Oppo Camp General AFL and other clubs discussion thread. **Opposition fans not welcome** Part 5

[Flamin Joe]

Life is never easy for Hannebery - always in the off season wars

"Stumbling on a small set of stairs". That's the official story from St Kilda.

 

[PT Bar None]

I guess his dog was busy?

 

[Snakelilbandit]

"Stumbling on a small set of stairs". That's the official story from St Kilda.

View attachment 767455

You reckon every year Roughy finds him and lines him up for another one?

Sent from my CPH1979 using Tapatalk

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

this is what wrecked Hanners and what the rule was brought in to protect against.

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

Was just talking on another thread about how I think that A-B-C-D grading system is a bit off and a better way to look at it is in tiers with S-tier being essentially superstars of which most teams only have one (some none, others two or three), thought it'd be an interesting exercise to look through others' lists and giving my opinion on who is S-tier. The criteria would be players that have potential to win multiple brownlows/contend for multiple brownlows or are a consistently game-breaking player.

Adelaide: none
Brisbane: Neale
Carlton: Cripps
Collingwood: Grundy
Essendon: none
Fremantle: Fyfe
Geelong: Dangerfield
GCS: none
GWS: Kelly, Cameron, Whit/Cogs?
Hawthorn: Titch
Melbourne: Gawn (probably 50/50 on this)
North: hahahahaha
Port: there's an argument for Gray but may be past it
Richmond: Dusty
Saints: none
Sydney: tough one. Buddy and JPK in their prime but both probably past it
West Coast: Gaff, McGovern, and possibly Tim Kelly come end of next season
Western Bulldogs: Bont

what do you think?

 

[Pessimistic]

Was just talking on another thread about how I think that A-B-C-D grading system is a bit off and a better way to look at it is in tiers with S-tier being essentially superstars of which most teams only have one (some none, others two or three), thought it'd be an interesting exercise to look through others' lists and giving my opinion on who is S-tier. The criteria would be players that have potential to win multiple brownlows/contend for multiple brownlows or are a consistently game-breaking player.

Adelaide: none
Brisbane: Neale
Carlton: Cripps
Collingwood: Grundy
Essendon: none
Fremantle: Fyfe
Geelong: Dangerfield
GCS: none
GWS: Kelly, Cameron, Whit/Cogs?
Hawthorn: Titch
Melbourne: Gawn (probably 50/50 on this)
North: hahahahaha
Port: there's an argument for Gray but may be past it
Richmond: Dusty
Saints: none
Sydney: tough one. Buddy and JPK in their prime but both probably past it
West Coast: Gaff, McGovern, and possibly Tim Kelly come end of next season
Western Bulldogs: Bont

what do you think?

Are the other tiers H. I. T. ?

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

Are the other tiers H. I. T. ?

depends if you're analysing Essendon's list or not

 

[View from the nosebleed]

this is what wrecked Hanners and what the rule was brought in to protect against.

From memory, free went against him too

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Was just talking on another thread about how I think that A-B-C-D grading system is a bit off and a better way to look at it is in tiers with S-tier being essentially superstars of which most teams only have one (some none, others two or three), thought it'd be an interesting exercise to look through others' lists and giving my opinion on who is S-tier. The criteria would be players that have potential to win multiple brownlows/contend for multiple brownlows or are a consistently game-breaking player.

Adelaide: none
Brisbane: Neale
Carlton: Cripps
Collingwood: Grundy
Essendon: none
Fremantle: Fyfe
Geelong: Dangerfield
GCS: none
GWS: Kelly, Cameron, Whit/Cogs?
Hawthorn: Titch
Melbourne: Gawn (probably 50/50 on this)
North: hahahahaha
Port: there's an argument for Gray but may be past it
Richmond: Dusty
Saints: none
Sydney: tough one. Buddy and JPK in their prime but both probably past it
West Coast: Gaff, McGovern, and possibly Tim Kelly come end of next season
Western Bulldogs: Bont

what do you think?

I think this top tier are the ones the opposition regularly puts lots of planning effort into stopping, but they still only have 1-3 'quiet' games a year.

For Sydney it's just Buddy. Even as he slows down significantly the whole field works around him when he's on it.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why is it everything Mike Sheehan says causes me tremendous diarrhea? I sit down to watch the John Coleman story and he starts off by comparing him with Tony Lockett and Matthew Lloyd after their 98th game. He then goes on to say Coleman kicked 537 goals in only 98 games should be regarded like Don Bradman in cricket.

No mention of a certain Peter Hudson who, in his first 98 games totalled 578 goals and also averaged more goals per game in his VFL career than Coleman. It has always left a bad taste in my mouth that Coleman was named at FF in the Team of the Century rather than Hudson. Then again, Silvagni was named at FB, and what a farce that was. This is what annoys me so much about Sheehan, never researches anything thoroughly, and only tells you half the story.

 

[Brishawk]

Why is it everything Mike Sheehan says causes me tremendous diarrhea? I sit down to was the John Coleman story and he starts off my comparing him with Tony Lockett and Matthew Lloyd after their 98th game. He then goes on to say Coleman kicked 537 goals in only 98 games should be regarded like Don Bradman in cricket.

No mention of a certain Peter Hudson who, in his first 98 games totalled 578 goals and also averaged more goals per game in his VFL career than Coleman. It has always left a bad taste in my mouth that Coleman was named at FF in the Team of the Century rather than Hudson. Then again, Silvagni was named at FB, and what a farce that was. This is what annoys me so much about Sheehan, never researches anything thoroughly, and only tells you half the story.

I think Sheehan has always looked to blend some expected names with controversial selections in his various lists such as top 50s. I never take him seriously. But yeah saying Coleman is the Bradman of football when he isn’t even the statistically best full forward is ridiculous.

 

[DannyJ]

Probably 3 or so reasons that I can think of as to why Bradley made this choice

1. Bradley already has 3 premierships so playing for St. Kilda isn't that much of an issue.

2. Obviously 900k x 6 is an absolute massive amount of money.

3. In the next 5 or so years 5-6 clubs are currently better placed than us to win flags, so if he came to us on less every chance he doesn't add to his tally anyways, it's not like he's joining Hawthorn 2014.

4. Hawthorn weren't going to St.Kilda lengths in terms of trade value to satisfy Fremantle after giving him up for Pick 23.

I know Hawthorn like to have the persona of being good to deal with. But trading a contracted Hill for 23 looks like it was a poor move. Should have held him to his contract like Geelong did with Kelly.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

4. Hawthorn weren't going to St.Kilda lengths in terms of trade value to satisfy Fremantle after giving him up for Pick 23.

I know Hawthorn like to have the persona of being good to deal with. But trading a contracted Hill for 23 looks like it was a poor move. Should have held him to his contract like Geelong did with Kelly.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

We should have demanded 3 (McLuggage)!

Fremantle downgraded from 3 to 7 in getting McCarthy - 7 was probably still over value (I think I said at the time pick 10-12 was around the mark). If we had of got that pick (Fremantle selected Griffin Logue), we wouldn't have needed to do the St Kilda deal to satisfy GC for O'Meara

So letting Hill go for 23 instead of a late first round pick realistically also cost us 36 and our 2017 1st (which ending up being #8!) to get the St.Kilda pick.

Hill, #36, 2017 1st (8), 2017 2nd (32) for O'Meara.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

4. Hawthorn weren't going to St.Kilda lengths in terms of trade value to satisfy Fremantle after giving him up for Pick 23.

I know Hawthorn like to have the persona of being good to deal with. But trading a contracted Hill for 23 looks like it was a poor move. Should have held him to his contract like Geelong did with Kelly.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Get where you are coming from on in terms of trade value but did you watch the last half of his final season with us, holding him to another year of his contract would have seen him finish his time with us playing for Box Hill he was sooking it up that much.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Get where you are coming from on in terms of trade value but did you watch the last half of his final season with us, holding him to another year of his contract would have seen him finish his time with us playing for Box Hill he was sooking it up that much.

Or maybe he just wasn’t in form, rather than “sooking it up”.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Or maybe he just wasn’t in form, rather than “sooking it up”.

Or maybe he wasn't out of form and was sooking it up.

I'll ask him next time I see him.

 

[Manila_Hawk]

I really like the Oita stadium... Perfect design for Melbourne and AFL ... Don't need retractable... Make the glass tinted...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Or maybe he wasn't out of form and was sooking it up.

I'll ask him next time I see him.

My hero.

 

[palmomagpie]

Not sure if right thread but oh well. Cyril makes his Bombers debut today up in Darwin today, against St Mary’s (who’ve named Jarrod Waite as well).

Link is if anyone wants to watch at 2.30 Darwin time / 3.30 Adelaide / 4 Melbourne

Turns out he pulled out of the game last minute because he didn't want any fanfare around his debut. Won't be surprised if he plays his first game on 5th November against Palmerston at the Tiwi Islands, as a late inclusion

 

[grumbleguts]

Turns out he pulled out of the game last minute because he didn't want any fanfare around his debut. Won't be surprised if he plays his first game on 5th November against Palmerston at the Tiwi Islands, as a late inclusion

 

[LRobbo]

Just on Geelong and that fast approaching cliff.
We have comfortably got their measure I reckon. Won 3 of the last 4 and even on Easter Monday this year we had our chances, we just weren’t playing good enough footy at the time.
They’ll win their 7 down at that dump stadium but they are pretty average away from home.
Never strung 2 wins together post bye, that screams to me the end is nigh.
The media will pump the Dangerfield flag angle and the Gaz going out on top fairytale but let’s be honest they are a mile off it. A poster pointed out the lack of defensive pressure, clearly they don’t watch Richmond, that’s the blue print to winning these days.

Anyway enjoy the fall, couldn’t happen to a better club.

 

[Upgrayedd]

this is what wrecked Hanners and what the rule was brought in to protect against.

Don't hate the guy, but he's certainly come off second best in big contests in the spotlight. That one would of absolutely hurt.

 

[JustKickIt]

Turns out he pulled out of the game last minute because he didn't want any fanfare around his debut. Won't be surprised if he plays his first game on 5th November against Palmerston at the Tiwi Islands, as a late inclusion

I heard he just couldn't bring himself to put that jumper on

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Why is it everything Mike Sheehan says causes me tremendous diarrhea? I sit down to watch the John Coleman story and he starts off by comparing him with Tony Lockett and Matthew Lloyd after their 98th game. He then goes on to say Coleman kicked 537 goals in only 98 games should be regarded like Don Bradman in cricket.

No mention of a certain Peter Hudson who, in his first 98 games totalled 578 goals and also averaged more goals per game in his VFL career than Coleman. It has always left a bad taste in my mouth that Coleman was named at FF in the Team of the Century rather than Hudson. Then again, Silvagni was named at FB, and what a farce that was. This is what annoys me so much about Sheehan, never researches anything thoroughly, and only tells you half the story.

The Silvagni thing annoys me the most. Always thought Langford was a better full back and didn't scrag like Silvagni. The AFL does like building up (current) 'greats' to be greater than they were... see Judd as well. Read something from the AFL website a few months ago where the article suggested Dangerfield was one of the greatest players of all time.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The Silvagni thing annoys me the most. Always thought Langford was a better full back and didn't scrag like Silvagni. The AFL does like building up (current) 'greats' to be greater than they were... see Judd as well. Read something from the AFL website a few months ago where the article suggested Dangerfield was one of the greatest players of all time.

Can only agree with you about Silvagni. At least Coleman is the greatest full forward in his club's history. As you say, Langers was always chosen to represent Victoria ahead of Silvagni, so he wasn't even the best FB of his era, let alone the century. I've followed footy for longer than I care to admit, but no way was Silvagni a better FB than Geoff Southby.

As for Dangerfield being one of the greatest of all time, that's laughable in the extreme.