One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: JohnF on December 15, 2004, 11:57:13 PM
-
I was looking through an old Herald Sun newspaper from July 1999 (lmfaooo@me hoarding the Herald Sun) which listed the top 200 footballers of the 20th century.
Unless i'm mistaken there were 17 Richmond players who made the cut:
1. Ian Stewart (# 6)
2. Royce Hart (# 12)
3. Kevin Bartlett (# 24)
4. Francis Bourke (# 35)
5. Jack Dyer (# 47)
6. Jack Titus (# 86)
7. Roy Wright (# 94)
8. Bill Morris (# 99)
9. Geoff Raines (#102)
10. Dale Weightman (#120)
11. Billy Barrot (#121)
12. Terry Wallace -lmfao @ including him (# 136)
13. idiot Clay (# 149)
14. Maurice Rioli (# 159)
15. Michael Roach (# 170)
16. Vic Thorp (# 188)
17. Kevin Sheedy (# 198)
Now, as you all know, anything that appears in the Herald Sun doubles up as toilet paper, but I just use this as a lead in to some discussion about our all time greats. I just wanted to know what any of you older more historically-inclined prix thought about this list. Are these our 17 best players? Do you agree with the order of the list? If the list was done today would anymore Richmond players be included? Some ommitted?
We can only wonder about the players we never saw, but to me, having Jack Dyer listed as our 5th best player and 47th overall is just plain WRONG!
LMFAOOOOOO@the Herald Sun having the likes of Peter Daicos, Gary Ayres and Dermott Brereton listed higher. stuff wits.
I'm also surprised that Royce Hart was so high on the list. The 12th best player of all time? Was he really that good?
-
It's not a bad list in terms of names. Ignoring Terry lol :santa, the only ones there who didn't make our team of the century was Rioli and Disco:
B. Sheedy Thorp Green
HB. McCormack G.Strang Keane
C. Bourke Barrot Clay
HF. Richo Hart Dean
F. Weightman Titus Morris
R: Wright Dyer KB
I/C: Rowe Raines Stewart Knighter (no Cambo John lol ;) )
From that best 200 list:
Stewart is in the right spot for his total footy career but he's not the number 1 Tiger. He only played 87 games for us. He just proved again at Richmond what everyone already knew when he played for the Saints - a superstar for his time.
Dyer is Richmond. 300 games when guys didn't play for that long back then. Coach for 12 years and captian during the 40s. 2 flags. 5 B&Fs. So he would be my number 1 Tiger :thumbsup. He definitely not #47 of all time ::).
KB would be the best player I saw although I only saw his last say 6 years. 403 games, almost 800 goals, 5 flags. Played midfield and then adapted to a forward role. Number 2.
Never saw Royce Hart play except old replays of GFs but he won big games off his own boot from the hardest possie on the ground. I'd guess that's why he's at #12. Leave it to our older stuff here on OER lol to say how really good he was. Be top 3.
The Flea was a superstar IMO. If he played in good sides for most of his career he'd be one of the best of all time. Use to always star for Victoria in State of origin during the 80s when players took it seriously. Number 4.
Tie for fifth between Titus who kicked 970 in 17 seasons at FF and
Bourke was courage and class combined. Never forgot the time he had blood pouring down his face yet played on.
As always with these lists they are biased towards the modern era but so is our TOC. Now of course none of us saw these guys play (well maybe Moi lol) but how's this for continued success. From 1919-1944 we won 5 flags, played in 14 GFs (including 7 b/w 1927-1934) plus was runner up again one other time and only missed the final four 4 times in that whole period :o. Yet there's only 3 names on this list from that time and only 5 in our TOC. At least double that amount come from our other successful period of 5 flags (and 7 GFs) - 1967-1982.
Just looking at their records blokes like Minogue (captain/coach for 6 years - 2 flags) and Bentley (captain/coach for most of the 1930s - 2 flags) would have got a mention if they spent their whole footy life at Tigerland - Minogue originally came from the Pies and Bentley got the stuff and joined Carlton never to return after Dyer's dad wanted him replaced with his son after losing the 1940GF. We must have a heap of others to be such a dominant team for such a long time. Not having tv footage robs them.
I wouldn't have any Richmond players from recent times. The best players show their stuff on the biggest stage in finals, grand finals and S.O.O. Sadly our blokes haven't had enough of this opportunity to fit into a best VFL/AFL 200 list. At his peak Knighter was our classiest player of the modern era IMO.
Well that's my attempt at being a RFC history nerd. Reading "Tigerland" and researching newspaper articles for the OER's history page makes it all stick in your head.
-
It's not a bad list in terms of names. Ignoring Terry lol :santa, the only ones there who didn't make our team of the century was Rioli and Disco:
B. Sheedy Thorp Green
HB. McCormack G.Strang Keane
C. Bourke Barrot Clay
HF. Richo Hart Dean
F. Weightman Titus Morris
R: Wright Dyer KB
I/C: Rowe Raines Stewart Knighter (no Cambo John lol ;) )
From that best 200 list:
Stewart is in the right spot for his total footy career but he's not the number 1 Tiger. He only played 87 games for us. He just proved again at Richmond what everyone already knew when he played for the Saints - a superstar for his time.
Dyer is Richmond. 300 games when guys didn't play for that long back then. Coach for 12 years and captian during the 40s. 2 flags. 5 B&Fs. So he would be my number 1 Tiger :thumbsup. He definitely not #47 of all time ::).
KB would be the best player I saw although I only saw his last say 6 years. 403 games, almost 800 goals, 5 flags. Played midfield and then adapted to a forward role. Number 2.
Never saw Royce Hart play except old replays of GFs but he won big games off his own boot from the hardest possie on the ground. I'd guess that's why he's at #12. Leave it to our older stuff here on OER lol to say how really good he was. Be top 3.
The Flea was a superstar IMO. If he played in good sides for most of his career he'd be one of the best of all time. Use to always star for Victoria in State of origin during the 80s when players took it seriously. Number 4.
Tie for fifth between Titus who kicked 970 in 17 seasons at FF and
Bourke was courage and class combined. Never forgot the time he had blood pouring down his face yet played on.
As always with these lists they are biased towards the modern era but so is our TOC. Now of course none of us saw these guys play (well maybe Moi lol) but how's this for continued success. From 1919-1944 we won 5 flags, played in 14 GFs (including 7 b/w 1927-1934) plus was runner up again one other time and only missed the final four 4 times in that whole period :o. Yet there's only 3 names on this list from that time and only 5 in our TOC. At least double that amount come from our other successful period of 5 flags (and 7 GFs) - 1967-1982.
Just looking at their records blokes like Minogue (captain/coach for 6 years - 2 flags) and Bentley (captain/coach for most of the 1930s - 2 flags) would have got a mention if they spent their whole footy life at Tigerland - Minogue originally came from the Pies and Bentley got the stuff and joined Carlton never to return after Dyer's dad wanted him replaced with his son after losing the 1940GF. We must have a heap of others to be such a dominant team for such a long time. Not having tv footage robs them.
I wouldn't have any Richmond players from recent times. The best players show their stuff on the biggest stage in finals, grand finals and S.O.O. Sadly our blokes haven't had enough of this opportunity to fit into a best VFL/AFL 200 list. At his peak Knighter was our classiest player of the modern era IMO.
Well that's my attempt at being a RFC history nerd. Reading "Tigerland" and researching newspaper articles for the OER's history page makes it all stick in your head.
lmfaoooo! Moi, what was Jack Dyer really like?
I'll save my rant on Richo and Knights getting in the TOC before Campbell for another time.
Agree with your listing of the top 5, but I'd probably have Titus and Bourke above Dale Weightman, even though Dale Weightman was my favourite player and the reason why I started following Richmond. If you think I'm nuts about Campbell you should have seen me as a little kid about Flea!
Weightman always seemed to dominate on the biggest stage in the Big V games, but then, so did Collingwood's Gavin Brown (as my Collingwood supporting old man made me aware of many times when I was telling him that Flea would have been a champion in a better team).
I didn't see much of Roach, but for those who saw him week to week, was he better than Richo? Must have been a sore point with some that Richo made the team of the century and Roach didn't.
It's also interesting to see that Hart was ranked Higher than KB when KB played longer, kicked more goals, dominated finals just as Hart did and won 5 best and fairests to boot.
-
Johneff said: lmfaoooo! Moi, what was Jack Dyer really like?
MT head lol said: Now of course none of us saw these guys play (well maybe Moi lol)
I'll answer this thread when i'm not working so bloody hard - but i'm keepiing an eye on it very closely :rollin
But how Stewart got rated ahead of Royce is mindboggling.
-
I didn't get to see Royve play live but do remember watching him on Seven's Big League replays when I was a little tike.
From what I can remember watching and hearing what some other great Tiger players have said about him - especially the fact he was playing CHF for his size then he'd come in at number 3 - possibly number 2.
I have been reading the Jack Dyer Story and Jack pays specail tribute to Mopsy Fraser and says he was the best player he's seen and Mopsy isn't even on the list :-\
I didn't see much of Roach, but for those who saw him week to week, was he better than Richo? Must have been a sore point with some that Richo made the team of the century and Roach didn't.
Interesting question JohnF - I saw Roach play week after week ;D He and Flea Weightman were my favourites back then.
Is Richo better than Roach? If the question was is Roach a better set shot for goal than Richo - that's an easy question ;D YES.
I would lean more towards Richo being the better player simply because of his ability to take contested marks. Roach never had to compete with the 2 or 3 (5) opponents that Richo does. Also, Roach had the likes of Weightman, Raines, Rioli, Wiley, Rowlings (need I go on) delivering the ball to him, coupled with having a decent CHF in Cloke for part of his career.
Richo hasn't had that luxury.
The other thing and I'll probably get howled down about this but on occassion against the better fullbacks in the competition Roach did struggle. He'd kick his bags of 6,7 and 8 goals against the low teams but would struggle at times against the likes if Rod Austin/Geoff Southby of Carlton, Marlarkey at Geelong even McCormack at C'wood (the one who ended up playing for us ::)).
Pitted agaisnt the best in the league today Richo IMO gets more of the ball than Roach did in the same situation.
-
MT head lol
Took a few years but I was waiting for someone to make that play on my nic's initials lol :santa
But how Stewart got rated ahead of Royce is mindboggling.
3 brownlows spread across two clubs helps.
-
The two Brownlows at St Kilda shouldn't count at RFC IMO. I really can't remember seeing him a lot, so i might be a bit unfair.
-
Yeah the rankings were for their overall achievements, not for their contributions to a particular club.
Even so, amazing that they had Hart, Bartlett and Bourke ahead of Jack Dyer.
If anyone's interested of the players still active or just retired this year:
Wayne Carey # 5 (too high in my opinion)
Robert Harvey # 21 (just after he had won back to back brownlows, so perhaps a tad high)
Nathan Buckley # 87 (about right)
Chris Grant # 98 (absolute Bullschit!)
James Hird # 107 (lmfaoo, suck that Bomber fans)
Glen Jakovich # 115
Andrew McLeod # 178
-
I didn't see much of Roach, but for those who saw him week to week, was he better than Richo? Must have been a sore point with some that Richo made the team of the century and Roach didn't.
It's hard to compare the two as Roach was a true FF while Richo is more a CHF/HHF who played FF. I agree with WP's summary of both of them although I would add that Roach knew where and when to lead unlike Richo who leads towards the boundary line (although Richo IMO improved his leading this year). You wouldn't see Disco kick 1.6 a number of times in his career either. Also the game was played differently back then. More one-on-one stuff with your direct opponent in the early 80s. No flooding or an extra man in defence in front of the full forward. I find it hard to split them as both had/have their weakness and strengths over each other. Almost complete opposites in a way. Roach was predictable as Richo is unpredictable.
If it was a contest of making a daggy item of clothing trendy amongst supporters then it's Disco by a mile ;D. Bring back the dufflecoat with the number 8 on the back! :lol
-
I'll save my rant on Richo and Knights getting in the TOC before Campbell for another time.
The OER couch is now available for use. The post-2004 period is about burying the past so lie down and let it all out John ;) :rollin
If you think I'm nuts about Campbell you should have seen me as a little kid about Flea!
I can only imagine your reaction John when the Flea's #3 guernsey was passed onto Duncan ;D
-
If it was a contest of making a daggy item of clothing trendy amongst supporters then it's Disco by a mile ;D. Bring back the dufflecoat with the number 8 on the back! :lol
Spot on MT bring back the duffle coat - the only difference is mine would have a big 3 on the back with a 8 on one sleeve and a 4 on the other :thumbsup until I ripped off the number 4 in 1983 :'(. I don't remember ever replacing that number 4 :help
-
I'll save my rant on Richo and Knights getting in the TOC before Campbell for another time.
The OER couch is now available for use. The post-2004 period is about burying the past so lie down and let it all out John ;) :rollin
If you think I'm nuts about Campbell you should have seen me as a little kid about Flea!
I can only imagine your reaction John when the Flea's #3 guernsey was passed onto Duncan ;D
LOL, I think I've been chewing Wayne Campbell a little too much lately, I should give it a rest for a while (lmfaooo, as if I will).
LMFAOOOOOOOOO@the number 3 jumper passing from one of the most co-ordinated players we've ever had to one of the most motor-skill deficient players of all time. lmfaoooooo@being too ashamed to wear the number 3 on my jumper after seeing Duncan for a few seasons.
-
the only difference is mine would have a big 3 on the back with a 8 on one sleeve and a 4 on the other :thumbsup until I ripped off the number 4 in 1983 :'(. I don't remember ever replacing that number 4 :help
Poor old Mark Eustice ;). At least one supporter per game would sing out "Eustless"!
Those numbers WP aren't a bad combo to have for next year though - Deledio, Tambling and Techno Roach.
-
Poor old Mark Eustice ;). At least one supporter per game would sing out "Eustless"!
haha "useless Eustice" was the cry I remember ;D :lol
Those numbers WP aren't a bad combo to have for next year though - Deledio, Tambling and Techno Roach.
Tambling = excitement machine :bow :thumbsup
Deledio = skill and looks classy :bow :thumbsup
Techno Roach = has bulked up acr9oss the shoulders but still looks a bit small - little legs ;D - but there is a clear difference
Bring on the kids :cheers
-
William Powell, thanks for your comments. Like you no doubt I was a huge fan of Roach and really rate Richo. I think your comparative critique of the 2 forwards was quite enlightening.
-
Roach was probably the most accurate prodigious kick I ever saw - any club ( perhaps Rocca dare I say it from a set shot ) Richo is one of the greatest contested markers of the modern era ( includes Carey in his prime ) Roach was thrown into the ruck later in his career as our club began to slide - so his golden period is really from 1978 - 1984 - Richo has never really had a team that to deliver the ball well to him, although I agree he does lead to the flanks too often. A million injuries haven't helped but he's still capable of destroying an opposition. Still a champion in my opinion and surpasses Roach for longevity and playing in an inferior club during his career.
-
Read this thread with interest, thought I'd register and comment.
If you want to understand how good Stewart and Hart were, get the prelimanry final tape of 1973 and watch that game. Hart came off the bench at half time on one leg. He and Stewart got Richmond back from 6 goals down to win.
Royce Hart was similar in size build to Wayne Campbell and dominated CHF in an era where any player that was too good copped significant illegal treatment. If Hart played today he would dominate again. I will struggle to describe how good he was, but suffiice to say, every week when he played he did at least one "special"(read freakish) thing. When Royce was playing Richmond always had a chance to win. And he often won games on his own account.
He copped so much treatment that he missed at least one third of the games that he could have played in and played most probably half his games carrying some form of injury. Often his knees.
Getting back on track and from a RFC perspective. I never had the pleasure of seeing Captain Blood play so cannot judge him. But for mine Stewart, Hart and Bartlett are pretty close, with Stewart (based on his entire career) slightly ahead of Hart and Bartlett a close third.
-
If you want to understand how good Stewart and Hart were, get the prelimanry final tape of 1973 and watch that game. Hart came off the bench at half time on one leg. He and Stewart got Richmond back from 6 goals down to win.
Welcome to OER HKT :cheers.
Amazing game that PF similar to the 1970 GF. 6 goals down and we only had kicked something like 4 goals to half time.
Don't you just love the Colliwobbles ;D.
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/tandberg_0910.gif)
-
lmfaoooo! Moi, what was Jack Dyer really like?
I'll save my rant on Richo and Knights getting in the TOC before Campbell for another time.
I didn't see much of Roach, but for those who saw him week to week, was he better than Richo? Must have been a sore point with some that Richo made the team of the century and Roach didn't.
It's also interesting to see that Hart was ranked Higher than KB when KB played longer, kicked more goals, dominated finals just as Hart did and won 5 best and fairests to boot.
Given how much time we've spent debating Wayne Campbell's place in RFC history, you've summed it up beautifully.
On Michael Roach, he kicked a 100 goals in a season. Until Richo does that, you cant compare them. And he kicked straight. I was there when he kicked his 100th from the centre circle. Many argue his run-up started at the centre circle. Either way, it went through the middle.
And I'm sure you've seen his mark of the century against the Hawks.
Maybe we can compare Richo with Brian Taylor. Does anyone have stats how many goals BT kicked in his RFC career compared to Richo?
-
Pretty similar statistically in terms of goals 1980.
The fat bastard kicked 155 goals in 43 matches, just a little over 3 goals a game.
Richo has kicked 580 goals in 194 games, just a little under 3 goals a game.
Mind you Richo has only spent half his time as a full forward, and as only a part time FF that's a darn good record for someone that can hardly kick.
Just comparing Roach and Richo, how was Roach in facets of his game other than the stock standard lead, mark, goal routine? Richo has been pretty defective in terms of playing to a team plan, having footy nous when he has to win the ball in non marking situations, tackling, his handballing is average, his kick-passing in dicey. Was Roach better in these facets of the game?
-
Maybe we can compare Richo with Brian Taylor. Does anyone have stats how many goals BT kicked in his RFC career compared to Richo?
3.035 Michael Roach Richmond 1977-89 200 games 607 goals (1979 - 90, 1980 - 112, 1981 - 86, 1985 - 80, 1986 - 62)
2.990 Matthew Richardson* Richmond 1993-2004 194 games 580 goals (1994 - 56, 1996 - 91, 1998 - 55, 1999 - 67, 2001 - 59, 2004 - 65)
3.764 (3.605 at RFC) Brian Taylor Richmond 1980-84; Collingwood 1985-90 140 (43) games 527 (155) goals (1982 - 71, 1984 - 61, 1985 - 80, 1986 - 100, 1987 - 60, 1988 - 73)
-
Pretty similar statistically in terms of goals 1980.
The fat bastard kicked 155 goals in 43 matches, just a little over 3 goals a game.
Richo has kicked 580 goals in 194 games, just a little under 3 goals a game.
Mind you Richo has only spent half his time as a full forward, and as only a part time FF that's a darn good record for someone that can hardly kick.
Just comparing Roach and Richo, how was Roach in facets of his game other than the stock standard lead, mark, goal routine? Richo has been pretty defective in terms of playing to a team plan, having footy nous when he has to win the ball in non marking situations, tackling, his handballing is average, his kick-passing in dicey. Was Roach better in these facets of the game?
You're like a walking almanac pulling stats out all the time. :)
Roachy didnt need to do much more than lead mark and goal. That was the kind of game footy was back then.
He was a great mark. V solid. They bounce off Richo's chest. But Richo would kill him for contested marks.
Good question would be how a Michael Roach in his prime would do in season 2004. He'd kick more goals than Richo, but I reckon he'd not be the superstar champion he was back then.
There were only 2 numbers you wore on the back of your bogan duffle coat back in those days with all the Richmond badges on the front. No 4, and No 8. I reckon 70% of supporters had the No 8.
How many out there still have these?
-
Read this thread with interest, thought I'd register and comment.
If you want to understand how good Stewart and Hart were, get the prelimanry final tape of 1973 and watch that game. Hart came off the bench at half time on one leg. He and Stewart got Richmond back from 6 goals down to win.
Royce Hart was similar in size build to Wayne Campbell and dominated CHF in an era where any player that was too good copped significant illegal treatment. If Hart played today he would dominate again. I will struggle to describe how good he was, but suffiice to say, every week when he played he did at least one "special"(read freakish) thing. When Royce was playing Richmond always had a chance to win. And he often won games on his own account.
He copped so much treatment that he missed at least one third of the games that he could have played in and played most probably half his games carrying some form of injury. Often his knees.
Getting back on track and from a RFC perspective. I never had the pleasure of seeing Captain Blood play so cannot judge him. But for mine Stewart, Hart and Bartlett are pretty close, with Stewart (based on his entire career) slightly ahead of Hart and Bartlett a close third.
Great post HKT. For the young ones who never saw Royce Hart play, how would you compare him to the Gary Ablett of the late 80s/early 90s?
-
Read this thread with interest, thought I'd register and comment.
If you want to understand how good Stewart and Hart were, get the prelimanry final tape of 1973 and watch that game. Hart came off the bench at half time on one leg. He and Stewart got Richmond back from 6 goals down to win.
Royce Hart was similar in size build to Wayne Campbell and dominated CHF in an era where any player that was too good copped significant illegal treatment. If Hart played today he would dominate again. I will struggle to describe how good he was, but suffiice to say, every week when he played he did at least one "special"(read freakish) thing. When Royce was playing Richmond always had a chance to win. And he often won games on his own account.
He copped so much treatment that he missed at least one third of the games that he could have played in and played most probably half his games carrying some form of injury. Often his knees.
Getting back on track and from a RFC perspective. I never had the pleasure of seeing Captain Blood play so cannot judge him. But for mine Stewart, Hart and Bartlett are pretty close, with Stewart (based on his entire career) slightly ahead of Hart and Bartlett a close third.
Great post HKT. For the young ones that didnt see Royce Hart play, how would you compare him to the Gary Ablett of the late 80s/early 90s?
-
1980,
Great question.
In my opinion Ablett was better. He was stronger and did the mercurial a little more often. Ablett could also physically dominate. Royce never really did that.
But Royce woudl just do the "inspirational" thing that would lift the entire team. Often a very big goal, or just a hugely courageous mark. I'll give one example, Rich v Carlton at Princes park, Really cold wet afternoon. We were down by 27 points (I think around that) at 3/4 time, and against the wind, rain/tide in the last quarter. Royce took a real strong mark early on on the last quarter against John Goold and kicked a goal. Swooper kicked a couple and I think Roger Dean kicked one. We're 3 points or so down, time on, ball gets kicked to the left half forward stuff about 55 meters out. Goold and Lofts or Waite get ther first, somehow Royce traps the ball between these two, pulls it back to himself, then takes one step forward (he's facing the boundary line) pivots and kicks the ball from the boundary line towards goal (he's still about 55 meters out). It goes through post high against the wind. We win. All you could see was Goold and Lofts/Waite just standing there open mouthed/slack jawed in awe. Goold to his credit shook Royce's hand with full sincerity about 30 seconds later when the siren went. Lou Richards and Mike Williamson raved about that goal for weeks.
However I may be jaundiced in that I can recall Ablett cutting us apart too often and thus hated him/envied Geelong. In the early 70's 90% of all other club supporters would have had a similar opinion of Richmond and Royce. Hated Royce but envied us for getting him. Every year the story would come out about how GR signed him for 6 shirts and 2 pairs of trousers.
Sorry for reminiscing.....
-
Nice memories HK & 1980.
Royce was an absolute star but for me our best ever is KB.
Around 20 years of top shelf performances, robbed of the Brownlow in 1973 when he regularly collected 40 possessions in a game, when he got older was able to adapt from roving to a permanent half forward role and dominate in the position, the best goal sneak and reader of the ball off a pack I've ever seen, uncanny goal sense from anywhere within range, a consistent performer week-in week-out and always did the special things in big games - particularly finals.
For me as well Ablett is the best ever. Bartlett and Matthews are just behind him and I can't choose the better of the two.
-
Ablett no doubt was a stuff (and loved kicking a massive bag against us all the time :scream) but my only query over him compared to say KB, Matthews or Carey is apart from the 89 GF where he singlehandedly kept Geelong in the game he didn't do much in the other 3 GFs he played in. Compare that to KB who was always in the best players if not BOG.
The bloke who sits in front of me at the footy played junior footy with Matthews down on the Mornington Peninsula. He said Matthews wasn't built like a tank back then but after getting clobbered early on in his VFL career he turned himself into the physical player he became reknowned for. Obviously crossed the line when he decked Neville Bruns behind the play in his final year.
-
Looking at statistics and the awards won (not having seem much of KB and Hart) it seems pretty difficult to see how Hart is ranked higher than KB, but many maintain that he is. I'm guessing those that rank Hart higher put a premium on stuff passages of play, thinking they override consistency, longevity, adaptability and clever (but not jaw dropping) play.
I suppose similarly with Ablett (though the analogy isn't spot on), blokes like Hocking, Couch, Bairstow ended up winning all the best and fairest awards for their consistently high levels of play, whereas Ablett was somewhat inconsistent, but managed to produce truly breathtaking moments which get branded into people's conscious and he is considered a much better player than his midfielder team mates.
Or to take another example (again not exactly on the money) closer to home, Cambo has more awards than Knighta and Richo combined, but the majority of supporters consider Knighta and Richo better players. It's much easier to reminisce about things that Knighta and Richo done than to think of the longevity, adaptability and consistent performances (with nothing sublime) that Campbell produced.
Maybe KB is thought of in a similar way in comparison to Hart.
-
Good point about Ablett JohnF. :thumbsup
Using my own logic on why I think KB is our best should make me not rate Ablett the best I've seen. I suppose I do because the times I was there to see him play were games against Richmond where he regularly beat us single-handedly. I don't think I'll ever see a better individual effort than his 14 goal haul from a half forward stuff.
There's a similar topic on BF where someone said that Hart would have brought a lot of players like KB into the game. Maybe so, but the same could be said for KB bringing Royce into the game by banging the ball forward 30 times a match.
There's also the other point that there were 200+ games KB played where Hart wasn't around to bring him into the game.
-
seen hart bartlett and ablett play and would have to say ablett had the other 2 covered with his freakish ability and power plus id doubt wether kev or royce would even dream of kicking 14 goals from a wing .(well maybe kb did dream it lol).i dont think i could split hart and barlett as both were great players for richmond but in differant posistions. as for richo being better contested mark than roach im not sure that would stand up over time.plus roach would only need a half of the marks of richo to kick twice the goals.might add id say to be a champion u have to be able to kick so i wonder how rich would go
-
1980,
Great question.
In my opinion Ablett was better. He was stronger and did the mercurial a little more often. Ablett could also physically dominate. Royce never really did that.
But Royce woudl just do the "inspirational" thing that would lift the entire team. Often a very big goal, or just a hugely courageous mark. I'll give one example, Rich v Carlton at Princes park, Really cold wet afternoon. We were down by 27 points (I think around that) at 3/4 time, and against the wind, rain/tide in the last quarter. Royce took a real strong mark early on on the last quarter against John Goold and kicked a goal. Swooper kicked a couple and I think Roger Dean kicked one. We're 3 points or so down, time on, ball gets kicked to the left half forward stuff about 55 meters out. Goold and Lofts or Waite get ther first, somehow Royce traps the ball between these two, pulls it back to himself, then takes one step forward (he's facing the boundary line) pivots and kicks the ball from the boundary line towards goal (he's still about 55 meters out). It goes through post high against the wind. We win. All you could see was Goold and Lofts/Waite just standing there open mouthed/slack jawed in awe. Goold to his credit shook Royce's hand with full sincerity about 30 seconds later when the siren went. Lou Richards and Mike Williamson raved about that goal for weeks.
However I may be jaundiced in that I can recall Ablett cutting us apart too often and thus hated him/envied Geelong. In the early 70's 90% of all other club supporters would have had a similar opinion of Richmond and Royce. Hated Royce but envied us for getting him. Every year the story would come out about how GR signed him for 6 shirts and 2 pairs of trousers.
Sorry for reminiscing.....
Great post mate.
-
Looking at statistics and the awards won (not having seem much of KB and Hart) it seems pretty difficult to see how Hart is ranked higher than KB, but many maintain that he is. I'm guessing those that rank Hart higher put a premium on stuff passages of play, thinking they override consistency, longevity, adaptability and clever (but not jaw dropping) play.
I suppose similarly with Ablett (though the analogy isn't spot on), blokes like Hocking, Couch, Bairstow ended up winning all the best and fairest awards for their consistently high levels of play, whereas Ablett was somewhat inconsistent, but managed to produce truly breathtaking moments which get branded into people's conscious and he is considered a much better player than his midfielder team mates.
Or to take another example (again not exactly on the money) closer to home, Cambo has more awards than Knighta and Richo combined, but the majority of supporters consider Knighta and Richo better players. It's much easier to reminisce about things that Knighta and Richo done than to think of the longevity, adaptability and consistent performances (with nothing sublime) that Campbell produced.
Maybe KB is thought of in a similar way in comparison to Hart.
The players we remember are those that had the ability to do something out of the ordinary.
You wont be posting on a board in 20 years time about a stuff goal you remember Wayne Campbell kicked, the same way HKT elaborates about Roycey ag Carlton.
Knighter will always be remembered for the 95 semi-final against the bummers, cos we were down, and he single handedly lifted us after half time with his solo goals.
You're right to suggest that consistency makes a good player, not stuff passages of play, but try telling your grandkids about a guy that played consistently. Ablett and Hart are the kind of players that did the kind of things you tell your grandkids about, because at the end of the day, footy is something we love with the heart, not the head.
-
That's the truth of it. When it comes to footy, the majority of people speak with their hearts not their heads, always has been that way and always will be. It's more a passionate enterprise than an intellectual one.
But I think they need to take some stock. If doing freaky things is the only hallmark of greatness then they should be considering Warwick Capper the greatest player of all time. :help
-
The spectacular things are what get people through the gate and kids imitating their heroes. They sell the game. You would watch Geelong games on the tv in the late 80s and early 90s just to see if Ablett would pull off the unbelievable. Also helped with Rex doing his Ye..ab..lettttttt! Remember that impossible goal Ablett kicked for Victoria against SA at footy park from the point post which floated through for a goal :o. Still don't know how he did it.
It's hard to remember an amazing performance by Cambo. He had that 17 possession last quarter against the Dees a year or so ago but that's about it. You need to do these sort of acts in big crucial games for them to go down in folklore such as Knighters solo runs and goals in that 95 SF or Hart's float across the front of packs marks.
It'll be interesting how history judges the Cambo's and Knights' especially if a new generation takes us to where these guys couldn't - multiple finals and a flag(s). We might remember them well and fondly as we saw them play live but future generations may "only" view them in the same light as today's generation see a Des Rowe or Ronnie Branton (nah the real one ;D). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".
-
That's the truth of it. When it comes to footy, the majority of people speak with their hearts not their heads, always has been that way and always will be. It's more a passionate enterprise than an intellectual one.
But I think they need to take some stock. If doing freaky things is the only hallmark of greatness then they should be considering Warwick Capper the greatest player of all time. :help
How about if the criteria was doing freaky things consistently? Certainly Ablett and Hart fall into that category, whereas Capper and Campbell would not.
I doubt we'll ever see a player like Ablett again. But there'll be many Campbells playing consistently every year.
-
It'll be interesting how history judges the Cambo's and Knights' especially if a new generation takes us to where these guys couldn't - multiple finals and a flag(s). We might remember them well and fondly as we saw them play live but future generations may "only" view them in the same light as today's generation see a Des Rowe or Ronnie Branton (nah the real one ;D). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".
Knights is a favourite son of the Richmond faithful and will be remembered as a shining light in a very dark period during the 90's. I think, (if we continue to be a bad side in the near future and don't surpass what we did in 1995) he will have his legacy secured by that game against Essendon. Should we win a premiership in the near future I think that game against the Bombers will be put in a little bit more perspective and it won't be cherished as much as it is now. It amazes me how deluded many people have become about our year in 1995. Yeah it was a solid effort, but I for one will never forget being there the following week when we got absolutely slaughtered to the tune of 90 points to the grand final losers. That's where we were really at.
Campbell on the other hand will remain an oddity. Any youngster who looks up his bio will see that he won 4 best and fairests, 3 runner ups in the best and fairest, and 2 all Australian guernseys and automatically assume that he must have been a legend - that is ofcourse until s/he asks his/her elders about him. Any question about Campbell will be greeted most likely with indifference, if not some irritation that still lingers about how he was soft, never did well in the big games, or was a reciever who depended on the hard work of others. He will survive for his incredible record, but for the whole, there won't be any fond reminiscing about him.
-
The spectacular things are what get people through the gate and kids imitating their heroes. They sell the game. You would watch Geelong games on the tv in the late 80s and early 90s just to see if Ablett would pull off the unbelievable. Also helped with Rex doing his Ye..ab..lettttttt! Remember that impossible goal Ablett kicked for Victoria against SA at footy park from the point post which floated through for a goal :o. Still don't know how he did it.
It's hard to remember an amazing performance by Cambo. He had that 17 possession last quarter against the Dees a year or so ago but that's about it. You need to do these sort of acts in big crucial games for them to go down in folklore such as Knighters solo runs and goals in that 95 SF or Hart's float across the front of packs marks.
It'll be interesting how history judges the Cambo's and Knights' especially if a new generation takes us to where these guys couldn't - multiple finals and a flag(s). We might remember them well and fondly as we saw them play live but future generations may "only" view them in the same light as today's generation see a Des Rowe or Ronnie Branton (nah the real one ;D). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".
Agree with all that, but I just don't believe that performing extraordinary feats (even if they are done consistently) should be the sole criteria for judging someone's greatness. its a very important one, but it isn't everything.
I'll make an analogy with boxing. Mike Tyson performed at an extraordinarily high level for quite some time, and was bigger than the sport itself at one stage. As he himself said, he could sell out Madison Square Garden masturbating. But for all of the media attention and incredible knockouts he performed, Mike Tyson was not really a great boxer, and if you ask any boxing historian, they would struggle to include him in the 100 greatest fighters of all time.
Now contrast this with Evander Holyfield, who never looked flashy, never really knocked anyone cold in spectacular fashion, always seemed to struggle against nearly everyone that was put in front of him. He was just a solid technically sound fighter who had all the intangibles: heart, will power, dedication, discipline and ring smarts. When he came to fight Tyson, he was a 25/1 underdog and out of 40 sports journalists writing at the time, 39 had picked Tyson to wipe the floor with him. It never happened. Holyfield weathered everything Tyson threw and outgutsed him, eventually taking him out late in the fight. Holyfield is now considered by those in the know to be one of the greatest fighters of all time.
-
so in your analogy holyfield became one of the greatest fighters by beating a fighter not ranked in the top 100 champions????? think a better analogy is that people remember the entertainers(ablett,carey,etc)not the back up dancers(cambo,bairstow etc) and on that score ablett was the sinatra and beatles rolled into one
-
so in your analogy holyfield became one of the greatest fighters by beating a fighter not ranked in the top 100 champions????? think a better analogy is that people remember the entertainers(ablett,carey,etc)not the back up dancers(cambo,bairstow etc) and on that score ablett was the sinatra and beatles rolled into one
Holyfield became great by beating Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Dwight Braxton, Michael Moorer and (arguably the second time round) Lennox Lewis - even though he struggled with all of them - fighters that were on the whole bigger and flashier than he was.
Agree that people remember the entertainers, but it doesn't mean that only the entertainers have worth, that's my point.
-
The spectacular things are what get people through the gate and kids imitating their heroes. They sell the game. You would watch Geelong games on the tv in the late 80s and early 90s just to see if Ablett would pull off the unbelievable. Also helped with Rex doing his Ye..ab..lettttttt! Remember that impossible goal Ablett kicked for Victoria against SA at footy park from the point post which floated through for a goal :o. Still don't know how he did it.
It's hard to remember an amazing performance by Cambo. He had that 17 possession last quarter against the Dees a year or so ago but that's about it. You need to do these sort of acts in big crucial games for them to go down in folklore such as Knighters solo runs and goals in that 95 SF or Hart's float across the front of packs marks.
It'll be interesting how history judges the Cambo's and Knights' especially if a new generation takes us to where these guys couldn't - multiple finals and a flag(s). We might remember them well and fondly as we saw them play live but future generations may "only" view them in the same light as today's generation see a Des Rowe or Ronnie Branton (nah the real one ;D). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".
Agree with all that, but I just don't believe that performing extraordinary feats (even if they are done consistently) should be the sole criteria for judging someone's greatness. its a very important one, but it isn't everything.
I'll make an analogy with boxing. Mike Tyson performed at an extraordinarily high level for quite some time, and was bigger than the sport itself at one stage. As he himself said, he could sell out Madison Square Garden masturbating. But for all of the media attention and incredible knockouts he performed, Mike Tyson was not really a great boxer, and if you ask any boxing historian, they would struggle to include him in the 100 greatest fighters of all time.
Now contrast this with Evander Holyfield, who never looked flashy, never really knocked anyone cold in spectacular fashion, always seemed to struggle against nearly everyone that was put in front of him. He was just a solid technically sound fighter who had all the intangibles: heart, will power, dedication, discipline and ring smarts. When he came to fight Tyson, he was a 25/1 underdog and out of 40 sports journalists writing at the time, 39 had picked Tyson to wipe the floor with him. It never happened. Holyfield weathered everything Tyson threw and outgutsed him, eventually taking him out late in the fight. Holyfield is now considered by those in the know to be one of the greatest fighters of all time.
Thats a different argument for me. If Tyson had retired from boxing the day after he went down to Buster Douglas, he'd be remembered as boxing's all time greatest and most feared boxer. Now he's just remembered for biting ppl's ears off.
I saw that guy fight, and he was just awesome. He'd won the match even before entering the ring. Thats how scared his opponents were. If he'd retired at his prime, instead of persisting at embarrassing himself over many more years, he'd be one of the greats.
Tyson at his prime was a better boxer than Holyfield. If his head was right, Holyfield and the rest would be too scared to even ask for a title shot. He's the classic example of a champion that kept trying to reclaim what he'd lost, and didnt now it could never come back. You cant be the kind of fighter Tyson was in his prime forever. Age, and in his case, dementia, catches up with you.
But gee the fights I saw him in against Holmes, Spinks, Tucker. He was the most frightening thing I've ever seen
-
It'll be interesting how history judges the Cambo's and Knights' especially if a new generation takes us to where these guys couldn't - multiple finals and a flag(s). We might remember them well and fondly as we saw them play live but future generations may "only" view them in the same light as today's generation see a Des Rowe or Ronnie Branton (nah the real one ;D). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".
Knights is a favourite son of the Richmond faithful and will be remembered as a shining light in a very dark period during the 90's. I think, (if we continue to be a bad side in the near future and don't surpass what we did in 1995) he will have his legacy secured by that game against Essendon. Should we win a premiership in the near future I think that game against the Bombers will be put in a little bit more perspective and it won't be cherished as much as it is now. It amazes me how deluded many people have become about our year in 1995. Yeah it was a solid effort, but I for one will never forget being there the following week when we got absolutely slaughtered to the tune of 90 points to the grand final losers. That's where we were really at.
Campbell on the other hand will remain an oddity. Any youngster who looks up his bio will see that he won 4 best and fairests, 3 runner ups in the best and fairest, and 2 all Australian guernseys and automatically assume that he must have been a legend - that is ofcourse until s/he asks his/her elders about him. Any question about Campbell will be greeted most likely with indifference, if not some irritation that still lingers about how he was soft, never did well in the big games, or was a reciever who depended on the hard work of others. He will survive for his incredible record, but for the whole, there won't be any fond reminiscing about him.
I think our year in 1995 should be put into the perspective of how long it'd taken us to get there, and that making the finals for the first time in 13 years was an achievement in itself. But the team went one further. Instead of being happy with making the finals, and going out the next week, they fought to consolidate what they'd achieved that year.
Losing to Geelong did not take away what we'd achieved that year. Geelong was an experienced finals team. It was our first time.
The point about Campbell is that if you look at his stats, you may think he was a good player. But if you ask anyone in 20 years what sort of a player he was, they wont remember too much about what he did.
Thats the difference between seeing a player play footy, and looking at stat sheets. Jack Dyer never won a brownlow medal. Nor did Jack Titus. Neither did KB. These guys are legends at our club. I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris. Francis Bourke who was one of our most dependable and consistent players only won one B&F. So did Sheedy. Michael Roach, whose number every kid wore on their footy jumper, never won a B&F.
But if you talk to Richmond supporters about these guys, they wont tell you how many B&Fs they won, they'll tell you about the day Bourke played with a busted face, or Sheedy smacking someone behind the play. Or Roachy's mark against Hawthorn. Or in HKTs case, the goal Hart kicked against Carlton.
Even you wont remember something to say about Campbell in 20 years cos he did nothing but collect stats :P
-
Thats a different argument for me. If Tyson had retired from boxing the day after he went down to Buster Douglas, he'd be remembered as boxing's all time greatest and most feared boxer. Now he's just remembered for biting ppl's ears off.
I saw that guy fight, and he was just awesome. He'd won the match even before entering the ring. Thats how scared his opponents were. If he'd retired at his prime, instead of persisting at embarrassing himself over many more years, he'd be one of the greats.
Tyson at his prime was a better boxer than Holyfield. If his head was right, Holyfield and the rest would be too scared to even ask for a title shot. He's the classic example of a champion that kept trying to reclaim what he'd lost, and didnt now it could never come back. You cant be the kind of fighter Tyson was in his prime forever. Age, and in his case, dementia, catches up with you.
But gee the fights I saw him in against Holmes, Spinks, Tucker. He was the most frightening thing I've ever seen
Tyson, in his prime, got dealt with by Buster Douglas. He may have taken Douglas easy and not trained as hard for the fight as he should have, but he was still at the peak of his powers. If he retired before the Buster Douglas fight he would be remembered as a legend who could not be beaten. If he retired a day after the Buster Douglas fight his stock would have plummetted dramatically.
Tyson was never a better boxer than Holyfield. He was a wrecking force with his power, but his boxing skills were never first grade, which is why he got picked apart by him when Holyfield absorbed all his wild looping power shots. That's not to even mention that Holyfield was considered shot at the time of their first fight (though I admit, Tyson was past his prime too, but still was considered as good as ever at the time).
Tyson was similar to George Foreman for me. Both absolutely brutal punchers who scared the schit out of every single man they entered the ring with. Both were considered unbeatable, but if you could take their power, you were a very very good chance of boxing the crap out of them, even if you had limited skills.
I don't doubt that Tyson would have had a better career if he wasn't a headcase. But he was always a psychotic mauler, and what was his strength, his brutal power and wildness, was his weakness as well (becuase hsi skills were never refined - and the way he threw them, they were unrefinable).
-
I think our year in 1995 should be put into the perspective of how long it'd taken us to get there, and that making the finals for the first time in 13 years was an achievement in itself. But the team went one further. Instead of being happy with making the finals, and going out the next week, they fought to consolidate what they'd achieved that year.
Losing to Geelong did not take away what we'd achieved that year. Geelong was an experienced finals team. It was our first time.
The point about Campbell is that if you look at his stats, you may think he was a good player. But if you ask anyone in 20 years what sort of a player he was, they wont remember too much about what he did.
Thats the difference between seeing a player play footy, and looking at stat sheets. Jack Dyer never won a brownlow medal. Nor did Jack Titus. Neither did KB. These guys are legends at our club. I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris. Francis Bourke who was one of our most dependable and consistent players only won one B&F. So did Sheedy. Michael Roach, whose number every kid wore on their footy jumper, never won a B&F.
But if you talk to Richmond supporters about these guys, they wont tell you how many B&Fs they won, they'll tell you about the day Bourke played with a busted face, or Sheedy smacking someone behind the play. Or Roachy's mark against Hawthorn. Or in HKTs case, the goal Hart kicked against Carlton.
Even you wont remember something to say about Campbell in 20 years cos he did nothing but collect stats :P
We did well in 1995, but a 90 point thumping is a 90 point thumping. Good sides don't get blown away like that. There were serious deficiencies in our side which got exposed in that match.
Best and fairests aren't the sole indicator of greatness, I never said they were, but there is a very strong correlation between guys that do good in best and fairest counts and them being great players.
E.g. Dyer has 6, KB has 5.
Bourke won the best and fairest in 1970, was runner-up in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and finished third in 1968 and 1973.
Hart won the best and fairest in 1969 and 1972 and was runner-up in the best and fairest in 1971.
Sheedy won the best and fairest in 1976.
The latter three players were all playing during the time KB was so you can imagine how they would have fared in the B&F if KB wasn't around.
As for Campbell, what I'll be telling people in 20 years time is that I hardly ever saw him play a bad game, unlike every single one of his team mates.
-
I think our year in 1995 should be put into the perspective of how long it'd taken us to get there, and that making the finals for the first time in 13 years was an achievement in itself. But the team went one further. Instead of being happy with making the finals, and going out the next week, they fought to consolidate what they'd achieved that year.
Losing to Geelong did not take away what we'd achieved that year. Geelong was an experienced finals team. It was our first time.
The point about Campbell is that if you look at his stats, you may think he was a good player. But if you ask anyone in 20 years what sort of a player he was, they wont remember too much about what he did.
Thats the difference between seeing a player play footy, and looking at stat sheets. Jack Dyer never won a brownlow medal. Nor did Jack Titus. Neither did KB. These guys are legends at our club. I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris. Francis Bourke who was one of our most dependable and consistent players only won one B&F. So did Sheedy. Michael Roach, whose number every kid wore on their footy jumper, never won a B&F.
But if you talk to Richmond supporters about these guys, they wont tell you how many B&Fs they won, they'll tell you about the day Bourke played with a busted face, or Sheedy smacking someone behind the play. Or Roachy's mark against Hawthorn. Or in HKTs case, the goal Hart kicked against Carlton.
Even you wont remember something to say about Campbell in 20 years cos he did nothing but collect stats :P
We did well in 1995, but a 90 point thumping is a 90 point thumping. Good sides don't get blown away like that. There were serious deficiencies in our side which got exposed in that match.
Best and fairests aren't the sole indicator of greatness, I never said they were, but there is a very strong correlation between guys that do good in best and fairest counts and them being great players.
E.g. Dyer has 6, KB has 5.
Bourke won the best and fairest in 1970, was runner-up in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and finished third in 1968 and 1973.
Hart won the best and fairest in 1969 and 1972 and was runner-up in the best and fairest in 1971.
Sheedy won the best and fairest in 1976.
The latter three players were all playing during the time KB was so you can imagine how they would have fared in the B&F if KB wasn't around.
As for Campbell, what I'll be telling people in 20 years time is that I hardly ever saw him play a bad game, unlike every single one of his team mates.
as u may well tell people u hardly saw him play a bad game u wont be able to tell them that he played many great games where as people can roll of a list of great games by kb and hart.in 20 years be doubtful many will even remember cambo,where as K.B and hart will still be remembered fondly by many if not all
-
I agree, there's no argument that can be made that Campbell was as good as Hart or Bartlett. I was talking more with regards to the players that Campbell played with.
I just beleive that when you measure the bad, the good and the great performances of Richmond players in the last 15 years Campbell is the best we've had. Which doesn't mean he is great. I'm not arguing that.
-
been our problem for nearly 20 years our best players were good but not great.seems our best players over that period were really very good 2nd tier players but sadly had to be our best players due to lack of a star or in some cases lack of a coach with ideas but generally both of those reasons
-
I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris.
Roy Wright won 2 in the 1950s, Stan Judkins one in the 30s and Ian Stewart was our last when he won his third brownlow as a Tiger in 1971. It's been a while although wasn't Raines and even Cambo (in 95) favourites one time but didn't end up with a single vote ::).
As for 95. By the time the finals came around we were a freezerless and Richoless side that had won only 4 and half of its last 11 H/A games. Despite a couple of brave efforts against the Dons, in hindsight we were gone by July.
When you look back at 95 we remember fondly the first half of the year when we kicked everyones backside apart from receiving a caning by the Cats (they were definitely our bogey team at that time). We had some ripper wins against sides we always lost to during the dark times. Bet the Hawks for the first time in 10 years in slog at Waverley, thumped reigning premiers West Coast by a lazy 10 goals at Princess Park and that Monday night mauling of the Roos where we kicked the first 6 goals in 10 minutes to say (as it turned out wrongly) that we were back in town for the first time in 13 years! It just felt good to win after all those years of failure and we put our "top" players wrongly up on a pedestal and kept faith with them after just one good year (sounds familiar :( ). Problem was despite Richo returning in 96, blokes like Wigney, Naish, Tape, etc... never got anywhere near their 95 form again and we as a Club became satisfied with getting "near enough" so another 10 years of mediocrity followed.
-
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Richo and Free didn't get injured that year.
That we lost by 90 points to Geelong makes me sceptical in believing that we were only one or two good players away from taking the premiership.
We had a great first half of the year but hey, don't we always get off to a good start before crashing and burning mid year?
-
I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris.
Roy Wright won 2 in the 1950s, Stan Judkins one in the 30s and Ian Stewart was our last when he won his third brownlow as a Tiger in 1971. It's been a while although wasn't Raines and even Cambo (in 95) favourites one time but didn't end up with a single vote ::).
As for 95. By the time the finals came around we were a freezerless and Richoless side that had won only 4 and half of its last 11 H/A games. Despite a couple of brave efforts against the Dons, in hindsight we were gone by July.
When you look back at 95 we remember fondly the first half of the year when we kicked everyones backside apart from receiving a caning by the Cats (they were definitely our bogey team at that time). We had some ripper wins against sides we always lost to during the dark times. Bet the Hawks for the first time in 10 years in slog at Waverley, thumped reigning premiers West Coast by a lazy 10 goals at Princess Park and that Monday night mauling of the Roos where we kicked the first 6 goals in 10 minutes to say (as it turned out wrongly) that we were back in town for the first time in 13 years! It just felt good to win after all those years of failure and we put our "top" players wrongly up on a pedestal and kept faith with them after just one good year (sounds familiar :( ). Problem was despite Richo returning in 96, blokes like Wigney, Naish, Tape, etc... never got anywhere near their 95 form again and we as a Club became satisfied with getting "near enough" so another 10 years of mediocrity followed.
Of course Ian Stewart. Did Morris even win one?
I think that's a pretty good summary of our 1995 season. But we had more than the Cats as a bogey team. Essendon, North and the Hawks used to do us over every year. And we beat all 3.
How many OER posters were at the game we beat WC at Princess Park. I was going friggn nuts in the last quarter.
How many were there when we draw against the bummers and Maxy did his shoulder? How many times were we expected to fall apart, but kept coming back in the game?
And how great was it to see Scotty Turner keep Jason Dunstall goaless at Waverley, after years of him kicking 15 goals regularly against us?
Can anyone name me another year since 1982 Richmond supporters didnt have more than one game to cheer about? There was enough there to build on. So we got rid of the coach. There's Richmond footy club for you.
-
Thats a different argument for me. If Tyson had retired from boxing the day after he went down to Buster Douglas, he'd be remembered as boxing's all time greatest and most feared boxer. Now he's just remembered for biting ppl's ears off.
I saw that guy fight, and he was just awesome. He'd won the match even before entering the ring. Thats how scared his opponents were. If he'd retired at his prime, instead of persisting at embarrassing himself over many more years, he'd be one of the greats.
Tyson at his prime was a better boxer than Holyfield. If his head was right, Holyfield and the rest would be too scared to even ask for a title shot. He's the classic example of a champion that kept trying to reclaim what he'd lost, and didnt now it could never come back. You cant be the kind of fighter Tyson was in his prime forever. Age, and in his case, dementia, catches up with you.
But gee the fights I saw him in against Holmes, Spinks, Tucker. He was the most frightening thing I've ever seen
Tyson, in his prime, got dealt with by Buster Douglas. He may have taken Douglas easy and not trained as hard for the fight as he should have, but he was still at the peak of his powers. If he retired before the Buster Douglas fight he would be remembered as a legend who could not be beaten. If he retired a day after the Buster Douglas fight his stock would have plummetted dramatically.
Tyson was never a better boxer than Holyfield. He was a wrecking force with his power, but his boxing skills were never first grade, which is why he got picked apart by him when Holyfield absorbed all his wild looping power shots. That's not to even mention that Holyfield was considered shot at the time of their first fight (though I admit, Tyson was past his prime too, but still was considered as good as ever at the time).
Tyson was similar to George Foreman for me. Both absolutely brutal punchers who scared the schit out of every single man they entered the ring with. Both were considered unbeatable, but if you could take their power, you were a very very good chance of boxing the crap out of them, even if you had limited skills.
I don't doubt that Tyson would have had a better career if he wasn't a headcase. But he was always a psychotic mauler, and what was his strength, his brutal power and wildness, was his weakness as well (becuase hsi skills were never refined - and the way he threw them, they were unrefinable).
By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.
Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.
Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.
-
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Richo and Free didn't get injured that year.
That we lost by 90 points to Geelong makes me sceptical in believing that we were only one or two good players away from taking the premiership.
If we still played Geelong in a knock-out final then it wouldn't have made any difference. They matched up on us well and we still would've been thrashed IMO. But we may have finished higher on the ladder with Freezer and Richo playing and won our first final and avoided the Cats altogether. We ran with the Blues who won 23 matches and only lost 2 for the whole year for 3 and half quarters without Free and Richo. So who knows. Unlike 2001 where there were clearly 3 sides totally out of our league, in 95 there was only Geelong who we weren't competitive against. A case of might of, couldabeen, only if,...but in the end it didn't happen :(.
-
I agree, there's no argument that can be made that Campbell was as good as Hart or Bartlett. I was talking more with regards to the players that Campbell played with.
I just beleive that when you measure the bad, the good and the great performances of Richmond players in the last 15 years Campbell is the best we've had. Which doesn't mean he is great. I'm not arguing that.
But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.
Doesnt really matter. We were arguing about whether great players are those that we remember for doing exceptional things, or those that played consistently. Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again. :P
-
Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again
:rollin
-
By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.
Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.
Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.
I beg to differ here 1980. Though he did well in cleaning out a lot of ordinary fighters who were in their primes and some older washed up fighters like Holmes and smaller men like Spinks, guys like Holyfield rising from Cruiserweight and two young cats by the names of Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe were looming as the next legitimate challengers when Tyson went down to Douglas.
Tyson got complacent, I agree, but again, this is where consistency and longevity comes into the equation. This is why consistency and longevity are big part of greatness. Just like in football, many players have a good season or two or even three, but the real champions are the ones that are able to back it up and stay at the top of their game for a long duration of time. Corey Mckernan was a world beater in 1997. Does that make him a great player? Not on your life!
If Tyson was hungry as ever and was fighting Holyfield then he may have been able to win, but I wouldn't bet on it. Who has ever blown Holyfield out like you suggest Tyson would have? The man was a warrior and even when he did get spanked he never went down without a fight.
-
By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.
Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.
Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.
I beg to differ here 1980. Though he did well in cleaning out a lot of ordinary fighters who were in their primes and some older washed up fighters like Holmes and smaller men like Spinks, guys like Holyfield rising from Cruiserweight and two young cats by the names of Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe were looming as the next legitimate challengers when Tyson went down to Douglas.
Tyson got complacent, I agree, but again, this is where consistency and longevity comes into the equation. This is why consistency and longevity are big part of greatness. Just like in football, many players have a good season or two or even three, but the real champions are the ones that are able to back it up and stay at the top of their game for a long duration of time. Corey Mckernan was a world beater in 1997. Does that make him a great player? Not on your life!
If Tyson was hungry as ever and was fighting Holyfield then he may have been able to win, but I wouldn't bet on it. Who has ever blown Holyfield out like you suggest Tyson would have? The man was a warrior and even when he did get spanked he never went down without a fight.
Dont remember how many years Tyson was the champ until the Buster Douglas fight, but he fought everyone that was available and beat them. Not just beat them, destroyed them. It was considered an achievement not to be knocked out by Tyson and last the distance.
Like all great champions, he should have quit when he was on top. Look at any sport and the same issue comes up. Bjorn Borg was one of the greatest tennis players I've ever seen. So was McEnroe. To see them try comebacks was pitiful. Diego Maradona was the greatest soccer player the world has ever seen. After he tried a comeback after testing positive for drugs, he was as pathetic as Tyson. Jo Montana is the greatest ever quarterback in NFL. He tried to keep playing after the 49ers ditched him, and shared the same fate. How pathetic does Nick Faldo or Greg Norman look when they play golf these days? Carey at the Crows is a similar story.
Doesnt make any of them less the champions they were while they were on top. They just should have known when to quit.
Holyfield is no different. His doctors told him to give up boxing years ago due to heart problems. He kept retiring and making comebacks.
At the end of the day, I've never seen Holyfield destroy opponents as consistently as Tyson did when he was the champ, not some clown with too many problems outside of the ring and should never have been allowed into it ever again. He's now tainted what achievements he had by the latter. But those that saw him fight, remember what an awesome spectacle he was in the ring. And Holyfield never was.
-
Did Morris even win one?
Yep.
How many OER posters were at the game we beat WC at Princess Park. I was going friggn nuts in the last quarter.
How many were there when we draw against the bummers and Maxy did his shoulder? How many times were we expected to fall apart, but kept coming back in the game?
I've told some people here this before. I was that party town Canberra :P for most of the 95 season due to work. Similarly fate and work would have me overseas during August and September of 2001. Remember emailing the Club about getting GF tickets if by some miracle we bet Brisbane (I was arriving back in Oz GF eve). I probably would have fallen asleep through it anyway due to the jetlag :-\.
So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state :help :rollin.
Can anyone name me another year since 1982 Richmond supporters didnt have more than one game to cheer about?
Supporters fell in love with the 95 side not only because they made the finals but it was exciting footy to watch. We were a tough side following a simple gameplan and that compensated most of the time for any skill deficiences. Once Walls came in and tried to make us play a more possession type style a number of our players were exposed. As a result we then tried under Geischen and Frawley drafting "skilled" youngsters like Fiora and Pettifer lol and lost our toughness and hardness.
2001 would be the only other year comparable but as supporters we had a different mindset by then because of all the 9ths we had and in typical Spud fashion we never smashed sides. The last quarter against the Roos early on in the season is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
94 wasn't bad either. First time in a long time we finished outside the bottom 4. We had a chance to make the finals for the first time in 12 years but bombed out to the Blues and Cats in the last two rounds. A prelude to what was to come in 95.
-
But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.
I would agree Freezer was easily a better captain than Cambo or Knights. In and under types can only lead by example. That's why we are now impressed by Cogs. I wouldn't consider Knighter's captaincy as anything to write home about. We never made the finals during that time. Knighter's last great year was 95. He was still very good for the next 3-4 years but he lost his pace as he got older. The early 90's was when he was at his prime IMO.
During the past 20 years I would say the Flea was our best player and best leader. Played well when we were a good side in the early 80s and played well when we were totally crap later on. IMO he would fit into the consistent category yet Tiger fans will long remember him as a champion.
-
But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.
Doesnt really matter. We were arguing about whether great players are those that we remember for doing exceptional things, or those that played consistently. Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again. :P
lmfaoooo, I mentioned Wayne Campbell because he was an example that was relevant to the discussion on consistency and the spectacular as criteria for greatness (even though it was somewhat irrelevant becuase Campbell was never great.) Anyway, any Campbell discussion is good value :scream :thumbsup
-
Dont remember how many years Tyson was the champ until the Buster Douglas fight, but he fought everyone that was available and beat them. Not just beat them, destroyed them. It was considered an achievement not to be knocked out by Tyson and last the distance.
Like all great champions, he should have quit when he was on top. Look at any sport and the same issue comes up. Bjorn Borg was one of the greatest tennis players I've ever seen. So was McEnroe. To see them try comebacks was pitiful. Diego Maradona was the greatest soccer player the world has ever seen. After he tried a comeback after testing positive for drugs, he was as pathetic as Tyson. Jo Montana is the greatest ever quarterback in NFL. He tried to keep playing after the 49ers ditched him, and shared the same fate. How pathetic does Nick Faldo or Greg Norman look when they play golf these days? Carey at the Crows is a similar story.
Doesnt make any of them less the champions they were while they were on top. They just should have known when to quit.
Holyfield is no different. His doctors told him to give up boxing years ago due to heart problems. He kept retiring and making comebacks.
At the end of the day, I've never seen Holyfield destroy opponents as consistently as Tyson did when he was the champ, not some clown with too many problems outside of the ring and should never have been allowed into it ever again. He's now tainted what achievements he had by the latter. But those that saw him fight, remember what an awesome spectacle he was in the ring. And Holyfield never was.
Tyson held forms of the heavyweight belt for just over three years before he met Buster. Tyson didn't stay on past his prime, he got lazy in the middle of it, and that's a whole different story. He was 24 years old.
Let's look at who Tyson defeated in his reign as champion: Berbick, Holmes (who was ancient at the time), Spinks (a lightheavyweight pretty much out of his depth) and stuff "Snail" Bruno. Yeah, he crushed them, but beating those guys does not make you great. He then he went on to lose to Buster Douglas, who got knocked the eff out by Holyfield in one round in his next fight and was never heard of again.
It's not only a worry that Tyson didn't reign long enough, it's that he didn't really beat any excellent (let alone great) heavyweights in their prime.
Tyson, although he was an excellent fighter with awesome power, had major flaws in technique, and he was more spectacle than substance. He was a media production that had everyone believing he was unbeatable because he was knocking (mostly) bums out left right and centre.
Holyfield never destroyed opponents like Tyson did, but Holyfield's greatness lied beneath the surface which wasn't evident or marketable as Tyson's gifts. He had more technical skill, determination, dedication and will to win than Tyson ever had, and it allowed him to compete with and beat better champions for a much longer period than Tyson did.
I wish the media would give recognition to the truly great fighters of the sport instead of looking for sensationalism and circus acts all the time.
The sport has had some great fighters in the last twenty five years, but you'd struggle to find any casual sports fan who knows anything about the likes of Pernell Whitaker, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roy Jones Jr., Marvin Hagler, Aaron Pryor, Alexis Arguello, Julio Cesar Chavez, Roberto Duran and Evander Holyfield.
-
I'm waiting for oxx to step in anytime now with an "enuff now"!
-
In order at RFC
Hart ( Turned games from his own boot)
Bartlett ( As above and played 403 games )
Stewart ( Big effort to win a Brownlow at his first year here )
Wright (didnt see him though )
Roach ( Last 100 goal kicker , doubt if we will see another one in our lifetime )
I reckon Ablett is the best player I have seen.
-
Thanks for steering the thread back to footy Jackstar.
Where do the likes of Dyer, Flea, Bourke, Titus rank in your estimation?
-
I'm waiting for oxx to step in anytime now with an "enuff now"!
LMAOO 1980.
I was simply playing mediator in a way that ThaiGirl would understand.
I was by no means dictating to you or anyone.
Just a LMAO.
My Top 5
Wright -check out his cv on the rfc website.
Dyer- Say no more.Could be no1 but I feel Wright was a better footballer.
Hart- Just watch him on just about any given day.
KB- The Ablett of my era.
Flea-as he was the most impressionable player on me in juniors.
-
lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.
-
lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.
*Camp David.Transcript*
Yasa Crakafat - " I want to be buried in Israel!"
Areil Sharon - "LMAOOoooo"
-
I dont rate the players of yester year purely because they werent as skillfull
Dyer was similar to Whitten.Tough hard players
Flea wasnt nearly as good as a player like Stewart. Flea was great but Stewart was a champion. Remember he won 3 Brownlows and winning a Brownlow in his first year at Tigerland was a mean effort
Bourke was good but not as good as the likes of stewart , hart and bartlett
-
I dont rate the players of yester year purely because they werent as skillfull
I hear ya but that shouldn't cancel out their contributions at a time when theirs were recognised as being special.
-
Hey Jackstar, all of those players you mention are from yester year. ;D
Here's a name from the dark ages. Don Bradman. Different sport, but just the same he was the best at his sport the way it was then. Like former champion footballers, it will never be known how he would fare nowadays but he can't be not rated for that reason.
-
I dont rate the players of yester year purely because they werent as skillfull
That's true jack they weren't as skillful but that's just a consequence of progress of footy. For example the commonest form of kick now days is the drop punt and the better players of today can kick it far better than Dyer who apparently first introduced it. A player who impacts like that on footy shouldn't be dismissed as inferior because those after him perfected what he first did and took it to the next level.
Using a simple comparison of course current day players are superior to those of yesteryear on the whole. But today's players learnt from those that came before them so it's a unfair comparison IMHO. It's almost impossible to compare between generations except to judge them on how they did relative to their peers of the time.
-
So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state :help :rollin.
So if that's all it's gonna take - I'll buy ya ticket to any state - just a bugger all those airline ticket sales have now finished
;) ;D :cheers :bow :thumbsup :rollin
-
You can't judge yesteryear's and todays players - different fitness regimes, skills training etc. Plus not many of them now smoke or have a drink at half time lol. I'm sure if some of the players from the '70s etc were given the same 7 days a week, fully professional environment they would be up there. But today's game is a far better standard.
-
I dont rate the players of yester year purely because they werent as skillfull
Dyer was similar to Whitten.Tough hard players
Flea wasnt nearly as good as a player like Stewart. Flea was great but Stewart was a champion. Remember he won 3 Brownlows and winning a Brownlow in his first year at Tigerland was a mean effort
Bourke was good but not as good as the likes of stewart , hart and bartlett
I reckon it works both ways. Todays skillful players may never have got a kick in those days without someone like Dyer or Sheedy thumping them straight onto the injury list. No trial by video back then. Thats what makes Hart such a champion. They'd kick the hell out of him every game, but he still won games off his own boot.
-
lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.
LMAO ;)
-
So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state :help :rollin.
So if that's all it's gonna take - I'll buy ya ticket to any state - just a bugger all those airline ticket sales have now finished
;) ;D :cheers :bow :thumbsup :rollin
;D :rollin
-
1980,
Spot on. Gees, this thread went everywhere over Xmas/New Year. Sorry I missed it. Barcelona beckoned. ;D
Back to the topic. I'll be contentious here:
1. If Hart played today, we would be comparing Buckley, Hird, Voss and Hart and Hart would be best. He was that quick, freakish and tough. Given that he would play with today's fitness regime he would be an onballer who would kill the opposition. Note: He played from 1971 with one or both knees dud. The surgery in those days was poor compared to today so we never got to see him at what should have been his peak, fully fit, 1973'ish (age 23) onwards. And he still could dominate. By '75 at the age of 25 he was pretty much finished. He was playing his greatest football at the age of 19 to 22. That's like saying Judd is at his peak and will only get worse (or stay the same) from now on.
2. KB could and did avoid getting hit hard and for an inside player (and he was an inside player) of his size that took some doing. Considering he had two streaks of well over 100 games continuous tells you how durable he was. He was freakish 9and great) I just think (believe) hart was better.
3. Hart was tough. He was targetted early in pretty much every game. In those days we also had other game winners, but Hart was always the target. The opposition feared him. In today's age where the sort of targetting he got is policed and doesn't happen he would end up playing 250 to 300 games and dominating.
4. That's why, had he played 20 years later, he may have ended up being comparable with Ablett. Contradicts my earlier a post a little but I've thought about it some more. By the same token if Bartlett came along today he would be a star again as well. He would be Judd like.
I know I sound like an old geezer looking backward. I'm not. I actually love today's football as much if not more than the 70's and 80's (except for Ricmond's part in it), but great athletes and footballers from previous eras would been great footballers in todays era. And Hart and KB both qualify.
Sorry for the ramble but it's the New Year.
-
2. KB could and did avoid getting hit hard and for an inside player (and he was an inside player) of his size that took some doing. Considering he had two streaks of well over 100 games continuous tells you how durable he was. He was freakish 9and great) I just think (believe) hart was better.
By the same token if Bartlett came along today he would be a star again as well. He would be Judd like.
As well as pace both Judd has and KB had blistering acceleration off the mark. Hard to tackle someone who's just a blur passing through a pack of players. Even when he was in his 30's KB could turn blokes inside out. Just ask Stan Magro ;D.
KB also had a wirey body type like a Wanganeen or Tuck. Guys like that just seem to keep going on and on and on and rarely get injured from collisions.
-
Speaking of good skinny runts, what do you think of the Melbourne player Robert Flower? Everytime I watch 'The Winners With Flares' on Fox footy this guy seems to be pulling off some remarkably skillful play or outstrengthening guys that look double his weight.
Was he realy as great as he looks on the highlight packages or did he lack some consistency but just did the odd great play during a game?
-
U gotta realise,Melbourne were the benchmark for schithouse.
Flower was a champ no doubt.
I think he was pretty consistent although i was only a kid and didn't really know what it meant.
-
U gotta realise,Melbourne were the benchmark for schithouse.
Flower was a champ no doubt.
I think he was pretty consistent although i was only a kid and didn't really know what it meant.
-
Agree with Ox. Flower was a champion playing in a crap side for almost all of his footy career. Like Bobby Skilton was finally rewarded a single finals series in his final year. The only top player the Dees had at that time. As a kid all you heard about Melbourne was Flower's class, Barassi's rants at Gerald Healy at the quarter time huddles lol and Mark "Jacko" Jackson insane but funny antics ;D. And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980 :o. Jacko and Hawthorn's FB Kelvin Moore were a classic.
-
Jacko and Hawthorn's FB Kelvin Moore were a classic.
The reason for Jacko's famous handstands in the goalsquare was because Moore had just told him that he would never be a good footballer for as long as his @rsehole pointed to the ground. ;D
Robert Flower was a stuff. Skinny, wore glasses, looked like a geek. What a player! Would have been a star in any side.
-
Speaking of good skinny runts, what do you think of the Melbourne player Robert Flower? Everytime I watch 'The Winners With Flares' on Fox footy this guy seems to be pulling off some remarkably skillful play or outstrengthening guys that look double his weight.
Was he realy as great as he looks on the highlight packages or did he lack some consistency but just did the odd great play during a game?
He was a better footballer than Campbell. The only thing they have in common is that they played for crap teams :P
-
He was a better footballer than Campbell. The only thing they have in common is that they played for crap teams :P
What was that you said about managing to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again? :lol :rollin
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
Same year Ox. IIRC it was Peter(?) Lane who kicked 100 goals in the U19's. Left shortly afterwards as did Jacko. Them leaving didn't make any difference though as BT then arrived at Tigerland.
Stevan Jackson was a KP dud we got from the Eagles in the early 90's :scream. Traded picks 3 and 16 for Jackson and Steven O'Dwyer from the Dees :help in another one of those classic Richmond recruiting moves :banghead.
-
He was a better footballer than Campbell. The only thing they have in common is that they played for crap teams :P
What was that you said about managing to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again? :lol :rollin
Ha! We're both obsessed with him but for opposite reasons! :thumbsup
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
Same year Ox. IIRC it was Peter(?) Lane who kicked 100 goals in the U19's. Left shortly afterwards as did Jacko. Them leaving didn't make any difference though as BT then arrived at Tigerland.
Stevan Jackson was a KP dud we got from the Eagles in the early 90's :scream. Traded picks 3 and 16 for Jackson and Steven O'Dwyer from the Dees :help in another one of those classic Richmond recruiting moves :banghead.
Thanx Moighty Toiges.
I remember Jackson now.It was because a long time ex-girlfriend knew him that the name was in my head.
He was actually beyond DUD.
stuff,we were pumping the goal kickers out back in the day.
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
I'd reckon Peter Lane.
-
Here you go Ox for old times sake ;)
Stevan Jackson: 21 games
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/swapcards/bulluss/stevan_jackson_1993.jpg)
1991: Out of the 16 players drafted that year, 9 never played a senior game :o and 6 of the remaining others never went on to play more 25 games with us. Names like Todd Breman, Andrew Underwood and John Mrakov along with O'Dwyer and Jackson :P. Paul Dimattina went to the doggies after not cracking a game with us.
Our only "win" from that draft was re-drafting David Cloke in the PSD when it use to be in February. He played all 22 games in 91 after 21 the year before. Of course Clokey kicked 8 against the Blues in his and what turned out to be KB's (as coach) last game.
-
I'd reckon Peter Lane.
That's the fella. :thumbsup
I still have an old pick of the 3 of them (Roach, Jackson & Lane) in an old scrap book - I'll try and get it scanned this weekend and post it for those interested. :cheers
-
[Stevan Jackson was a KP dud we got from the Eagles in the early 90's :scream.
A dud with "diickie Knees" IIRC = a lethal combination in the AFL dud stakes :'( :'(
-
robbie flower was a dead set champ. no doubt.people used to go to just watch him and also barrassi rates him as one of the best he has coached/played with.in his days teams played more through their wings so players like flower and hawkins both had skills most would die for and a great ability to read and set up the play. both a pleasure to watch except against the tigers
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
Same year Ox. IIRC it was Peter(?) Lane who kicked 100 goals in the U19's. Left shortly afterwards as did Jacko. Them leaving didn't make any difference though as BT then arrived at Tigerland.
Stevan Jackson was a KP dud we got from the Eagles in the early 90's :scream. Traded picks 3 and 16 for Jackson and Steven O'Dwyer from the Dees :help in another one of those classic Richmond recruiting moves :banghead.
Thanx Moighty Toiges.
I remember Jackson now.It was because a long time ex-girlfriend knew him that the name was in my head.
He was actually beyond DUD.
stuff,we were pumping the goal kickers out back in the day.
The funniest thing about Jackson is the lengths the club went to recruit him. They had him followed around and chaperoned for 2 months in Perth before the draft, cos they were afraid another club would get him.
Talk about pumping the goal kickers out back!!!
From memory, he was a big p1$$ head. Couldnt get him out of the pub.
-
The funniest thing about Jackson is the lengths the club went to recruit him. They had him followed around and chaperoned for 2 months in Perth before the draft, cos they were afraid another club would get him.
Probably we were that desperate because we couldn't afford to recruit a big name from interstate like other clubs. We mainly went for young country Vic kids because they came cheap. IIRC Jackson came to Richmond with a similar reputation that Morrison did last year. Someone who wasn't getting opportunites at a top side (Eagles) :P.
-
And he kicked 100 goals for the season in Richmond's reserves side in 1980
What year was it that we had Roach in the 1's kicking a ton,Jacko in the 2's kick a ton and "WHO"In the under 19s
(was it another Jackson-Stevan ?)
Same year Ox. IIRC it was Peter(?) Lane who kicked 100 goals in the U19's. Left shortly afterwards as did Jacko. Them leaving didn't make any difference though as BT then arrived at Tigerland.
Stevan Jackson was a KP dud we got from the Eagles in the early 90's :scream. Traded picks 3 and 16 for Jackson and Steven O'Dwyer from the Dees :help in another one of those classic Richmond recruiting moves :banghead.
Thanx Moighty Toiges.
I remember Jackson now.It was because a long time ex-girlfriend knew him that the name was in my head.
He was actually beyond DUD.
stuff,we were pumping the goal kickers out back in the day.
The funniest thing about Jackson is the lengths the club went to recruit him. They had him followed around and chaperoned for 2 months in Perth before the draft, cos they were afraid another club would get him.
Talk about pumping the goal kickers out back!!!
From memory, he was a big p1$$ head. Couldnt get him out of the pub.
Not sure how much of a pi$$ head he was, but he is a policeman, and I was lucky enough to sit just behind him out at Arctic Park. He was as mad as a cut snake.
Could have been heaps better
-
The funniest thing about Jackson is the lengths the club went to recruit him. They had him followed around and chaperoned for 2 months in Perth before the draft, cos they were afraid another club would get him.
Probably we were that desperate because we couldn't afford to recruit a big name from interstate like other clubs. We mainly went for young country Vic kids because they came cheap. IIRC Jackson came to Richmond with a similar reputation that Morrison did last year. Someone who wasn't getting opportunites at a top side (Eagles) :P.
Morrison was the most disliked player on the Lions List. to much of an I am.
-
That's the fella. :thumbsup
I still have an old pick of the 3 of them (Roach, Jackson & Lane) in an old scrap book - I'll try and get it scanned this weekend and post it for those interested. :cheers
Here's the pic I was talking about - from the Footy record - 23/8/80 :thumbsup
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/avatars/1980_century goal kickers.jpg)
-
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/avatars/1980_century goal kickers.jpg)
Great pic WP :cheers. I still find it hard to imagine Jacko playing serious footy.
Imagine us trying to fit all three into a forward line when we couldn't even fit two with both Disco and BT :'(.
-
Thanx Moighty.
I'll scan it and keep it in my wallet.
Love to se the pic WP.
BTW,Happy Birfday to your mama. :thumbsup
-
BTW,Happy Birfday to your mama. :thumbsup
Thanks kindly Ox
My Ma had a great day yesterday recovering from her surprise party Sunday afternoon :thumbsup ;D
-
Richo needing only 4 more goals to get to 600 and 12 to pass Disco reminded me of this thread. Anyone changed their mind on the Richo vs Roach debate with Richo leading the Coleman medal at the moment?
----------------------------------
Richo set for 600 six-pointers
9:57:14 AM Thu 21 April, 2005
Rhett Bartlett
richmondfc.com.au
Matthew Richardson is on the verge of becoming just the fourth player in Richmond’s history to kick 600 goals for the Club.
‘Richo’, who has been in sparkling form during the opening rounds of the 2005 season, has kicked 596 goals in his 198 league games. Interestingly, he will achieve the 600-goal feat wearing the same guernsey number as the first man to reach the milestone at Tigerland – Jack Titus.
’Skinny’ Titus chalked up his 600th goal in Round 7 of the 1938 season against Fitzroy. It would be another 42 years before a Richmond player would join him, with Kevin Bartlett kicking his 600th goal in the Round 20, 1980 match against Melbourne.
Michael Roach was the last Richmond player to reach the 600-goal milestone, also against Fitzroy, in the Round 13 clash of 1989.
It would remiss to not mention a remarkable connection between these three men . . . Jack Titus coached Kevin Bartlett in 1965, during Len Smith's absence following a heart attack. Kevin Bartlett then coached Michael Roach in his last season as a Richmond player. Michael Roach's son, Thomas, is a member of the current Tigers playing list, and a teammate of Matthew Richardson.
For the record, Richo will narrowly miss a record-breaking feat – 600 goals in the least number of senior games at Richmond. If he kicks four goals against St Kilda at Telstra Dome this Sunday, in his 199th match, he will be placed third overall on this exclusive list.
Number of Games to 600th Goal:
194 – Jack Titus
195 – Michael Roach
199 – Matthew Richardson *
334 – Kevin Bartlett
Interestingly, Richardson will join Michael Roach as the only 600-plus goalkicker in the Tigers’ history not to win a Club Best and Fairest. He also will become the only member of that great goalkicking list not to have played in a premiership side.
The current list of all-time leading Tiger goalkickers is:
970 – Jack Titus
778 – Kevin Bartlett
607 – Michael Roach
596 – Matthew Richardson *
Rhett Bartlett
www.rhettrospective.com
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=197650
-
ROFLFMAOOooooooooooooooooo!
Anal Rhettentive is at it again with the totally uninteresting coincidences.
"It would remiss to not mention a remarkable connection between these three men . . . Jack Titus coached Kevin Bartlett in 1965, during Len Smith's absence following a heart attack. Kevin Bartlett then coached Michael Roach in his last season as a Richmond player. Michael Roach's son, Thomas, is a member of the current Tigers playing list, and a teammate of Matthew Richardson."
lmfaooooo@ this being a remarkable connection.
i wonder if the lad is a numerologist.
-
i wonder if the lad is a numerologist.
LOL saying that with your 1000th post John ;D
-
lmfaoooo MT,it would be remiss not to mention that remarkable connection :rollin
-
ROFLFMAOOooooooooooooooooo!
Anal Rhettentive is at it again with the totally uninteresting coincidences.
"It would remiss to not mention a remarkable connection between these three men . . . Jack Titus coached Kevin Bartlett in 1965, during Len Smith's absence following a heart attack. Kevin Bartlett then coached Michael Roach in his last season as a Richmond player. Michael Roach's son, Thomas, is a member of the current Tigers playing list, and a teammate of Matthew Richardson."
lmfaooooo@ this being a remarkable connection.
i wonder if the lad is a numerologist.
Remarkable. I guess Richo wouldn' t be a footballer if it were not for Len Smith's dodgy ticker. Pathetic.
I think the more remarkable connection is probably that between Rhett's hand and his genitals.
To use the last line of MAGNUM FORCE (1973)
'A man's got to know his limitations'
-
:rollin J :rollin A :rollin K :rollin E :rollin
-
Just got a question regarding All-Australian selections so I might as well ask it here:
Why is it that a lot of our lesser like players have won All Australian guernseys and a lot of our champions haven't?
e.g. Bartlett was never All-Australian. Royce Hart was All Australian only once. Whereas Gaspar, Cambo, Richo have 2 AA each.
Was this because they stopped bestowing the honour on players for a while?
-
Don't know the answer JohnF and I could be totally off the mark here but before the AFL came along wasn't the All-Australian team decided from the State Carnivals as opposed to some panel of journos now? If that's correct then that may have had something to do with it. Possibly explain why the Flea got a few as he was a star in State of Origin.
Did Royce play for his home state of Tassie or the VFL?
All Australian Tigers:
-----------------
Rowe, Des 1956
Wright, Roy 1956
Crowe, Neville 1966
Hart, Royce 1969
Cloke, David 1979
Monteath, Bruce 1979
Roach, Michael 1979
Jess, Jim 1980
Raines, Geoff 1980
Lee, Mark 1980, 1983, 1985
Rioli, Maurice 1983, 1986 (also achieved the honour for a third time in 1988 after retiring from the VFL following the 1987 season)
Weightman, Dale 1985, 1986, 1988
Campbell, Wayne 1995
Richardson, Matthew 1996
Knights, Matthew 1998
Gaspar, Darren 2000, 2001
Kellaway, Andrew 2000
Ottens, Brad 2001
-
That would explain it MT. Even so you'd think Bartlett would have done something for the Big V to get AA selection at least once, considering he played 20 games for Victoria and even captained the side. I remember seeing one game where played against Western Australia (was in the State of Origin marathon on Fox Footy recently) and he absolutely dominated.
-
All Australian Tigers:
-----------------
Rowe, Des 1956
Wright, Roy 1956
Crowe, Neville 1966
Hart, Royce 1969
Cloke, David 1979
Monteath, Bruce 1979
Roach, Michael 1979
Jess, Jim 1980
Raines, Geoff 1980
Lee, Mark 1980, 1983, 1985
Weightman, Dale 1985, 1986, 1988
Campbell, Wayne 1995
Richardson, Matthew 1996
Knights, Matthew 1998
Gaspar, Darren 2000, 2001
Kellaway, Andrew 2000
Ottens, Brad 2001
Both Richo and Cambo got AA in 1999 as well.
p.s. Cambo should have been AA in 2001 as well (imo his best year) :thumbsup ;D
-
http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/1980_adelaide_state_of_origin_carnival.htm - (KB captained and Hafey coached Vic)
http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/all_australian_teams.htm - AA teams 1953-1988. Yeah it looks like the AA teams were decided from state carnivals so there wasn't one named every year until 1985 onwards.
Just to answer my own question Royce played for the VFL.
-
All Australian Tigers:
-----------------
Rowe, Des 1956
Wright, Roy 1956
Crowe, Neville 1966
Hart, Royce 1969
Cloke, David 1979
Monteath, Bruce 1979
Roach, Michael 1979
Jess, Jim 1980
Raines, Geoff 1980
Lee, Mark 1980, 1983, 1985
Weightman, Dale 1985, 1986, 1988
Campbell, Wayne 1995
Richardson, Matthew 1996
Knights, Matthew 1998
Gaspar, Darren 2000, 2001
Kellaway, Andrew 2000
Ottens, Brad 2001
Both Richo and Cambo got AA in 1999 as well.
p.s. Cambo should have been AA in 2001 as well (imo his best year) :thumbsup ;D
Just reminding us he won one more than Knighter lol.
ps. you really are Cambo aren't ya? LOL ;) :rollin
-
I've been accused of being his gf before, roflmaooo :rollin
-
I've been accused of being his gf before, roflmaooo :rollin
:lol
-
A good time to give this thread another viewing with Cambo's retirement.
How do you guys think Cambo will be judged by history and where would you rank him personally?
4 B&Fs and 8 times in the top 3. Twice AA, S.O.O, and captain for 4 years including leading us to a rare finals appearance yet played in mostly crap teams so no flag or brownlow (not a vote in 95 ??? ) and didn't make it into the RFC team of the century yet Richo and Knighter did (waiting for promised JohnF "rant" about the latter lol).
-
lmfao, good bump MT.
It's very hard to get any truth regarding a player's ranking in their own era let alone all-time, but it's something we can't help ourselves in doing. We need to settle the hierarchy of greats!
I'm not sure if there really is any truth in the matter, a lot depends on one's values and what characteristics one cherishes over others.
For some, characteristics like leadership, courage, bravery, self-sacrifice, stand out above all others. For others, skill, poise, grace and footy smarts stand out. Others still place a premium on the spectacular, the extraordinary and what takes one's breath away. There are also those who place the highest value on consistency, durability, longevity.
In a way, if there is any truth to the matter, you really have to consider everything. But really, I'm not sure what should really take precedence in your value system.
This isn't exactly mathematics and it is open to interpretation to a fair degree.
Not having seen much footy before the late 80's, I really don't have much of an idea about where to rank Cambo all time. In the last 15 years though it is somewhat easier. For me he has been the best.
He definitely wasn't the most spectacular and didn't do much that was extraordinary that would get you out of your seat and scream like a madman. In that respect, there have been many that have been better than him. Nor was he the bravest or the most self-sacrificial player.
But in other respects, he was the man.
Great kicking skills on both sides of the body. Many criticise him for kicking floaters or toe pokes that go nowhere, but I think this is an unfair criticism, not taking into account that a lot of Cambo's possessions were earnt in the clinches where moving the ball forward by any means necessary was the name of the game. When he had time to size up his options he was a very accurate kick. His goal kicking from set shots was superb and as Nathan Brown has said, if he was leading for the mark and the ball could be in any player's hands in the team he would want it to be Campbell, becuase he is a great kick and makes the right decisions. The only legitimate criticism of his kicking was that he couldn't really get more than 50 metres in his prime, which would allow him to kick more goals than he did from outside 50. But within 40 metres he was very pin-point.
His handballing was always good and he had very clean hands. In this facet though, i would say Knights, Broderick and Lambert were all slightly better. He would be fourth in line.
His marking was also very good for his size. He rarely lost to players his size in one on one contests, especially other midfielders.
Without doubt he was the most footy smart Tiger player of his time. His main asset was his uncanny ability to find the footy. Even as a hack coming off the bench he can still gather 17 or 18 touches a game playing little more than half of it. He just knows where to position himself to find the Sherrin. He jsut thinks one step ahead of most players and is tremendously alert.
His decision making and poise with the footy are also unquestioned. In terms of poise and decision making I'd say maybe Knights was slightly better in his prime. Knights was rediculously well poised and our most graceful player and his decision making especially by hand was great. Campbell wasn't that far behind though. Though nowhere near as graceful he was very quick minded and clear in his decision making. Rarely did he choose wrong options.
In terms of longevity, consistency and durability he has clearly been the best. He has played the most games, been the most consistent as his trophy cabinet attests to with his outstanding B&F results, and before injuries caught up with him near the end, he was extremely durable. He was an endurance stuff and would run his guts out from the start to the finish of games and would never stop trying win lose or draw. No one would come close to covering the territory he has in matches over the last 15 years I'd say.
He also had good leadership qualities. I'd say only Tony Free was as good a captain as him. Campbell was a smarter and more tactically aware player, but Free had courage and grit, and inspired his team mates more than what Campbell could. Before his calf and Achilles injuries Campbell was making a very good fist of it as captain though. He had increased his toughness and was one of the leading pack clearance players in the competition. He had earnt the respect of players and most fickle supporters alike. He was setting a good example with his discipline, dedication and professionalism.
All time ranking? Like I said, I haven't seen enough before the late 80s to make any real assessment, but I admit it does make it seem weird to be in the company of legends like Bartlett, Dyer, Bourke, Titus. I can't convince myself that he belongs in their stratosphere.
But to me at least, if they were putting Knights and Richo in the Tigers team of the Century, then Campbell definitely ranks in the top 20 tigers, becuase IMO, Campbell was better than both.
-
can anyone tell me why maurice rioli never made AA
-
If I had to rank the top 5/6 on reputation.
1 - Jack Dyer
2 - Ian Stewart
3 - Royce Hart
4 - Jack Titus
5 - Kevin Bartlett
6 - Francis Bourke
Intersting to look at the team of the century:
Official 'Team of the Century'
Backs: Kevin Sheedy Vic Thorp Michael Green
Half Backs: Basil McCormack Gordon Strang Mervyn Keane
Centres: Francis Bourke Bill Barrot idiot Clay
Half Forwards: Matthew Richardson Royce Hart Roger Dean
Forwards: Dale Weightman Jack Titus Bill Morris
1st Ruck: Roy Wright Jack Dyer Kevin Bartlett
Interchange: Des Rowe Geoff Raines Ian Stewart
Matthew Knights
Coach: Tom Hafey
-
A consistently very good footballer. I don't think I ever really expected Campbell to tear a game apart. I knew he would almost never let us down though. He must have been a dream to coach in that respect. I think he is the second best footballer we have had in the last 10-15 years. Knighter had more vision, more poise. He was our beating heart and the player, until the early 2000s, that the opposition knew they had to stop. Campbell was a very good footballer over a very long time, and will join the likes of Knights, Weightman, Free and Gale as men who gave their hearts to an ultimately fruitless cause.
How do you guys think Cambo will be judged by history and where would you rank him personally?
-
can anyone tell me why maurice rioli never made AA
X, I just noticed his name wasn't on the list I put up in an earlier post in this thread. I'll edit him back in.
Rioli actually won AA honours 3 times - in 1983 and 86 when he was at Richmond playing for Western Australia (the AA team only came from triannually held state carnivals) and for a third time in 1988 playing for NT after he left the Tiges after 1987.
-
ROFLFMAOOooooooooooooooooo!
Anal Rhettentive is at it again with the totally uninteresting coincidences.
"It would remiss to not mention a remarkable connection between these three men . . . Jack Titus coached Kevin Bartlett in 1965, during Len Smith's absence following a heart attack. Kevin Bartlett then coached Michael Roach in his last season as a Richmond player. Michael Roach's son, Thomas, is a member of the current Tigers playing list, and a teammate of Matthew Richardson."
lmfaooooo@ this being a remarkable connection.
i wonder if the lad is a numerologist.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
A remarkable connection indeed,yet not as remarkable as the connection that led to his conception.
"Bob Jones coached Bill Jans.
Bill Jans had a kid that rooted his cousin that was the daughter of Tom Jackson.
Tom Jackson was a garbage collector from morwell that used to watch KB play in juniors"
Another amazing connection.
-
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Haven't seen much of Rhett's influence on the RFC Website of late. Is he still writing articles for them or has his schedule been filled with his website about famous last lines of movies taking off?
-
I've heard he's working on a new angle.
This ones goes after the second line spoken, after the first principal female lead has established her position within the plot,
-
lmfaoooo@the latest reason for KB not wanting to come back to Tigerland being that Rhett is there.
-
His goal kicking from set shots was superb and as Nathan Brown has said, if he was leading for the mark and the ball could be in any player's hands in the team he would want it to be Campbell, becuase he is a great kick and makes the right decisions.
Agree on his goal kicking - especially when he was Captain. Remember a few games where you could see the resolve "I must kick this" - it was one his great strengths IMO
Without doubt he was the most footy smart Tiger player of his time. His main asset was his uncanny ability to find the footy. Even as a hack coming off the bench he can still gather 17 or 18 touches a game playing little more than half of it. He just knows where to position himself to find the Sherrin. He jsut thinks one step ahead of most players and is tremendously alert.
I have said this many times this season he is clearly our "smartest" player in 2005. We are certainly going to miss his Footy smarts in a major way I reckon
-
In search of the Tigers’ September superstars
10:27:49 AM Thu 7 September, 2006
Miles Wilks
richmondfc.com.au
With the sweet smell of September in the air, Miles Wilks set about the task of rating Richmond’s greatest finals players over the past half-century . . .
To unearth Richmond’s best players in finals from the past 50 years, I set about collating all the best-on-ground votes from the newspaper panels that covered the Tigers’ September (and the odd October) appearances.
A voting system was utilised in which three votes were given to the player deemed as Richmond’s best player in a final, two votes to the second best and one to the third best player.
Due to the increased importance of Grand Finals, votes in these matches were awarded at double the rate of the other finals.
The votes were obtained from the writers at ‘The Age’ newspaper and when this paper didn’t award best-on-ground votes, ‘The Sun’ newspaper was used.
Here are the results, followed by an in-depth summary of each player’s September exploits . . .
Richmond’s greatest players in finals over the past half-century
Bartlett 38 votes
Hart 18 votes
Bourke 16 votes
Sheedy 16 votes
Barrot 12 votes
Full article and breakdown of votes are here: http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=296203
-
Is Richo one of Richmond's greatest?
Richo a champion of the game
By Matt Burgan
WE ALL know Matthew Richardson is a flawed hero.
His kicking for goal can be wayward. He shows his emotions on the field, sometimes when he shouldn’t. But in case we had forgotten, on Saturday night we were reminded that Richardson is a champion – of the Richmond Football Club, and of the game.
712 goals from 243 games.
For all of his accolades – 11 times Richmond's leading goalkicker, twice All-Australian and four times runner-up in the club's best-and-fairest award – Saturday’s effort will surely be ranked among his finest achievements.
He is one of Richmond’s greatest.