Discussion "The top 12 Carlton players of all time" - reflecting the problem with our take on football history

[royals1922]

I found an interesting article on Trove on page 20 of the weekly times of 7 July 1917 where the greatest footballers at that time were discussed.

The article names some of the players of the preceding 50 and is a contemporary article.

Not surprisingly few of the names are known by most today.

 

[Mero]

Thurgood should have been higher at Essendon. He was the best player on the comp virtually every year he played. The only player close to him was Coulthard of Carlton

 

[royals1922]

Thurgood should have been higher at Essendon. He was the best player on the comp virtually every year he played. The only player close to him was Coulthard of Carlton

Mero, if you haven't read that article I quoted in post 26, I'd recommend it. It's the equivalent of us today opining about the best players in our last 50 years and is contemporary to the times.

 

[topgossip]

Or best 12 players in living memory because ultimately that's what these lists are.

An example - Collingwood won a slew of premierships early to mid last century with Jock McHale- How many players from that era would make team of the century.

probably not the best example. Collingwoods team of the century announced in 1997 had 9 players from the 1930's in the team

 

[JuddsABlue]

Are we measuring individual skill or contribution to the team vs the crop of players they were put up against?

a case can be made that the top 12 carlton players of all time played in the last decade if we are basing it on skill, but I would assume we are basing it on their influence against the competition

in that case its quite staggering that Vallance didnt make it

 

[royals1922]

probably not the best example. Collingwoods team of the century announced in 1997 had 9 players from the 1930's in the team

That impresses me a lot but then Collingwood have to a large degree protected their past.

 

[SpiritOfCarlton]

While I totally agree that the pre war players are vastly under-represented on the official list I will say this.

Being devil's advocate.

There was only one pre war player in the top 22 of the Carlton team of the century.

In the recent list of top 150 players, 50 of those players were pre war.

That is a great improvement.

With regards to the top 12. Well I agree very biased towards recent history.

Carlton does have a 'problem' though compared to other clubs.

We basically have two eras of success where 8 premierships were gained in each.

The period 1968-1995.

The period 1906-1947.

The most recent period was one of very concentrated periods of success with multiple champion players in each, 1968-72, 1979-82 the most obvious.

The older period had a dominant period very early in the records 1906-1914 where 5 premierships were won. This sadly is so long ago the records themselves are ok but not great. We know certain players were very good but we rely very much on the flowery pronouncements of fellows such as old boy and others.

Then we had a huge drought, (with some fine players mind you) then the golden period of 1938-45 with 3 flags.

If we had won our three in a row at a similar time to when Collingwood had their stellar run when the memory is clearer and the descriptions and records more detailed and diverse then I think you would see a lot more pre war representatives on our 'official' lists.

I'm not trying to make excuses here, I agree there should be a lot more pre war players honoured at the club, just trying to give a little perspective about how the vagaries of history and when things happen can have an effect on perceptions.

 

[royals1922]

While I totally agree that the pre war players are vastly under-represented on the official list I will say this.

Being devil's advocate.

There was only one pre war player in the top 22 of the Carlton team of the century.

In the recent list of top 150 players, 50 of those players were pre war.

That is a great improvement.

With regards to the top 12. Well I agree very biased towards recent history.

Carlton does have a 'problem' though compared to other clubs.

We basically have two eras of success where 8 premierships were gained in each.

The period 1968-1995.

The period 1906-1947.

The most recent period was one of very concentrated periods of success with multiple champion players in each, 1968-72, 1979-82 the most obvious.

The older period had a dominant period very early in the records 1906-1914 where 5 premierships were won. This sadly is so long ago the records themselves are ok but not great. We know certain players were very good but we rely very much on the flowery pronouncements of fellows such as old boy and others.

Then we had a huge drought, (with some fine players mind you) then the golden period of 1938-45 with 3 flags.

If we had won our three in a row at a similar time to when Collingwood had their stellar run when the memory is clearer and the descriptions and records more detailed and diverse then I think you would see a lot more pre war representatives on our 'official' lists.

I'm not trying to make excuses here, I agree there should be a lot more pre war players honoured at the club, just trying to give a little perspective about how the vagaries of history and when things happen can have an effect on perceptions.

I accept that but how did McGregor and Soapy miss out.

 

[SpiritOfCarlton]

I accept that but how did McGregor and Soapy miss out.

They should not have. They are the bare minimum.

There should have been even more.

However, my post was a general post trying to explain in general terms why pre war Carlton players are under represented.

 

[SJ]

I accept that but how did McGregor and Soapy miss out.

Because you can't put a colour photo of them on the back page of the Herald Sun to create exposure.