Ranking Our Champions

[Jackstar]

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.

[JohnF]

Thanks for steering the thread back to footy Jackstar.

Where do the likes of Dyer, Flea, Bourke, Titus rank in your estimation?

[Ox]

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.

[JohnF]

lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.

[Ox]

lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.

*Camp David.Transcript*

Yasa Crakafat - " I want to be buried in Israel!"

Areil Sharon - "LMAOOoooo"

[Jackstar]

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

[Ox]

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.

[Fishfinger]

Hey Jackstar, all of those players you mention are from yester year.

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.

[mightytiges]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state    .

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

 

[froars]

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.

[1980]

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.

[1980]

lmfaooooo@how a lmfaooooo can mediate things.

LMAO 

[mightytiges]

So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state    .

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

 

  

[HKTiger]

1980,

Spot on.  Gees, this thread went everywhere over Xmas/New Year.  Sorry I missed it.  Barcelona beckoned.   

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.