10 Best Players Of All Time

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah there's no debate on their standings at all. Two of the absolute best full forwards/players ever were Coleman and Hudson and their amazing records bare this out.

Older Pies fans will remember a fat, unfit Hudson with a bung knee coming back for a one off game in 1973 at VFL Park and him making our defenders look like mugs to the tune of 8 goals without breaking a sweat. The bloke was clearly a freak.

I'd throw Gary Ablett Snr up with these blokes too. He didn't play permanent full forward until 1993 when he was 31+ years old and kicked big centuries immediately. If he'd played his entire career there who knows how many goals he'd have kicked (as it was he's still the best footballer I've seen, an unbelievable talent).

Coleman kicked 12 on debut & went on to kick exactly 100 in his maiden season, from 21 games....He won the Club best & fairest that year in 1949 & led the Bombers all the way to the Premiership, kicking 6 in the Grand Final to bring up the tonne.

The following year, in 1950, he kicked 120 from 19 games.....Again taking them to the premiership....In 1951 he kicked 75 from 16, but missed the finals through injury, I think....Essendon lost the Grand Final by 11 points without him.

Can you imagine the hysteria if a player were to have an immediate impact like that in today's game?....That kind of impact is the stuff dreams & legends are made of.

As for Ablett.... just a freak of nature really. Couldn't hack city living, unfortunately for us....There's only 3 blokes who could play anywhere, to have kicked a 100.....Ablett, Jesaulenko & Blight....Lets see if Fyfe can do that.

 

[sirlothie]

Coleman kicked 12 on debut & went on to kick exactly 100 in his maiden season, from 21 games....He won the Club best & fairest that year in 1949 & led the Bombers all the way to the Premiership, kicking 6 in the Grand Final to bring up the tonne.

The following year, in 1950, he kicked 120 from 19 games.....Again taking them to the premiership....In 1951 he kicked 75 from 16, but missed the finals through injury, I think....Essendon lost the Grand Final by 11 points without him.

Can you imagine the hysteria if a player were to have an immediate impact like that in today's game?....That kind of impact is the stuff dreams & legends are made of.

As for Ablett.... just a freak of nature really. Couldn't hack city living, unfortunately for us....There's only 3 blokes who could play anywhere, to have kicked a 100.....Ablett, Jesaulenko & Blight....Lets see if Fyfe can do that.

Daicos got close.

 

[Dan Moody]

My feeling Swan.
Swan drives more, creates more.
Shaw just played consistently and led by example

I have been to most games every year for the last 10 years (post kids growing up) and back in my teen years, went to nearly every game during the 88-93 seasons.
Shaw was far more important, we would not have won the grand final nor made finals in '90 if he wasn't playing like he did.
I keep a close eye on Swan at matches these days. A lot of his possessions are little dinky kicks, chip and charge type stuff. He can be very wasteful and his disposal these days is average. He picks up a lot of possessions but quality wise, they are very cheap. He can be very damaging when shifted forward however.
If you had have seen Shaw play live more often, you would have a different opinion unfortunately supporters can be clouded in their opinions based on the era that they are growing up supporting.

 

[Anzacday]

My feeling Swan.
Swan drives more, creates more.
Shaw just played consistently and led by example

Agree to disagree.
I love Swanny however, Shaw not only imposed his will on games but on teammates too.
Be interesting to hear Bucks' opinion, (post Swanny's retirement).

 

[sirlothie]

I have been to most games every year for the last 10 years (post kids growing up) and back in my teen years, went to nearly every game during the 88-93 seasons.
Shaw was far more important, we would not have won the grand final nor made finals in '90 if he wasn't playing like he did.
I keep a close eye on Swan at matches these days. A lot of his possessions are little dinky kicks, chip and charge type stuff. He can be very wasteful and his disposal these days is average. He picks up a lot of possessions but quality wise, they are very cheap. He can be very damaging when shifted forward however.
If you had have seen Shaw play live more often, you would have a different opinion unfortunately supporters can be clouded in their opinions based on the era that they are growing up supporting.

Shaw couldn't kick over a jam tin either. Noone is saying Shaw was s**t but Swan at his peak was incredible.

 

[jackcass]

You don't need to rank them, just list them.

I really can't rank a top ten due to the vast changes of footy throughout the years so I'll go with these ten:

Gordon Coventry, Peter Daicos, Dane Swan, Scott Pendlebury, Nathan Buckley, Gavin Brown, Bob Rose, Syd Coventry, Murray Weideman, Des Tuddenham

And just for banter: Chad Morrison, David Fanning, Tristen Walker, Andrew Williams, Tom Young, Brent Hall, Anthony Corrie, Bo Nixon, David King, Ben Davies

How does John Greening miss?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

What about
Showbags?
Mark Bayliss

Remember him? A few games in number 11
Called show bags because looked outside but crap on the inside

 

[adammania9]

How does John Greening miss?

Never saw his name as much as other Pies' players.

 

[jackcass]

Never saw his name as much as other Pies' players.

Had the pleasure of watching him play (pre & post injury) and remains the best player I've ever seen in a Pies jumper. Ahead of the trio of Daicos, Carmen and Buckley who are tied in 2nd place. Daic's may well have surpassed him if he didn't play out a large portion of his career with a crippled body. Carmen likewise if he could have engaged his brain before he ran out to play footy and remained at the club. My old man would tell you Bobby Rose pipped all 4 of these players.

 

[adammania9]

Had the pleasure of watching him play (pre & post injury) and remains the best player I've ever seen in a Pies jumper. Ahead of the trio of Daicos, Carmen and Buckley who are tied in 2nd place. Daic's may well have surpassed him if he didn't play out a large portion of his career with a crippled body. Carmen likewise if he could have engaged his brain before he ran out to play footy and remained at the club. My old man would tell you Bobby Rose pipped all 4 of these players.

I'll take your word for him then, Pies fans on here love him.

 

[Knightmare]

Top 10 Collingwood footballers: Nathan Buckley, Gordon Coventry, Peter McKenna, Len Thompson, Peter Moore, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan, Wayne Richardson, Peter Daicos, Bob Rose.

Top 10 any team all time: Nathan Buckley, Leigh Matthews, Tony Lockett, Jason Dunstall, Gary Ablett Jr, Bernie Quinlan, Peter Hudson, Kevin Bartlett, Gary Ablett Snr, Ted Whitten.

 

[Morganashlee]

Top 10 Collingwood footballers: Nathan Buckley, Gordon Coventry, Peter McKenna, Len Thompson, Peter Moore, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan, Wayne Richardson, Peter Daicos, Bob Rose.

Top 10 any team all time: Nathan Buckley, Leigh Matthews, Tony Lockett, Jason Dunstall, Gary Ablett Jr, Bernie Quinlan, Peter Hudson, Kevin Bartlett, Gary Ablett Snr, Ted Whitten.

No Carey?

 

[Jelly Bean]

Top 10 Collingwood footballers: Nathan Buckley, Gordon Coventry, Peter McKenna, Len Thompson, Peter Moore, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan, Wayne Richardson, Peter Daicos, Bob Rose.

Top 10 any team all time: Nathan Buckley, Leigh Matthews, Tony Lockett, Jason Dunstall, Gary Ablett Jr, Bernie Quinlan, Peter Hudson, Kevin Bartlett, Gary Ablett Snr, Ted Whitten.

You seem to have spelt Albert Collier's name wrong.

 

[Knightmare]

No Carey?

Carey is an All Time great and in the conversation. If I expanded to a best 15 I'd have Carey at 11 or 12, but there just isn't room on my list.

I tend to see several others historically getting overlooked though and feel their games stack up favourably v Carey. eg. Hudson being more dominant, Quinlan having even greater longetivity while also having the x2 100+ goal seasons, Lockett and Dunstall being the two greatest goalkickers over the course of their careers. Ablett SNR having those x3 freakish 120+ goal seasons.

You seem to have spelt Albert Collier's name wrong.

Feel free to pose who you would include Albert Collier instead of.

If I'm picking a team today to win with neither Collier would feature among my first 10 selected. I'm solid on each of those 10 I chose personally.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Carey is an All Time great and in the conversation. If I expanded to a best 15 I'd have Carey at 11 or 12, but there just isn't room on my list.

I tend to see several others historically getting overlooked though and feel their games stack up favourably v Carey. eg. Hudson being more dominant, Quinlan having even greater longetivity while also having the x2 100+ goal seasons, Lockett and Dunstall being the two greatest goalkickers over the course of their careers. Ablett SNR having those x3 freakish 120+ goal seasons.



Feel free to pose who you would include Albert Collier instead of.

If I'm picking a team today to win with neither Collier would feature among my first 10 selected. I'm solid on each of those 10 I chose personally.

Wayne Richardson

 

[Knightmare]

Wayne Richardson

Many would agree with you but I can't agree that either Collier is better than W.Richardson.

Richardson played 277 games and was consistently productive and dominating throughout his career headlined by a 755 disposal, 139 mark, 37 goal season in 1971. Richardson was one of those accumulators who offered extremely heavy scoreboard impact at more than a goal per game. I have to bow and pay my respects. Those kinds of numbers in the 60s/70s can certainly stack up today in what was a lower possession era relative to today. I'll take that over any of the backmen we've had, key or general backmen in club history.

If we were to talk about who historically were the best key defenders in club history. A.Collier would be 1/2 on most lists. In saying that, Collingwood hasn't had a key defender on the level that they've been a career best at club level player. Albert was someone during his time who was in the conversation with Gordon and Syd Coventry and Harry (Collier), rather than being the best player at the club during an era of play that just wouldn't be remotely competitive v today's modern players with the little man territory game as it was during that era.

 

[jmac70]

Best I saw..

1. Daicos
2. Bucks
3. Peter Moore
4. Pendlebury
5. Swan
6. Millane
7. Gavin Brown
8. Tony Shaw
9. Mick McGuane
10. Renee Kink

 

[sirlothie]

Best I saw

1. Buckley
2. Daicos
3. Swan
4. Pendlebury
5. Millane
6. G. Brown
7. Clement
8. L. Davis
9. Burns
10. S. Rocca

 

[35Daicos]

Many would agree with you but I can't agree that either Collier is better than W.Richardson.

Richardson played 277 games and was consistently productive and dominating throughout his career headlined by a 755 disposal, 139 mark, 37 goal season in 1971. Richardson was one of those accumulators who offered extremely heavy scoreboard impact at more than a goal per game. I have to bow and pay my respects. Those kinds of numbers in the 60s/70s can certainly stack up today in what was a lower possession era relative to today. I'll take that over any of the backmen we've had, key or general backmen in club history.

If we were to talk about who historically were the best key defenders in club history. A.Collier would be 1/2 on most lists. In saying that, Collingwood hasn't had a key defender on the level that they've been a career best at club level player. Albert was someone during his time who was in the conversation with Gordon and Syd Coventry and Harry (Collier), rather than being the best player at the club during an era of play that just wouldn't be remotely competitive v today's modern players with the little man territory game as it was during that era.

Knightmare, trying to compare players from different eras is obviously almost impossible. I'm almost 60 and have watched the game for nearly 50 years but even I didn't see the Collier's and Coventry's play! Growing up in SA I saw very little of even the likes of McKenna and Thompson, except on television! Almost everyone will go with players from the tv era, which makes things very hard for those from the earlier days. I do plenty of looking into the game's history, and reading stories from yesteryear. I'm happy to go with the opinions of the people who were around in the days when the older guys were playing, this thread I think is well worth reading (it covers what Jack Dyer had to say about Albert Collier):- http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/albert-collier-a-god-amongst-men.1039810/

When an all-time legend like Dyer rates him as highly as he did I take notice of that. Wayne Richardson was a wonderful player, but surely not even close to being in our top 10 of all time. I don't really get what you mean with your last sentence BTW. Even if A. Collier wasn't our very best at the time, given the fact that we had so many all-time greats in our team back then I wouldn't hold it against him. It surely can't be held against him that he was short (by todays standards) as a CHB. Of course he wouldn't have a hope against a modern day CHF at his height. But have a look at this famous picture - he would still scare the sh** out of most opponents - whatever the era!

Albert Collier was a 6 time Premiership player (and won a Brownlow playing [mostly] as a teenager). The fact that he and Jack Regan weren't named in the TotC is something we Collingwood folk have every right to be uppity about! The fact that you have neither in your top 10 Collingwood players of all-time I just can't agree with.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare, trying to compare players from different eras is obviously almost impossible. I'm almost 60 and have watched the game for nearly 50 years but even I didn't see the Collier's and Coventry's play! Growing up in SA I saw very little of even the likes of McKenna and Thompson, except on television! Almost everyone will go with players from the tv era, which makes things very hard for those from the earlier days. I do plenty of looking into the game's history, and reading stories from yesteryear. I'm happy to go with the opinions of the people who were around in the days when the older guys were playing, this thread I think is well worth reading (it covers what Jack Dyer had to say about Albert Collier):- http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/albert-collier-a-god-amongst-men.1039810/

When an all-time legend like Dyer rates him as highly as he did I take notice of that. Wayne Richardson was a wonderful player, but surely not even close to being in our top 10 of all time. I don't really get what you mean with your last sentence BTW. Even if A. Collier wasn't our very best at the time, given the fact that we had so many all-time greats in our team back then I wouldn't hold it against him. It surely can't be held against him that he was short (by todays standards) as a CHB. Of course he wouldn't have a hope against a modern day CHF at his height. But have a look at this famous picture - he would still scare the sh** out of most opponents - whatever the era!

Albert Collier was a 6 time Premiership player (and won a Brownlow playing [mostly] as a teenager). The fact that he and Jack Regan weren't named in the TotC is something we Collingwood folk have every right to be uppity about! The fact that you have neither in your top 10 Collingwood players of all-time I just can't agree with.

Albert Collier and Jack Regan are Collingwood's two greatest key defenders, if you say, any era, best player during their time at a key defence post. They're the guys who if constructing a Collingwood All Time Best 22 are the guys who should be selected. I can agree with you there having also delved deep into the history books and completed my study.

I just don't agree with your evaluation of positional value and the ability of those who played in the 20s/30s/40s would be able to reproduce their level of play v modern competition which for me personally is a key criteria. Today both Collier and Regan would today obviously both be positioned as general defenders given their heights. I just can't get that excited about that.

My perspective is more a top 10 of who I would take to bring in and play for me today but that's simply my interpretation.

 

[Dan Moody]

Albert Collier and Jack Regan are Collingwood's two greatest key defenders, if you say, any era, best player during their time at a key defence post. They're the guys who if constructing a Collingwood All Time Best 22 are the guys who should be selected. I can agree with you there having also delved deep into the history books and completed my study.

I just don't agree with your evaluation of positional value and the ability of those who played in the 20s/30s/40s would be able to reproduce their level of play v modern competition which for me personally is a key criteria. Today both Collier and Regan would today obviously both be positioned as general defenders given their heights. I just can't get that excited about that.

My perspective is more a top 10 of who I would take to bring in and play for me today but that's simply my interpretation.

So going by your interpretation, neither Babe Ruth nor Donald Bradman could be considered the greatest of all time in their respective sports? Based on your reasoning, Ruth would be bamboozled by a Clayton Kershaw sinker and Bradman wouldn't even get out of single figures against the bowling lineups of today. Jesse Owens would come stone motherless in a race against the 2nd or 3rd tier sprinters, Fangio would be on the back of the grid if he even made it out of kart racing and Rod Laver wouldn't take a point off any top 100 players in this day and age.
Mind you all of the above IS true, they dominated their era but wouldn't cut it against the athletes of today.
That evolution, doesn't mean they shouldn't be regarded as the greatest of all time as they were dominant against the opposition of the time.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Albert Collier and Jack Regan are Collingwood's two greatest key defenders, if you say, any era, best player during their time at a key defence post. They're the guys who if constructing a Collingwood All Time Best 22 are the guys who should be selected. I can agree with you there having also delved deep into the history books and completed my study.

I just don't agree with your evaluation of positional value and the ability of those who played in the 20s/30s/40s would be able to reproduce their level of play v modern competition which for me personally is a key criteria. Today both Collier and Regan would today obviously both be positioned as general defenders given their heights. I just can't get that excited about that.

My perspective is more a top 10 of who I would take to bring in and play for me today but that's simply my interpretation.

Gordon Coventry would struggle in todays game, yet you've picked him... I don't think assessing players from the 20s for their ability to play football against todays elite is the right way to go.

 

[Knightmare]

So going by your interpretation, neither Babe Ruth nor Donald Bradman could be considered the greatest of all time in their respective sports? Based on your reasoning, Ruth would be bamboozled by a Clayton Kershaw sinker and Bradman wouldn't even get out of single figures against the bowling lineups of today. Jesse Owens would come stone motherless in a race against the 2nd or 3rd tier sprinters, Fangio would be on the back of the grid if he even made it out of kart racing and Rod Laver wouldn't take a point off any top 100 players in this day and age.
Mind you all of the above IS true, they dominated their era but wouldn't cut it against the athletes of today.
That evolution, doesn't mean they shouldn't be regarded as the greatest of all time as they were dominant against the opposition of the time.

I don't follow cricket or baseball, but I can't imagine the rules would have changed much if at all in either sport since their times. So in either sport I see no reason why they would not still achieve much the same success eras later.

The AFL on the other hand has evolved greatly. Guys are taller, stronger and much greater athletes. And the game has evolved from a territory game as it was back in the Coventry/Collier era to a possession/skill game. Further to this the rules have changed with the flick pass and drop kick no longer existing and the handball and short kicks coming into prominence, with tackling and pressure also more recently going through an evolution. Even in key defenders in recent times they have changed drastically, you've got taller, stronger guys today and on top of that instead of being taught to play from behind, they're not being taught to play from in front more often and go for the intercept mark rather than just spoil.

With forwards while they're taller and stronger today, and have substantially better backmen facing up against them, things beyond just the needs for tackling and pressuring to keep the ball inside 50m haven't changed that much. It's still either mark and go back to convert the set shot or make something happen at ground level. And given no one was doing what Gordon Coventry was doing regarding scoreboard impact in his era, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Gordon Coventry would struggle in todays game, yet you've picked him... I don't think assessing players from the 20s for their ability to play football against todays elite is the right way to go.

As above I wouldn't put it past G.Coventry to still be good today.

Regarding criteria it's a personal preference thing, and it's pretty easy to make up a historic best for their time style team and a who would actually as a group be the best team, best able to win under modern rules. I see no reason why either has to be wrong.

 

[Robroy22]

I personally don't buy the "they wouldn't compete with today's athletes" line. The thing about champions (of any era) is that they find a way. Given the same opportunities, technology, diet, training and coaching the champs of bygone era's would easily hold their own in any company. The things that stats and measurements will never show are an athlete's ability to compete....their courage or their desire to win. It's these innate abilities that seperate the champions from the mere mortals and it will be so forever more. People seem too willing to compare stats like heights and weights and say "He'd never compete with today's super athlete's"....mate Rod Laver would find a way, so would Nat Young, Bradman, Diesel Williams and Carl Lewis. The "they wouldn't compete with today's athlete's" is for the general population of athletes. Champions have never inhabited those environs and they never will. The best will always find a way.

 

[Knightmare]

I personally don't buy the "they wouldn't compete with today's athletes" line. The thing about champions (of any era) is that they find a way. Given the same opportunities, technology, diet, training and coaching the champs of bygone era's would easily hold their own in any company. The things that stats and measurements will never show are an athlete's ability to compete....their courage or their desire to win. It's these innate abilities that seperate the champions from the mere mortals and it will be so forever more. People seem too willing to compare stats like heights and weights and say "He'd never compete with today's super athlete's"....mate Rod Laver would find a way, so would Nat Young, Bradman, Diesel Williams and Carl Lewis. The "they wouldn't compete with today's athlete's" is for the general population of athletes. Champions have never inhabited those environs and they never will. The best will always find a way.

I put that discussion down to the sport and down to the individual.

I'll use the NBA as what is an easy example for me watching as much of it as I do AFL. Wilt Chamberlain (who played in the 60s and early 70s) would kick anyone's butt from any era. But then at his height and with his strength and athleticism even today's athletes would be embarrassed by him both physically and athletically as well as from a skill perspective. Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaq. Wilt would give any of them a beating because he was flat out better than anyone else.

How would Rod Laver compare to today's tennis players? You could deck him out with a new racket and shoes, give him a couple of months to adjust to the new equipment and show him some vision of today's players and he could still be competitive with many of today's better players. He'd more likely than not be beaten by Federer, Djokovic and a healthy Nadal I'd predict.

Cricket is a bat and ball game that I don't see physical size/stature or any modern innovations really changing. So Bradman would still be Bradman.

Surfing with new boards and access to old footage would give modern surfers a leg-up I can only imagine. But it's still a surfboard and you're still on the water riding waves doing tricks, so you might just see a different repertoire from generation to generation I'd imagine being the more significant difference.

Greg Williams given his size, strength and the quality of his inside game would also stack up in today's AFL. He might not be as extremely dominant given the increased height/size of today's mids. But he could still be much the same as he was and still a one of the better pure ball winners. It's not like the rules or skills have changed so drastically since his era.

Carl Lewis running with more modern shoes plausibly could do a better time and would still be among the better runners in the world without necessarily beating Bolt or some of the others who can perform faster times.

What makes the Albert Collier example different to each and every one of these examples is that the game has changed too far since for him to be remotely relevant in today's game. Height and weight is part of it. But consider the rule changes. Flick passes are no longer legal. Handballs are a primary part of the game, during the Collier era handballs were not considered. Kicking techniques have changed dramatically from the drop kicks to the drop punts. Strategically the game then was about gaining territory and kicking long. Today it is about if you kick long, you better be hitting a target or you're better off kicking shorter. Then you've got the evolution of game-plans and how much more complex they are today, you've got tackling and pressuring which has evolved dramatically in the past 10 years.

In AFL/VFL history if you're talking the best players ever I'd be inclined to leave out everyone pre 1965 and consider those players to not be of relevance to the modern game - due to how dramatically rule changes have changed. That's not to say every player from pre 1965 would be unable to compete in the modern AFL, they just certainly wouldn't be as great as they were in their time and would almost all play less prominent roles due to their skill limitations and incompatibilities.