Tony Lockett was better than Wayne Carey or Ablett Snr

[Monkey King]

the more you look at it, the more I actually think Silvagni was greatest defender ever. To contend with all the greats forwards and not just hold his own, but often break even or beat them, it's not something many were successful at. For Silvagni, he relished the challenge.

Silvagni usually took the oppositions most important forward regardless of position and they were a diverse set - Ablett, Dunstall, Lockett, Carey, Hird among them. These guys are some of the best players I've seen and they all had uniquely different skill sets.

I recall in Hird's Brownlow year while getting shut down by SOS, he took himself into the midfield to try and get into the game. SOS followed him everywhere and continued the bath, was BOG and got 3 Brownlow votes. In the 99' GF SOS had Carey kickless to halftime and Carey did the same, but for some reason I'll never understand, Parko left Silvagni down back on Allison, despite him having won this very same kind of battle with Carey before.

Silvagni was more than just a FB, or all-round defender; he was a very talented footballer overall. Dunstall once rated him in the top 5 players he'd seen. He just had a few extra strings in his bow that other champion defenders didn't.

 

[PhatBoy]

Given SOS could easily play full forward well and Ablett s**t down back, you showing some real ignorance with such a simple minded statement. Easier to have ball kicked to your advantage than trying to defend against it is something that could be said too. Football ability means being good at more than just one part of the game. Both are fantastic footballers. One of them got humbled against the other on biggest stage too.....but given playing against a champ, that can happen.

And Ablett could play in the middle with ease so what?

 

[PhatBoy]

God scored zero goals on the biggest stage against the great man.
You are the one arguing the guy that got humbled on the biggest stage against the other is "significantly better"
I on other hand think they were both great footballers.
What a blessing to see them both live.

So what.

He kicked 9 on the biggest stage against the greatest dynasty the game has seen which included a defence led by Langford, generally the only other fullback in the last 40 years listed in the conversation

We got smacked by the entire side across the park that day.

Is Paul couch rubbish because of that game?

Is silvagni toilet because Salmon booted 5 in the 93 decider? Or because across 2 grand finals in 93-99 the defence led by him conceded 40 goals?

 

[footyfan1978]

And Ablett could play in the middle with ease so what?

Ablett played wing and half forward. He was awesome to watch.

 

[Monkey King]

Is silvagni toilet because Salmon booted 5 in the 93 decider? Or because across 2 grand finals in 93-99 the defence led by him conceded 40 goals?

While I appreciate your point, SOS kept Carey kickless in the first half of that 99' GF. The example is pretty much the opposite of what you infer. That you are contrived to drag a whole team into the equation and round the tally up to 40 for effect, highlights how poor an example it is; but when you consider that the winning GF team back then kicked 20+ goals more often than not, it looks either ignorant or downright disingenuous.

Salmon had the better of SOS in the 93' GF no doubt. Champs don't win every contest that's for sure. Fish kicked at least 4 goals in every final he played that year though, so even in a team that was ragdolled from start to finish, SOS was actually pretty close to par.

While I wholeheartedly agree that one game does not define a player, neither of these examples come close to the bath Ablett got in the 95' GF

 

[PhatBoy]

While I appreciate your point, SOS kept Carey kickless in the first half of that 99' GF. The example is pretty much the opposite of what you infer. That you are contrived to drag a whole team into the equation and round the tally up to 40 for effect, highlights how poor an example it is; but when you consider that the winning GF team back then kicked 20+ goals more often than not, it looks either ignorant or downright disingenuous.

Salmon had the better of SOS in the 93' GF no doubt. Champs don't win every contest that's for sure. Fish kicked at least 4 goals in every final he played that year though, so even in a team that was ragdolled from start to finish, SOS was actually pretty close to par.

While I wholeheartedly agree that one game does not define a player, neither of these examples come close to the bath Ablett got in the 95' GF

Well why would you drag Ablett into the equation for kicking 0 goals when we Barely touched the ball in 1995?

 

[Thrawn]

Well why would you drag Ablett into the equation for kicking 0 goals when we Barely touched the ball in 1995?

That's an excuse you're running now?

You had two players that kicked three goals that afternoon, including Brownless.

 

[Evolved1]

The only way to measure a players worth is through the entirety of their career rather than looking at one on one duels between two players. While you can successfully argue that SOS had the better of Ablett in the 1995 GF (and overall perhaps), would any objective person really argue that SOS' career was greater than the great mans?

Same goes for Carey vs Jakovich. There's no doubt Jakovich had the better of Carey overall in their one on one duels, yet Carey was the more influential player if you compare their careers.

Often one player matches up well against a better player. Does that make them the better footballer overall? I say not.

 

[Evolved1]

Next we'll have Richmond supporters telling us that Jack Riewoldt is the GOAT...oh wait.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's an excuse you're running now?

You had two players that kicked three goals that afternoon, including Brownless.

Excuse for what?

The guy had a wretched day one afternoon, most of the team did.

He also won a norm smith medal.

What do we have to Provide a portfolio on why someone universally regarded as one of the best 2-3 players in the history of the sport was good now?

 

[PhatBoy]

The only way to measure a players worth is through the entirety of their career rather than looking at one on one duels between two players. While you can successfully argue that SOS had the better of Ablett in the 1995 GF (and overall perhaps), would any objective person really argue that SOS' career was greater than the great mans?

Same goes for Carey vs Jakovich. There's no doubt Jakovich had the better of Carey overall in their one on one duels, yet Carey was the more influential player if you compare their careers.

Often one player matches up well against a better player. Does that make them the better footballer overall? I say not.

This. It happens in a lot of sports. While I wouldn’t dare argue that, say, Daryl Cullinan had a better career than Shane Warne, warne’s notorious hold on him seems to make people forget that the South African batsman had a brilliant career

 

[Evolved1]

This. It happens in a lot of sports. While I wouldn’t dare argue that, say, Daryl Cullinan had a better career than Shane Warne, warne’s notorious hold on him seems to make people forget that the South African batsman had a brilliant career

Would anyone argue that Harbhajan was a better player than Ricky Ponting?

 

[PhatBoy]

Would anyone argue that Harbhajan was a better player than Ricky Ponting?

Precisely

 

[Thrawn]

Excuse for what?

The guy had a wretched day one afternoon, most of the team did.

He also won a norm smith medal.

What do we have to Provide a portfolio on why someone universally regarded as one of the best 2-3 players in the history of the sport was good now?

I'm not asking for any kind of portfolio.

You were making the excuse of Ablett being held goalless because you didn't get enough of the ball.

Yet you had two players who kicked three. The difference was, ultimately, that those two players did not have SOS on them. Credit where credit's due mate.

 

[PhatBoy]

You are making the excuse Ablett was being held goalless because you didn't get enough of the ball.

Yet you had two players who kicked three. The difference was, ultimately, that those two players did not have SOS on them. Credit where credit's due mate.

Do you really think a full forward is as likely to dominate In a game where his side has half as many scoring shots as the other?

And regardless of the 3 goals Brownless and - muffled laughter - Stephen Handley kicked, the fact was that 8 of our goals were kicked after the game was over at half time.

We were smashed and Ablett’s performance - in his penultimate season mind you - was one of a dozen wretched days

 

[Vdubs]

Do you really think a full forward is as likely to dominate In a game where his side has half as many scoring shots as the other?

And regardless of the 3 goals Brownless and - muffled laughter - Stephen Handley kicked, the fact was that 8 of our goals were kicked after the game was over at half time.

We were smashed and Ablett’s performance - in his penultimate season mind you - was one of a dozen wretched days

Great points.
And the fact he was still relevant at age 34 has been overlooked
What were Dunstall & Carey like at 34?
I think Plugger was still capable of an 82 goal season at that age.
Ablett's last 4 seasons gave him an average of 111 goals a season!!!

 

[My Tilly]

I'm not asking for any kind of portfolio.

You were making the excuse of Ablett being held goalless because you didn't get enough of the ball.

Yet you had two players who kicked three. The difference was, ultimately, that those two players did not have SOS on them. Credit where credit's due mate.

He was also double-teammed most of the first half where the game was won.
Terribly poor coaching by Ayres not to even consider making any moves until the 4th quarter.

The game was slipping away early. Dean, Christou, Silvagni knew exactly who and where the ball was going by the Geelong midfielders. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but as Couch said himself, moves should have been before halftime. you lose by 14 goals or lose by 5 goals. Ultimately no difference at all.
Either way, Geelong were very fortunate to have even made it to 4 grand finals. They had no right to do so in 94 and 95. Their best years were 89, 92 and 93.

 

[PhatBoy]

Great points.
And the fact he was still relevant at age 34 has been overlooked
What were Dunstall & Carey like at 34?
I think Plugger was still capable of an 82 goal season at that age.

I just finished reading a book Sr put out at the end of 95 and there were some insights in it from various writers etc.
A very telling one simply said there have been a number of players capable of marking like Ablett, or kicking goals like him, running like him, ball handling like him, crashing into opponents like him, reading play like him.

No one could do all those things like him.

Carey is the closest I’ve seen to it

 

[Vdubs]

He was also double-teammed most of the first half where the game was won.
Terribly poor coaching by Ayres not to even consider making any moves until the 4th quarter.

The game was slipping away early. Dean, Christou, Silvagni knew exactly who and where the ball was going by the Geelong midfielders. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but as Couch said himself, moves should have been before halftime. you lose by 14 goals or lose by 5 goals. Ultimately no difference at all.
Either way, Geelong were very fortunate to have even made it to 4 grand finals. They had no right to do so in 94 and 95. Their best years were 89, 92 and 93.

95 Geelong was clearly the #2 team.
Second after H & A.
Their prelim final against Richmond was a thrashing.
Their only game against Premiers Carlton that year was a narrow loss at PP
They certainly deserved to be in the GF.

Losing Riccardi early in the game was big. Our only midfield winner at that time.

 

[Evolved1]

I just finished reading a book Sr put out at the end of 95 and there were some insights in it from various writers etc.
A very telling one simply said there have been a number of players capable of marking like Ablett, or kicking goals like him, running like him, ball handling like him, crashing into opponents like him, reading play like him.

No one could do all those things like him.

Carey is the closest I’ve seen to it

True, but Carey could do things that Ablett couldn't too.

Ablett was a magician while Carey bullied his opponents. Carey is the best player I've seen.

 

[Vdubs]

True, but Carey could do things that Ablett couldn't too.

Ablett was a magician while Carey bullied his opponents. Carey is the best player I've seen.

Name one please.

 

[Evolved1]

Name one please.

I already did. Re-read the post you replied to.

 

[Vdubs]

I already did. Re-read the post you replied to.

You said Ablett was a magician, and Carey bullied his opponents.
So that's it?

 

[PhatBoy]

True, but Carey could do things that Ablett couldn't too.

Ablett was a magician while Carey bullied his opponents. Carey is the best player I've seen.

Ablett could bully them too. Thing is, he didn’t have to

 

[Evolved1]

You said Ablett was a magician, and Carey bullied his opponents.
So that's it?

For now, yes. Are you expecting a thesis?