Talking in general, obviously; but not in every case.Lets look at things , we are talking above average are we not ? not good, or very good or super star, above average.
Average players play 50 odd games over a 6 or so year period, below average players generally play 20, 30 games (baring injury stopping them from playing more of course) while poor players only ever play a few games if any.
Great teams tend have more above average players on their lists as it is what gives them the depth to be a great team.
I really suspect that personal bias has a lot to do with how fans rate players in other sides. I do my own ratings based on the fact i have seen 80% of the current players come through the system before being drafted.
To get back onto topic a bit here is a comparison, i rate Beams as very good, Zaka as good and Toovey as above average and someone like Nahas who is a fringe player as the standard for average.
When you see 150 plus kids at under 18 level every year you get an appreciation for those who can consistently make AFL sides as above average and it is a simple fact that those who continually make good sides in the 16 to 22nd spots are better than those who make the same spots week in and week out in the bottom sides.
Mark Blake played probably 65 out of 75 in the Cats' 3 years on top.
I seriously don't think he's any better than a fringe player at any other side.
Just happened to be in a squad where guys in his spot kept getting hurt, retiring or going elsewhere.
Is he better than the 19th placed player @ Essendon in that period, say Ricky Dyson or Slatts or NLM etc?
I don't think so, it could be argued I guess.
Some guys are just lucky.
Blake was - Toovey a bit - but I don't think Beams falls into that.