Tony Lockett was better than Wayne Carey or Ablett Snr

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't rate him. One of the greatest forwards in the history of the sport yes but he's not among the company you suggest
 
And to take your point further, I'd put Kouta's 2000 season as equal to any I've seen as far as influencing games and effect on the result, up there with Carey's 85 (or whatever it was) goal season
Two of the three players this thread is about certainly had better seasons individually....Look up what Plugger did in ‘91 & Ablett did in ‘93!
 
Last edited:
Two of the three players this thread is about certainly had better seasons individually....Look up what Plugger did in ‘91 & Ablett did in ‘93!

Nah. Kouta’ 2000 was something else. A rare level of influence. I don’t need to look them up. I saw everyone of these seasons, not as much of Plugger in 91’, but heaps of Ablett in 93’.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kouta's 2000 was brilliant but 27 disposals and 2 goals per game isn't the 'best'. 3 quarters of his best performances were against the teams who never made it to the finals.
Absolutely destroyed North Melbourne and Hawthorn but he was pretty average at the beginning of the season. He had a 6 week patch where he played at a level equal to anything we had seen previously. Didn't do it for long enough that year.

Shame he got injured as we would have seen a great performance by in the finals otherwise.
 
Kouta's 2000 was brilliant but 27 disposals and 2 goals per game isn't the 'best'. 3 quarters of his best performances were against the teams who never made it to the finals.
Absolutely destroyed North Melbourne and Hawthorn but he was pretty average at the beginning of the season. He had a 6 week patch where he played at a level equal to anything we had seen previously. Didn't do it for long enough that year.

Shame he got injured as we would have seen a great performance by in the finals otherwise.
Two of the three players this thread is about certainly had better seasons individually....Look up what Plugger did in ‘91 & Ablett did in ‘93!
Plugger's and Ablett's standout years were not as impressive, imo, as Kouta's 2000, from the perspective of actually turning games that were in the balance into wins. This is partly because full forwards struggle to turn games when their team's midfield is getting flogged, whereas Kouta could be put wherever he was needed to turn the game, and that year he did turn the game more often than not. That's why I put that season up there with Carey's 1998. Avg'ing 27 possessions and 2 goals is actually extraordinary, especially given that he also offered elite contested marking.
 
He shat himself. Though given your latent predeliction for Careys throbbing sexuality I can begin to understand your unwavering defense regarding all things Carey. Thank you for the insight, though discussions might be better served if you kept them to yourself and a box of Kleenex :thumbsu:
Not that it matters but Archer himself has said Carey would have belted shades of s**t out of him
 
How can you not comprehend that the game has come along in MASSIVE leaps and bounds since even the year 2000, with a much much bigger talent pool, better coaches, better facilities and game knowledge than ever before.

Those guys were great for their eras,but the modern players are the best the game has ever produced, without argument. If you're looking for the all time greats, look at the best players in the past 10 years, no amount of nostalgia can change that.
Hahaha. You just find new ways to post embarassing s**t aye.

Tom Hawkins > Carey/Lockett/Dunstall for sure 😂😂
 
Hahaha. You just find new ways to post embarassing s**t aye.

Tom Hawkins > Carey/Lockett/Dunstall for sure 😂😂

Hawkins is stronger, MUCH fitter and taller than Lockett.

Put him against amateur part-time defenders from the 80s with no defensive zones or 2 on 1s or pressure on the kicker and he'd absolutely slaughter them. The truth is hard to swallow for a lot of people, things get better over time unfortunately.
 
All three are legends and we are splitting hairs when having to decide the best. Good question.
I’ll tip my hat to Plugger, Ablett Snr. and Carey, in no particular order.
 
Hawkins is stronger, MUCH fitter and taller than Lockett.

Put him against amateur part-time defenders from the 80s with no defensive zones or 2 on 1s or pressure on the kicker and he'd absolutely slaughter them. The truth is hard to swallow for a lot of people, things get better over time unfortunately.
Hawkins would have melted in the 80s.
You could have all the zones you want and Lockett will just bust through them.
 
Hawkins is stronger, MUCH fitter and taller than Lockett.

Put him against amateur part-time defenders from the 80s with no defensive zones or 2 on 1s or pressure on the kicker and he'd absolutely slaughter them. The truth is hard to swallow for a lot of people, things get better over time unfortunately.
Of course, your dumb hypothetical only works one way because you can't admit that if the others trained and had nutrition etc they might be even better.

Embarassing
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Of course, your dumb hypothetical only works one way because you can't admit that if the others trained and had nutrition etc they might be even better.

Embarassing

I can admit they could be better you knuckle-dragger, but they aren't, that's the key. You're basically admitting i'm right with this post, such a dumb argument.

Hawkins would have melted in the 80s.
You could have all the zones you want and Lockett will just bust through them.

Yes... I'm sure Hawkins would of struggled against unfit part-time amateur defenders who had no idea how to zone or pressure forwards.
I'm sure he would of struggled with delivery coming onto his chest under no pressure
I'm sure he would of struggled with no double teaming on him, and no one blocking his space to lead into
I'm sure he would of struggled with the team strategy to kick it to him 90% of the time 1 out.


Lockett would bust through the zones "just because he would" no doubt... brilliant logic as always. How do you think Lockett would go against defenders far far stronger taller fitter and smarter? What about 2 of them on him now? What about a 3rd one standing in front so he can't lead? What about most balls coming to him as bombed chaos balls due to pressure? Foolish argument.

You have absolutely no clue how hard it is for a modern forward compared to how EASY forwards in the past had it. The game was incredibly basic and amateur back then.
 
I can admit they could be better you knuckle-dragger, but they aren't, that's the key. You're basically admitting i'm right with this post, such a dumb argument.



Yes... I'm sure Hawkins would of struggled against unfit part-time amateur defenders who had no idea how to zone or pressure forwards.
I'm sure he would of struggled with delivery coming onto his chest under no pressure
I'm sure he would of struggled with no double teaming on him, and no one blocking his space to lead into
I'm sure he would of struggled with the team strategy to kick it to him 90% of the time 1 out.


Lockett would bust through the zones "just because he would" no doubt... brilliant logic as always. How do you think Lockett would go against defenders far far stronger taller fitter and smarter? What about 2 of them on him now? What about a 3rd one standing in front so he can't lead? What about most balls coming to him as bombed chaos balls due to pressure? Foolish argument.

You have absolutely no clue how hard it is for a modern forward compared to how EASY forwards in the past had it.

Genuinely one of the worst opinions on Bigfooty.
Well done matey I had a good laugh.

It takes a certain level of stupid to say the players from the past couldn't have benefited from all the modern day sports science and nutrition aswell as all the favourable rule changes for forwards

Hawkins won't even be remembered in the same breath as blokes like Fevola, Richo and Neitz let alone Plugger and Dunstall.
 
Genuinely one of the worst opinions on Bigfooty.
Well done matey I had a good laugh.

It takes a certain level of stupid to say the players from the past couldn't have benefited from all the modern day sports science and nutrition aswell as all the favourable rule changes for forwards

Hawkins won't even be remembered in the same breath as blokes like Fevola, Richo and Neitz let alone Plugger and Dunstall.

It takes a certain level of stupid to once again accuse me of saying something I never did, which you've done now twice in the past 10 minutes, bravo.
 
Yes... I'm sure Hawkins would of struggled against unfit part-time amateur defenders who had no idea how to zone or pressure forwards.
I'm sure he would of struggled with delivery coming onto his chest under no pressure
I'm sure he would of struggled with no double teaming on him, and no one blocking his space to lead into
I'm sure he would of struggled with the team strategy to kick it to him 90% of the time 1 out.
That’s a melt.

EC00D2A9-2CC2-46C3-AF86-C613466F9544.gif
 
I'm reading it how I imagine you talk which trust me, is very slow.
To be fair he's not saying that if Hawkins grew up alongside of Lockett back in the day he'd be better than him, or that if Lockett and Dunstall grew up with the current generation that they'd have the same fitness levels they did in the 80s/90s. He's saying that if you put those players in time machines, prime Lockett would struggle if he played today (he'd gas out in the first 15 minutes) and Hawkins would be a better player back then than he is now.

It's obviously harder for forwards now - scores are much, much lower and defensive pressure all around the ground is massively higher. Lockett couldn't just bust through a modern zone. He'd face the same issues all forwards do now. Hawkins would have a field day in the 80s being able to lead into space.

In absolute terms, the standards are much higher now, although of course the most genetically gifted players from the 80s would still be just as genetically gifted if they grew up in a professional era, but it's pretty obvious that no forward, no matter how genetically gifted, can dominate today like they did in the 80s/90s.
 
To be fair he's not saying that if Hawkins grew up alongside of Lockett back in the day he'd be better than him, or that if Lockett and Dunstall grew up with the current generation that they'd have the same fitness levels they did in the 80s/90s. He's saying that if you put those players in time machines, prime Lockett would struggle if he played today (he'd gas out in the first 15 minutes) and Hawkins would be a better player back then than he is now.

It's obviously harder for forwards now - scores are much, much lower and defensive pressure all around the ground is massively higher. Lockett couldn't just bust through a modern zone. He'd face the same issues all forwards do now. Hawkins would have a field day in the 80s being able to lead into space.

In absolute terms, the standards are much higher now, although of course the most genetically gifted players from the 80s would still be just as genetically gifted if they grew up in a professional era, but it's pretty obvious that no forward, no matter how genetically gifted, can dominate today like they did in the 80s/90s.
No he said the all time greats have all come from the last 10 years. That's stupid.
 
Lockett would the best forward in the game today.
Same size as Darling but the most accurate kick by a long distance. The pressure rarely fazed him.
He would also get the opportunity to perform on pristine surfaces and not have to deal with the scragging in which defenders got away with.

He wouldn't average the goals he did back in the day but he would certainly kick a hell of lot more goals per season than what Franklin or Riewoldt manage.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top