Russell's Top 25 Saints

[Eastern]

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.

Stewart, Baldock, Breen, Smith, Neale. There's your 5, plugger. We have to put an * beside Ditterich because he was out suspended at the time !!

[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.

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.

We need to reward the greatest team in our club's history by putting them in the top end of the list, and that includes those who were involved with that team. The rest of our top players over various eras should then queue up behind them.

[kosifantutti]

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.

We need to reward the greatest team in our club's history by putting them in the top end of the list, and that includes those who were involved with that team. The rest of our top players over various eras should then queue up behind them.

It's not a reward. It's someone's opinion on our best players of all time.

Do you seriously thing Kevin Billing was better than Lockett, Harvey and Riewoldt?

[Freebird]

I don't believe anyone was better than Harvey...sounds like he had to play 70's or prior to be accurately recognised.

[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.

We need to reward the greatest team in our club's history by putting them in the top end of the list, and that includes those who were involved with that team. The rest of our top players over various eras should then queue up behind them.

Their reward is getting a flag. That doesn't make them get another reward of being in the top 25 in our history. I actually think you are taking the piss.

[The OtherThommo]

Just on how comparable players from different eras might, or might not, be - I reckon you can only compare them with their peers of the time, and if they rank highly in their time, use that comparison to decide where they fit in our history (as subjective as that may be).

I've read people comparing the size of players from decades ago with the size of more recent players. That's a nonsense. You can't compare (e.g.) Bill Mohr's size with (e.g) Lockett's (I'm not suggesting who was a better player, just how a comparison is reasonable). What was the average height when Mohr played - was he KPP size? Of course he was.

There are so many factors that render generational comparisons irrelevant. Height, weight, diet, training regimes, social circumstances, childhood health, whether blokes had to hold down a job (compared to today's players), how much they trained, the sporting 'education' provided by the club and sport, sports medicine and rehabilitation, transfer rules, financial rewards (as motivation to devote - lots of players back decades ago moved to the VFA for money - check Bob Pratt from 1938 onwards, particularly his move to the VFA in '40, when he was 28....).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pratt

Also note under the "Move to Coburg" section who else had gone to the VFA - Ron Todd and Laurie Nash. Very, very different times.

I had a discussion with Russell, at a pre-season practice game, just after he had come up with his top 20 (in '95, or thereabouts). I argued Baldock was our greatest ever, and a superior player to Stewart, for one main reason - how good a centreman would Doc have been, and could Stewart, who was Doc's height, have played a CHF, and been AA captain once, and V-C once, when they only named AA's when they played carnivals (every 4 years?). Of course he couldn't.

Darrell Baldock was a pigmy by today's standards, yet played CHF better than all others of his time, and he as way shorter than his KPP peers, then. His knees were stuffed, he got battered every week, yet he was a giant.

Does anyone truly doubt that Darrell Baldock, if he played in today's era, with the sports science advancements, the full time nature of the game, the facilities, the playing surfaces and stadia, the diets etc, would not have been a giant of today's game?

Spare me, please. Ya reckon Doc might have bested the likes of Sam Mitchell in the middle of the ground? The man was a footballer, and true footballers excel, no matter what the era (oh, and BTW, he was such a brilliant sportsman, all hand-eye co-ordination, reflexes etc, that he could also play cricket at the highest level, and would have, if not for football, training horses, farming and being a parliamentarian).

Greats of their era are greats of their sport. Jesse Owens wouldn't have got with metres of Usain Bolt, but was Owens any good?

[Dave McNamara]

Just on how comparable players from different eras might, or might not, be - I reckon you can only compare them with their peers of the time, and if they rank highly in their time, use that comparison to decide where they fit in our history (as subjective as that may be).

I've read people comparing the size of players from decades ago with the size of more recent players. That's a nonsense. You can't compare (e.g.) Bill Mohr's size with (e.g) Lockett's (I'm not suggesting who was a better player, just how a comparison is reasonable). What was the average height when Mohr played - was he KPP size? Of course he was.

There are so many factors that render generational comparisons irrelevant. Height, weight, diet, training regimes, social circumstances, childhood health, whether blokes had to hold down a job (compared to today's players), how much they trained, the sporting 'education' provided by the club and sport, sports medicine and rehabilitation, transfer rules, financial rewards (as motivation to devote - lots of players back decades ago moved to the VFA for money - check Bob Pratt from 1938 onwards, particularly his move to the VFA in '40, when he was 28....).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pratt

Also note under the "Move to Coburg" section who else had gone to the VFA - Ron Todd and Laurie Nash. Very, very different times.

I had a discussion with Russell, at a pre-season practice game, just after he had come up with his top 20 (in '95, or thereabouts). I argued Baldock was our greatest ever, and a superior player to Stewart, for one main reason - how good a centreman would Doc have been, and could Stewart, who was Doc's height, have played a CHF, and been AA captain once, and V-C once, when they only named AA's when they played carnivals (every 4 years?). Of course he couldn't.

Darrell Baldock was a pigmy by today's standards, yet played CHF better than all others of his time, and he as way shorter than his KPP peers, then. His knees were stuffed, he got battered every week, yet he was a giant.

Does anyone truly doubt that Darrell Baldock, if he played in today's era, with the sports science advancements, the full time nature of the game, the facilities, the playing surfaces and stadia, the diets etc, would not have been a giant of today's game?

Spare me, please. Ya reckon Doc might have bested the likes of Sam Mitchell in the middle of the ground? The man was a footballer, and true footballers excel, no matter what the era (oh, and BTW, he was such a brilliant sportsman, all hand-eye co-ordination, reflexes etc, that he could also play cricket at the highest level, and would have, if not for football, training horses, farming and being a parliamentarian).

Greats of their era are greats of their sport. Jesse Owens wouldn't have got with metres of Usain Bolt, but was Owens any good?

What that man said!

[loris]

Just on how comparable players from different eras might, or might not, be - I reckon you can only compare them with their peers of the time, and if they rank highly in their time, use that comparison to decide where they fit in our history (as subjective as that may be).

I've read people comparing the size of players from decades ago with the size of more recent players. That's a nonsense. You can't compare (e.g.) Bill Mohr's size with (e.g) Lockett's (I'm not suggesting who was a better player, just how a comparison is reasonable). What was the average height when Mohr played - was he KPP size? Of course he was.

There are so many factors that render generational comparisons irrelevant. Height, weight, diet, training regimes, social circumstances, childhood health, whether blokes had to hold down a job (compared to today's players), how much they trained, the sporting 'education' provided by the club and sport, sports medicine and rehabilitation, transfer rules, financial rewards (as motivation to devote - lots of players back decades ago moved to the VFA for money - check Bob Pratt from 1938 onwards, particularly his move to the VFA in '40, when he was 28....).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pratt

Also note under the "Move to Coburg" section who else had gone to the VFA - Ron Todd and Laurie Nash. Very, very different times.

I had a discussion with Russell, at a pre-season practice game, just after he had come up with his top 20 (in '95, or thereabouts). I argued Baldock was our greatest ever, and a superior player to Stewart, for one main reason - how good a centreman would Doc have been, and could Stewart, who was Doc's height, have played a CHF, and been AA captain once, and V-C once, when they only named AA's when they played carnivals (every 4 years?). Of course he couldn't.

Darrell Baldock was a pigmy by today's standards, yet played CHF better than all others of his time, and he as way shorter than his KPP peers, then. His knees were stuffed, he got battered every week, yet he was a giant.

Does anyone truly doubt that Darrell Baldock, if he played in today's era, with the sports science advancements, the full time nature of the game, the facilities, the playing surfaces and stadia, the diets etc, would not have been a giant of today's game?

Spare me, please. Ya reckon Doc might have bested the likes of Sam Mitchell in the middle of the ground? The man was a footballer, and true footballers excel, no matter what the era (oh, and BTW, he was such a brilliant sportsman, all hand-eye co-ordination, reflexes etc, that he could also play cricket at the highest level, and would have, if not for football, training horses, farming and being a parliamentarian).

Greats of their era are greats of their sport. Jesse Owens wouldn't have got with metres of Usain Bolt, but was Owens any good?

What that man said!

And what the man said was pretty spot on DM

[On the Bench]

Just on how comparable players from different eras might, or might not, be - I reckon you can only compare them with their peers of the time, and if they rank highly in their time, use that comparison to decide where they fit in our history (as subjective as that may be).

I've read people comparing the size of players from decades ago with the size of more recent players. That's a nonsense. You can't compare (e.g.) Bill Mohr's size with (e.g) Lockett's (I'm not suggesting who was a better player, just how a comparison is reasonable). What was the average height when Mohr played - was he KPP size? Of course he was.

There are so many factors that render generational comparisons irrelevant. Height, weight, diet, training regimes, social circumstances, childhood health, whether blokes had to hold down a job (compared to today's players), how much they trained, the sporting 'education' provided by the club and sport, sports medicine and rehabilitation, transfer rules, financial rewards (as motivation to devote - lots of players back decades ago moved to the VFA for money - check Bob Pratt from 1938 onwards, particularly his move to the VFA in '40, when he was 28....).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pratt

Also note under the "Move to Coburg" section who else had gone to the VFA - Ron Todd and Laurie Nash. Very, very different times.

I had a discussion with Russell, at a pre-season practice game, just after he had come up with his top 20 (in '95, or thereabouts). I argued Baldock was our greatest ever, and a superior player to Stewart, for one main reason - how good a centreman would Doc have been, and could Stewart, who was Doc's height, have played a CHF, and been AA captain once, and V-C once, when they only named AA's when they played carnivals (every 4 years?). Of course he couldn't.

Darrell Baldock was a pigmy by today's standards, yet played CHF better than all others of his time, and he as way shorter than his KPP peers, then. His knees were stuffed, he got battered every week, yet he was a giant.

Does anyone truly doubt that Darrell Baldock, if he played in today's era, with the sports science advancements, the full time nature of the game, the facilities, the playing surfaces and stadia, the diets etc, would not have been a giant of today's game?

Spare me, please. Ya reckon Doc might have bested the likes of Sam Mitchell in the middle of the ground? The man was a footballer, and true footballers excel, no matter what the era (oh, and BTW, he was such a brilliant sportsman, all hand-eye co-ordination, reflexes etc, that he could also play cricket at the highest level, and would have, if not for football, training horses, farming and being a parliamentarian).

Greats of their era are greats of their sport. Jesse Owens wouldn't have got with metres of Usain Bolt, but was Owens any good?

What that man said!

And what the man said was pretty spot on DM

There was a great interview with Murray Rose (1950's brilliant Aussie swimmer, who wan the 1956 1500m Olympic swim). He said that he swam 1500m faster in the 1980's than his Olympic time. He put it down to training methods and techniques changing.

[loris]

Just on how comparable players from different eras might, or might not, be - I reckon you can only compare them with their peers of the time, and if they rank highly in their time, use that comparison to decide where they fit in our history (as subjective as that may be).

I've read people comparing the size of players from decades ago with the size of more recent players. That's a nonsense. You can't compare (e.g.) Bill Mohr's size with (e.g) Lockett's (I'm not suggesting who was a better player, just how a comparison is reasonable). What was the average height when Mohr played - was he KPP size? Of course he was.

There are so many factors that render generational comparisons irrelevant. Height, weight, diet, training regimes, social circumstances, childhood health, whether blokes had to hold down a job (compared to today's players), how much they trained, the sporting 'education' provided by the club and sport, sports medicine and rehabilitation, transfer rules, financial rewards (as motivation to devote - lots of players back decades ago moved to the VFA for money - check Bob Pratt from 1938 onwards, particularly his move to the VFA in '40, when he was 28....).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Pratt

Also note under the "Move to Coburg" section who else had gone to the VFA - Ron Todd and Laurie Nash. Very, very different times.

I had a discussion with Russell, at a pre-season practice game, just after he had come up with his top 20 (in '95, or thereabouts). I argued Baldock was our greatest ever, and a superior player to Stewart, for one main reason - how good a centreman would Doc have been, and could Stewart, who was Doc's height, have played a CHF, and been AA captain once, and V-C once, when they only named AA's when they played carnivals (every 4 years?). Of course he couldn't.

Darrell Baldock was a pigmy by today's standards, yet played CHF better than all others of his time, and he as way shorter than his KPP peers, then. His knees were stuffed, he got battered every week, yet he was a giant.

Does anyone truly doubt that Darrell Baldock, if he played in today's era, with the sports science advancements, the full time nature of the game, the facilities, the playing surfaces and stadia, the diets etc, would not have been a giant of today's game?

Spare me, please. Ya reckon Doc might have bested the likes of Sam Mitchell in the middle of the ground? The man was a footballer, and true footballers excel, no matter what the era (oh, and BTW, he was such a brilliant sportsman, all hand-eye co-ordination, reflexes etc, that he could also play cricket at the highest level, and would have, if not for football, training horses, farming and being a parliamentarian).

Greats of their era are greats of their sport. Jesse Owens wouldn't have got with metres of Usain Bolt, but was Owens any good?

What that man said!

And what the man said was pretty spot on DM

There was a great interview with Murray Rose (1950's brilliant Aussie swimmer, who wan the 1956 1500m Olympic swim). He said that he swam 1500m faster in the 1980's than his Olympic time. He put it down to training methods and techniques changing.

Strange you should use that as an example OTB, I was just trying to find some times of some examples of ex-Olympic swimmers I was team mates with at an AUSSI Masters swimming club in Melbourne a number of years ago before I came to Perth.

First example of such times were:

Frances Bult who competed as a 19 year old at the 1932 Olympics. Her 100m Free time was 1.11.14.

Then in 1986. Fifty four years later, July 1986 at the FINA World Masters Championship in Tokyo, Frances (now Vorrath) clocked 1.22.14 in the 100m Free, 10 seconds less than her 1932 time and she was now 72 or 73 years old!!!. Next day in the 50m Breast Frances clocked 53.88, then later that same day in the final of the 200m Individual Medley she swam the breaststroke leg in 49+ seconds. As it was a leg of a relay event, this couldn't be counted as an official timing for her, as only the first leg of a relay event can be individually timed for record purposes. Frances told us she had never been under the 50 second mark for the 50m breaststroke during her Olympic and Empire(!!!) Games meets.

Second example is Dawn Fraser:

Dawn used to compete with our Club at State (AUSSI Masters) & International (FINA Masters) meets. The first time she swam internationally with us was in Tokyo 1986, she had only decided a couple of months before the event to join as a number of her ex-Olympian mates swam with us and there were a few Olympians from other countries swimming. Dawn was not what one would call very fit. She was over 50 years old and somewhat resembled a bit of a beached whale in her speedos!! She was more just coming along for the social side of things (and boy oh boy could she party!!), than the swimming

At the 1960 Olympics Dawn had a great rivalry with a Japanese swimmer Yoshiko Oosaki. At the 1960 Olympics Dawn won the 100m free in a time of 1.01.?? Yoshiko was second, think it was about 1.03.??. At the 1986 FINA Masters Games these two rivals met again. Tables were turned Yosiko won in 1.09 and Dawn 1.12.51. Not bad for someone like Dawn who was very unfit, and only got back to swimming a few months earlier AND had to start in the water as she could not dive because of a neck injury she had received many years ago in that fateful car accident that claimed the life of her mother. Anyone who knows anything about swimming knows how important the dive is in swimming especially the shorter races.

Three years later we competed at a comp at Aarhus in Denmark, Dawn was a lot fitter now, but 3 years older. In the 100m free she clocked 1.03.?? and was she dirty on that time, because at the 1956 Olympics she clocked 1.02 and she was wanting to get to below that mark. Again a great effort for someone who couldn't take advantage of the dive........... and 33 years later!!

Marge McQuade another ex-Olympian who was with Power Points, continually swam amazing times not far off her Olympic C/Games times. Actually Marge had been married to Peter Bennett a former Saints full forward and a Games Water Polo player.

Both Frances and Dawn all said it was the advances in training methods and facilities (faster pools etc) that assisted them

So these are examples of athletes who had incredible skills and faultless techniques who know doubt would have held their own against swimmers of today.

Likewise, I'm sure many of those champion footballers of yesteryear would easily be able to compete with those of today - given they too had all assistance and positive changed conditions etc players of today receive that TOT mentions.

[White Winmar]

That's a very compelling argument you've made, Loris. I've no doubt the likes of Baldock and Mohr would've been stars in the modern game. Mohr must have been some sort of player, as he was undersized for a full forward even in his day. Wouldn't it be great to be able to train and feed those of yesteryear, in a modern environment? The fact that masters athletes can clock up PB's or close to it, shows how far the technology and training methods have come. Specifically targeted training, using your genetic profile is next. Apparently it will be the next big leap in sports medicine.

[loris]

That's a very compelling argument you've made, Loris. I've no doubt the likes of Baldock and Mohr would've been stars in the modern game. Mohr must have been some sort of player, as he was undersized for a full forward even in his day. Wouldn't it be great to be able to train and feed those of yesteryear, in a modern environment? The fact that masters athletes can clock up PB's or close to it, shows how far the technology and training methods have come. Specifically targeted training, using your genetic profile is next. Apparently it will be the next big leap in sports medicine.

Actually that point on genetic profiling is interesting WW, in relation to another sport - cricket........... my example is not quite profiling but possibly to do with family genes.

I was listening to an interview with the doctor (Bruckker, Brucknow????) of the Australian Test side the other day. He was replying to some criticism about the treatment of Mitch Marsh and how he has succumbed to another hamstring injury at training. Were the medical team at fault?

He said no, Mitch was doing a very light run at the time, had been warmed up correctly, hadn't been over-training previously etc etc.

The Doc said tests they have been running on the 2 Marsh brothers (Shaun & Mitch), have shown they have some fault in the way their bodies manufactures collagen, which is important for something to do with tendon strength. He said they are always at risk of hamstring/ tendon problems no matter how cautious their training regimes or what precursor scans they do on them to give medical staff advance warning their bodies are under stress. .

We know how often over the years Shaun has been felled by hamstring problems, now it looks like Mitch is starting to catch up to his elder brother.

The doctor laughingly said if anyone is to blame it's Geoff and his wife.................. it's a genetic thing!!!

He said managing or solving it is the big problem for sports science.

[White Winmar]

Interesting, Loris. We already know that people who secrete an excessive amount of stress hormones are more likely to get injured and are slower to heal. The Human genome can tell us a great deal about the individual, from how they respond to training to what their susceptibilities are. The modern training regime will end up as individual as you are. I wonder what the civil libertarians will say when the day comes where everyone from professional sports clubs, to insurance companies, ask you to "take the test".

[saintbrat]

http://saints.com.au/news/2015-01-02/ru ... op-25-1511

[plugger66]

Looks like the new entries into the top 10 are Harvs, Rooy and Lenny.

[bergholt]

http://saints.com.au/news/2015-01-02/ru ... op-25-1511

"Ross won three best and fairests at St Kilda - in 1949, 1951 and 1952 - a total exceeded only by Bill Cubbins and Robert Harvey."

I don't think he's updated the text since last time - Riewoldt has 6.

[saintbrat]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2015-01-0 ... top-25-106

Lenny Slots in at 6

I'm assuming the list is ALL players - including current?
and not retired players only.

[Sainternist]

Lenny and Big Carl make Russell's top 10.

It would seem the remaining players to make up the top 5 will be Baldock, Lockett, Harvey, Riewoldt and Stewart. But in what order?

[kosifantutti]

Lenny and Big Carl make Russell's top 10.

It would seem the remaining players to make up the top 5 will be Baldock, Lockett, Harvey, Riewoldt and Stewart. But in what order?

Presumably the original order of Stewart, Lockett, Baldock doesn't change. It's just a matter of where the other two slot in.

[Sainternist]

Lenny and Big Carl make Russell's top 10.

It would seem the remaining players to make up the top 5 will be Baldock, Lockett, Harvey, Riewoldt and Stewart. But in what order?

Presumably the original order of Stewart, Lockett, Baldock doesn't change. It's just a matter of where the other two slot in.

Yes. I'm going to take a punt on Harvey being at #1 and Riewoldt at #5.

[kosifantutti]

Nearest the pin?
I'll go Harvey 3, Riewoldt 4

[plugger66]

Nearest the pin?
I'll go Harvey 3, Riewoldt 4

Yep think you have it right. Cant possibly see how plugger wasn't one but I could never see him lower than 2. Maybe Rooy ahead of Harvs.

[White Winmar]

Plugger must be at one, otherwise it's a joke.

[plugger66]

Plugger must be at one, otherwise it's a joke.

Well he wasn't last time and none of the other players have changed orders so I doubt he will be this time.

[White Winmar]

Plugger must be at one, otherwise it's a joke.

Well he wasn't last time and none of the other players have changed orders so I doubt he will be this time.

I repeat, that makes it a joke. Lockett is a mile ahead of the rest. I've spoken to many people who saw Baldock and Stewart play, and they all say Lockett was better. My dad used to laugh when I asked him if Stewart and Baldock were better than plugger. My old man said Lockett was the only player who could draw up to 60% of a crowd through the gate. Before he died he told me he loved watching Harvey, Loewe, Burke, Baldock, Stewart and especially Ditterich. The only one who could make him walk to the ground when he had better things to do, was Anthony "Plugger" Lockett.