Sydney's best player heading into 2007

Who could Sydney least afford to lose?

  • Barry Hall

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Adam Goodes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

X_box_X

King of September
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Posts
19,427
Likes
4,646
Location
DogLands
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
Thread starter #1
Two genuine superstars of the game. Both have claims for being better than the other, but who do you class as the better player?

Basically, who could Sydney least afford to be without?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
#2
Hard one.

Sydney are pretty much even on the midfield and could cover Goodes if he's not there. I don't think I can say the same for Hall though. Given both their form from last year, I reckon Hall atm is better. Especially if he milks the new rule like all the other FFs will.
 

Coin_Toss

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Posts
8,371
Likes
9
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
#5
Hall is the most valuable player in the competition, without him in the side, Sydney will lose more than a goal kicking option they will lose his leadership and efficiency when getting the job done.

Goodes is terrific, but Hall rises to the occasion more reguarly.
 

Bloods

Club Legend
Joined
May 6, 2003
Posts
1,755
Likes
323
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Bloods
#6
Hall is the most valuable player in the competition, without him in the side, Sydney will lose more than a goal kicking option they will lose his leadership and efficiency when getting the job done.

Goodes is terrific, but Hall rises to the occasion more reguarly.
That's spot on.
 

liz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Posts
5,361
Likes
1,719
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
#11
Definately Hall. Sydney would lose structure, goals, and leadership without him. Goodes can be covered. He is more icing on the cake than a required ingredient.

Goodes is more than icing on the cake. That implies that the Swans could cope easily without him, which is a bit of a stretch. Clearly they would not win so many games if he weren't around - or was playing injured, as in 2004.

That said, agree with your sentiment - and that of others - that Hall is structurally more important.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Top Bottom