Opinion Most overrated players from each team?

[The_Eagles]

From what I have seen Matthews looks like the grunt and consistency of Neale, forward-craft of Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

and Dustin Martin kicks
I dunno, I can’t imagine someone better than Gary Ablett Jnr as a mid

 

[Falcon3518]

Well I can probably agree on this point. Also, I don't want to keep arguing about this (as most of my arguments have been about your methodology rather than actually comparing the players) but did you actually watch all the highlight vids you posted? I just watched the Leigh Matthews one and the Chris Judd one again and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that Judd had the superior 'peak skills' from those videos.

Matthews video features a goal from the centre square (much further than any of Judds), multiple speccies (Judd's had no marks and he was a poor mark in general), goals from the boundary on his opposite foot (as well as from the other boundary on his preferred), overhead goals, etc.

Without comparing them as players (I highly rate Judd) and just comparing the videos, Judd beats Matthews for raw pace. Matthews beats Judd for marking, contested marking, foot skills on his preferred, footskills on non-preferred, lateral movement, kicking distance, etc. In fact, whilst Judd is 'bursting away' a lot of the time, many of the disposals in the video posted are missing (or at the feet of) their target.

Edit: Actually, Judd had 1 mark in his highlight vid.

I sort of agree with that, Judd’s not known for his goal kicking. Thought I’d put his highlights in for the Judd fans out there.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[WilloTree]

Has anyone had more media than Jack Ginnivan?

It's pretty OTT for a bloke who had 5 possessions and kicked 0.0

 

[gouki88]

Has anyone had more media than Jack Ginnivan?

It's pretty OTT for a bloke who had 5 possessions and kicked 0.0

Is he overrated? He's kicked more than players like Pickett, Weightman and Rankine.

I just think he's an AFL villain more than overrated.

 

[La Dispute]

Firstly, the main difference with the highlights I watched was the quality of the footage rather than the quality of the skills. Matthews was still kicking goals from the boundary on the wrong foot, balking lots of players, goals over his head, etc. It's just so much harder to see - you can't appreciate it.

Secondly, of course highlights are not a way to judge a player. Whose highlights do you think are better - Jeremy Howe or Alex Rance? Howe's highlights would be a million times better. Whose highlights would be better - Chad Wingard or Michael Voss? Jake Stringer or Trent Cotchin? Daisy Thomas or Scott Pendlebury? Tony Modra or Tony Lockett? Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti or Sam Mitchell? Warrick Capper or Jason Dunstall?

Better highlights absolutely does not make someone a better player.

I’m looking less at the highlights and more at the standard of play - it’s shocking.

Some of his runs are quite skilful, but any modern player can pick up a ball at speed because it’s now an expected and practiced skill.

It’s amazing how much space there is to execute in the forward 50 and how often there are outnumbered contests in attacking 50. It’s almost unheard of in the modern game.

Matthews might have been the best of his time, but if we’re comparing Martin in the 2010’s it’s not even close. The league standard has improved considerably and Matthews wouldn’t be near the best.

 

[H00t]

I’m looking less at the highlights and more at the standard of play - it’s shocking.

Some of his runs are quite skilful, but any modern player can pick up a ball at speed because it’s now an expected and practiced skill.

It’s amazing how much space there is to execute in the forward 50 and how often there are outnumbered contests in attacking 50. It’s almost unheard of in the modern game.

Matthews might have been the best of his time, but if we’re comparing Martin in the 2010’s it’s not even close. The league standard has improved considerably and Matthews wouldn’t be near the best.

The game has evolved dramatically since Matthews played. But the game will also continue to evolve. The players 40+ years from now will be head and shoulders above the current footballers.

So the current footballers will always be the “best” because of that.

But it’s about who stands out the most from each era when they are all competing under the same conditions.

Matthews growing up today would be a way better player now and Martin growing up back then would be way worse. When compared to their corresponding selves. Nothing stopping Matthews from reaching the same heights he did back then now though.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I’m looking less at the highlights and more at the standard of play - it’s shocking.

Some of his runs are quite skilful, but any modern player can pick up a ball at speed because it’s now an expected and practiced skill.

It’s amazing how much space there is to execute in the forward 50 and how often there are outnumbered contests in attacking 50. It’s almost unheard of in the modern game.

Matthews might have been the best of his time, but if we’re comparing Martin in the 2010’s it’s not even close. The league standard has improved considerably and Matthews wouldn’t be near the best.

To be fair, a lot of the time he is making the space himself. In those highlights at least, he often has a lot of close checking opponents but is able to pivot and baulk his way into enough space to get the kick away.

Besides, I'm not a fan of comparing players from different eras in that way - i.e. transplanting them 40-50 years into the future and saying "they're too small", "they're not as fast/fit/good", etc. To me it's nonsensical and renders any comparison pointless. It means we end up saying things like "Marc Pittonet would give John Nichols or Polly Farmer a bath - they'd be too small to have a chance to compete"

You can only compare them to the standards and norms of the time. Had Dusty played in the 70's would he be as fit and strong as he is now? He would be shorter, he would have to work full time, he wouldn't have elite training standards, sports science, nutritionists, etc and he would be free to drink, smoke and party as much as he pleased. Given he is not close to the fittest player in the comp now, I suspect his fitness would be 'middle of the pack' for the 70's as it is now.

Lethal did enough to be the undisputed best and most dominant player in the comp in his time. He can't help the "standard of footy" of his era and had he been born 40 years later and had all the professionalism of today, I suspect he would have done what was required to be a dominant force today as he did then.

If we compare otherwise, the best players of the past will always be considered less than the average players of today and the Judds, Ablett and Martin's of today will be considered worse than average players in years to come.

Edit: Said differently but essentially beaten to the same point above (cos I take too long )

 

[Falcon3518]

To be fair, a lot of the time he is making the space himself. In those highlights at least, he often has a lot of close checking opponents but is able to pivot and baulk his way into enough space to get the kick away.

Besides, I'm not a fan of comparing players from different eras in that way - i.e. transplanting them 40-50 years into the future and saying "they're too small", "they're not as fast/fit/good", etc. To me it's nonsensical and renders any comparison pointless. It means we end up saying things like "Marc Pittonet would give John Nichols or Polly Farmer a bath - they'd be too small to have a chance to compete"

You can only compare them to the standards and norms of the time. Had Dusty played in the 70's would he be as fit and strong as he is now? He would be shorter, he would have to work full time, he wouldn't have elite training standards, sports science, nutritionists, etc and he would be free to drink, smoke and party as much as he pleased. Given he is not close to the fittest player in the comp now, I suspect his fitness would be 'middle of the pack' for the 70's as it is now.

Lethal did enough to be the undisputed best and most dominant player in the comp in his time. He can't help the "standard of footy" of his era and had he been born 40 years later and had all the professionalism of today, I suspect he would have done what was required to be a dominant force today as he did then.

If we compare otherwise, the best players of the past will always be considered less than the average players of today and the Judds, Ablett and Martin's of today will be considered worse than average players in years to come.

Edit: Said differently but essentially beaten to the same point above (cos I take too long )

After being on bigfooty I’ve figured out there are two schools of thought for comparing players across eras:

1. You assume the players adjust to the time period they are transported in meaning their biology, training habits, rules adjustments change with the times. It’s pretty much just arguing talent which is not measurable and subjective.

2. You take the players exactly how the played, put them in a time machine to whatever era without changing anything about them. This means that yes players get better overtime and in the future it is inevitable that there will be players better than the current greats.

You seem to use option 1 and I go with option 2. Imo option 1 uses to many assumptions and hypotheticals that cannot possibly be known. You change the player so much that they essentially aren’t the same player anymore. You can’t have a debate with that.

I think of it this way. In 100m sprint Bolt is the best as he holds the record, which is under 10 seconds. I don’t think people would argue Gold medalists from 1920s would be better than him when they ran in excess of 12 seconds which high schoolers can do now.

Since I go with option 2 I believe Dusty would actually play better that what he does now as the comp was weaker (he’d have more space when going fwd and is tougher/faster in the mid) and lethal would play worse if he came into this era for the opposite reasons to Dusty. Not the other way around.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

I’m looking less at the highlights and more at the standard of play - it’s shocking.

Some of his runs are quite skilful, but any modern player can pick up a ball at speed because it’s now an expected and practiced skill.

It’s amazing how much space there is to execute in the forward 50 and how often there are outnumbered contests in attacking 50. It’s almost unheard of in the modern game.

Matthews might have been the best of his time, but if we’re comparing Martin in the 2010’s it’s not even close. The league standard has improved considerably and Matthews wouldn’t be near the best.

This guy gets it


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Guardian Hawk]

After being on bigfooty I’ve figured out there are two schools of thought for comparing players across eras:

1. You assume the players adjust to the time period they are transported in meaning their biology, training habits, rules adjustments change with the times. It’s pretty much just arguing talent which is not measurable and subjective.

2. You take the players exactly how the played, put them in a time machine to whatever era without changing anything about them. This means that yes players get better overtime and in the future it is inevitable that there will be players better than the current greats.

You seem to use option 1 and I go with option 2. Imo option 1 uses to many assumptions and hypotheticals that cannot possibly be known. You change the player so much that they essentially aren’t the same player anymore. You can’t have a debate with that.

I think of it this way. In 100m sprint Bolt is the best as he holds the record, which is under 10 seconds. I don’t think people would argue Gold medalists from 1920s would be better than him when they ran in excess of 12 seconds which high schoolers can do now.

Since I go with option 2 I believe Dusty would actually play better that what he does now as the comp was weaker (he’d have more space when going fwd and is tougher/faster in the mid) and lethal would play worse if he came into this era for the opposite reasons to Dusty. Not the other way around.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

There is a third option. Comparing their achievements and performances relative to their contemporaries. In other words, seeing how good Matthews was in comparison to players of his time versus how good Dusty is compared to players of his. I have no idea why we have to try and transport people 40 or 50 years one way or the other to compare. Doing so is just as hypothetical, if not more so.

In your 100m example, what you are essentially saying is that random high schoolers are better athletes than Jesse Owens - who won multiple gold medals. To me, that is ridiculous. Jesse ran at a time when nutrition was poorer, shoes were awful, surfaces were concrete or grass, etc. Of course he is going to be slower than the gold medallists of today. Bolt is better anyway - he had more success and victories than anyone before him, regardless of time improvements. But to say some random highschooler that can't even qualify for the Olympics is a better athlete than Jesse Owens (because of his time and ignoring everything else) makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It's the same for football. Who is the better ruckman? - Polly Farmer or Ned Reeves? The answer should be so obvious as to be ridiculous. Farmer was considered the best ruckman of his era and one of the best of all time. he has awards coming out the wazoo as a result of this. Reeves has achieved nothing and is not one of the best 10 rucks today. To then say, oh but Reeves is fitter than Polly was and is 30 cm taller so would dominate him, therefore Reeves > Polly is close to the silliest way toi compare players I can imagine. If we do it that way, TOTC and the like will only ever be current players which also makes no sense.

 

[tiger_tough]

Is he overrated? He's kicked more than players like Pickett, Weightman and Rankine.

I just think he's an AFL villain more than overrated.

How many of them are from free kicks?

 

[Falcon3518]

There is a third option. Comparing their achievements and performances relative to their contemporaries. In other words, seeing how good Matthews was in comparison to players of his time versus how good Dusty is compared to players of his. I have no idea why we have to try and transport people 40 or 50 years one way or the other to compare. Doing so is just as hypothetical, if not more so.

In your 100m example, what you are essentially saying is that random high schoolers are better athletes than Jesse Owens - who won multiple gold medals. To me, that is ridiculous. Jesse ran at a time when nutrition was poorer, shoes were awful, surfaces were concrete or grass, etc. Of course he is going to be slower than the gold medallists of today. Bolt is better anyway - he had more success and victories than anyone before him, regardless of time improvements. But to say some random highschooler that can't even qualify for the Olympics is a better athlete than Jesse Owens (because of his time and ignoring everything else) makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It's the same for football. Who is the better ruckman? - Polly Farmer or Ned Reeves? The answer should be so obvious as to be ridiculous. Farmer was considered the best ruckman of his era and one of the best of all time. he has awards coming out the wazoo as a result of this. Reeves has achieved nothing and is not one of the best 10 rucks today. To then say, oh but Reeves is fitter than Polly was and is 30 cm taller so would dominate him, therefore Reeves > Polly is close to the silliest way toi compare players I can imagine. If we do it that way, TOTC and the like will only ever be current players which also makes no sense.

You just argued option 2 with the Owens example. You don’t know what he would’ve done, I doubt he could improve 3 seconds on his time. That’s a mammoth ask. Olympic sprints are as clear cut as you can get to compare athletes from different time periods.

In regards to option 3 you suggested. Comparing each player to their contemporaries does not mean anything at the standard of the comp is different. It does not directly relate to comparing Dusty and Lethal for example. Pretty sure a 5 time AFLW Brownlow winner would not be better than Lethal or Dusty.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Guardian Hawk]

You just argued option 2 with the Owens example. You don’t know what he would’ve done, I doubt he could improve 3 seconds on his time. That’s a mammoth ask. Olympic sprints are as clear cut as you can get to compare athletes from different time periods.

In regards to option 3 you suggested. Comparing each player to their contemporaries does not mean anything at the standard of the comp is different. It does not directly relate to comparing Dusty and Lethal for example. Pretty sure a 5 time AFLW Brownlow winner would not be better than Lethal or Dusty.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I didn't argue option 2 at all - I didn't put Owens in a time machine and say he would be faster. I argued option 3 - That the fastest man in the world in his time (multiple gold medals) should be rated a better athlete than someone who never even qualified for the Olympics. Without trying to be rude, I almost can't believe I have to say this.

I take it you agree then that Ned Reeves is a better ruckman than Polly was?

 

[tenderwarrior]

You just argued option 2 with the Owens example. You don’t know what he would’ve done, I doubt he could improve 3 seconds on his time. That’s a mammoth ask. Olympic sprints are as clear cut as you can get to compare athletes from different time periods.

In regards to option 3 you suggested. Comparing each player to their contemporaries does not mean anything at the standard of the comp is different. It does not directly relate to comparing Dusty and Lethal for example. Pretty sure a 5 time AFLW Brownlow winner would not be better than Lethal or Dusty.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

well then we are asking the wrong question.

The question worth asking is "who is/was the better player when compared to their contemporaries?" The better player is the one who stands heads and shoulders above those they were competing against.

The question has no merit when a high school kid who might be at state level is "better" than a world champion in a different era based purely on times and distances.

When trying to compare athletes from different era's, who (apart from perhaps Bradman?) is better (based on statistics) than their modern-day counter-part?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

You just argued option 2 with the Owens example. You don’t know what he would’ve done, I doubt he could improve 3 seconds on his time. That’s a mammoth ask. Olympic sprints are as clear cut as you can get to compare athletes from different time periods.

In regards to option 3 you suggested. Comparing each player to their contemporaries does not mean anything at the standard of the comp is different. It does not directly relate to comparing Dusty and Lethal for example. Pretty sure a 5 time AFLW Brownlow winner would not be better than Lethal or Dusty.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Also, I can't wait for another 20 years to go by and people will tell you how average Gary Ablett Jnr was and that "future Gary Rohan level player" is obviously better because Ablett was a midget at only 180 odd cm and 80 something kilos and would not be able to compete with the 195 cm midfielders of the future. Specifically, how "future Gary Rohan" is bigger and faster and plays in a higher level comp so is obviously better than Ablett Jnr was. Be interesting to see if you still think the same way and say, yep - Gary Rohan > Ablett Jnr.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Noah Balta

21

Noah Balta

Age

24

Ht

194cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

6.7

3star

HB

3.1

3star

M

2.7

3star

T

1.9

4star

MG

236.3

4star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.7

3star

HB

5.3

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.3

1star

MG

233.0

4star

D

7.0

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.8

4star

MG

217.4

4star

 

[Falcon3518]

I didn't argue option 2 at all - I didn't put Owens in a time machine and say he would be faster. I argued option 3 - That the fastest man in the world in his time (multiple gold medals) should be rated a better athlete than someone who never even qualified for the Olympics. Without trying to be rude, I almost can't believe I have to say this.

I take it you agree then that Ned Reeves is a better ruckman than Polly was?

If the guys sprint faster they are better, that’s it. Polly has awards on his side so that’s fine. Lethal didn’t compare of the players in his own era. Stats are great though but imo it’s not enough without having the awards to go along with it to be considered the GOAT. I can’t believe I have to explain that to you.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[My Tilly]

The game has evolved dramatically since Matthews played. But the game will also continue to evolve. The players 40+ years from now will be head and shoulders above the current footballers.

So the current footballers will always be the “best” because of that.

But it’s about who stands out the most from each era when they are all competing under the same conditions.

Matthews growing up today would be a way better player now and Martin growing up back then would be way worse. When compared to their corresponding selves. Nothing stopping Matthews from reaching the same heights he did back then now though.

And at the end of the day, it's not a complicated sport. If you had the mental fortitude to rise above your peers and dominate the game 25 or 50 years ago, you are going to do similar in today's game.
Matthews does not get enough credit for his marking ability. Was excellent when out in front and on the lead. His best trait was his uncanny ability to take on multiple opponents. Rarely got done for holding the ball. Brilliant centre of gravity and strong legs allowed him to dodge around two, there or more players.

I would imagine that had he been blessed with great speed and leaping ability, he may not have been the same player at all. Being slower gave him the opportunity to develop his game in other ways.
Ablett Snr molded his game around Matthews. Was in awe of him as a young kid.

 

[danster168]

Has anyone had more media than Jack Ginnivan?

It's pretty OTT for a bloke who had 5 possessions and kicked 0.0

I don't think anyone really rates Ginnivan as a player other than pies fans. Most neutrals weren't remotely surprised that he had 5 touches and 0.0 in the first week where flopping wasn't going to get rewarded.

He's a good kick for goal that's about it.

 

[Falcon3518]

Also, I can't wait for another 20 years to go by and people will tell you how average Gary Ablett Jnr was and that "future Gary Rohan level player" is obviously better because Ablett was a midget at only 180 odd cm and 80 something kilos and would not be able to compete with the 195 cm midfielders of the future. Specifically, how "future Gary Rohan" is bigger and faster and plays in a higher level comp so is obviously better than Ablett Jnr was. Be interesting to see if you still think the same way and say, yep - Gary Rohan > Ablett Jnr.

Lol it’s obvious what I’m saying is that evolution only provides an edge. The gap increases over time and you only start seeing differences with a 10-15 year gap. The Rohan example is so bad.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Guardian Hawk]

If the guys sprint faster they are better, that’s it. Polly has awards on his side so that’s fine. Lethal didn’t compare of the players in his own era. Stats are great though but imo it’s not enough without having the awards to go along with it to be considered the GOAT. I can’t believe I have to explain that to you.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Oh jeez. Not this again. He HAS the awards. He made every AA/Team of the Year that was available to him. He won the MVP once it was created (in many ways FOR him). He won a Coleman from the midfield. He retired with the 2nd most Brownlow votes of all time despite EVERYONE being aware that many, many votes were not given due to his thuggery. He won the best and fairest (in one of the greatest teams of all time) 8 times. He won 3 in premiership years. He was recognised by his peers and the media as the greatest player of all time. He is in the AFL TOTC and was inducted as a Legend. He has stats and a dominance that is unsurpassed.

It literally astounds me that you can say "he is overrated by the media and football community who say he is one of the best of all time - he doesn't have awards like AA's and Norm Smith" when NOT only were those awards mostly not in existence but those awards are chosen by the same media who you think are wrong. The football community tell you he was the best player in the '78 GF and you say "oh no it doesn't count cos he didn't win an award that didn't exist", even though it is those same members of the football community that would have voted on it if it did exist. People tell you he was easily the best player in the league in 1977 and you say "oh no he didn't get AA" when it is again those same people that would have voted him AA if it existed. You are essentially telling everyone that saw him play and in denial of all the evidence and stats to back it up that because he didn't win awards that didn't exist (from your quick check of his wiki page), he is not as good.

Does it genuinely make sense to you?

 

[Falcon3518]

Oh jeez. Not this again. He HAS the awards. He made every AA/Team of the Year that was available to him. He won the MVP once it was created (in many ways FOR him). He won a Coleman from the midfield. He retired with the 2nd most Brownlow votes of all time despite EVERYONE being aware that many, many votes were not given due to his thuggery. He won the best and fairest (in one of the greatest teams of all time) 8 times. He won 3 in premiership years. He was recognised by his peers and the media as the greatest player of all time. He is in the AFL TOTC and was inducted as a Legend. He has stats and a dominance that is unsurpassed.

It literally astounds me that you can say "he is overrated by the media and football community who say he is one of the best of all time - he doesn't have awards like AA's and Norm Smith" when NOT only were those awards mostly not in existence but those awards are chosen by the same media who you think are wrong. The football community tell you he was the best player in the '78 GF and you say "oh no it doesn't count cos he didn't win an award that didn't exist", even though it is those same members of the football community that would have voted on it if it did exist. People tell you he was easily the best player in the league in 1977 and you say "oh no he didn't get AA" when it is again those same people that would have voted him AA if it existed. You are essentially telling everyone that saw him play and in denial of all the evidence and stats to back it up that because he didn't win awards that didn't exist (from your quick check of his wiki page), he is not as good.

Does it genuinely make sense to you?

No norm smiths had 3 opportunities. Even if you give the 78 one, it’s only 1. He does not even compare to 5 x MVP, 2 x Brownlow, 8x AA GAJ, not as good as Dusty in finals and not as good as Buddy at kicking goals. As other guys have pointed out the skill in that era was atrocious compared to today. It really isn’t a contest.

Also the MVP award was made in 1982, the other greats of the game like GAS and Carey weren’t around. Norm Smith wasn’t as good as Dusty in finals so who it was named after doesn’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Lol it’s obvious what I’m saying is that evolution only provides an edge. The gap increases over time and you only start seeing differences with a 10-15 year gap. The Rohan example is so bad.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

How is it bad - it's exactly the same thing. You do realise I said "future Gary Rohan level" player in 20 years time. Your argument is that players are bigger and faster than yesteryear (and the game is of a higher standard) so average players of today are bigger and faster and fitter than the champions of yesteryear and are therefore better (it is almost exactly the same as your highschooler being better than Jesse Owens).

The problem with this argument is that CURRENT Gary Rohan is bigger, faster, better leap (and even has very good highlights) than Gary Ablett Jnr. Does it make him a better player? Not even close. You wait a while and see how many people try and tell you Sam Mitchell would not be any good in "today's game" (i.e. in the future) cos he is short and slow, completing ignoring that he was shorter and slower than all of his contemporaries as well and was still an elite player.

 

[gouki88]

How many of them are from free kicks?

Not sure, I would say a few.

Dylan Moore is 1st in the competition for total free kicks. McKay is 3rd. Plenty of other goal-kickers in the top rankings (Heeney, Breust). Do we minimise their goals from free kick? Do goals from free kick count for less points?

 

[hawkman]

How is it bad - it's exactly the same thing. You do realise I said "future Gary Rohan level" player in 20 years time. Your argument is that players are bigger and faster than yesteryear (and the game is of a higher standard) so average players of today are bigger and faster and fitter than the champions of yesteryear and are therefore better (it is almost exactly the same as your highschooler being better than Jesse Owens).

The problem with this argument is that CURRENT Gary Rohan is bigger, faster, better leap (and even has very good highlights) than Gary Ablett Jnr. Does it make him a better player? Not even close. You wait a while and see how many people try and tell you Sam Mitchell would not be any good in "today's game" (i.e. in the future) cos he is short and slow, completing ignoring that he was shorter and slower than all of his contemporaries as well and was still an elite player.

Players adjust over the careers. Robert Harvey's career overlapped with a number of players still playing. He started in the 80's and was still a very good player when he retired in 08. I doubt anyone would question it he would still be a great player in the modern game as he played against Pendlebury, Selwood and Franklin