Top 10 Rookies

[Leather Poisoning]

The guy was a good underrated footballer.
Became captain.
Widespread trolling on bf.
Focus on him.
As the season started he showed great leadership qualities and was extremely good in defence.
BF continue their constant trolling.
Result: Maxwell rewarded for a good season, BF still clueless.

I can acknowledge a good season when I see it, and yes, Maxwell had one, by his standards. The guy plays risk-free footy when he has the ball (chip chip slow the play type possessions) and is the spare man in defence. Very one-sided in his play - Malthouse has done well to use him where his skills are - opponent free and backing into packs.

AA defenders should be able to hurt sides going both ways. Bock, Scarlett, Fisher, Lake these guys all do it brililantly.

So while Maxwell had his best season - it's still a ridiculous decision to have annointed him All Australian. This top ten rookies list adds to the comedy, just not in the same league as most of the exceptions.

 

[Wally Carter]

also wasnt mitchell a rookie? id rate him highly as well.

Pick 36 in the 2001 draft.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

223 games and 417 more goals than you, champ.

Are you trying to be a tool?

This is supposed to be a list of the best ex-rookie listed players in the AFL. They've included a guy that has been DELISTED. Technically, he's not even an AFL player anymore - and I hardly think that's the best rookie-listed players of all time?

Don't get all touchy because he played (see, past tense) for the side you support.

 

[collingwill]

Pick 36 in the 2001 draft.

Keep up the good work.

oops, shown up by a 10 yr old, but then again that funny looking thing i added ? is called a question mark, schools out for today.

 

[loki04]

Wouldnt have Maxwell in that high but great year in 2009

Lockyer has been Pies best pick up via the rookie draft on my reckoning and Harry O'Brien may take that mantle by career end.

I think thats the point up till 2009 Maxwell place in our 22 was debatable, obviously he had a great 2009 after a shaky start.

So as a career does he deserve it over those mentioned in this thread I wouldn't think so unless he continues his form for the next 5 years.

 

[BarneyBent]

I'm sorry but Cox > Kirk.

Is this so obvious that everyone is assuming it was just a typo?

Kirk is a wonderful player but Cox has him covered.

On raw on-field playing output, I tend to agree. The question is, how much leadership and off-field club work and influence is taken into account? Because I can tell you right now, Cox will go down as a fantastic player for the WCE, a "Great", even, but Kirk will go down as a legend for the Swans.

Kirk is widely considered to be one of if not the best leaders in the competition by his playing peers. His leadership on the field should not be underestimated. On top of that, he has been absolutely instrumental in building a very real culture at the Swans, so much so that some Swans fans worry the club is becoming cultish. Whether you think that's a good thing or not, the power and influence of it is undeniable. It has seen many players get more out of themselves than could have been imagined, including Kirk himself. It has also seen talented players like Davis and Hall leave before their time (not that they were blameless, they were given chances, but perhaps not as many as they would have had at another club). And out of this, the Swans have claimed a Premiership, almost two, bringing 72 years of Premiershipless history crashing down. How much of that was down to Kirk and the "Bloods" culture is highly debatable, but whichever way you look at it, he has been largely responsible for a huge cultural shift in a club which has since seen great success, the first in a very long time.

That is why, in this case, Kirk has been put ahead of Cox. Kirk's achievements will be remembered longer than Cox's. Cox is the better footy player, certainly, but Kirk has achieved more in footy.

 

[Wally Carter]

That is why, in this case, Kirk has been put ahead of Cox. Kirk's achievements will be remembered longer than Cox's. Cox is the better footy player, certainly, but Kirk has achieved more in footy.

Are you kidding?

Kirk is just another tagger whereas Cox has redefined the role of ruckmen.

 

[Dylz48]

I'm not the only one that has challenged Maxwells place on that list champ.

Look at this:



This bloke actually has the audacity to claim that Maxwell has had a better career than McDonald.

Most of you Collingwood types are as silly as a hat full of arseholes.

No I don't I'm saying why don't you actually tell us why you think mcdonald is a better player don't just throw out stats which can often be misleading. He is sure as hell has had a better career the firrito

Your just a typical North supporter who has a chip on his shoulder about being the poorer club with vertical stripes

 

[collingwill]

No I don't I'm saying why don't you actually tell us why you think mcdonald is a better player don't just throw out stats which can often be misleading. He is sure as hell has had a better career the firrito

Your just a typical North supporter who has a chip on his shoulder about being the poorer club with vertical stripes

exactly the same reason why he wont tell me how north are a harder footy team than collingwood.

 

[BarneyBent]

Are you kidding?

Kirk is just another tagger whereas Cox has redefined the role of ruckmen.

Cox didn't redefine the role of the ruckman. Stynes was doing what Cox has been doing years ago. Don't get me wrong, he reinforced the importance of versatile, attacking ruckman, but he didn't invent it.

Kirk just another tagger? Please. Kirk has regularly led our clearances, and has been as good, if not better, at winning the ball compared to stopping others. Name another genuine tagger that has been able to consistently average 20+ possessions per game, is the number one clearance winner, and captain?

As I said, Cox has been the better player. But Kirk's influence on the Sydney Swans has been greater than Kelly's, greater than Goodes', greater even than Lockett's. Kirk's footballing achievements on the field are dwarfed by his achievements off it.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Cox is a better footballer than Brett Kirk.

I realise you have a very high opinion of how important he is to your club but that's a bit like me claiming that John Worsfold would rate higher than Jim Stynes in the 1990s.

The list was rating how good a footballer these players were, not how important they are to their club. If that was the case, wouldn't we all have to pretend James McDonald belongs at the top of the list to appease some Melbourne supporters who think he's been a top bloke for the Dees?

 

[Wally Carter]

Cox didn't redefine the role of the ruckman. Stynes was doing what Cox has been doing years ago. Don't get me wrong, he reinforced the importance of versatile, attacking ruckman, but he didn't invent it.

Cox would run Stynes in to the ground.

Kirk just another tagger? Please. Kirk has regularly led our clearances, and has been as good, if not better, at winning the ball compared to stopping others. Name another genuine tagger that has been able to consistently average 20+ possessions per game, is the number one clearance winner, and captain?

1) The fact that he is captain is irrelevant.

2) Kirk has been lucky enough to be at a club where the major tactical plan revolved around congesting the play and creating stoppages. The fact that he has played half his career on the SCG has certainly been no hindrance either. When considering this it is no wonder that he has had a high clearance count and can stick to players.

3) Brady Rawlings has averaged 20+ possessions and been an elite class stopper for the last 4 years without the added benefit of playing in a side or on a home ground that advantaged his style of play. Brady has had to play most of his career on the fastest ground in the competition along with a relatively weak midfield. I am sure there are others.

As I said, Cox has been the better player.

Without doubt.

But Kirk's influence on the Sydney Swans has been greater than Kelly's, greater than Goodes', greater even than Lockett's. Kirk's footballing achievements on the field are dwarfed by his achievements off it.

I have no idea how you arrived at that notion.

 

[CAS79]

Are you kidding?

Kirk is just another tagger whereas Cox has redefined the role of ruckmen.

I can handle rating Cox ahead of Kirk I really can

But for your rubbish in labeling Kirk just another tagger is testament to how rarely you have in fact seen him paly.

Kirk began as a tagger but rapidly became a tagger who was used to win the ball from his top grade opponent - not a stopper but to turn the ball into a positive a role he was by far and away thje best out for a long period of time.

He would win the contested football at the bounces, throw in's, scrimmages anywhere his man took him and he would get the ball out to a swans player by hook/nook or however he could and do it through packs and physical football again and again the Swans would driver forward from his increadable work rate.

When you use the term tagger with Kirk your talking about matching him up with the best so he would win the opponents ball not just stop him.

just another tagger line is pure crap.

Cox may be better overall I but your knowledge of Brett Kirk as a footballer does not exist at all.

 

[Headless]

Are you trying to be a tool?

This is supposed to be a list of the best ex-rookie listed players in the AFL. They've included a guy that has been DELISTED. Technically, he's not even an AFL player anymore - and I hardly think that's the best rookie-listed players of all time?

Don't get all touchy because he played (see, past tense) for the side you support.

"The top 10 rookies of all time."

 

[collingwill]

Cox would run Stynes in to the ground.



1) The fact that he is captain is irrelevant.

2) Kirk has been lucky enough to be at a club where the major tactical plan revolved around congesting the play and creating stoppages. The fact that he has played half his career on the SCG has certainly been no hindrance either. When considering this it is no wonder that he has had a high clearance count and can stick to players.

3) Brady Rawlings has averaged 20+ possessions and been an elite class stopper for the last 4 years without the added benefit of playing in a side or on a home ground that advantaged his style of play. Brady has had to play most of his career on the fastest ground in the competition along with a relatively weak midfield. I am sure there are others.



Without doubt.



I have no idea how you arrived at that notion.

kirk was one of the best inside mids in the competion this decade, i do agree with you that cox is better though.

 

[Hollow Knight]

[Brisbane Bias]

I rate Maxwell higher than the average pundit seems to, but give me Josh Drummond any day.

Then you've got Robbie Copeland. Average skilled hard man that played a valuable team role. Just like Maxwell, but with 2 premiership medals.

[/Brisbane Bias]

 

[cmndstab]

Nathan Bassett would have a fair claim as well.

 

[collingwill]

Nathan Bassett would have a fair claim as well.

nah, good player but not as good as some on that list, top 20 IMO.

 

[collingwill]

[Brisbane Bias]

I rate Maxwell higher than the average pundit seems to, but give me Josh Drummond any day.

Then you've got Robbie Copeland. Average skilled hard man that played a valuable team role. Just like Maxwell, but with 2 premiership medals.

[/Brisbane Bias]

didnt know he was a rookie, the plot thickens, has to be top 10.

 

[Wally Carter]

kirk was one of the best inside mids in the competion this decade,

I won't argue if "one of the best" puts him around 8 to 15, but he has also had the luxury of having a whole game plan built around his style of play.

 

[Wally Carter]

I can handle rating Cox ahead of Kirk I really can

But for your rubbish in labeling Kirk just another tagger is testament to how rarely you have in fact seen him paly.

Kirk began as a tagger but rapidly became a tagger who was used to win the ball from his top grade opponent - not a stopper but to turn the ball into a positive a role he was by far and away thje best out for a long period of time.

He would win the contested football at the bounces, throw in's, scrimmages anywhere his man took him and he would get the ball out to a swans player by hook/nook or however he could and do it through packs and physical football again and again the Swans would driver forward from his increadable work rate.

When you use the term tagger with Kirk your talking about matching him up with the best so he would win the opponents ball not just stop him.

just another tagger line is pure crap.

Cox may be better overall I but your knowledge of Brett Kirk as a footballer does not exist at all.

Yeah, I was underselling Kirk by labeling him as "another tagger" but the fact that someone stated that he had more of an effect than Cox, no doubt lead me to make that comment.

Kirk is a good midfielder, definitely not top ten for the decade, but a good midfielder anyway.

 

[CAS79]

Yeah, I was underselling Kirk by labeling him as "another tagger" but the fact that someone stated that he had more of an effect than Cox, no doubt lead me to make that comment.

Kirk is a good midfielder, definitely not top ten for the decade, but a good midfielder anyway.

A This was the top ten rookies mate and I think he more than has justified claims to be in the top couple of that rating.

No I wont sell him as quality as Judd, B.Cousins, McLeod. Voss or Hird but dont dismiss the power he held over men either, it's a rarer quality than people give quality for.

Do me and yourself the favor, even if you think someone was better than someone else don't start ridiculously downgrading their achievements to prove your point, do by highlighting your belief in the other guy.

As you wernt around at the time we had way to much of that on bigfooty Judd v Hodge where someone would complety denegrade one's achievements to make it it into a slanging match, it was painful.

Reading your stuff on the SCP I can see your brains above that.

 

[Bollox]

my mum tol me bret kirk is a nice man and is way betterer than big cox. i like him so he is better too. Big cox has that ugly face and worms and doesnt love god as much and cannot bend down as much

 

[collingwill]

I won't argue if "one of the best" puts him around 8 to 15, but he has also had the luxury of having a whole game plan built around his style of play.

just lucky i guess, players adapt to game plans as well dude, as for 8 to 15 yeah, ill buy that, i always thought the media overrated him, just like they do most GF and premiership players.

look at leo barry, he was made out to be "GOD" after the Sydney win, IMO if anyone picked leo barry over james clement at the same time it would be labotomy time, but leo will probably go down as the better player because of the premiership, im not saying leo wasnt a very good player either.

 

[BarneyBent]

Cox would run Stynes in to the ground.

Your opinion. Pity they never played against each other.

1) The fact that he is captain is irrelevant.

2) Kirk has been lucky enough to be at a club where the major tactical plan revolved around congesting the play and creating stoppages. The fact that he has played half his career on the SCG has certainly been no hindrance either. When considering this it is no wonder that he has had a high clearance count and can stick to players.

3) Brady Rawlings has averaged 20+ possessions and been an elite class stopper for the last 4 years without the added benefit of playing in a side or on a home ground that advantaged his style of play. Brady has had to play most of his career on the fastest ground in the competition along with a relatively weak midfield. I am sure there are others.

1). Why? Is being a captain not an achievement?

2). Kirk invented that style of play. OK, a touch of an overstatement, but it's no coincidence that it was after Kirk achieved notoriety (2003, roughly) that the gameplan started to revolve around congestion. See, therein lies my entire point. Kirk was hugely influential in the implementation of the style of play, and the culture behind it, that won the Swans the 2005 Premiership. And I'm not sure of the stats, but Kirk is certainly not an SCG specialist. Just going off 2009's stats (as they're all I can find), Kirk averaged 23 touches per game at the SCG, compared to 20 at other grounds. Given that most players play better at their home ground, I think that's hardly surprising, and certainly can't be used as evidence that he has been somehow lucky.

3). Brady Rawlings cracked 20 touches per game for the first time ever in 2009. He's also not an elite stopper (a very good one, not elite), nor a clearance specialist (21 clearances in 20 matches, compared to Kirk, who had 107 clearances in 22 matches). I also fail to see how the midfield surrounding him helps him. Sure, if they were feeding the ball to him, fair enough. But Kirk is our primary ballwinner, getting the ball to others, and neither Kirk nor Rawlings are affected by whether other teams choose to tag them, because they're the taggers themselves. This isn't even to mention the fact that Kirk regularly more than doubles Rawlings' average tackle count (Kirk has over their careers, Rawlings has 2.2, Kirk has 5.4), and in recent times Kirk has beaten Rawlings in goals as well. There is simply no comparison between Kirk and Rawlings as players, and it's laughable that you're even trying.

I have no idea how you arrived at that notion.

Have you read anything I've written? Or have you simply jumped on "Cox>Kirk". Because as I said, if you include off-field influence on his football club, Kirk is up there as one of the most influential players to pull on a Swans guernsey of the modern era. On-field, he has been a gun with exceptional leadership. Off-field, he's one of the most powerful men at the club. Whether you think this is healthy for the club or not, there's no denying the influence.