Ranking Our Champions

[1980]

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 flank 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.

[1980]

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 freak 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 freak 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 freak 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.



 

[JohnF]

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. 



 

[mightytiges]

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  . 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  ). Good players who played in a poor era and poor team. Worst case scenario you'd get an answer of "Wayne who?".

[1980]

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. 



 

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.

[JohnF]

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  ). 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.

[JohnF]

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  . 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  ). 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.

[starkravenmad2]

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

[JohnF]

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.

[1980]

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  . 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  ). 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

[1980]

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  ). 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

[JohnF]

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).

[JohnF]

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

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.

[starkravenmad2]

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

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

[JohnF]

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.