Is Brent Harvey a modern day great?

[Jade]

Oh no this is just my general opinion of you, not purely a retaliation to the wank you've posted itt. I find it weird someone so clearly uninformed about football feels the need to express their thoughts to all of bigfooty so often. It would be a much more enjoyable place if they had some form of quality filter.

I wouldn't call Harvey a modern day great personally, though he is underrated.

I'm genuinely touched that in your long three months on BF you have cared enough to take note of my general comings and goings; so much so that you've formed an opinion as to the quality of my musings and/or understanding of the game.

Quality filter; my friend you have one! Just click right under my username there and hit that good old ignore button. It is my express hope that your enjoyment of BigFooty is enhanced by activating your newly discovered quality filter.

It is nice to know however, that despite my clear void of understanding when it comes to the footy, I at least got this one right. It comforts me somewhat to know that you agree with me that Harvey is not a great.

 

[Cold Lion]

I'm genuinely touched that in your long three months on BF you have cared enough to take note of my general comings and goings; so much so that you've formed an opinion as to the quality of my musings and/or understanding of the game.

Quality filter; my friend you have one! Just click right under my username there and hit that good old ignore button. It is my express hope that your enjoyment of BigFooty is enhanced by activating your newly discovered quality filter.

It is nice to know however, that despite my clear void of understanding when it comes to the footy, I at least got this one right. It comforts me somewhat to know that you agree with me that Harvey is not a great.

cool man

If only Harvey was a Don, then he'd be a great...


And unfortunately one of me ignoring you doesn't stop you ruining threads

 

[DarwinRoo]

6 Amens!

 

[Jesse Custer]

cool man

If only Harvey was a Don, then he'd be a great...


And unfortunately one of me ignoring you doesn't stop you ruining threads

Grow up man. FFS, if you don't like what Jade posts then ignore it and get on with it. There are far worse posters going around....

 

[Slattery_20]

Fair enough (although I don't agree with Fletcher), he's had a better career than 10 out of 12 Crichton Medalists over the same journey.*

11 out of 12 if we place Fletcher to one side.

*Of course, I do concede that Watson and Zaharakis are still open books. I'm prepared to close the book on Hille.

An odd way to put it, but yes. Hird, Lloyd & Fletcher were probably under-rewarded at B&F night.
Hille has been a lionheart but he is just not in that class - behind Jason Johnson, Misiti and Lucas at least, and probably Stanton sooner rather than later.

I guess the really interesting question is whether Bombers supporters would be happy getting Boomer's career out of Zaha. I really am worried that a lot would say no.

 

[Kong]

Archer was a triple AA and a fantastic backman that batted above his weight in the greatest era for power forwards that there's ever been.

He may not of been a modern great, but the insinuation you just made doesn't do him justice.

Would you consider Dustin Fletcher a modern great?

Probably not.

Essendon great, obviously, and like mufassa said about Harvey, he's one of the greats in his position for his era, but how specific is that.

IMO, no, he isn't a "modern great", which is a great of his era in the AFL. Archer's nowhere near it. Harvey's probably similar to Fletch, actually.

 

[DarwinRoo]

I'm still flabbergasted that someone actually only thinks that Boomer is only as good as Nathan Foley.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Where would Harvey stack up against Luke Hodge?

27 years old, our best finals performer in the last 5 years ( along with Franklin ), great leader, 3 x All Australian ( once as AA captain ), 2x B&F, Norm Smith winner and a top 5 player in the comp in 2005, 2008 & 2010.

 

[DarwinRoo]

You are doing it wrong HAD. You have to compare Boomer against Rick Ladson or Nick Ries.

 

[Cold Lion]

Grow up man. FFS, if you don't like what Jade posts then ignore it and get on with it. There are far worse posters going around....

cool man


Hodge and Harvey is pretty tight imo. Harvey has consistency and longevity on his side atm, but at the end of their careers i'd expect Hodge to be a touch ahead.

 

[Jade]

Grow up man. FFS, if you don't like what Jade posts then ignore it and get on with it. There are far worse posters going around....

All good mate; you learn pretty quick to develop a virtual thick skin if and when you argue for deficiencies in other sides/players.

 

[Kong]

Where would Harvey stack up against Luke Hodge?

Harvey's ahead on career to date.

Hodge should probably overtake him though, given he plays another five years.

 

[DapperDon]

and a top 5 player in the comp in 2005, 2008 & 2010.

So what?

Why do people bother mentioning such meaningless stats to pump up players?

Dustin Fletcher was the 2nd/3rd best backman for like, forever, that must make him like, the 2nd greatest backman in like, eva!

FFS

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Harvey's ahead on career to date.

Hodge should probably overtake him though, given he plays another five years.

Hodge is in a funny spot in his career. If he goes on and plays another 3 or 4 years of his best football, captains a premiership side, and wins several more B&Fs and All Australians, then his career achievements will look as good as anybody going around. However, if he fades away a bit, then who knows how people will view him. I think he's already on the fringe of being a modern day great and hopefully a few more good years will cement that and then some!

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

So what?

Why do people bother mentioning such meaningless stats to pump up players?

Dustin Fletcher was the 2nd/3rd best backman for like, forever, that must make him like, the 2nd greatest backman in like, eva!

FFS

Man, relax. It's a relevant point as we are talking about players and their standing in the game, if you don't want to do that, then don't post in this thread please!

 

[Old Skool]

Harvey's ahead on career to date.

Hodge should probably overtake him though, given he plays another five years.

It wouldn't overly surprise me if Boomer notches up another 3 seasons and racks up another 120 goals. Especially if some of the youngsters come on as expected and Wells stays on the park.

His resilience has been outstanding, and his pace is as much between his ears as in his legs. He could arguably be the second best evasive player of the modern era after Robert Harvey.

 

[DapperDon]

Man, relax. It's a relevant point as we are talking about players and their standing in the game, if you don't want to do that, then don't post in this thread please!

But why even mention them? It's like you felt his achievements thus far weren't good enough (which they are mind you) so you felt the need to add meaningless things.

If you are going to compare players, please compare awards and achievements. If you can't do that then maybe this thread isn't for you.

 

[Slattery_20]

Brad Johnson was awesomely resilient, too. Right up to the point he wasn't.

 

[Donakebab]

It wouldn't overly surprise me if Boomer notches up another 3 seasons and racks up another 120 goals. Especially if some of the youngsters come on as expected and Wells stays on the park.

His resilience has been outstanding, and his pace is as much between his ears as in his legs. He could arguably be the second best evasive player of the modern era after Robert Harvey.

He's 34 this year, another 3 years would be a surprise. Best to take it season by season rather than make rash calls, look how fast Brad Johnson went down hill.

 

[Old Skool]

Brad Johnson was awesomely resilient, too. Right up to the point he wasn't.

Johnson virtually played as a full forward at the end of his career, but I do get your point.

A player can get old very quickly.

 

[Slattery_20]

A hammie is half-way to retirement @ that sort of age.
I wonder if you'd be quite as critical of Boomer being allowed to run out a season at half-power as you were of Johnson?

 

[liam_13]

Nobody has questioned his longevity. Actually, its been pointed out as a reason he is so over-rated by the North folk. The fact that he has stuck around for a long time at a less than stellar level doesn't make him a great.



Nothing to be sneezed at, 5 B&F's is exactly that. The fact they were at a largely impotent team, with a severe lack of quality on it's list speaks volumes though.

3 of his B&F wins were in final sides.
I guess we will discount Zaharakis' B&F, although if a poll came up Zaharakis vs random North youngster, no doubt Zakas B&F would come up


2000 - Named on the bench
2005 - Names on the bench
2007 - Named at HF; despite not being in the top 20 goal kickers of the year. Perfect example of selectors trying to squeeze in players that weren't good enough for where he should have been selected (midfield).
2008 - Named at HF again; only this time with substantially less impact than the previous year .

I wouldn't be pointing out his AAs too readily, they smack of not quite good enough; but been ok for a long enough time.....

So at 22 years old he was in the top 22 players (basically, obviously it might have been 25 or 26 when accounting position), same again in 2005, and rated even better in 2007 and 2008....I guess we will call up Murphy and Swan and tell them they aren't great midfielders, because they aren't good enough to be selected where they should have been selected.

In the last meaningful state of origin game ever? A game of such moderate interest and lack of substance it was canned the very next year? Forgive me if I'm not bowled over by a BOG in an irrelevant game.

Agreed on the merit, but still a good effort amongst some very good players and at a young age

Relevance? Not even AFL. I do note with glee though that he was able to be named best of in a game which tones down the physical aspects.....

Agreed again on the merit

Media awards? Seriously.....

Well as the panels that vote on these awards have to watch the games they vote on, I would say it is relevant. While obviously he wasn't the best player in the year he won these awards (not sure of the year), it shows that people who watched him realised his ability and consistency, which has dropped off recently I will admit.

About as relevant as Watson leading it before injury.

Which has been brought up a number of times in the Watson vs Swallow thread?

Also, how come in the Watson vs Swallow thread, one of your reasons for Watson being better was having 6 seasons of averaging 20+ disposals, and Swallow 2 seasons...yet, Harvey's 'less then stellar level for a very long time' is what makes people rate him. Different context, vs a player to vs being a modern great, but this...

Watson = 6 seasons of 20+ disposal level (2 B&F's), but is rated (and by the sounds of things, is just as good as Harvey)
Harvey = A decade of 'less then stellar level (including AA's and 5 B&F's), and is overrated.

Ok

Anyway, a modern day great is too broad a term to mean anything. If you only want to include the Lockett/Carey/Judds (about 15 all up) then no, but if you want to include the Akermanis/Johnsons etc, then yes.

Either way he will be a future Hall of Famer. No doubt. 300 games and basically you're in. Add to that being a club games record holder, multiple B&F's and AA's, great performances in International Rules (which whether we agree with that or not, would be looked upon favourably by the AFL), and many more noteworthy achievements, he is in.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

But why even mention them? It's like you felt his achievements thus far weren't good enough (which they are mind you) so you felt the need to add meaningless things.

If you are going to compare players, please compare awards and achievements. If you can't do that then maybe this thread isn't for you.

I think it's quite pertinent (though I can see how it looks like its reaching/desperate). I mean, I would consider being in the top 5 players in the comp a better reflection of a player's quality than a BnF for example (Top 5 in comp is also a level above AA).

 

[DapperDon]

I think it's quite pertinent (though I can see how it looks like its reaching/desperate). I mean, I would consider being in the top 5 players in the comp a better reflection of a player's quality than a BnF for example (Top 5 in comp is also a level above AA).

Yes, but who decides the top 5 players of the year?

Is it off Brownlow finish? coaches award? or just a personal opinion? It's too open air to even be considered mentioning.

 

[Jade]

Also, how come in the Watson vs Swallow thread, one of your reasons for Watson being better was having 6 seasons of averaging 20+ disposals, and Swallow 2 seasons...yet, Harvey's 'less then stellar level for a very long time' is what makes people rate him. Different context, vs a player to vs being a modern great, but this....

Firstly (actually this would be about the seventh time I've said it); I have NOT said Harvey is not a good player - quite the opposite. How about if I change the statement from 'less that stellar' to 'less than great' - work for you now?

You nailed it though in your last sentence, the context is indeed different - less than stellar referred to not being great; not am implication that he was no good completely.

Watson = 6 seasons of 20+ disposal level (2 B&F's), but is rated (and by the sounds of things, is just as good as Harvey)
Harvey = A decade of 'less then stellar level (including AA's and 5 B&F's), and is overrated.

Ok

I think we are on the same page here. Ie. you got what I meant (regardless of whether you agreed).

Anyway, a modern day great is too broad a term to mean anything. If you only want to include the Lockett/Carey/Judds (about 15 all up) then no, but if you want to include the Akermanis/Johnsons etc, then yes.

Its an incredibly subjective term. What is great?

Not an exact science, but if you've got six, seven, fifty players currently playing the game that can do your job or similar, better than you can - you aren't a great player.

Either way he will be a future Hall of Famer. No doubt. 300 games and basically you're in. Add to that being a club games record holder, multiple B&F's and AA's, great performances in International Rules (which whether we agree with that or not, would be looked upon favourably by the AFL), and many more noteworthy achievements, he is in.

Won't get any argument from me.