Let me get this straight, your argument is: If none of the best players from the last 10-20 years are better than the man judged to be the best player of all time, then no one can ever beat him? Am i reading that right? Why does a player even from this century have to considered the GOAT? its only been 22 years out of a sport thats been around for a lot longer than that. Maths isnt on your side here.Well GAJ beat him in every H&A record known to man. 5 MVPs will not be broken. Dusty beats Leigh in finals including GFs 3 NS’s will not be broken, Buddy has 4 Coleman’s which is also a record. I know it’s not fair to compare as he is a forward though. Still proves he’s a better and more skilful goal kicker than Leigh especially since he did it in the AFL era against professionals and team defence. 1000 goals will not be kicked again.
These guys are the best of the best, if they still aren’t good enough compared to Leigh nobody ever will be. Your standards are way to high and you are remembering him better than what he was. He lost 3/7 GFs he’s not unbeatable.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
VFL was formed in 1897 so about 125 years of competition. You are saying that if the best players who played during 16% of that time arent the GOAT then no one else can ever be the GOAT? My maths might be a bit off, but it doesnt seem like probability isnt on the side of your argument.