Opinion Select an All Australian team of the past 50 years

[HairyO]

The grounds and conditions are vastly better, but that's no substitute for being one-out vs a defender. And I certainly do not buy the argument that guys like Cameron, Curnow, Thilthorpe etc are less skilled than players who comfortably outscored them like Beasley, Blethyn and Donohue... especially when they play full-time.

Just watch a game from the 1980s - the sheer amount of space and time that forwards have to work with is an absolute dream. Now they need to do it in a phone box.

Players dont trust themselves to kick drop punts, and you can name on your fingers players who can kick well with both feet.

The skills are absolutely way behind where they have been in the past.

 

[iameviljez]

Players dont trust themselves to kick drop punts, and you can name on your fingers players who can kick well with both feet.

The skills are absolutely way behind where they have been in the past.

Actually, conversion rates for shots at goal are better than they were in the 1970s, and have been roughly static since the 1980s - pretty good considering that we now have far fewer shots from dead in front, and players run 12km to 16km per game.

Most players in the 1980s weren't good with both feet, and just like today, there are plenty who were an absolute lottery from 30m out dead in front.

 

[Trav 20]

Well yes given hawkins second half of his career was mostly just about leads and he did pretty well in the modern game.

Plus lockett wasnt only a good lead like dunstall. In fact i dont think lockett was a great lead. He was a sensational pack and body on body mark. He also played on wind swept mud bogs in a crappy side at thr saints. Wasnt a lot of open park back then. At the swans he was at a better side but on a tiny ground that lacked space and was awful for fowards.

Lockett was a great lead. And incredibly quick over the first 10-15 metres.

 

[iameviljez]

Lockett was a great lead. And incredibly quick over the first 10-15 metres.

And good luck getting an arm around that massive frame to spoil him.

 

[iameviljez]

Hawkins was a great player but was he really that much better than a Riewoldt or Kennedy?
Those were great players too but I wouldn't classify them as generational.

In the same way that it's very difficult to compare Brownlow votes, games played, or disposal counts across the decades due to differences in the way that the game is played, it's also extremely hard to compare goalkickers across the decades. Ergo, it's a lot easier to pick the top few in their position in a generation and guess at how that might compare with those who played in an easier/harder time.

So, I'd say that Hawkins and JK are generational, in the context of their decade, at least - in the same way that Hudson, McKenna and Wade were for their generation.

 

[iameviljez]

Wade & McKenna were superstars and goal kicking machines but were they really classified as John Coleman types?

Personally, generational should be reserved for players who well and truly stood out amongst their peers. Hawkins was rarely that player. Likewise Kennedy or Riewoldt.
I'd have them all below a player like Matthew Pavlich for example.

I agree with your general point. Franklin and Nick Riewoldt are the two absolute standout key forwards of the 2000s, with about six others (Brown, Tredrea, Hawkins, Kennedy, etc) that you could argue about below that... same way that Hudson and McKenna were head and shoulders above their contemporaries, similar for Coleman.

 

[Rotayjay]

I think this is a flawed concept because (unlike a State of Origin team or All-Australian team) there isn't even a theoretical possibility of the team playing a game, since they were decades apart. It's the same as trying to work out whether this premiership team would have beaten that premiership team - different eras and different fitness levels.

I think this is different to picking lists of all-time greats, because you can more confidently say this player stood above his peers at the time.

 

[iameviljez]

I think this is a flawed concept because (unlike a State of Origin team or All-Australian team) there isn't even a theoretical possibility of the team playing a game, since they were decades apart. It's the same as trying to work out whether this premiership team would have beaten that premiership team - different eras and different fitness levels.

I think this is different to picking lists of all-time greats, because you can more confidently say this player stood above his peers at the time.

Of course it's a flawed concept, but it's always a fun enough discussion piece on a Thursday.

I think it does highlight how there were a lot of positions 50 years ago that had One Job - i.e. six blokes whose job was Kick Goals, six blokes whose job was Stop Your Man, one bloke whose job was Tap Ball, five blokes whose job was Get Ball More Than Your Man. That's a long way in the past now.

 

[Seeds]

Yeah, Hawkins played a lot like the older full forwards did - and managed to kick around 50 to 60 goals in a home and away season. I have no doubt that if Hawkins had played 30 years ago, he would have been absolutely unstoppable.

Hawkins wouldnt of been any better because he couldnt jump and couldnt take pack marks post 2012.

If he never get injured then it would of been a very different story. But then he would of been a big goal kicker in either era.