Ranking Each Team's Best Team of this Century So Far....

[Warwick]

#2: BRISBANE

FB	C.JOHNSON	H.ANDREWS*	J.PATFULL
HB	D.RICH	J.LEPPITSCH	J.ADCOCK
C	N.LAPPIN	S.BLACK	H.MCCLUGGAGE*
HF	J.AKERMANIS	J.BROWN (vc)	D.ZORKO*
FF	C.CAMERON*	A.LYNCH	D.BRADSHAW
RR	S.MARTIN	M.VOSS (c)	L.NEALE*
INT	L.POWER	T.ROCKLIFF	D.BEAMS - J.DUNKLEY*
COACH:	LEIGH MATTHEWS

Not bad.

I’d probably go:

B: C. Johnson, H. Andrews, M. Michael
HB: C. Scott, J. Leppitsch, D. Zorko
C: N. Lappin, M. Voss (c), McCluggage
HF: J. Akermanis, J. Brown, L. Power
F: C. Cameron, A. Lynch, C. McRae
Foll: S. Martin, S. Black, L. Neale
Int: D. Bradshaw, D. Rich, J. Dunkley, M. Ashcroft

A combined 53 x s in that 22.

Very unlucky: J. Patfull, T. Rockliff, J. Adcock, C. Keating (not enough games >2000), S. Hart (not enough games >2000), D. White (not enough games >2000).

Unlucky: D. Beams, M. Pike, J. Daniher, J. Drummond, T. Notting, R. Lester, P. Hanley, W. Ashcroft (not enough games >2000).

 

[RUNVS]

Not bad.

I’d probably go:

B: C. Johnson, H. Andrews, M. Michael
HB: C. Scott, J. Leppitsch, D. Zorko
C: N. Lappin, M. Voss (c), McCluggage
HF: J. Akermanis, J. Brown, L. Power
F: C. Cameron, A. Lynch, C. McRae
Foll: S. Martin, S. Black, L. Neale
Int: D. Bradshaw, D. Rich, J. Dunkley, M. Ashcroft

A combined 53 x s in that 22.

Very unlucky: J. Patfull, T. Rockliff, J. Adcock, C. Keating (not enough games >2000), S. Hart (not enough games >2000), D. White (not enough games >2000).

Unlucky: D. Beams, M. Pike, J. Daniher, J. Drummond, T. Notting, R. Lester, P. Hanley, W. Ashcroft (not enough games >2000).

You must really hate Ashcroft if you won't even consider him until he has played more than 2000 games.

 

[Warwick]

You must really hate Ashcroft if you won't even consider him until he has played more than 2000 games.

He may well have 57 Norm Smiths by then.

 

[bungalow_bill]

W. Ashcroft (not enough games >2000).

50 or more games is the minimum? and if my calculations are correct Will is on 58 games.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I am a little triggered over OP ranking Pies below Sydney, fully accepting bias could be a play.

That Pies midfield lineup in particular just looks a lot better than the Sydney one.

 

[Forward Press]

I am a little triggered over OP ranking Pies below Sydney, fully accepting bias could be a play.

That Pies midfield lineup in particular just looks a lot better than the Sydney one.

Sydney's is strong all over the park and - no offence intended - the Pies forward line does not match Sydney's, not even close.

 

[PhatBoy]

Sydney's is strong all over the park and - no offence intended - the Pies forward line does not match Sydney's, not even close.

Yeah as good as the Pies generally are - and I’m not a magpie hater like many people - when I think of them and the overall ‘feel’ of what makes them a consistently competitive side, it’s a classy midfield, and then good, solid contributors on the other lines with, at any given time 1 maybe 2 elite players.

Ie. that 2010 premiership side. Although a lot of the players named in that forward line were legitimately top players - Ball, Beams etc - as forwards go they weren’t top tier. But they had Cloke who at the time was a real force, so they could structure around him, Dawes was a handy back up too

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Sydney's is strong all over the park and - no offence intended - the Pies forward line does not match Sydney's, not even close.

Yeah as good as the Pies generally are - and I’m not a magpie hater like many people - when I think of them and the overall ‘feel’ of what makes them a consistently competitive side, it’s a classy midfield, and then good, solid contributors on the other lines with, at any given time 1 maybe 2 elite players.

Ie. that 2010 premiership side. Although a lot of the players named in that forward line were legitimately top players - Ball, Beams etc - as forwards go they weren’t top tier. But they had Cloke who at the time was a real force, so they could structure around him, Dawes was a handy back up too

Hannebery and Josh Kennedy were both 3x All-Australians. The rest of the named midfield/interchange on that list is players who were 1x All-Australians. Very good players but not consistent stars of the game. Hannebery won an AFLCA award but that is the only Brownlow/AFLCA/MVP from Sydney's midfield lineup.

Compare that to the Brownlows, AFLCA awards and MVPs in the Collingwood midfield list.

Buckley 7x All-Australian, Pendlebury 6x All-Australian, Swan 5x All-Australian, Naicos already 3x All-Australian. Sydney's biggest midfield AA collectors can only match Collingwood's 4th highest, who, barring serious injury, will certainly add more.

Of course similarly Sydney's forward line is indeed far superior. And Goodes certainly adds that multi-position star power. But when I look at say proposed State of Origin teams, I am looking at the midfield first and foremost when assessing relative strength.

Anyway it is meaningless, I just think Sydney's relative midfield weakness is notable.

 

[PhatBoy]

Hannebery and Josh Kennedy were both 3x All-Australians. The rest of the named midfield/interchange on that list is players who were 1x All-Australians. Very good players but not consistent stars of the game. Hannebery won an AFLCA award but that is the only Brownlow/AFLCA/MVP from Sydney's midfield lineup.

Compare that to the Brownlows, AFLCA awards and MVPs in the Collingwood midfield list.

Buckley 7x All-Australian, Pendlebury 6x All-Australian, Swan 5x All-Australian, Naicos already 3x All-Australian. Sydney's biggest midfield AA collectors can only match Collingwood's 4th highest, who, barring serious injury, will certainly add more.

Of course similarly Sydney's forward line is indeed far superior. And Goodes certainly adds that multi-position star power. But when I look at say proposed State of Origin teams, I am looking at the midfield first and foremost when assessing relative strength.

Anyway it is meaningless, I just think Sydney's relative midfield weakness is notable.

That’s fine and I’m not gonna debate the respective merits of their two midfields as both of them have had a lot of class come through there at different stages and in different amounts.

But yeah the Pies for me are a team who just on the ‘aura’ they sort of give off season after season are one based on being at their best in the middle and being a bit more workmanlike at either end with a few touches of class here and there. The swans at the forward end at least have been a side who generally have really had an edge I would say. Both have very good best 22

 

[Mr Meow]

For the half forward line part of RUNVS post, I think Johnson-Cameron-Chapman makes a strong case against Goodes-Hall-O'Keefe.

Goodes was a superstar and could be selected anywhere on the field. As a (close to) permanent forward though that was mostly later career Goodes, who was still great but past his peak. His best work was as the gut running wingman/utility, or the time as a mobile ruck/big bodied midfielder. Basically when he was between the arcs and linking up with stoppages a lot. For example in the 2005/2006 grand finals he was named in midfield. So he seems a little misplaced to me.

Hall vs Cameron not much splits them despite some differing attributes.

O'Keefe was a very good player but Chapman for combined goals, goal assists, disposals averages etc has him comfortably covered.

Then Johnson with 500+ goals, 250+ goal assists while going at almost 20 disposals per game is hard to beat as a genuine forward flanker.

Between those 3 Geelong players you have 1618 goals, 584 goal assists and around 15,000 disposals. Cameron has at least a couple of good years left too. I don't think any teams best half forward line mix this century tops that.

 

[RUNVS]

The thing with Sydney vs Collingwood is I think Sydney's defence could comfortably cover Collingwood's forward line, but I don't think Collingwood's defence could stop Sydney's forward line.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The thing with Sydney vs Collingwood is I think Sydney's defence could comfortably cover Collingwood's forward line, but I don't think Collingwood's defence could stop Sydney's forward line.

Well, Rocca and a young Cloke slaughtered a Sydney defence with the likes of Craig Bolton and Leo Barry in it in a real life final.

Rocca and Cloke were not outright superstars of the game but they were both contested marking monsters. Both operating in their primes in the same side with some quality smalls around them would make for a far stronger forward line in reality than it may appear on paper.

Of course Buddy would continue to commit war crimes against any defence wearing black and white.

 

[RUNVS]

Well, Rocca and a young Cloke slaughtered a Sydney defence with the likes of Craig Bolton and Leo Barry in it in a real life final.

Rocca and Cloke were not outright superstars of the game but they were both contested marking monsters. Both operating in their primes in the same side with some quality smalls around them would make for a far stronger forward line in reality than it may appear on paper.

Of course Buddy would continue to commit war crimes against any defence wearing black and white.

Only because our midfield at the time was shyte against Collingwood. Also for some reason Héritier Lumumba always looked like a better version of Gary Ablett Jnr against us.

I just don't see Collingwood coming up with a defence that could stop Buddy, Hall, O'Loughlin, Papley and perhaps Goodes and Heeney depending on where they are played. Each one of them are match winners in their own right.

Also Craig Bolton was a compete underrated gun, and even though Ted Richards was better than Heath Grundy, Grundy would need to be in the side over him simply because Grundy would be better against the really powerful key forwards.

Nick Smith was the best player that most people have not heard of. Could shut down any small forward with almost ease.

I do think historically over the last 20 years our midfield has not been a strength of the Swans but a combined 21st century team the midfield is quite good with Kennedy, Kirk, Mills, Heeney (depending on where he is played), Goodes (depending on where he is played), Gulden and Warner are a powerful group of skill and toughness.

Our weakness is possibly our ruck, as our only 3 real choices are Mumford, Jolly and now Grundy, and while all three are very solid, none are world beaters.

 

[RUNVS]

Also for these sort of discussions I find the best on paper vs actual team to be an interesting one.

Like looking in more detail at the teams listed by the OP a lot of teams have 3 key forwards

Geelong - Cameron, Hawkins, Mooney
Brisbane - Lynch, Brown, Bradshaw
Richmond - Riewoldt, Lynch, Richardson
Adelaide - Walker, Tippett, Lynch
Essendon - Lloyd, Danniher, Lucas

and I am not sure if this would work in real life as we have seen teams try 3 key forwards at the same time in the past, with those teams thinking they can stretch the oppositions defence, but what usually ends up happening is that the team ends up being too slow and lumbering in the forward line, so if the ball hits the deck it just shoots out far too easily as the key forwards don't have the defensive pressure to keep it in. Now there can be exceptions, as the more mobile key forwards who can apply proper defensive pressure might be okay, or a key forward who can move up the ground and get out of the way sometimes, but overall I don't think it works in real life, even if Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw all in the same forward line sounds amazing on paper.

Likewise, I don't think 3 KPD's in defence is a good idea for a similar reason, perhaps 2 KPD's and a defender who can play tall or small, but 3 again is too lumbering and slow.

 

[Mr Meow]

Also for these sort of discussions I find the best on paper vs actual team to be an interesting one.

Like looking in more detail at the teams listed by the OP a lot of teams have 3 key forwards

Geelong - Cameron, Hawkins, Mooney
Brisbane - Lynch, Brown, Bradshaw
Richmond - Riewoldt, Lynch, Richardson
Adelaide - Walker, Tippett, Lynch
Essendon - Lloyd, Danniher, Lucas

and I am not sure if this would work in real life as we have seen teams try 3 key forwards at the same time in the past, with those teams thinking they can stretch the oppositions defence, but what usually ends up happening is that the team ends up being too slow and lumbering in the forward line, so if the ball hits the deck it just shoots out far too easily as the key forwards don't have the defensive pressure to keep it in. Now there can be exceptions, as the more mobile key forwards who can apply proper defensive pressure might be okay, or a key forward who can move up the ground and get out of the way sometimes, but overall I don't think it works in real life, even if Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw all in the same forward line sounds amazing on paper.

Likewise, I don't think 3 KPD's in defence is a good idea for a similar reason, perhaps 2 KPD's and a defender who can play tall or small, but 3 again is too lumbering and slow.

See my half forward line post above. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

[RUNVS]

See my half forward line post above. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

You do make a good point and the sizes sort of work. Though I do think people underestimate just how good Hall was. Statistically he was better than either Reiworldt, Hawkins, Kennedy etc.

I am not sure about Goodes either, as I stuck him in the forward line mostly because he is Adam Goodes and he can play anywhere, but you were right in your post when you said he wasn't really a forward, though I would have been curious to know how he would have gone in the forward line in his prime. The same problem with Heeney actually as he is a blood good forward, almost impossible to beat one on one given his size, but he is an extremely good midfielder, perhaps even better if he plays the midfielder role and regularly drifts into the forward line.

For the Swans forward line, completely removing Heeney and Goodes, assuming you want them in the midfield I would go with

HF: O'Keefe, Franklin, Davis
FF: O'Loughlin, Hall, Papley

I feel like this is a better mix, and it would free up Goodes and Heeney for the midfield.

Now is Davis in the best 22 players to play in the 21st century for the Swans, no, but would he be in the best 21st century team, maybe.

 

[Mr Meow]

You do make a good point and the sizes sort of work. Though I do think people underestimate just how good Hall was. Statistically he was better than either Reiworldt, Hawkins, Kennedy etc.

I am not sure about Goodes either, as I stuck him in the forward line mostly because he is Adam Goodes and he can play anywhere, but you were right in your post when you said he wasn't really a forward, though I would have been curious to know how he would have gone in the forward line in his prime. The same problem with Heeney actually as he is a blood good forward, almost impossible to beat one on one given his size, but he is an extremely good midfielder, perhaps even better if he plays the midfielder role and regularly drifts into the forward line.

For the Swans forward line, completely removing Heeney and Goodes, assuming you want them in the midfield I would go with

HF: O'Keefe, Franklin, Davis
FF: O'Loughlin, Hall, Papley

I feel like this is a better mix, and it would free up Goodes and Heeney for the midfield.

Now is Davis in the best 22 players to play in the 21st century for the Swans, no, but would he be in the best 21st century team, maybe.

For Goodes he's tricky to place but I'd say "midfield support" covers the fact that he was brilliant on the wing, as a pure midfielder or in ruck. Then sure he'd swing forward extremely well too, but he was characterised more as that hybrid utility type in midfield areas. Given proper wingmen are almost never selected in these teams, that's where I'd put him to reflect his career "heat map".

For Heeney he has also been multipositional, but has spent far more time as a genuine forward who kicks bags of goals. With him I absolutely do feel comfortable listing him as a forward, despite his more recent midfield brilliance. Obviously players in these teams would rotate like any normal team.

Johnson and Chapman for Geelong both did rotate through midfield - or support midfield like Miers and Mannagh do today - but they were definitely forwards. SJ did go close in the Brownlow one of the rare years he was primarily a midfielder though.

I agree with your proposed Sydney forward mix, although Heeney on a forward flank would work too as he could represent that genuine forward-mid that a lot sides have (Aker, SJ, B.Johnson, Hird, Martin, Greene etc).

Davis a game changer for sure but maybe not enough overall output to make it.

 

[RUNVS]

For Goodes he's tricky to place but I'd say "midfield support" covers the fact that he was brilliant on the wing, as a pure midfielder or in ruck. Then sure he'd swing forward extremely well too, but he was characterised more as that hybrid utility type in midfield areas. Given proper wingmen are almost never selected in these teams, that's where I'd put him to reflect his career "heat map".

For Heeney he has also been multipositional, but has spent far more time as a genuine forward who kicks bags of goals. With him I absolutely do feel comfortable listing him as a forward, despite his more recent midfield brilliance. Obviously players in these teams would rotate like any normal team.

Johnson and Chapman for Geelong both did rotate through midfield - or support midfield like Miers and Mannagh do today - but they were definitely forwards. SJ did go close in the Brownlow one of the rare years he was primarily a midfielder though.

I agree with your proposed Sydney forward mix, although Heeney on a forward flank would work too as he could represent that genuine forward-mid that a lot sides have (Aker, SJ, B.Johnson, Hird, Martin, Greene etc).

Davis a game changer for sure but maybe not enough overall output to make it.

It is an interesting discussion as I think the two side players on the HF line are the sort of players who can drift into the midfield at a moments notice, which like you said both Johnson and Chapman did. I always secretly quite liked Chapman as a player, there was just something industrious about him that appealed to me though I do think in the Geelong 21 century team he is likely one of the last selected and it would not surprise me if he would not be in the discussion in 10 years time.

Not that Geelong really have many weaknesses, but I think if the Geelong team did have a weakness I would say its small forward stocks are not as good as other teams. You have some very good key forwards and medium sized forwards, but not really the small forwards, though in saying that despite his size Johnson sort of fills that role.

I am also not 100% sure about Scarlett, Taylor and Stewart all being in the same side. Yes, all three are brilliant players, but it does make Geelong's defence a bit too tall for my liking. Though in saying that Stewart can play small can't he?

As for Nick Davis, it is such a tough one because you are right, his overall output may not be there to qualify, but he was such a game changer at certain times, and I have a feeling with the rest of the forward line, Davis would massively benefit from almost being forgotten. If Franklin, Hall, Papley, O'Loughlin and perhaps Heeney are all there, I can easily imagine teams forgetting about Davis, and him doing really well as a result.

 

[Mr Meow]

It is an interesting discussion as I think the two side players on the HF line are the sort of players who can drift into the midfield at a moments notice, which like you said both Johnson and Chapman did. I always secretly quite liked Chapman as a player, there was just something industrious about him that appealed to me though I do think in the Geelong 21 century team he is likely one of the last selected and it would not surprise me if he would not be in the discussion in 10 years time.

Not that Geelong really have many weaknesses, but I think if the Geelong team did have a weakness I would say its small forward stocks are not as good as other teams. You have some very good key forwards and medium sized forwards, but not really the small forwards, though in saying that despite his size Johnson sort of fills that role.

I am also not 100% sure about Scarlett, Taylor and Stewart all being in the same side. Yes, all three are brilliant players, but it does make Geelong's defence a bit too tall for my liking. Though in saying that Stewart can play small can't he?

As for Nick Davis, it is such a tough one because you are right, his overall output may not be there to qualify, but he was such a game changer at certain times, and I have a feeling with the rest of the forward line, Davis would massively benefit from almost being forgotten. If Franklin, Hall, Papley, O'Loughlin and perhaps Heeney are all there, I can easily imagine teams forgetting about Davis, and him doing really well as a result.

As far as small forwards I tend to categorise more on agility, mobility, creativity etc - excellent on ground balls and handy around goals. Rather than a strict height limiter. Basically forwards whose one woods aren't lead up mark/goal or contested mark/goal. Obviously some small forwards are great in these areas too, but they are elite without them.

For Geelong so far this century, Johnson and Chapman are the easy first nominations. By 2030 the next ones will quite clearly be Miers and Stengle. I mean they're probably already there (Miers especially), but a few more good years would mean it takes a fair bit to displace them.

Stengle is a great classic forward pocket goal sneak who applies pressure and mops up ground balls close to goal.

Miers has ended up as a creative high half forward, almost a pseudo attacking wingman nowadays. His goal/goal assist numbers have declined but he is essentially the orchestrater of the forward line by starting our attacks. He plays a lot like Mitch Duncan now, but his size and quirky kicking action stop people seeing the similarity.

I wouldn't say that's a weak collection of forward pocket/flankers. Once you round out our 21st century forward line (so far):

Miers, Cameron, Chapman
Johnson, Hawkins, Stengle
*With Ablett and Bartel rotating forward

It's pretty handy.

 

[glengowan]

Great work OP. A lot of knowledge. Hard to nitpick too much with the Crows side. Johncock would be my back pocket replacing Bassett. Maybe Douglas instead of Keays on the bench? Too much recency bias to replace Tippett with Thilthorpe?

Another interesting exercise is how many current day players are making this team by the end of their career? For the Crows, I think Thilthorpe, as already mentioned, is a near certainty to replace Tippett. There's a number who have the talent of those listed, if they can just do it for season upon season, and a premiership medal might get them over the line.

 

[RUNVS]

As far as small forwards I tend to categorise more on agility, mobility, creativity etc - excellent on ground balls and handy around goals. Rather than a strict height limiter. Basically forwards whose one woods aren't lead up mark/goal or contested mark/goal. Obviously some small forwards are great in these areas too, but they are elite without them.

For Geelong so far this century, Johnson and Chapman are the easy first nominations. By 2030 the next ones will quite clearly be Miers and Stengle. I mean they're probably already there (Miers especially), but a few more good years would mean it takes a fair bit to displace them.

Stengle is a great classic forward pocket goal sneak who applies pressure and mops up ground balls close to goal.

Miers has ended up as a creative high half forward, almost a pseudo attacking wingman nowadays. His goal/goal assist numbers have declined but he is essentially the orchestrater of the forward line by starting our attacks. He plays a lot like Mitch Duncan now, but his size and quirky kicking action stop people seeing the similarity.

I wouldn't say that's a weak collection of forward pocket/flankers. Once you round out our 21st century forward line (so far):

Miers, Cameron, Chapman
Johnson, Hawkins, Stengle
*With Ablett and Bartel rotating forward

It's pretty handy.

Definitely handy, and no offence to Mooney but I am really glad you did not include him as I think the balance works better with two key forwards instead of three.

I do think though that Geelong's real strength is its tall defenders and its midfield, though the forward line is very handy too, it isn't quite at the level of the midfield and defence. I think while there may not be better options than him right now, Stengle sort of stands out in that list of 6 in terms of the quality of the others.

Also randomly, a position I struggle with for the Swans is our half backs as we have actually had a lot of strength in that area in the 21st century with McVeigh, Kennelly, Shaw, Mattner, Dawson and now Blakey. All 6 I would happily have in the team, but only 3 at most can be included.

and while the OP was really good in general, Lloyd is getting no where near my team of the 21st century as he is too conservative. He was good at not making mistakes, but he didn't make those mistakes as he always went for the safest option, whereas the other 5 I listed, yes they did make more mistakes, but they did it because they had a more attacking mindset and setup attacking plays. Lloyd has never met an attacking play he didn't want to stop entirely by taking way too much time to move the ball, before always going for the option that was the safest.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Beams is nowhere near the Pies side.

Elliott straight in.

Would also have one of Maxwell, Treloar or B Johnson instead of Adams.

Yeah as good as the Pies generally are - and I’m not a magpie hater like many people - when I think of them and the overall ‘feel’ of what makes them a consistently competitive side, it’s a classy midfield, and then good, solid contributors on the other lines with, at any given time 1 maybe 2 elite players.

Ie. that 2010 premiership side. Although a lot of the players named in that forward line were legitimately top players - Ball, Beams etc - as forwards go they weren’t top tier. But they had Cloke who at the time was a real force, so they could structure around him, Dawes was a handy back up too

It’s bizarre to me to see this perception because I think my own of the teams we’ve had since 2000 has been that the defence has always been rock solid and our clear best line (aside from the Buckley meandering years of 2013-2017). Midfields have generally been reasonable with one or two elite players (Buckley, Swan, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, N Daicos) complemented by dependable foot soldiers, none of whom are exceptional by any stretch (Licuria, Burns, Johnson, O’Bree, Lockyer, Beams, Ball, Adams, Crisp, Mitchell, with Treloar and Thomas pushing between the two categories). I’ve never really considered our midfield a genuine strength.

Edit to add: well done OP. Great discussion point too.

 

[PhatBoy]

Beams is nowhere near the Pies side.

Elliott straight in.

Would also have one of Maxwell, Treloar or B Johnson instead of Adams.

It’s bizarre to me to see this perception because I think my own of the teams we’ve had since 2000 has been that the defence has always been rock solid and our clear best line (aside from the Buckley meandering years of 2013-2017). Midfields have generally been reasonable with one or two elite players (Buckley, Swan, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, N Daicos) complemented by dependable foot soldiers, none of whom are exceptional by any stretch (Licuria, Burns, Johnson, O’Bree, Lockyer, Beams, Ball, Adams, Crisp, Mitchell, with Treloar and Thomas pushing between the two categories). I’ve never really considered our midfield a genuine strength.

Edit to add: well done OP. Great discussion point too.

Fair point, I guess it’s a question of how often the gun midfielders actually got to play together. The 2010 team had Swan, Pendlebury, Thomas who at the time was a very good footballer, and Ball as well as Beams. That’s 5 really strong midfielders rotating between there and the half-forward line.

 

[RUNVS]

Random question to all, but of the players in your current 21st century team, which players do you think will still be there in 2100?

For Sydney, I think Franklin and Goodes are locks, Barry Hall is quite possible, as are Bolton, Kennedy, Heeney and this might seem odd to people but maybe Nick Smith.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Random question to all, but of the players in your current 21st century team, which players do you think will still be there in 2100?

For Sydney, I think Franklin and Goodes are locks, Barry Hall is quite possible, as are Bolton, Kennedy, Heeney and this might seem odd to people but maybe Nick Smith.

Franklin, Goodes and Heeney are the only three that I think you’d say are impossible to dislodge.

The argument against Hall is that there’s already one KPF in Franklin’s that’s inarguably ahead of him so there’s 75 years left for one or two more to edge him, as good as he was. The other component is it’s also arguable that if Goodes was named as a tall forward that’s another name already competing with Hall.

Both Goodes and Heeney were so flexible that it’s impossible to see that they wouldn’t make one of their two preferred positions. It’d be some feat for three other small/medium forwards, and a plethora of mid options to emerge in the next seventy years to keep Heeney out, and Goodes is even more versatile and has two Brownlows.