Josh Gibson or Sam Fisher. Who has had the better career?

[Gosha]

Gibson

 

[eth-dog]

Fisher's best was probably a bit better (not by much though) but Gibson's best has lasted a lot longer.

 

[Back One Out]

I know the popular wisdom amongst Big Footy's resident geniuses is that premierships are "irrelevant" when discussing individuals, but I beg to differ. I'm a firm believer that Josh Gibson's starring role in three premierships would indicate that he's had a better career than Sam Fisher. If you listen to the coaches working in the media, they all say the Hawks have had the most underrated, best defence in recent years. Josh Gibson is the guy who has held it all together, as reflected by his two best and fairest awards (and a close runner up to Mitchell in 2011).

Sam Fisher has been a great player for St Kilda, but Gibson has been a champion since crossing from North to Hawthorn. Probably the best all-round defender in the AFL over the last 5 years. The geniuses on Big Footy only rate defenders by their ability to win aerial man-on-man contests, which basically means they judge them on 15% of what they do and ignore the other 85%. Gibson is like this decade's version of Bruce Doull or Bluey McKenna - just a cool head in defence who gets to where the ball is and snuffs out the danger with a minimum of fuss.

 

[WCEbrody]

The way the question is worded, it's Gibson easily.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

2 Best and Fairest's in Premiership years/ End Thread.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Gibson a slightly better party boy. Much more successful footballer

They're both top of the tree in this regard.

 

[saintkildaman]

Fishers best is better but Gibson has been at such a high standard for the last 5 years.

 

[ManOfClay]

They're both top of the tree in this regard.

Gibson dated a pussycat doll. Puts him in front

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Gibson dated a pussycat doll. Puts him in front

Good point

 

[Donakebab]

Gibson dated a pussycat doll. Puts him in front

Saw Gibson get hit on by a cross dresser at Transport when he was still at North. Neg points.

 

[ManOfClay]

Saw Gibson get hit on by a cross dresser at Transport when he was still at North. Neg points.

At this rate fisher will be behind rookie party boy Liberatore

 

[Galaxy]

Fisher at his peak was better than Gibson but Gibson was/has been better for longer.
Individual accolades you can't look past 3 premierships and 2 B&F's in premiership years so Gibson has had the "better career".

I'd still rather have had Fisher at the Cats than Gibson.
*He also fits in perfectly with us usually only recruiting injury prone players.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

They are asked to play slightly different roles. Fisher could play genuine key position. Gibson has always looked shaky playing one out against genuine key forwards.

I think if starting a team Fisher gives you more flexibility but as pointed out if you're asking about better career it's hard to argue against premierships.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I don't think there is any question as to who has had the 'better career.'

But if we're talking about who is and has been the superior player then it becomes a good debate.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Gibson clearly the better player and the better career.

Yep....^^^This pretty well sums it up.

 

[Chubberson]

Gibson clearly better is absolute rubbish. It's a good poll, I take Gibson for career and Gibson narrowly as a player, super consistent and more durable. Fishers best was IMO better than Gibsons.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Seem to be a few people discounting the first half of their careers. Could argue Gibson has only been better for the last 4 years, and a lot of that has been a no contest with Fisher injured.

From 2005 to 2011 Saint Kilda were consistently among the best defensive teams and Fisher was their best defender. People forget very quickly.

Supercoach scores aren't everything, but they are decent indicator and he was miles ahead.

 

[Bobby_]

I know the popular wisdom amongst Big Footy's resident geniuses is that premierships are "irrelevant" when discussing individuals, but I beg to differ. I'm a firm believer that Josh Gibson's starring role in three premierships would indicate that he's had a better career than Sam Fisher.

Sam Fisher has been nothing short of brilliant in finals.
He's often been one of their most consistent finals performers and that takes a pretty damn good player to do so. Like Gibson, was often undersized but he was no doubt a superior mark to Gibson. Backed himself in the air opposed to belting the ball away.
Both players are 2 x best and fairest winners and both are All Australians.

I would go with Fisher myself. He was a lot more sturdier against power forwards. If you can remember back before Brian Lake came to Hawthorn, Gibson was often struggling to hold his own against the best forwards. He certainly wasn't disgraced but his job was made much easier when Lake came over and took the best forward on a consistent basis.
Fisher never really had that much help. Blake, Dawson, Gilbert, Clarke, they were either too short or built like whippets (Gilbert and Dawson particularly).

 

[Chubberson]

Max Hudgton was good at punching above his weight and taking heat off. The only reason I went Gibson was because of injury over the last two-three years. In terms of talent and what they are capable of on a footy field at their best, Fisher has it, fairly clearly in my mind.

 

[Bobby_]

That's true. Hudghton was a good defender in his own right. He was a fair bit older though and was very much at the end of his career by the time the Saints were genuine contenders in 2007ish.

 

[Chubberson]

That's true. Hudghton was a good defender in his own right. He was a fair bit older though and was very much at the end of his career by the time the Saints were genuine contenders in 2007ish.

Yeah for sure.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Seem to be a few people discounting the first half of their careers. Could argue Gibson has only been better for the last 4 years, and a lot of that has been a no contest with Fisher injured.

From 2005 to 2011 Saint Kilda were consistently among the best defensive teams and Fisher was their best defender. People forget very quickly.

Supercoach scores aren't everything, but they are decent indicator and he was miles ahead.

View attachment 214838

View attachment 214839

There you have it.

Proof that super-coach really is no gauge of a footballer.

 

[schmuttt]

Fisher is a slightly better defender than Gibson 1 on 1, Gibson is superior at the intercept and 3rd man up stuff though. Both guns.

 

[dazzledavey36]

Is this Poll serious? Gibson by a country mile.

Fisher is a *******

 

[HeHateMe]

Fisher is a slightly better defender than Gibson 1 on 1, Gibson is superior at the intercept and 3rd man up stuff though. Both guns.

This a weird comment imo, Gibson has a much better record 1v1. Fisher when asked to bat above his weight has struggled consistently while Gibson is one of the premier kpb in the comp over the last few years. Against players fisher is more suitable on playing on 3rd tall ect it's much closer.

Don't get me wrong I'm not here to say Gibson by a mile but this Gibson is a bad defender nonsense is ridiculous. He got regularly beaten by cloke and Hawkins, news flash almost all defenders get beaten by those two while on song. Fisher has always struggled on the talls in all shapes and forms.

If we want to compare the players as 3rd talls go ahead but please state as such in your comment

Example.

"fisher is a better defender on the 3rd tall or smaller players then Gibson because he is more accountable and hurts them more going the other way"

Ps. I'm sure some one can explain why fisher has struggled on the taller types and if so I'm all ears.