Rank the 10 greatest Eagles players of all-time

[flamingEMBERS]

The way I see it is Cox and Cousins are country miles ahead of the rest and that you can also make a case for the Norm Smith Medalist Andrew Embley

Cousins
Cox
Judd
Matera
Jakovich
Kemp
Glass
Mainwaring
Kerr
Worsfold/Wirrpanda/Embley

 

[JackJako27]

Where the **** is Guy McKenna?? Easily better than Mainy, Worsfold, Kerr and Glass.

You'll note in my comments on Worsfold it was tough to split the two, but I went with Woosha due to his leadership. Yes Bluey could and should probably make the top 10 but as I said, this was my opinion.

 

[amazingjoshy]

1. Matera
2. Jako
3. Cox
4. Judd
5. Cousins
6. McKenna
7. Kemp
8. Glass
9. Mainwaring
10.Worsfold

McKenna being horribly underrated so far imo.....Woosh the most influencial person at our club ever so had to squeeze him in too but McKenna was a much better player.

Suma, McIntosh, Lewis, Kerr and Wirra unlucky.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Where the **** is Guy McKenna?? Easily better than Mainy, Worsfold, Kerr and Glass.

McKenna was "easily better" than Glass? Really?

I agree that he probably has the edge over the rest but it's hardly a country mile.

 

[Ian Dargie]

1. I think it's crazy so many people go with Jako at the top. IMO it's Cousins just shading Matera. Jako somewhere in the top 5. Clear 1 and 2 though is Cousins/Matera.

Why?

Games record-holder and our best ever KPP.

Was the linchpin of our flag-winning defences while still very young and went on to become the best CHB of the modern era, who was capable of beating the best CHF of the modern era at his own game. At his best, he was probably the most dominant key defender I've seen. That's good enough for me.

2. Not enough love for Chris Lewis.

I have lots of love for Chris Lewis but I think there are definitely 10 guys ahead of him.

In many ways, Lewis is comparable to Kerr. Burst on to the scene and made an impact early but there were some lost years through injury and ill-discipline, to the point where he probably didn't produce his best often enough to demand inclusion in this list. Unlike Lewis, Kerr still has time to get there.

3. Probably too much love for D.Glass. I love Glassy but some people have him ranked higher than Bluey?? Craziness.

Do you want to make a real argument for once?

Glass has been among the league's top FBs for many years and is still at the top of his game on the other side of 30. McKenna was not.

At best, it's a close-run thing. So to dismiss it as "craziness" makes you sound unreasonable.

 

[Ian Dargie]

The way I see it is Cox and Cousins are country miles ahead of the rest and that you can also make a case for the Norm Smith Medalist Andrew Embley

Cousins
Cox
Judd
Matera
Jakovich
Kemp
Glass
Mainwaring
Kerr
Worsfold/Wirrpanda/Embley

Embley over McKenna and McIntosh?

People's opinions will obviously vary but that's a head-scratcher.

 

[tesseract]

Tell him he's dreaming is actually a quote from a popular australian film. Anyways Daniel Kerr is a very good footballer, but not as great as Peter Matera.

Repeating your opinion that Peter Matera is a greater footballer than Kerr doesn't make it more persuasive. Care to provide a reason?

 

[Masto]

Repeating your opinion that Peter Matera is a greater footballer than Kerr doesn't make it more persuasive. Care to provide a reason?

Matera: Norm Smith + 5 x AA.
Kerr: 1 x AA.

 

[tesseract]

Too high, I think.

How many really good seasons did he actually have? Four? 1990-93?

Was on the way down by the second flag and only played 150 games.

I think it probably is, isn't it?

Has Sumich covered, for example. Surely.

I prefer Glass for his leadership and longevity.

On the other side of 30, Glass is still the league's best FB. Sure McIntosh was a great FB but I reckon Glass has been better for longer. I know that AA selection certainly isn't the be-all and end-all but Glass's four appearances suggest he has been among the league's best 1-2 FBs for more seasons than McIntosh was.

Peter Sumich didn't shine for a decade, but neither did Chris Judd, and Judd was #2 on my list. Both shone very brightly though, enough so that I rank them amongst the top 10 greatest Eagles.

Peter Matera being placed higher by others is fair. I thought that would be the case with many lists. But I have my reason for placing him where I have. Before matches, I used to think: "Is Matera going to fire today?" What he was capable of wasn't on display often enough to displace the other elite players ahead of him on my list, IMO.

Glass certainly has McIntosh covered in those two areas you've named. McIntosh was somewhat underrated and didn't get the kind of league-wide kudos he deserved, in part due to the attention and fapping over an overrated Silvagni. McIntosh in the league's best 1-2 FB's may not have been the opinion of some commentators and so-called experts, but he was, IMO. I thought of McIntosh as among the best of his position, for a time, back in the day, just as Glass has been in more recent times, though admittedly for a longer period. I think McIntosh did what Glass does as a FB, but also provided more because of his versatility due to his athleticism. He just didn't offer the leadership that Glass does. It's fair to rate Glass higher than McIntosh if more weight is placed on leadership. Without leadership given considerable weight, I believe McIntosh was a top shelf FB, just as Glass is, but had more strings to his bow.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Despite this feeling like a trap I'm going to put my top 10 as well.

1. Chris Judd
2. Peter Matera
3. Ben Cousins
4. Dean Cox
5. Glen Jakovich
6. Guy McKenna
7. Dean Kemp
8. Chris Lewis
9. John Worsfold
10. Chris Mainwaring

 

[Masto]

Despite this feeling like a trap I'm going to put my top 10 as well.

1. Chris Judd
2. Peter Matera
3. Ben Cousins
4. Dean Cox
5. Glen Jakovich
6. Guy McKenna
7. Dean Kemp
8. Chris Lewis
9. John Worsfold
10. Chris Mainwaring

Surprised more people haven't put Judd at #1. Sure, it was a shortened career but it was absolutely top shelf. AA, Brownlow, Norm Smith, Premiership Captain. He did everything there was to achieve in football while @ WCE.

 

[tesseract]

Matera: Norm Smith + 5 x AA.
Kerr: 1 x AA.

Some could use that as part of their argument to have Matera ahead, but I don't. An AA count isn't the be all and end all of the discussion though. Matera and Kerr played during different generations with different team members. Matera didn't have Judd and Cousins stealing his thunder during the years near the top. Matera also didn't play through an unsuccessful period as Kerr has. Matera had the opportunity to always look great because WC were winning more often than not. WC had a great but blue collar team during their successful period in the 90's. Matera stood out with his dazzling moves and scintillating play; it drew attention and fanfare, but what he was capable of wasn't on display game after game like those named above him on my list. So it seems that AA's don't mean as much to me as it does you.

Why are we even having a discussion if AA's and Norm Smith's are the criteria. If that were the case, there should be no discussion in the first place, for all we would have to do is make a top 10 based on those numbers.

 

[Masto]

Some could use that as part of their argument to have Matera ahead, but I don't. An AA count isn't the be all and end all of the discussion though. Matera and Kerr played during different generations with different team members. Matera didn't have Judd and Cousins stealing his thunder during the years near the top. Matera also didn't play through an unsuccessful period as Kerr has. Matera had the opportunity to always look great because WC were winning more often than not. WC had a great but blue collar team during their successful period in the 90's. Matera stood out with his dazzling moves and scintillating play; it drew attention and fanfare, but what he was capable of wasn't on display game after game like those named above him on my list. So it seems that AA's don't mean as much to me as it does you.

Why are we even having a discussion if AA's and Norm Smith's are the criteria. If that were the case, there should be no discussion in the first place, for all we would have to do is make a top 10 based on those numbers.

Well I disagree, we'll keep it at that.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Peter Sumich didn't shine for a decade, but neither did Chris Judd, and Judd was #2 on my list. Both shone very brightly though, enough so that I rank them amongst the top 10 greatest Eagles.

Bit different.

Judd left the club after an awesome career and remained a great player at Carlton. Sumich stayed put but was nothing special after 1993.

Peter Matera being placed higher by others is fair. I thought that would be the case with many lists. But I have my reason for placing him where I have. Before matches, I used to think: "Is Matera going to fire today?" What he was capable of wasn't on display often enough to displace the other elite players ahead of him on my list, IMO.

Jesus, really?

Sumich above Matera because Matera wasn't consistent enough?

Sumich was far more erratic. Do you not remember the days when he simply forgot how to kick straight?

Glass certainly has McIntosh covered in those two areas you've named. McIntosh was somewhat underrated and didn't get the kind of league-wide kudos he deserved, in part due to the attention and fapping over an overrated Silvagni.

Don't know about that. McIntosh was still regarded as an elite FB.

It's fair to rate Glass higher than McIntosh if more weight is placed on leadership. Without leadership given considerable weight, I believe McIntosh was a top shelf FB, just as Glass is, but had more strings to his bow.

Leadership aside, Glass has been top 1-2 in his position for longer than McIntosh was.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Surprised more people haven't put Judd at #1. Sure, it was a shortened career but it was absolutely top shelf.

Well, you've explained that consensus yourself so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

He played only 134 games and is unanimously top 5 but most feel he didn't stick around long enough to be top of the pile. Is that surprising?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Some could use that as part of their argument to have Matera ahead, but I don't. An AA count isn't the be all and end all of the discussion though. Matera and Kerr played during different generations with different team members. Matera didn't have Judd and Cousins stealing his thunder during the years near the top.

Is that really how it works?

Surely playing alongside other great midfielders is an advantage. Rather than "stealing his thunder", Judd and Cousins made life easier for Kerr.

That's why, when people rate Cousins, the fact he carried the midfield when we were struggling counts in his favour. He doesn't get downgraded because there was no one else around to "steal his thunder".

Besides, Matera was hardly a lone hand in those sides so I don't think it's a revealing point of comparison.

Matera also didn't play through an unsuccessful period as Kerr has.

But Kerr didn't actually do much during that unsuccessful period.

For mine, that has to count against him.

He's still a great player but when the opportunity came along for him to be the main man, he couldn't quite grasp it the way Cousins did in those years when he had little support.

Matera had the opportunity to always look great because WC were winning more often than not.

You could say the same about Kerr up until 2008. In those years, he got tagged less than Matera in his prime.

 

[tesseract]

Bit different.

Judd left the club after an awesome career and remained a great player at Carlton. Sumich stayed put but was nothing special after 1993.

Jesus, really?

Sumich above Matera because Matera wasn't consistent enough?

Sumich was far more erratic. Do you not remember the days when he simply forgot how to kick straight?

Don't know about that. McIntosh was still regarded as an elite FB.

Leadership aside, Glass has been top 1-2 in his position for longer than McIntosh was.

I don't put as much emphasis on longevity as some. If I did, Judd wouldn't be on my list. The fact remains that Judd only spent half a dozen years at WC, yet that was enough time to earn him such a high position on my list, as well as pretty much everyone else's. Sumich shone for 4-6 years, yet that too is enough for him to take a place on my list. What Judd did after he left WC is irrelevant to a discussion on top 10 best Eagles. Sumich not shining as brightly after his golden years is reason to possibly lower him on a list or leave him out altogether in some folks mind, but not in mine. What he produced during his golden years was enough to make him a legend at WC and top 10, IMO.

Matera wasn't consistent enough compared to the midfielders I've named above him. That was stated in my original post. You've picked one facet from Sumich's game - his kicking - and made the issue of Matera's consistency compared to other midfielders transform into a comparison of one facet of Sumich's game. Fact is that Sumich has always had an erratic kick, but he still performed brilliantly during his golden years. Despite his kick, he plundered goals a many.

You rate Glass higher than McIntosh. I rate McIntosh better than Glass for the reasons I've already stated. If Glass being rated higher for longer had been given more weighting when drawing my conclusion, I'd see it as you do. But I don't place as much emphasis on someone else's ranking or criteria. I've seen them both play for a long period of time and would choose McIntosh, if I had to choose one, due to the reasons I've already provided. It comes down to the subjective valuing of traits. Yours are different from mine, hence the differing conclusion.

 

[tesseract]

It's not a matter of "Is that really how it works?" Given this thread is an exercise in subjective views, it's a matter of 'how each individual personally sees it'.
I'm sure there are both pro's and cons for Kerr playing with Judd and Cousins. Did Kerr playing with those two make his footballing easier? Yes. Did playing with two players better than him steal his thunder? Yes, for there was less opportunity to shine. Just like when a star studded midfield have multiple players so-called "stealing" Brownlow votes from each other. Kerr is an elite player in his own right. Personal awards possibly could've been more forthcoming if Judd and Cousins weren't around to steal his thunder, so to speak.

I never said or implied that Matera was a lone hand in his day. I said that WC's team in the 90's was great but blue collar, and that Matera produced dazzling moves and scintillating play. What I meant by this is that he stood out at WC due to the flair and uniqueness he played with compared to his more workman-like fellow midfielders. That's very much unlike Kerr, who had Judd and Cousins stealing his thunder.

Being injured and suspended often during the Eagles recent dark years didn't give Kerr much continuation to his game. His form didn't reach the heights of what he's capable of, and that's a possible reason. But using Cousins as your measure of Kerr in this regard, I agree. It's but one reason as to Kerr being rated lower than Cousins.

Matera's situation was different to Kerr's during their respective successful periods. Matera may have been tagged more often, but he was the main man, the Eagles' most dangerous player at the time. With this came opportunity that wasn't afforded Kerr. Kerr, while not tagged as much, was still behind Judd and Cousins, who were the focus of the team for WC as well as the opposition.

 

[WCEforeverman]

Looking back McIntosh underachieved personally. Not in team success of course.

The fact that Glass is rated higher than him shows how much he underachieved.

He had way, way more natural talent than Darren. In his earlier years his work ethic held him back from achieving his potential, and in his later years it was his knees.

In 1998 when he finally pulled his finger out he was unbeatable at full back.

Glass is a great example of getting the most from your talent but is nowhere near as athletically gifted as McIntosh.

If McIntosh had Glass's work ethic and longevity he would be rated in our top 3 players of all time and would have had multiple AA's.

 

[Masto]

I do not agree that McIntosh or Matera were underachievers or were inconsistent. I think people have a warped view of history.

McIntosh played in 3GFs in his first 4 years. He played on and nullified some of the game's great players - Dunstall, Lockett, Abblett etc. That for me puts him ahead of Glass as a player - the players he played on and nullified were of a superior quality. He even polled in the Brownlow a few times which shows how dynamic he was as a player.

 

[Marlin01]

I've tried to do this list and found it too difficult to compare players of different eras and different positions. I have therefore come up with a set of criteria to help.

12 points: Club Champion: speaks for itself. Doesn't help comparing different eras.
7 points: All-Australian: compares players with their contemporaries, therefore negating era problem.
4 points: Premiership: what it's all about.
3 points/year: Captain: leadership is as important as any drop punt.
2 points: Norm Smith: BOG when it matters most.

Have I missed any? Are my weightings right?

 

[Masto]

I've tried to do this list and found it too difficult to compare players of different eras and different positions. I have therefore come up with a set of criteria to help.

12 points: Club Champion: speaks for itself. Doesn't help comparing different eras.
7 points: All-Australian: compares players with their contemporaries, therefore negating era problem.
4 points: Premiership: what it's all about.
3 points/year: Captain: leadership is as important as any drop punt.
2 points: Norm Smith: BOG when it matters most.

Have I missed any? Are my weightings right?

Premiership Captain deserves extra points, as does Brownlow. I think you have given too many points to club champion and not enough to premiership and Norm Smith.

 

[Marlin01]

Premiership Captain deserves extra points, as does Brownlow. I think you have given too many points to club champion and not enough to premiership and Norm Smith.

Good points. I didn't include the Brownlow because it's really only available to midfielders.

 

[Masto]

Good points. I didn't include the Brownlow because it's really only available to midfielders.

It still counts for something because it compares players with their contemporaries.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I don't put as much emphasis on longevity as some. If I did, Judd wouldn't be on my list. The fact remains that Judd only spent half a dozen years at WC, yet that was enough time to earn him such a high position on my list, as well as pretty much everyone else's. Sumich shone for 4-6 years, yet that too is enough for him to take a place on my list.

It's not an apt comparison.

You say Sumich "shone" for 4-6 years - that means four years. Look at the stats. Nothing special after 1993.

What Judd did after he left WC is irrelevant to a discussion on top 10 best Eagles.

Sure. But the point is that Judd's time is truncated because he left, whereas Sumich simply went downhill rapidly. Like I said, Sumich was pretty ordinary basically from the age of 26.

Surely that is far too early for a player to start declining and still be considered top 10.

Matera wasn't consistent enough compared to the midfielders I've named above him. That was stated in my original post. You've picked one facet from Sumich's game - his kicking - and made the issue of Matera's consistency compared to other midfielders transform into a comparison of one facet of Sumich's game.

The point is that Sumich was an erratic performer. His kicking was a big part of that. You hold Matera's supposed inconsistency against him yet give Sumich a pass.

You rate Glass higher than McIntosh. I rate McIntosh better than Glass for the reasons I've already stated.

I'll take Glass's three B&Fs over McIntosh's one.

Glass, simply put, has been a top-drawer FB for longer than McIntosh was.

If Glass being rated higher for longer had been given more weighting when drawing my conclusion, I'd see it as you do. But I don't place as much emphasis on someone else's ranking or criteria. I've seen them both play for a long period of time and would choose McIntosh, if I had to choose one, due to the reasons I've already provided. It comes down to the subjective valuing of traits. Yours are different from mine, hence the differing conclusion.

That's just waffle.