Lockett or Dunstall

[trunks]

Who would do you say was better Tony Lockett who played 281 games for both St. Kilda and Sydney for 1 360 goals winning 4 coleman medals and being in 5 all-australian teams plus winning a brownlow or Jason Dunstall who played 269 games all for Hawthorn with 1 254 goals for 3 coleman medals and four all australian teams.

Although Dustall kicked less goals you could say that he was in a foward line with better players around him than Lockett was at Sydney and
St. Kilda so Lockett may have had more opportunities.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Lockett by ages

 

[Cleishy]

Dunstall also had better players delivering the ball to him and in a very successful team.

 

[Thelionsrule]

Jason Dunstall by far!!!

 

[wahawk]

Dunstall was more of a complete package but Lockett was very good.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Who do you pick out of those two...wow! The guy that holds the record or the guy that probablty would've barring a couple of knee recos. Possibly Lockett, just, seeing he played in worse sides. It's the only reason. On stats Plugger is 4.84 goals per game to Piggy's 4.66. The 2nd and 3rd best FF's I"ve seen behind Hudson.

 

[Hawkamania!]

It was difficult picking one over the other, but I gave a very slight edge to Dunstall because of his team work.

 

[SOUTH SUPPORTER]

Dunstall.

 

[tazhawk]

Dunstall> Hudson>Lockett

 

[grantyc77]

Lockett by a street.

 

[Bloods]

Lockett easily.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Dunstall only cause im a Hawk suporter and I hate all people who are over hyped by the media

Just have to look back to see that Lockett had a lot of publicity, certainly more then dunstall post 1989

 

[DapperDon]

Dunstall only cause im a Hawk suporter and I hate all people who are over hyped by the media

Just have to look back to see that Lockett had a lot of publicity, certainly more then dunstall post 1989

hold a grudge why don't we

 

[one_twelve112]

Dunstall only cause im a Hawk suporter and I hate all people who are over hyped by the media

Just have to look back to see that Lockett had a lot of publicity, certainly more then dunstall post 1989

He also had the goal average to back it up.

Dunstall was a one-dimensional player who was extremely boring to watch. Lead-mark-goal, lead-mark-goal........He was the Stuart Magill of his time, great player, but there was someone better around that always did what he did that little bit better and with the addition of some flair.

Lockett for me, based on a better goal average and the more entertaining player to watch of the two

 

[The Zebra]

Lockett is the third best player I have seen and is better than Dunstall.


More intimidating, greater presence, kicked more goals, had a better gpg average and did it all with worse delivery over his career.

Dunstall was an absolute gun, but if you are choosing one of the other it is pretty clear who gets the nod.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Dunstall> Hudson>Lockett

After seeing both of these superstars (Hudson & Dunstall), and I know you did too and it is you're team, IIMHO Hudson was the best. He kicked huge 100's (5 times in all including years of 135, 120, 146, 150) plus 110 in a comeback year in 1977 after 5 years out of the VFL. Topped the 100 5 times in his 6 years. Not to mention the 5.64 goals a game average, a full goal better than Dunstall. Not forgetting the comeback game in Round 20, 1973 when a helicopter dropped him off in the middle of VFL Park. Despite not having played or, barely trained in the previous 18 months , he still kicked 8 in a losing cause against Collingwood. Even now I find that mind-boggling. That guy was freak. As great Plugger and Dunstall were they weren't be as good as this Hudson.

http://www.footballlegends.org/peter_hudson.htm

 

[trunks]

After seeing both of these superstars (Hudson & Dunstall), and I know you did too and it is you're team, IIMHO Hudson was the best. He kicked huge 100's (5 times in all including years of 135, 120, 146, 150) plus 110 in a comeback year in 1977 after 5 years out of the VFL. Topped the 100 5 times in his 6 years. Not to mention the 5.64 goals a game average, a full goal better than Dunstall. Not forgetting the comeback game in Round 20, 1973 when a helicopter dropped him off in the middle of VFL Park. Despite not having played or, barely trained in the previous 18 months , he still kicked 8 in a losing cause against Collingwood. Even now I find that mind-boggling. That guy was freak. As great Plugger and Dunstall were they weren't be as good as this Hudson.

http://www.footballlegends.org/peter_hudson.htm

good point

 

[CyberKev]

Dunstall was a one-dimensional player who was extremely boring to watch. Lead-mark-goal, lead-mark-goal.

And Lockett's preferred modus operandi differed how exactly?

At any rate, there were also plenty of instances wherein Dunstall's job description read lead-miss mark-get ball anyway-offload to teammate in better position for goal attempt. He used his body well, was very adept at second efforts and there was a reason why he was renowned for his unselfishness in what is essentially a selfish position.

Presumably you used to find Kernahan dull also, given that he was predominantly a conventional mark and kick player?

 

[Cyclops]

Lockett was a lazy angry slob who failed to train and his carrer was diminished by a terrible player culture at the Saints.

Dunstall was an amazing proffesional who made every effort to improve his game, and did a lot more team oriented things. For example Dunstall tackled hard to put pressure on his opponents, Plugger was out to hurt them, if he bothered at all. Russell Morriss tells a story that during the week Plugger wouldn't know what side he was playing that Saturday (I've heard similar tales about Ablett too).

Despite tall that Plugger was a better footballer. He had more pure football talent in one finger than Dunstall had in his entire body.

Don't get me wrong, Dunstallwas a true champion, a matchwinning star. He was physically impressive, a sharp smart lead and awesome reflexes. I have heard opinions that he could've been a world class goalie in soccer and I believe it. His kicking was deadly accurate and he overcame a slight propensity to chubbiness by endless training, without sacrifing his enormous strength.

Plugger was better in every way except fitness and teamwork: kicking, high marking, pack marking, leading, footy nous, strength, speed on the burst, and cruelty: everyone feared Lockett.

I've heard this talk about Dunstall being unselfish but it doesn't square with my memories (and I saw a heap of the Hawks from 1983-1992 or so). I guess it depends on what you mean by "unselfish", but if you mean "he looked to pass the ball to a team-mate in a better position" then thats wrong: he took his shots, every one. Like Lockett he was the designated goalkicker, the gun barrel for the best side I've seen. If he'd shared it around it wouldn't have been as efficient: he was selfish for the good of the team. However Dunstalls teamwork was exemplary, part of his faultess proffesionalism: he has Lockett covered there.

Lockett and Dunstall were both the focus for their sides forward line, but they could both work very well with the rest of the team (and they proved it by playing together in a famous SOO game). Dunstall definitely worked more for his team-mates off the ball (tackling sherpherding etc) but he passed up about 1 shot on goal that I can remember (handball to Pritchard in 1989 vs Geelong I think).

My old man told me there was never a more one dimensional forward line than Hudson's: they cleared out the entire forward line for him to lead into. It was unbalancing: the Hawks only won one flag with him there, when he kicked 150. I know his average is incredible but I reckon it reflects the Hawks tactics as much as his dominance. Not even Nuts Coventry in the Collingwood Machine sides had a third of the ground to himself.

You could say Hudson got it because he deserved it, but I still think Plugger was better, and Dunstall too. Just my uninformed opinion.

 

[CyberKev]

Lockett was a lazy angry slob who failed to train and his carrer was diminished by a terrible player culture at the Saints.

Dunstall was an amazing proffesional who made every effort to improve his game, and did a lot more team oriented things. For example Dunstall tackled hard to put pressure on his opponents, Plugger was out to hurt them, if he bothered at all. Russell Morriss tells a story that during the week Plugger wouldn't know what side he was playing that Saturday (I've heard similar tales about Ablett too).

Despite tall that Plugger was a better footballer. He had more pure football talent in one finger than Dunstall had in his entire body.

Don't get me wrong, Dunstallwas a true champion, a matchwinning star. He was physically impressive, a sharp smart lead and awesome reflexes. I have heard opinions that he could've been a world class goalie in soccer and I believe it. His kicking was deadly accurate and he overcame a slight propensity to chubbiness by endless training, without sacrifing his enormous strength.

Plugger was better in every way except fitness and teamwork: kicking, high marking, pack marking, leading, footy nous, strength, speed on the burst, and cruelty: everyone feared Lockett.

I've heard this talk about Dunstall being unselfish but it doesn't square with my memories (and I saw a heap of the Hawks from 1983-1992 or so). I guess it depends on what you mean by "unselfish", but if you mean "he looked to pass the ball to a team-mate in a better position" then thats wrong: he took his shots, every one. Like Lockett he was the designated goalkicker, the gun barrel for the best side I've seen. If he'd shared it around it wouldn't have been as efficient: he was selfish for the good of the team. However Dunstalls teamwork was exemplary, part of his faultess proffesionalism: he has Lockett covered there.

Lockett and Dunstall were both the focus for their sides forward line, but they could both work very well with the rest of the team (and they proved it by playing together in a famous SOO game). Dunstall definitely worked more for his team-mates off the ball (tackling sherpherding etc) but he passed up about 1 shot on goal that I can remember (handball to Pritchard in 1989 vs Geelong I think).

My old man told me there was never a more one dimensional forward line than Hudson's: they cleared out the entire forward line for him to lead into. It was unbalancing: the Hawks only won one flag with him there, when he kicked 150. I know his average is incredible but I reckon it reflects the Hawks tactics as much as his dominance. Not even Nuts Coventry in the Collingwood Machine sides had a third of the ground to himself.

You could say Hudson got it because he deserved it, but I still think Plugger was better, and Dunstall too. Just my uninformed opinion.

A vast majority of regular Hawk watchers over Dunstall's career would strongly disagree with you on this one. Throughout this time he had plenty of shots (as evidenced by his goal tally), but also got more opportunity than anyone else and was seldom averse to unselfishly laying-off to a teammate when appropriate.

I'd also query the Lockett was clearly better than Hudson because the latter played in a mono-dimensional forward setup. The same could certainly be said for Lockett during his times with St Kilda (especially) and Sydney. Its fair to say that both Hudson & Lockett largely carried their sides (in scoring terms), but Dunstall certainly had better alternative options around him during his time.

The rest of your post is quite good though.

Hudson was certainly a lot smarter and more creative than the other two (I could understand people voting for him ahead of Plugger, as he didn't have Lockett's massive size advantage to rely on), Dunstall was definitely the most complete footballer and the better team man, but Lockett was something of a monolith (hence why I voted for him here).

 

[Alphanumeric]

Both are awesome players but I think Plugger was better.

Dunstall was lucky to play in a fantastic side.

For years Plugger was playing in a not so good side and could still kick 10 goals a week.

I don't think Dunstall would have kicked as many goals if he was playing for an average side.

 

[CyberKev]

I don't think Dunstall would have kicked as many goals if he was playing for an average side.

Given that the Midfield would have been the weakest part of the Hawthorn unit across Dunstall's years there, I beg to differ.

 

[Cyclops]

A vast majority of regular Hawk watchers over Dunstall's career would strongly disagree with you on this one.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong. There are myths in footy, and I think Dunstall's unselfishness is one of them.

Throughout this time he had plenty of shots (as evidenced by his goal tally), but also got more opportunity than anyone else and was seldom averse to unselfishly laying-off to a teammate when appropriate.

I can recall one instance. Usually Dunstall was closest to goal, and he was either the best or second best shot for goal in any side he played in.

I'd also query the Lockett was clearly better than Hudson because the latter played in a mono-dimensional forward setup. The same could certainly be said for Lockett during his times with St Kilda (especially) and Sydney. Its fair to say that both Hudson & Lockett largely carried their sides (in scoring terms), but Dunstall certainly had better alternative options around him during his time.

My comparison with Hudson is based on hearsay, albeit from judges I respect, so its flimsy. I do know Lockett shared a forward line with Loewe, and Dunstall shared a forward line with Brereton and/or another tall (PC/Morriss/Paul Dear etc). Both guys flourished in good times and bad, with excellent supply (eg Winmar and above all Platten, the best rover I've seen) or hospital passes.

I believe Hudson's set up was remarkably focussed on him: there really wasn't anyone near him in Hawthorn's forward line. As I say, I don't know this, its what I'm told.

The rest of your post is quite good though.

Ah that sounds like the old Hawthorn smugness from the 80's . I remember Hawks suporters lecturing the rest of us about footy, as if their little run of wins made one an expert. As if! Its supporting the Pies that makes one an expert.

Hudson was certainly a lot smarter and more creative than the other two (I could understand people voting for him ahead of Plugger, as he didn't have Lockett's massive size advantage to rely on), Dunstall was definitely the most complete footballer and the better team man, but Lockett was something of a monolith (hence why I voted for him here).

Plugger was like a big baby, and depending on the qualities you admire in a footballer I can see people nominanting Dunstall or Huddo. If Piggy had a better personailty he'd get more credit too. However Lockett does have that truly superhuman quality, and those friggin' hands!

Huddo was obviously a freak, in the Coleman vein. I'm surprised the usual Bombers haven't piped up to push his brief little barrow.

 

[CyberKev]

Doesn't mean I'm wrong. There are myths in footy, and I think Dunstall's unselfishness is one of them.

Unfair enough.

I can recall one instance. Usually Dunstall was closest to goal, and he was either the best or second best shot for goal in any side he played in.

The best piece of Dunstall play I saw was in 1987 vs Essendon, where Dunstall went hard at the ball (head over it) on the boundary and Billy Duckworth lined him up with the hip and shoulder. Even though he was unsuspecting and off balance, Dunstall maintained his footing while Duckworth bounced off him and went to ground over the line. Dunstall promptly picked up the ball, stepped around another Essendon defender on his inside then calmly passed across ground (and over another oncoming defender to Tony Hall who had made space about 15 metres out on a slight angle.

It was the best example of what I've been talking about, but certainly not the only one.

I believe Hudson's set up was remarkably focussed on him: there really wasn't anyone near him in Hawthorn's forward line. As I say, I don't know this, its what I'm told.

I'm not suggesting your interpretation of Hudson is incorrect. Moreover I'm just implying that both players were expected to be the predominant forward target, which Lockett performed strongly as due largely to his massive frame and Hudson due to his extraordinary guile. Hudson was neither especially tall, fast or strong, but was excellent at making position and impressing his will on the one-on-one contest. Being the predominant target in a side shouldn't diminish your performances in it. Hudson won more contests than he lost, and if he wasn't able to do that, then Hawthorn would've revised its structure and any talk about Hudson as an elite player would've become redundant.

Huddo was obviously a freak, in the Coleman vein. I'm surprised the usual Bombers haven't piped up to push his brief little barrow.

Indeed. It is unfortunate that both Hudson and Coleman were cut down by injuries, as who knows what their respective places in the pantheon could have been?

 

[J-Ro-20]

Easily Dunstall. When you watch them play and actually compare them you can see the difference. When Dunstall came to the end of his career Lockett superseded him, as dunstall was marred by injuries to his knee. Both brilliant but dunstall did some freaky things.

ps where is the option for Modra! haha