Russell's Top 25 Saints

[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.

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.

I totally agree but its only an opinion and Russell obviously rates the Stewie as the best. I cant argue because I never saw him really play. Russell would have though as he is around 60 years of age now.

[Trev from the Bush]

Dementia is yet to set in with me - Stewie is the best player I've seen in a Saints' jumper in the past 53 year, slightly ahead of Doc. Plugger third, I reckon Nick's 6 B&F's just shades Harves.

[stinger]

Dementia is yet to set in with me - Stewie is the best player I've seen in a Saints' jumper in the past 53 year, slightly ahead of Doc. Plugger third, I reckon Nick's 6 B&F's just shades Harves.

i think you will be found to be correct......stewart was always rated as russell's no 1...not the doc...

[happy feet]

My Dad worked for the Club from the late 1940's until the early 1980's and even after that went to every home game until well into his late 70's. He had seen many more players than most.

Dad passed away a couple of years ago, but I asked him a couple of questions before he left us. They were:-

Who was the best Saints player. He answered, without hesitation, Ian Stewart, and qualified it by saying Stewie was probably one of the best of all time. I did ask, better than Plugger, and the answer was yes and my old man loved Plugger.

Who was the toughest Saint? Answer - Eric Guy, without a doubt.

Best full back? Verdun Howell.

Best strong man in the Saints. Big Carl, and he rated his first game as the best first game ever. Influenced games by just being out on the field and making his presence felt.

Best bloke ever? Lenny Hayes. Dad had the opportunity to have dinner with Lenny a couple of years before the GF appearances. Dad said that Lenny did not want to talk about himself, but wanted to iknow about 1966 and what it was like to be there, what were the players like? What was it like to win.

A bit off topic but my 2 cents worth.

[saintbob]

My top 5

1. Lockett
2. Harvey
3. Stewart
4. Riewoldt
5. Baldock

[St Lenny]

Does loyalty count for anything? Harvey is clearly our best ever player. 2 Brownlow medals and played more games for St Kilda than any other player. And Burkey at 18 is an insult to one of our greats. His top 25 is crap in my book.

[plugger66]

Does loyalty count for anything? Harvey is clearly our best ever player. 2 Brownlow medals and played more games for St Kilda than any other player. And Burkey at 18 is an insult to one of our greats. His top 25 is crap in my book.

I hope loyalty doesn't count for anything. Its about our best 25 ever. No idea where you wanted Burkie. Seems about right to me. And IMO Harvey isn't clearly our best player ever. IMO Plugger is and by a huge margin but luckily this is someone else's opinion and he gets to share it with us.

[The OtherThommo]

Here are a couple of other people's opinions:

"Within the pantheon of great footballers, there exists a micro-division that, in excellence, exceeds all others. It is the province of the genius. Here the career of Darrel Baldock lies."

Stewart is quoted thus: ''It was slightly embarrassing that I won two Brownlow Medals when I was playing with St Kilda, because Darrel Baldock was far and away the star of our team. There will always be only one Don Bradman, one Walter Lindrum, and one Darrel Baldock.''

"Hudson said of Baldock: ''I know he had a huge influence on me and on my ambition to play VFL football. I have no doubt whatsoever that Darrel Baldock is the best footballer to come out of Tasmania.''

"He was brilliant, he was tough, and he was a man ahead of his time. In football terms Baldock is immortal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... 1afhv.html

The other thing which made him stand out was his leadership, and we have never had anyone who even approaches him as a leader of men. Team mates, coaches, peers (of which he had very, very few) and those on the periphery held no-one in higher esteem than Doc. He was the complete leader - he could do it by deed and word. When he spoke, others shut up and listened, and it didn't matter who they were.

When talking about a club's best, I rate leadership very highly - what did the player bring to the club? He brought the lot, the whole kit and kaboodle.

Trust is another quality that springs to mind, and trust in Doc was universal, inside and outside the club, from top to bottom.

All that and more, without being a dour sad sack.

And, like Lenny, he was a magnificent bloke and always had time for we mugs. I still cherish the 2 hours the brudder and I spent with Doc and Margaret in the Social Club after a game (when he came back to coach, pre the 1st stroke), just having a chat over a libation or 12. Like Lenny he wasn't interested in talking about himself.

[White Winmar]

Great article. Thanks for digging that up TOT. The thing this thread throws up is how fortunate, as saints' supporters, we are to have had five champions of the calibre of Lockett, Baldock, Stewart, Harvey and Riewoldt, play for us. As a group, they must be the equal of, or better than, any other club can come up with.

[White Winmar]

One thing I forgot to throw in when rating the players. It was something Lockett had in spades. The fear and intimidation factor. No one could make the team walk taller, or make the opposition more wary of his presence than Plugger. Ditterich had it as well, but when looking for the complete package of skill, presence, influence and fear factor, the big boy had it all.

[Freebird]

I know Neil Roberts rates Stewart the best footballer he's seen at Saints...I was 13 in 66 - seen all this era regularly...Stewart & Baldock were great mates and champions.

I still think (IMO) Harvey has them covered.

1. Harvey
2. Lockett
3. Stewart
4. Riewoldt
5. Baldock

[happy feet]

When Dad was working for the club, one game day there was a kefuffle at the Linton Street Social Club entrance. A young gate attendant was refusing entrance to two blokes who did not have their medallions with them. Dad went over to see what the fuss was all about and when he saw who it was, he opened the gate and let the two blokes in. That young attendant protested but Dad said, son, you've just refused entry to our Premiership Captain and a Brownlow Medallist. It was Doc (obviously) and Coco.

[White Winmar]

I know the Doc was truly great, but comparing him with Lindrum and Bradman is a little OTT, to say the least. They had to change the rules to beat the other two, to bring them back to the field. Even then, that failed. As I stated earlier in the thread, if we extrapolate The Don's stats to fit the AFL, he would've won 6 Brownlows, 18 best and fairests, and eight Colemans. Lindrum was so dominant, he outscored his opponents by thousands of points. A mate of mine who still plays the ancient game of billiards, reckons Lindrum's scoring was so dominant that it would be like someone scoring one hundred goals in a game of AFL. Then again comparing people from different sports is a case of comparing apples and oranges.

With the greatest of respect to the Doc, he is not clearly considered to be the greatest AFL player of all time. He's not even clearly considered to be the greatest saint. Great? Yes. The greatest? Far from it. Did they need to change the rules to curb his dominance? No.

[kosifantutti]

They changed the rules for Kevin Bartlett, but I don't think anyone considers him the greatest of all time.

[White Winmar]

They changed the rules for Kevin Bartlett, but I don't think anyone considers him the greatest of all time.

It wasn't just Bartlett they changed the rules for. Watch the Doc's highlights. He was an expert at throwing the ball out in front of him as he was tackled. It was a tactic that many player's used. Bartlett simply was one of the main offenders. If you check back you'll find there were plenty of others who did it. That's why they changed the rule. It had become a blight on the game, perpetrated by many players, many of whom were dead set donkeys. Not the best example, Kosi. Can you cone up with a rule change that was made to curb a single player? I bet you can't. The rules to curb Lindrum and Bradman were specific. A bit like the VFL making a rule to limit the number of marks Coleman or Hudson could take in a game.

[The OtherThommo]

I know the Doc was truly great, but comparing him with Lindrum and Bradman is a little OTT, to say the least. They had to change the rules to beat the other two, to bring them back to the field. Even then, that failed. As I stated earlier in the thread, if we extrapolate The Don's stats to fit the AFL, he would've won 6 Brownlows, 18 best and fairests, and eight Colemans. Lindrum was so dominant, he outscored his opponents by thousands of points. A mate of mine who still plays the ancient game of billiards, reckons Lindrum's scoring was so dominant that it would be like someone scoring one hundred goals in a game of AFL. Then again comparing people from different sports is a case of comparing apples and oranges.

With the greatest of respect to the Doc, he is not clearly considered to be the greatest AFL player of all time. He's not even clearly considered to be the greatest saint. Great? Yes. The greatest? Far from it. Did they need to change the rules to curb his dominance? No.

Not my quote, WW, Ian Stewart's. Stewart was an emotional man, prone to regular bouts of going OTT, on many a front.

But, I can say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, Stewart idolised Doc, and truly did feel himself unworthy in his presence. I'm not saying he was right, just how highly he rated the man. I also know Doc spent an enormous amount of time trying to get Stewart to stop the idolising, and gather faith in himself. That 2 hour conversation I mentioned earlier was highlighted, in part, by Margaret's tales of Stewie's devotion to Doc (some were truly bizarre, but that wasn't new ground for Stewie), and what Doc did to lift him up above his idolatry. And, Margaret didn't relate those tales on a critical note, more sadness.

Another personal tale - '86, 20 year anniversary of '66, reunion. Started on the Thursday, and I and buds had been in the SC watching training (over a cool libation, naturally). Went downstairs after training, into the Bistro, for a few quiet closers, and we saw a mob of '66'ers gathering, along with wannabes and pre-'66 types, and not just from our club (e.g. Sam Newman). We parked ourselves in a corner, not far from this group. Then we heard Cowboy say "He's on his way".

When Doc entered the building it was beyond salutory. The great man had returned - it took him an age to get beyond those who held him in awe. He shook hands with numerous, engaged many, always with a smile. He made it to the high roller group, which by that time numbered 15.

About an hour, or so, later, along time, and still, colleague, suggested I nip over to the group and tell Doc what I thought of him. By that time we'd been there for a good number of hours, so the bravado was up. Over I wandered, tapped Doc on the shoulder, at which point he turned away from the group to acknowledge my 'introduction'. I just told him I wanted to acknowledge what he'd done, for so many, and how so many of us regarded him so highly. The conversation went something like this:

Doc: 'Thanks young fella - would you like a drink?'.

Me (dumbstruck): "Er, ah, no thanks, I'm fine - I'm with a group of mates just behind us".

Doc: 'They don't look like they're going anywhere - let me get you a drink'

SAM NEWMAN: 'Doc, who's shout is it?'

Doc: 'Yours, John'.

Newman: 'MINE?!'

Doc: 'Yes, yours'. (others all chipping in, particularly Cowdy, commenting that if he wanted to drink with the great man then he needed to play by the rules).

Newman (sour): 'Alright how many am I buying?'

Doc: '16'.

Newman: 'But, the last shout was only 15'.

Doc: 'You're buying one for the young fella here'.

Newman: 'He's not in our shout!'

Doc: 'He is now.'

And, that's how I got a free drink from Sam Newman. And, when Newman handed me the drink, as I was grinning from ear to ear, the Doc just smiled, talked to me until I finished the drink and bid him adieu, and the rest, led by Cowdy, again, laughed their heads off at Newman.

And, a couple of years later, when I had the 2 hour chat with Doc and Margaret (the one I mentioned earlier), Doc remembered what had happened that Thursday night, without being prompted (it's a unique head I've got). And, he laughed at Newman's moaning, but without condemnation (....'Oh, John's just a.....').

A giant, a very decent man, and without any hubris or dominance of ego.

If only there were more like him.

[kosifantutti]

They changed the rules for Silvio Foschini.

[kosifantutti]

They changed the rules for Kevin Bartlett, but I don't think anyone considers him the greatest of all time.

It wasn't just Bartlett they changed the rules for. Watch the Doc's highlights. He was an expert at throwing the ball out in front of him as he was tackled. It was a tactic that many player's used. Bartlett simply was one of the main offenders. If you check back you'll find there were plenty of others who did it. That's why they changed the rule. It had become a blight on the game, perpetrated by many players, many of whom were dead set donkeys. Not the best example, Kosi. Can you cone up with a rule change that was made to curb a single player? I bet you can't. The rules to curb Lindrum and Bradman were specific. A bit like the VFL making a rule to limit the number of marks Coleman or Hudson could take in a game.

BTW. What rule was changed for Bradman?

[White Winmar]

They changed the rules for Silvio Foschini.

I withdraw my case. Touché.

[White Winmar]

A great anecdote, TOT, but what it proves is he was a great bloke and obviously, a leader of men. I can tell you any number of anecdotes about my experiences with Neil Roberts (the ultimate good bloke in my eyes), the cowboy and big Carl. All men who are giants of our club and incredibly good men. Does it make them the greatest footballers of all time? No.

[The OtherThommo]

They changed the rules for Kevin Bartlett, but I don't think anyone considers him the greatest of all time.

It wasn't just Bartlett they changed the rules for. Watch the Doc's highlights. He was an expert at throwing the ball out in front of him as he was tackled. It was a tactic that many player's used. Bartlett simply was one of the main offenders. If you check back you'll find there were plenty of others who did it. That's why they changed the rule. It had become a blight on the game, perpetrated by many players, many of whom were dead set donkeys. Not the best example, Kosi. Can you cone up with a rule change that was made to curb a single player? I bet you can't. The rules to curb Lindrum and Bradman were specific. A bit like the VFL making a rule to limit the number of marks Coleman or Hudson could take in a game.

BTW. What rule was changed for Bradman?

It's fair to argue Leg Theory was taken to an extreme tactical extent to stop Bradman, and became known as Bodyline. The subsequent reaction was to progressively change the rules so Leg Theory became outlawed (by changing the number of fieldsmen who could position themselves behind Square Leg.

Those changes weren't designed to stop Bradman but, rather, to stop the rules being exploited to stop Bradman, to the detriment of the game.

"Bodyline, also known as fast leg theory bowling, was a cricketing tactic devised by the English cricket team for their 1932–33 Ashes tour of Australia, specifically to combat the extraordinary batting skill of Australia's Don Bradman. A bodyline delivery was one where the cricket ball was bowled towards the body of the batsman on the line of the leg stump, in the hope of creating leg-side deflections that could be caught by one of several fielders in the quadrant of the field behind square leg. This was considered by many to be intimidatory and physically threatening, to the point of being unfair in a game once supposed to have gentlemanly traditions, but commercialisation of the game had subsequently tended to elevate the principle of "win at all costs" above traditional ideals of sportsmanship.[1]

Although no serious injuries arose from any short-pitched deliveries while a leg theory field was set, the tactic still led to considerable ill feeling between the two teams, with the controversy eventually spilling into the diplomatic arena. Over the next two decades, several of the Laws of Cricket were changed to prevent this tactic being repeated. Law 41.5 states "At the instant of the bowler's delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side,"[2] commonly referred to as being "behind square leg". Additionally, Law 42.6(a) includes: "The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker".[3]"

[White Winmar]

Without labouring the point, I'd be able to produce dozens of blokes who would swear that Neil Roberts was the greatest leader of men they ever met. From footballers, TV types, team mates, teachers, ordinary men in the street, supporters and those who spent months with him in the Antarctic. He also devoted his life to helping others less fortunate than himself. With the greatest of respect for the Doc, I think Coco had him covered in this regard. Being stuck in Lower Barrington wouldn't have helped, but if think you get my drift.

[White Winmar]

They changed the rules for Kevin Bartlett, but I don't think anyone considers him the greatest of all time.

It wasn't just Bartlett they changed the rules for. Watch the Doc's highlights. He was an expert at throwing the ball out in front of him as he was tackled. It was a tactic that many player's used. Bartlett simply was one of the main offenders. If you check back you'll find there were plenty of others who did it. That's why they changed the rule. It had become a blight on the game, perpetrated by many players, many of whom were dead set donkeys. Not the best example, Kosi. Can you cone up with a rule change that was made to curb a single player? I bet you can't. The rules to curb Lindrum and Bradman were specific. A bit like the VFL making a rule to limit the number of marks Coleman or Hudson could take in a game.

BTW. What rule was changed for Bradman?

It's fair to argue Leg Theory was taken to an extreme tactical extent to stop Bradman, and became known as Bodyline. The subsequent reaction was to progressively change the rules so Leg Theory became outlawed (by changing the number of fieldsmen who could position themselves behind Square Leg.

Those changes weren't designed to stop Bradman but, rather, to stop the rules being exploited to stop Bradman, to the detriment of the game.

"Bodyline, also known as fast leg theory bowling, was a cricketing tactic devised by the English cricket team for their 1932–33 Ashes tour of Australia, specifically to combat the extraordinary batting skill of Australia's Don Bradman. A bodyline delivery was one where the cricket ball was bowled towards the body of the batsman on the line of the leg stump, in the hope of creating leg-side deflections that could be caught by one of several fielders in the quadrant of the field behind square leg. This was considered by many to be intimidatory and physically threatening, to the point of being unfair in a game once supposed to have gentlemanly traditions, but commercialisation of the game had subsequently tended to elevate the principle of "win at all costs" above traditional ideals of sportsmanship.[1]

Although no serious injuries arose from any short-pitched deliveries while a leg theory field was set, the tactic still led to considerable ill feeling between the two teams, with the controversy eventually spilling into the diplomatic arena. Over the next two decades, several of the Laws of Cricket were changed to prevent this tactic being repeated. Law 41.5 states "At the instant of the bowler's delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side,"[2] commonly referred to as being "behind square leg". Additionally, Law 42.6(a) includes: "The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker".[3]"

I think Bert Oldfield might argue that a fractured skull might be classed as a serious injury. Bill Woodfull being struck under the heart and requiring hospital treatment might also qualify. The many broken bones in fingers and hands might also qualify. The serious bruising that the Australians suffered might also qualify. Where on earth did you come up with the "no serious injuries line?" Was that your opinion? If it is, you are plainly wrong. The injuries to Woodfull and Oldfield were captured on film and led to what you call the "controversy eventually spilling into the diplomatic arena." It came after four tests of brutal body line assaults, unsportsmanlike tactics that were specifically designed to bring down Bradman and reduce his incredible influence on ashes matches. His average in the series was still the best of the Australians with 56. Apart from Stan McCabe's brilliant counter attack, the Aussies had no answer.

As for the tactic not specifically being designed to curb Bradman, you appear to contradict yourself in the first sentence of your third paragraph. Look up interviews with Harold Larwood, Jardine's main weapon in the assault. I think you'll find it was all about Bradman, to the extent that Larwood was not allowed to leave the field while Bradman was batting. Jardine even refused Larwood's requests to leave the field when Larwood broke his foot. Once Bradman was dismissed, Larwood was allowed to seek treatment.

[bergholt]

Where on earth did you come up with the "no serious injuries line?" Was that your opinion?

I think you'll find those two paragraphs are copied from Wikipedia.

[The OtherThommo]

A great anecdote, TOT, but what it proves is he was a great bloke and obviously, a leader of men. I can tell you any number of anecdotes about my experiences with Neil Roberts (the ultimate good bloke in my eyes), the cowboy and big Carl. All men who are giants of our club and incredibly good men. Does it make them the greatest footballers of all time? No.

Neil Roberts, and Michael, were in the shout of 15 that became 16 that Thursday night. Even Coco deferred to Doc. While the occasion might have led him that way, I can still recall how Doc used to command World of Sport on a Sundee morning/lunchtime, and Coco was a regular. Doc could even get Ted Whitten to shut up.

I don't rate Doc as high as I do because he was a great bloke who got Sam Newman to buy me a drink - it's an example of part of the package.

I rate as high as I do because of what he did on the ground, and how he did it. Nobody of the time could play CHF as he did, and they couldn't do it as effectively. He used to get smashed, week after week, as was the way back then, which effectively ruined his knees (side on contact is the knee killer). According to the times he shouldn't have even played in the '66 GF, and he stuffed a shoulder not long before the GF (during the finals IIRC).

When Doc coached, before the 1st stroke, he changed the careers of a number of players. Plugger used to start his participation in passages of play from about the edge of the 10 metre square - bush footy from a physically dominant kid. It was Doc who told him to start about 10 metres further out, so he could read the flight and be able to exploit his speed on the lead to go at the ball, or edge back and exploit his size. He opened up the options.

And, when the club was ready to sack Rod Owen as Doc took over, for a variety of reasons, Doc told them to hold off, took Owen out on to the ground, and just rolled balls at him, at pace, and just watched how he handled the bobbling ball coming at him. Doc concluded Owen had great natural movement and hands. He gave Owen a chance, stopped the bullet being fired and it was far from his choice it didn't work out.

It was his innate understanding of the game, and sport generally, that gave him so much of his edge.

I also know blokes who played at South under Stewie. Stewie could do it (play), but he couldn't impart his know how, assess those under his tutelage or get them to improve (and he chopped down the odd tea tree property border, just to restoke the BBQ to stop players he was coaching from heading home from a club event).

Blokes like Stewie were almost entirely dependent on instinctive reactions, where Doc understood the game like very few. He knew how to play it, plan it, and teach it.

Opinions are people's own, and nobody will ever shake my conclusion that Doc was the best thing to ever happen to my footy club.

Darrell Baldock may well have peers from StKilda's history in the skills and executions of football. But, as a package and for impact he stands utterly alone atop my list.