Open Mike

[PVF]

Man, loved watching Kouta as a young kid back in the day. Even if he was past his prime.

Thought Mike could have spent more time asking about his peak, and how he was ahead of his time in terms of his game style / athleticism.

The show really needs to be an hour long.

 

[PhatBoy]

Wasn't a probing interview or anything but I really enjoyed that. Kouta wasn't a player I paid much attention to as a younger bloke - as a non-player myself, being a kid back then if you weren't kicking a bag of goals, getting 35 a week, or holding Lockett/Modra/Dunstall/Ablett/Kernahan ect to 0 goals, I didn't really 'get' how you could be a superstar.

Didn't think there was anything arrogant about the way he spoke. They're playing in a comp reserved for the best 400 or so players of their sport. It's a given that they are/were good. Acknowledging it isn't a sin.

 

[00Stinger]

I don't have a problem with superstars talking about how good they were, he wasn't coming across as cocky or arrogant and it's not like nothing he said wasn't true.

I reckon the myth of Kouta has grown since he retired. He had a couple of great years, but quite a few ordinary ones that people quickly forget.

My quote about hi.
M not being modest was more about him knowing how many games he played, possessions,goals in games ext.
Even the blokes who know this normally give estimated figures, not the exact figures

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[PhatBoy]

I reckon the myth of Kouta has grown since he retired. He had a couple of great years, but quite a few ordinary ones that people quickly forget.

My quote about hi.
M not being modest was more about him knowing how many games he played, possessions,goals in games ext.
Even the blokes who know this normally give estimated figures, not the exact figures

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Most of them would know exactly how many games they played because they would be told the exact amount constantly. It's on club pages, wiki pages, their own websites if they run a post-football business etc.

I'd imagine for a lot of players, knowing how many goals or touches they had in a game wouldn't be much different to a cricketer knowing how many runs they scored in a certain match.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I reckon the myth of Kouta has grown since he retired. He had a couple of great years, but quite a few ordinary ones that people quickly forget.

That's how I saw it as well. I just couldn't get the Koutoufides thing. Obviously, there were a lot of Carlton games I never saw, and did see some games where he played very well, but I also saw a number where he looked very ordinary as well. I've always been one to base my opinions on what I see rather than what others tell me, and I always considered Kouta a good ordinary player.

 

[00Stinger]

That's how I saw it as well. I just couldn't get the Koutoufides thing. Obviously, there were a lot of Carlton games I never saw, and did see some games where he played very well, but I also saw a number where he looked very ordinary as well. I've always been one to base my opinions on what I see rather than what others tell me, and I always considered Kouta a good ordinary player.

Kouta was a top line player at times, he had an unbelievable 10 game streak in 2000. But he was very ordinary for a large part of his career, thus is probably forgotten because of him marketability.

The comparisons to Fyfe are pretty funny, except for their height they are totally different players

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The comparisons to Fyfe are pretty funny, except for their height they are totally different players

The comparisons to Fyfe is they both played football. Who in hell compared him to Fyfe?

 

[PhatBoy]

The comparisons to Fyfe is they both played football. Who in hell compared him to Fyfe?

Sheahan.

Their versatility is the point of comparison for Mike im guessing.

Important to remember that just drawing a comparison between two players doesn't mean you're saying one is as good as the other.

Comparing Romesh Kaluwitharana to Adam Gilchrist doesn't mean you're saying they're at the same level. They just both happened to be unbelievably aggressive wicketkeepers who opened ODI innings.

 

[00Stinger]

The comparisons to Fyfe is they both played football. Who in hell compared him to Fyfe?

Sheehan said the way Fyfe plays reminds him of Kouta.

Other than being tall mids I cant see any comparisons between the two at all

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[Beerfish]

Sheehan said the way Fyfe plays reminds him of Kouta.

Other than being tall mids I cant see any comparisons between the two at all

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Was probably just blowing smoke up his proverbial. I remember his career similar to you.

 

[PhatBoy]

You don't think versatility has just a smidge to do with the comparison?

 

[GreyCrow]

Loved when Rex used Kouta-Fighter-Midis

 

[Beerfish]

You don't think versatility has just a smidge to do with the comparison?

Plenty of versatile players in the league. Why pick Fyfe?

 

[PhatBoy]

Plenty of versatile players in the league. Why pick Fyfe?

Because there are very few elite ones who can theoretically play basically all positions on the field competently.

Fyfe is a better footballer without question - doesn't have quiet games the same way Kouta did - but essentially when both at their best, you could say to both 'kick me a goal/go and contest in defence with so-and-so/pinch hit a couple of ball ups/be a target' in addition to their normal work around the ball. There are many players who can cover a lot of positions or roles. There are a few who can cover them all with a degree of competency. There are very few who can do it all at the level those two guys did.

 

[Beerfish]

Yeah nah. I'm going with my original assessment. You don't have to agree. That's fine.

We can at least agree Fyfe is the better footballer.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That's how I saw it as well. I just couldn't get the Koutoufides thing. Obviously, there were a lot of Carlton games I never saw, and did see some games where he played very well, but I also saw a number where he looked very ordinary as well. I've always been one to base my opinions on what I see rather than what others tell me, and I always considered Kouta a good ordinary player.

That's ridiculous.

His peak was absolute top tier.

 

[00Stinger]

That's ridiculous.

His peak was absolute top tier.

True. Those 10 weeks were amazing. But his peak was very, very short lived

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

True. Those 10 weeks were amazing. But his peak was very, very short lived

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

It was more than 10 weeks. Certainly sufficient to be considered more than a good ordinary player.

 

[Hammer#8]

Drank from the fountain of youth has Kouta.

The Fyfe comparison not really close to the way Kouta played.

Kouta could summon the ball to him and do mercurial things, he was not a workhorse like Fyfe and didn't have a strong contested side to his game.

Kouta let his pace, high jump and athletic ability to naturally outwork his opponent and get more of the ball. That in itself probably explains his more quiet patches of games and form throughout his career.

I was surprised at his selection in the 1995 AA team, always assumed he started getting more elite around 1996 onwards.

 

[GreyCrow]

Elite is not a word I associate with Kouta. Had 2? great years then seemed to get found out. That's my recall

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Elite is not a word I associate with Kouta. Had 2? great years then seemed to get found out. That's my recall

Not sure what definition of "elite" you're working with. But there was a period where he was the best player in the comp. Most dominant when on song, at any rate.

He won the AFLPA MVP in 2000. I'd suggest he had a pretty good year.

 

[GreyCrow]

Not sure what definition of "elite" you're working with. But there was a period where he was the best player in the comp. Most dominant when on song, at any rate.

Elite is for a career. He never won a Brownlow in those years. 2000 and 2001 were the 2 good years he had when he averaged 23/26 disposals. The rest he bordered on20

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Elite is for a career. He never won a Brownlow in those years. 2000 and 2001 were the 2 good years he had when he averaged 23/26 disposals. The rest he bordered on20

OK. I didn't know your magic rule about what "elite" means.

He won the AFLPA MVP in 2000. I'd suggest he had a pretty good year.

That year, he was equal first in the Brownlow at the time he did his knee, and then missed the final three games. Are you saying that if he'd played out the season and won the Brownlow, you'd have an entirely different assessment of him? Because he'd have a Brownlow?

 

[GreyCrow]

OK. I didn't know your magic rule about what "elite" means.

He won the AFLPA MVP in 2000. I'd suggest he had a pretty good year.

That year, he was equal first in the Brownlow at the time he did his knee, and then missed the final three games. Are you saying that if he'd played out the season and won the Brownlow, you'd have an entirely different assessment of him? Because he'd have a Brownlow?

No you didn't ask what my magic rule was. You are working on your own magic rule. If winning a Brownlow makes you elite then you agree Woewoedin is elite? Dream on. No winning a Brownlow does not make a player elite in my eyes. Winning 2 does. Winning B&Fs , ( he only won 1 in 2001 not his ''best season of 2000)

I would not have him in my list of top 50 players in the last 20 years. He might get 51-75. And this is my opinion

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No you didn't ask what my magic rule was.

Fancy that.

You are working on your own magic rule. If winning a Brownlow makes you elite then you agree Woewoedin is elite? Dream on. No winning a Brownlow does not make a player elite in my eyes.

You're the one who held up the Brownlow as a benchmark of quality.

You suggested the fact he didn't win one was somehow disqualifying.

My point is that he won an AFLPA MVP and was equal first in the Brownlow count before he got injured and missed the last three games. So the fact he didn't win a Brownlow is neither here nor there. It's a bullshit way to bolster an assessment.

I would not have him in my list of top 50 players in the last 20 years. He might get 51-75. And this is my opinion

Does saying "this is my opinion" insulate you from disagreement?

Maybe that's another magic rule no one knows about.