Besides GAblett...

[mfcrox]

Why does it seem to be only Hawthorn supporters who are disputing GAJ in the top-10 of all time. Surely success hasn't made you all that dilusional???

If he wore a brown and gold jumper, you'd all claim him as the greatest player to ever lace up a boot with a record beyond exceeding for the rest of all time.


Admittedly Brownlow's aren't the best measure of success... as has been mentioned, it is a midfielders medal; however, he is also a 5x AFL MVP winner too which is voted on by the players themselves. Admittedly this is only a modern award (>1982), but some of the names being thrown out there like Lockett, Carey, Ablett Snr., Judd, etc. all played post-1982, and they are only 1-2x winners. He has won it FIVE TIMES!

He has literally been head and shoulders above his competition for the best part of a decade. Just dominance and consistency personified. If that isn't top-10 material, then I clearly don't know football.

 

[HairyO]

Yes, and given the advances in fitness and preparation, Jerome Holder would probably bowl Don Bradman out for a duck nine times out of 10. That doesn't mean he is the greater cricketer. That's not how comparing eras works.

Bradman on a modern pitch would never be dismissed.

Ever.

 

[Vdubs]

Why does it seem to be only Hawthorn supporters who are disputing GAJ in the top-10 of all time. Surely success hasn't made you all that dilusional???

If he wore a brown and gold jumper, you'd all claim him as the greatest player to ever lace up a boot with a record beyond exceeding for the rest of all time.


Admittedly Brownlow's aren't the best measure of success... as has been mentioned, it is a midfielders medal; however, he is also a 5x AFL MVP winner too which is voted on by the players themselves. Admittedly this is only a modern award (>1982), but some of the names being thrown out there like Lockett, Carey, Ablett Snr., Judd, etc. all played post-1982, and they are only 1-2x winners. He has won it FIVE TIMES!

He has literally been head and shoulders above his competition for the best part of a decade. Just dominance and consistency personified. If that isn't top-10 material, then I clearly don't know football.

Totally agree.
As a Cat Fan, I should have no time for GAJ, but having followed footy since 1963, he is either the 2nd best or best player I've seen.
I have a quartet of GAS, GAJ, Carey and Matthews, in any order you like, but I like that order.

 

[The Punter]

Gehrig kicked 7 in a half on Scarlett once.

 

[Vdubs]

Gehrig kicked 7 in a half on Scarlett once.

So did Hale.
So what?
Ablett kicked 14 on multiple players at Essendon, including 4 on Hird in a quarter.
One game Dunstall was on fire, and Blighty in his inimitable way put Ablett on him for a bit.
When you're on, you're on.
The test is frequency.
How often was Scarlett just devastatingly good?- very.

 

[The Punter]

Really, the modern game will prevent many from properly rating players like Scarlett and Fletcher, because they were too good and valuable to use in an only shut-down role. Then others like Hudghton and Lonergan get marked down because they don't get a heap of possessions.

 

[CD__]

As I said, the Don's fitness, speed, hand-eye coordination compared to current players would probably mean he wouldn't make a state side if he was transported to today. Does that make him a worse cricketer than Shane Watson?

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about cricket or if this is deliberate trolling...but it was infinitely harder to be a successful batsmen in the 20's/30's/40's than it is today. Literally every major change in cricket since this time has been in favour of batsmen and run-scoring.

 

[HairyO]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about cricket or if this is deliberate trolling...but it was infinitely harder to be a successful batsmen in the 20's/30's/40's than it is today. Literally every major change in cricket since this time has been in favour of batsmen and run-scoring.

Exactly. It would absolutely suck to be a bowler today.

The next version of 20-20 will involve a bowling machine because no-one will want to take on that role.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about cricket or if this is deliberate trolling...but it was infinitely harder to be a successful batsmen in the 20's/30's/40's than it is today. Literally every major change in cricket since this time has been in favour of batsmen and run-scoring.

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about life or if this is deliberate trolling...since the 1930s, humans are bigger, stronger, faster. Advances in fitness and preparation, professionalism etc mean if you transported a player from the 1930s to today, they would be smashed. If Bradman was born today, under the same conditions as modern athletes, I have no doubt he would be a star. But if you think part time cricketers could stand up to a modern cricketer who is stronger and faster in every way, then you're kidding yourself. That is the problem with comparing eras, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about life or if this is deliberate trolling...since the 1930s, humans are bigger, stronger, faster. Advances in fitness and preparation, professionalism etc mean if you transported a player from the 1930s to today, they would be smashed. If Bradman was born today, under the same conditions as modern athletes, I have no doubt he would be a star. But if you think part time cricketers could stand up to a modern cricketer who is stronger and faster in every way, then you're kidding yourself. That is the problem with comparing eras, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

You may need to go and make 300 runs in a day to see how fit the Don actually was.

 

[JackOutback]

Why does it seem to be only Hawthorn supporters who are disputing GAJ in the top-10 of all time. Surely success hasn't made you all that dilusional???

If he wore a brown and gold jumper, you'd all claim him as the greatest player to ever lace up a boot with a record beyond exceeding for the rest of all time.


Admittedly Brownlow's aren't the best measure of success... as has been mentioned, it is a midfielders medal; however, he is also a 5x AFL MVP winner too which is voted on by the players themselves. Admittedly this is only a modern award (>1982), but some of the names being thrown out there like Lockett, Carey, Ablett Snr., Judd, etc. all played post-1982, and they are only 1-2x winners. He has won it FIVE TIMES!

He has literally been head and shoulders above his competition for the best part of a decade. Just dominance and consistency personified. If that isn't top-10 material, then I clearly don't know football.

This really just shows that awards don't mean everything. If you are saying the Ablett is twice the player Carey was or Ablett Snr because he won the MVP award five times, you would be wrong. I would have Gablett in my top 10, but a case could easily be made for Matthews or Carey as the best ever, just as one could for Gablett.

 

[mfcrox]

This really just shows that awards don't mean everything. If you are saying the Ablett is twice the player Carey was or Ablett Snr because he won the MVP award five times, you would be wrong. I would have Gablett in my top 10, but a case could easily be made for Matthews or Carey as the best ever, just as one could for Gablett.

Nah, definitely not double the player of those mentioned... I was just saying that Ablett was the absolute best (voted upon by his peers) for a longer period (more seasons), which just highlights his elite consistency too.

He is a freak

 

[deflated]

Please aware me on how exactly 'comparing eras' works.
We give the old timers a free pass because they had to go to work in the morning? I will judge people on what they have done not on any untapped potential.

Are we giving contemporary players a free ride for all the professional trainers and nutritionists that keep them in top shape, the skills coaches that hone their kicking? None of them have done what Bunton or Barassi did, its all guesswork if Fyfe or Buddy could still dominate 60 years ago.

 

[CD__]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about life or if this is deliberate trolling...since the 1930s, humans are bigger, stronger, faster. Advances in fitness and preparation, professionalism etc mean if you transported a player from the 1930s to today, they would be smashed. If Bradman was born today, under the same conditions as modern athletes, I have no doubt he would be a star. But if you think part time cricketers could stand up to a modern cricketer who is stronger and faster in every way, then you're kidding yourself. That is the problem with comparing eras, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

You couldn't be more wrong in regards to cricket...his physical size, athleticism etc would be irrelevant in the modern game. How many runs do you think Steve Smith or Kane Williamson would make facing Larwood and Voce without a helmet, proper gloves/pads, thigh pads and a bat the size of a toothpick? Not to mention that there were no limit on bouncers per over or fielding restrictions of any kind...I'm sure you're familiar with bodyline? Oh and they didn't cover pitches back then either so the balls moved around like nobodies business.

Also, FWIW - every scribe that has ever written about Sir Don makes a point of his extremely serious approach to fitness and his unrivalled professionalism.

 

[JackOutback]

You couldn't be more wrong in regards to cricket...his physical size, athleticism etc would be irrelevant in the modern game. How many runs do you think Steve Smith or Kane Williamson would make facing Larwood and Voce without a helmet, proper gloves/pads, thigh pads and a bat the size of a toothpick? Not to mention that there were no limit on bouncers per over or fielding restrictions of any kind...I'm sure you're familiar with bodyline? Oh and they didn't cover pitches back then either so the balls moved around like nobodies business.

Also, FWIW - every scribe that has ever written about Sir Don makes a point of his extremely serious approach to fitness and his unrivalled professionalism.

Agree to disagree. Bradman was very fit...by 1930s standards; he would simply not match up to the fitness of today's cricketers. He was 5'8 and wouldn't have had half the muscle full-time professional cricketers have. Yes, they had their own strengths, like playing without a helmet, the pitches etc and someone like Smith wouldn't have a chance...if he was transported from today to the 1930s.

If Steve Smith was born in the 1930s and grew up playing cricket the same way the Don did, I have no doubt he would be great. Likewise, if the Don was born today, with the modern diets, fitness etc, he would be just as great. But the Don of 1930 wouldn't succeed today any more than Smith would succeed in 1930. There's too many differences.

 

[CD__]

Agree to disagree. Bradman was very fit...by 1930s standards; he would simply not match up to the fitness of today's cricketers. He was 5'8 and wouldn't have had half the muscle full-time professional cricketers have. Yes, they had their own strengths, like playing without a helmet, the pitches etc and someone like Smith wouldn't have a chance...if he was transported from today to the 1930s.

If Steve Smith was born in the 1930s and grew up playing cricket the same way the Don did, I have no doubt he would be great. Likewise, if the Don was born today, with the modern diets, fitness etc, he would be just as great. But the Don of 1930 wouldn't succeed today any more than Smith would succeed in 1930. There's too many differences.

Sachin is only 5'5, Lara 5'8...height is irrelevant as well. I agree with the notion of what you're saying in terms of AFL because of the heavy reliance on athleticism/fitness but cricket is completely different. The Don was a very hard worker from all reports but he was quite obviously born with an unbelievable amount of talent...you can mount a pretty strong case for him being the greatest athlete ever to live. If 1934 Bradman was somehow put in a time-machine to right now he would easily average 120+ in test matches, and that is being conservative.

 

[HairyO]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about life or if this is deliberate trolling...since the 1930s, humans are bigger, stronger, faster. Advances in fitness and preparation, professionalism etc mean if you transported a player from the 1930s to today, they would be smashed. If Bradman was born today, under the same conditions as modern athletes, I have no doubt he would be a star. But if you think part time cricketers could stand up to a modern cricketer who is stronger and faster in every way, then you're kidding yourself. That is the problem with comparing eras, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Larwood bowled offspin eh?

Why is it our fastest ever bowler was in the 70s, when meat pies and beers at lunch were a thing? - Yes, he may have been beaten by 0.3 kph by someone recently, but lets assume you are not going to tell the difference between 160.6 kph and 160.9kph. And as a batsman I would much rather face 160.9 kph on a modern pitch... Im happy to group Thommo, Starc and Lee together as being basically as fast as eachother.

Pitches these days are perfectly manicured and designed to exactly meet the requirements of the home side.

No leg side theory anymore either. And caps on bouncers. Video reviews. And so much more.

 

[The Punter]

Which is why you can only compare players to your peers. Bradman was that much better than those he played with and against.

 

[skittlebrew]

Are we giving contemporary players a free ride for all the professional trainers and nutritionists that keep them in top shape, the skills coaches that hone their kicking? None of them have done what Bunton or Barassi did, its all guesswork if Fyfe or Buddy could still dominate 60 years ago.

60 years ago? half those blokes wouldn't even get a game in the two's now. The kicking back then was nothing short of atrocious. Just bang it long in your direction and job done. Apart from being a more physical game I don't see why Fyfe or Buddy wouldn't do as well back then (and more than likely even better).
Or we can give the best player of all time awards to old timers who couldn't kick, handball or even run out a game - but they were significantly better than the hoard of mongoloids around them so its all ok!!!

 

[nineteen eighty]

GAJ is easily the equivalent or better than all of those in terms of superlative excellence long term. How many players are that far ahead of the pack year after year, as voted by their peers? Doesn't matter what era you look at. MVP is a prestigious award. That is all.

When GAJ goes down forward and starts kicking bags of goals on a consistent basis for a few years then he can be considered in the same class as Mathews. Until then, Lethal has GAJ covered in every possible way every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

GAJ is better than his old man. Senior probably had the most talent I have ever seen in his body but was not as consistent as other champs over the years. GAJ has been a lot more consistent than his old man.

GAJ up against Mathews...not even a consideration for mine.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Being, ahh, mature enough to have seen Whitten, Barassi, Hudson, Skilton and Matthews, I feel GAblett jnr is the only player in current times to be close to Top 10. Another Brownlow would put him very, very close. He's a match winner in the mould of the previously mentioned group.

Having said that, Ian Stewart won 3 Brownlows and rarely gets mentioned in these threads. I also think Stewart is nowhere near the top.

.../QUOTE]

Good post. GAJ is the only current player for mine close enough to be considered top 10. Does he make it? I'll know more by the time his career is finished.

 

[HairyO]

When GAJ goes down forward and starts kicking bags of goals on a consistent basis for a few years then he can be considered in the same class as Mathews. Until then, Lethal has GAJ covered in every possible way every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

GAJ is better than his old man. Senior probably had the most talent I have ever seen in his body but was not as consistent as other champs over the years. GAJ has been a lot more consistent than his old man.

GAJ up against Mathews...not even a consideration for mine.

GAS single handedly won games. GAJ does not.

GAS with 20 possessions was twice as damaging as GAJ with 40 possessions.

And it is ridiculous that people mention Matthews and GAJ in the same sentence.

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm not sure if you know absolutely nothing about life or if this is deliberate trolling...since the 1930s, humans are bigger, stronger, faster. Advances in fitness and preparation, professionalism etc mean if you transported a player from the 1930s to today, they would be smashed. If Bradman was born today, under the same conditions as modern athletes, I have no doubt he would be a star. But if you think part time cricketers could stand up to a modern cricketer who is stronger and faster in every way, then you're kidding yourself. That is the problem with comparing eras, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Elite athletes are, the general population is much less fit, even if bigger

 

[Pessimistic]

Good post. GAJ is the only current player for mine close enough to be considered top 10. Does he make it? I'll know more by the time his career is finished.

That cat fans rate jnr first or second greatest cat surely means he does very much qualify for discussion in terms of goat.

No other current player, or judd, comes close

 

[Vdubs]

When GAJ goes down forward and starts kicking bags of goals on a consistent basis for a few years then he can be considered in the same class as Mathews. Until then, Lethal has GAJ covered in every possible way every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

GAJ is better than his old man. Senior probably had the most talent I have ever seen in his body but was not as consistent as other champs over the years. GAJ has been a lot more consistent than his old man.

GAJ up against Mathews...not even a consideration for mine.

GAS played FF the last 4 years of his career, with stunning results- over 120 goals a year 3 consec years, from a ripe old age. Before that he played there sporadically, and has kicked 14 goals from a wing against your mob.
He had played hbf, wing, hff.
Had he played FF all his career, it is scary to think how many goals he'd have kicked.
Consistency as an issue if you are looking at goals is therefore not viable.
He is marked harshly because his standard was so high that if he didn't do something magical, genius or brilliant, he was marked down.
Kicked 10 goals v Crows one match- 1 lousy Brownlow vote