity because of the higher speed of the game. All the players know if can happen to them. But you don't make it in any elite contact sport without toughness, both mental and physical.

I put toughness and courage as separate. Yes I still think players are courageous, but they aren't as 'tough' as they use to be because the game isn't violent anymore and players don't go out with the intent of hurting the opposition.

Now we can be all moralistic and have a philosophical argument on what it means to be 'tough', but the reality is there isn't one player in the game that would be feared these days, where as back in the day each team had multiple in their side. Courage yes, toughness no.

 

[Caligo]

This is a hilariously bad take.
Players are still cleaned up with regularity because of the higher speed of the game. All the players know if can happen to them. But you don't make it in any elite contact sport without toughness, both mental and physical.

He is right that the king hits are mostly gone. That isn't the only aspect of toughness though.

 

[DQ 4EVER]

But that's a very rare anomaly and he only played 55 games. It's 99% adjudged by non professional footballers.

I was just trying to refute your statement which seemed very definite.
Admittedly, I was being cheeky.

 

[Pistol Night]

I put toughness and courage as separate. Yes I still think players are courageous, but they aren't as 'tough' as they use to be because the game isn't violent anymore and players don't go out with the intent of hurting the opposition.

Now we can be all moralistic and have a philosophical argument on what it means to be 'tough', but the reality is there isn't one player in the game that would be feared these days, where as back in the day each team had multiple in their side. Courage yes, toughness no.

Tough is Paul Kelly, Glenn Archer, Nigel Lappin etc to me. Clubbing blokes behind play or picking them off at ball ups isn't tough

 

[RUNVS]

No way are they as tough as they use to be. Going out on the field knowing you could be cleaned up intentionally by an opposition player was tougher than now. There is still courage, as per any elite sport, but I think the toughness has significantly reduced because you can walk out on the field with no fear these days. There's a reason clubs refused to recruit private school boys back in the day and now they make up the majority of the competition, because toughness isn't a requirement anymore.

A lot more cowards in previous eras, players who did intentionally take out opposition players when they were defenceless.

 

[Bjo187]

A lot more cowards in previous eras, players who did intentionally take out opposition players when they were defenceless.

Exactly my point, we've been cultured in the last decade or two to the moralistic view of what tough is. Which mind you I think is the better way to go, but tough is someone that dishes out pain as well as taking it (ie. A boxer, UFC fighter etc), courageous is someone willing and able to take pain for the team.

I don't think there is even an avenue to see which players are tough these days, there might be a few in the comp, but they are rare because it's not a requirement anymore.

 

[Bjo187]

Tough is Paul Kelly, Glenn Archer, Nigel Lappin etc to me. Clubbing blokes behind play or picking them off at ball ups isn't tough

Archer tough, the other two courageous.

 

[Xtreme]

The only genuine "dual" brownlow medal winner in the AFL era is Robert Harvey. The others are tainted beyond belief.

 

[RUNVS]

The only genuine "dual" brownlow medal winner in the AFL era is Robert Harvey. The others are tainted beyond belief.

What did Goodes do?

 

[Orange crush]

What did Goodes do?

Targeted a disabled kid ....



.. ok, maybe she wasn't disabled, but she DID barrack for the pies

 

[Xtreme]

What did Goodes do?

Ablett, Judd and Goodes' additional brownlows (outside of their first) were due to umpire favourtism - otherwise known as being umpires pets . Robert Harvey was untainted and the only true genuine dual medal winner in the AFL era.

 

[RUNVS]

Ablett, Judd and Goodes' additional brownlows (outside of their first) were due to umpire favourtism - otherwise known as being umpires pets . Robert Harvey was untainted and the only true genuine dual medal winner in the AFL era.

Doesn't Robert Harvey suffer from the same condition as Shane Crawford of being a complete simpleton?

 

[Xtreme]

Doesn't Robert Harvey suffer from the same condition as Shane Crawford of being a complete simpleton?

Robert Harvey had more ability in his pinky finger than any of the 2000-onward brownlow medal winners combined

 

[RUNVS]

Robert Harvey had more ability in his pinky finger than any of the 2000-onward brownlow medal winners combined

No, I mean a simpleton in his mind, not his body.

 

[Xtreme]

No, I mean a simpleton in his mind, not his body.

As did I
But on an AFL IQ table, Harvey is at the top of the mountain

 

[RUNVS]

As did I
But on an AFL IQ table, Harvey is at the top of the mountain

Notice you did not defend Crawford

 

[peetoo]

Notice you did not defend Crawford

When was his second Brownlow? Btw crawf swept the pool that year so it was entirely justified

 

[Blackhawk42]

The only genuine "dual" brownlow medal winner in the AFL era is Robert Harvey. The others are tainted beyond belief.

Expect he came second in 1997.

Chris Grant never should been suspended.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

The only genuine "dual" brownlow medal winner in the AFL era is Robert Harvey. The others are tainted beyond belief.

Didn't Chris Grant poll higher in 1997?

 

[Xtreme]

Expect he came second in 1997.

Chris Grant never should been suspended.

Chris Grant was rightfully rubbed out
Do the crime
Do the time

No brownlow for you

 

[peetoo]

Expect he came second in 1997.

Chris Grant never should been suspended.

One interesting thing about that game was that while grants action was not nice, it was a very ‘hot’ game and if stonewall collins wanted to punish some players I saw at least two punches thrown and connected. Obviously not Grant.it wasn’t even a report on the day.

 

[DQ 4EVER]

Robert Harvey had more ability in his pinky finger than any of the 2000-onward brownlow medal winners combined

Strong username to post correlation here

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[p4p1]

I put toughness and courage as separate. Yes I still think players are courageous, but they aren't as 'tough' as they use to be because the game isn't violent anymore and players don't go out with the intent of hurting the opposition.

Now we can be all moralistic and have a philosophical argument on what it means to be 'tough', but the reality is there isn't one player in the game that would be feared these days, where as back in the day each team had multiple in their side. Courage yes, toughness no.

There is nothing tough about king hitting players who aren't expecting it or raising an elbow in a contest. Most of the guys that were feared seemed to have been feared, not because they were tough but because they would take you out off the ball when you weren't expecting it. I'm not sure why you think being tough relates in anyway to being feared.
I am sure a lot of the guys playing these days would be considered tough in the old days if they wanted to. Hell a heap of them are country boys. The players and the game have moved on from the cowardly acts that used to take place on the field. But you can bet if the game still called for it not many would have issues with it.