Bradman played for 21 seasons.....how long exactly would you have liked him to play....with a WORLD WAR in between.....because in a runs sense he is still elite (7000 still puts him high on the list) and his avg is almost double.
If he made 2000 runs at 100 he would still be great, but NO tendulker.
N Burke and R Harvey cant split them
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
I note you keep concentrating on the Bradman analogy.BigMart wrote:Bradman played for 21 seasons.....how long exactly would you have liked him to play....with a WORLD WAR in between.....because in a runs sense he is still elite (7000 still puts him high on the list) and his avg is almost double.
Actually I'd be surprized if his 7000 runs would put him in the top 20?
If he made 2000 runs at 100 he would still be great, but NO tendulker.
What about the bowlers?
[quote="BigMart"]
the question was
who is the best saint, not the best player.......best player is over a career....
/quote]
best saint is clearly banger...no argument from me on that issue........best player was baldock.imhfo....others would rate stewart best ever......he won three brownlows after all......banger would have too only for injuries.....plugger was my all time favorite player....replacing carl........until he went to shytney.......forced me to change my kids name he did........the only one i truly loved though was cuz........with a special place in my heart for barker......and mad dog.....who i loved to watch play.....and play he could....
the question was
who is the best saint, not the best player.......best player is over a career....
/quote]
best saint is clearly banger...no argument from me on that issue........best player was baldock.imhfo....others would rate stewart best ever......he won three brownlows after all......banger would have too only for injuries.....plugger was my all time favorite player....replacing carl........until he went to shytney.......forced me to change my kids name he did........the only one i truly loved though was cuz........with a special place in my heart for barker......and mad dog.....who i loved to watch play.....and play he could....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
If you think that Harvey, however brilliant he was, was a more skillful player than either Baldock or Stewart then maybe it's time for you to get a copy of the old black and white films from the 60's when Baldock and Stewart were playing.BigMart wrote:What Harves did over 21 years is more than any other player achieved - perhaps by double....
He is without doubt the best EVER!!!!
If you think there has been a more skilful footballer (winning the ball in footy is perhaps the most important skill) I think we should bring out the 97-98 tapes.......or maybe the 92/94 tapes, maybe even the 2003 tapes....
You've obvioulsy forgotten or never seen what they, especially Baldock was capable of doing.
Afterall, he didn't give himself the nickname of Mr Magic - the football world did that.
Considered by many to have been the greatest ball handler and side-stepper the game has ever seen.
I seem to recall even the modest Robert Harvey marvelling at the Doc's ability to get the footy and avoid being tackled.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Pretty much my sentiments too stinger.stinger wrote:BigMart wrote: the question was
who is the best saint, not the best player.......best player is over a career....
/quote]
best saint is clearly banger...no argument from me on that issue........best player was baldock.imhfo....others would rate stewart best ever......he won three brownlows after all......banger would have too only for injuries.....plugger was my all time favorite player....replacing carl........until he went to shytney.......forced me to change my kids name he did........the only one i truly loved though was cuz........with a special place in my heart for barker......and mad dog.....who i loved to watch play.....and play he could....
I just don't understand this burning desire to downplay the footballing abilities of Baldock?
IMHO
Harvey was the greatest 'gut-runner' the game has ever seen. You could almost argue that roatating tags were invented to try and curb his gut-running influence.
Harvey was the greatest 20-30m dinky pass the game has ever seen
Harvey was the second greatest side-stepper the game has ever seen.
Baldock was the greatest side-stepper the game has ever seen
Baldock was the greatest ball-handler the game has ever seen.
No matter which way it is spun.....Harvey's list of achievements outweigh anyone elses by a mile.....the fact he could do that along with his longevity (unlike Tuck) who did play for a long time, but did NOT win awards for a long time proves how dominant he was over a long period...
The argument that plugger at his hieght (91) was awesome is correct and is comparible (even better) than Harves is correct....although Harves was list as the saints best on 13 occasion in 1997 and 11 occasions in 1998 so he was BOG in 50% of the games played in that period....not bad. In 97 and 98 he was rated above Wayne Carey as the best player in the AFL.
But if you compare their seasons as saints
In the beginning
Harvey 89-91 compares with Lockett 84-86 a star youngster...maybe not as good although both state reps in the last season of that period and Harves was BOG
Peak
Harvey 92-98 (8 years)....6* AA, 6*State Rep, another 2* EJ Whitten, 4*B&F, 2*B'Low, 1* AFLPA MVP, 1*GF, 8*Finals
Lockett 87-94 (8 years)....2*Coleman, 3*AA, 5*State Rep, 2*B&F, 1*B'Low, 3*Finals
End
Harvey 2000-2008 (9 Years) Still an excellent contributor for another 150 games plus (especially 2003/4/5)
Lockett 95-99 (5 Years) No Longer a saint
Lockett missed several games (over 50) in 88, 89, 91, 93, 94 which cost him from being the greatest saint IMO.
Getting on the park is a huge factor of being great, because NO One os great in the stands.
Lockett was a Legend, as was Harvey......IMO 21 years of Legend pips 12...
Plugger66 - 20 seasons of average, does NOT beat any years of Legend..
The argument that plugger at his hieght (91) was awesome is correct and is comparible (even better) than Harves is correct....although Harves was list as the saints best on 13 occasion in 1997 and 11 occasions in 1998 so he was BOG in 50% of the games played in that period....not bad. In 97 and 98 he was rated above Wayne Carey as the best player in the AFL.
But if you compare their seasons as saints
In the beginning
Harvey 89-91 compares with Lockett 84-86 a star youngster...maybe not as good although both state reps in the last season of that period and Harves was BOG
Peak
Harvey 92-98 (8 years)....6* AA, 6*State Rep, another 2* EJ Whitten, 4*B&F, 2*B'Low, 1* AFLPA MVP, 1*GF, 8*Finals
Lockett 87-94 (8 years)....2*Coleman, 3*AA, 5*State Rep, 2*B&F, 1*B'Low, 3*Finals
End
Harvey 2000-2008 (9 Years) Still an excellent contributor for another 150 games plus (especially 2003/4/5)
Lockett 95-99 (5 Years) No Longer a saint
Lockett missed several games (over 50) in 88, 89, 91, 93, 94 which cost him from being the greatest saint IMO.
Getting on the park is a huge factor of being great, because NO One os great in the stands.
Lockett was a Legend, as was Harvey......IMO 21 years of Legend pips 12...
Plugger66 - 20 seasons of average, does NOT beat any years of Legend..
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
How about Harvey vs Leigh Matthews?BigMart wrote:No matter which way it is spun.....Harvey's list of achievements outweigh anyone elses by a mile.....the fact he could do that along with his longevity (unlike Tuck) who did play for a long time, but did NOT win awards for a long time proves how dominant he was over a long period...
The argument that plugger at his hieght (91) was awesome is correct and is comparible (even better) than Harves is correct....although Harves was list as the saints best on 13 occasion in 1997 and 11 occasions in 1998 so he was BOG in 50% of the games played in that period....not bad. In 97 and 98 he was rated above Wayne Carey as the best player in the AFL.
But if you compare their seasons as saints
In the beginning
Harvey 89-91 compares with Lockett 84-86 a star youngster...maybe not as good although both state reps in the last season of that period and Harves was BOG
Peak
Harvey 92-98 (8 years)....6* AA, 6*State Rep, another 2* EJ Whitten, 4*B&F, 2*B'Low, 1* AFLPA MVP, 1*GF, 8*Finals
Lockett 87-94 (8 years)....2*Coleman, 3*AA, 5*State Rep, 2*B&F, 1*B'Low, 3*Finals
End
Harvey 2000-2008 (9 Years) Still an excellent contributor for another 150 games plus (especially 2003/4/5)
Lockett 95-99 (5 Years) No Longer a saint
Lockett missed several games (over 50) in 88, 89, 91, 93, 94 which cost him from being the greatest saint IMO.
Getting on the park is a huge factor of being great, because NO One os great in the stands.
Lockett was a Legend, as was Harvey......IMO 21 years of Legend pips 12...
Plugger66 - 20 seasons of average, does NOT beat any years of Legend..
What ever stats you use doesnt matter. Simply look at them play the game and then tell me the better player. You also cannot compare stats for a FF. It is well known that onballers win many more awards. And to say Harvey was level or maybe a touch below in his first 3 years either means you didnt see Plugger then or you have forgotten how bad we were and how well he did to kick as many goals as he did in such a poor side.BigMart wrote:No matter which way it is spun.....Harvey's list of achievements outweigh anyone elses by a mile.....the fact he could do that along with his longevity (unlike Tuck) who did play for a long time, but did NOT win awards for a long time proves how dominant he was over a long period...
The argument that plugger at his hieght (91) was awesome is correct and is comparible (even better) than Harves is correct....although Harves was list as the saints best on 13 occasion in 1997 and 11 occasions in 1998 so he was BOG in 50% of the games played in that period....not bad. In 97 and 98 he was rated above Wayne Carey as the best player in the AFL.
But if you compare their seasons as saints
In the beginning
Harvey 89-91 compares with Lockett 84-86 a star youngster...maybe not as good although both state reps in the last season of that period and Harves was BOG
Peak
Harvey 92-98 (8 years)....6* AA, 6*State Rep, another 2* EJ Whitten, 4*B&F, 2*B'Low, 1* AFLPA MVP, 1*GF, 8*Finals
Lockett 87-94 (8 years)....2*Coleman, 3*AA, 5*State Rep, 2*B&F, 1*B'Low, 3*Finals
End
Harvey 2000-2008 (9 Years) Still an excellent contributor for another 150 games plus (especially 2003/4/5)
Lockett 95-99 (5 Years) No Longer a saint
Lockett missed several games (over 50) in 88, 89, 91, 93, 94 which cost him from being the greatest saint IMO.
Getting on the park is a huge factor of being great, because NO One os great in the stands.
Lockett was a Legend, as was Harvey......IMO 21 years of Legend pips 12...
Plugger66 - 20 seasons of average, does NOT beat any years of Legend..
I do agree with you that 21 years beats 12 years but what I will not agree on is that those years were pretty level in how they played. I think Lockett was better at his best then the great Harvs.
Anyway we agree to disagree on this.
Last thing is that Harvey was first, Loewe secon and Burkie third IMO.
Plugger averaged 3 goals a game in those years - not bad, but not dominant. His break out year of 87 is where his legend started.
Harves was handy in 89/90 and VG in 91, when Plug was at his peak, R.Harvey was RU in the B&F to him and rated by Plugger as the best young player in the AFL, and when asked whether N.Winmar was awesome to lead to at that time - he stated R.Harvey was the best to lead at.
Again I am not argueing against Plugger's Dominance - he was my favourite player in the AFL whilst he played (even when he changed).
But people underrating clearly the best, did not appreciate just how good he was......tagged like NO other....he was the MOST DOMINANT midfielder in the AFL for a decade....and games are WON in the middle..
There is a reason Harvey is the MOST decorated player we had - and he did it in good team and bad ones.....
One fool even suggested Harvey was great because he could 'gut run'
that is paying zero credit to his footballing ability
1-getting the ball (hard and loose ball)
2-clean hands
3-evading traffic
4-being creative
5-being effective
6-having courage
7-Getting it again
not any bloke who can run, can read the game and win the pill...none did it aswell as Banger
he generated play.........
I will argue all day against anyone who does not rate him alongside the best.....you could not do anymore than he did.....
Plugger could have 1) he could have stayed a saint, 2) spent more time on the park...
And the bloke who said
Baldock has a better side-step than Harves - seriously....lets compare standards from 65 and 95 - there were players in the VFL at that time who could not perform simple skills in the game....yes Baldock was great (even magical) in his era (better at Latrobe) Harvey was the best player in traffic in the MODERN era (the era of the professional)....BTW I am a proud Tasmanian and a Saints fan, so Baldock is an IDOL of mine but I am realistic aswell.
Harves was handy in 89/90 and VG in 91, when Plug was at his peak, R.Harvey was RU in the B&F to him and rated by Plugger as the best young player in the AFL, and when asked whether N.Winmar was awesome to lead to at that time - he stated R.Harvey was the best to lead at.
Again I am not argueing against Plugger's Dominance - he was my favourite player in the AFL whilst he played (even when he changed).
But people underrating clearly the best, did not appreciate just how good he was......tagged like NO other....he was the MOST DOMINANT midfielder in the AFL for a decade....and games are WON in the middle..
There is a reason Harvey is the MOST decorated player we had - and he did it in good team and bad ones.....
One fool even suggested Harvey was great because he could 'gut run'
that is paying zero credit to his footballing ability
1-getting the ball (hard and loose ball)
2-clean hands
3-evading traffic
4-being creative
5-being effective
6-having courage
7-Getting it again
not any bloke who can run, can read the game and win the pill...none did it aswell as Banger
he generated play.........
I will argue all day against anyone who does not rate him alongside the best.....you could not do anymore than he did.....
Plugger could have 1) he could have stayed a saint, 2) spent more time on the park...
And the bloke who said
Baldock has a better side-step than Harves - seriously....lets compare standards from 65 and 95 - there were players in the VFL at that time who could not perform simple skills in the game....yes Baldock was great (even magical) in his era (better at Latrobe) Harvey was the best player in traffic in the MODERN era (the era of the professional)....BTW I am a proud Tasmanian and a Saints fan, so Baldock is an IDOL of mine but I am realistic aswell.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
BigMart, if you're going to call me a fool then at least have the courage of your convictions to state it plainly.
You are very good at trotting out statistics which you think are beneficial to your argument.
You belittle players' abilities from bygone eras in comparison to current day and completely neglect to take into consideration that today's players are totally professional whereas players in the 50's/60's were basically amateurs who :-
were paid peanuts
trained maybe twice a week
held down full time jobs.
had nowhere near the medical treatment/fitness standards of today.
retired early so that they could make a living.
Most times you make clear incisive, well thought out posts but in this case you are showing youreslf to be a belligerant, blinkered, buffoon on the subject.
And no amount of selective quoting or misrepresentation of my or others posts is going to make your contrived ramblings any more than what they are - the convoluted twistings of someone trying to push a nonsensensical agenda.
Under your 'logic' no player prior to about 1980 could possibly compare to the champions of the last 30 years. ANd if you take that 'logic' to the next level then no champion from this era wil be able to compare with the players of the 2030's.
What total errant nonsense.
Champions from any era are champions.
If you want to have a real debate about it then stop playing your silly little games and debate properly.
But I suspect you're not really interested in anyone else' opinion other than your own.
You are very good at trotting out statistics which you think are beneficial to your argument.
You belittle players' abilities from bygone eras in comparison to current day and completely neglect to take into consideration that today's players are totally professional whereas players in the 50's/60's were basically amateurs who :-
were paid peanuts
trained maybe twice a week
held down full time jobs.
had nowhere near the medical treatment/fitness standards of today.
retired early so that they could make a living.
Most times you make clear incisive, well thought out posts but in this case you are showing youreslf to be a belligerant, blinkered, buffoon on the subject.
And no amount of selective quoting or misrepresentation of my or others posts is going to make your contrived ramblings any more than what they are - the convoluted twistings of someone trying to push a nonsensensical agenda.
Under your 'logic' no player prior to about 1980 could possibly compare to the champions of the last 30 years. ANd if you take that 'logic' to the next level then no champion from this era wil be able to compare with the players of the 2030's.
What total errant nonsense.
Champions from any era are champions.
If you want to have a real debate about it then stop playing your silly little games and debate properly.
But I suspect you're not really interested in anyone else' opinion other than your own.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Under this criteria the following players are nowhere near the ability of Harvey and the other champions of this era:-BigMart wrote:
And the bloke who said
Baldock has a better side-step than Harves - seriously....lets compare standards from 65 and 95 - there were players in the VFL at that time who could not perform simple skills in the game....yes Baldock was great (even magical) in his era (better at Latrobe) Harvey was the best player in traffic in the MODERN era (the era of the professional)....BTW I am a proud Tasmanian and a Saints fan, so Baldock is an IDOL of mine but I am realistic aswell.
In no particular order
John Coleman
Hayden Bunton Sr
Dick Reynolds
Bob Pratt
Gordon Coventry
Roy Cazaly
Alex Jesaulenko
Leigh Matthews
Peter Knights
Kevin Bartlett
Royce Hart
Ron Barassi
Tewd Whitten
Polly Farmer
Peter Hudson
Bob Skilton
etc. etc. etc.
Obviously I and other people over the age of 40 who follow football have no idea. I mean BigMart has told us all that none of these champions/legends would hold a candle to the champions of today because:-
'there were players in the VFL at that time who could not perform simple skills in the game' !
Of course this is only my opinion - unlike BigMart I don't demand that everybody take heed of it because I don't pretend to be the 'fountain of all knowledge' on the subject.
I'm happy to admit, unlike BigMart appears not to, that others may have a differing opinion which is just as valid as my own.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
I sincerely hope not.plugger66 wrote:Is this thread a chance to go where the CEO and AGM thread went?
I think there are some really interesting discussions to be had over how you can rate players from varying eras.
How would you rate players from the 40's 50's 60's and 70's compared with players of today?
I am a believer that the best in any era could be able to play as well today but may have to play in other positons but even if they couldnt you cannot say they arent as good as players now. You can only be the best of your era.Mr Magic wrote:I sincerely hope not.plugger66 wrote:Is this thread a chance to go where the CEO and AGM thread went?
I think there are some really interesting discussions to be had over how you can rate players from varying eras.
How would you rate players from the 40's 50's 60's and 70's compared with players of today?
Bunton and Reynolds were clearly the best in the 30 and 40's and even if they could not adapt to todays game they still are clearly the best in that time. Is Harvey better than them. Who knows didnt see them play. But I wouldnt rate him better just because he played more games.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.....IMO
I did ZERO to belittle champions from other eras - they are just that....champions from other eras.....I did belittle some players from other eras, who were (as you put it, to hurt your argument) amatuers and played league footy as 'hardmen' with basically no skill, they would not have even figured today....champions from other eras found it easy to dominate these types....
The champions from those eras - will be forever greats.....but to make comparisons with modern greats with certainty is difficult - the game has changed - and yes, it has improved.....
How much a player dominated his era is the sign of his greatness - and how he will rank in the great scheme of things....
but again to make a direct comparison....ie/Coleman was a better mark than Lockett is impossible to say...
you
compared the skill of players of the two eras (Baldock and Harvey) which is very difficult, IMO is impossible.....Baldock stood out because he could do things that the others could not in that time....but many more these days could........Harvey stood out in three seperate eras as a champion....Baldock would probably have done so aswell, but to say he had a better baulk than Harvey is a bit rich - how did you come to that conclusion?
Just as a guess?
because they were both good, why and how was one better???
I did ZERO to belittle champions from other eras - they are just that....champions from other eras.....I did belittle some players from other eras, who were (as you put it, to hurt your argument) amatuers and played league footy as 'hardmen' with basically no skill, they would not have even figured today....champions from other eras found it easy to dominate these types....
The champions from those eras - will be forever greats.....but to make comparisons with modern greats with certainty is difficult - the game has changed - and yes, it has improved.....
How much a player dominated his era is the sign of his greatness - and how he will rank in the great scheme of things....
but again to make a direct comparison....ie/Coleman was a better mark than Lockett is impossible to say...
you
compared the skill of players of the two eras (Baldock and Harvey) which is very difficult, IMO is impossible.....Baldock stood out because he could do things that the others could not in that time....but many more these days could........Harvey stood out in three seperate eras as a champion....Baldock would probably have done so aswell, but to say he had a better baulk than Harvey is a bit rich - how did you come to that conclusion?
Just as a guess?
because they were both good, why and how was one better???
Why did Harvey play more games????
Is it a great achievement to play 385 games - and to do so in an ELITE manner????....
If (big if) Harvey's ability equalled Bunton and he played twice as many games.....who was the better player?????
we can never be sure of who was better though....
Its funny how we say 119 games make a champion career...
Harvey played 110 more games than James Hird, basically a career on top of what Hird did (which was awesome) but those 110 games Hird cannot make up...
In short - longevity is one sign of greatness.....mugs do not play 350+ games...
It would be interesting to see who has played in the most Saints wins???
and
Who has the most BOG's???
Surely they hold the mantle as the best - as winning determines greatness.....
In golf terms
is a player better if he wins
10 majors by 1 shot each
or
5 majors by 10 shots each??
Is it a great achievement to play 385 games - and to do so in an ELITE manner????....
If (big if) Harvey's ability equalled Bunton and he played twice as many games.....who was the better player?????
we can never be sure of who was better though....
Its funny how we say 119 games make a champion career...
Harvey played 110 more games than James Hird, basically a career on top of what Hird did (which was awesome) but those 110 games Hird cannot make up...
In short - longevity is one sign of greatness.....mugs do not play 350+ games...
It would be interesting to see who has played in the most Saints wins???
and
Who has the most BOG's???
Surely they hold the mantle as the best - as winning determines greatness.....
In golf terms
is a player better if he wins
10 majors by 1 shot each
or
5 majors by 10 shots each??
Mr magic
did I call you a fool???.....if I did then I obviously had the 'courage of my convictions' to state it.....
if I did not - then I did not call you one.....
which is it???
BTW
You can have your opinion......but I would like to debate your opinion (as I think it is wrong - IMO) if you want to debate then state some facts to support your argument - if not, ignore my posts.....either way.....please yourself......
Nothing personal
I do get miffed when people do not rate Harvey - I keep trotting out his stats for a reason - I BELIEVE PEOPLE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS A MODERN GREAT - A LEGEND INFACT.....he did not get those stats for nothing....
did I call you a fool???.....if I did then I obviously had the 'courage of my convictions' to state it.....
if I did not - then I did not call you one.....
which is it???
BTW
You can have your opinion......but I would like to debate your opinion (as I think it is wrong - IMO) if you want to debate then state some facts to support your argument - if not, ignore my posts.....either way.....please yourself......
Nothing personal
I do get miffed when people do not rate Harvey - I keep trotting out his stats for a reason - I BELIEVE PEOPLE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS A MODERN GREAT - A LEGEND INFACT.....he did not get those stats for nothing....
-
mbogo
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
Interesting thread - still - even with you two arguing.
But keep in mind about past players that:
1. Many more kids tried to play footy and wanted to be stars ( in the 60s for example EVERYONE was playing footy), therefore the stars were so much better than all athletes at the time..... !!!
2. Training and techniques - ball handling skills we have now - derived from the greats - Stewart - Baldock - Coleman etc etc.. Hence the old guys would have all the benefits of the modern training etc.
3. Height average at the time was many cm shorter than today - eg if Carl was a 97% giant then - he would be 6ft 8in now!!! (has to do with diet I think)
4. Fewer kids play footy but more athletes are selected these days. (based on country clubs and numbers playing)
5. Past players would be bigger stronger and more skillful than they were in a true comparison.
6. What happened to the guys with sheer guts that played in tha past? - selected out by pussy jnr comps - hehe - sorry mum. And obsession with fitness and physique.
But keep in mind about past players that:
1. Many more kids tried to play footy and wanted to be stars ( in the 60s for example EVERYONE was playing footy), therefore the stars were so much better than all athletes at the time..... !!!
2. Training and techniques - ball handling skills we have now - derived from the greats - Stewart - Baldock - Coleman etc etc.. Hence the old guys would have all the benefits of the modern training etc.
3. Height average at the time was many cm shorter than today - eg if Carl was a 97% giant then - he would be 6ft 8in now!!! (has to do with diet I think)
4. Fewer kids play footy but more athletes are selected these days. (based on country clubs and numbers playing)
5. Past players would be bigger stronger and more skillful than they were in a true comparison.
6. What happened to the guys with sheer guts that played in tha past? - selected out by pussy jnr comps - hehe - sorry mum. And obsession with fitness and physique.
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
N Burke and R Harvey cant split them
A Champion player can play in any era 20 years ago i asked former world chess champion borris spassky when he was in Australia can you compare eras and his responce that the great players from the past would play as good as the players of today
if Don Bradman played in todays cricket he would average around the 100
i was told John Coleman was a freakish player and if Fev or Buddy can kick 100 goals in a season Coleman and other great forwards could kick 100 goals if playing today
I Still cant split N Burke Or R Harvey they would both be great players in any era
if Don Bradman played in todays cricket he would average around the 100
i was told John Coleman was a freakish player and if Fev or Buddy can kick 100 goals in a season Coleman and other great forwards could kick 100 goals if playing today
I Still cant split N Burke Or R Harvey they would both be great players in any era
trevor barker
-
mbogo
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
Personally I always valued Harves more in the team due to his unfaltering delivery and capacity to perform in the middle regardless of opposition. What do the stats say about average possessions for each of them - when at their peak?
Harves by a few lengths in sheer quality - he could always do impossible things - Burkey seemed to get caught more to me. This is not to say NB was not a brilliant Saint of the highest calibre - but we are comparing him to one of the greatest of all time.
Harves by a few lengths in sheer quality - he could always do impossible things - Burkey seemed to get caught more to me. This is not to say NB was not a brilliant Saint of the highest calibre - but we are comparing him to one of the greatest of all time.
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
-
TassieJones
- Club Player
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 9:17pm
- Location: The NCR
Won't bother weighing into the best ever player debate, but re: the original question there is daylight between Harves and Burke imo, and I am of the opinion that Burke is a hugely underrated player of his era.
I'd pose the question, which of Voss, Hird, Buckley, Ricciuto, West, Crawford, Aker and Cousins would you rate Harves higher than? Myself, all of them, but unquestionably he's at least on the same level as all of them. Which would you rate Burke higher than? West, Aker and Crawf for me, but that'd be it. Not on the same level as Voss, Hird etc.
Best Saints I've seen:
1. Robert Harvey
2. Nicky Winmar
3. Nick Riewoldt
4. Nathan Burke
5.Stewart Loewe
6. Lenny Hayes
7. Spider Everitt
8. Fraser Gehrig
9. Max Hudghton
10. Sam Fisher
(subject to the rest of the careers of Dal Santo, Ball and Goddard)
I'd pose the question, which of Voss, Hird, Buckley, Ricciuto, West, Crawford, Aker and Cousins would you rate Harves higher than? Myself, all of them, but unquestionably he's at least on the same level as all of them. Which would you rate Burke higher than? West, Aker and Crawf for me, but that'd be it. Not on the same level as Voss, Hird etc.
Best Saints I've seen:
1. Robert Harvey
2. Nicky Winmar
3. Nick Riewoldt
4. Nathan Burke
5.Stewart Loewe
6. Lenny Hayes
7. Spider Everitt
8. Fraser Gehrig
9. Max Hudghton
10. Sam Fisher
(subject to the rest of the careers of Dal Santo, Ball and Goddard)
-
saintbob
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3638
- Joined: Wed 21 May 2008 8:51pm
- Location: Tassie
- Has thanked: 492 times
- Been thanked: 316 times
TassieJones wrote:Won't bother weighing into the best ever player debate, but re: the original question there is daylight between Harves and Burke imo, and I am of the opinion that Burke is a hugely underrated player of his era.
I'd pose the question, which of Voss, Hird, Buckley, Ricciuto, West, Crawford, Aker and Cousins would you rate Harves higher than? Myself, all of them, but unquestionably he's at least on the same level as all of them. Which would you rate Burke higher than? West, Aker and Crawf for me, but that'd be it. Not on the same level as Voss, Hird etc.
Best Saints I've seen:
1. Robert Harvey
2. Nicky Winmar
3. Nick Riewoldt
4. Nathan Burke
5.Stewart Loewe
6. Lenny Hayes
7. Spider Everitt
8. Fraser Gehrig
9. Max Hudghton
10. Sam Fisher
(subject to the rest of the careers of Dal Santo, Ball and Goddard)
Plugger's not in your top 10, you must be joking!!!!
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Obviously you weren't interested in taking this argument/debate to pm as I offered you. It would appear that you are more interested in continuing this slanging matxh in the publiuc forum?BigMart wrote:Mr magic
did I call you a fool???.....if I did then I obviously had the 'courage of my convictions' to state it.....
if I did not - then I did not call you one.....
which is it???
BTW
You can have your opinion......but I would like to debate your opinion (as I think it is wrong - IMO) if you want to debate then state some facts to support your argument - if not, ignore my posts.....either way.....please yourself......
Nothing personal
I do get miffed when people do not rate Harvey - I keep trotting out his stats for a reason - I BELIEVE PEOPLE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS A MODERN GREAT - A LEGEND INFACT.....he did not get those stats for nothing....
Fine, I'm happy to accomodate you.
Now for the substance of this particular post.
You know exactly what you called me and how. Don't try being so 'cute' about it.
As for wanting to debate my opinion, yoiu certainly have an 'interesting' way of debating. Do you always start your debates calling the other person 'some fool'?
And don't dare try ascribinging falsehoods to me.
That won't wash either.
Show me where I posted I 'do not rate Harvey'. In fact show me any post in the thread by any poster that 'doesn't rate' Harvey or denigrates/belittles either him or his achievments?
Unfortunately you appear more interested in shoving your opinion down the throats of everybofdy else rather than engaging in healthy debate.
But that's fine. Now I know what your mo is I can view your posts for what they truly are.
Your opinions masquerading as facts with no dissenting view acceptable by you.
All hail Caesar!
-
Winmar7Fan
- Club Player
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Thu 08 May 2008 5:31pm
- Location: Gold Coast
Mr Magic wrote:If you think that Harvey, however brilliant he was, was a more skillful player than either Baldock or Stewart then maybe it's time for you to get a copy of the old black and white films from the 60's when Baldock and Stewart were playing.BigMart wrote:What Harves did over 21 years is more than any other player achieved - perhaps by double....
He is without doubt the best EVER!!!!
If you think there has been a more skilful footballer (winning the ball in footy is perhaps the most important skill) I think we should bring out the 97-98 tapes.......or maybe the 92/94 tapes, maybe even the 2003 tapes....
You've obvioulsy forgotten or never seen what they, especially Baldock was capable of doing.
Afterall, he didn't give himself the nickname of Mr Magic - the football world did that.
Considered by many to have been the greatest ball handler and side-stepper the game has ever seen.
I seem to recall even the modest Robert Harvey marvelling at the Doc's ability to get the footy and avoid being tackled.
They were just before my time but if we go into the most skillful player could either of these two
Play and pinpoint perfectly off left or right foot up to a long distance?
Dominate in the mid field with ferocious tackling ability?
Then go up forward if needed and play tall taking spectacular high flying marks and kick up to 6 goal from up to 60 meters out?
I know a lot of people penalise him because he wasn't as disciplined and as great a club man as Harvey which is a bloody shame because IMO NO ONE could do it all and moved with such grace as Winmar.
I've never seen a player generate so much electricity with a crowd when near the ball. I know I was jumping out of my skin.
When your getting the old 60s Baldock black and white films out also get out the videos of the 80s (and these will be in colour).
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Stewart to Baldock was akin to the Krakouer bros passing to each other.Winmar7Fan wrote:Mr Magic wrote:If you think that Harvey, however brilliant he was, was a more skillful player than either Baldock or Stewart then maybe it's time for you to get a copy of the old black and white films from the 60's when Baldock and Stewart were playing.BigMart wrote:What Harves did over 21 years is more than any other player achieved - perhaps by double....
He is without doubt the best EVER!!!!
If you think there has been a more skilful footballer (winning the ball in footy is perhaps the most important skill) I think we should bring out the 97-98 tapes.......or maybe the 92/94 tapes, maybe even the 2003 tapes....
You've obvioulsy forgotten or never seen what they, especially Baldock was capable of doing.
Afterall, he didn't give himself the nickname of Mr Magic - the football world did that.
Considered by many to have been the greatest ball handler and side-stepper the game has ever seen.
I seem to recall even the modest Robert Harvey marvelling at the Doc's ability to get the footy and avoid being tackled.
They were just before my time but if we go into the most skillful player could either of these two
Play and pinpoint perfectly off left or right foot up to a long distance?
Dominate in the mid field with ferocious tackling ability?
Then go up forward if needed and play tall taking spectacular high flying marks and kick up to 6 goal from up to 60 meters out?
I know a lot of people penalise him because he wasn't as disciplined and as great a club man as Harvey which is a bloody shame because IMO NO ONE could do it all and moved with such grace as Winmar.
I've never seen a player generate so much electricity with a crowd when near the ball. I know I was jumping out of my skin.
When your getting the old 60s Baldock black and white films out also get out the videos of the 80s (and these will be in colour).
Baldock played CHF at 5 foot 10inches tall. Every week his opponent was taller than him.
Both players were eqaully adept at left or right foot.
I don't recall either player kicking goals from 60 mtrs out - but then very, very few players were capable of kicking those distances for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to):-
their boots were much more cumbersome than todays
the footy was more often than not waterlogged due to the condition of the ground and weather.
Notwithstanding that it was very common to see Stewart pinpoint dropkick passes to Baldock and others up to 50 yards away.
In terms of courage - neither could be faulted.
So, IMO whilst Nicky had all that you claimed he did, nand is on my list of 10 greatest Saints, he's at a level below Baldock, Lockett, Stewart, and Harvey.