Jason Dunstall vs Tony Lockett

[tugga]

Lockett without even having to think about it.
So good in such a poor side for a lot of the time at St Kilda.

 

[invinciBlues]

 

[cinderella man]

Plugger by a fair margin for mine.

Dunstall an all time great - but had outstanding service for most, if not all, of his career.

Plugger played the first 11 seasons of his in mainly shithouse sides (particularly some of those 80's St Kilda sides) and kicked ton after ton and winning a Brownlow.

Also one of the scariest bastards to have laced a boot.

That is all.

 

[cinderella man]

big difference, locket played in shit sides most of his career, lower quality midfield supplying the ball less
Dunstall played in a golden era for the hawks, mid fielders winning the ball constantly, much more supply of the ball, & better delivery
Lockett was the machine, how many more goals would he have kicked it he had a midfield like dunstall had, many hundreds more!

Spot on. Question is how many more goals would he have kicked if he had not missed 100 games through injury and suspension ????

 

[underthestars]

Plugger easily, Dunstall wasn't even the best full forward at the Hawks.
As for consistency? Did posters claiming that ever watch him play? No one kicks that average unless they are consistent. The only time plugger wouldn't kick a bag was when it never went out of the saints defensive half (which unfortunately happened a bit).

 

[Gibbke]

Dunstall is my all time favourite footballer, but I have to tip the hat to Lockett on this one. The only person who could beat him was himself, when he acted like a dick, or when he was carrying an injury. But a team with Lockett in it could consistently count on the big haul more often. Dunstall was blessed with better ball delivery throughout his career, which is slightly offset by the reluctance of Lockett's teams to choose someone beside him as the target, but if you were to swap the two players, I'd imagine Dunstall losing out in one-on-ones a little more often (even though he'd still win most of them) and his famed leading ability and mobility being wasted on lesser players who struggle to hit or create the target. I also can't recall Lockett ever being held goalless, although I'm sure it happened, but there were a few days where Dunstall sat on zero. Lockett was also widely considered an extremely skilful player (general ball skills you'd not just mandate for a FF) by those who got to see him outside match situations, some saying he was one of the best they'd seen period...

 

[NewMelbournian]

Plugger was the player that made me fall in love with the game.

And what he did to bring in the crowds for Sydney is too often underestimated.

 

[Gibbke]

Dunstall wasn't even the best full forward at the Hawks.

To clarify, you do mean Hudson, taking the boundaries of the discussion away from the time period Dunstall and Lockett played in? This therefore brings in the long-time record holder Coventry, and the guy regarded by many as the best ever in Jon Coleman, but that's another story...

 

[BF Tiger]

Lockett just had more presence for me. Both greats of the game.

 

[Debris]

Dunstall just for me.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Lockett easily for me.

 

[brisbane13]

Spot on. Question is how many more goals would he have kicked if he had not missed 100 games through injury and suspension ????

or with a run mid field kicking the ball down his throat each game.

 

[blue harvest]

Have both, 'state of origin' 1989.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

2 very awesome but quite different full forwards.
You could argue until the cows come home relative to what might have been if St K were good and Hawks were crap.
Come to think of it what was Pluggers average at St K v average at Sydney?

On another note I thnk it's crazy that Dunstall did not win Brownlow in a year that he kicked 145.82 (not to mention Pratt and Hudson when they kicked 150) and gave away god knows how many??

 

[Mitchell19]

big difference, locket played in shit sides most of his career, lower quality midfield supplying the ball less
Dunstall played in a golden era for the hawks, mid fielders winning the ball constantly, much more supply of the ball, & better delivery
Lockett was the machine, how many more goals would he have kicked it he had a midfield like dunstall had, many hundreds more!

I can't argue with your point about the quality of the teams they played in but I will mention one point that should be considered if you believe that.

Lockett 2 B&F
Dunstall 4 B&F (Despite the quality of players he played with)

I love this discussion though, and we can all agree that those of us lucky enough to have seen that era were truly spoiled for great forwards.

 

[latrell]

Lockett just had more presence for me. Both greats of the game.

I suppose Dunstall never had enough presence for you the day he kicked 17 against Richmond. I hope you were sitting in the stands eating popcorn.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Choosing either is not wrong, but can people please stop saying "by a fair margin"...neither player was clearly better than the other. Anyway, for those who can be bothered here is my rationale why I think Dunstall was very marginally better (posted this before):

First of all, it is worth saying that both players were absolutely brilliant and in the best 5 players I've seen. I will also add that I think Lockett was a bit more spectacular and had a bit more 'X-factor' than Dunstall.
Now whilst Lockett (1360 goals in 280 games at 4.84) is better remembered than Dunstall (1254 goals in 269 games at 4.66) post career due to breaking the record, it is worth remembering that Dunstall had a faster start and during their careers, many expected Dunstall to end up with more goals of the two. Unfortunately for Dunstall, he experienced several severe collision injuries including a fractured skull, serious ankle ligament injuries and 2 knee reconstructions that robbed him of plenty of his best football (and underlined both his courage and bad luck). Whilst it can be argued that Lockett also missed plenty of football, much of this was due to suspensions resulting from ill discipline (which assisted him on field as well as people were scared shitless). Lockett was charged 16 times, found guilty 9 times and missed 23 weeks due to suspension in an era when it was much harder to be suspended and Lockett was still considered a protected species in Sydney (many charges dropped). The point is, Dunstall missed football (and the opportunity to write himself into the record books) due to terrible luck with injury. Lockett missed football due to ill discipline and acts of stupidity which is part of what makes up his game as a whole.
This brings me to my most important point of difference - football is a team game and there is more to it than an individual's personal goal kicking tally. Dunstall was the ultimate professional, was highly disciplined (he trained early, broke records in the gym and was never suspended again after copping 1 week in his first season) and was and the most team oriented full forward the game had seen to that point. He would shepherd, tackle and pressue his opponents all the way up to the wings. He caused countless turnovers and additional scoring opportunities for his team. He also passed to players in better positions all the time (more disposals and handballs than Lockett BTW). In fact, I would estimate that for every goal or two he kicked he would pass another off, bringing team mates into the game and improving them. Lockett, as good as he was, was a reclusive player who hated traning and was ill disciplined on the field. He would usually become an observer if the opposition had the ball and pretty much never passed (as was the instruction for full forwards in those days). Essentially, he added his goals (and aforementioned physical presence) and not much else.
(Basically, I don't think 0.18 more goals per game (i.e. 1 extra goal every 6 games) makes up for all the other things extra that Dunstall added every game including defensive pressure, assists, etc).
Now, some who say Lockett was better use the reasoning that he played in poorer teams. I would argue that those people have little experience in playing forward at any semi-decent level. You see, the difference in delivery between an average side and good side at a decent level (and AFL/VFL was the highest) is marginal, particularly for a good full forward (and Lockett/Dunstall were the best). To clarify, both Lockett and Dunstall would only need you to kick it in their vicinity and they would do the rest. Neither required you to spoon feed them perfectly weighted passes (and in those days, footballers would just kick it long more often than not anyway) meaning the supposed difference in delivery quality would have had minimal effect. Rather, it would simply be about which player got more opportunities. Usually, teams with 1 main target who they kick to nearly every time will give more opportunities to that player than a better team who has several options, regardless of the quality difference between the teams. This has long been the case - Fevola and J Riewoldt are two recent examples of players winning Coleman's despite their teams being poor - because they were targetted almost exclusively. In fact, of all the awards, the Coleman has the least correlation with ladder position. From my club (Hawthorn), there are plenty of examples. The first season we start targetting Buddy less and Roughead wins the Coleman. Whenever Buddy doesn't play, Gunston suddenly starts kicking more goals because he is targetted more. Hell, even Mark Williams kicked 60+ goals two years in a row after Barker, Holland, etc retired. Once Buddy and Rough came along, Williams went back to kicking 20 odd goals despite Hawthorn going from the worst side to one of the best. Why? Despite the ball coming forward slightly more often (due to being a better team), he was targetted less as there were other options. Same goes for Lockett and Dunstall. Dunstall shared his forwardline with Brereton, Jarman, Buckernara, etc, etc. Lockett was typically the only target. Whilst St KIlda/Sydney may have gone forward slightly less often than Hawthorn, Lockett was targetted 90+% of the time whilst Dunstall was targetted around 60-70% of the time, meaning Lockett was still given more opportunity to kick goals than Dunstall (making the poorer team argument redundant).
(I too have played forward for many years in good and average teams. I would always kick more goals in the teams where I was the sole go to man than in teams where I was sharing the forward line with other very good players, despite the team being better)

 

[underthestars]

To clarify, you do mean Hudson, taking the boundaries of the discussion away from the time period Dunstall and Lockett played in? This therefore brings in the long-time record holder Coventry, and the guy regarded by many as the best ever in Jon Coleman, but that's another story...

Why yes I do. Hudson > Dunstall; Lockett > Hudson, ergo...

 

[spudmaster]

Choosing either is not wrong, but can people please stop saying "by a fair margin"...neither player was clearly better than the other. Anyway, for those who can be bothered here is my rationale why I think Dunstall was very marginally better (posted this before):

First of all, it is worth saying that both players were absolutely brilliant and in the best 5 players I've seen. I will also add that I think Lockett was a bit more spectacular and had a bit more 'X-factor' than Dunstall.
Now whilst Lockett (1360 goals in 280 games at 4.84) is better remembered than Dunstall (1254 goals in 269 games at 4.66) post career due to breaking the record, it is worth remembering that Dunstall had a faster start and during their careers, many expected Dunstall to end up with more goals of the two. Unfortunately for Dunstall, he experienced several severe collision injuries including a fractured skull, serious ankle ligament injuries and 2 knee reconstructions that robbed him of plenty of his best football (and underlined both his courage and bad luck). Whilst it can be argued that Lockett also missed plenty of football, much of this was due to suspensions resulting from ill discipline (which assisted him on field as well as people were scared shitless). Lockett was charged 16 times, found guilty 9 times and missed 23 weeks due to suspension in an era when it was much harder to be suspended and Lockett was still considered a protected species in Sydney (many charges dropped). The point is, Dunstall missed football (and the opportunity to write himself into the record books) due to terrible luck with injury. Lockett missed football due to ill discipline and acts of stupidity which is part of what makes up his game as a whole.
This brings me to my most important point of difference - football is a team game and there is more to it than an individual's personal goal kicking tally. Dunstall was the ultimate professional, was highly disciplined (he trained early, broke records in the gym and was never suspended again after copping 1 week in his first season) and was and the most team oriented full forward the game had seen to that point. He would shepherd, tackle and pressue his opponents all the way up to the wings. He caused countless turnovers and additional scoring opportunities for his team. He also passed to players in better positions all the time (more disposals and handballs than Lockett BTW). In fact, I would estimate that for every goal or two he kicked he would pass another off, bringing team mates into the game and improving them. Lockett, as good as he was, was a reclusive player who hated traning and was ill disciplined on the field. He would usually become an observer if the opposition had the ball and pretty much never passed (as was the instruction for full forwards in those days). Essentially, he added his goals (and aforementioned physical presence) and not much else.
(Basically, I don't think 0.18 more goals per game (i.e. 1 extra goal every 6 games) makes up for all the other things extra that Dunstall added every game including defensive pressure, assists, etc).
Now, some who say Lockett was better use the reasoning that he played in poorer teams. I would argue that those people have little experience in playing forward at any semi-decent level. You see, the difference in delivery between an average side and good side at a decent level (and AFL/VFL was the highest) is marginal, particularly for a good full forward (and Lockett/Dunstall were the best). To clarify, both Lockett and Dunstall would only need you to kick it in their vicinity and they would do the rest. Neither required you to spoon feed them perfectly weighted passes (and in those days, footballers would just kick it long more often than not anyway) meaning the supposed difference in delivery quality would have had minimal effect. Rather, it would simply be about which player got more opportunities. Usually, teams with 1 main target who they kick to nearly every time will give more opportunities to that player than a better team who has several options, regardless of the quality difference between the teams. This has long been the case - Fevola and J Riewoldt are two recent examples of players winning Coleman's despite their teams being poor - because they were targetted almost exclusively. In fact, of all the awards, the Coleman has the least correlation with ladder position. From my club (Hawthorn), there are plenty of examples. The first season we start targetting Buddy less and Roughead wins the Coleman. Whenever Buddy doesn't play, Gunston suddenly starts kicking more goals because he is targetted more. Hell, even Mark Williams kicked 60+ goals two years in a row after Barker, Holland, etc retired. Once Buddy and Rough came along, Williams went back to kicking 20 odd goals despite Hawthorn going from the worst side to one of the best. Why? Despite the ball coming forward slightly more often (due to being a better team), he was targetted less as there were other options. Same goes for Lockett and Dunstall. Dunstall shared his forwardline with Brereton, Jarman, Buckernara, etc, etc. Lockett was typically the only target. Whilst St KIlda/Sydney may have gone forward slightly less often than Hawthorn, Lockett was targetted 90+% of the time whilst Dunstall was targetted around 60-70% of the time, meaning Lockett was still given more opportunity to kick goals than Dunstall (making the poorer team argument redundant).
(I too have played forward for many years in good and average teams. I would always kick more goals in the teams where I was the sole go to man than in teams where I was sharing the forward line with other very good players, despite the team being better)

 

[spudmaster]

Why yes I do. Hudson > Dunstall; Lockett > Hudson, ergo...

 

[Present Not Past]

The fans loved Plugger and flocked to the games to see him play. What more do you want in a player, week in, week out?

 

[underthestars]

Well there you go. There are dumb owls.

 

[Eshay187]

Lockett was far more accurate in front of goal.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I can't argue with your point about the quality of the teams they played in but I will mention one point that should be considered if you believe that.

Lockett 2 B&F
Dunstall 4 B&F (Despite the quality of players he played with)

I love this discussion though, and we can all agree that those of us lucky enough to have seen that era were truly spoiled for great forwards.

here's the applicable individual awards for both players, excluding silly club one's like team of the century and club lead goal kicker.

Dunstall:

• Best and Fairest (hawks) 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993
• Coleman 1988, 1989, 1992
• Leigh Mathews Trophy 1992
• All Australian 1988, 1989, 1992, 1994
• Hall of Fame inductee 2002

Lockett

• Brownlow 1987
• Leigh Mathews Trophy 1987
• All time goalkicking record (1360)
• Coleman 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998
• AA 1987, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998
• Best and Fairest (saints) 1987, 1991
• Best and Fairest (swans) 1995
• Hall of Fame 2005

so that gives Lockett 3 best and fairest to Dunstall's 4, but plugger also was regarded as the best and fairest player in the league one year. A feat Dunstall never achieved. pretty hard to decide it on best and fairest 4 club B&F's or 3 club B&F's and a Brownlow?

 

[WWSD]

Tough one to split, both very good footballers.