Stephen Silvagni v Alex Rance

[juss]

A strawman epilogue to a reasonable post.

What is required of players in today's game is different for sure, that goes both ways. The skillsets don't mean much. As a player, you have a skillset regardless of what the game demands of you. You don't think Paul Roos had the skillset to succeed in the modern game, simply because the era he played in demanded something different? Utter bollocks! We're talking about players here, not concepts and ideas.

Reading some of the descriptions in this thread, I had to double check it wasn't a Mick Martyn vs Alex Rance thread.

Tell you what, you show me some footage of Rance doing something SOS couldn't do and I'll go get you some footage showing SOS doing just that. Then maybe we can try that in reverse and I'll show you a few of SOS' skills that Rance never displayed, and you can try to prove me wrong with the footage.

There is basically a decade worth of footage of them playing very different styles. I don't need to see your 5 minute YouTube clip of SOS taking an intercept mark or leaving his man as some argument that he also defended the entire back 50 like Rance. Just as I wont show you a spoil video from Rance as evidence he was an elite one on one player.

I'm not arguing on one being better than the other, I'm challenging this view that people don't ever want to change, "Rance never played one on one" "Rance never has an opponent" "Rance only plays loose" blah blah blah therefore SOS is better.

Rance has been elite one on one contests and also in stopping opposition attacks via zoning, intercepting and leaving his man. The latter skills are something that are more evident these days and more required than SOS days where they really emphasized the 1 on 1 battles all game and it was man vs man.

SOS was a champion, could play one on one and could play forward when needed. That was his role.

Rance has been every bit as elite at his role, that is what the modern game required of him and what his coaches specifically asked him to do. It works both ways, they were both asked to do different things and excelled at them beyond other defenders of the same era.

We've seen SOS do more one on one, we've seen Rance do more for team defence. The people stuck in their ways are the ones that refuse to acknowledge these differences in the game requirements, and miss the influence and ability of the individuals at executing their required roles.

 

[Monkey King]

There is basically a decade worth of footage of them playing very different styles. I don't need to see your 5 minute YouTube clip of SOS taking an intercept mark or leaving his man as some argument that he also defended the entire back 50 like Rance. Just as I wont show you a spoil video from Rance as evidence he was an elite one on one player.

I'm not arguing on one being better than the other, I'm challenging this view that people don't ever want to change, "Rance never played one on one" "Rance never has an opponent" "Rance only plays loose" blah blah blah therefore SOS is better.

I have no doubt you don't want to take up the challenge. There were things Silvagni could do that Rance simply couldn't. I mean, how much of Silvagni's career did you see, really? You talk as though he had one role and one style his whole career, which just isn't the case. Pre-ACL he played a much different style and was as much up the ground as he was the last line of defence. The many roles that Silvagni succeeded at over his career demanded a much broader skillset than Rance's "defend the entire back 50".

In Rance's retirement thread I posted "Langford, SOS, Rance, Scarlett … That's pretty good company to end your career among and that's where he belongs I reckon." I think Rance has been the premier defender of his generation.

My issue here is with the idea that because football was played differently in Silvagni's day, that somehow means he didn't have the skills to play Rance's role. I mean reading the play and decision making? Really? This was SOS' bread and butter. It's like someone claiming they're more intelligent than Einstein because things were done differently back in his day … dumbass didn't even have a smartphone.

 

[juss]

I have no doubt you don't want to take up the challenge. There were things Silvagni could do that Rance simply couldn't. I mean, how much of Silvagni's career did you see, really? You talk as though he had one role and one style his whole career, which just isn't the case. Pre-ACL he played a much different style and was as much up the ground as he was the last line of defence. The many roles that Silvagni succeeded at over his career demanded a much broader skillset than Rance's "defend the entire back 50".

In Rance's retirement thread I posted "Langford, SOS, Rance, Scarlett … That's pretty good company to end your career among and that's where he belongs I reckon." I think Rance has been the premier defender of his generation.

My issue here is with the idea that because football was played differently in Silvagni's day, that somehow means he didn't have the skills to play Rance's role. I mean reading the play and decision making? Really? This was SOS' bread and butter. It's like someone claiming they're more intelligent than Einstein because things were done differently back in his day … dumbass didn't even have a smartphone.

I'm not saying he didn't have the skills, I'm saying the body of evidence over their careers shows they both had a tendency to play the styles of the game at the time at an elite level. I've never questioned SOS' ability. I've never questioned Rances. I've seen more than enough of SOS to know how great he was. I can say the same for Rance becausw I reckon I have seen more of Rance than you have of SOS too. He started his career in 1985, the same availability of games wasnt available then. I watched Rance in an era where every game has been televised and there are endless replay opportunities. I'd wager you didn't fly around the country or have every weekend free to watch live games and watch all 312 Silvagni games and replays on a non existent platform.

That doesn't matter though, there seems to be this assumption that SOS could play modern football at the same elite level, but Rance somehow couldn't go back and do the same. There seems to be the assumption that defending 1 on 1 is more valuable than modern day full backs despite the games evolution. Finally, there seems to be this notion that Rance is s**t 1 on 1 on a man, despite the stats showing otherwise and the vision test showing how valuable he is in that role, ignoring the added value he gives by playing the modern style of roaming defence.

Silvagni was better one on one and in a variety of roles, he was a natural footballer. Rance was better at playing team defence and more impact across multiple players, and was a natural athlete. They are different exposed skillsets as their relative strengths, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. That's not to say neither could perform to the others strengths, it's just their careers were in eras that required differing styles.

 

[Ambrosia]

I would say Rance is nothing like the old style full backs. Where they had one job which was defending 1 on 1 against the big full forward, Rance plays as a goal saver against a team. He will leave his man, he will attack the ball, he will stay on the goal line, he will sit and guard space in a zone so the opposition don't want to kick long, he will intercept and then he also has the best 1 on 1 record of recent defenders. He will effectively do what he needs to do to stop the opposition team scoring goals, it's as simple as that. Say what you will about other old school defenders being better 1 on 1, you are probably right. I can assure you they don't limit total opposition team goals more than Rance, and in a team sport these days thats more important. In fairness, the game back then wasn't played like that, but coaching, tactics and players have evolved since then.

A lot of that is role though not talent. Scarlet, Fletcher, Gibson and Grimes this year for Richmond are excellent examples of blokes being switched to loose/zone defender role and being excellent.

 

[Monkey King]

I'm not saying he didn't have the skills, I'm saying the body of evidence over their careers shows they both had a tendency to play the styles of the game at the time at an elite level … He started his career in 1985, the same availability of games wasnt available then ...

That doesn't matter though, there seems to be this assumption that SOS could play modern football at the same elite level, but Rance somehow couldn't go back and do the same. There seems to be the assumption that defending 1 on 1 is more valuable than modern day full backs despite the games evolution.

Actually, just like today, there was a game played every week. In 1985 Carlton played more games in Melbourne than in 2019. The only difficulty I had with availability back then was with games at the Western Oval, Kardinia Park or Windy Hill; but of most of Carlton's games were played at PP, Waverley or the MCG. In the 90's, Carlton also frequently got the replay when playing in Melbourne and almost always had interstate games broadcast. The only real difference is that digital media allows for repeat on-demand viewing, but I used to set the VCR to record the replays and do the same (if we won haha) … so.

Most believe that playing loose requires less ability than locking down a super talented FF/CHF. It's not all assumption either, as many have played the game at some level or another. I certainly found it easier when allowed to roam HB rather than when the opposition had a dangerous forward that needed looking after.

Grimes stepped into a similar role along his way to AA, while the Tigers barely missed a beat on their way to another flag, yet apparently Silvagni would have trouble playing this role? (I know you didn't say that, but the troll bloke did). If SOS missed 95' Carlton would have had some trouble, as probably no other player in the league at that stage could have kept Carey, Ablett and White to just one goal across 3 games - because it's a more difficult task requiring rarer talent.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Most believe that playing loose requires less ability than locking down a super talented FF/CHF. It's not all assumption either, as many have played the game at some level or another. I certainly found it easier when allowed to roam HB rather than when the opposition had a dangerous forward that needed looking after.

Grimes stepped into a similar role along his way to AA

Neither Rance nor Grimes play(ed) loose. Rance and Grimes both zone off an opponent at different times, and so take a lot of intercept possessions, but they are almost always matched up to an opponent. The fact that you compare their roles to your own days playing as a roaming half back is laughable, and shows your ignorance regarding how modern football is played. You're the troll mate.

 

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

Don't remember Scarlo or SOS diving or playing for frees

 

[Monkey King]

Neither Rance nor Grimes play(ed) loose. Rance and Grimes both zone off an opponent at different times …

Zoning off an opponent is playing loose.

Anyone who's played a bit in defence will tell you the same thing; dominating a talented forward one-on-one requires more ability than zoning off reading the incoming ball. It's why Grimes stepped in and the Tigers didn't miss a beat. Very few (if any) players in the league could have stepped into Carlton's 95' outfit and held Carey, Ablett and White to just a single goal across 3 finals. It's a rarer talent.

Cracks me up that you suggest Silvagni couldn't do what Grimes does and yet call others ignorant. You're as clueless as they come.

 

[Marcel Proust]

I have no doubt you don't want to take up the challenge. There were things Silvagni could do that Rance simply couldn't. I mean, how much of Silvagni's career did you see, really? You talk as though he had one role and one style his whole career, which just isn't the case. Pre-ACL he played a much different style and was as much up the ground as he was the last line of defence. The many roles that Silvagni succeeded at over his career demanded a much broader skillset than Rance's "defend the entire back 50".

In Rance's retirement thread I posted "Langford, SOS, Rance, Scarlett … That's pretty good company to end your career among and that's where he belongs I reckon." I think Rance has been the premier defender of his generation.

My issue here is with the idea that because football was played differently in Silvagni's day, that somehow means he didn't have the skills to play Rance's role. I mean reading the play and decision making? Really? This was SOS' bread and butter. It's like someone claiming they're more intelligent than Einstein because things were done differently back in his day … dumbass didn't even have a smartphone.

Rance would beat his man. often an a grade forward, and come to another contest and win the ball.

and this was deemed loose.

grimes did well cause grime is a complete jet. doesn't take polish off rance, imo

 

[RichLeMonde]

Zoning off an opponent is playing loose.

No. It's not. Zones require players to defend areas of the ground rather than the same opponent. Usually, they stick to the same opponent when that opponent stays in the same area of the ground. Zoning off is when their player leaves the area, and the defender switches to cover another player, or another contest. Defending in this fashion requires extreme accountability and continual choices regarding when to leave the player you're currently picking up. Playing loose means you have no direct opponent and minimal defensive responsibility. You just try and float around and pick up kicks and intercept marks. Both Rance and Grimes occasionally played this role, as the extra number, but far, far more commonly had a direct opponent most of the time, from whom they would zone off.
Your stream of insults would be more hurtful if you had some idea about modern footy.

 

[Monkey King]

No. It's not. Zones require players to defend areas of the ground rather than the same opponent.

You think zones are some kind of "modern" enigma? That's cute! Playing a zone is playing loose off your opponent. You can't play a zone playing tight. This is not being a "loose man in defence", which you've seem to convinced yourself is what it means, but you're just wrong, and that's okay.

It's fantastic to see you've reduced your argument to semantics though. That in itself tells the tale of how vacuous your argument really is.