Remove this Banner Ad

Picking an all-time CFC lineup

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jsdsgn said:
The team of the century no doubt needs to be updated and it interested me to see what players of the 21st century might come in, as well as any omissions from the original team which could be added in hindsight.

The team of the century is as follows:

B: Harold Rumney - Jack Regan - Syd Coventry (C)
HB: Billy Picken - Albert Collier - Nathan Buckley
C: Thorold Merrett - Bob Rose - Darren Millane
R: Len Thompson - Des Tuddenham - Harry Collier
HF: Des Fothergill - Murray Weideman - Dick Lee
F: Phonse Kyne - Gordon Coventry - Peter Daicos
I: Tony Shaw - Wayne Richardson - Marcus Whelan - Gavin Brown

The players I would consider to be the absolute, unmovable locks of this team are Regan, Coventry x2, Fothergill, Collier x2, Millane, Rose, Pendlebury, Thompson, Buckley, Lee, Daicos and Shaw. Several others would be very unlucky to be omitted.

Some notes:
- Buckley will have to stay half back line due to the liimted backman that deserve selection.
- Since the team was made, Pendlebury and Swan are the only ones who should be definitely included. Clement is very close. Players such as Didak would also go close but not quite.
- Of the original team, maybe Richardson and Whelan were probably pretty lucky, despite being incredible players. Merrett is another one who could lose his spot. Rumney's position isnt 100 percent safe either, however the lack of all-time great small defenders (at least compared to our mids/fwds) means he will has a better chance than the others of staying in.
- The biggest omission at the time was Peter McKenna who is better than most of the entire team. He should be in this team, on the field. Peter Moore is another one who stakes a great claim, and Ron Todd who probably didnt play enough games but made a huge impact.
- Gavin Brown easily makes this team, and is a versatile player who could swing back to fill a hole left by the potential omission of Rumney, something he did often in his career.
- After a debate in the comments, I have brought in John Greening, Peter Moore and Ron Todd.

Revised team (post 2020):

B: Albert Collier - Jack Regan - Syd Coventry (C)
HB: Nathan Buckley (VC) - Peter Moore - Gavin Brown
C: John Greening - Bob Rose - Darren Millane
R: Len Thompson - Scott Pendlebury - Harry Collier
HF: Des Fothergill - Murray Weideman - Dick Lee
F: Peter McKenna - Gordon Coventry - Peter Daicos
I: Dane Swan - Des Tuddenham - Ron Todd - Phonse Kyne
Coach: Jock McHale

Changes:
Out: Richardson, Whelan, Merrett, Rumney, Shaw, Picken
In: McKenna, Swan, Pendlebury, Todd, Greening, Moore

Richardson and Shaw are the unlickiest to miss the team.

I personally believe Daicos is the best player we have ever had.

When we make our team of the 21st century in 2099 (right around the corner), the players Ive seen so far this century that I could already pencil into that team would be Swan, Pendlebury, Didak, Clement and Buckley. Sidebottom goes close but unlikely. Grundy the leading ruck at this stage.

Remember, this is all subjective, opinion based.
Click to expand...
Hyde Regan. Picken
Buckley Collier brown

Thompson Tuddenham rose
Greening pendels swan

Carman Todd daicos
Mckenna Coventry Lee

Collier Coventry Condon fothergill
 
Robroy,
I saw Greening play, but was very young, and was more interested in Thommo McKenna and The Richardsons.
How does he compare to Peter Daicos? Brilliance and consistency wise?
 
raymond35 said:
Robroy,
I saw Greening play, but was very young, and was more interested in Thommo McKenna and The Richardsons.
How does he compare to Peter Daicos? Brilliance and consistency wise?
Click to expand...



Different types. Greening was ultra athletic and naturally beat all comers with a mix of skill and athleticism. He was also freaky (almost Gavin Brown type) courageous and he could play pretty much anywhere (except in the ruck!).

Daics looked like an ugly duckling for a while, all body...short bowed legs...but when he walked out onto the field he could make a footy talk.

Both of them were transformational players. You see Judd or Martin bursting from a centre bounce and see Greening. Or Fyfe floating across a pack to mark and you see Greening. Patrick's running goals I see Greening....he did all those things just like they do now....only he did it in the 60's.

And Daics ability to kick goals from anywhere (literally anywhere), left foot, right foot, set shots, off balance....he had the ability to do more damage to any opposition team in a split second than any other player I've seen.

They were both consistently brilliant right from the start. I saw Greening kick 7 goals as a ruckrover (modern day mid) and I also saw Daics kick 6 against Richmond in a half one day (he'd played the first half in the centre) but Tommy Hafey switched him forward after half time and he left the Tiggies defenders gasping.

I have Greening as number 1 and Daics a close number 2 and then daylight from those two back to Rose and Bucks and Pendles and the like. Those two are the best I've seen play for the pies.

(and YES Bobby Rose was my childhood hero...but he couldn't hold a candle to Greening and Daics.
 
jsdsgn said:
The team of the century no doubt needs to be updated and it interested me to see what players of the 21st century might come in, as well as any omissions from the original team which could be added in hindsight.

The team of the century is as follows:

B: Harold Rumney - Jack Regan - Syd Coventry (C)
HB: Billy Picken - Albert Collier - Nathan Buckley
C: Thorold Merrett - Bob Rose - Darren Millane
R: Len Thompson - Des Tuddenham - Harry Collier
HF: Des Fothergill - Murray Weideman - Dick Lee
F: Phonse Kyne - Gordon Coventry - Peter Daicos
I: Tony Shaw - Wayne Richardson - Marcus Whelan - Gavin Brown

The players I would consider to be the absolute, unmovable locks of this team are Regan, Coventry x2, Fothergill, Collier x2, Millane, Rose, Pendlebury, Thompson, Buckley, Lee, Daicos and Shaw. Several others would be very unlucky to be omitted.

Some notes:
- Buckley will have to stay half back line due to the liimted backman that deserve selection.
- Since the team was made, Pendlebury and Swan are the only ones who should be definitely included. Clement is very close. Players such as Didak would also go close but not quite.
- Of the original team, maybe Richardson and Whelan were probably pretty lucky, despite being incredible players. Merrett is another one who could lose his spot. Rumney's position isnt 100 percent safe either, however the lack of all-time great small defenders (at least compared to our mids/fwds) means he will has a better chance than the others of staying in.
- The biggest omission at the time was Peter McKenna who is better than most of the entire team. He should be in this team, on the field. Peter Moore is another one who stakes a great claim, and Ron Todd who probably didnt play enough games but made a huge impact.
- Gavin Brown easily makes this team, and is a versatile player who could swing back to fill a hole left by the potential omission of Rumney, something he did often in his career.
- After a debate in the comments, I have brought in John Greening, Peter Moore and Ron Todd.

Revised team (post 2020):

B: Albert Collier - Jack Regan - Syd Coventry (C)
HB: Nathan Buckley (VC) - Peter Moore - Gavin Brown
C: John Greening - Bob Rose - Darren Millane
R: Len Thompson - Scott Pendlebury - Harry Collier
HF: Des Fothergill - Murray Weideman - Dick Lee
F: Peter McKenna - Gordon Coventry - Peter Daicos
I: Dane Swan - Des Tuddenham - Ron Todd - Phonse Kyne
Coach: Jock McHale

Changes:
Out: Richardson, Whelan, Merrett, Rumney, Shaw, Picken
In: McKenna, Swan, Pendlebury, Todd, Greening, Moore

Richardson and Shaw are the unlickiest to miss the team.

I personally believe Daicos is the best player we have ever had.

When we make our team of the 21st century in 2099 (right around the corner), the players Ive seen so far this century that I could already pencil into that team would be Swan, Pendlebury, Didak, Clement and Buckley. Sidebottom goes close but unlikely. Grundy the leading ruck at this stage.

Remember, this is all subjective, opinion based.
Click to expand...

Always a fascinating question of:
Is it about career performance or performance at peak? Or is it performance for a set of the best eg. 5 years? Best 10 years? And measure value off of that.
And whether the team is intended to win in the modern game, or there is an assumption that the players of times past have current knowledge of the rules and structures we play with today.

Depending on each of those criteria, teams would and should vary wildly.

Buckley, Pendlebury, Swan and Daicos may be those only four who beyond doubt no matter the interpretation must be chosen.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Knightmare said:
Always a fascinating question of:
Is it about career performance or performance at peak? Or is it performance for a set of the best eg. 5 years? Best 10 years? And measure value off of that.
And whether the team is intended to win in the modern game, or there is an assumption that the players of times past have current knowledge of the rules and structures we play with today.

Depending on each of those criteria, teams would and should vary wildly.

Buckley, Pendlebury, Swan and Daicos may be those only four who beyond doubt no matter the interpretation must be chosen.
Click to expand...
Yep, agree, however would add more names to your list - see the 'untouchables' list i have in the OP. Dont think any team can be justified missing any of those names
 
jsdsgn said:
Yep, agree, however would add more names to your list - see the 'untouchables' list i have in the OP. Dont think any team can be justified missing any of those names
Click to expand...

I'd like to agree but can't.

The ruleset of today's game instantly makes the Coventry's, Collier's, Lee, Fothergill, Rose, Regan irrelevant if your criteria is to win a game today with the modern rules and need to understand today's structures. They're guys who would make it if you count their domination at the time and we're looking at level of domination for their period of play as the criteria, but with those guys playing before the handball was a rule, you could give them a rulebook 30min before a game today of what has changed and tell them the structures they need to play within, and they wouldn't be the same players. That's why I make the point, there are so few who make it under all circumstances as there are so many variations depending on your criteria.

Those sub 200 gamers for volume of work would be pretty quickly eliminated as Collingwood have more than enough 200+ and 250+ gamers for their value from duration perspective to make them more valuable from that perspective.

Millaine for volume of work as a sub 150 gamer wouldn't meet the criteria if you want someone for a career span of work. If I could have the whole career of Millaine or someone at the same position who played 250 games or more and played at a similar level, and the criteria isn't based on peak performance, Millaine would not have a spot either. And if peak performance is the criteria in the modern game, I'd rather Dale Thomas who in 2010 and 2011 was a gamechanger on a level even above Millaine, particularly with the game today geared towards forward pressure and scoring off the turnover. And I'd probably go Sidebottom on the other wing if again it's today's rules, understanding of modern structures needed and we want that peak performance, with Sidebottom's 2018 season big time with the 24 Brownlow votes and 764 disposals, and again you're getting as with Thomas that better two way player. And likewise for volume of work Sidebottom easily has Millaine beat.

Only maybe Thompson from your list of untouchables beyond Buckley/Pendlebury/Swan/Daicos has a case for meeting all criteria, no matter what you're looking for, but then through the ruck Collingwood have also had Peter Moore and Brodie Grundy who depending on your criteria could arguably be seen favourably and are firmly in that conversation. If you want to win today under today's rules and the argument is about prime play, Grundy who doesn't yet have that same volume of work may have a case and would physically bully Thompson and Moore both at ruck contests, when the ground ball is there to be won and tackle harder as the stronger and more powerful player they both would be entirely unprepared for. Then you have Moore who played a pretty comparable standard to Thompson and some may also view favourably depending on criteria.

I'd personally advocate a Thompson and Moore combination under most scenarios and certainly for volume of work as Grundy is only half way through his career. But in the modern game, with the modern rules and need to understand modern structures, and Grundy having knowledge of those guys, but then having no knowledge or tape of Grundy if they're being plucked out of their eras. That would be hard for those guys. Grundy in that kind of argument I feel would be even perhaps wrongly overlooked as frankly for mine he was competition's best player in 2018 and 2019 and would have to as a bare minimum under that criteria be in the discussion, if not viewed favourably. That's the challenge with the ruck and saying it's this one guy, because of that positional scarcity that makes it hard to fit everyone in. For peak performance would that slot Grundy into the ruck and Moore and/or Thompson either as tall wings or key forwards? I'd honestly for a peak performance discussion be looking at a creative structure along those lines, though it depends on how regimented you want the structures to be and how fixed you are on the position they played to be the position you want them to represent in such a team.
 
Knightmare said:
I'd like to agree but can't.

The ruleset of today's game instantly makes the Coventry's, Collier's, Lee, Fothergill, Rose, Regan irrelevant if your criteria is to win a game today with the modern rules and need to understand today's structures. They're guys who would make it if you count their domination at the time and we're looking at level of domination for their period of play as the criteria, but with those guys playing before the handball was a rule, you could give them a rulebook 30min before a game today of what has changed and tell them the structures they need to play within, and they wouldn't be the same players. That's why I make the point, there are so few who make it under all circumstances as there are so many variations depending on your criteria.

Those sub 200 gamers for volume of work would be pretty quickly eliminated as Collingwood have more than enough 200+ and 250+ gamers for their value from duration perspective to make them more valuable from that perspective.

Millaine for volume of work as a sub 150 gamer wouldn't meet the criteria if you want someone for a career span of work. If I could have the whole career of Millaine or someone at the same position who played 250 games or more and played at a similar level, and the criteria isn't based on peak performance, Millaine would not have a spot either. And if peak performance is the criteria in the modern game, I'd rather Dale Thomas who in 2010 and 2011 was a gamechanger on a level even above Millaine, particularly with the game today geared towards forward pressure and scoring off the turnover. And I'd probably go Sidebottom on the other wing if again it's today's rules, understanding of modern structures needed and we want that peak performance, with Sidebottom's 2018 season big time with the 24 Brownlow votes and 764 disposals, and again you're getting as with Thomas that better two way player. And likewise for volume of work Sidebottom easily has Millaine beat.

Only maybe Thompson from your list of untouchables beyond Buckley/Pendlebury/Swan/Daicos has a case for meeting all criteria, no matter what you're looking for, but then through the ruck Collingwood have also had Peter Moore and Brodie Grundy who depending on your criteria could arguably be seen favourably and are firmly in that conversation. If you want to win today under today's rules and the argument is about prime play, Grundy who doesn't yet have that same volume of work may have a case and would physically bully Thompson and Moore both at ruck contests, when the ground ball is there to be won and tackle harder as the stronger and more powerful player they both would be entirely unprepared for. Then you have Moore who played a pretty comparable standard to Thompson and some may also view favourably depending on criteria.

I'd personally advocate a Thompson and Moore combination under most scenarios and certainly for volume of work as Grundy is only half way through his career. But in the modern game, with the modern rules and need to understand modern structures, and Grundy having knowledge of those guys, but then having no knowledge or tape of Grundy if they're being plucked out of their eras. That would be hard for those guys. Grundy in that kind of argument I feel would be even perhaps wrongly overlooked as frankly for mine he was competition's best player in 2018 and 2019 and would have to as a bare minimum under that criteria be in the discussion, if not viewed favourably. That's the challenge with the ruck and saying it's this one guy, because of that positional scarcity that makes it hard to fit everyone in. For peak performance would that slot Grundy into the ruck and Moore and/or Thompson either as tall wings or key forwards? I'd honestly for a peak performance discussion be looking at a creative structure along those lines, though it depends on how regimented you want the structures to be and how fixed you are on the position they played to be the position you want them to represent in such a team.
Click to expand...
The way I pick the teams is how a player dominated their era...because its impossible to know, for example, how Coventry would match up against todays backmen. We can assume, but I like basing it off facts. Regardless, you make a fair and respectable point.
 
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
 
Knightmare said:
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
1. Peter More could probably play as a modern tall winger. Super athletic, fast and tall. Big Lenny was a pure ruckman - albeit he started at CHF in thE 1970 Granny
2. Peter McKenna was a bit stiff. As a full forward he was opposed to Gordon Coventry - key member of the 4 Premierships in a row team PLUS the most prolific goal kicker in history at that time. Also Ron Todd who many regarded as the mostskilful player ever to don the black and white. McKenha was good, but those boys are superstars.
 
Knightmare said:
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
It intrigues me to think that in 40 years time, what we consider a tall today will only be a third tall by then, the same way McKenna wouldnt be a KPF today.
Maybe all KPFs in 2070 will be Mason Cox sized.
 
EB&W Pieman said:
1. Peter More could probably play as a modern tall winger. Super athletic, fast and tall. Big Lenny was a pure ruckman - albeit he started at CHF in thE 1970 Granny
2. Peter McKenna was a bit stiff. As a full forward he was opposed to Gordon Coventry - key member of the 4 Premierships in a row team PLUS the most prolific goal kicker in history at that time. Also Ron Todd who many regarded as the mostskilful player ever to don the black and white. McKenha was good, but those boys are superstars.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Always interesting hearing about those from eras past.

Would Len have the endurance to play wing? Anything close to the endurance of a Moore/Josh Fraser/Tim English? I've read reports about his speed and agility being good. He found a lot of it, but I don't know whether that's down to an endurance/around the ground superiority or whether it's all from stoppages as per a Grundy. I'm aware of Len's proficiency through the ruck not only the mobility, but leap and also his tapwork and how well his connection with his fellow midfielders was, trapping it to advantage at high frequency. I'm just curious beyond the ruck if say a Grundy was on the same team whether Thompson would be able to do other things. Averaging almost a goal per game as a ruckman, it's pretty clear Thompson could have played key forward, but having had Coventry, McKenna and Todd, for those putting together all-time teams based on peak performance and dominance through their respective eras and with a view towards fitting those absolute most superior players together into one side, I'm curious as to whether Thompson could if he needed to have played wing, or whether that would have been beyond his capabilities.

I'm surprised with a McKenna no room for him at CHF in the Team of the Century. That's more where my query stems from, obviously due to volume of work Gordon Coventry is the irrefutable full forward if we're talking about relative dominance during their respective eras as is the intention with the team. Was the focus of the Team of the Century on making the positions representative of where they played over who the best players were? eg. McKenna would be at least statistically the superior of Weideman and Kyne. I can't help but get the vibe in looking at the team with Buckley across half-back that there was a fair bit of creative licence and a Kyne in the forward pocket (based off his sub 1 goal per game career average it doesn't seem like that would be his best position) that there was some level of creative licence positionally with the creation of the team.

I'm well aware of Ron Todd. Ridiculous stuff kicking 120 goals in two straight seasons from no more than 20 games. Beast mode stuff.
 
jsdsgn said:
It intrigues me to think that in 40 years time, what we consider a tall today will only be a third tall by then, the same way McKenna wouldnt be a KPF today.
Maybe all KPFs in 2070 will be Mason Cox sized.
Click to expand...

We see it with how rucks, kpps, midfielders, flankers all seem to be growing taller. And when you've got more guys with height who are capable and the general populous grows, that can occur. And it's being helped along with tall kids learning to play smaller than their traditional positions eg. a lot of juniors coming through who are genuine ruck height at 200cm+ and their preferred positions are as kpps, or 190cm+ kids who are genuine midfielders for a couple of examples. A Nick Cox in this year's draft is 200cm and he's probably best suited on a wing given his skills and mobility, though he's just as able as a key forward.

I'm expecting we'll start seeing guys who are considered ruck height today over the next 10 years to be playing up on a wing. Having enjoyed the success of Richo and N.Riewoldt up on a wing, and seeing how that inflated their mark per game numbers, nothing much lose in terms of marks i50 or contested marks, or even goals kicked, and seeing how it actually helped in both cases in those years elevate their teams and the function of their respective front halves, I think it will be a common model going forward.

It's why I'm increasingly intrigued by the prospect of Darcy Moore to a wing, among other talls with similar aerobic capacities in combination with contested marking capabilities and ability to read the game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Knightmare said:
Thanks for the response. Always interesting hearing about those from eras past.

Would Len have the endurance to play wing? Anything close to the endurance of a Moore/Josh Fraser/Tim English? I've read reports about his speed and agility being good. He found a lot of it, but I don't know whether that's down to an endurance/around the ground superiority or whether it's all from stoppages as per a Grundy. I'm aware of Len's proficiency through the ruck not only the mobility, but leap and also his tapwork and how well his connection with his fellow midfielders was, trapping it to advantage at high frequency. I'm just curious beyond the ruck if say a Grundy was on the same team whether Thompson would be able to do other things. Averaging almost a goal per game as a ruckman, it's pretty clear Thompson could have played key forward, but having had Coventry, McKenna and Todd, for those putting together all-time teams based on peak performance and dominance through their respective eras and with a view towards fitting those absolute most superior players together into one side, I'm curious as to whether Thompson could if he needed to have played wing, or whether that would have been beyond his capabilities.

I'm surprised with a McKenna no room for him at CHF in the Team of the Century. That's more where my query stems from, obviously due to volume of work Gordon Coventry is the irrefutable full forward if we're talking about relative dominance during their respective eras as is the intention with the team. Was the focus of the Team of the Century on making the positions representative of where they played over who the best players were? eg. McKenna would be at least statistically the superior of Weideman and Kyne. I can't help but get the vibe in looking at the team with Buckley across half-back that there was a fair bit of creative licence and a Kyne in the forward pocket (based off his sub 1 goal per game career average it doesn't seem like that would be his best position) that there was some level of creative licence positionally with the creation of the team.

I'm well aware of Ron Todd. Ridiculous stuff kicking 120 goals in two straight seasons from no more than 20 games. Beast mode stuff.
Click to expand...

Thommo certainly couldn't have played on a wing. He was a classical ruckman, picture Dean Cox but a LOT better.
You are right about Buckley on hbf. As i remember it there was controversy at the time that he was wedged into that position largely on the potential he showed to be an all-time great of Collingwood.
 
raymond35 said:
Thommo certainly couldn't have played on a wing. He was a classical ruckman, picture Dean Cox but a LOT better.
You are right about Buckley on hbf. As i remember it there was controversy at the time that he was wedged into that position largely on the potential he showed to be an all-time great of Collingwood.
Click to expand...

That comparison doesn't bring any more clarity or answer my question, or at least in the way I had hoped.

eg. Cox I'd be incredibly comfortable playing either forward or on wing. He covered the ground so easily that he would have been an all-time level threat on a wing and when he played forward when Nic Nat played more than 50% ruck minutes, his play as a forward was exceptional also.

Did Thommo have endurance like Cox? Or that versatility to play other positions beyond just being great through the ruck? They're the things I'm really curious about. His disposal and mark numbers make me think he might, but I didn't have the pleasure to watch him, and would love to get that specific feel from those who did.

50 years from now, we'll be looking at 200cm ruckmen like they're irrelevant, just as we would look at a 180-185cm key forward as something of a novelty act, and not what you'd build your front half around, and more a type you would want as a component to a front half but not a focal point.

Nathan Buckley as an example is about as future proofed of a player as you can get because other than ruck, he could play any other position on the field and be your best player. Whether it's from a skill, athleticism or production standpoint. There is no way, no how he would ever be able to be left out of an All-time Collingwood team, as you can put him anywhere, and in any spot he's probably just about better than any alternative past, present, and maybe even future.

I'm curious with a Thompson, as maybe it's Grundy if he plays another 10 years and can continue to elevate his game, or more likely someone else down the line who takes that mantle as the clear best ruckman in club history. And we might be talking about a 215cm guy with a ridiculous wingspan and whatever other unique capabilities. If the AFL ends up with those kinds of guys down the track, and they're dominant on another level, I'm curious particularly with a Thompson as to whether he could slip onto a wing as I'd say in an all-time team a Dean Cox or Peter Moore easily could. And see all that way down the line, even if that superior ruckman comes along, that he could hold his spot in the club's all-time team, as you'd want him to as a 300 gamer, Brownlow medallist and one of the best I'd personally say at least at the present time top-five in club history on volume of work.
 
Thommo was a draft horse compared to Moore and Grundy. Peter Moore was even more athletic than his son Darcy if that gives you some reference. So yeah Peter Moore could play wing if you wanted to waste him there. Thommo no way! Len was considered "mobile" compared to Nicholls and Dempsey and co....but compared to today's ruckman he'd be about as athletic as Jared Witts. Grundy has him covered comfortably. Endurance wise Moore again held the edge over Thommo but Grundy again would have them for fitness these days.
 
Knightmare said:
I'd like to agree but can't.

The ruleset of today's game instantly makes the Coventry's, Collier's, Lee, Fothergill, Rose, Regan irrelevant if your criteria is to win a game today with the modern rules and need to understand today's structures. They're guys who would make it if you count their domination at the time and we're looking at level of domination for their period of play as the criteria, but with those guys playing before the handball was a rule, you could give them a rulebook 30min before a game today of what has changed and tell them the structures they need to play within, and they wouldn't be the same players. That's why I make the point, there are so few who make it under all circumstances as there are so many variations depending on your criteria.

Those sub 200 gamers for volume of work would be pretty quickly eliminated as Collingwood have more than enough 200+ and 250+ gamers for their value from duration perspective to make them more valuable from that perspective.

Millaine for volume of work as a sub 150 gamer wouldn't meet the criteria if you want someone for a career span of work. If I could have the whole career of Millaine or someone at the same position who played 250 games or more and played at a similar level, and the criteria isn't based on peak performance, Millaine would not have a spot either. And if peak performance is the criteria in the modern game, I'd rather Dale Thomas who in 2010 and 2011 was a gamechanger on a level even above Millaine, particularly with the game today geared towards forward pressure and scoring off the turnover. And I'd probably go Sidebottom on the other wing if again it's today's rules, understanding of modern structures needed and we want that peak performance, with Sidebottom's 2018 season big time with the 24 Brownlow votes and 764 disposals, and again you're getting as with Thomas that better two way player. And likewise for volume of work Sidebottom easily has Millaine beat.

Only maybe Thompson from your list of untouchables beyond Buckley/Pendlebury/Swan/Daicos has a case for meeting all criteria, no matter what you're looking for, but then through the ruck Collingwood have also had Peter Moore and Brodie Grundy who depending on your criteria could arguably be seen favourably and are firmly in that conversation. If you want to win today under today's rules and the argument is about prime play, Grundy who doesn't yet have that same volume of work may have a case and would physically bully Thompson and Moore both at ruck contests, when the ground ball is there to be won and tackle harder as the stronger and more powerful player they both would be entirely unprepared for. Then you have Moore who played a pretty comparable standard to Thompson and some may also view favourably depending on criteria.

I'd personally advocate a Thompson and Moore combination under most scenarios and certainly for volume of work as Grundy is only half way through his career. But in the modern game, with the modern rules and need to understand modern structures, and Grundy having knowledge of those guys, but then having no knowledge or tape of Grundy if they're being plucked out of their eras. That would be hard for those guys. Grundy in that kind of argument I feel would be even perhaps wrongly overlooked as frankly for mine he was competition's best player in 2018 and 2019 and would have to as a bare minimum under that criteria be in the discussion, if not viewed favourably. That's the challenge with the ruck and saying it's this one guy, because of that positional scarcity that makes it hard to fit everyone in. For peak performance would that slot Grundy into the ruck and Moore and/or Thompson either as tall wings or key forwards? I'd honestly for a peak performance discussion be looking at a creative structure along those lines, though it depends on how regimented you want the structures to be and how fixed you are on the position they played to be the position you want them to represent in such a team.
Click to expand...
Would Daicos make your team if picking a team for the modern game when you look at the modern day running demands? What about if you reversed the time period and picked a team for the 1920s, were there necessary skill sets that some modern players wouldn't have that would stop them from making that team?
 
Robroy22 said:
Greening would have to be included.
Click to expand...
I am merely an outsider who comes in peace. I did however see many great magpie players including Greening. IMO Greening was brilliant, especially in 1972. Probably as good as Brent Croswell at Carlton, although clearly different players.
I once read an article that compared Greening's career to Gary Ablett Jnr, if the latter's career had in fact ceased at the end of 2006.
IMO that is a pretty accurate summation.
 
Knightmare said:
I'd also be interested if for those who saw them. Len Thompson and Peter Moore. Could either/or/both play as tall wings? *Think Richo/N.Riewoldt on a wing?

Also interested for those who saw Peter McKenna how he would fit into the modern game and whether he would if he played today stack up favourably v Cloke/Tarrant/S.Rocca/A.Rocca? And where positionally at 191cm and 87kg he could today assuming he's that same height/weight with the game he played fit best and whether he would still be best as a genuine key forward? Third tall close to goal? Flanker? I'd also be fascinated to know why he wasn't part of Collingwood's team of the century. Is it just a group of salty selectors that he joined Carlton for a year? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, McKenna was a bit too reliant on uncontested marks on the lead for modern KPF. Like Dunstall, I think he would be one of the big losers from modern defensive structures.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

sr36 said:
Would Daicos make your team if picking a team for the modern game when you look at the modern day running demands? What about if you reversed the time period and picked a team for the 1920s, were there necessary skill sets that some modern players wouldn't have that would stop them from making that team?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting thought to ponder, and it's one as an NBA fan I ponder as the rules made the game and what players were able to do or not do so different. And it would be the same with the AFL when comparing eras.

Daicos in my view, and this is why I mentioned him as someone who fits regardless of era, would have no trouble slotting into a forward pocket even today. If he can play midfield at any point in his career, he could play as a forward in the modern game. Forwards then didn't pressure like they do now, and that's the relative drawback that immediately springs to my mind, but if he's going to kick 2+ goals per game without needing to be that primary target, he's hard not to pick, even today. It's a bit like asking whether a prime Didak could still play today. The game hasn't progressed all that far since that 2010 flag side, and Didak could still play and play well today, as Daicos is as I'd imagine would be the consensus the better player during any era.
I know if I could, I'd be trading a prime Daicos in for an of the club's current forwards.

I can't imagine the players of today would have any trouble fitting into the 1920s. For height, size, athleticism and game sense, the players of then would even under the rule sets of then get entirely overwhelmed.

Imagine Brodie Grundy in the ruck against a 182cm Syd Coventry? Or a Scott Pendlebury or Steele Sidebottom through the midfield against those guys. Introducing those teams to the sheer power of a Jordan De Goey. Any number of players, even changing the rules on the current players would cause the players of 100 years ago endless problems in any number of categories.

Ultimately anyone pre 1960s it's hard to make a realistic case for being able to stack up. Not only did the handball not exist but just looking at the athletic profiles of the players, it's just unreasonable to try to compare them to anyone current.

sr36 said:
In my opinion, McKenna was a bit too reliant on uncontested marks on the lead for modern KPF. Like Dunstall, I think he would be one of the big losers from modern defensive structures.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. Sounds like a lighter build going off everything I've read. How did McKenna go covering the ground? If he played today could he be something like a Chris Tarrant circa 2003? Would be interesting to hear how they compared - for endurance, speed and leap particularly.
Would also be interested whether there is a modern players if McKenna played today, in the state that he was then, he might play like today, noting that his impact obviously wouldn't be anywhere near where it was when he played.
 
Knightmare said:
Thanks for the insight. Sounds like a lighter build going off everything I've read. How did McKenna go covering the ground? If he played today could he be something like a Chris Tarrant circa 2003? Would be interesting to hear how they compared - for endurance, speed and leap particularly.
Would also be interested whether there is a modern players if McKenna played today, in the state that he was then, he might play like today, noting that his impact obviously wouldn't be anywhere near where it was when he played.
Click to expand...

Basically I think he'd be a totally different player and would have developed different skills or into a different role if he was to play now. He was a good size with good pace, agility and skills, who read the game beautifully - you could have developed him for a heap of different roles. I doubt he had much endurance - who'd know - if he had it he never would have used it as a full forward. Not sure about his leap, he wasn't a pack mark type of player - didn't take hangers like Taz could. I think he could have played a heap of different roles and been quite versatile, but in that era, when your one dimension was so bloody good, you didn't need other dimensions or versatility.

I personally think you can only discuss these players or pick these teams in terms of dominance during the period they played, as they'd be totally different players if they played in the modern game.
 
sr36 said:
Basically I think he'd be a totally different player and would have developed different skills or into a different role if he was to play now. He was a good size with good pace, agility and skills, who read the game beautifully - you could have developed him for a heap of different roles. I doubt he had much endurance - who'd know - if he had it he never would have used it as a full forward. Not sure about his leap, he wasn't a pack mark type of player - didn't take hangers like Taz could. I think he could have played a heap of different roles and been quite versatile, but in that era, when your one dimension was so bloody good, you didn't need other dimensions or versatility.

I personally think you can only discuss these players or pick these teams in terms of dominance during the period they played, as they'd be totally different players if they played in the modern game.
Click to expand...

That's the challenge with comparing eras. And there are so many ways to interpret it.

Rightly or wrongly, my methodology is to take the player, as is, from the era they played, as they could play.

From eras past, Nathan Buckley feels like that most future proofed player of any era where you could say 100 years on that his game would still (I can only imagine) maintain relevance. That's where when going into all-time discussions I feel that real separation comes into play, where when you have guys from eras past. How far into the future their games can translate and still be elite really speaks to their level of greatness. Just as in the NBA a Wilt Chamberlain from the 1960s could play in the NBA today and still be the dominant big man. You've got those Wilt's, Kareem's, Michael's, LeBron's, where it doesn't matter the era, and 100 years after their playing days their games should remain relevant. It's the same for me with AFL where if you're good enough, that test of time and how long their game would stack up under modern rules as they continue to update and evolve over time, really is that indicator of how great they really were.
 
Knightmare said:
That's the challenge with comparing eras. And there are so many ways to interpret it.

Rightly or wrongly, my methodology is to take the player, as is, from the era they played, as they could play.

From eras past, Nathan Buckley feels like that most future proofed player of any era where you could say 100 years on that his game would still (I can only imagine) maintain relevance. That's where when going into all-time discussions I feel that real separation comes into play, where when you have guys from eras past. How far into the future their games can translate and still be elite really speaks to their level of greatness. Just as in the NBA a Wilt Chamberlain from the 1960s could play in the NBA today and still be the dominant big man. You've got those Wilt's, Kareem's, Michael's, LeBron's, where it doesn't matter the era, and 100 years after their playing days their games should remain relevant. It's the same for me with AFL where if you're good enough, that test of time and how long their game would stack up under modern rules as they continue to update and evolve over time, really is that indicator of how great they really were.
Click to expand...
Bill Russell slaughtered everyone
Best team player
Created the modern basketball style
 
Knightmare said:
It's an interesting thought to ponder, and it's one as an NBA fan I ponder as the rules made the game and what players were able to do or not do so different. And it would be the same with the AFL when comparing eras.

Daicos in my view, and this is why I mentioned him as someone who fits regardless of era, would have no trouble slotting into a forward pocket even today. If he can play midfield at any point in his career, he could play as a forward in the modern game. Forwards then didn't pressure like they do now, and that's the relative drawback that immediately springs to my mind, but if he's going to kick 2+ goals per game without needing to be that primary target, he's hard not to pick, even today. It's a bit like asking whether a prime Didak could still play today. The game hasn't progressed all that far since that 2010 flag side, and Didak could still play and play well today, as Daicos is as I'd imagine would be the consensus the better player during any era.
I know if I could, I'd be trading a prime Daicos in for an of the club's current forwards.

I can't imagine the players of today would have any trouble fitting into the 1920s. For height, size, athleticism and game sense, the players of then would even under the rule sets of then get entirely overwhelmed.

Imagine Brodie Grundy in the ruck against a 182cm Syd Coventry? Or a Scott Pendlebury or Steele Sidebottom through the midfield against those guys. Introducing those teams to the sheer power of a Jordan De Goey. Any number of players, even changing the rules on the current players would cause the players of 100 years ago endless problems in any number of categories.

Ultimately anyone pre 1960s it's hard to make a realistic case for being able to stack up. Not only did the handball not exist but just looking at the athletic profiles of the players, it's just unreasonable to try to compare them to anyone current.



Thanks for the insight. Sounds like a lighter build going off everything I've read. How did McKenna go covering the ground? If he played today could he be something like a Chris Tarrant circa 2003? Would be interesting to hear how they compared - for endurance, speed and leap particularly.
Would also be interested whether there is a modern players if McKenna played today, in the state that he was then, he might play like today, noting that his impact obviously wouldn't be anywhere near where it was when he played.
Click to expand...
Peter owes half his goals to Barry price and Len Thompson
Wayne and max helped and Bob heard did a lot of BLOCKING
 
Robroy22 said:
Thommo was a draft horse compared to Moore and Grundy. Peter Moore was even more athletic than his son Darcy if that gives you some reference. So yeah Peter Moore could play wing if you wanted to waste him there. Thommo no way! Len was considered "mobile" compared to Nicholls and Dempsey and co....but compared to today's ruckman he'd be about as athletic as Jared Witts. Grundy has him covered comfortably. Endurance wise Moore again held the edge over Thommo but Grundy again would have them for fitness these days.
Click to expand...
And Thompson has technical expertise
Heart
Hardness

Try Simon Maddern
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Picking an all-time CFC lineup

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top