Archer V Neitz

[Kings Army]

Wo has been better out of these 2?

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Both severly overrated.

 

[MinerBoy]

This is actually a very good poll.

Glenn Archer is as tough as nails, and the real heart and soul of the team.

However, David Neitz is the better player and I would suspect, no less inspirational to his Melbourne teammates.

Both great leaders, I'd take Neitz purely for his greater output.

 

[mark73]

However, David Neitz is the better player and I would suspect, no less inspirational to his Melbourne teammates.

I may suggest you go back and watch a bit of Archer before he turned 30. Neitz is the better player NOW, but saying the better player overall is not just wrong but silly.

 

[MinerBoy]

I may suggest you go back and watch a bit of Archer before he turned 30. Neitz is the better player NOW, but saying the better player overall is not just wrong but silly.

No, it isn't actually. They are both veterans who have played 10-15 terrific years each. Archer is a fantastic player, but his true worth is based on his impact on the team, rather than his impact on the game.

Neitz is just as influential in inspiring the Demons as Archer is to the 'Roos. However, Neitz has been a fantastic CHB and a prolific FF too. His ability to be an influence on the result of a game exceeds that of Archer, who is a top drawer footballer, but has been a back pocket player for the most part.

Please don't think I'm selling Archer short, he has been great. I actually played junior representative football with Glenn in the Dandenong and District Junior Football League when he played with Lyndale and have always watched him with interest through his AFL career. But from a non-biased perspective, Neitz is and always has been, a better footballer.

 

[dipper86]

Both in their prime Archer, right now Neitz.

 

[mark73]

No, it isn't actually. They are both veterans who have played 10-15 terrific years each. Archer is a fantastic player, but his true worth is based on his impact on the team, rather than his impact on the game.

I'm sorry but thats garbage. There has always been an underselling of Archer becuase the media have made him out to be a bruiser who hits packs and does the hard thing. Absolute crap. Probably one of the more skilled players to have ever played for our club. You don't win B&F's, AA's, state guernseys and Norm Smith medals from being soley inspirational. Put him anywhere on the field on his day and he won that position.

Neitz is just as influential in inspiring the Demons as Archer is to the 'Roos. However, Neitz has been a fantastic CHB and a prolific FF too. His ability to be an influence on the result of a game exceeds that of Archer, who is a top drawer footballer, but has been a back pocket player for the most part.

You mean like when Archer, all 182cm of him used to consistently towel up the likes of Matthew Richardson (195cm), Nick Holland (196cm) and Justin Leppitsch (192cm)?

Predominantly a BP? In all honesty mate I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest but again, watch a bit of Archer throughout his peak era. There wasn't a position he didn't play or excel in.

Please don't think I'm selling Archer short, he has been great. I actually played junior representative football with Glenn in the Dandenong and District Junior Football League when he played with Lyndale and have always watched him with interest through his AFL career. But from a non-biased perspective, Neitz is and always has been, a better footballer.

Trouble is though you actually are selling Archer short. Neitz is a champion. In fact last year he was the only reason they beat us with a match winning 8 goals, and I used to love watching some of his duals at CHB with Carey, but the fact is when Carey was fairdinkum, he destroyed Neitz and Archer has never been destroyed by anyone.

 

[MinerBoy]

I'm sorry but thats garbage. There has always been an underselling of Archer becuase the media have made him out to be a bruiser who hits packs and does the hard thing. Absolute crap. Probably one of the more skilled players to have ever played for our club. You don't win B&F's, AA's, state guernseys and Norm Smith medals from being soley inspirational. Put him anywhere on the field on his day and he won that position.
You mean like when Archer, all 182cm of him used to consistently towel up the likes of Matthew Richardson (195cm), Nick Holland (196cm) and Justin Leppitsch (192cm)?

Predominantly a BP? In all honesty mate I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest but again, watch a bit of Archer throughout his peak era. There wasn't a position he didn't play or excel in.

Trouble is though you actually are selling Archer short. Neitz is a champion. In fact last year he was the only reason they beat us with a match winning 8 goals, and I used to love watching some of his duals at CHB with Carey, but the fact is when Carey was fairdinkum, he destroyed Neitz and Archer has never been destroyed by anyone.

You had to take it too far and make me say it. Archer is a terrific player, but the Kangaroos fans make him out to be a super star, when clearly he is not. Don't worry, all fans do it with their own players and I certainly do not think he was simply a bruiser. In fact, I have stated a number of times now that I think he has been a terrific/fantastic/wonderful etc player.

He simply was not as good as Neitz. Don't go saying Carey towelled up Neitz so Neitz isn't as good as Archer. That is irrelevant. Carey has been the best player I have ever seen. Archer has been great, he has played out of position many times and done a great job (so has Dean Soloman mind you). Having said that, I have also seen Archer towelled many times playing his more customary back pocket position against opponents far short of Carey's class.

Like I said, both terrific. The perspective of the non-biased says Neitz has been better. Wish Arch all the best though.

 

[dipper86]

but the fact is when Carey was fairdinkum, he destroyed Neitz and Archer has never been destroyed by anyone.

He was a great player skidmark but thats going abit far!!!!

Modra tore him a new one in the mid 2 late 90s in Adelaide, if my memory serves me correct he kicked 8 that game.

 

[mark73]

He was a great player skidmark but thats going abit far!!!!

Was? He's still playing from all accounts.

Modra tore him a new one in the mid 2 late 90s in Adelaide, if my memory serves me correct he kicked 8 that game.

I can't recall Archer ever playing on Modra but for the record it wasn't 8 it was 10 and he was playing on Ian Fairley.

 

[mark73]

You had to take it too far and make me say it. Archer is a terrific player, but the Kangaroos fans make him out to be a super star, when clearly he is not.

Maybe they do but when Archer was at his best, North were basically the best team going around at the time and a team with genuine superstars so if they consider him a superstar by that reckoning, it's fair to say the boy could play a bit.

He simply was not as good as Neitz.

Thats purely opinionative. My opinion is he was.

Archer has been great, he has played out of position many times and done a great job (so has Dean Soloman mind you).

If you're going to bring up a player like Solomon then I would be compelled to say yes you're right. However, there's a bit of difference between 182cm & 88kg and 189cm & 100kg. And Arch is still going strong at 33 whilst the years of playing out of position has basically ruined Solomons career.

Having said that, I have also seen Archer towelled many times

Archer has had his days of being beaten (like Neitz) but they are few and far between unless you've seen a lot of North games that I haven't.

 

[dipper86]

Was? He's still playing from all accounts.

I wouldn't say he is a great player anymore. Father time has got the best of him.
he will be remembered as a great though.

I can't recall Archer ever playing on Modra but for the record it wasn't 8 it was 10 and he was playing on Ian Fairley.

Archer was moved onto him and or was also double teaming him.

 

[AxelFoley]

Both out and out champions.....
I kno he isnt in this poll...but throw Chris Grant as a 3rd player into this equation.... and Id go him

 

[MinerBoy]

Maybe they do but when Archer was at his best, North were basically the best team going around at the time and a team with genuine superstars so if they consider him a superstar by that reckoning, it's fair to say the boy could play a bit.

Cheers, I'm enjoying this and respect your view. Arch, terrific player no doubt. However, let's make no mistake as to why North were the best team of the mid 90s. You didn't have a team of superstars, you had Wayne Carey and a support cast (although some of them were very accomplished support cast). If the Duck played for any other top side in that era, North would have dropped a few rungs and the side that had him would have been the team to beat. It is that simple.....he was that good.

 

[mark73]

If the Duck played for any other top side in that era, North would have dropped a few rungs and the side that had him would have been the team to beat. It is that simple.....he was that good.

Oh thats right, I forgot about the no Carey no North business.

 

[MinerBoy]

Oh thats right, I forgot about the no Carey no North business.

They still would have been a good side, certainly not the best though.

Why do Kangas supporters fete the Duck as the greatest ever (I happen to think he is the best I've seen) but then still think they would have been just as good if he didn't play, or played for someone else?

Surely, the greatest player of his era would leave a sizeable hole .

 

[mark73]

Why do Kangas supporters fete the Duck as the greatest ever (I happen to think he is the best I've seen) but then still think they would have been just as good if he didn't play, or played for someone else?

Probably because in Carey's time at North the least productive years for him were 1997 and 2000. In 1997 he spent 17 weeks on the sidelines after a shoulder reconstruction and in 2000 about 15 weeks on the sidelines with a groin/abductor complaint. Would be fair to say that is basically those two seasons gone for him and on both occasions the club still made the prelim final in those years. Not bad for a one man team as we used to hear so often back then.

Surely, the greatest player of his era would leave a sizeable hole .

I'm sure he would although I'm not aware of who is arguing that fact.

 

[MinerBoy]

Probably because in Carey's time at North the least productive years for him were 1997 and 2000. In 1997 he spent 17 weeks on the sidelines after a shoulder reconstruction and in 2000 about 15 weeks on the sidelines with a groin/abductor complaint. Would be fair to say that is basically those two seasons gone for him and on both occasions the club still made the prelim final in those years. Not bad for a one man team as we used to hear so often back then.

I'm sure he would although I'm not aware of who is arguing that fact.

So you didn't win those years then? A superstar might have made a difference. You had a terrific team in the 1990s, I will not argue against that. However, back to the Archer debate, Carey was the only legitimate superstar. Archer and the rest were fantastic players but they were the support cast. I didn't say you wouldn't have been a good side without him, only that you wouldn't have won anything without him.

Don't think of it as me running down Arch and Co., think of it as me celebrating how terrific the King was.

Anyway, I don't begrudge you prefering Arch over Neita. I would expect you to back your own player to the hilt. I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that. They were both fantastic players in their primes and still serve their clubs proudly and serviceably now. Good luck to Arch and the 'Roos in 2007.

 

[mark73]

Good luck to Arch and the 'Roos in 2007.

Likewise Hawthorn.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

So you didn't win those years then? A superstar might have made a difference. You had a terrific team in the 1990s, I will not argue against that. However, back to the Archer debate, Carey was the only legitimate superstar. Archer and the rest were fantastic players but they were the support cast. I didn't say you wouldn't have been a good side without him, only that you wouldn't have won anything without him.

Don't think of it as me running down Arch and Co., think of it as me celebrating how terrific the King was.

Anyway, I don't begrudge you prefering Arch over Neita. I would expect you to back your own player to the hilt. I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that. They were both fantastic players in their primes and still serve their clubs proudly and serviceably now. Good luck to Arch and the 'Roos in 2007.

I've agreed with everything you have posted so far but you'd have to include McKernan as a superstar for a few of those years, he was awesome.

 

[MinerBoy]

I've agreed with everything you have posted so far but you'd have to include McKernan as a superstar for a few of those years, he was awesome.

Yeah, you're right. McKernan certainly was awesome when he was at his best. I suppose for those few seasons he played like a superstar but I kind of compare him with Kouta in that regard. I personally wouldn't label either a superstar simply because they didn't do it often enough. Too many highs and lows. At their best they were both magnificent. McKernan probably had more lows than Kouta, but even Kouta was only outstanding for a few seasons. For the rest he was a good ordinary player.

Please don't argue Carlton fans, I know your opinion will be different. This is simply my opinion and has been argued on other threads. As with Arch, I respect your right to disagree.

 

[mark73]

Please don't argue Carlton fans, I know your opinion will be different. This is simply my opinion and has been argued on other threads. As with Arch, I respect your right to disagree.

They shouldn't anyway. In the 1999 GF we had the chance to see them play on each other and Corey killed him. McKernan was one of those sad stories IMO. Was often the brunt of blame and a lot of it by Roos fans (they know who they are) but when you look back on his career and take the fact that it was injury plagued into account, it stacks up pretty bloody well for a guy who was often maligned.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Yeah, you're right. McKernan certainly was awesome when he was at his best. I suppose for those few seasons he played like a superstar but I kind of compare him with Kouta in that regard. I personally wouldn't label either a superstar simply because they didn't do it often enough. Too many highs and lows. At their best they were both magnificent. McKernan probably had more lows than Kouta, but even Kouta was only outstanding for a few seasons. For the rest he was a good ordinary player.

Please don't argue Carlton fans, I know your opinion will be different. This is simply my opinion and has been argued on other threads. As with Arch, I respect your right to disagree.

I don't count Corey as a career superstar but he was in the top 5 players in the league for a couple of years.

 

[MinerBoy]

McKernan was one of those sad stories IMO. Was often the brunt of blame and a lot of it by Roos fans (they know who they are) but when you look back on his career and take the fact that it was injury plagued into account, it stacks up pretty bloody well for a guy who was often maligned.

Agreed.

He really was a confidence player and the more his form was discussed, the harder he seemed to try, and the worse the results seemed to get. It was certainly hard to fathom why it happened to him and sad too, as you say.

When he won the B&F at the Blues, I was hoping that things were on the up for him again. Then Pagan.....why...how??? Did they not get on, or did Corey just believe that Pagan didn't have confidence in him. That relationship and how it affected his form was really strange.

 

[mark73]

Did they not get on, or did Corey just believe that Pagan didn't have confidence in him. That relationship and how it affected his form was really strange.

No they didn't get on, at all. It's hard for me to slag off Pagan given he spent a lifetime at North and did a lot of developing of younger players two of which were Archer and McKernan. It was really only thanks to Pagan that we got Archer and McKernan because we nearly didn't. McKernan was quite content playing local footy and concentrating on his golf and eventual business interests and Archer was quite happy drinking with his mates in the family garage. So I don't begrudge Pagan for that.

However, he is an outdated coach and to a lesser extent was even then. He coached the way he was coached and that method went out the door in about 1980. He coached like Barassi who's philosophy was you had to scream and abuse it out of them and on players like McKernan that was never going to work because he was too smart for it. McKernan was a bit like Gary Ablett in that to get the best out of him, you had to let him do his own thing. But Pagans "I'm boss and you'll do what I say" didn't sit well with McKernan anymore than it did with Ablett and John Devine.