Discussion Australian Football Hall of Fame 2017 inductees

[Gibbsy]

Thought I would post a thread here as I'd like a more knowledgable view on the inductees to the HOF tonight, from the good folk of what might just be my favourite board on BF.

I'll give my individual thoughts on each inductee but I would appreciate the same from others also. Feel free to later turn this thread into a discussion about the merits of the HOF and its 'recentism' (this is a word according to Wikipedia!); this particular AF.com article is well worth a read.

Anyway, the inductees:

• Barry Hall - In my opinion a worthy choice given people forget how important and valuable he was at three clubs. 15th on the all-time AFL goalkicking list, premiership captain, played arguably his best season at the age of 33 kicking 80 goals in a season for the Dogs. Will probably most be remembered by younger fans for his on-field misdemeanours, though.
• Simon Goodwin - Probably underrated because of the talent that he played with: Ricciuto, McLeod. It surprised me to see he was a five-time AA but that and his two flags and three B&Fs probably qualifies him. Better than Bickley too So no arguments from me.
• Anthony Stevens - Shinboner spirit, yeah, and tough as nails, but not HOF-worthy imo. I know that AA's are not always a worthy indicator but only one nomination in his career surely counts for something. I do wonder if he would even be in the conversation without the '96 and '99 flags. I like to think that the HOF selectors are pretty good at casting aside team success when selecting these things; I always cringe when people talk about the best ever NBA players and talk down players like Charles Barkley and Karl Malone because they don't have a ring.
• John Halbert - Won't wax lyrical about someone I'd honestly never heard of before but I will always advocate the inclusion of anyone who made their name outside of Victoria. Good choice.
• Ron Todd - The HOF rights a long-time wrong. Imagine how good this guy could have been if he stayed with the Pies? Prodigal talent. I loved hearing Eddie talk about him too – man, that guy loves the club. He would have researched every player to pull on the black and white. Great inclusion.
• Brett Allen - Whether umps should be included in the HOF is a discussion for another day, but without them we wouldn't have a game, so I don't mind it. He was obviously a consummate professional and seven GF appearances says it all.

And then finally the legend elevation to Malcolm Blight. I'm too young to have watched him play but am well aware of his coaching prowess. Would I be right in saying that he'd be good enough to be elevated as either a player or coach? Or do you think it was the combination of the two that got him up there in the end?

A good night in the end but a touch long to sit through on TV. Discuss!

 

[Harry Hook]

Hall - no. Disregarding the violence just not enough.

Goodwin - hmmmm. On achievements on paper sounds good

Stevens - no. More known for the off the field shenanigans and 1 AA sets a very low bar.

Halbert - no comment except to point out it is the AFL not VFL

Todd - in the light of the Richards criticism maybe an evener up by the HOF

Allen - Besides being an umpire ( its like whether punters or kickers should be in the NFL hall of fame debate), probably the most worthy of the selections.

Blight - Probably not. Very good player, good coach but on balance not.

In some years we should have 2 or 3 selections, other years 7, it depends on who is available. This year should have been a less year.

In the forthcoming years we have the Geelong and Hawthorn multi year players as well as the Swans boys and the individual players such as Harvey, Swan etc. No need to makeup the numbers this year.

Excuse the cynicism.

 

[Harry Hook]

I'm thinking of starting the Mario Bortolotto hall of fame campaign now.

 

[Tonga Bob]

This is my rant. People can debate or criticise what follows, I probably won't contribute. I just need to get it out of my system.

[takes deep breath]

The fact that Barry Hall is inducted into the Hall of Fame and Bernie Naylor is not is an indictment of the Hall of Fame's selection criteria, and of the Hall of Fame itself. Here's some stats comparing the careers of Hall, Naylor & Ron Todd (the latter for purely comparative purposes); two of which were inducted last night:



Some comments on the categories:

• League games - Hall played more seasons (16) than Todd (12) & Naylor (10). Factors include:
  • World War II - Todd enlisted in the RAAF while the VFA was suspended & was ineligible to rejoin Collingwood due to VFL/VFA transfer, Naylor enlisted in the AIF & was posted in Darwin/New Britain,
  • Money - Naylor retired to focus on full time work in order to support his family at the age of 31 (he kicked 133 goals in his final season);
• State Games - there were more State games in Todd/Naylor's era than Hall's;
• Australian games - International Rules was established in Hall's era;
• All Australian selection - different criteria for selection (based on State games vs committee selection).

So the balance of the objective criteria is in Naylor's favour. There's also subjective criteria as described here: "Without limiting clause 5.1, the Committee may consider a candidate's individual record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character." I won't speculate on ability apart from saying that the the goals per game & goals per season ratios speak to it. Regarding integrity, sportsmanship & character, I don't know any of the three people personally (I did speak with Barry Hall once on the way to a Freo game at the MCG and he was nice enough to chat about the upcoming game for a couple of minutes) so I can't tell you whether they are good people or not. You can read their online biographies and make your own judgement.

Further eligibility criteria provides one reason I can find that gives Hall an advantage over Naylor:

The Hall of Fame committee can select and enshrine up to six Hall of Fame members each year. Of those, at least two must have retired within 10 years of each induction ceremony. There must be at least one inductee selected from the category of administrator/umpire/media every two years. - (http://www.afl.com.au/news/event-news/hall-of-fame/about)

The other potential reason I can think of is the makeup of the Committee. It states that "At least 25 per cent of the selection committee to reside outside of Victoria". That would be Dennis Cometti (living in WA, which had zero inductees in 2017), Michelangelo Rucci & Bruce McAvaney (living in SA, which had two inductees & 1 legend elevation), as well as Mike Fitzpatrick who is from WA originally but has lived in Melbourne for years now. So 60% of the committee are from Victoria, 70% live there. 4 of the 6 inductees (or 67%) are Victorian. Not saying there's a conscious bias, but it is a potential reason. The committee's knowledge base of the history of Australian football is stronger in what they know most, or recall more fondly. That is what they have seen in the flesh, and that has been in Victoria.

Let me make this clear: I'm not begrudging the induction of Barry Hall (or Ron Todd for that matter) into the Australian Football Hall of Fame. What I'm calling out is that despite the objective comparison of the football careers of Barry Hall and Bernie Naylor being more favourable to Naylor (and arguably the subjective ones as well), Barry Hall has been inducted before Bernie Naylor because of the Australian Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee's biases towards recently retired players of Victorian origin.

That is not how we should be recognising the history of the game nor the players that excelled in playing it. That, in my opinion, is wrong and is crying out for change.

Rant over.

 

[Harry Hook]

The working formula I use is that most years there is a non AFL historical player chosen ( and this alternates yearly between SA, WA,Tasmania), one pre 70s player chosen ( preferably not deceased), one 70s, 80 or 90 players and a few then whose career finished post 2000. Rough admittedly ( and I don't agree with it necessarily ) but it is what it is.

There are loads of politics involved. Richards wasn't made a legend, dies, and Todd is inducted. Cynical yes but that is what it is too.

Bottom line is that the criteria are rubbery. From the NM team, Longmire ought possibly have been looked at before Stevens. Coleman medallist etc and premiership player and glittering career as a coach. I suspect his time will come, but more for his efforts as a coach than a player.

Another word for character in the context of Hall of Fame is politics.

And yes, Naylor will get in, one day......

 

[barrackers]

Todd - in the light of the Richards criticism maybe an evener up by the HOF

There are loads of politics involved. Richards wasn't made a legend, dies, and Todd is inducted. Cynical yes but that is what it is too.

Really? Todd's record speaks for itself to such an extent there's debate on whether he should have been an inaugural inductee. As for your tin hat theory Adelaide was announced as hosting the event in late March 1 1/2 months before Richards' death. Given Blight's elevation there's every chance all of this year's inductees were known at the time of that announcement, which would make sense considering the logistics required and the need to ensure inductees, their families and former team mates are available.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-22/adelaide-to-host-afl-hall-of-fame-ceremony

 

[killer]

should be in hall of fame :
bill Dempsey and flash graham

 

[Harry Hook]

Really? Todd's record speaks for itself to such an extent there's debate on whether he should have been an inaugural inductee. As for your tin hat theory Adelaide was announced as hosting the event in late March 1 1/2 months before Richards' death. Given Blight's elevation there's every chance all of this year's inductees were known at the time of that announcement, which would make sense considering the logistics required and the need to ensure inductees, their families and former team mates are available.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-22/adelaide-to-host-afl-hall-of-fame-ceremony

Leave your supporters hat off. I have a partiality to NM of sorts but have stated that I do not agree with the majority of the players chosen this year, or at the very least question them, regardless of the team they came from.

And who gives a rats about where it was held.

And politics does play a role as to who gets in and when, cf Carey and Ablett.

 

[barrackers]

Leave your supporters hat off. I have a partiality to NM of sorts but have stated that I do not agree with the majority of the players chosen this year, or at the very least question them, regardless of the team they came from.

And who gives a rats about where it was held.

And politics does play a role as to who gets in and when, cf Carey and Ablett.

My pet hate with bigfooty is an inability to have any type of a discussion without being attacked on the club I support; in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument! While you may not "give a rats about where it was held" it's the crux of my argument one that clearly went over your head in the want to attack my position based on the club I support. As you're probably aware Blight was born in South Australia and had a significant impact on SA footy, so it makes sense to host it in that state and perhaps is indicative of the selections being made months ago along with the necessary logistics.

Yes, the below quote is from an opinion piece, but it's a good article with good arguments on the errors of the process.

http://australianfootball.com/articles/view/neglected+heroes:+the+hall+of+fame/802

There are slightly better prospects for the missing greats of the next generation on from the dark agers, those of the 1925 to 1955 era who at least have a modicum of living memory behind them and enduring reputations within their former clubs to support them. Men such as......[29 names] As for Ron Todd, the most egregious omission of this cohort, one gets the feeling that it’s only a matter of time before the committee comes to its senses and admits one of the greatest forwards ever to play the game.

As for Todd's record aside from his games/goal tally

• Williamstown's inaugural legend
• Should have been CHF in both Collingwood's and Williamstown's team of the centuries (John McHale objected at Collingwood)
• Had a remarkable 20 kicks, 10 marks and 16 shots at goal (4.9) in the 1936 premiership
• Kicked 11 goals in both the 1938 and 1939 preliminary finals
• Kicked 6 goals in the 1939 grand final
• Held the record for most goals in a VFL finals series from 50 years (1939-1989) with 23 goals in three finals before Ablett bested it with 27 goals in four finals
• Equal fewest games to 300 VFL goals (73 games) with Bob Pratt
• Still holds the record for most goals in a state league season with 188 in 1945. He kicked a further 82 goals in other matches that year too including 7 goals for a combined RAAF team vs a combined VFL team
• Kicked 6 goals in the 1945 VFA premiership and 5 goals in the 1949 VFA premiership as captain

It's also worth noting that he lost 3 years of his career owing to the VFA going into recess


http://www.williamstownfc.com.au/history/club-legends/10-latest-news/742-ron-todd-a-tribute

In 2015, the Club [WFC] officially submitted a nomination for Ron Todd to be inducted into the Australian Football Hall of Fame.

 

[barrackers]

On Todd it seems the AFL have found another 2 goals to take his tally past 1000, it looks like these have came from his time at Williamstown as his Collingwood tally is unchanged. Interestingly though Williamstown's site and articles don't reflect these extra 2 goals.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-20/2017-afl-hall-of-fame-ron-todd

In his last game, Todd captained Williamstown to the 1949 premiership. In the dying seconds he had the chance to kick what everyone believed would have been his 1000th goal (VFL and VFA combined) but he unselfishly passed to a teammate for the winning goal. However, new research shows Todd had already accumulated 1001 goals.

 

[Harry Hook]

My pet hate with bigfooty is an inability to have any type of a discussion without being attacked on the club I support; in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument! While you may not "give a rats about where it was held" it's the crux of my argument one that clearly went over your head in the want to attack my position based on the club I support. As you're probably aware Blight was born in South Australia and had a significant impact on SA footy, so it makes sense to host it in that state and perhaps is indicative of the selections being made months ago along with the necessary logistics.

Yes, the below quote is from an opinion piece, but it's a good article with good arguments on the errors of the process.

http://australianfootball.com/articles/view/neglected+heroes:+the+hall+of+fame/802


As for Todd's record aside from his games/goal tally

• Williamstown's inaugural legend
• Should have been CHF in both Collingwood's and Williamstown's team of the centuries (John McHale objected at Collingwood)
• Had a remarkable 20 kicks, 10 marks and 16 shots at goal (4.9) in the 1936 premiership
• Kicked 11 goals in both the 1938 and 1939 preliminary finals
• Kicked 6 goals in the 1939 grand final
• Held the record for most goals in a VFL finals series from 50 years (1939-1989) with 23 goals in three finals before Ablett bested it with 27 goals in four finals
• Equal fewest games to 300 VFL goals (73 games) with Bob Pratt
• Still holds the record for most goals in a state league season with 188 in 1945. He kicked a further 82 goals in other matches that year too including 7 goals for a combined RAAF team vs a combined VFL team
• Kicked 6 goals in the 1945 VFA premiership and 5 goals in the 1949 VFA premiership as captain

It's also worth noting that he lost 3 years of his career owing to the VFA going into recess


http://www.williamstownfc.com.au/history/club-legends/10-latest-news/742-ron-todd-a-tribute

Look at my original post. I was critical of both NM inductees as well as making my point about Todd.

I am disdainful of the HOF because by and large does not include anyone who is dead or has living relatives, ie pre WW1 to WW2.

Who they came from is irrelevant to me ( and in the sense that NM was a later club this argument will effect NM more than others).

I stand by my original post although it must be said that Todd's inclusion was not, by far, the worst of them.

 

[barrackers]

Look at my original post. I was critical of both NM inductees as well as making my point about Todd.

I am disdainful of the HOF because by and large does not include anyone who is dead or has living relatives, ie pre WW1 to WW2.

Who they came from is irrelevant to me ( and in the sense that NM was a later club this argument will effect NM more than others).

I stand by my original post although it must be said that Todd's inclusion was not, by far, the worst of them.

Questioning/challenging inductees on the merits of their selection based on their careers is one thing trying to create a conspiracy linking a player's induction to a club mates death is another. The latter is in bad taste and disrespectful.

 

[Harry Hook]

Questioning/challenging inductees on the merits of their selection based on their careers is one thing trying to create a conspiracy linking a player's induction to a club mates death is another. The latter is in bad taste and disrespectful.

With respect, I grew up with World of sports and remember the wood chop and all so I have the greatest respect for Lou Richards the football commentator but much play was made at the time as to how he was not made a Legend of the HoF. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with the HoF's view with regard to Richards especially given the Blight elevation.

That said, whether the Todd elevation is coincidental is another matter.

You have made a good case for Todd, probably better than I could have made for a couple of the others so as I said, his elevation is perhaps more merited than a couple of the others.

Sadly I believe, with some background as I did some work in relation to another bloke who was promoted into the HoF, I won't say who, that the HoF is intensely political at all levels.

This politics colours what should often be a relatively straight forward decision. Moreover I consider that there are numerous players from the genesis of our game to the 1960s who will never be elevated due to our disposition to elevating players from our living memory.

Late edit

One such player who I have some historical admiration for is one from your club. Marcus Whelan. Sadly most people will say Marcus who.....

 

[35Daicos]

This is my rant. People can debate or criticise what follows, I probably won't contribute. I just need to get it out of my system.

[takes deep breath]

The fact that Barry Hall is inducted into the Hall of Fame and Bernie Naylor is not is an indictment of the Hall of Fame's selection criteria, and of the Hall of Fame itself. Here's some stats comparing the careers of Hall, Naylor & Ron Todd (the latter for purely comparative purposes); two of which were inducted last night:

View attachment 383900

Some comments on the categories:

• League games - Hall played more seasons (16) than Todd (12) & Naylor (10). Factors include:
  • World War II - Todd enlisted in the RAAF while the VFA was suspended & was ineligible to rejoin Collingwood due to VFL/VFA transfer, Naylor enlisted in the AIF & was posted in Darwin/New Britain,
  • Money - Naylor retired to focus on full time work in order to support his family at the age of 31 (he kicked 133 goals in his final season);
• State Games - there were more State games in Todd/Naylor's era than Hall's;
• Australian games - International Rules was established in Hall's era;
• All Australian selection - different criteria for selection (based on State games vs committee selection).

So the balance of the objective criteria is in Naylor's favour. There's also subjective criteria as described here: "Without limiting clause 5.1, the Committee may consider a candidate's individual record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character." I won't speculate on ability apart from saying that the the goals per game & goals per season ratios speak to it. Regarding integrity, sportsmanship & character, I don't know any of the three people personally (I did speak with Barry Hall once on the way to a Freo game at the MCG and he was nice enough to chat about the upcoming game for a couple of minutes) so I can't tell you whether they are good people or not. You can read their online biographies and make your own judgement.

Further eligibility criteria provides one reason I can find that gives Hall an advantage over Naylor:

The Hall of Fame committee can select and enshrine up to six Hall of Fame members each year. Of those, at least two must have retired within 10 years of each induction ceremony. There must be at least one inductee selected from the category of administrator/umpire/media every two years. - (http://www.afl.com.au/news/event-news/hall-of-fame/about)

The other potential reason I can think of is the makeup of the Committee. It states that "At least 25 per cent of the selection committee to reside outside of Victoria". That would be Dennis Cometti (living in WA, which had zero inductees in 2017), Michelangelo Rucci & Bruce McAvaney (living in SA, which had two inductees & 1 legend elevation), as well as Mike Fitzpatrick who is from WA originally but has lived in Melbourne for years now. So 60% of the committee are from Victoria, 70% live there. 4 of the 6 inductees (or 67%) are Victorian. Not saying there's a conscious bias, but it is a potential reason. The committee's knowledge base of the history of Australian football is stronger in what they know most, or recall more fondly. That is what they have seen in the flesh, and that has been in Victoria.

Let me make this clear: I'm not begrudging the induction of Barry Hall (or Ron Todd for that matter) into the Australian Football Hall of Fame. What I'm calling out is that despite the objective comparison of the football careers of Barry Hall and Bernie Naylor being more favourable to Naylor (and arguably the subjective ones as well), Barry Hall has been inducted before Bernie Naylor because of the Australian Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee's biases towards recently retired players of Victorian origin.

That is not how we should be recognising the history of the game nor the players that excelled in playing it. That, in my opinion, is wrong and is crying out for change.

Rant over.

You've made a few points in this post that probably most people (including me) would be happy to agree with. They do need to make some changes with how it's done. However, I find it interesting that you have said that because 4 of the 6 inductees (67%) were from Victoria that it suggests the selectors had shown bias towards players from that state. If I had come up with a list of who I considered e.g. the top 20/30/100 players in the game currently, 10 years or even 40 years ago I'd say about two thirds of them would have been Victorians. I'm not from Victoria, FWIW! Any knowledgeable and fair minded football people at perhaps any time in the game's history who had made such a list would most likely have had at least half (probably a lot more) of the game's leading players coming from that state. Victoria simply has produced many more top quality footballers than the other states have (as ought to be the case given that it's a major football state and has a significantly higher population than SA & WA), and should be getting more players in the Hall of Fame than the rest, regardless of where those on the panel are from/reside.

Bernie Naylor was obviously a wonderful player and should be in the HoF. Ron Todd was good enough to have been named years ago as well. Easily the biggest issue for mine is the favoritism shown towards recently retired players ('recentism', apparently!). There are quite a few people from the game's earlier days who seem worthy of being named Legends, and no doubt a lot more deserving a place in the Hall of Fame who have been missed. Of course it's much better for the media and AFL if they name people from the television era, people who are still alive and can attend the big event, essentially.

If they're going to keep following the current format, which is clearly flawed, they really need to get the selection panel (or someone) to come up with a list of names of those from pre-1960 or so who have been unfairly ignored and have a "mass induction" to try and catch up!

 

[GreyCrow]

Really? Todd's record speaks for itself to such an extent there's debate on whether he should have been an inaugural inductee. As for your tin hat theory Adelaide was announced as hosting the event in late March 1 1/2 months before Richards' death. Given Blight's elevation there's every chance all of this year's inductees were known at the time of that announcement, which would make sense considering the logistics required and the need to ensure inductees, their families and former team mates are available.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-22/adelaide-to-host-afl-hall-of-fame-ceremony

I believe this to be correct. Inductees need time to organize travel and family. I also think there were some whispers around Halbert due to newspaper stories connecting him to the SANFL 140 Year Exhibition. Or that exhibition ( started by Halberts wife Christine) triggered a whole raft of ideas surrounding the HOF including the inclusions of the 3 Pioneers from SA.

On Bernie Naylor , the argument of bias is a slippery slope. There is a bigger amount of clubs inside Victoria that have eligibility. The other issue is internally within the clubs. Clubs nominate a person and that can impact on when and who gets in.

The need is for Bernie Naylor to be pushed constantly by people in WA at every stage. In the media , on radio , on social media.

Onto the OP. Just a reminder I dont think you should find players just to fill the night out, if there are only 3 people that are worthy then only 3 go in. I think the nominated players have had careers that in a very lean year would see them elevated. I'm not sure this year was it. Seemed very 96/97 focussed

 

[Harry Hook]

I believe the NFL Hall of Fame have a veteran's choice which is not chosen by ballot of those eligible to vote but by a dedicated committee so that a player who has slipped through the net may get elected.

I also understand the process of getting a player even nominated is flawed. Essentially a club will decide upon which player to promote for election to the hall of fame, they then get the necessary information and, again, essentially, there is one representative from each club to vote upon.

For the WAFL, SANFL, etc selections I understand it is similar in that their local clubs decide who they will push, the football authority gets behind a nominated player and then it goes up for a vote. With these states, the state the player is chosen from will alternate from year to year (so look for the next candidate to come from WA or Tas).

Overlaying this is the "recentism" policy which precludes selecting say a player with 3 premierships from the 20s or 30s and prefers a player with 1 or 2 premierships from the 90s onwards.

Politics.......what politics

 

[Harry Hook]

Let me put up the stats of a largely pre WW2 player

Played full back and centre
Brownlow Medallist in a year in which he got 4 more than Dick Reynolds, 7 more than Chicken Smallhorn and 10 more than every other in the then VFL bar 6 players)
Dual Premiership player ( and one of the best players in each) and played in another 3 losing grand finals.
Won 111 out of 173 games( including the War years)
73 brownlow votes ( including 10 at age 33)[Jack Dyer a contemporary got 86 in a 312 game career ( including war years) and 7 after he, Dyer turned 33*]
3 years lost to WW2
Best and fairest and brownlow medallist same year. In the top 3 of his clubs best and fairest 3 other times.
Vic representative 3 times.
Jack Dyer called him the best centreman he'd ever seen.
Vice Captain

........Oh and he died in 1973

The player - Marcus Whelan

And he is not in the Hall of Fame

* This post is not meant to denigrate Dyer

 

[Tonga Bob]

You've made a few points in this post that probably most people (including me) would be happy to agree with. They do need to make some changes with how it's done. However, I find it interesting that you have said that because 4 of the 6 inductees (67%) were from Victoria that it suggests the selectors had shown bias towards players from that state. If I had come up with a list of who I considered e.g. the top 20/30/100 players in the game currently, 10 years or even 40 years ago I'd say about two thirds of them would have been Victorians. I'm not from Victoria, FWIW! Any knowledgeable and fair minded football people at perhaps any time in the game's history who had made such a list would most likely have had at least half (probably a lot more) of the game's leading players coming from that state. Victoria simply has produced many more top quality footballers than the other states have (as ought to be the case given that it's a major football state and has a significantly higher population than SA & WA), and should be getting more players in the Hall of Fame than the rest, regardless of where those on the panel are from/reside.

Bernie Naylor was obviously a wonderful player and should be in the HoF. Ron Todd was good enough to have been named years ago as well. Easily the biggest issue for mine is the favoritism shown towards recently retired players ('recentism', apparently!). There are quite a few people from the game's earlier days who seem worthy of being named Legends, and no doubt a lot more deserving a place in the Hall of Fame who have been missed. Of course it's much better for the media and AFL if they name people from the television era, people who are still alive and can attend the big event, essentially.

If they're going to keep following the current format, which is clearly flawed, they really need to get the selection panel (or someone) to come up with a list of names of those from pre-1960 or so who have been unfairly ignored and have a "mass induction" to try and catch up!

You're right about the increased population of Victoria providing a larger pool of eligible players, which in turn leads to a higher number of inductees. And I'm OK with that. I still think however my point stands about committee members being influenced by what they know. In an ideal world, potential inductees would be evaluated on merit alone, not on where or when they played. The induction of Hall over Naylor highlights this for me.

The need is for Bernie Naylor to be pushed constantly by people in WA at every stage. In the media , on radio , on social media.

I've been wondering this as well, whether inductions are becoming like the Academy Awards, where film studios talk up films they have made so they get nominated and in turn voted for. Should there be any truth in this, then inductions will be further skewed towards the bigger clubs, the bigger leagues, the bigger voice. If South Fremantle or the WAFL aren't up to the task, I may have to recruit the guy that tried to get a year of free chicken nuggets via Twitter...

 

[Harry Hook]

These are the problems with Naylor in my view.

Naylor died in 1993 (over 20 years ago and last played competitively over 60 years ago in a non Victorian state. Think the problems with Whelan except multiply by double because he never played in Victoria.

There are also problems with footballers whose careers encompassed the war years. The Hall of Fame haven't yet quite worked out how to judge them so usually take the easier option and don't.

The bigger problem Naylor's election has again is because he played in WA. He has to be South Fremantle's number 1 candidate for the Hall of Fame ( and as I have said, even state clubs like their candidates to be living and recent). If he is their number 1 candidate (and I don't know enough about South Fremantle to guess this), then South Frematle essentially have to get the WAFL ( who have 8 other teams with competing interests in getting their players elected as well as Eagles and Dockers interest in getting their players selected. They also like living candidates and recent candidates and would, imo, prefer a player, for example, like Peter Bosustow who is more recent, alive, had a VFL career that was noted albeit short and played in the heydey of living memories of State of Origin football[ Bosustow is merely an example] ) to support it.

If SF get this far, then they have to get the AFL people to vote for him who again like recent people, alive people and generally give a berth to a player who played solely in the WAFL every third year.

Is this a cynical view of the process? Probably but it takes into account the problems with the selection criteria.

 

[andrew coombs]

Hall - no. Disregarding the violence just not enough.

Goodwin - hmmmm. On achievements on paper sounds good

Stevens - no. More known for the off the field shenanigans and 1 AA sets a very low bar.

Halbert - no comment except to point out it is the AFL not VFL

Todd - in the light of the Richards criticism maybe an evener up by the HOF

Allen - Besides being an umpire ( its like whether punters or kickers should be in the NFL hall of fame debate), probably the most worthy of the selections.

Blight - Probably not. Very good player, good coach but on balance not.

In some years we should have 2 or 3 selections, other years 7, it depends on who is available. This year should have been a less year.

In the forthcoming years we have the Geelong and Hawthorn multi year players as well as the Swans boys and the individual players such as Harvey, Swan etc. No need to makeup the numbers this year.

Excuse the cynicism.

Scratching my head in regard to your Blight comments. As a player he was an absolute superstar, one of the very best of his generation. Won the highest honour in both the SANFL and the VFL and booted a ton in both leagues as well. Two premierships as a player and a coach. He sits quite comfortably among the legend class.

 

[Marcus DuQuesne]

I'm thinking of starting the Mario Bortolotto hall of fame campaign now.

Played U/19 footy with him at Geelong. He was well built and even though not the sharpest axe in the tool shed he could play a bit. Amazing how he ended up at Carlton and obviously hall of fame success there in his 30 games. Good guy as well but maybe comes up a tad shy of HOF status.

 

[Tonga Bob]

[thread bump]

absolutely stoked that Bernie Naylor's finally been inducted!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-29/2018-hall-of-fame-inductee-bernie-naylor

 

[Rainier Wolfcastle]

[thread bump]

absolutely stoked that Bernie Naylor's finally been inducted!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-29/2018-hall-of-fame-inductee-bernie-naylor

I second that, absolute head-scratcher that it's taken this long to induct him but better late than never