View Full Version : Southby vs Langford
CelticCat
14 Mar 2006, 20:28
Who was the better full-back?
OneEyedHawk
14 Mar 2006, 21:49
As much as it pains me to say it, I'd say Southby. I think he's arguably the greatest FB of all-time. Top 4 would be Southby, Dench, Moore, Langford (last 3 in no particular order).
windyhill
15 Mar 2006, 16:33
Most defenders like the boundary line, Langford , however, had an un-healthy love for it. Southby, easy.
1. Langford
2. Southby
3. Silvagni
4. Kelvin Moore
5. Pert
6. Dench
Southby was very good, Langford was better IMO.
Cyclops
17 Mar 2006, 12:25
I saw a lot of Langford in the 80's, much less of Southby.
Langford was a very fit athletic fullback, very tall and played taller, fairly quick and nimble and very strong. He played fair footy too, and looked silly when he tried to be tough (eg 1991 GF). Generally he played the ball, but was equal to the task of negating a man too without being an ugly scragger or a cheeat.
I'd say his skills were very good, but he didn't have a brilliant footy brain (good but not brilliant) and he could be rattled occasionally. Overall a champion.
Southby is very very highly rated by all the Blues folks I know (alll of whom put him ahead of Silvagni BTW). My guess is he's better but thats based purely on reputation.
Yep, many rate Southby > SOS
TheGeneral
17 Mar 2006, 16:26
Watch a few Grand Finals from the Seventies and you'll realise Southby's footskills would get him the nod ahead of Langford.