Who Should Be In The Hall Of Fame, and Who Should Be A Legend?

[Belnakor]

Kerley, who has been compared to the South Australian version of Ted Whitten. Can you please tell me how any of them are not worthy of legend status.

As for Royce Hart, am happy to accept that people who did see him consider him a legend. Have heard many say the he was the second best CHF of all time after Carey. Didn't see enough of him myself to make comment, as I suspect neither have you.

i wouldn't have Ted Whitten as a legend either. People think about him riding around the oval, and him crapping about the VFL. But as a player i'd have him on the same level as Doug Hawkins, and they explicity said Lou Richards wasn't considered because they only look at people's playing/coaching career.

Royce objectivity didn't poll heavily in the brownlow, didn't significantly out perform his peers and only played 187 games. Thats not enough for a legend tbh unless you are Bunton who won 3 charlies + 3 sandovers.

 

[DEVO]

Fair enough, that makes sense.

Would you agree on the point about Simpson?

Not yet. Simpson was never a star player, he was a very reliable and consistent player. His longevity is probably due more to his high footy IQ than any natural footy talents. If he can win another premiership or two as coach then he may find himself in the HOF.

 

[BronCrow]

Not yet. Simpson was never a star player, he was a very reliable and consistent player. His longevity is probably due more to his high footy IQ than any natural footy talents. If he can win another premiership or two as coach then he may find himself in the HOF.

It was because he had done both, like Longmire, that I threw the name up. Playing record and ability alone I would probably agree with you, a bit similar to say a Mark Bickley, who I don't believe should be in there either on pure ability, just happens to be a 2 time premiership captain.

i wouldn't have Ted Whitten as a legend either. People think about him riding around the oval, and him crapping about the VFL. But as a player i'd have him on the same level as Doug Hawkins, and they explicity said Lou Richards wasn't considered because they only look at people's playing/coaching career.

Royce objectivity didn't poll heavily in the brownlow, didn't significantly out perform his peers and only played 187 games. Thats not enough for a legend tbh unless you are Bunton who won 3 charlies + 3 sandovers.

If you look at Whitten like that, you could argue that Kerley is more worthy of legend status than Whitten. you have had a real crack at Whitten, as Hawkins is nowhere near legend status. I assume looking at statistics that neither is Roy Cazaly or John Coleman either?

Coleman played less than 100 games after all.

Respect your reasoning behind Royce Hart, never saw him play so can't comment.

I am still interested as to which of the earlier mentioned candidates you think are not worthy of Legend status.

 

[B4Bear]

Couldn't agree more, legend status should be extremely exclusive, should of started of with fewer and only introduce one every 5 years at the least or leave it open till one is deemed worthy of inclusion.

I used to follow Rugby League closely and the Immortals is solely based on on field performance which I like a lot better, if you look at their list of 8 it is truly the absolute elite all time player who makes that list and a couple of them would have what you call dubious off field credentials.

Have a separate list/category for coaches/administrators etc also IMO.

‘Extremely exclusive’; I give up, I really, really do.

 

[M Malice]

‘Extremely exclusive’; I give up, I really, really do.

Don't give up B4B, keep on plugging along and you may really really become an extremely exclusive legend one day.

 

[B4Bear]

Don't give up B4B, keep on plugging along and you may really really become an extremely exclusive legend one day.

Sorry, will never happen. That title is reserved for Pauline Hanson supporters.

But feel free to dream.

 

[M Malice]

Sorry, will never happen. That title is reserved for Pauline Hanson supporters.

But feel free to dream.

Are there still any of them around? That supporter group would be smaller than the Suns group.

 

[SunshineBoy]

The "piss off" is meant in a "you cant be ******* serious" sense. If thats a "melt" in your opinion, then you have much to learn

So explain Nicholls then? Did he get in for creative accounting?

 

[screech]

Back to Victoria, Dick Lee looks to be as worthy as Gordon Coventry and John Coleman for Legend status. Still holds the record for the most VFL Leading Goalkicker seasons.

 

[STFU Donnie]

The issue is the requirement to induct 6 people every year. In contrast, the Baseball HOF has no such requirement, and in some years no-one gets inducted. This year two players - Derek Jeter and Larry Walker - will be the only two. This keeps it a very exclusive club, although the occasional spud gets in. They also have a mechanism (the veterans' committe) by which egregious omissions can be rectified, although this is often criticised for perceived cronyism - the elevation of Harold Baines last year being a clear example.

I know these names will mean nothing to most readers, but the points remain valid.

 

[scotty13]

HOF is a bit of a wank fest tbh.
Players/Coaches/Admin that shouldn't be there are. Players/Coaches/Admin that should be in are not because they don't hail from the 'great state' of Victoria.

Often emotion plays a role in inducting someone because feels or they a good bloke.

There are too many legends with the quality of 'legend' not always meeting what needs to be required to have 'legend' status. Almost need to create another tier like immortal or god where those that have been in the top .01% (probably even less than this) of service to the game are inducted.
That way they can have HOF and Legend to appease the feel good attitude the world has... and then God status to actually aknowledge only the very few who deserve it. Probably at this stage a maximum of 15people across Australia are at that level (not all of which have been inducted as Legend status either because you know... not a victorian).

 

[Pistol Night]

Relton Roberts

 

[Monkey King]

i wouldn't have Ted Whitten as a legend either. People think about him riding around the oval, and him crapping about the VFL. But as a player i'd have him on the same level as Doug Hawkins, ...

Nah. I knew some old timers who had Whitten and Coleman as the best players they’d seen.

 

[Wallaby]

HOF is a bit of a wank fest tbh.

I think you are fairly close here. I think it's a complete wankfest, and in general a negative for the game's history.

I know who a legend is - it's the past players I talk about at the pub (and on internet forums). And it's entirely possible that the past players I talk about are different to yours. And that's good. My criteria for greatness may be different to yours.

Having some self-appointed group announce 'This past player is Hall-of-Fame worthy, and this one is a legend' diminishes the history, the culture and the community ownership of the game. The professional leagues belong to the fans who pay the money to watch it - whether by paying at the gate, buying a membership, paying their internet subscription to read and write about it, or watching on commercial television. Some people just enjoy reading the stats, some people collect player cards - whatever. Some people only ever watch their own team and miss 90% of the rest of the competition. Fine.

It's our game and we decide who is and isn't a great player (and, just occasionally, we have differences of opinion). The league is managed by the AFL - they can put on the show, make the rules as to how the game is played, keep the scores (and make the money). They can have a museum, and say 'Here are some of the great players and moments over the history of the game' - but they are NOT the arbiters in matters of opinion. And neither am I, and neither are you - but let's talk about it. Preferably over several beers.

 

[Catsnlakers]

Corey Enright & Matthew Pavlich should be inductees soon as they retired in 2016 & 2017......The next legend should be one of Dunstall or G.Ablett Snr.....Though I did get told last year at my clubs B&F that the AFL will make GAS a legend the first year Jnr is eligible to be in the H.O.F, as they believe it might be the only way he could actually attend.

 

[scotty13]

I think you are fairly close here. I think it's a complete wankfest, and in general a negative for the game's history.

I know who a legend is - it's the past players I talk about at the pub (and on internet forums). And it's entirely possible that the past players I talk about are different to yours. And that's good. My criteria for greatness may be different to yours.

Having some self-appointed group announce 'This past player is Hall-of-Fame worthy, and this one is a legend' diminishes the history, the culture and the community ownership of the game. The professional leagues belong to the fans who pay the money to watch it - whether by paying at the gate, buying a membership, paying their internet subscription to read and write about it, or watching on commercial television. Some people just enjoy reading the stats, some people collect player cards - whatever. Some people only ever watch their own team and miss 90% of the rest of the competition. Fine.

It's our game and we decide who is and isn't a great player (and, just occasionally, we have differences of opinion). The league is managed by the AFL - they can put on the show, make the rules as to how the game is played, keep the scores (and make the money). They can have a museum, and say 'Here are some of the great players and moments over the history of the game' - but they are NOT the arbiters in matters of opinion. And neither am I, and neither are you - but let's talk about it. Preferably over several beers.

Yes, everyone will have their own legends. Having recognised 'legends' of the game I have no problem with... but lets not make it vic centric and lets not have too many of them to make the status deminished.

Now Im going to provide the stats of 2 players here. I understand stats are only part of a story however, they are often used to argue points so I will do it now. Below is three players statistics.

	Player A	Player B*	Player C
Games	188	156	291
Goals	371	317	1045
Premierships	4x	1x	4x
Leading Club Goal Scorer	2x	5x	10x
Leading Competition Goal Scorer	-	-	6x
Club Best and Fairest	2x	2x	-
Competition Best and Fairest	-	-	-
All Australian	1x	1x	-
Rep footy	11 games, 29 goals	1 game, ? goals	10 games, 41 goals

Player A is a 'legend' in the HOF. Player B is a current day player with a record that matches or beats Players A record, however no-one is talking about this player being a future HOF legend. Players C spent 4years in the VFL with Geelong at Half Back before moving to the SANFL as a FF. Player C isn't even in the HOF even though he stopped playing 35years ago.

Player A - Royce Hart
Player B - Tom Lynch (Rich)
Player C - Tim Evans

 

[Belnakor]

Royce hart definitely shouldn’t be a legend. Not sure how it’s even a debate. He is because some old folks are saying “he is the best they ever saw” which is totally subjective and frankly garbage. If he was so dominant why did he rarely poll in the Brownlow, or be highest goal scorer etc etc.

Legends should be the cream of the crop once in a generation player (footy generation would be 7-10 years). Hart wasn’t even the best player in his team.

 

[Captain_Bender]

Royce hart definitely shouldn’t be a legend. Not sure how it’s even a debate. He is because some old folks are saying “he is the best they ever saw” which is totally subjective and frankly garbage. If he was so dominant why did he rarely poll in the Brownlow, or be highest goal scorer etc etc.

Legends should be the cream of the crop once in a generation player (footy generation would be 7-10 years). Hart wasn’t even the best player in his team.

Big game player, great leader, was among the best in most grand finals he played

 

[Altum Volantes]

I think John Longmire should be in the HOF. 200 games, 1 Premiership, 1 Coleman Medal and over 500 goals. I think he is the only player (who currently qualifies) with over 500 goals not to be in the HOF.

Peter Sumich is one with 500+....plus Sav Rocca who has 700+

I guess it’s where do you draw the line.

Longmire was a fine player in his day - but he was more of a ‘star’ than a Champion.

I don’t think he was really HOF level.

 

[eth-dog]

Fletcher should be close, plus Pav, Riewoldt and Brown. Boomer, Goodes, Judd as well.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Ken Farmer should have legend status
Doesn’t get mention like Coleman dunstall etc because non vic
Arguably the greatest fwd of all time

 

[Catsnlakers]

Peter Sumich is one with 500+....plus Sav Rocca who has 700+

I guess it’s where do you draw the line.

Longmire was a fine player in his day - but he was more of a ‘star’ than a Champion.

I don’t think he was really HOF level.

I agree, Longmire only had one season where he could of been viewed in the leagues top 10 players ( 1990 )....Sumich would be right on the borderline as he did kick over a 100 goals ( something Longmire fell just short of ) & he played a massive hand in the 1992 G.F & other finals also.

 

[screech]

I think you are fairly close here. I think it's a complete wankfest, and in general a negative for the game's history.

I know who a legend is - it's the past players I talk about at the pub (and on internet forums). And it's entirely possible that the past players I talk about are different to yours. And that's good. My criteria for greatness may be different to yours.

Having some self-appointed group announce 'This past player is Hall-of-Fame worthy, and this one is a legend' diminishes the history, the culture and the community ownership of the game. The professional leagues belong to the fans who pay the money to watch it - whether by paying at the gate, buying a membership, paying their internet subscription to read and write about it, or watching on commercial television. Some people just enjoy reading the stats, some people collect player cards - whatever. Some people only ever watch their own team and miss 90% of the rest of the competition. Fine.

It's our game and we decide who is and isn't a great player (and, just occasionally, we have differences of opinion). The league is managed by the AFL - they can put on the show, make the rules as to how the game is played, keep the scores (and make the money). They can have a museum, and say 'Here are some of the great players and moments over the history of the game' - but they are NOT the arbiters in matters of opinion. And neither am I, and neither are you - but let's talk about it. Preferably over several beers.

I love the concept of the hall of fame, I always enjoy recognising achievements and the beauty of the Hall of Fame vs the other awards is it focuses on the whole career, not just one great season here, or one great game there.

The current process is flawed, the Vic-centric focus diminishes the status of the hall, particularly when someone like Ken Farmer is excluded as a legend in favour of lesser Victorian equivalents. I note someone mentioning before that Dunstall and Ablett should be the next elevations, neither have a record that comes close to Farmer. When Lockett was elevated in front of him, it showed there was a problem, the other two would be terminal.

 

[RonnieRaven]

for those unaware of Ken farmer
also 81 goals in 17 state games
Shows he could do it against the best Australia had to offer at the time.
Has been in the hall of fame for a while his due and also coached flags and the state team for the cherry on top

 

[The Punter]

Time to change the Hall of the Very Good

The Australian Football Hall of Fame night is one of the great nights. It is wonderful hearing the old stories and learning about the…

www.theroar.com.au