Updated Swans Team of the Century?

[Blood Fever]

Plugger was pre-Roos (as a coach). So was Pratt. Does that logic diminish their goal scoring feats?

Capper’s marking would likely have been achieved in any era (apart from that brief period when forwards were stringently penalised for hand placement to launch). I think you’re hard on the Wiz. The problem with comparing players from different eras is that the game was different. Could they have adapted to different game styles? How much better (or worse) could they have been in a more professional environment. You can only really compare how much they dominated and what they achieved in their era.

It’s like Kevin Sheedy’s cheap shot on Graham Teasdale being the worst player to win a Brownlow. Teaser could only play as good as the opposition allowed him to and he was the Best and Fairest player in the VFL in that year, no matter what that bitter, opinionated twat Sheedy thinks

Ordinary comment by Sheedy. Teasdale had a spectacular season in 1977 and was a very worthy winner.

[111431]

Ordinary comment by Sheedy. Teasdale had a spectacular season in 1977 and was a very worthy winner.

Agree - i remember the day we beat Collingwood at Vic Park on the back of his efforts

[Sandridge]

Ordinary comment by Sheedy. Teasdale had a spectacular season in 1977 and was a very worthy winner.

"Teaser" was the best footballer in the league by a country mile in 1977.

I maintain that Sheedy's comment was based on the fact that he was dirty that Richmond gave away 3 stars - Teasdale, Roberts and Jackson - to get Pitura from us and the deal turned out to be a bit of a shocker for the Tigers. Sheedy was at Richmond when Teaser was there - maybe he just didn't like him. Whatever the reason, the comment was unnecessarily nasty and completely wrong!

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Teasdale had a spectacular season in 1977 and was a very worthy winner.

He won the medal fair and square, but it'd be more accurate to describe it as a spectacular half season.

He was up forward for the first third of the season, his first two games up there were brilliant but was poor for the rest of the games until Ian Stewart chucked him in the ruck against the Hawks I think. Then he was brilliant, like 111431 I was at Vic park for the first Collingwood game.
I also remember the return game later in the season where Thompson nullified him, actually by that stage he was definitely starting to fade. By the time we got to the finals he was back to being an ineffective forward.

His Brownlow depended on a couple of big slices of luck.
What if . .
Ian Stewart hadn't chucked him in the ruck?
or even more likely
He'd been dropped by the match committee after a run of 5 poor games?

[i'm-uninformed2]

I really have no idea on the updated 2003 team as I didn’t see them all play, obviously.

But instinct tells me Bud, Goodes, Kennedy and Micky O are the likely ins - as much as I love some of the others suggested.

And anyone saying Bud doesn’t make it doesn’t get football. He’s an AFL Legend, including for his time in Sydney and has probably won us 20 or 30 games off his own boot.

As for criticisms of his GFs, he was one of the few who didn’t poop his pants in ‘14. If you said before the game he gets 17 possessions and kicks four goals, you think we’re over the line. He instead did that with an absent midfield.

And he rolled his ankle in ‘16, so what do you want him to do.

[Captain]

I really have no idea on the updated 2003 team as I didn’t see them all play, obviously.

But instinct tells me Bud, Goodes, Kennedy and Micky O are the likely ins - as much as I love some of the others suggested.

And anyone saying Bud doesn’t make it doesn’t get football. He’s an AFL Legend, including for his time in Sydney and has probably won us 20 or 30 games off his own boot.

As for criticisms of his GFs, he was one of the few who didn’t poop his pants in ‘14. If you said before the game he gets 17 possessions and kicks four goals, you think we’re over the line. He instead did that with an absent midfield.

And he rolled his ankle in ‘16, so what do you want him to do.

Settle down champ.

It was purely in reference to why I would select Hall over Buddy in the team.

[bloodspirit]

Plugger was pre-Roos (as a coach). So was Pratt. Does that logic diminish their goal scoring feats?

Capper’s marking would likely have been achieved in any era (apart from that brief period when forwards were stringently penalised for hand placement to launch). I think you’re hard on the Wiz. The problem with comparing players from different eras is that the game was different. Could they have adapted to different game styles? How much better (or worse) could they have been in a more professional environment. You can only really compare how much they dominated and what they achieved in their era.

It’s like Kevin Sheedy’s cheap shot on Graham Teasdale being the worst player to win a Brownlow. Teaser could only play as good as the opposition allowed him to and he was the Best and Fairest player in the VFL in that year, no matter what that bitter, opinionated twat Sheedy thinks

I was hoping to avoid this kind of response. I'm definitely not trying to undervalue Capper. He was brilliant. His marking ability would be outstanding in any era. He was courageous and skilful too.

My point relates only to the numbers of goals not being determinative of a forward's greatness. goswannies raised Capper's goals per game average in comparison to Hall and I don't think it is fair to Hall to suggest that he was inferior to Capper simply because Capper scored an extra 0.6 goals per game (not that goswannnies was doing that, I don't think). There are differences between eras and Capper was playing at a time when there were more goals scored than when Hall was playing for us - which is no slight on Capper but which does to my mind mean those goals count slightly less when undertaking this type of comparative exercise. There are also other facets to the game where players can contribute: defensively, playing through injury, in having a football brain and reading the play and making smart choices, in leadership and boosting team morale, and, perhaps, in Hall's case, his value as a physical enforcer. I think choosing between Hall and Capper, if that is what is required, is a tough choice and I haven't decided on which side of the line that I fall.

[Captain]

Spot on. Giving reasons for selecting one player over another shouldn't be interpreted as a slag at the player not selected.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Brett Kirk would have to be in the conversation. Became an absolutely gun midfielder as well as one of the best leaders the club has ever had. For sheer impact on the club's destiny, there are few more influential in our history.

[Blood Fever]

Brett Kirk would have to be in the conversation. Became an absolutely gun midfielder as well as one of the best leaders the club has ever had. For sheer impact on the club's destiny, there are few more influential in our history.

+1

[Ruck'n'Roll]

He’s an AFL Legend

Legend is a pretty accurate choice of word.
It puts Buddy into a group that includes Robin Hood, King Arthur, Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster. In legends the actual truth of the matter is enveloped by mountains of story to the point where the truth is hardly discernible.

It'll make it hard to deliver a sound judgement on Buddy when it comes time.

And I'm not denying his capabilities. I think he's an excellent candidate for one of the half-forward-flank positions in the Swans next team of the century.

[Velour&Ruffles]

To those mentioning Mickey O. Great player, but he was into his 9th season when this team was announced and Tony Morwood was chosen, who is the only player he could possibly replace in this team. Morwood was a sensational player as well, and quite similar - rangy half forward, great mark for his size, creative, lithe and agile, never dirty, highly skilled, very courageous despite not being strongly built, always dangerous. Mickey O is fresher in the memory but that of itself is not a reason to exit Tony Morwood from the team. He was chosen for a reason (actually, the many reasons I've mentioned). That said, Mickey O went on to play another 5 seasons and over 300 games, which also counts for a lot (vs Morwood 230 or so), and Mickey O had a beautiful Indian Summer towards the end of his career after seeming gone with the yips a few years earlier. But it's still not straightforward - Morwood was pure silk and spent more time in mediocre teams where there was less opportunity available (although the Edelsten era was good for him).

I guess i'm just saying - it's less straightforward than it seems. Recency bias is understandable but needs to be recognised and factored into the equation.