Clement V Archer

[the distributer]

who would you pick?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Clement had two years that were absolutely top shelf, but Archer did that and more for so much longer.

Poor poll, as Archer should win it comfortably, but that's no disrespect to Clement.

 

[Basti28]

Vinnie's right.

It could be argued that Clements best couple of years were probably better than Arch's, but Archer sat on blokes like Richardon and Hird for the best part of a decade and performed admirably.

Poor poll.

 

[the distributer]

i dont think its a poor poll at all, clement won AA selection twice and was desperately unlucky on 2 other occasions, back to back copeland trophys, archer was more decorated but thats not what the polls about.

 

[Frothies Mcveigh]

Archer quite easily. Clement was a great player, but Archer was better for a longer period of time.

 

[mdc]

Clement had two years that were absolutely top shelf

Clement may only have made the All-Australian team twice, but that's more due to the boneheads on the selection panel than his actual form - his 2006 was every bit as good as the previous 2 years. For those 3 years he was the stand-out defensive player in the league, and for the entire decade only Scarlett could claim to have been a better all-round defender.

but Archer did that and more for so much longer.

Not really. I greatly admire Archer for all the obvious reasons, but at their best Clement was markedly better both as a defender and as a rebounder.

Archer certainly has him on longevity and awards (premiership player, NS medal etc) but it seems a bit daft to dismiss brilliance in favour of longevity, particularly as the poll doesn't specify either way.

 

[CrazyQ]

I think Clement was the better footballer. Archer did it for longer, but Clement would be one of the best defenders since I started watching footy around 95.

 

[hank31]

Not sure if this is ment to be a serious poll.. lol some collingwood fools are delusional...
Like comparing stanton and buckley...

 

[the distributer]

Not sure if this is ment to be a serious poll.. lol some collingwood fools are delusional...
Like comparing stanton and buckley...

delusional?, most people belive clement should've been a 4 time AA you twit, won 2 copelands, would you like to list the areas where archer was better than clement?, id love to hear them.

 

[Topper Harley]

delusional?, most people belive clement should've been a 4 time AA you twit, won 2 copelands, would you like to list the areas where archer was better than clement?, id love to hear them.

Courage, toughness, stregnth, longevity, big game player.

Archer wins this poll, but not by much.

 

[the distributer]

Courage, toughness, stregnth, longevity, big game player.

Archer wins this poll, but not by much.

courage yes, toughness yes, but thats about all, clement was a better contested mark, much better skill set, rarely beaten in any situation against big or small, much better rebounder as well, hardly a delusional comparison, would people really rate arch that highly if he never won the NS?

 

[Rioli magic]

courage yes, toughness yes, but thats about all, clement was a better contested mark, much better skill set, rarely beaten in any situation against big or small, much better rebounder as well, hardly a delusional comparison, would people really rate arch that highly if he never won the NS?

Probably, he won 6 AFLPA most courageous awards, North Melbourne TOTC and games record holder, named 'shinboner' of the century, 2x AA, 3x SOO and a couple of premierships. It's a descent resume not including the NS.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Archer quite easily even though the poll doesn't reflect it

 

[invinciBlues]

Archer quite easily even though the poll doesn't reflect it

Agreed. Clement was good, but not "Archer" good. Archer was fearless.

 

[ROORAGE]

INSANITY. No-one compares to Archer. Clement was a quality defender but simply not in the same league as Archer.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Another element overlooked so far is Arch's ability to go forward. Especially in the 90s Arch would often swing forward and bob up with goals.

Clement was an excellent footballer but arch had a few more strings to the bow.

 

[iGNITER]

Another element overlooked so far is Arch's ability to go forward. Especially in the 90s Arch would often swing forward and bob up with goals.

Clement was an excellent footballer but arch had a few more strings to the bow.

Clement could also bob up in the forward line.

IIRC he played up forward for Freo a few times and kicked a bag of 5 on at least one occasion.

 

[grizzlym]

Clement was a very good player. But over their respective careers, Archer is clearly in front for mine.

 

[AG]

Clement. One of the most professional footballers I have ever seen. No nonsense player and got the job done. Personal favourite of mine.

 

[carntheroos4eva]

Archer without a doubt. The guy has played 300+ games for North Melbourne.

Clement was great when he played but not as awesome as what Arch is

 

[Dundalis]

Archer for career, but if I were picking one player in the prime of their career, Clement easily. Far more naturally talented, and just as good or better defensively. Clement dominated with technique, where Archer did with hardness. Both great to watch.

It's a shame it took until he was 24 to find his best position down back, plus the fact he retired so early. I don't think he'll get remembered for how good he was as he only did it for a such short period of time.

 

[HFF]

Archer for career. His CV has it all. One of the all time greats.

Clement was a superstar though. Was the best defender I have seen in my time at Collingwood (20yrs) and as Vinnie said, only Scarlett can rival Jimmy as the most complete defender of the past decade. Was every bit of the word "General". Was ludicrous as to how he was overlooked a couple of times as AA.

Memories of out-bodying his opponents in marking contests (namely James Hird) were just a delight.

 

[Bigeasy]

Memories of out-bodying his opponents in marking contests (namely James Hird) were just a delight.

With all due respect, Archer did that for 12 years. Ask Richo and Hird. Most Collingwood supporters are stating that Clement was a better body player, I highly dispute this. The one area that i think Clement was better was in disposal. I think they were both even in recovery and body work but Archer was fiercer and did it for much longer.

SLF touched on a good point about Archer's flexibility in that he could swing to the forward line or in the middle.

 

[mdc]

Most Collingwood supporters are stating that Clement was a better body player, I highly dispute this.

You may dispute this all you like, but you'd struggle to find a single game during his prime where Clement lost more body-on-body contests than he won. If you do, I'd like to see it. Granted he didn't play much on the monster forwards as we had Presti, but then North had Martyn too.

Again, that's not to say Archer wasn't an excellent body player also - but Archer relied on brute force and determination, which occasionally got him in trouble (frees, being out-positioned). Clement was all technique.

SLF touched on a good point about Archer's flexibility in that he could swing to the forward line or in the middle.

Yep, that's fair enough. I also imagine that Archer's maniacal playing style helped instill the "Shinboner spirit" in each new batch of draftees that came through the club, which was critical to North's success.

If we're talking about value of each player to their football club over their career, Archer wins this poll hands down.

But in terms of who was better in their prime, Clement edges him and everyone else in the last 10-15 years except Scarlett and perhaps Ben Hart.

 

[Bigeasy]

You may dispute this all you like, but you'd struggle to find a single game during his prime where Clement lost more body-on-body contests than he won. If you do, I'd like to see it. Granted he didn't play much on the monster forwards as we had Presti, but then North had Martyn too.

Again, that's not to say Archer wasn't an excellent body player also - but Archer relied on brute force and determination, which occasionally got him in trouble (frees, being out-positioned). Clement was all technique.



Yep, that's fair enough. I also imagine that Archer's maniacal playing style helped instill the "Shinboner spirit" in each new batch of draftees that came through the club, which was critical to North's success.

If we're talking about value of each player to their football club over their career, Archer wins this poll hands down.

But in terms of who was better in their prime, Clement edges him and everyone else in the last 10-15 years except Scarlett and perhaps Ben Hart.

Out of curiousity, what three year period are you referring to as Archer's prime?