Matthew Scarlett vs Steven Silvagni

[LondonCalling]

That one goal kicked by Ablett was a cheapie too.

 

[mediumsizered]

That one goal kicked by Ablett was a cheapie too.

Actually it was Darryl White that kicked the one & only goal against SOS in the '95 final series, in the only game that we were challenged during that finals series.

 

[Bomberlicious]

Scarlett plays a different role these days to what he used to, which shows his versatility. I don't think he's better than SOS, but he's not overrated either. Scarlett is a champion, and one of the best FBs of all time.

Silvagni was way more versatile, with bags of 10, 8 (twice) & a few 6's & 5's as well. He could comfortably play FF, CHF, CHB & FB.

IMO, SOS wins easily.

I still stand by my view that I thought Langford was the best Fullback.

 

[LondonCalling]

Actually it was Darryl White that kicked the one & only goal against SOS in the '95 final series, in the only game that we were challenged during that finals series.

That's right, my bad. Memories are still a bit hazy of that series. I remember Ablett getting a dodgy free kick, but forgot it was Mensch or Handley that got the cheap goal instead for whatever reason.

 

[Big Nasty]

Quick stat for you: Silvagni conceded only ONE yes ONE goal through the entire 1995 finals series. He was only matched up against Darryl White, Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett snr.

Scarlett eat your bloody heart out.

Yeah against a 35 year old Ablett.
Ablett would have killed Silvagni in his prime.

 

[LondonCalling]

The few times Silvagni played on Ablett (more often than not, that job went to Mil Hanna), Silvagni had the honours though?

 

[jonoman89]

Yeah against a 35 year old Ablett.
Ablett would have killed Silvagni in his prime.

Yes, the 35 year old Ablett who kicked 122 goals in the 1995 season. What an easy matchup that would have been for SOS.....same with Carey who kicked 65.

SOS was the only fullback to restrict Ablett to less than 3 goals that season - he held him to 0.

Best finals series from a defender, bar none. Period. Ever.

The end.

 

[Thrawn]

We've had this comparison before. The comparison is quite ridiculous... Silvagni is one of the greatest full backs in the history of our game. He played in an era where some of the greatest forwards played, where there were lots of other quality forwards to back that list too. Also take into consideration that there were a lot more one on one, Silvagni was usually isolated against his opponent whereas today Scarlett regularly gets a lot of assistance from his team mates. Don't get me wrong, SOS did too, but not as frequently.

People can use the scragging argument all they want - just remember that the forwards of Silvagni's time scragged their defenders to get an advantage too. It seems that people love to conveniently miss this very point when they are claiming Scarlett is superior. What is also conveniently left out are Silvagni's physical attributes... without which, he would never have made it, let alone be so good. How exactly is Scarlett a better FB than SOS was? It it because his runs from FB look better? The curly hair? He may be a better rebounder, but he sure as hell isn't as great a stopper. The prime job of a FB is to negate their opponent's influence on a match and prevent them from kicking goals - everything else is secondary.

I would say SOS was a better mark, a higher leaper and a much better spoiler. His good closing speed, long arms and rubbery frame helped a lot - he was also strong enough to contain someone like Lockett on a regular basis.

Ultimately, Silvagni has the performances on the board, that far exceed Scarlett.

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah against a 35 year old Ablett.
Ablett would have killed Silvagni in his prime.

How do you know? Hell, if Mil Hanna could beat him or break even with him, why would Silvagni get killed? SOS certainly had the motor and speed to go with most forwards. Does it really matter anyway? SOS had his measure when they played against each other anyway.

And Ablett's '95 was one of his best years up forward, was it not? If anything, beating him so convincingly in a year like that is a credit to how good SOS was.

Scarlett runs and sets up play, but also can stop his man.
Silvagni was a scragger who wouldn't get a game under today's rules. Had a good career because he hang off his man and chop arms.

Scarlett quite comfortably.

In other words, "I'm a serial Carlton basher who has an intense dislike for Silvagni because he looked at me strangely, so my thoughts and views on this thread shouldn't be taken seriously."

Wouldn't get a game now? Yeah, because Nathan Brown is so much better as a defender, isn't he?

 

[mediumsizered]

Yeah against a 35 year old Ablett.
Ablett would have killed Silvagni in his prime.

Actually Ablett was a week shy of turning 34 when he played in the '95 GF, & as pointed out by another poster, had kicked 122 goals for the season (that's an average of 5 goals per game). In fact, the '93, '94 & '95 seasons saw Ablett kick 124, 129 & 122 goals, his 3 highest tallies for his career. In this period in which he regularly kicked bags of goals (10 goals or more 4 times during the '93 season alone), his best against Carlton was 6 in 1994, with him kicking 5 once, 4 once, 3 twice & of course 'zip' in the '95GF. More importantly, between 1987-1996, that one effort of 6 goals was his best effort against Carlton.

 

[STC]

Yes, the 35 year old Ablett who kicked 122 goals in the 1995 season. What an easy matchup that would have been for SOS.....same with Carey who kicked 65.

SOS was the only fullback to restrict Ablett to less than 3 goals that season - he held him to 0.

Best finals series from a defender, bar none. Period. Ever.

The end.

It was a fantastic series, but let's not forget that Ablett was injured during that series, missing 3 weeks of footy before the prelim final. Tough to recover from injuries at that age.

 

[CyberKev]

Silvagni tended to play on the bigger names and, technically speaking, reaped the better results.

He was also a blight on the game and should have been penalised in most of the "contests" he participated in.

Dench & Langford had them both covered.

 

[jonoman89]

He was also a blight on the game and should have been penalised in most of the "contests" he participated in.

And how do you base this conclusion?

 

[CyberKev]

And how do you base this conclusion?

From watching him play, how else?

He actually had ability, which made it all the more disappointing that he would routinely reduce himself to indiscrete cheating. He preferred the soft option way, so be it, but that only made it all the more disgraceful when his name was read out in the team of the century instead of numerous, more deserving names.

Ironically, I concur with the view that he would go well in the current game. Contemporary rules would take his preferred soft option molestation game style out of play, but he did have the attributes to do well if forced to play above board.

Stephen Silvagni = Rich man's Mick Gayfer.

 

[rotto]

Scarlett runs and sets up play, but also can stop his man.
Silvagni was a scragger who wouldn't get a game under today's rules. Had a good career because he hang off his man and chop arms.

Scarlett quite comfortably.

totally agree, i remember tony modra getting punched in the head by silvagni off the ball, being helding by his jumper and his arms chopped in a marking contested. nothing was done.

Silvagni is majority overated, scragger who got away with murder. scarlett run rings around him.

 

[Thrawn]

He actually had ability, which made it all the more disappointing that he would routinely reduce himself to indiscrete cheating.

Every defender scragged at his time, big deal. So did the forwards they were opposed to. People love to highlight this because in Silvagni's time there was that emphasis on 1 on 1 as far as defenders and forwards go. Yes, Silvagni scragged a lot but this was commonplace. Don't you go telling me Langford was innocent of this.

He had the ability all right, and you know what? He actually used it. He out positioned and spoiled like a champ. He took marks at the correct times, a lot of them contested. He smothered a lot of balls to stop them from going thru the sticks, or close to. He did all these other things which made him as good as he was - if he was purely a scragger then he never would have made it at FB. Are you suggesting that the only way he could beat his opponents was by "cheating" as you call it?

He preferred the soft option way, so be it, but that only made it all the more disgraceful when his name was read out in the team of the century instead of numerous, more deserving names.

Oh, yes... so disgraceful a player of his calibre and consistency made it. Why are people still bitching about this?

Who was more deserving? And why? I'd really like to see your list that is "numerous" - there would not be too many full backs of Silvagni's calibre, or too many better considering his record. I suspect any of those names you mentioned deserve a place, the only problem is that there are a few FBs who have been good enough to deserve it, but you can only really pick one. Silvagni was one of them.

SOS had claim to that mantle just as much as any of those other names. In the end it wouldn't have mattered. If Dench or Southby had have got picked, people would still be bitching about them not deserving it, in fact SOS would most likely be one of the names mentioned among others to fill their place. Everyone seems to have their personal preference out of the great FBs of all time. There really isn't much splitting them. I don't think you can ignore how consistently brilliant SOS was down back, given his opponents.

Ironically, I concur with the view that he would go well in the current game. Contemporary rules would take his preferred soft option molestation game style out of play, but he did have the attributes to do well if forced to play above board.

We judge players on what they have achieved, not how they will go in today's rules. It appears that people are judging SOS on that, rather than what he has actually done, which is ridiculous in itself.

 

[Thrawn]

totally agree, i remember tony modra getting punched in the head by silvagni off the ball, being helding by his jumper and his arms chopped in a marking contested. nothing was done.

I've seen Scarlett chop arms in a marking contest, and holding onto jumpers and nothing was done. And Hudgeton. Even by today's rules.

Silvagni is majority overated, scragger who got away with murder. scarlett run rings around him.

Every defender gets away with murder so it is quite a moot point. Regardless what you think, Silvagni can point to the scoreboard and that's all that matters here.

I'd love to see Scarlett play on Silvagni when shifted up forward.

 

[mediumsizered]

Silvagni tended to play on the bigger names and, technically speaking, reaped the better results.

He was also a blight on the game and should have been penalised in most of the "contests" he participated in.

Dench & Langford had them both covered.

Last time I looked, the AFL Team of the Century had Silvagni's name at FB. I understand the final vote was between Silvagni & Regan. I don't recall Dench & Langford being in the final vote.

BTW, as I have previously stated, Dench wasn't even as good as Southby & Moore, but about the equal of Merrigan. Actually, I will take it a step further & say that Langford also wasn't as good as Southby or Moore & Silvagni was superior to both Southby & Moore.

If you have any doubt about any of this just turn to Page 511 of AFL Season Guide to 2008. This should clear it up for you.

 

[CyberKev]

The cheap and usual Carlton justifications for Silvagni's behaviour, Thrawn.

Comparing the indiscretions of genuine FB's like Dench & Langford to those of Silvagni, is like comparing the offences of a jaywalker to a serial killer, and deep down you know it only too well.

Dench & Langford almost always played it fair and backed their ability, Silvagni almost always did not.

Its as simple as that, and the reality doesn't change just because its hard for Carlton fans to deal with.

 

[CyberKev]

Last time I looked, the AFL Team of the Century had Silvagni's name at FB. I understand the final vote was between Silvagni & Regan. I don't recall Dench & Langford being in the final vote.

Meaningless.

None of the people voting would have even seen Regan play and Silvagni was simply a blight on the game due to his cheating. These panels make poor choices whenever these types of sides are chosen (as the annual AA sides show all too clearly) and the choice of Silvagni was the alltime worst decision.

BTW, as I have previously stated, Dench wasn't even as good as Southby & Moore, but about the equal of Merrigan.

Bully for you.

Having watched all these blokes, Dench & Langford were the two best IMO with Southby close behind.

 

[Thrawn]

The cheap and usual Carlton justifications for Silvagni's behaviour, Thrawn.

Perhaps you'd like to refute them, then? I don't really see how these justifications are any less valid.

Comparing the indiscretions of genuine FB's like Dench & Langford to those of Silvagni, is like comparing the offences of a jaywalker to a serial killer, and deep down you know it only too well.

All I think deep down is that you're just full of it here, honestly. Every FB scrags, every single one of them... regardless of degree. The rules were a little more open in Silvagni's time - did you honestly expect him not to use every trick in the book? He'd be a shit FB if he didn't, and that said, the way he out pointed and out positioned his opponent on a regular basis by using his attributes as a player (and his nous) clearly demonstrates that he didn't always scrag.

Dench & Langford almost always played it fair and backed their ability, Silvagni almost always did not.

That's not true. Silvagni had plenty of ability, and used it to defeat his opponents. He never would've made it if he "almost always" never backed up his ability. In fact, no footballer would.

Its as simple as that, and the reality doesn't change just because its hard for Carlton fans to deal with.

It isn't as simple as that. Your entire argument revolves around Silvagni being good as he was because he was a scragger and nothing more. But he had certain attributes that made him such a good FB in the first place. You are completely ignoring that aspect by continually towing the scragging line. In addition, you are also ignoring the very fact that scragging was wide spread and was happening in every position on the ground. Scragging is not a one way street in most cases.

What I know for certain is that you putting down SOS' abilities as a FB is more disgraceful than him being selected in the ToC.

 

[Thrawn]

None of the people voting would have even seen Regan play and Silvagni was simply a blight on the game due to his cheating. These panels make poor choices whenever these types of sides are chosen (as the annual AA sides show all too clearly) and the choice of Silvagni was the alltime worst decision.

Ah, so now your views are all clear. A blight on the game and an all time worst decision - wow, you really hate him, don't you? Then why should your thoughts on the matter be taken seriously? You even go so far as to say that he almost never backed up his ability - which is a whole pile of horse shit. In fact, I'd say it is a blatant lie.

Having watched all these blokes, Dench & Langford were the two best IMO with Southby close behind.

Southby wasn't even selected in Carlton's FB position in their ToC.

Oh, and still waiting on that list of yours of "numerous" players who deserved it ahead of SOS. Your generic "but he was a scragger and a cheat" line isn't really going do to much here.

 

[jonoman89]

IF Silvagni was such a cheater, he would have been pinged a lot more.

Getting away with "illegal" tactics is part of any defenders arsenal. Same with taggers. They all do it, otherwise they'd be crap at their jobs. The best defenders are those who can position themselves where they can scrag, but make it oblivious to umpires. There's an art in that.

Forwards get away with a lot more than defenders.

 

[Thrawn]

IF Silvagni was such a cheater, he would have been pinged a lot more.

Then they'll tell you it was a conspiracy and the umpires "loved" Silvagni.

 

[CyberKev]

Ah, so now your views are all clear. A blight on the game and an all time worst decision - wow, you really hate him, don't you?

Not at all. Inasmuch as I hate anything, its the shameless fact that he gets heralded for his soft-option approach to FB play and that Carlton tragics continue to laud his legacy as if noone actually saw him play (and, in fairness, the majority of posters on this site didn't).

You can attempt to rewrite history as much as you like, but I intend to be one of the many that will say what needs to be said to keep you honest.

Stephen Silvagni - blight on the game.

Oh, and still waiting on that list of yours of "numerous" players who deserved it ahead of SOS. Your generic "but he was a scragger and a cheat" line isn't really going do to much here.

I thought I'd already named Dench, Langford, Southby & Moore... Sticking to the players that I have seen.

And if you feel that the 'scragging Silvagni' view is generic, then there's a good reason for it... That's exactly what he was, hence why so many long-term football watchers are only too happy to call him out on it.