N Burke and R Harvey cant split them

[bob__71]

Stinger....point taken, but

If he was the best......

Why did he not win more B&F's, A Brownlow, be BOG in more finals.....why is he not more decorated?????.....

ie/ Dick Reynolds, Haydon Bunton, Bob Slilton.....this is the thing I do not understand.........he had a massive reputation the Doc......he was a champion player......however, records will show he was not the best, some people may regard him as the best.....but records will show that other players achieved MANY more feats than Doc......

and to say he was better than any of those, begs the question...

Why did he not achieve them then????

That being said, he was a saint Legend (no issue there) 3*Best and Fairest, Captain of Premiership team and State Rep......and a freak player......but he achieved FAR LESS in a SAINTS jumper than Sir Robert...

I think Robert Harvey would disagree with you there. I think Baldock achieved much more in StKilda Jumper than Harvey did. He was the premiership capitan.

[plugger66]

Stinger....point taken, but

If he was the best......

Why did he not win more B&F's, A Brownlow, be BOG in more finals.....why is he not more decorated?????.....

ie/ Dick Reynolds, Haydon Bunton, Bob Slilton.....this is the thing I do not understand.........he had a massive reputation the Doc......he was a champion player......however, records will show he was not the best, some people may regard him as the best.....but records will show that other players achieved MANY more feats than Doc......

and to say he was better than any of those, begs the question...

Why did he not achieve them then????

That being said, he was a saint Legend (no issue there) 3*Best and Fairest, Captain of Premiership team and State Rep......and a freak player......but he achieved FAR LESS in a SAINTS jumper than Sir Robert...

I think Robert Harvey would disagree with you there. I think Baldock achieved much more in StKilda Jumper than Harvey did. He was the premiership capitan.

Not sure that is a reason he acheived more. Based on that Harley acheived more at the Cats than Gary Ablett.

[bob__71]

Stinger....point taken, but

If he was the best......

Why did he not win more B&F's, A Brownlow, be BOG in more finals.....why is he not more decorated?????.....

ie/ Dick Reynolds, Haydon Bunton, Bob Slilton.....this is the thing I do not understand.........he had a massive reputation the Doc......he was a champion player......however, records will show he was not the best, some people may regard him as the best.....but records will show that other players achieved MANY more feats than Doc......

and to say he was better than any of those, begs the question...

Why did he not achieve them then????

That being said, he was a saint Legend (no issue there) 3*Best and Fairest, Captain of Premiership team and State Rep......and a freak player......but he achieved FAR LESS in a SAINTS jumper than Sir Robert...

I think Robert Harvey would disagree with you there. I think Baldock achieved much more in StKilda Jumper than Harvey did. He was the premiership capitan.

Not sure that is a reason he acheived more. Based on that Harley acheived more at the Cats than Gary Ablett.

God your a Flog

[plugger66]

Stinger....point taken, but

If he was the best......

Why did he not win more B&F's, A Brownlow, be BOG in more finals.....why is he not more decorated?????.....

ie/ Dick Reynolds, Haydon Bunton, Bob Slilton.....this is the thing I do not understand.........he had a massive reputation the Doc......he was a champion player......however, records will show he was not the best, some people may regard him as the best.....but records will show that other players achieved MANY more feats than Doc......

and to say he was better than any of those, begs the question...

Why did he not achieve them then????

That being said, he was a saint Legend (no issue there) 3*Best and Fairest, Captain of Premiership team and State Rep......and a freak player......but he achieved FAR LESS in a SAINTS jumper than Sir Robert...

I think Robert Harvey would disagree with you there. I think Baldock achieved much more in StKilda Jumper than Harvey did. He was the premiership capitan.

Not sure that is a reason he acheived more. Based on that Harley acheived more at the Cats than Gary Ablett.

God your a Flog

Sorry Bob I didnt realise on can be a flog because you wrote something that clearly doesnt mean someone acheived more. Maybe next time you will explain it better.

[stinger]

OK Stinger - and was Bonney playing for the Saints and Stewart for Richmond at the time?
It might have made for a biased memory - and Stewart faded rapidly, didn't he?
A star that shines so bright - or a star that shines brightly for a long time?

no...it was before bonney came to the vfl....stewart was in his prime...and playing for us.......didn't know that his star faded quickly...though he won a brownlow after he left us......no biased memory from me....i can remember the past with far mote clarity than i can recall what i eat for lunch......


and



.....i think others noticed as well.....bonney was after all bog......ffs.....


,,me..????..i'm not arguing about anything.......

[loris]

Why, oh why, do people use stats, to say one player was better than another when comparing different eras? Gawd the methodology of taking the stats were different.....rules were different....ground conditions were different....etc etc.

Why get excited about players winning copious amounts of media awards as a FACT for some player being better than another. Years gone by...there weren't as many media awards to win.....no such thing as most valued player award. So a player isn't necessarily better because he has won more awards.

Once a player only had to convince 1 umpire he was worthy of the brownlow vote....... now it's 3 make the decision. All this impacts on validity/reliability of the methodology. The human factor on one opinion as against concensus being sought with 3 opinions is immense.

Mr Magic like you it amazes me that some can never see the difference between fact and opinion. But then egos get in their way I 'spose.

IMHO (very humble opinion I may add ) Darryl Baldock was the most skilful St Kilda player I have evey seen. He was a man for all season. Played on VFL grounds in deplorable conditions that most players (90's onwards) would possibly not even play on all their careers.... even when they were playing in some minor suburban competition or as kids......... and he could still function skilfully as if he was playing on a beautifully maniqured bowling lawn.
He could take incredible specky marks, pin point accurate STAB passes and drop kicks out of mud heaps, give great hip and shoulder bumps, kick accurately for goal, baulk on a threepenny bit, he mesmerised players when he ran bouncing the ball in a slaleem fashion with his low gravity run, could handpass over an oponents head and run around and catch the ball before it hit the ground, he play week in week out against opponents who had an height and weight advantage over him, plus he played most of his career in the then (& possibly still today) hardest position on the ground CHF. And he used to chirp on field and back chat the umps, so he wasn't their most favourite player. Baldock wasn't a protected species that''s for sure. How often did we see him run to the boundary line, get some stitches in the skull and straight back into the fray - like Luke Ball that head was always down over the ball and he was more than often in an under a pack when there was a ball up. Darryl never came off at the end of a match the beneficary of a lot of free kicks.

Also Doc caused a rule change, holding he ball droppng the ball.

Would I dare to compare him with Robert Harvey? No they are from different eras and its pointless. And I don't want to ........ Robert Harvey is my favourite ever Saints player and gave me as much enjoyment watching his sublime skills over the years as did watching Baldock. I just respect everything about the Harves and all he has achieved and supporting the Saints will be a lesser passion for me now that he has gone from the Saints family.

As one poster said, for those people who never saw the Doc play, the grainy black & white TV footage doesn't do justice to the skills he displayed.... TV wasn't so technically advanced back then, so it really doesn't give a true reflection of his skills.

It's just like most of us ( I assume all of us) on this site) I never saw Don Bradman play cricket and can only rely on old film footage and IMHO we can only have an idea of his skills and supreme talent.

Stats are meaningless unless they are FAIR/VALID/RELIABLE.....and comparing eras doesn't fit the criteria.....hence, ipso facto who is the better Harvey or Baldock is only OPINION not FACT.

[St Fidelius]

Great post loris

[stinger]

Why, oh why, do people use stats, to say one player was better than another when comparing different eras? Gawd the methodology of taking the stats were different.....rules were different....ground conditions were different....etc etc.

Why get excited about players winning copious amounts of media awards as a FACT for some player being better than another. Years gone by...there weren't as many media awards to win.....no such thing as most valued player award. So a player isn't necessarily better because he has won more awards.

Once a player only had to convince 1 umpire he was worthy of the brownlow vote....... now it's 3 make the decision. All this impacts on validity/reliability of the methodology. The human factor on one opinion as against concensus being sought with 3 opinions is immense.

Mr Magic like you it amazes me that some can never see the difference between fact and opinion. But then egos get in their way I 'spose.

IMHO (very humble opinion I may add ) Darryl Baldock was the most skilful St Kilda player I have evey seen. He was a man for all season. Played on VFL grounds in deplorable conditions that most players (90's onwards) would possibly not even play on all their careers.... even when they were playing in some minor suburban competition or as kids......... and he could still function skilfully as if he was playing on a beautifully maniqured bowling lawn.
He could take incredible specky marks, pin point accurate STAB passes and drop kicks out of mud heaps, give great hip and shoulder bumps, kick accurately for goal, baulk on a threepenny bit, he mesmerised players when he ran bouncing the ball in a slaleem fashion with his low gravity run, could handpass over an oponents head and run around and catch the ball before it hit the ground, he play week in week out against opponents who had an height and weight advantage over him, plus he played most of his career in the then (& possibly still today) hardest position on the ground CHB. And he used to chirp on field and back chat the umps, so he wasn't their most favourite player. Baldock wasn't a protected species that''s for sure. How often did we see him run to the boundary line, get some stitches in the skull and straight back into the fray - like Luke Ball that head was always down over the ball and he was more than often in an under a pack when there was a ball up. Darryl never came off at the end of a match the beneficary of a lot of free kicks.

Also Doc caused a rule change, holding he ball droppng the ball.

Would I dare to compare him with Robert Harvey? No they are from different eras and its pointless. And I don't want to ........ Robert Harvey is my favourite ever Saints player and gave me as much enjoyment watching his sublime skills over the years as did watching Baldock. I just respect everything about the Harves and all he has achieved and supporting the Saints will be a lesser passion for me now that he has gone from the Saints family.

As one poster said, for those people who never saw the Doc play, the grainy black & white TV footage doesn't do justice to the skills he displayed.... TV wasn't so technically advanced back then, so it really doesn't give a true reflection of his skills.

It's just like most of us ( I assume all of us) on this site) I never saw Don Bradman play cricket and can only rely on old film footage and IMHO we can only have an idea of his skills and supreme talent.

Stats are meaningless unless they are FAIR/VALID/RELIABLE.....and comparing eras doesn't fit the criteria.....hence, ipso facto who is the better Harvey or Baldock is only OPINION not FACT.

thank you loris...you have captured the essence of what i was trying to say.......far better than i ever could......

[saint patrick]

As always Loris is the voice of reason...

Always worth reading

[loris]

Actually stinger & st fid....you only read what you want to see

I made a glaring error -a typo -I said DB played CHB not CHF I have corrected it. Tho he played on the backline many a time. Against the wind, he would be thrown down back as a loose backman,time and again. That was one of Yabby Jeans tatics in using Doc.
There was that match against Essendon when he ran the whole length of the ground into a howling wind, wet day. He took the ball from the back pocket. Bounced and balked his way to half foward flank, passed it off to someone, ran on bobbed up in the forward pocket had a shot for goal, missed. The whole passage of play only one other person touched the ball. Annd we weren't on telly that day, so only those that saw it remember it. If you ever talk to Jeansy he said it was inspirational.

The chubby man could gut run, when required. Infact he was a gut runner that was how he played CHF......way before gut running was thought of. We were so polite in those days we did't use words like gut

[saint1974]

Spot on Loris!

Both St.Kilda icons how lucky as a club can we say we have had 2 of the greatest players of all time.

[stinger]

Actually stinger & st fid....you only read what you want to see

I made a glaring error -a typo -I said DB played CHB not CHF I have corrected it.

you are right of course...as usual....

[Mr Magic]

Loris, you have put it succinctly and into context.

Just to show you how 'flawed' it is to use statstics in this opinion argument, I thought I'd post the following in support of The Doc

Best and Fairest
Baldock won a B&F 3 times out of 7 seasons that he played which is 42.86%
Harvey won a B&F 4 times in 21 seasons which is a strike rate of only 19.05%

Captaincy
Baldock captained the Saints 6 out of the 7 seasons he played.
Harvey captained the Saints in only 2 seasons

All Australian
Baldock was 'All-Australian' only twice
Harvey was 'All-Australian' 8 times.
But Baldock only had 2 oportunities to be selected as they only played 'Carnivals' every 5 years back then and you had to be selected in a State Team to be eligible.
BTW, in 1966 which was the only year he was eligible whilst playing for teh Saints, he was selected Captain.
And his only opportunity as a youngster in 1961 he was selected despite playing for Tasmania.

Also he was selected to play for Victoria 10 times in his 7 year career.

Goal Kicking
He was Saints leading goalkicker 4 times in his 7 year career. Not bad for a CHF!


Do I need to go on?

Unfortunately as has been proven time and again, statistics can be used to bolster any side of any argument.

But then again Lois, Stinger and anybody else who has the temerity to have an opinion other than that of BigMart's, we couldn't possibly know - afterall we only saw him play.

[TriColourDisciple]

Duggie1 would've seen The Don play

[BigMart]

I think that stats are a measure of sport, without them there can be NO comparison....

Yes they change over time, but they are the things we measure by....if not what else......subjective opininions and faded memories......as I said before, legends grow - posters on this site have been known to pump up average players of yesteryear......especially ones from their childhood...again not denying Baldock - a fellow Wegian, but the fact he played 266 games less in the jumper than Harves puts it in perspective IMO

back to stats....

There was a Brownlow in 1960, like there is now, there were media awards back then, there were Best and Fairests, there were state games....not a lot has changed, not even the formats......

They are not really Stats, but more a RANKING amongst peers.....

The GREATEST in the 60's.....compares favourably with the best in the 90's....etc....

My annoyance in this thread is the Robert Harvey has achieved plenty more than any other......and is not acknowledged as the great he CLEARLY was.....he was the BEST in his era of Dominant midfielders, and one of the first to be Tagged by more than one.....Imagine if he was able to throw the ball in front of himself when he was about to be tackled.....BTW - Kevin Bartlett was also a major reason that rule that was bought in....

On pure footy skills; All time.......now
Winning the ball - Harvey.....Hayes
Marking - Stewart Loewe......Kosi
Kicking (goal) - Lockett........Goddard
Kicking (field) - Winmar.......Goddard
Hanballing - Harvey.............Ball
Ball Handling - Baldock, Harvey, Winmar, Lockett (tied).......Dal
Ball carrier - Harvey.........Gram
Reading play - Stewart
, Baldock, Harvey, Lockett......Sam Fisher
Versitility - Baldock, Howell (tied).......Goddard
Best Defender - Howell...........Hudghton
Best Mid - Harvey, Stewart (tied).......Hayes
Best Fwd - Lockett.............Riewoldt
Courage - Too many to list.........Hudghton, Baker, Riewoldt, Ball, Kosi
Aggression - Ditterich, Lockett, Hamill........Hayes
Ruckman - Ditterich, Everitt...........King
Ability to Dominate games - Lockett........Riewoldt

On their total impact at StK.F.C - IMO.....R.Harvey

it can only be admired what he achieved.....in 20 years he will be revered

[loris]

afterall we only saw him play.

I guess there is some compensation for growing old eh

[loris]

Duggie1 would've seen The Don play

Now that is OLD and that is a FACT

Nah........... on second thought it must be an opinion, as its all relative

[St Fidelius]

I think that stats are a measure of sport, without them there can be NO comparison....

Wrong, just how can you compare stats if the players are from different eras ???

It's impossible to do as the stats become invalid.

To conduct an argument based on stats is from different eras really isn't fact, it becomes an opinion.

IMO The whole idea of stats is comparing players from the same era, otherwise the whole synoptics of the comparison is flawed, and again it becomes an opinion and not fact.


Stats are great when comparing players in the same era, but become irrelevant when comparing them to players that have played years ago., otherwise their are just far too many variables, when you are looking at just figures.

[BigMart]

OK then mate....

Your argument of percentages is using stats is interesting

I'l add a few more.....

and cut Harves Career a bit

In his first ten seasons (at his PEAK)

Played 200 Games
Represented Victoria 7 times - 3 time BOG 43% (should have been 4)
Was All Australian 6 Times 60%
Was voted by players as the AFL-MVP in 1997 10%
Brownlow Medal 97, 98 20% over 150 votes in this time total. 32 votes in 98.
Won 4 best and Fairests 92, 94, 97, 98 - 40%
Finished Runner Up 4 times 91 (Lockett), 93 & 96 (Burke), 95 (Winmar) 40%
Third in 1990
Nine out of ten seasons in the top three.........90%
a Knee injury in 1999 probably cost Harves another 2 or three B&F's

We can all play with stats to read how we want them to

I just listed his achievements to support the fact he has achieved more individually than any other saint - it is undeniable..(team achievemnt relies on others, therefore is irrelevent)

But what would I know - I only saw him play for 21 seasons......we could imagine HOW good Baldock would have been if he played 21 seasons - he may have won 10 B&F's.......but, he did not....
Not denying he was a Legend - his STATS speak for themselves....

BTW - his legend in Tasmania is probably more impressive than when he went to the VFL ......but that cannot be taken into accout - he was NOT a saint then...

[St Fidelius]

I think that stats are a measure of sport, without them there can be NO comparison....

Wrong, just how can you compare stats if the players are from different eras ???

It's impossible to do as the stats become invalid.

To conduct an argument based on stats is from different eras really isn't fact, it becomes an opinion.

IMO The whole idea of stats is comparing players from the same era, otherwise the whole synoptics of the comparison is flawed, and again it becomes an opinion and not fact.


Stats are great when comparing players in the same era, but become irrelevant when comparing them to players that have played years ago., otherwise their are just far too many variables, when you are looking at just figures.

It's just an opinion and not fact, to make a comparison on the two players is flawed by my reasons stated

[BigMart]

Are achievements STATS?????

are you saying someone who won a Brownlow in 1967 (Smith) is any different to someone who won one in 1999 (Crawford).....both players were rated as the best in that season as compared to others....how has thet changed?????

Are you saying a player who wins a coleman in 1954 is any different to someone who wins a coleman in 1984 - you still have to top the league???

If we mentioned goals kicked, maybe there is a difference....due to variables......but to win the award you still have to beat everyone else..

Being Captain is still the same honour...

Being a State rep in 1966 and 1994 is the same....you still have to be picked in the states best 18.....

Explain how these things have changed over time????

[BigMart]

Let's see how Nicky Winmar was reported when he was inducted in the WA Hall of Fame

'Despite 317 senior games, 425 goals, two All-Australian guernseys, two St Kilda best and fairests and being the first indigenous player to reach the 200 game milestone, Winmar will always be best remembered for his gesture towards Collingwood fans racially taunting him at the end of a game at Victoria Park in 1993'

Why bother listing the 'STATS' when descibing his career if they are irrelevent when displing the ability of the footballer????

[Mr Magic]

Let's see how Nicky Winmar was reported when he was inducted in the WA Hall of Fame

'Despite 317 senior games, 425 goals, two All-Australian guernseys, two St Kilda best and fairests and being the first indigenous player to reach the 200 game milestone, Winmar will always be best remembered for his gesture towards Collingwood fans racially taunting him at the end of a game at Victoria Park in 1993'

Why bother listing the 'STATS' when descibing his career if they are irrelevent when displing the ability of the footballer????

Because they're useful in decribing his achievements.

Nobody is saying that because of all those achievments listed including he was the first indigenous player to reach 200 games then he necessarily is the 'best' indigenous player.

And btw, it is only the author's statement that his gesture to Collingwood fans is the reason why he will be 'best remembered'. Again it's not fact, only his opinion. I for one remember Nicky for his magnificent football ability first and foremost.

[Mr Magic]

I think that stats are a measure of sport, without them there can be NO comparison....

Yes they change over time, but they are the things we measure by....if not what else......subjective opininions and faded memories......as I said before, legends grow - posters on this site have been known to pump up average players of yesteryear......especially ones from their childhood...again not denying Baldock - a fellow Wegian, but the fact he played 266 games less in the jumper than Harves puts it in perspective IMO

back to stats....

There was a Brownlow in 1960, like there is now, there were media awards back then, there were Best and Fairests, there were state games....not a lot has changed, not even the formats......

They are not really Stats, but more a RANKING amongst peers.....

The GREATEST in the 60's.....compares favourably with the best in the 90's....etc....

My annoyance in this thread is the Robert Harvey has achieved plenty more than any other......and is not acknowledged as the great he CLEARLY was.....he was the BEST in his era of Dominant midfielders, and one of the first to be Tagged by more than one.....Imagine if he was able to throw the ball in front of himself when he was about to be tackled.....BTW - Kevin Bartlett was also a major reason that rule that was bought in....

On pure footy skills; All time.......now
Winning the ball - Harvey.....Hayes
Marking - Stewart Loewe......Kosi
Kicking (goal) - Lockett........Goddard
Kicking (field) - Winmar.......Goddard
Hanballing - Harvey.............Ball
Ball Handling - Baldock, Harvey, Winmar, Lockett (tied).......Dal
Ball carrier - Harvey.........Gram
Reading play - Stewart
, Baldock, Harvey, Lockett......Sam Fisher
Versitility - Baldock, Howell (tied).......Goddard
Best Defender - Howell...........Hudghton
Best Mid - Harvey, Stewart (tied).......Hayes
Best Fwd - Lockett.............Riewoldt
Courage - Too many to list.........Hudghton, Baker, Riewoldt, Ball, Kosi
Aggression - Ditterich, Lockett, Hamill........Hayes
Ruckman - Ditterich, Everitt...........King
Ability to Dominate games - Lockett........Riewoldt

On their total impact at StK.F.C - IMO.....R.Harvey

it can only be admired what he achieved.....in 20 years he will be revered

My point exactly - you can make them say anything you want and yet you choose to use Statistics to try and prove your opinion is fact?

[St Fidelius]

I really cant be bothered arguing or debating with you BigMart.

You have dug your self a hole, so be it...

Much like you dug yourself a hole with Jason Blake under a previous nic, the same went with Andrew Thompson, and you stated under either St Mart or Marto that Raph Clarke is bone lazy and just wouldn't make it after just one season.

Just why do you change your nic???

How many holes have you dug for yourself and then resurrect yourself under another nic???

Just forget it, the hole you have dug for yourself after so many nics is getting closer to China, or perhaps you are there already.

You see, I have based this post on FACT and not STATS.

I have relied on my memory of what you have stated over the years, something you have obviously forgotten or have chosen to forget, after so many nics, one just wonders if you remember anything.

You can carry on with your stats or opinions but I really can't be bothered with it

Cheers