our best by position

[whiskers3614]

Not much love for Burke,Frawley and specially Breen -games record holder at the time and played 2 of the hardest positions on thr ground!

[Mr Magic]

Not much love for Burke,Frawley and specially Breen -games record holder at the time and played 2 of the hardest positions on thr ground!

Barry Breen is a legend of the St Kilda FC, but I doubt even he would consider himself at CHF in front of :-
Baldock
Loewe
Roo

As a rover, I would also doubt Burkey would consider himself in front of
Ross Smith
As a small backman I don;t think he would consider himself in front of:-
Roger Head
Wayne Judson
As a 'general midfielder' (in today's terminology) I doubt he would consider himself in front of:-
Ian Stewart
Glen Elliot
Robert Harvey
Nicky Winmar

As a Fullback that I've seen play for the Saints, I reckon Spud is somewhere between #2-5,
behind only Verdun Howell

Othere he would be competing with, IMO, are
Cowboy when he played there. :-
Barry Lawrence when he played there.
Trevor Barker when he played there
Max Hudghton when he played there (rather than as a back pocket)
Bob Murray


And, again IMO, Sam Fisher is the best CHB we've had in decades.
With teh proviso that the position is completely different these days compared to previous eras.

[stinger]

HFFlankers.
George Young.
Cant think of anyone else worth listing.


HBFlankers.
Daryl Griffith
Gary Colling
Russell Jeffries

billy gyatt

[Mr Magic]

HFFlankers.
George Young.
Cant think of anyone else worth listing.


HBFlankers.
Daryl Griffith
Gary Colling
Russell Jeffries

billy gyatt

My memories of Darryl Griffiths were that he played more of a ruck-rover role than as a half back flanker.

I don't recall Billy Guyatt but I do remember Jimmy Guyatt in the 60's - he was a HBF
Ray Cross was another who played that position really well in teh 60's.

As for the 'traditional wingman' I cannot go past
Winmar and Cunningham as the best I've seen for the Saints.

ANd what would you classify Barks as?
A FB/FF/HBF/HFF/ruck-rover?
or just call him a 'general utility'?
Much like you'd classify BJ as today.

If I had to choose a team of the best I've seen, I reckon it would be:-

FB Barker, Howell, Hudghton
HB Goddard, Fisher, Lawrence
C Winmar, Stewart, Cunningham
HF Baldock Roo, Young
F Milne, Plugger, Loewe
R Ditterich, Harvey, Smith

I/C from McIntosh, Neale, Hayes, Burke, NDS, Everitt

[Moods]

Interesting discussion. Makes you wonder if we had kicked more accurately in 09 and a bounce had gone our way 2010 whether ppl's thoughts would be influenced and that virtually every position would be filled by players who played in the last 3 years.

Now I never saw the Doc play - and certainly his reputation suggests he was an absolute superstar. But how many games did he play for the saints before going back to Tassie? I find it hard to fathom that a bloke who was barely 6 foot tall was a better CHF than Riewoldt who has dominated that position for the best part of 10 years, and carried the saints for many of those years.

[Dave McNamara]

Interesting discussion. Makes you wonder if we had kicked more accurately in 09 and a bounce had gone our way 2010 whether ppl's thoughts would be influenced and that virtually every position would be filled by players who played in the last 3 years.

Now I never saw the Doc play - and certainly his reputation suggests he was an absolute superstar. But how many games did he play for the saints before going back to Tassie? I find it hard to fathom that a bloke who was barely 6 foot tall was a better CHF than Riewoldt who has dominated that position for the best part of 10 years, and carried the saints for many of those years.

IMO when people compare the sizes of players in positions past and present, they can easy forget to factor in that people today are generally larger than decades ago. Hence a player from decades ago if playing today would almost certainly be larger, and conversely if today's blokes were playing 30 years ago then they'd be smaller.

Eg; Jack Dyer was on 5'10". Today he'd only be a flanker height wise. John Nichols and Tim Watson played at the same height and weight as each other...

So I try to work on comparing a player's size with that of his contemporaries from his era.

That said, even factoring the above in, The Doc was undersized for his position, which to me just further says what a freak he was.

[Dr Spaceman]

Interesting discussion. Makes you wonder if we had kicked more accurately in 09 and a bounce had gone our way 2010 whether ppl's thoughts would be influenced and that virtually every position would be filled by players who played in the last 3 years.

Now I never saw the Doc play - and certainly his reputation suggests he was an absolute superstar. But how many games did he play for the saints before going back to Tassie? I find it hard to fathom that a bloke who was barely 6 foot tall was a better CHF than Riewoldt who has dominated that position for the best part of 10 years, and carried the saints for many of those years.

IMO when people compare the sizes of players in positions past and present, they can easy forget to factor in that people today are generally larger than decades ago. Hence a player from decades ago if playing today would almost certainly be larger, and conversely if today's blokes were playing 30 years ago then they'd be smaller.

Eg; Jack Dyer was on 5'10". Today he'd only be a flanker height wise. John Nichols and Tim Watson played at the same height and weight as each other...

So I try to work on comparing a player's size with that of his contemporaries from his era.

That said, even factoring the above in, The Doc was undersized for his position, which to me just further says what a freak he was.

Paul Callery was short in any era

[terry smith rules]

Interesting discussion. Makes you wonder if we had kicked more accurately in 09 and a bounce had gone our way 2010 whether ppl's thoughts would be influenced and that virtually every position would be filled by players who played in the last 3 years.

Now I never saw the Doc play - and certainly his reputation suggests he was an absolute superstar. But how many games did he play for the saints before going back to Tassie? I find it hard to fathom that a bloke who was barely 6 foot tall was a better CHF than Riewoldt who has dominated that position for the best part of 10 years, and carried the saints for many of those years.

IMO when people compare the sizes of players in positions past and present, they can easy forget to factor in that people today are generally larger than decades ago. Hence a player from decades ago if playing today would almost certainly be larger, and conversely if today's blokes were playing 30 years ago then they'd be smaller.

Eg; Jack Dyer was on 5'10". Today he'd only be a flanker height wise. John Nichols and Tim Watson played at the same height and weight as each other...

So I try to work on comparing a player's size with that of his contemporaries from his era.

That said, even factoring the above in, The Doc was undersized for his position, which to me just further says what a freak he was.

I get your point but your facts... no

Jack Dyer 185 -89 (about 6 2)

John Nicholls 189 - 105 (about 6 3)

Tim watson 185 - 96

[Moods]

Interesting discussion. Makes you wonder if we had kicked more accurately in 09 and a bounce had gone our way 2010 whether ppl's thoughts would be influenced and that virtually every position would be filled by players who played in the last 3 years.

Now I never saw the Doc play - and certainly his reputation suggests he was an absolute superstar. But how many games did he play for the saints before going back to Tassie? I find it hard to fathom that a bloke who was barely 6 foot tall was a better CHF than Riewoldt who has dominated that position for the best part of 10 years, and carried the saints for many of those years.

IMO when people compare the sizes of players in positions past and present, they can easy forget to factor in that people today are generally larger than decades ago. Hence a player from decades ago if playing today would almost certainly be larger, and conversely if today's blokes were playing 30 years ago then they'd be smaller.

Eg; Jack Dyer was on 5'10". Today he'd only be a flanker height wise. John Nichols and Tim Watson played at the same height and weight as each other...

So I try to work on comparing a player's size with that of his contemporaries from his era.

That said, even factoring the above in, The Doc was undersized for his position, which to me just further says what a freak he was.

Fair point Dave - My point was really that the Doc captained us to our one and only flag. Rightly he assumes legendry status at our club. However if Roo, (and I know it's a big if, but certainly isn't an improbable if considering how tight those losing GF's were) had captained us to back to back flags then I believe that everyone in and outside the club would have him up there with the all time legends of our game. Just interesting I reckon how team success reflects on people's individual perceptions of players. No wonder players so desperately want a flag - not only to share in the team glory, but they must know it heightens their own place in history in everyone's minds individually.

[gurubob101]

Here's my go for what little it's worth. No claims that this is definitive...

Ruckman:
John McIntosh (if not for injury our best ever ruckman & team of the century),
Spider (was very good, but could have been anything),
Jeff Sarau.
(To be controversial, I think Big Carl was over rated. I must preface that by saying I only saw him when he was older and less athletic.)

Great effort on your team of greats but I disagree with your choice of ruckmen. IMO.

1.Big Carl in his prime was a great player. He had a huge leap, a big tank, was quick across the ground and put the fear of god into the opposition. He was captain for a couple of years, a state player, finished high in the Brownlow a couple of times and made team of the Century. In a tough era he was the toughest and our players walked taller for it. My favourite St.Kilda player ever.

2. Spider Everitt was a complete fruitcake but a top notch ruckman so I'd reluctantly include him in the side.

3. Much as we all loved Jeff Sarau I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he was just an honest trier in a team of battlers and not in the same class as Alan Morrow who was included in our team of the century after playing 160 games for us including the 1966 Grand Final.

4. John McIntosh undoubtedly had the potential to be a great player and at his peak would have been seriously considered for this side but I'd still have the other three in front of him.

If I was picking the side to win games of footy I'd have Big Carl and Spider.

[Dave McNamara]

I get your point but your facts... no

Jack Dyer 185 -89 (about 6 2)

John Nicholls 189 - 105 (about 6 3)

Tim watson 185 - 96

Hi Terry, I was hoping no one would check up. Serves me right for not checking myself - I based those figures on what I'd heard mentioned by football commentators - who should have known... More fool me.

However, in my defence I do note that Timmy played heavier than Jack Dyer, and neither Jack nor Big Nick were big enough to play as 1st rucks today... they'd have to wait till Joe Blake was given a run.

[Dave McNamara]

Great effort on your team of greats but I disagree with your choice of ruckmen. IMO.

Thank you, much appreciated.

1.Big Carl in his prime was a great player. He had a huge leap, a big tank, was quick across the ground and put the fear of god into the opposition. He was captain for a couple of years, a state player, finished high in the Brownlow a couple of times and made team of the Century. In a tough era he was the toughest and our players walked taller for it. My favourite St.Kilda player ever.

Fair enough. As I said, I only saw him play when he was older and had lost much of his athletism. And I must add, at that stage, his ball skills seemed rather un-co.

2. Spider Everitt was a complete fruitcake but a top notch ruckman so I'd reluctantly include him in the side.

Agreed. He was a great player, but could have been one of the game's, let alone St Kilda's, all time greats.

3. Much as we all loved Jeff Sarau I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he was just an honest trier in a team of battlers and not in the same class as Alan Morrow who was included in our team of the century after playing 160 games for us including the 1966 Grand Final.

I never saw Alan Morrow play, so I can't argue that one with you.

4. John McIntosh undoubtedly had the potential to be a great player and at his peak would have been seriously considered for this side but I'd still have the other three in front of him.

Sadly John McIntosh went down at his peak.
If he had played the 1971 GF we almost certainly would have won, but then again, the Dawks were without Peter Knights (one of my all time faves).
I rate the career ruining injuries to John McIntosh, Graeme Gellie and Rod Owen as tragedies for our club. (After consideration, I'll leave Fergus Watts of that list, though you never know what would have eventuated....)

If I was picking the side to win games of footy I'd have Big Carl and Spider.

Again, fair enough, but I'd still find a place for John McIntosh. (And Geroge Young and Graeme Gellie.)





PS: Hey, I've hit 50 posts! Look out all you Saintsational Legends, here I come!
BTW, how many posts does one need to get elevated to the next 'level'?

[whiskers3614]

50 posts in the off season-good job!