View Full Version : Mike Sheehan Hates Collingwood.....
spartan-magpie
6 Mar 2008, 14:17
i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?
"voss is the best of the contemporary players.. the protoytpe of modern midfielder" - imo buckley was a much better midfielder and more consistent- maybe a pie eyed view...
hird: "he wasnt necessarily the most brilliant exponent of the games skills, but he was a master of them all."- no doubt he was a star.. was he better than buckley? i doubt it.. he a few flashy goals etc.. but bucks imo again was at least equal if not slightly ahead of JH...
whether u agree or not, makes no difference.. because at the end of the day neither were better than peter daicos and he was left out of the top 50...
back on bucks, hird and voss (while we are there we may as well include the bug adelaide boy ROO) these players were all fairly evenly matched so HTF can this mongoloid reporter place bucks so far behind???
any thoughts?
but the real injustice is MR PETER " MACEDONIAN MARVEL" DAICOS is not up there...
How Hird and Voss are better footballers than either Gordon or Syd Coventry I will never know.
spartan-magpie
6 Mar 2008, 14:40
look, on record alone i agree.. but i never saw the two play..
i did, however, see bucks , hird, voss and daicos play... and cant understand his reasong.
i really think he hates collingwood... id love to shove his glasses up his arse..
He is an idiot. His opinion counts for nothing so there is no point worrying about it.
I think we look at recent players with rose coloured glasses. Hird, Voss and Buckley were all greats of their generation, but players like Syd and Gordon would have been just as massive in their day. Not enough consideration is given to the fact that the likes of Harry Collier, Albert Collier, Gordon Coventry, Syd Coventry were part of the same team so they aren't going to win a massive number of B+Fs. But one in a champion team full of champions as the Machine Team were is worth 3 at another club. I reckon at different clubs at the time, Syd, Gordon and Albert would have won at least 4+ B+Fs, Harry Collier would be close to that too as he was regarded as the best mid in the comp for a while. The Machine wasn't so dominant through luck, they didn't have weak opponents and they were a solid even team. They had 4 of the all time greats, and IMO 3 of them should be Legends in the HoF (and I think it's only a matter of time that Albert Collier and Syd Coventry are named legends), the legendary coach Jock McHale and a bunch of other greats most notably Harold Rumney who made it into our team of the century.
Timmy from Thomastown
6 Mar 2008, 14:51
Len Thompson > John Nicholls
Well known fact is Sheehans distaste for anything black and white.
Who gives a sh*t what Mike Sheehan thinks anyway!
Never forget giving him a spray as he left his seats after we demolished Port at the G in the Pre-lim. One of my favourite football moments.
Barwick17
6 Mar 2008, 15:23
Well known fact is Sheehans distaste for anything black and white.
Who gives a sh*t what Mike Sheehan thinks anyway!
Never forget giving him a spray as he left his seats after we demolished Port at the G in the Pre-lim. One of my favourite football moments.
No wonder A) Mike Sheehan hates collingwood and gives us nothing and b) everyone thinks our supporters are criminal morons. Seriously after a preliminary win, celebrate instead of looking like a toss and making the rest of us look like one too. Grow up
Well known fact is Sheehans distaste for anything black and white.
Who gives a sh*t what Mike Sheehan thinks anyway!
Never forget giving him a spray as he left his seats after we demolished Port at the G in the Pre-lim. One of my favourite football moments.
No wonder A) Mike Sheehan hates collingwood and gives us nothing and b) everyone thinks our supporters are criminal morons. Seriously after a preliminary win, celebrate instead of looking like a toss and making the rest of us look like one too. Grow up
The spray was in reference to rating Buckley so low in his top 50 year after year and putting in another vintage performance
Stop sooking you tw*t
The Royal Sampler
6 Mar 2008, 15:30
Mike Sheehan is extracting the urine with that list. It's ridiculous for him to attempt to rate players he never saw, for that matter.
For me you either qualify it as "Players you saw" or "Players of all time", but the lack of respect he gives pre-war legends is crap. Hayden Bunton was an absolute legend and should have been top 3 or at the very least top 5.
I might do a top 50 Collingwood players when I get the time. I love reading about the machine team era but I'm very smoky on the history of the club and how players were rated from around the 60s-80s.
Mike Sheehan is the reason i don't read the Herald Sun anymore. The man clearly doesn't like Collingwood, to be honest i think if he can't put his dislike for a club behind him when he steps up to write an article he bloody shouldn't be a journalist.
The Captain
6 Mar 2008, 15:49
FYI
Mike Sheahan isn't the only person who hates Collingwood
I also reckon you guys suck....
Let's start the "why isn't there a Pie player in the Team of the Century" Argument again :rolleyes:
For me you either qualify it as "Players you saw" or "Players of all time" the lack of respect he gives pre-war legends is crap. Hayden Bunton was an absolute legend and should have been top 3 or at the very least top 5.
Whilst I agree that rating players you've never seen is ludicrous, you're greatly overrating the ability of older-gen players.
We can attach as much sentimentality as we want to the past, but the fact remains today's players are faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. That's just a natural result of the game getting more and more professional (i.e. more/better training) as time goes by, and is true of almost any sport.
Hypothetically speaking, if you put together the best players of pre-1960, and the best players of post-1960, I'd be very surprised if the pre-1960 got within 100 points. The same applies to any individual player - they might have been a star several decades ago, but the standard now is much higher.
FYI
Mike Sheahan isn't the only person who hates Collingwood
I also reckon you guys suck....
Let's start the "why isn't there a Pie player in the Team of the Century" Argument again :rolleyes:
The rest of the population aren't journalists. We don't care if he hates us, when he shows that he dislikes the club in his articles that is what annoys us. If he can't be proffessional he shouldn't have the job.
Also, your club sucks. Come back when you win more than 5 games a season celler dweller.
malteaser
6 Mar 2008, 16:00
I might do a top 50 Collingwood players when I get the time. I love reading about the machine team era but I'm very smoky on the history of the club and how players were rated from around the 60s-80s.
Easy, although some were stars, Thommo, Tuddenham, McKenna, Moore etc, they lost from 1960 -1981 8 GF's, missed out on only 3-4 finals series. I would and as I saw most of the games in the late 70's to 80's they were chokers. I lived through the pain and shit put on me by others, terrible period of time. Something the young pies supporters really have not idea of.
[QUOTE=spartan-magpie;10256350]i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?QUOTE]
Because both of them were better players than Buckley.
The real issue is how can he have Robert Harvey above Buckley.
couchy555
6 Mar 2008, 16:04
do you honestly belive that mike sheehan would risk his credibility ( granted that is shakey at best) and his professional career as a journalist just to stick it to collingwood?
I think he writes about collingwood so much because u guys have a fantastic amount of supporters who will buy newspapers more if your team is in there more.
Hell, we just won our first flag in 44 years, come into the year after one of the most dominant seasons any team has had, and we dont get any where near the publicity of your team.
bradrowe#32
6 Mar 2008, 16:07
I might do a top 50 Collingwood players when I get the time. I love reading about the machine team era but I'm very smoky on the history of the club and how players were rated from around the 60s-80s.
Interesting idea. I might have a crack and post it later.
As for Sheahan, who really cares? Heaps of journo's sycophant over players, some more than others. It's just a piece of interesting reading for mine.
Whilst I agree that rating players you've never seen is ludicrous, you're greatly overrating the ability of older-gen players.
We can attach as much sentimentality as we want to the past, but the fact remains today's players are faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. That's just a natural result of the game getting more and more professional (i.e. more/better training) as time goes by, and is true of almost any sport.
Hypothetically speaking, if you put together the best players of pre-1960, and the best players of post-1960, I'd be very surprised if the pre-1960 got within 100 points. The same applies to any individual player - they might have been a star several decades ago, but the standard now is much higher.
I didn't necessarily say that rating players you've never seen is folly. If you do the research it isn't, but I don't think Sheehan has, and has overrated players he has seen in favour the likes of players he hasn't seen.
If Syd Coventry or Hayden Bunton was born in todays era they would have received the same level of training then they would still dominate just as they did in their time. Just like if you put Wayne Carey in the 20s, if he had grown up in harder times he would have been more suited to the rougher game. The point is that eras were different, but that doesn't necessarily make them better, and besides, a great kick of the ball is still a great kick in any era. There are a few things that are more important in different eras. For example in older eras contested marking, being able to take a hit and give one, being able to get your own ball in the pack way more often and being able to weave your way out of the pack.
Big Bucks
6 Mar 2008, 16:21
What Mike Sheehan writes is his opinion , we may cringe and dispute his judgement and so forth, it`s all subjective.
Look where he put Mark Ricciouto (in my opinion) who has been in the top 5 players for the last decade, 8 time All-Australian, Premiership Captain, Brownlow Medalist, absolute gun who made opponents run for cover with his hardness at the ball, he won that many games off his own boot in 20 minutes of power football with sublime skill.
The Royal Sampler
6 Mar 2008, 16:23
Let's start the "why isn't there a Pie player in the Team of the Century" Argument again :rolleyes:
There is still argument about that?
I thought it was plainly apparent to all and sundry that it was because the majority of the selection panel were Carlton-affiliated.
The Captain
6 Mar 2008, 16:29
Also, your club sucks. Come back when you win more than 5 games a season celler dweller.
i couldnt care less what you or Mike Sheahan thinks about my club.
Definately wouldnt have me writing crap like the above on a forumn if a journo had a differemnt opinion to me on a Carlton player
'
It is what it is...an opinion!
Peter Daicos is so underrated by non-Collingwood supporters its not funny.
how the hell does Peter Matera get in the top 50 before Daicos.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but Bob Rose missed out as well. Clearly a bias against collingwood out there when these 'lists' are put together.
TBH my gripe isn't just with Sheehan. I think apart from his lists he is a good journo. It's the fact that the community in general just doesn't rate older players when they're talking about the best of all time. If you are going to make a list claiming to rank the top 50 players of all time, then that's going to be written in The AFL's "150 Years" Book then they do proper research. The team of the century was a much bigger crock as it was a relatively short meeting between a bunch of footballing 'dignitaries' and one or two historians whose opinion would be taken for granted.
SIDE BY SIDE
6 Mar 2008, 16:54
Matera makes the top 50 but guys like Daicos, Keith Greg Ricciuto Platten dont and these are players he would have seen.
There is no way he can compare players from the turn of the century to todays players. None of us have seen them play or know what they are to go through during the week sometimes working right up till 12 on a saturday before a game.
Amazing Bombers
6 Mar 2008, 17:02
i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?
"voss is the best of the contemporary players.. the protoytpe of modern midfielder" - imo buckley was a much better midfielder and more consistent- maybe a pie eyed view...
hird: "he wasnt necessarily the most brilliant exponent of the games skills, but he was a master of them all."- no doubt he was a star.. was he better than buckley? i doubt it.. he a few flashy goals etc.. but bucks imo again was at least equal if not slightly ahead of JH...
whether u agree or not, makes no difference.. because at the end of the day neither were better than peter daicos and he was left out of the top 50...
back on bucks, hird and voss (while we are there we may as well include the bug adelaide boy ROO) these players were all fairly evenly matched so HTF can this mongoloid reporter place bucks so far behind???
any thoughts?
but the real injustice is MR PETER " MACEDONIAN MARVEL" DAICOS is not up there...
I agree ! Daicos was absolutely fantastic and Bucks was sublime.
Mike Sheehan knows S*** about Footy players , let alone Collingwood Football Club.
I didn't necessarily say that rating players you've never seen is folly. If you do the research it isn't, but I don't think Sheehan has, and has overrated players he has seen in favour the likes of players he hasn't seen.
If Syd Coventry or Hayden Bunton was born in todays era they would have received the same level of training then they would still dominate just as they did in their time. Just like if you put Wayne Carey in the 20s, if he had grown up in harder times he would have been more suited to the rougher game. The point is that eras were different, but that doesn't necessarily make them better, and besides, a great kick of the ball is still a great kick in any era. There are a few things that are more important in different eras. For example in older eras contested marking, being able to take a hit and give one, being able to get your own ball in the pack way more often and being able to weave your way out of the pack.
But then you're really comparing talent rather than ability, because Coventry/Bunton didn't receive the same level of training, and so, in all probability, were inferior players.
There's a long list of reasons that suggest that later-generation players are, and will always be, better players than older-gen players. In sports which make for easy comparison across time period (e.g. swimming) this is obvious. But in football (or other team sports), in the absence of hard proof, people seem to forgo common sense and stick to a sentimental view of the past.
To say that champions of the 30's were as good as champions of 90's is as ludicrous as saying that Murray Rose was as good as Ian Thorpe.
The best option is to avoid comparison across eras at all cost. But if one does compare, there simply must be a greater respect given to those playing in a more modern era.
jimmy_clement#8
6 Mar 2008, 17:51
He'll use the "no premiership medallion" argument no doubt. If anything that's something against Voss, not Bucks. Bucks on the big stage did everything he could, and won a Norm Smith. Voss didn't. Voss just had much better teammates.
In all honesty, Bucks should've been grouped with Voss and Hird, but as for order, totally discreationary.
But I really, really hate when people in comparing players think less of those when isolating the fact they have not won a premiership. If you're comparing individuals then how their team went is totally irrelevant. Premierships should never count when comparing players who have played the game. Never.
People may accuse me of not being a very good supporter but I do actually rate voss and hird marginally ahead of bucks. I think bucks is a dead set champ. Is there really any shame in being rated the 36th best player of all time. It is just him opinion and I am not sure why it upsets people. Im not a massive mike sheehan fan but thats because he is a sensationalist journo not because of his opinion on who and who isnt the best. Thats a tough job and anyone who puts those kind of lists together cops heaps.
mike sheahan is a ****wit. if i saw him in the street i would punch him in the mouth
Thommo 42
6 Mar 2008, 19:45
i didn't see the list because I don't read his dribble.
But if its true he has Nicholls in the top 10 and no Bob rose in the Top 50 he has truely lost any semblance of credibiity he was clinging to.
Not just because these are clear errors, but because he claimed Cox was the best ruckman to have played the game only about 8 months ago.
Snag Breac
6 Mar 2008, 19:54
The best thing we could do is ignore an article such as this. It's designed to create controversy and to draw plenty of media attention. Both the editor and the writer would know that it's meaningless to try to order players of different eras, types and positions in this way.
Hell of Mill Park summed it up well; "They give us nothing - ever."
I wish some of you guys would stop your moaning!!!!
It's just one man's list. It is not gospel.
And another thing, he doesn't hate Collingwood. Don't be so precious. He is a sensationalist journo and writes opinion pieces to get people to buy the Sun. Don't take it personally.
By the way, Bob Rose DID make his top 50!
Sheesh :rolleyes:
WeAreHatedAgain
6 Mar 2008, 20:50
mike sheahan is a ****wit. if i saw him in the street i would punch him in the mouth
I have no doubt you would
Put your beer down first before you do though
Godfrey Jones
6 Mar 2008, 21:03
i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?
"voss is the best of the contemporary players.. the protoytpe of modern midfielder" - imo buckley was a much better midfielder and more consistent- maybe a pie eyed view...
hird: "he wasnt necessarily the most brilliant exponent of the games skills, but he was a master of them all."- no doubt he was a star.. was he better than buckley? i doubt it.. he a few flashy goals etc.. but bucks imo again was at least equal if not slightly ahead of JH...
whether u agree or not, makes no difference.. because at the end of the day neither were better than peter daicos and he was left out of the top 50...
back on bucks, hird and voss (while we are there we may as well include the bug adelaide boy ROO) these players were all fairly evenly matched so HTF can this mongoloid reporter place bucks so far behind???
any thoughts?
but the real injustice is MR PETER " MACEDONIAN MARVEL" DAICOS is not up there...
spot on
voss was lucky to be involved in such a glamorous team. without the premierships round his neck, he would be in the same league as riccioto. thats my view
whereas buckley carried a whole team through the mid 90's. consistently racking up 30-40+ posessions. and when quality started to come through the side finally in the 2000's, he still dominated and was clearly the best. 100 % class all the way
Godfrey Jones
6 Mar 2008, 21:08
People may accuse me of not being a very good supporter but I do actually rate voss and hird marginally ahead of bucks. I think bucks is a dead set champ. Is there really any shame in being rated the 36th best player of all time. It is just him opinion and I am not sure why it upsets people. Im not a massive mike sheehan fan but thats because he is a sensationalist journo not because of his opinion on who and who isnt the best. Thats a tough job and anyone who puts those kind of lists together cops heaps.
good post mate. :thumbsu:
i certainly dont trash others for their opinions (unless they're using them as insults or are completely ridicilous)
dumesny1
6 Mar 2008, 21:09
He is an idiot. His opinion counts for nothing so there is no point worrying about it.
Got it in one.
He hates Collingwood, I don't know why people read his trash.
Mike Sheehan isn't right or wrong. This is his opinion via his AFL wages, they used this to launch the 150 year celebrations so he is on the payroll.
The AFL know just what they have in Collingwood FC and they know the Juggernaut we will become once we start wining premierships. Look at us know without on field success, the AFL will not be able to harness us once we get on field success.
So they keep us down with any means they can if Shite Mike wants to be party to that he will be left behind when the SS Collingwood takes off.
dumesny1
6 Mar 2008, 21:11
mike sheahan is a ****wit. if i saw him in the street i would punch him in the mouth
Give him one from me too thanks mate.
celtic_pride
6 Mar 2008, 21:14
Len Thompson > John Nicholls
Hmm I know this is the Collingwood board, but come on, I find that comment hard to justify ..
It is not improbably to argue that if you switched both Len T and Big Nick in the 1970 GF, the result probably would have been different ..
Nothing dispariganging Thompson here, but come on, John Nicholls is the greatest ruckman in the history of VFL/AFL football ...
the_fresh
6 Mar 2008, 21:15
i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?
"voss is the best of the contemporary players.. the protoytpe of modern midfielder" - imo buckley was a much better midfielder and more consistent- maybe a pie eyed view...
hird: "he wasnt necessarily the most brilliant exponent of the games skills, but he was a master of them all."- no doubt he was a star.. was he better than buckley? i doubt it.. he a few flashy goals etc.. but bucks imo again was at least equal if not slightly ahead of JH...
whether u agree or not, makes no difference.. because at the end of the day neither were better than peter daicos and he was left out of the top 50...
back on bucks, hird and voss (while we are there we may as well include the bug adelaide boy ROO) these players were all fairly evenly matched so HTF can this mongoloid reporter place bucks so far behind???
any thoughts?
but the real injustice is MR PETER " MACEDONIAN MARVEL" DAICOS is not up there...
IMO Hird was a much better player than Buckley, I've never got some much enjoyment out of watching one player than I did Hird.
He wasn't the most skillful, quickest, biggest but he was brave, smart and just got the job done his way.
Voss was another story.
He was just a leader, he had this freakish thing that when someone was needed he somehow found a way to stand up, take the 02 grand final we were looking like pulling it off, but his last 15 minutes somehow got them over the line.
Or the 03 finals, he was down and out, retirement on the cards and a knee that most said couldn't get him through 5 minutes of training let alone a game.
He went up to set up a win in the first 20 minutes of the game, played an awesome 2nd half and put Brisbane into a Grand Final.
Sheehan doesn't hate Collingwood, he rates these 2 players higher, much higher for their all round game.
While Buckley had these 2 on skills, these two had him on leadership, something that makes good footballers into great champions of football.
the_fresh
6 Mar 2008, 21:16
Hmm I know this is the Collingwood board, but come on, I find that comment hard to justify ..
It is not improbably to argue that if you switched both Len T and Big Nick in the 1970 GF, the result probably would have been different ..
Nothing dispariganging Thompson here, but come on, John Nicholls is the greatest ruckman in the history of VFL/AFL football ...
Forgetting Polly Farmer?
marcmurphy3
6 Mar 2008, 21:18
Well if it makes you feel better I rate Bucks ahead of both. This is treason coming from a Carlton supporter though *shudders*.
the_fresh
6 Mar 2008, 21:36
Well if it makes you feel better I rate Bucks ahead of both. This is treason coming from a Carlton supporter though *shudders*.
yeah but if you were a good judge you wouldn't like Carlton ;)
on the four so called "modern day greats" in hird voss buckley and robert harvey, id rate both buckley and harvey ahead of voss and hird in no particular order between the 2. these are two players who have remained loyal and stood up for their sides when they were down for a decade at a time, and yet just because they havent won a premiership, they get put down in the order.
to be quite honest im sick of the crap that people keep talking about hird in particular, especially with all the farewells everyone gave him, and the way he was portrayed as a god in the media, compared to buckley who was hated by all, supporters of other clubs and the media because he wore the black and white.
as long as we as collingwood supporters know who was better then thats good enough because he will go down a as a legend of the biggest sporting organisation in the country, and we were around to see him play. the rest can think what they like but we at collingwood can be proud that nathan bucley wore the black and white and we will forever claim him to be the best of his era at least.
Thommo 42
6 Mar 2008, 22:25
Hmm I know this is the Collingwood board, but come on, I find that comment hard to justify ..
It is not improbably to argue that if you switched both Len T and Big Nick in the 1970 GF, the result probably would have been different ..
Nothing dispariganging Thompson here, but come on, John Nicholls is the greatest ruckman in the history of VFL/AFL football ...
Nicholls wouldn't survive 2 minutes against a modern day ruckman. He was the same height as Chris Judd for crying out loud!
He'd be lucky to beat Guy Richards in a ruck duel.
[quote=Barwick17;10256862]
The spray was in reference to rating Buckley so low in his top 50 year after year and putting in another vintage performance
Stop sooking you tw*t
that's pretty funny coming from someone who saved up his frustation at someone's list of players and released it at a famous victory for his team.
I've had a look through the Collingwood records as far as games goes and have written down over 100 names to sort through for a top 50 later down the track. That includes every player to have played a significant # of games, every captain, copeland trophy winner and other names that just stand out, also a bunch of players I've seen that seem to have a good record, but I want to find out more about.
Frederlick
7 Mar 2008, 09:03
Scotty Palmer did a much better one that rated Buckley right up there, so who cares? The AFL can't even get their facts right in the 150 years of Footy Book for which Sheehan was commissioned to do this list. The same one in which Adam Goodes incorrectly claimed Peta Everitt racially vilified the wrong person! So does it really matter that Sheehan was paid to put this in a piece of AFL propaganda toilet paper that is riddled with factual inaccuracies?
This is the same AFL who left the greatest full forward of all time out of their bodgy team of the century. Coventry had forgotten more about kicking goals as a full forward than any other AFL player will ever know. Full Forward in the only team to win 4 GFs in a row, won the Brownlow and Champion of the Colony (yes that is best player in the country, no longer awarded) and set the standard that only one other player managed to break and in much easier circumstances and without ever having demonstrated an ability to contribute in multiple GF wins. Lockett may have been allowed to polish Coventry's boots and lay his shorts out before a game if he had played alongside him, but that is about all. As for the rest? Lightweights. So really Sheehan is just keepin up the level of ignorance displayed by his paymasters, why sweat it?
daics cousin
7 Mar 2008, 11:07
i understand voss and hird were both very good players.. both got to play in a super dominant team at point or another in their careers..
but how in goods name does he place them so far in front of NATHAN BUCKLEY in his top 50? Is this guy for real?
"voss is the best of the contemporary players.. the protoytpe of modern midfielder" - imo buckley was a much better midfielder and more consistent- maybe a pie eyed view...
hird: "he wasnt necessarily the most brilliant exponent of the games skills, but he was a master of them all."- no doubt he was a star.. was he better than buckley? i doubt it.. he a few flashy goals etc.. but bucks imo again was at least equal if not slightly ahead of JH...
whether u agree or not, makes no difference.. because at the end of the day neither were better than peter daicos and he was left out of the top 50...
back on bucks, hird and voss (while we are there we may as well include the bug adelaide boy ROO) these players were all fairly evenly matched so HTF can this mongoloid reporter place bucks so far behind???
any thoughts?
but the real injustice is MR PETER " MACEDONIAN MARVEL" DAICOS is not up there...
Yes i totally agree and i am shattered that daicos is up there too.
daics cousin
7 Mar 2008, 11:09
Yes i totally agree and i am shattered that daicos is up there too.
Shattered that daicos is NOT up there too.Sorry typo.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 13:55
Did anyone notice that Gordon Coventry, who is second on the list of most goals scored of all time... considered well below Dunstall, Lockett, Ablett etc. The man kicked 1299 goals, consistently kicked tons at a time when players played on shitty ovals, shitty conditions and when it wasn't that unusul for there to be no more than 10 goals scored in a game by both sides.
If he was a poster on bigfooty I would just consider him to be a troll. And Buckley at 34, behind Harvey... What a joke this man is. A troll.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 13:59
What about this for Sheehan logic...
It was a long time before Buckley was considered in Sheehan's top 5 players. His reasoning was not to dissimilair to trolls on bigfooty that is he hadn't played finals footy. We all know that he didn't rate Buckley so high because he played for COllingwood. But get this guys...
At the beginning of 2006, 2004 All AUstralian McPhee, following a poor 2005 season was ranked 13 overall. It had many scratching their heads. Why? Well according to Sheehan, he liked what he saw in a practice match against Richmond in Mildura. If he was a poster on Bigfooty I would just consider him a troll.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 14:01
look, on record alone i agree.. but i never saw the two play..
i did, however, see bucks , hird, voss and daicos play... and cant understand his reasong.
i really think he hates collingwood... id love to shove his glasses up his arse..
He hates COllingwood but don't feel alone mate. We ALL know this. Buckley was rated the best player by the coaches a few years ago even when he wasn't at his best. I reckon if they had that award earlier Buckley would have won this award consistently from 99-03. CLearly everyone respects this award much more than some snotty little weed's top fifity.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 14:09
do you honestly belive that mike sheehan would risk his credibility ( granted that is shakey at best) and his professional career as a journalist just to stick it to collingwood?
I think he writes about collingwood so much because u guys have a fantastic amount of supporters who will buy newspapers more if your team is in there more.
Hell, we just won our first flag in 44 years, come into the year after one of the most dominant seasons any team has had, and we dont get any where near the publicity of your team.
He hates Collingwood and it shows, funny enough I wouldn't think the poeple at the Hun mind. THe shit that he writes somehow sells papers. I just had to look at Sheehan's top 50 just to confirm and further my opnion that is, that he hates COllingwood.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 14:14
People may accuse me of not being a very good supporter but I do actually rate voss and hird marginally ahead of bucks. I think bucks is a dead set champ. Is there really any shame in being rated the 36th best player of all time. It is just him opinion and I am not sure why it upsets people. Im not a massive mike sheehan fan but thats because he is a sensationalist journo not because of his opinion on who and who isnt the best. Thats a tough job and anyone who puts those kind of lists together cops heaps.
You've been brainwahsed by people on bigfooty. Bucks was better. My brother a Swans supporter agreed with me today. Remember there are a large amount of people on this site that don't rate Thomas. DOn't be brainwahsed by the people on bigfooty. There are alot of Mike Sheehan's who post on Bigfooty.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 14:16
i didn't see the list because I don't read his dribble.
But if its true he has Nicholls in the top 10 and no Bob rose in the Top 50 he has truely lost any semblance of credibiity he was clinging to.
Not just because these are clear errors, but because he claimed Cox was the best ruckman to have played the game only about 8 months ago.
They'll never be a day where you say, Geez, Rose in the top ten, hmmm that surprizes me. Or, Coventry higher than Lockett...
He will consistently dissapoint and underestimate Collingwood players.
Sharks On A Plane
7 Mar 2008, 14:18
You've been brainwahsed by people on bigfooty. Bucks was better. My brother a Swans supporter agreed with me today. Remember there are a large amount of people on this site that don't rate Thomas. DOn't be brainwahsed by the people on bigfooty. There are alot of Mike Sheehan's who post on Bigfooty.
FFS stop bringing up Dale Thomas every time you post!
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 14:18
I wish some of you guys would stop your moaning!!!!
It's just one man's list. It is not gospel.
And another thing, he doesn't hate Collingwood. Don't be so precious. He is a sensationalist journo and writes opinion pieces to get people to buy the Sun. Don't take it personally.
By the way, Bob Rose DID make his top 50!
Sheesh :rolleyes:
No, your wrong, he does hate Collingwood. Your about the only COllingwood supporter that doesn't think so... Why would that be? Because he does hate us.
No, your wrong, he does hate Collingwood. Your about the only COllingwood supporter that doesn't think so... Why would that be? Because he does hate us.
Wow, there's some great logic :rolleyes:
You've been brainwahsed by people on bigfooty. Bucks was better. My brother a Swans supporter agreed with me today. Remember there are a large amount of people on this site that don't rate Thomas. DOn't be brainwahsed by the people on bigfooty. There are alot of Mike Sheehan's who post on Bigfooty.
What a stupid idiotic and childish response. My brother is a swans supporter and aggrees with me??- is your brother the oracle?? I am not brainwashed by anybody. I form my own opinions. Look at the meaning of opinion and you will realise that there is no fact or fiction in opinion-Its simple ones own feeling on any given topic. This is a subjective argument. I don't pay much attention to what others say on big footy because I think most people write crap but its their crap and they are entitled to write it so the suggestion that I may be influnenced by a website I only discovered a couple of years ago(well after I formed this opinion) is hillarious. You can put it down to one thing, I watch footy with two subjective eyes and are actually able to form an opinion with no bias. You are not capable of this and thats ok but don't come on here and write crap about me being brainwashed.
Fwiw I think bucks is a deadset star and the best pies player I have ever seen. I think he has been more consistant that hird and voss mainly because he had a great run with injuries until he was about 31-32(not very good after that) The reason I rate these 2 other superstars just above him is because I think they won more matches of there own boot and I believe they where just that little bit harder at the ball. Dont get me wrong I reckon bucks is alot tougher than most people give him credit for but these 2 IMO are 2 of the most courageous players I have seen.
southern star
7 Mar 2008, 15:58
peter daicos should have been in the top 40 changed the game the way goals are kicked loved watching him play freak.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 16:06
What a stupid idiotic and childish response. My brother is a swans supporter and aggrees with me??- is your brother the oracle?? I am not brainwashed by anybody. I form my own opinions. Look at the meaning of opinion and you will realise that there is no fact or fiction in opinion-Its simple ones own feeling on any given topic. This is a subjective argument. I don't pay much attention to what others say on big footy because I think most people write crap but its their crap and they are entitled to write it so the suggestion that I may be influnenced by a website I only discovered a couple of years ago(well after I formed this opinion) is hillarious. You can put it down to one thing, I watch footy with two subjective eyes and are actually able to form an opinion with no bias. You are not capable of this and thats ok but don't come on here and write crap about me being brainwashed.
Fwiw I think bucks is a deadset star and the best pies player I have ever seen. I think he has been more consistant that hird and voss mainly because he had a great run with injuries until he was about 31-32(not very good after that) The reason I rate these 2 other superstars just above him is because I think they won more matches of there own boot and I believe they where just that little bit harder at the ball. Dont get me wrong I reckon bucks is alot tougher than most people give him credit for but these 2 IMO are 2 of the most courageous players I have seen.
Hird's and Voss courage is over rated. I can think of a few Collingwood players with much lower profiles that are more courageous. ie Burns, Licuria, Maxwell, etc.
Hird had great awareness and time. His decision making was great. You couldn't doubt his courage. But again I think it is this aspect that has been over rated. Less talented players like Licuria, Burns and Maxwell have to make up for this by inspiring others around them with complete disregard for their physical well being.
Hird was a great player. But of course what can happen is that we start to wank and glorify someones career which has happened in the case of Voss and Hird. Buckley's courage could never be questioned either for that matter.
Another thing, it is almost indisputable that Buckley's foot skills were superior, but also he led these two in hard ball gets year after year, an area of Buckley's game that is thought of by 'brainwashed' people to be behind Voss and Hird.
And he is someone who's opnion I respect as he doesn't get sucked in by the media etc.
spartan-magpie
7 Mar 2008, 17:39
[quote=southern star;10265789]peter daicos should have been in the top 40 changed the game the way goals are kicked loved watching him play freak.[/quote
i thenk daicos should have been in the top 18.... was a superstar.
won many game of his own foot for collingwood.. was an absolute marvel..
i rate him well ahead of hird, voss buckley and kernahan...
Hird's and Voss courage is over rated. I can think of a few Collingwood players with much lower profiles that are more courageous. ie Burns, Licuria, Maxwell, etc.
Hird had great awareness and time. His decision making was great. You couldn't doubt his courage. But again I think it is this aspect that has been over rated. Less talented players like Licuria, Burns and Maxwell have to make up for this by inspiring others around them with complete disregard for their physical well being.
Hird was a great player. But of course what can happen is that we start to wank and glorify someones career which has happened in the case of Voss and Hird. Buckley's courage could never be questioned either for that matter.
Another thing, it is almost indisputable that Buckley's foot skills were superior, but also he led these two in hard ball gets year after year, an area of Buckley's game that is thought of by 'brainwashed' people to be behind Voss and Hird.
And he is someone who's opnion I respect as he doesn't get sucked in by the media etc.
all I can say is "OH DEAR"
GETSOMENUTS
7 Mar 2008, 19:29
statistics of when they were on the same ground. They played each other 33 times.
Kicks- Buckley 642 Voss 352
HB- Buckley-204 Voss-279
Disp Buckley 846 Voss 631
Marks Buckley 185 Voss-129
Hit Outs Bucks 8 Voss 5
Goals Bucks 46 Voss 17
Tackles- Buckley 71 Voss 59
Hard Ball Gets Buckley 38 percent Voss- 27 percent
Clearances Buckley- 146 Voss- 42
Clangers Buckley 32 Voss 86
Disposal Efficiency Buckley 86 percent Voss 68 percent
These stats were provided by SOTY (hope he doesnt mind me using them here) in another thread with a similar content. Ant22 all I can say is Buckley was a much more skilled player than Voss and the only area Voss had him covered was his aggression at the ball, but as these stats illustrate Buckley had him covered there as well when the Lions and Pies went head to head.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 19:42
all I can say is "OH DEAR"
What do you mean oh dear? What do you disagree with? I think I have made some good points? Remembering that is my opinion? You challenged mine now I challenged yours. Right?
My response to Hird being the most courageous player you have seen could have been that of 'oh dear'. I think you have no idea about the game if Hird is the most courageous player you have seen. No credibility there mate!
And do you want to challenge me re Hard ball gets fool! Seems like you have been brainwashed by the likes of Sheehan, Macavaney and co... You do realize that seven, the dome and the Herald Sun and Essendon all have a hand in each others pockets. People with a brain can work that out. People like you and others on BF have been fed this glorified version of James Hird and hence watch the game through these filters. Many, many more courageous players than James Hird. Although he was courageous nonetheless.
These stats were provided by SOTY (hope he doesnt mind me using them here) in another thread with a similar content. Ant22 all I can say is Buckley was a much more skilled player than Voss and the only area Voss had him covered was his aggression at the ball, but as these stats illustrate Buckley had him covered there as well when the Lions and Pies went head to head.
I think even most collingwood supporters would think that voss was harder at the footy than bucks despite what the stats say. I happen to think voss is one of the very best I have seen(as is buckley) is it so hard to except that I might have a different opinion?
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 20:53
I think even most collingwood supporters would think that voss was harder at the footy than bucks despite what the stats say. I happen to think voss is one of the very best I have seen(as is buckley) is it so hard to except that I might have a different opinion?
The wole point of this forum is that we have different opions that are open to debate. Would be boring if we all had to ACCEPT others opinions all the time.
(I cannot take credit for this, I read it elsewhere but not sure where)
Mike Sheehan hates Collingwood so much that he....
... couldn't even find a space in his top 50 for Dermie because he played one season for us.
What do you mean oh dear? What do you disagree with? I think I have made some good points? Remembering that is my opinion? You challenged mine now I challenged yours. Right?
My response to Hird being the most courageous player you have seen could have been that of 'oh dear'. I think you have no idea about the game if Hird is the most courageous player you have seen. No credibility there mate!
And do you want to challenge me re Hard ball gets fool! Seems like you have been brainwashed by the likes of Sheehan, Macavaney and co... You do realize that seven, the dome and the Herald Sun and Essendon all have a hand in each others pockets. People with a brain can work that out. People like you and others on BF have been fed this glorified version of James Hird and hence watch the game through these filters. Many, many more courageous players than James Hird. Although he was courageous nonetheless.
I didn't challange your opinion you idiot nor did I challange you on hard ball gets. I dont have a problem with the fact that you rate bucks higher. I expect most collingwood supporters would as I would expect most lions supporters to rate voss higher and essendon supporters to rate hird higher. Remember I posted first and you challanged me by accusing me of being brainwashed. I replied with oh dear because It is quite clear to be that it would be impossible to have a reasonable argument with you because rather than respond and conceed that maybe it is possible for someone else to have a different opinion you simply continued down the same idiotic path that you did with the first post.
On the topic of these 3 players they are all deadset legends who have merits on who is the best, I am not having a go at anyone who suggests bucks is the best because I love the man. I dont take any pleasure in saying I think voss and hird are just in front but Its my honest opinion. My problem is with those(like you) who cannot comprehend that others may actually rate these 2 ahead of bucks. All it shows me is that you have the inability to watch the game objectively and only see it through one eye. Thats not to say you shouldn't rate bucks higher but simply to say that you should except without ridiculous calls of being brainwashed that all these 3 fine players(and harvey) stake claims of being better than the others.
Then after all that you have the nerve to question my credibility by taking my post out of context and than follow it up with the most laughable thing ever written on bigfooty. Firstly I did not state that hird is the most courageous player I have seen. What I said was the he and voss where 2 of the most courageous I have seen, its a very different statement. You yourself have agreed he is courageous. Your other far fetched conspiracy theory is the one that really takes the cake. Please explain how Macavany, sheehan, 7 the dome and Essendon are in each others pockets when the 2 people you mention do not follow essendon, the dome is run by a carlton man(who hate essendon just as much as we do, and as far as I know 7 have no connection with the bombers whatsoever. If you did come onto this board with any credibility it is gone on those comments alone.
One final thing. The reason I rate Hird so highly(as much as it hurts to say it) as I have never seen a player consistantly tear us apart as much as Hird did. His bag full of Anzac day medals is testiment to this.
Surely school holidays have not started yet....
The wole point of this forum is that we have different opions that are open to debate. Would be boring if we all had to ACCEPT others opinions all the time.
Trying to make a fool out of me by correcting my spelling and you cannot even spell whole
The wole point of this forum is that we have different opions that are open to debate. Would be boring if we all had to ACCEPT others opinions all the time.
Just to clarify so its a little clearer for you. You do need to accept that others have different opinions. You don't however have to agree. Very very different things!!
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 21:28
Just to clarify so its a little clearer for you. You do need to accept that others have different opinions. You don't however have to agree. Very very different things!!
If your going to squeel everytime someone disagrees with you on a forum or any other area of your life than good luck. You see your opinion can be changed or influenced by others which is one of the purposes of this forum which makes it fun. That is the whole point of being on a forum such as this. We all have different opnions and that must be accepted yes, but we can also accept the fact that other people will disagree and try and influence other peoples opnions. If you can't accept it when someone disagrees with you, than that to me is very ironic... Wouldn't you agree?
If your going to squeel everytime someone disagrees with you on a forum or any other area of your life than good luck. Because it is not just me that won't 'accept' your opinion, but so many more on Bigfooty. You see your opinion can be changed influenced by others. THat is the whole point of being on a forum such as this. If you can't accept it when someone disagrees with you, than that to me is very ironic... Wouldn't you agree?
OMG are you that stupid? Read my posts. I have clearly stated I have no problem that you disagree with me , no problem whatsoever. How many times do you need to be told. But yes yes yes everyone in life should accept that others have different opinions. They are different things accepting and agreeing, very very different. My opinion will not change and I am pretty certain yours will not either. Im not trying to change anyones opinions and I dont care if people dont agree with mine but not accepting someones opinion is expecting them to change it and that is not possible in life. Based on your previous comments and idiotic remarks I dont expect you to have enough intelligence to understand this so I think its best we leave it at that. Good luck with your future conspiracy theories...
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 21:39
Trying to make a fool out of me by correcting my spelling and you cannot even spell whole
Look at my previous posts and you will find that I have mostly spelt the word correctly, and in this case it was laziness. In your case you didn't know the correct spelling ACCEPT. You should be grateful that I taught you something. :)
GETSOMENUTS
7 Mar 2008, 21:41
I think its time to leave it there Paddywhackers you two are just going round in circles. Ant22 has stated its fine to have a differing opinion, just leave it at that.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 21:49
I think its time to leave it there Paddywhackers you two are just going round in circles. Ant22 has stated its fine to have a differing opinion, just leave it at that.
It seems to me that Ant22 can't accept my opinion. Because he keeps on replying and it seems that he wants to be right. And the fact that he needs to be right is rather ironic considering what the argument is about. And if he was true to his belief, than he probably wouldn't have kept on replying. I'll leave it at that.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 21:58
OMG are you that stupid? Read my posts. I have clearly stated I have no problem that you disagree with me , no problem whatsoever. How many times do you need to be told. But yes yes yes everyone in life should accept that others have different opinions. They are different things accepting and agreeing, very very different. My opinion will not change and I am pretty certain yours will not either. Im not trying to change anyones opinions and I dont care if people dont agree with mine but not accepting someones opinion is expecting them to change it and that is not possible in life. Based on your previous comments and idiotic remarks I dont expect you to have enough intelligence to understand this so I think its best we leave it at that. Good luck with your future conspiracy theories...
All I can say is, oh dear! :)
Doctor Moffet
7 Mar 2008, 22:51
All I can say is, oh dear! :)
You question the strength of his argument yet that comment is all you can offer to support your own. Very odd.
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 22:54
You question the strength of his argument yet that comment is all you can offer to support your own. Very odd.
Even more Irony is that I am just mirroring an earlier response of his. The irony thickens.
GETSOMENUTS
7 Mar 2008, 22:56
It must be a boring night out your way Paddy, u seem intent on an arguement.
Doctor Moffet
7 Mar 2008, 22:56
^^^^^^^^ Whoops. I appologise Paddywackers. Read the posts all wrong and got the names confused. I retract that above post.
GETSOMENUTS
7 Mar 2008, 22:57
This thread should have died yonks ago, we all agree Mike is a little weed and we all agree he hates Collingwood. Wheres the debate??????
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 23:07
^^^^^^^^ Whoops. I appologise Paddywackers. Read the posts all wrong and got the names confused. I retract that above post.
no worries mate. :thumbsu:
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 23:12
It must be a boring night out your way Paddy, u seem intent on an arguement.
hehe I have become a bigfooty addict these last few days. :thumbsu:
Paddywackers
7 Mar 2008, 23:38
Then after all that you have the nerve to question my credibility by taking my post out of context and than follow it up with the most laughable thing ever written on bigfooty. Firstly I did not state that hird is the most courageous player I have seen. What I said was the he and voss where 2 of the most courageous I have seen, its a very different statement. You yourself have agreed he is courageous. Your other far fetched conspiracy theory is the one that really takes the cake. Please explain how Macavany, sheehan, 7 the dome and Essendon are in each others pockets when the 2 people you mention do not follow essendon, the dome is run by a carlton man(who hate essendon just as much as we do, and as far as I know 7 have no connection with the bombers whatsoever. If you did come onto this board with any credibility it is gone on those comments alone.
Sprry Getsomenuts but this guy edited his post... and I feel I need to respond.
Ok, not sure if 7 sponsors Essendon now. But they certainly were sponsoring Essendon for a number of years. And they still do sponsor their home ground. Macavaney is a 7 man through and through and if you can't see that the man has evolved a bias for Essendon than maybe you do need to become more sceptical about life. Remember Sheedy was referenced by Eddie Maguire as 7 Sheedy. The fact that 7 were Essendon's sponsors and whilst being a broadcaster of this great game was just as much a conflict of interests as it was Eddie Maguire being at nine. Although much more decietful as it goes over the head of people like you as it is not as direct. Not as direct but just as much as a conflict of interests infact worse because it was going over your head aswell as well as many others that are not that intelligent.
Oh and currently Channel 7 sponsors the dome - Essendon's home ground.
Do you think if Channel 7 sponsors Essendon, would they have an interest to promote this organization above all others? An obvious answer and whilst the partnership is no longer there the two parties are still linked.
Look at my previous posts and you will find that I have mostly spelt the word correctly, and in this case it was laziness. In your case you didn't know the correct spelling ACCEPT. You should be grateful that I taught you something. :)
First you accuse me of being brainwashed. Then you back up your arguments with outlandish conspiracy theories, then you take my comments out of context and now you try and patronise me. I should have quit with you after the first post and feel really stupid for getting sucked in to responding to someone who clearly has the maturity of a 10 year old. For those who have had to read our dribble I apologize. I just find it hard not to resist when people come on here and rather than try and have a constructive debate they resort to stuff like you must be brainwashed if you have that opinion and then try and patronise me by correcting my spelling.
ITs pointless continuing this PW but I will finish with one last bit of advise, if you want to come on here and have a debate which as you say is what BF is all about then you may want to start off by actually responding to peoples post with a constuctive argument rather than laughable stuff about being brainwashed etc etc. As for your far fetched conspiracy theory if you seriously believe the football community overates hird because of the reasons you mentioned then good for you. I personally think its the funniest theory I have ever heard.
Feel free to have the last say as I have already wasted far too much time on this pointless exercise
FFS grow you wankers
With due respect sKade I think I am entitled to defend myself when someone comes on here and accuses me I being brainwashed for simply having a different opinion. But agreed I took it too far and should have quit ages ago. Just can't help myself I guess.
Paddywackers
8 Mar 2008, 09:35
As for your far fetched conspiracy theory if you seriously believe the football community overates hird because of the reasons you mentioned then good for you. I personally think its the funniest theory I have ever heard.
Feel free to have the last say as I have already wasted far too much time on this pointless exercise
Hird was a champion. Fantastic. I also believed his career was glorified by 7 who sponsored Essendon during a time they were broadcasting the rights. I belive Buckley was always better but because of Sevens conflict of interests people like you have been sucked in to this glorified version of Hird. What about the pubicity he got when he retired last year? Even Essendon supporters said agreed that it went to far. If there was ever a footballer put up a few paedastools by the media it was this guy.
Without the filters of watching footy through the binoculars of Channel 7 the sponsor of the Essendon FC of which Hird was captain, Buckley was better.
The fact that you didn't even know that 7 were Essendon's sponsor suggests to me that my brainwahsed theory is correct. It is the same theory people used re Maguire's PR of Collingwood and it's players at 9.
You've been incredibly abusive and nasty throughout this thread so I wouldn't complain about me claiming that you were brainwahsed, afterall that is my opinion which it seems you can't accept. Funny that.
Voss > Hird > Buckley
An unbiased view, of course.
Hmm I know this is the Collingwood board, but come on, I find that comment hard to justify ..
It is not improbably to argue that if you switched both Len T and Big Nick in the 1970 GF, the result probably would have been different ..
Nothing dispariganging Thompson here, but come on, John Nicholls is the greatest ruckman in the history of VFL/AFL football ...
You do realise that there is 8 years difference in age between Nicholls and Thompson? Nicholls debuted in the late 50s, was a champion player of the 60s. and by 72 and 3 was a veteran helped out in the ruck enormously by Percy Jones. Thommo debuted in the mid 60s and was a champion of the 70s, probably the dominant ruckman of the mid 70s. So using wthe 1970 GF as evidence of Nicholls dominance over Thompson is plain dumb....Nicholls was at his peak, Thompson's was 2 or 3 years away...they had enormous respect for each other and had some great battles, but they never competed against each other when both were at their peak, the age difference was too great.
Nicholls was the last great old fashioned ruckman but he was the last of the dinosaurs. Tough, skillful, ruthless, rat cunning, a brutal enforcer, he would stop at nothing, as Neville Crowe found out at the tribunal. But the fact is he would not have been out of place going up against Jack Dyer or Syd Coventry in the 30s. for modern football he was too short and too slow...Thompson, in my view, was the far more significant footballer as he changed the way that Ruckman played and raised the bar. The first modern ruckman. No more could you get away with having a tough stodgy 6ft 2 in ruckman......Ruckman had to be bigger, more athletic...Simon Madden, Dean Cox, Spider Everrit, PEter Moore. Thompson was a revolutionary player and deserves his place amongst the slect few who genuinely change the way the game was played. Like Jack Dyer who invented the drop punt, Ron Barassi who was the first ruck-rover, Kevin Barltett who was so annoyingly good that they changed the holding the ball rule to thwart him. Nicholls was a champion player, but I hold the revolutionaries in much higher regard that a bloke who was a 1960s version of Jack Dyer.....