List Mgmt. Nick Daicos

[left at home]

Unfortunatley i have overwhelming evidence on my side

What evidence

 

[Kappa]

What evidence

A little friend called evolution. Over time we get better at desirable things, not worse. A bigger player pool and more competite games (due to professionalism) results in better players. Every era the players have gotten better and better in all areas of the game. The only stat which hasnt gone up a huge amount is goal kicking accuracy, which can be explained by players taking more difficult shots due to defensive tactics.

 

[jonbe54]

I always assume this is a different argument. The stars of today given their superiority in size, strength, preperation and living through the development of the modern game would run rings around payers of the past. I make that assumption when I talk of a Greening and when discussing him I am discussing him in context of the era he payed in.

I'm with Saintly here - give John the nutritional aid, training and fitness/medical support that current players get and he'd translate that dominance to modern footy.

Talent such as his is forever.

 

[jonbe54]

As for Peter . . .

The all time greats change the game by leaving their stamp on it . . . .

'Doing a Daicos' is as relevant today as it was when players first started trying to emulate his goal kicking style.

 

[Gone Critical]

Fair points re Cyril.
Cyril is a great player, elite. No argument.

But if picking between the two Daicos makes the grade for me ahead of Cyril.
Peter was in games for longer, Peter could destroy opponents from the middle of the ground.

And the numbers are compelling.
For all Cyril’s brilliance he never kicked 50 goals in a season and if I’m not mistaken only twice over 40 goals.
Might have even been stretched to have 30 goal seasons, maybe once or twice more.

He did the brilliant things true, but all that notwithstanding, his career goal kicking average is about 1.46 or so, under a goal and half. Possessions about 15 on average a game.

Peter Daicos kicks 2.2 goals a games, averages 18 possessions a game (in a less possession game era) and compellingly kicked over 50 goals a season 5 times including 97 in our flag of 1990.

Sorry Cyril does not match. Daicos is better for me.

I agree Daicos is ahead of Cyril without doubt. I was more suggesting they both had unique skill sets

 

[jackcass]

The fact that the player pool, professionalism and competitiveness have all massively increased over time says that the best players have gotten better over time. The fact that he was able to dominate more in that era compared to now is because of the fact half his opponents probably had a 6pack the night before a game or a pack of ciggies at half time. The defensive tactics of that era were so terrible that no one really knew how to shut down good players apart from hurting them too. Federer and Williams are modern day greats and much better than the players from the 70s no doubt. Like in all sports, players get better over time.

When you say that all the best players you've seen were from the 70s/80s you're clearly looking through an extremely biased nostalgia lens. I mean in the 70s the VFL was an amatuerish suburban league for christ sake, the modern players are undoubtedly so much better overall. Of course there were champions in the past, but you can't compare them to now.

You seem to ignore that the greats of the past with all the benefits of modern living (health, diet) and professional pathways and training regimes would likely have had the same exponential improvement as the modern players. The elite of any era is just as likely to be elite in any other era. If John Greening was born in 1990 instead of 1950, the only likely difference would be that he'd be 190cm instead of 185cm, and within a draft paradigm may never have ended up at Collingwood.

 

[neilk]

My take on John Greening. I still vividly remember his comeback game after the "incident". He took a brilliant pack mark and I'm sure everybody thought he's back, but alas it was not to be. I'll compare him to traits in current players:
>He was up there with Howe in marking ability.
>He moved through congestion at least as good as Pendlebury.
>He kicked goals on either foot better than Sidebottom.
>He had the speed to burst away from a pack like Treloar.
I know it's difficult to compare players from different eras but my take on Greening is we never saw what he could have become, but what we saw was enough to convince me he would have been one of the very best.

 

[jathanas]

A little friend called evolution. Over time we get better at desirable things, not worse. A bigger player pool and more competite games (due to professionalism) results in better players. Every era the players have gotten better and better in all areas of the game. The only stat which hasnt gone up a huge amount is goal kicking accuracy, which can be explained by players taking more difficult shots due to defensive tactics.

I agree but it isn't evolution that will creates the gap in athleticism over only 4 or 5 generations, but environment (training, coaching, nutrition, recovery). Evolution takes a little longer.

Offer players like Daicos / Greening today's training and nutrition protocols and they'd be as fit and strong as today's athletes. Their star would shine just as bright due to the talent they were born with.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I agree but it isn't evolution that will creates the gap in athleticism over only 4 or 5 generations, but environment (training, coaching, nutrition, recovery). Evolution takes a little longer.

Offer players like Daicos / Greening today's training and nutrition protocols and they'd be as fit and strong as today's athletes. Their star would shine just as bright due to the talent they were born with.

And dear Plugger would still kick bagfuls.

John Coleman would be THE superstar.

Bob Rose? He’d be elite and still tough as nails and then some.

Lou Richards would still have a big mouth

 

[legendstatus]

Mods please change title thread to Peter Daicos v John Greening


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jonbe54]

You know the scary thing is - if you believe in such things - John continued on in his playing career in a parallel universe, unmolested by thugs and became the player he should have been - superior to all but a small handful of uber elite talents that have ever played the game.

BUT

In this universe Peter put the runs on the board big time and his younger son is showing signs to make this old fart remember bygone days and daydream of once again leaping up from his seat screaming . . . DAICOS!!!!!

 

[Kappa]

I agree but it isn't evolution that will creates the gap in athleticism over only 4 or 5 generations, but environment (training, coaching, nutrition, recovery). Evolution takes a little longer.

Offer players like Daicos / Greening today's training and nutrition protocols and they'd be as fit and strong as today's athletes. Their star would shine just as bright due to the talent they were born with.

And you put modern players back in those times and they'd shine just as brightly as Greening/Daicos ect because the game was a lot less defensive and stars had more room to shine.

The key difference is player pool though, the player pool is much bigger nowadays which tends to result in better players, relatively speaking.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

And you put modern players back in those times and they'd shine just as brightly as Greening/Daicos ect because the game was a lot less defensive and stars had more room to shine.

The key difference is player pool though, the player pool is much bigger nowadays which tends to result in better players, relatively speaking.

So a smaller player pool, like say State of Origin, results in worse players.

 

[Kappa]

So a smaller player pool, like say State of Origin, results in worse players.

Player pool referring to the total amount of people playing Australian Football, particularly at junior levels. There are much more kids playing now than in the 70s which means you're going to get more stars and better stars.

Of course they may not be statistically better than players from the 70s, because times change and now there's actual tactics in the game, but that doesn't make them worse.

 

[Sea fog]

The fact that the player pool, professionalism and competitiveness have all massively increased over time says that the best players have gotten better over time. The fact that he was able to dominate more in that era compared to now is because of the fact half his opponents probably had a 6pack the night before a game or a pack of ciggies at half time. The defensive tactics of that era were so terrible that no one really knew how to shut down good players apart from hurting them too. Federer and Williams are modern day greats and much better than the players from the 70s no doubt. Like in all sports, players get better over time.

When you say that all the best players you've seen were from the 70s/80s you're clearly looking through an extremely biased nostalgia lens. I mean in the 70s the VFL was an amatuerish suburban league for christ sake, the modern players are undoubtedly so much better overall. Of course there were champions in the past, but you can't compare them to now.

The biggest change is full-time professionalism. Most blokes from the 70s and prior held down jobs and trained twice a week. If you look at cricket, it's hard to argue that the rabble that try to play pace bowling today for Australia could hold a candle to the likes of Greg Chappell. There is elite talent born in every era which would excel in any era.

Maybe footy wise, an interesting comparison would be Brodie and Peter Moore who both play or played a ruck role going all around the ground. Moore used to puff on ciggies at half-time and did not train half as much as Brodie but was he worse? He had led our goalkicking twice by the age of 21. Is Brodie better with all the advantages he has had of evolution, professionalism, nutrition which others above have so well outlined?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Player pool referring to the total amount of people playing Australian Football, particularly at junior levels. There are much more kids playing now than in the 70s which means you're going to get more stars and better stars.

Of course they may not be statistically better than players from the 70s, because times change and now there's actual tactics in the game, but that doesn't make them worse.

I don't have the stats but I'd suspect there maybe more juniors playing than before but less if you take percentage of population into consideration.

Then take into account 50% more teams, where does that leave us?

I'm not sure.

 

[Sea fog]

I don't have the stats but I'd suspect there maybe more juniors playing than before but less if you take percentage of population into consideration.

Then take into account 50% more teams, where does that leave us?

I'm not sure.

Good point, I reckon that sports like soccer and some general laziness among youth means that not as many as a proportion of the population play footy.

 

[Kappa]

I don't have the stats but I'd suspect there maybe more juniors playing than before but less if you take percentage of population into consideration.

Then take into account 50% more teams, where does that leave us?

I'm not sure.

Regardless of the amount of teams, the more kids you have playing the better chance you have of finding superstars, and the better the best of those superstars will be

 

[Sea fog]

Though with more teams the talent is spread a bit more thinly which means that each team is not as formidable as it was when there were only 12 teams.

 

[rand corp]

I have the fondest memories of watching the greats like McKenna, Greening, Carmen and Daicos and I can tell you that just as the game evolves so to do the legends, the angle of that impossible goal gets sharper, the distance of that torpedo punt gets longer and the height of that screamer gets higher and higher. Comparisons are almost pointless less it renders these greats as all to human, when as legends they are, as we know, so much more to us than that.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I have the fondest memories of watching the greats like McKenna, Greening, Carmen and Daicos and I can tell you that just as the game evolves so to do the legends, the angle of that impossible goal gets sharper, the distance of that torpedo punt gets longer and the height of that screamer gets higher and higher. Comparisons are almost pointless less it renders these greats as all to human, when as legends they are, as we know, so much more to us than that.

There’s a lot of truth there.

Take for example Donald Bradman, the legend says he averages just on 100, but no human can ever achieve that but legend will out....

 

[jackcass]

And you put modern players back in those times and they'd shine just as brightly as Greening/Daicos ect because the game was a lot less defensive and stars had more room to shine.

The key difference is player pool though, the player pool is much bigger nowadays which tends to result in better players, relatively speaking.

Really? As a % of total population? Back in the day we had 12 sides each fielding 3 teams (1st's, 2nd's & U19) and unless I'm mistaken squads well north of 50 players, these days we've grown the number of sides by 50% but we've reduced lists to 44, all the while the population has grown by 70-80%.

 

[Kappa]

Really? As a % of total population? Back in the day we had 12 sides each fielding 3 teams (1st's, 2nd's & U19) and unless I'm mistaken squads well north of 50 players, these days we've grown the number of sides by 50% but we've reduced lists to 44, all the while the population has grown by 70-80%.

Why does % of the population matter? More kids is more kids, which means more superstars.

If you plant 15 trees in one paddock, and 10 in the other, which group would you bet to have the tallest tree out of them all?

 

[Apex36]

Why does % of the population matter? More kids is more kids, which means more superstars.

If you plant 15 trees in one paddock, and 10 in the other, which group would you bet to have the tallest tree out of them all?

The group that has the superior irrigation system.

 

[Kappa]

The group that has the superior irrigation system.

Which in this example, is the paddock with 15 trees