Saw last night on fox footy they had a replay of the VIC v SA state of origin match from 1987 - Vic forward line was Lockett, Brereton and Ablett. Lockett played last quarter in the ruck and was impressive but it got onto a conversation with my boys about players from the past.
Both thought that considering these guys were the "best of the best" the skill level was pretty average and the thuggery pretty high. The debate was then centred around how these guys would compete in todays game. I had one boy saying that basically on a straight out comparison , very few of these players would even get picked at an AFL club. We then debated about whether under the same conditions (ie same training , lifestyle , sports science etc) it would lift the players of that era to the same level as the best today or whether the players were the best because they came from a smaller demographic , with less scientific selection criteria and therefore they still wouldnt compete in todays game. Interesting conversation and hard one to solve but the more I watch older games the more you begin to question how much weighting you should place on a dominant player from way back against a very good player today when choosing the "best ever" or a"team of the century".
That's basically an 'ageist' point of view.....and who's surprised that the young of today are thinking that way? I actually believe if the best players from past era's were in today's professional environments and being coached to today's game plans.....they would compete favourably with most current teams. The key factor at play here is evolving game plans and match style.....and in those days, game plans were more defensive and possession based and made the players look sluggish and less attacking......and less skillful. They weren't.....
Last edited by stevoswan; 25th February 2020 at 03:04 PM.
Totally agree - Lockett was sensational and would still kill it. He helped turn the game in the last quarter when they put him in the ruck. He was a beast.
Another funny thing from that game was when they put Lockett in the ruck , the ruckman went back and played in the backline on one of SAs dangerous forwards. Not very often you would see that these days.
I watched bits of quite a few games from the 80s and 90s on Fox over the summer, and generally I thought the skill level
is quite similar to now. Obviously the play then was a bit more open than now with less players around the ball at ball-ups
etc. I think if Lockett was a young bloke coming into an AFL team now, his play as a youngster would have developed
differently to the way it did in the 80s and he'd be coached differently to fit into the game plans and style that exist now.
I'd think it would be likely he wouldn't kick as many goals as he did in the 80s and 90s. The fact that only one player in
the last 15 years or so has managed to kick over a hundred goals in a season testifies to the fact that team playing styles
have changed a lot and teams have developed defensive strategies to largely quell big power forwards. He'd be a fantastic
player now, but probably not as dominant as when he played. Also, generally I think the spread of talent and skill in teams
now is more even than it used to be. I think the best players now (the Dangerfields, Fyfe's etc) are only slightly better
than the next rung down rather than being a lot better. It's a function of the amount of training they all do now and team
playing styles which mean there is usually a lot more players around the fall of the ball, and less isolated one-on-one contests.
Last edited by KTigers; 26th February 2020 at 01:38 PM.
Indeed. I was at the SCG that day in 1994 when he elbowed Peter Caven. It happened right in front of us. It was a really low act.
I think if you want to go around hitting people and get to call it a sport then you need to take up boxing. And, you know, be
prepared to be hit yourself.
I couldn't stand the guy (Lockett) at the time, but then later on that year Mrs Tigers almost fell over when I told her how great it
was that he was coming to play for us in 1995. My so called "moral compass" went completely out the door.
The reality is that Lockett et al just wouldnt do the things they did back then if they were in todays game. On the edge play wasn't the exception in those days , it was the norm, so there was little real incentive not to play that way and therefore the dirty play thrived. It was evident in many sports - rugby league at that time almost resembled a rolling brawl.
Bookmarks