Top 100 players since 1980

[Ian Dunross]

On the subject of Lethal's team, has anyone got any insight why he preferred Dunstall to Lockett? Splitting hairs a bit, but interesting selection. You could argue Dunstall was a very good defensive forward and with Ablett in a forward pockett, you need someone who chases a bit, but still, interesting call.

 

[Wild Bill]

On the subject of Lethal's team, has anyone got any insight why he preferred Dunstall to Lockett? Splitting hairs a bit, but interesting selection. You could argue Dunstall was a very good defensive forward and with Ablett in a forward pockett, you need someone who chases a bit, but still, interesting call.

Hawks bias. He has Franklin named. Lockett FF Dunstall FP. I would play them both.

 

[Blind Turn]

I can't say whether he was correct about Watson and Williams - I didn't see them play. But apparently it's not out of the question to perceive Watson as a better player than Williams.

And yeah he is wrong putting Judd on the forward flank ahead of Hird.

This says it perfectly. To try and denigrate Watson in this discussion (to try and emphasise some sort of Essendon bias) is completely missing the point. Watson was exceptional by any measure and I consider him in the best 10 I've seen. And when there is only a ranking spot or two between players you are really splitting hairs to argue a case against someone's opinion. And yes, Hird was better than those mentioned. ;-)

 

[Guardian Hawk]

On the subject of Lethal's team, has anyone got any insight why he preferred Dunstall to Lockett? Splitting hairs a bit, but interesting selection. You could argue Dunstall was a very good defensive forward and with Ablett in a forward pockett, you need someone who chases a bit, but still, interesting call.

Hawks bias. He has Franklin named. Lockett FF Dunstall FP. I would play them both.

I don't think it's necessarily bias. It's clear Lethal was going for some kind of balance - not just big names and it is fair to suggest Lockett, Dunstall, Carey and Ablett do not all fit easily in the same forward line.

He chose one of the two and picked Dunstall - that's certainly not that "interesting" a call as many who saw both prefer Dunstall to Lockett (including the last guy to put up his top 100). Dunstall was the second best player I've seen behind Carey. Interestingly, Wayne Carey rates Dunstall the best footballer he's seen: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-as-the-greatest/story-fn8ymmuy-1226085117462

Others to rate Dunstall higher than Lockett include James Hird, Glenn Archer, Shane Crawford, Stephen Kernahan, Darren Jarman, Mike Sheahan, etc. Either way, it's a close call and it's certainly not wrong to choose either one over the other.

I can add my rationale for why I rate Dunstall marginally ahead a little later if you like (flat out at work now).

 

[Wild Bill]

I don't think it's necessarily bias. It's clear Lethal was going for some kind of balance - not just big names and it is fair to suggest Lockett, Dunstall, Carey and Ablett do not all fit easily in the same forward line.

He chose one of the two and picked Dunstall - that's certainly not that "interesting" a call as many who saw both prefer Dunstall to Lockett (including the last guy to put up his top 100). Dunstall was the second best player I've seen behind Carey. Interestingly, Wayne Carey rates Dunstall the best footballer he's seen: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-as-the-greatest/story-fn8ymmuy-1226085117462

Others to rate Dunstall higher than Lockett include James Hird, Glenn Archer, Shane Crawford, Stephen Kernahan, Darren Jarman, Mike Sheahan, etc. Either way, it's a close call and it's certainly not wrong to choose either one over the other.

I can add my rationale for why I rate Dunstall marginally ahead a little later if you like (flat out at work now).

Agree Dunstall is a freak - Like when they played for the Big V it worked well with Lockett FF and Dunstall FP. I would fit Ablett and Carey in with them - as these 2 can play differnt roles as well.

Buddy in front of Lockett was a poor call.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Agree Dunstall is a freak - Like when they played for the Big V it worked well with Lockett FF and Dunstall FP. I would fit Ablett and Carey in with them - as these 2 can play differnt roles as well.

Buddy in front of Lockett was a poor call.

I agree but it's worth remembering that there is little chance Lethal thinks Franklin is even close to Lockett as a player (nor should he). Rather, he has picked the best (and hardest to match up on) half forward flanker he can think of (Franklin). This suits his skill set and he can feed off the crumbs of the other big guys. Lockett (or Dunstall), as brilliant as they were, would not play this role the best as they were traditional key forward targets and really need to be picked in those positions.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

For those interested in my rationale for why I have Dunstall slightly ahead of Lockett:

First of all, it is worth saying that both players were absolutely brilliant and in the best 5 players I've seen. I will also add that I think Lockett was a bit more spectacular and had a bit more 'X-factor' than Dunstall.

Now whilst Lockett (1360 goals in 280 games at 4.84) is better remembered than Dunstall (1254 goals in 269 games at 4.66) post career due to breaking the record, it is worth remembering that Dunstall had a faster start and during their careers, many expected Dunstall to end up with more goals of the two. Unfortunately for Dunstall, he experienced several severe collision injuries including a fractured skull, serious ankle ligament injuries and 2 knee reconstructions that robbed him of plenty of his best football (and underlined both his courage and bad luck). Whilst it can be argued that Lockett also missed plenty of football, much of this was due to suspensions resulting from ill discipline (which assisted him on field as well as people were scared shitless). Lockett was charged 16 times, found guilty 9 times and missed 23 weeks due to suspension in an era when it was much harder to be suspended and Lockett was still considered a protected species in Sydney (many charges dropped). The point is, Dunstall missed football (and the opportunity to write himself into the record books) due to terrible luck with injury. Lockett missed football due to ill discipline and acts of stupidity which is part of what makes up his game as a whole.

This brings me to my most important point of difference - football is a team game and there is more to it than an individual's personal goal kicking tally. Dunstall was the ultimate professional, was highly disciplined (he trained early, broke records in the gym and was never suspended again after copping 1 week in his first season) and was and the most team oriented full forward the game had seen to that point. He would shepherd, tackle and pressue his opponents all the way up to the wings. He caused countless turnovers and additional scoring opportunities for his team. He also passed to players in better positions all the time (more disposals and handballs than Lockett BTW). In fact, I would estimate that for every goal or two he kicked he would pass another off, bringing team mates into the game and improving them. Lockett, as good as he was, was a reclusive player who hated traning and was ill disciplined on the field. He would usually become an observer if the opposition had the ball and pretty much never passed (as was the instruction for full forwards in those days). Essentially, he added his goals (and aforementioned physical presence) and not much else.

(Basically, I don't think 0.18 more goals per game (i.e. 1 extra goal every 6 games) makes up for all the other things extra that Dunstall added every game including defensive pressure, assists, etc).

Now, some who say Lockett was better use the reasoning that he played in poorer teams. I would argue that those people have little experience in playing forward at any semi-decent level. You see, the difference in delivery between an average side and good side at a decent level (and AFL/VFL was the highest) is marginal, particularly for a good full forward (and Lockett/Dunstall were the best). To clarify, both Lockett and Dunstall would only need you to kick it in their vicinity and they would do the rest. Neither required you to spoon feed them perfectly weighted passes (and in those days, footballers would just kick it long more often than not anyway) meaning the supposed difference in delivery quality would have had minimal effect. Rather, it would simply be about which player got more opportunities. Usually, teams with 1 main target who they kick to nearly every time will give more opportunities to that player than a better team who has several options, regardless of the quality difference between the teams. This has long been the case - Fevola and J Riewoldt are two recent examples of players winning Coleman's despite their teams being poor - because they were targetted almost exclusively. In fact, of all the awards, the Coleman has the least correlation with ladder position. From my club (Hawthorn), there are plenty of examples. The first season we start targetting Buddy less and Roughead wins the Coleman. Whenever Buddy doesn't play, Gunston suddenly starts kicking more goals because he is targetted more. Hell, even Mark Williams kicked 60+ goals two years in a row after Barker, Holland, etc retired. Once Buddy and Rough came along, Williams went back to kicking 20 odd goals despite Hawthorn going from the worst side to one of the best. Why? Despite the ball coming forward slightly more often (due to being a better team), he was targetted less as there were other options. Same goes for Lockett and Dunstall. Dunstall shared his forwardline with Brereton, Jarman, Buckernara, etc, etc. Lockett was typically the only target. Whilst St KIlda/Sydney may have gone forward slightly less often than Hawthorn, Lockett was targetted 90+% of the time whilst Dunstall was targetted around 60-70% of the time, meaning Lockett was still given more opportunity to kick goals than Dunstall (making the poorer team argument redundant).

(I too have played forward for many years in good and average teams. I would always kick more goals in the teams where I was the sole go to man than in teams where I was sharing the forward line with other very good players, despite the team being better)

 

[Wild Bill]

Dunstall is an all time great - but the better side = more inside 50's and better users of the ball kicking it to Dunstall (Jarmen, Allen, Platten, Pritchard etc).

Playing at Hawthorn is a positive factor that helped Dunstall kick as many goals as he did.

 

[Bobby_]

Dunstall is an all time great - but the better side = more inside 50's and better users of the ball kicking it to Dunstall (Jarmen, Allen, Platten, Pritchard etc).

Playing at Hawthorn is a positive factor that helped Dunstall kick as many goals as he did.

Crawford & Condon should be added to that list as they were pretty prominent in the 90's.

 

[Wild Bill]

Crawford & Condon should be added to that list as they were pretty prominent in the 90's.

Agree - the list continues - Schwab, Hudson and Eade were good users of the ball.

 

[Blind Turn]

For those interested in my rationale for why I have Dunstall slightly ahead of Lockett:

First of all, it is worth saying that both players were absolutely brilliant and in the best 5 players I've seen. I will also add that I think Lockett was a bit more spectacular and had a bit more 'X-factor' than Dunstall.

Now whilst Lockett (1360 goals in 280 games at 4.84) is better remembered than Dunstall (1254 goals in 269 games at 4.66) post career due to breaking the record, it is worth remembering that Dunstall had a faster start and during their careers, many expected Dunstall to end up with more goals of the two. Unfortunately for Dunstall, he experienced several severe collision injuries including a fractured skull, serious ankle ligament injuries and 2 knee reconstructions that robbed him of plenty of his best football (and underlined both his courage and bad luck). Whilst it can be argued that Lockett also missed plenty of football, much of this was due to suspensions resulting from ill discipline (which assisted him on field as well as people were scared shitless). Lockett was charged 16 times, found guilty 9 times and missed 23 weeks due to suspension in an era when it was much harder to be suspended and Lockett was still considered a protected species in Sydney (many charges dropped). The point is, Dunstall missed football (and the opportunity to write himself into the record books) due to terrible luck with injury. Lockett missed football due to ill discipline and acts of stupidity which is part of what makes up his game as a whole.

This brings me to my most important point of difference - football is a team game and there is more to it than an individual's personal goal kicking tally. Dunstall was the ultimate professional, was highly disciplined (he trained early, broke records in the gym and was never suspended again after copping 1 week in his first season) and was and the most team oriented full forward the game had seen to that point. He would shepherd, tackle and pressue his opponents all the way up to the wings. He caused countless turnovers and additional scoring opportunities for his team. He also passed to players in better positions all the time (more disposals and handballs than Lockett BTW). In fact, I would estimate that for every goal or two he kicked he would pass another off, bringing team mates into the game and improving them. Lockett, as good as he was, was a reclusive player who hated traning and was ill disciplined on the field. He would usually become an observer if the opposition had the ball and pretty much never passed (as was the instruction for full forwards in those days). Essentially, he added his goals (and aforementioned physical presence) and not much else.

(Basically, I don't think 0.18 more goals per game (i.e. 1 extra goal every 6 games) makes up for all the other things extra that Dunstall added every game including defensive pressure, assists, etc).

Now, some who say Lockett was better use the reasoning that he played in poorer teams. I would argue that those people have little experience in playing forward at any semi-decent level. You see, the difference in delivery between an average side and good side at a decent level (and AFL/VFL was the highest) is marginal, particularly for a good full forward (and Lockett/Dunstall were the best). To clarify, both Lockett and Dunstall would only need you to kick it in their vicinity and they would do the rest. Neither required you to spoon feed them perfectly weighted passes (and in those days, footballers would just kick it long more often than not anyway) meaning the supposed difference in delivery quality would have had minimal effect. Rather, it would simply be about which player got more opportunities. Usually, teams with 1 main target who they kick to nearly every time will give more opportunities to that player than a better team who has several options, regardless of the quality difference between the teams. This has long been the case - Fevola and J Riewoldt are two recent examples of players winning Coleman's despite their teams being poor - because they were targetted almost exclusively. In fact, of all the awards, the Coleman has the least correlation with ladder position. From my club (Hawthorn), there are plenty of examples. The first season we start targetting Buddy less and Roughead wins the Coleman. Whenever Buddy doesn't play, Gunston suddenly starts kicking more goals because he is targetted more. Hell, even Mark Williams kicked 60+ goals two years in a row after Barker, Holland, etc retired. Once Buddy and Rough came along, Williams went back to kicking 20 odd goals despite Hawthorn going from the worst side to one of the best. Why? Despite the ball coming forward slightly more often (due to being a better team), he was targetted less as there were other options. Same goes for Lockett and Dunstall. Dunstall shared his forwardline with Brereton, Jarman, Buckernara, etc, etc. Lockett was typically the only target. Whilst St KIlda/Sydney may have gone forward slightly less often than Hawthorn, Lockett was targetted 90+% of the time whilst Dunstall was targetted around 60-70% of the time, meaning Lockett was still given more opportunity to kick goals than Dunstall (making the poorer team argument redundant).

(I too have played forward for many years in good and average teams. I would always kick more goals in the teams where I was the sole go to man than in teams where I was sharing the forward line with other very good players, despite the team being better)

You probably don't need to spell out why he should be ahead of Lockett. I think most astute observers would agree he was better in many facets of the game. My personal preference though is for Lockett... just... He is more the 'one-of-kind' type freak player that I prefer when it comes to watching the game and also in ranking individual stars. And to be that type of player with consistency to boot is just immense. It is reflective in my choosing Ablett ahead of Carey. I too wonder what the inside 50 count would be for Lockett compared to the bombardment Dunstall would have received.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Dunstall is an all time great - but the better side = more inside 50's and better users of the ball kicking it to Dunstall (Jarmen, Allen, Platten, Pritchard etc).

Playing at Hawthorn is a positive factor that helped Dunstall kick as many goals as he did.

Not sure if you got through my post Wild Bill (it was long...) but I adressed these very points (in the last paragraph). 'Users of the ball' is pretty much irrelevent at this level for guys like Dunstall and Lockett. In no way did they need to rely on good use to win the footy. You just needed to kick it in their general vicinity and they'll do the rest. Maybe someone like Ash Hansen needed impeccable use because, for him, it was the difference between whether he won the footy or not but for Lockett/Dunstall - it did not matter whether it was inch perfect or just a regular kick forward. Especially at the elite level, where the difference between a good user and an average user is minimal as even an average midfielder will still kick to advantage or at least 50/50 (which as I said is all these guys needed). Hell, even at A-Grade/Div 1 level, midfielders will kick in the vicinity of the person they're aiming at. It's really only the Div 2 and below level where midfields can vary to the extent that some teams completely miss their intended targets altogether (not even kicking in their vicinity). Given the quality of Dunstall/Lockett - it is only this type of kicking that would genuinely rob them of opportunities.

In terms of forward 50's, people overestimate the difference between good teams and average teams. I can only find as far back as 2001 (rather than the Lockett/Dunstall era) but the all conquering Lions had 56 inside 50's a game. Only 1 side (West Coast) had less than 48 per game. 2002 was similar, Brisbane again had 56, StKilda was the lowest with 47. Other years, the entire competition only varies by 3-4 inside 50's a game. If you add to that that Lockett was invariably the go to man for nearly every single inside 50 whereas Dunstall had to share the entries around with Brereton, Buckenara, Jarman, etc - it is evident that Lockett was likely kicked to more often (and therefore more opportunities to score) that what Dunstall was.

 

[Wild Bill]

1) They could both make bad kicks look good.
2) Both unstoppable with good kicks to their advantage.

Dunstall would have been on the end of more from point 2.

 

[Wild Bill]

But we are splitting hairs: Dunstall V Lockett is like

Ablett V Carey
Voss V Hird V Buckley
SOS V Scarlett
Judd V Cousins
T Watson V A Rock

You can make an argument for all these depending on many factors - team bias generally being the biggest reason.

 

[Big Fresh]

But we are splitting hairs: Dunstall V Lockett is like

Ablett V Carey
Voss V Hird V Buckley
SOS V Scarlett
Judd V Cousins
T Watson V A Rock

You can make an argument for all these depending on many factors - team bias generally being the biggest reason.

Wow, you just love taking swipes at Essendon, don't you?

 

[Wild Bill]

Wow, you just love taking swipes at Essendon, don't you?

I thought I would get the OP with that one!!! But you jumped on 1st.....

 

[Blind Turn]

I thought I would get the OP with that one!!! But you jumped on 1st.....

Silly comparison really. Rock was easily the better player. Not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

 

[Big Fresh]

Just back on the best midfielder of the 80s/Watson v Williams debate, Jon Anderson from the Herald Sun reckons Watson was the best midfielder in the league from 1981-1985 and Williams was the best from 1986-1990. I don't actually respect his opinion at all (no way Libba's takes over Ablett's mantle as best mid, Harvey was not the best mid from 1996-2000, and Judd was certainly better than Voss in 04/05 and Ablett in 06), but again, un_eggs isn't alone in suggesting Watson was arguably the best midfielder of the 80s.

 

[Blind Turn]

Just back on the best midfielder of the 80s/Watson v Williams debate, Jon Anderson from the Herald Sun reckons Watson was the best midfielder in the league from 1981-1985 and Williams was the best from 1986-1990. I don't actually respect his opinion at all (no way Libba's takes over Ablett's mantle as best mid, Harvey was not the best mid from 1996-2000, and Judd was certainly better than Voss in 04/05 and Ablett in 06), but again, un_eggs isn't alone in suggesting Watson was arguably the best midfielder of the 80s.

Williams has a claim to being the best in the second part of the eighties but Watson missed the best part of two years in 86/87. When he returned he won the B&F for us in 88/89, was favourite for 89 Brownlow and, as I mentioned earlier, was up against Ablett in the eyes of the media for the best player in the comp that year until Ablett played the greatest finals series you'll see. So, I have no qualms about rating him so highly.
For a long time I considered Madden to be the second best Bomber I'd seen but upon reflecting on this exercise I realised that Watson's recognition as being close to the best player in the comp over a decade of footy probably gives him an edge on the big fella.

 

[Some Idiot]

Yep, sure I can perfectly understand others rating West higher but there are many who would rate him lower too. I probably explained it in my initial post best. Despite his consistent output he just lacked that something special. If I were to pick a team I'd choose Jobe before Westy every time. Jobe has done enough in his last 6 seasons to suggest he is now in the best few mids in the comp. West was never at that level. He was a tier below. But for me he rates above other great mids on this list due to his sheer accumulative powers. An example is Healy who was far more talented but hardly inspired the teams he played for. Jobe, however is an inspirational type player and also has the consistent impact of West. Again, listing awards and achievements are not the main focus in my ratings. Kudos to West for his many B&Fs and his adoration from the umps but for me he was a 'beige' type of player, albeit an incredibly effective beige.

I respect your attempts, a player like West is hard to place, being one of the most consistent players ever, but as you say just a touch of vanilla.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Buckenara was next Hawk off the rank but I couldn't squeeze him in. Should be amongst those I've listed as unlucky.

He was a much better player than Mercuri, for one. Shaw for another. As were Weightman and a bloke you didn't even mention - Maurice Rioli.

Loved Tim Watson but Williams was better. Voss rates just above Hird for me and Lockett definitely above Dunstall - the bloke claiming they received similar delivery is kidding himself.

Good effort though. I might have a crack if I find time.

 

[Blind Turn]

He was a much better player than Mercuri, for one. Shaw for another. As were Weightman and a bloke you didn't even mention - Maurice Rioli.

Loved Tim Watson but Williams was better. Voss rates just above Hird for me and Lockett definitely above Dunstall - the bloke claiming they received similar delivery is kidding himself.

Good effort though. I might have a crack if I find time.

I might have to concede that Buckenara has a very good argument for being included, but again I find it difficult to exclude those ahead of him. I think you're unfairly rating Mercuri as being a long way behind Buckenara. Sure, you can prefer him as a player but when you weigh it up they played similarly as forwards but Mercuri was a far better on-baller which was emphasised by his outstanding 99/00 years. Mercuri starred in finals and was in the top handful of players to watch, aesthetically, that I've seen. Opinions may be clouded by the fizzle of his last couple of years following his brother's death and some injury problems.
Tony Shaw deserves his place as there are qualities to a player beyond pure talent. Without his inspiration and contested ball-winning Collingwood would've waited 52 years for a flag. He was better than Weightman for mine but it was a close call.
I put Rioli in the same bracket as Leon Baker. Both were exceptional talents and performed heroically in finals games and I perhaps harshly marked them down due to relatively short careers. Jim Krakouer just makes it in for example despite him being one of the most gifted players I've seen. He didn't have a long career or a big finals record but every time I saw him he turned on the magic. Maybe I didn't see enough of Rioli to put him ahead of Krakouer. I'd put Weightman ahead of Rioli on what he gave over a long career but Kraks magic puts him ahead of Weightman. It's a tough call. Rioli deserves a mention as 'unlucky' though.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I'd still say Leigh Matthews was the best midfielder of the 80s, even though he was only a rover for 3 years (80-82) of that time. He did play some midfield in his forward pocket years too, and he just couldn't stop getting the ball and kicking goals.

Second would probably be Robbie Flower.

 

[masai]

I might have to concede that Buckenara has a very good argument for being included, but again I find it difficult to exclude those ahead of him. I think you're unfairly rating Mercuri as being a long way behind Buckenara. Sure, you can prefer him as a player but when you weigh it up they played similarly as forwards but Mercuri was a far better on-baller which was emphasised by his outstanding 99/00 years. Mercuri starred in finals and was in the top handful of players to watch, aesthetically, that I've seen. Opinions may be clouded by the fizzle of his last couple of years following his brother's death and some injury problems.
Tony Shaw deserves his place as there are qualities to a player beyond pure talent. Without his inspiration and contested ball-winning Collingwood would've waited 52 years for a flag. He was better than Weightman for mine but it was a close call.
I put Rioli in the same bracket as Leon Baker. Both were exceptional talents and performed heroically in finals games and I perhaps harshly marked them down due to relatively short careers. Jim Krakouer just makes it in for example despite him being one of the most gifted players I've seen. He didn't have a long career or a big finals record but every time I saw him he turned on the magic. Maybe I didn't see enough of Rioli to put him ahead of Krakouer. I'd put Weightman ahead of Rioli on what he gave over a long career but Kraks magic puts him ahead of Weightman. It's a tough call. Rioli deserves a mention as 'unlucky' though.

Before I start, Glendenning achieved far more than Chad Cornes, Roach, Mercuri & at present Harry Taylor ( like him ). He was class, both back & forward.

Buckenara >>>>>>>> Mercuri. Bucky was class.

Tony Shaw before some that I have mentioned, geez must find room for Nic Maxwell.

As for Maurice Rioli & Leon Baker,you obviously watched them very little. Maurice makes Cyril look like a second rate VFL player !!!. Leon Baker makes Mercuri look like a plodder. Sheeds rate Baker as one of the best he has had.

Jimmy Krakouer was a good player, but his legend is a bit inflated. Rob Wiley was a far better player than him.

To throw a smokey in the ring, Stephen Michael would blow at least 80 of your players off the page.

 

[Blind Turn]

Before I start, Glendenning achieved far more than Chad Cornes, Roach, Mercuri & at present Harry Taylor ( like him ). He was class, both back & forward.

Buckenara >>>>>>>> Mercuri. Bucky was class.

Tony Shaw before some that I have mentioned, geez must find room for Nic Maxwell.

As for Maurice Rioli & Leon Baker,you obviously watched them very little. Maurice makes Cyril look like a second rate VFL player !!!. Leon Baker makes Mercuri look like a plodder. Sheeds rate Baker as one of the best he has had.

Jimmy Krakouer was a good player, but his legend is a bit inflated. Rob Wiley was a far better player than him.

To throw a smokey in the ring, Stephen Michael would blow at least 80 of your players off the page.

Baker makes Mercuri look like a plodder? Wow, talk about over-hyping. I loved Leon Baker for what he did and achieved but I'd suggest you perhaps didn't see much of Mercuri play. As it is I saw most of Baker's Essendon career and there was no point in his career where he was top echelon. He certainly provided sparks for us at times and was a creative pivot but you need to take into account his career only stretched for 84 games. If you took Mercuri's first 150 games his career is significantly better and all class (which you seem to gush about re: Buckenara). I've obviously not rated WA players high enough for you ;-)
As for Shaw, I can recall his late 80s/early 90s career vividly and he was the midfield general of that side and very effective in his limited skills. Its laughable that you'd think Maxwell and Shaw are comparable. I need Pie supporters to back me up on this one methinks.
And if I'd seen Michael play, by all accounts, I'd have him somewhere around top 10. Was he Madden's equal or better?