- Banned
- #76
I'd have Burns ahead of Stokes. Was just a better player.Not as nonsensical as his repeated efforts to sneak Burns into the discussion.
Opinion Geelong Team of the 21st Century
- Thread starter curnow inferno
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Massive conincidense. Johnson and Chapman drove that. Most underated players at geelong in the past twenty years. Stokes was useful. Byrnes was useful in a handful of games. But numerous players would be useful and more than that over the past twenty years if they were playing alongside Johnson, Chapman and Mooney with the best midfield in the game delivering the ball to them. You can't put stokes and byrnes ahead of riccardi, motlop and even ronnie burns. They were better players who would of contributed more in the 2007-11 era then stokes and byrnes did.
It depends on how you rate them. Longevity and overall contribution to the club or their abilities when fit. I prefer to do a team based on the later so Menzel makes my team. He wouldn't make it if we did it on the former. But the former would just be filled with players who played 10 years so would be kind of boring.
Milburn better than Rooke but Milburn was not a star. Bloody good player. Not a star.
People have forgotton 2013. He was bordering on star. Didn't get there ofcourse but was definately well on the path before he hurt his knee late in that season. Motlop has had plenty of games where he was best on ground. Stokes would not have a single best on ground in his whole career. THere is a clear difference in their abilities. Motlops career has been cut massively short by injuries that gradually took away his pace and evasive ability beginning with that knee injury back in late 2013. He was grease lightening early in his career.
Never seen someone this high on Motlop lmfaooooo
I'm not denigrating his ability. I'm just not overinflating it. Stewart is clearly ahead already.
And your comment about Mackies all australian is apt. Overdue. He didn't probably deserve it on his individual season alone. Given one because he had number of good seasons all of which were close but none was quite good enough to get in. Stewart has only been around 4 seasons and already has two undisputed all australians too his name. He will probably end up with 4-5 unless injuries start to take a toll.
Sholl more in the ninties team then post 2000 team. Played a few years in the 2000's but his form had waned at that point. Underrated player that he is. We are missing that geniune great small back pocket from this team though. It is the one weakness of the defence. Wojo, Hunt, sanderson are the candidates but none stand out like the other 5 selected in the defence. Sanderson being the closest. I went J.Kelly because of his brief stint down their in 2009 where he was awesome but obviously was more important up the ground so his stint wasn't long. Couldn't find anywhere else to fit Kelly either.
- Banned
- #84
Still played some great games. I like your style!! & your whole take on the thing.
But according to your take, Sholl has to make it, and Hocking does too.
Unless the century starts at 2001 not 2000, I dunno how it works.
- Feb 15, 2006
- 5,524
- 3,438
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Sunderland & Penrith
I forgot the ding a ling thought I was missing a mid couldn't think
- Feb 15, 2006
- 5,524
- 3,438
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Sunderland & Penrith
yeah bit mixed on budda as 21st century I need to adhere to better criteria and not put anyone who started late 80's early 90's in the team, which would rule out ricco as well as his best footy was 90's
True it depends on how you regard fitness vs aging. Thinking Hocking and Sholl were more impacted by age related injuries and wear and tear than just geniune unlucky injuries. Hocking definately does not make it on his 2001. His 2000 was also well below his peak but still solid. Think he sneaks into the b team midfield based on 2000. Sholl is harder to remember if he still had one great season in 2000 or not. His last seasons were definately well below his peak but I can't remember 2000 properly. His stats suggest he may still well have been pretty good so maybe he is in contention on that one season alone.
- Banned
- #88
Yeah that's fair enough. I actually think Ricco was good enough to make it on 2000's alone. Easily.
- Banned
- #89
I thought Buddha's start to 2000 was off its nut.
But yeah definitely trailed off. Had no knees left.
Riccardi played 6 years in the 2000's and was still at the peak in the first couple of them. If you rule out a 6 year player then you are ruling out an awful lot of players including Dangerfield.
Purrfect pussy
AFLPA MVP
- Apr 3, 2019
- 774
- 1,473
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Motlop had a couple of good seasons (13’, 15’) but there is a reason we let him go to port. In 2013 he played 24 games, you said he was borderline AA before injury, that’s not quite true.
He was a young player looking like being a star that just never got there. This was not due to injuries but more of a mental thing IMO. Port wouldn’t have gone after him if his injuries were that bad.
You’ve argued pretty well, I wouldn’t have him in this team personally but the more I think about it I can’t really knock you for picking him. He certainly had more potential than Stokes.
Same....
- Nov 7, 2010
- 26,824
- 35,387
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- WADA
Nah, Mr Consistency his numbers off half back are incredible and that in a side full of super stars.
Round 13, 2014 against the Saints would probably be it:
AFL Match Statistics : Geelong defeats St Kilda at GMHBA Stadium Round 13 Sunday, 15th June 2014
Geelong defeats St Kilda at GMHBA Stadium Round 13 Sunday, 15th June 2014 AFL match statistics
www.footywire.com
He was severly hampered by his knee in his last 6 weeks of 2013. Think it was the West Coast game where he injured himself. In the previous 3 weeks he averaged 25 touches and 3 goals a game. Was on fire. But he played though the end of the season although there was a few games he had to sit out the game on the pine. He played on just as Dangefield was hampered by a broken rib for 5 weeks two season ago and Selwood hampered by a swollen hand for half a season not long ago. They play on but they aren't near fit. It cost him All Australian.
I'm not saying Motlop was a star. He didn't get there. But he almost certainly would of if the leg injuries didn't slow him down (a statement you could say about a number of players though). There was also the defensive pressure issue with Motlop and he did occassionaly struggle with a defensive tag (something stokes never had to experience cos he wasn't good enough to earn one). These were Motlops weaknesses that may have limited his star potential even if he didn't have the injury issues. But he was scary exciting when we had the ball. Not many small/medium forwards over the last decade were more exciting. His last season at geelong and seasons at port combined with the fact he didn't play in the era of finals success have clouded our memory of Motlop. In a similar way as Kent Kingsley who could also seriously play.
Stokes got the most out of his career and became a good solid player. But when Motlop was fit and on Stokes wasnt even comparable.
Consistent yes (save for 2010) but not as good as stewart.
- Feb 15, 2006
- 5,524
- 3,438
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Sunderland & Penrith
Hardest players to access are Bizzell Kingsley and Burns
I stand corrected he has 1.
- Sep 15, 2005
- 13,075
- 20,637
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Factor in Mackie's overall very good form in finals too; Stewart hasn't quite been able to produce his best in finals, whereas I reckon Mackie was able to step up a notch in finals - his GF record is very solid, too.
Seeds is 100% underrating Stokes.
Not sure if it's a personal vendetta or what.
Stokes was good for about 18 touches, 1.5 goals, 4.5 marks and 3 tackles as a gut running small forward.
Moved him into the mid for a couple of seasons and he averaged 26.5 then 25.5 touches, 4-5 odd marks and 3 tackles again.
The whole "1 best-on = him not being that good" is ridiculous too.
He had some damn good games where he didn't poll or polled less than 3.
38 touches, 10 marks against West Coast and didn't poll. 30 touches, 14 marks, 1 goal and polled 2 behind Walker when Carlton lost. 30 touches, 10 marks and 3 goals against North and polled 2. 31 touches, 13 marks and 2 goals against Essendon and didn't poll. 30 touches, 6 marks, 2 goals and 4 tackles against West Coast and polled 1.
Not sure if it's a personal vendetta or what.
Stokes was good for about 18 touches, 1.5 goals, 4.5 marks and 3 tackles as a gut running small forward.
Moved him into the mid for a couple of seasons and he averaged 26.5 then 25.5 touches, 4-5 odd marks and 3 tackles again.
The whole "1 best-on = him not being that good" is ridiculous too.
He had some damn good games where he didn't poll or polled less than 3.
38 touches, 10 marks against West Coast and didn't poll. 30 touches, 14 marks, 1 goal and polled 2 behind Walker when Carlton lost. 30 touches, 10 marks and 3 goals against North and polled 2. 31 touches, 13 marks and 2 goals against Essendon and didn't poll. 30 touches, 6 marks, 2 goals and 4 tackles against West Coast and polled 1.
