Russell's Top 25 Saints

[saintbrat]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-12-2 ... op-25-2521

[kosifantutti]

Obviously inspired by Saintsational's favourite Saint.

[White Winmar]

Is this meant to be in order of "greatness"? Winmar at twenty-five, Barker and Loewe outside the top twenty as well? I'm curious to see who 's beaten those three into the top twenty.

[kosifantutti]

His original top 20.
Harvey won two Brownlows since then. Riewoldt, Hayes and Lazar Vidovic have to be squeezed in.
TOP 20 AS AT 1995

1. Ian Stewart

2. Tony Lockett

3. Darrel Baldock

4. Colin Watson

5. Bill Mohr

6. Dave McNamara

7. Carl Ditterich

8. Alan Morrow

9. Harold Bray

10. Verdun Howell

11. Jim Ross

12. Neil Roberts

13. Ross Smith

14. Wels Eicke

15. Vic Cumberland

16. Brian Gleeson

17. Robert Harvey

18. Trevor Barker

19. Daryl Griffiths

20. Kevin Neale

[White Winmar]

Thanks for the mail, Kosi. I know these lists are subjective, but he has to be kidding. I'm an admirer of Russell's work, but even that initial best twenty is bizarre, to say the least. I wait with great anticipation for the next list. Honestly, why do we place so much value on the heroes of yesteryear? I know that champions of any era deserve respect, but seriously, most of them would struggle in the modern game. Watson, Eicke, Cumberland, McNamara, et. al. Alan Morrow better than Winmar, Barker, Harvey (even pre- Brownlows) and Loewe? Surely you jest, Russell.

[White Winmar]

As much as my dear old dad loved Alan Morrow, in his humble opinion, Ross Smith, Verdun Howell and Neil Roberts were a galaxy in front of him as players.

[Eastern]

Thanks for the mail, Kosi. I know these lists are subjective, but he has to be kidding. I'm an admirer of Russell's work, but even that initial best twenty is bizarre, to say the least. I wait with great anticipation for the next list. Honestly, why do we place so much value on the heroes of yesteryear? I know that champions of any era deserve respect, but seriously, most of them would struggle in the modern game. Watson, Eicke, Cumberland, McNamara, et. al. Alan Morrow better than Winmar, Barker, Harvey (even pre- Brownlows) and Loewe? Surely you jest, Russell.

My OPINION

Stewart & Lockett will still probably be 1 & 2 (I'll leave it to Russell to chose the order)

Riewoldt & Baldock will take the next 2 spots, again which order?

Harvey will be at No 5 (was 17 in 1995. 2 Brownlows and 378? games)

Milne & Hayes will be somewhere in the top 20

It wouldn't surprise me to see Nathan Burke in there either

I never saw some of those names mentioned BUT you can only base an opinion on their standing in the game at that time !!

[White Winmar]

Forgot to add, I guess that's what these opinion pieces are about. Like assholes, everyone's got an opinion and they all stink.

[bergholt]

Honestly, why do we place so much value on the heroes of yesteryear? I know that champions of any era deserve respect, but seriously, most of them would struggle in the modern game.

Well, yeah, they've been dead for decades.

Surely you can only compare how good they were in their day? I mean, Bradman might not go so well today given the changes in the game but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered a true all-time superstar.

[White Winmar]

Bradman was a freak, who averaged twice as many as the next guy. He was clearly so much better that he is beyond comparison. Not a great example. Are you seriously suggesting that those heroes of yesteryear were twice as good as those of today? If Bill Mohr kicked 1472 goals in his career, then he may be considered greater than Lockett. Clearly, statistically, he was not. Did Colin Watson win four Brownlows ?etc. Can you see where I'm going with this? Bringing Bradman into an argument like this, or any argument about relative greatness is erroneous and ultimately, pointless.

[whiskers3614]

Thanks for the mail, Kosi. I know these lists are subjective, but he has to be kidding. I'm an admirer of Russell's work, but even that initial best twenty is bizarre, to say the least. I wait with great anticipation for the next list. Honestly, why do we place so much value on the heroes of yesteryear? I know that champions of any era deserve respect, but seriously, most of them would struggle in the modern game. Watson, Eicke, Cumberland, McNamara, et. al. Alan Morrow better than Winmar, Barker, Harvey (even pre- Brownlows) and Loewe? Surely you jest, Russell.

My OPINION

Stewart & Lockett will still probably be 1 & 2 (I'll leave it to Russell to chose the order)

Riewoldt & Baldock will take the next 2 spots, again which order?

Harvey will be at No 5 (was 17 in 1995. 2 Brownlows and 378? games)

Milne & Hayes will be somewhere in the top 20

It wouldn't surprise me to see Nathan Burke in there either

I never saw some of those names mentioned BUT you can only base an opinion on their standing in the game at that time !!

Can't really see Milne ahead of Barker and Winmar but I've never really been a big fan of his!

[Eastern]

Thanks for the mail, Kosi. I know these lists are subjective, but he has to be kidding. I'm an admirer of Russell's work, but even that initial best twenty is bizarre, to say the least. I wait with great anticipation for the next list. Honestly, why do we place so much value on the heroes of yesteryear? I know that champions of any era deserve respect, but seriously, most of them would struggle in the modern game. Watson, Eicke, Cumberland, McNamara, et. al. Alan Morrow better than Winmar, Barker, Harvey (even pre- Brownlows) and Loewe? Surely you jest, Russell.

My OPINION

Stewart & Lockett will still probably be 1 & 2 (I'll leave it to Russell to chose the order)

Riewoldt & Baldock will take the next 2 spots, again which order?

Harvey will be at No 5 (was 17 in 1995. 2 Brownlows and 378? games)

Milne & Hayes will be somewhere in the top 20

It wouldn't surprise me to see Nathan Burke in there either

I never saw some of those names mentioned BUT you can only base an opinion on their standing in the game at that time !!

Can't really see Milne ahead of Barker and Winmar but I've never really been a big fan of his!

275 Games; 574 goals; 4 times leading goal kicker; 2 All Australian; 2 times International Rules; 2 pre-season premierships. Pretty good record !!

[bergholt]

Bradman was a freak, who averaged twice as many as the next guy. He was clearly so much better that he is beyond comparison. Not a great example. Are you seriously suggesting that those heroes of yesteryear were twice as good as those of today?

Twice as good? No. But they are comparable.

Mohr kicked 735 in 195 games. Lockett kicked 898 in 183 (for us). Lockett was very close to the best footballer of all time and Mohr was obviously not at that level. But on the figures he was comfortably our second-best goalkicker of all time.

Would he "struggle in the modern game", as you suggested? Yes. He was a 182/81 full-forward, so he probably wouldn't be as good as Siposs. But what does that actually matter? He was a great player in the 30s. In a poor team, he won the goalkicking ahead of Bob Pratt and Gordon Coventry one year, and he was one of the first few players to kick 100 in a season. He led our goalkicking for 12 years straight.

I don't know anything about him really. But a glance at the stats suggests he deserves to be right up there on the list. The same possibly applies to the other guys you've mentioned. The fact that they would "struggle in the modern game" makes no difference to that.

[White Winmar]

Statistically speaking, Bradman was twice as good as any other player. Wisden named him the greatest cricketer of all time, even though he didn't bowl, such was his impact on games. I don't know why you brought Bradman into it as he comes from a completely different sport that shares nothing in common with AFL. In any event, if you want to make a comparison, how about this? If we take the champions of AFL and use their achievements to extrapolate a comparable record for Bradman, it would look something like this. He would've won six Brownlows ( Skilton, Stewart, Reynolds, Bunton each three) twelve Colemans, and eighteen club best and fairest awards.

[bergholt]

Statistically speaking, Bradman was twice as good as any other player. Wisden named him the greatest cricketer of all time, even though he didn't bowl, such was his impact on games. I don't know why you brought Bradman into it as he comes from a completely different sport that shares nothing in common with AFL. In any event, if you want to make a comparison, how about this? If we take the champions of AFL and use their achievements to extrapolate a comparable record for Bradman, it would look something like this. He would've won six Brownlows ( Skilton, Stewart, Reynolds, Bunton each three) twelve Colemans, and eighteen club best and fairest awards.

Did you completely ignore my post?

[stinger]

His original top 20.
Harvey won two Brownlows since then. Riewoldt, Hayes and Lazar Vidovic have to be squeezed in.
TOP 20 AS AT 1995

1. Ian Stewart

2. Tony Lockett

3. Darrel Baldock

4. Colin Watson

5. Bill Mohr

6. Dave McNamara

7. Carl Ditterich

8. Alan Morrow

9. Harold Bray

10. Verdun Howell

11. Jim Ross

12. Neil Roberts

13. Ross Smith

14. Wels Eicke

15. Vic Cumberland

16. Brian Gleeson

17. Robert Harvey

18. Trevor Barker

19. Daryl Griffiths

20. Kevin Neale

vidovic????...yo'd have to be kidding

[kosifantutti]

I just wanted to see who was paying attention.

[Eastern]

Russell had Trevor Barker at 18 in 1995. By my calculations three have overtaken TB since. Riewoldt, Hayes & Burke?

20-16 to be released on Monday !!

[White Winmar]

Statistically speaking, Bradman was twice as good as any other player. Wisden named him the greatest cricketer of all time, even though he didn't bowl, such was his impact on games. I don't know why you brought Bradman into it as he comes from a completely different sport that shares nothing in common with AFL. In any event, if you want to make a comparison, how about this? If we take the champions of AFL and use their achievements to extrapolate a comparable record for Bradman, it would look something like this. He would've won six Brownlows ( Skilton, Stewart, Reynolds, Bunton each three) twelve Colemans, and eighteen club best and fairest awards.

Did you completely ignore my post?

Yes. Yes I did. I'll grant that Bill Mohr deserves his place. The problem with some of the others such as Cumberland and McNamara is there's no one left alive who saw them play, there is no film footage of them and we rely on hyperbole strewn descriptions of them from contemporary newspaper reports. Anyhoo, all of these lists are subjective and in the end, a bit of fun and nothing else. The only really matter to the author and the holder of the opinion.

[Enrico_Misso]

You can't directly compare players across different eras.
You have to rate them relative to their peers.

Billy Mohr was an absolute superstar in his day.
His stats are remarkable - they hold up well against Plugger's - and they relate to an era where scores were lower!

With his build there is a strong argument that Billy would struggle to get a game today.
Similarly some people seriously argue that there isn't a place for even Tony Lockett in today's game as mobile defenders would just run off him.

But in their eras both were absolute superstars relative to the rest of the comp and hence deserve their top 5 spots.

[Dave McNamara]

So hard to compare across eras.

So as already pointed out, the best way is to compare people against their contemporaries. Asgenerally, I think it's pretty ok to assume that a champion would be a champion in any era.

I too, would like to see what are the exact criteria that Russell is using, coz short careers will no doubt be ruling out the usual suspects such as John McIntosh, Bill Stephenson, Graeme Gellie, Rod Owen and Lazar Vidovic...



As for 'hyperbole', the only player to make our 'Team of the Century' who played before WW1, also twice won the then equivalent of the Brownlow...


And will George Young miss out again...?

[plugger66]

So hard to compare across eras.

So as already pointed out, the best way is to compare people against their contemporaries. Asgenerally, I think it's pretty ok to assume that a champion would be a champion in any era.

I too, would like to see what are the exact criteria that Russell is using, coz short careers will no doubt be ruling out the usual suspects such as John McIntosh, Bill Stephenson, Graeme Gellie, Rod Owen and Lazar Vidovic...



As for 'hyperbole', the only player to make our 'Team of the Century' who played before WW1, also twice won the then equivalent of the Brownlow...


And will George Young miss out again...?

Rod Owen and Lazar Vidovic. Seriously. Dave this now explains you and the JO. No need for anyone else to get it explained to them. Even Graham Gellie is over the top when Winmar is 25. Probably gets in our top 70 though. Just.

[saintbrat]

16 - 20 up today
http://saints.com.au/news/2014-12-29/ru ... op-25-2016

[spert]

I reckon the 1966 premiership team automatically go in the top 20, then it's everyone else in whatever order you want, and I am not ignoring some of the great post '66 players in saying that.

[plugger66]

I reckon the 1966 premiership team automatically go in the top 20, then it's everyone else in whatever order you want, and I am not ignoring some of the great post '66 players in saying that.

So you want a player who didn't even get on the ground to be in our top 25? There is no way more than about 4 or 5 should make our top 25 no matter what tey did for the club.