Greatest ever Swan?

[Mr Magoo]

Lockett's goal kicking, and his field kicking when called on, was absolutely sensational - far superior to the vast majority of players now. He'd still walk into any .... make that every ... team.

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.

[KTigers]

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.....

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.

[Blood Fever]

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.

Thoughtful post KT. Also, if Lockett played the way he did in 80s and 90s, I reckon he would have been rubbed out every other week!

[KTigers]

Thoughtful post KT. Also, if Lockett played the way he did in 80s and 90s, I reckon he would have been rubbed out every other week!

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.

[Mr Magoo]

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.

[bloodspirit]

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.

Great posts, KT!

[bloodspirit]

Perhaps not the greatest of all time, but certainly worth a mention Dinny McKay.

Club captain, best player in the competition and certainly the first superstar forward of all time.

He kicked an utterly impossible 49 goals (easily equivalent of the ton these days) in the first of South Melbourne's three-in-a-row premiership run.

He was later wooed by Richmond, where he played for 2 years, before returning to South for the inaugural VFL season. He died of a burst appendix four days after the last game of the season.

My avatar is a picture of the man in the Swans original jumper.

Errr, yes. Good point. But apart from ROK, LRT, Jude and Goodes! I suspect also isn't including our VFA flags in the 1880s.

It turns out we have another contending champion - a five time premiership winner (all with the Swans) - who we haven't discussed yet! He has just been inducted to our Hall of Fame - meet James 'Jimmy' 'Diddley' Young: Richards one of four new inductees. See also: Australian Football - Jim 'Diddley' Young - Player Bio. He slightly predates the era of Dinny McKay (with some cross-over in the late 1880s) but I infer he probably wasn't as talented as Dinny. However, he timed his career to fit in our glory days, being part of our 5 premierships (1881, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890) as well as playing in a further three grand finals (1880, 1883, 1886) back when we were a powerhouse after merging with Albert Park FC.

I see Bernard Toohey (who I'm sure someone else mentioned in a previous post that I can't find now) also got inducted: Australian Football - Bernard Toohey - Player Bio. Good stuff.

Two other inductees were Terry Brain (part of the Foreign Legion) and Teddy Richards.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

It turns out we have another contending champion - a five time premiership winner (all with the Swans) - who we haven't discussed yet! He has just been inducted to our Hall of Fame - meet James 'Jimmy' 'Diddley' Young: Richards one of four new inductees. See also: Australian Football - Jim 'Diddley' Young - Player Bio. He slightly predates the era of Dinny McKay (with some cross-over in the late 1880s) but I infer he probably wasn't as talented as Dinny. However, he timed his career to fit in our glory days, being part of our 5 premierships (1881, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890) as well as playing in a further three grand finals (1880, 1883, 1886) back when we were a powerhouse after merging with Albert Park FC.

I see Bernard Toohey (who I'm sure someone else mentioned in a previous post that I can't find now) also got inducted: Australian Football - Bernard Toohey - Player Bio. Good stuff.

Two other inductees were Terry Brain (part of the Foreign Legion) and Teddy Richards.

Thanks very much for picking up on these inductees bloodspirit. I'm a bit of a fan of Swans history, so I'll just just to add my 2c worth of correction and hope no one considers it tedious.
I'm pretty certain the VFA didn't have grand finals in Jim Young's day, so the Swans announcement is correct in that regard! The VFA premiership was decided more like the English premier league is today, just most wins over the season.
If memory serves the Swans played in the first VFA grand final (just before the "formation" of the AFL) losing to Collingwood.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Heritage nonsense

Seeing Jim Young acknowledged is great, because it shows the club is slowly starting to acknowledge their pre AFL/VFL origins which is wonderful.

Sadly the Swans press release failed to mention that he played for the red-and-whites for several seasons before the 1880 amalgamation,
It's like that part of his career can't be mentioned because they don't want to mention Albert Park. The club still has a blinkered hard-on for the nonsensical 1874 foundation date.

They should be more sensible about this issue. A clubs foundation date should be the point where it comes into existence, and this club we support came into existance in 1867, it went through some name changes, and an amalgamation with another club in 1880 but it's the same club - just 153 years older.

When the two clubs amalgamated, one club supplied the name (which was later discarded again) and the other club supplied the colours (which are still in use today). And as the australianfootball.com link provided shows. The amalgamated team contained players from both sides, like Jim Young.

Listing the South Melbourne Temperance Hall – originally known as the Emerald Hill Total Abstinence Society Hall as the club’s foundation site and the 1874 founding date as heritage items seem fans less valid than listing "The Rose of Denmark" hotel in Napier St, Emerald Hill as the clubs true foundation site and 1867 as its founding date.

The events of 1874 and 1880 are part of the story,, but certainly not its start. The only substantial reason for sticking with 1874, is that the marketing department still have loads of merchandise featuring that number and fear the club will look foolish if it changes (especially as they managed to miss the 150th anniversary despite warnings).
I kind of think it's too late to avoid looking foolish. What else can you call hanging on to the erroneous date regardless of later evidence?

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for the history lesson, and the passion. I think I read some of this stuff in In the Blood a few years back. There is also a fair bit on Wikipedia. But I love being reminded.

[KSAS]

I also admire your passion on this topic Ruck'n Roll. To give further credence to 1867 being the foundation year of the South Melbourne Football Club, I have a paperback book written by Bob Stewart published in 1983 titled "Australian Football Business" detailing the history of the then 12 VFL clubs (1 year after South had relocated to Sydney) and crisis the VFL then faced. He stated outright the South Melbourne Football Club was founded in 1867 after the amalgamation of the Albert Park and Emerald Hill Football clubs. Also being a founding member club of both the VFA (1877) and VFL (1897).

This would makes us the 4th oldest club in the competition behind Melbourne (1858), Geelong (1859) and Carlton (1864). 1874 would make us the 6th oldest behind North (1869) and St Kilda (1873). P.S. Collingwood wasn't founded till 1892.

I don't recall the club celebrating or commemorating it's centenary in 1974. I was too young if they had first done so in 1967 but I don't think it was the norm for clubs to do so back then. Collingwood certainly did in 1992 and I think North recognised their 150th last year. Not sure if Carlton did so in 2014 as they would've been too occupied just getting a win!

Note: the suburb South Melbourne was originally known as Emerald Hill which is inscripted in its magnificent Town Hall built in 1880. The suburb wasn't officially known as South Melbourne till 1883, which makes it a bit confusing but likely it had already been popularly referenced as South Melbourne years before that.

The foundation year debate will continue but not surprised if 1867 eventually becomes formly recognised, as it has become the trend with pre VFL/VFA history in recent years. The club could still commerate 150th anniversary in 2024 but with a caveat acknowledgement to 1867 (never too late to do so).

I did buy a club hoodie last year with the original South Melbourne Swan emblem and est 1874 inscription. I do adore it!

[bloodspirit]

I also admire your passion on this topic Ruck'n Roll. To give further credence to 1867 being the foundation year of the South Melbourne Football Club, I have a paperback book written by Bob Stewart published in 1983 titled "Australian Football Business" detailing the history of the then 12 VFL clubs (1 year after South had relocated to Sydney) and crisis the VFL then faced. He stated outright the South Melbourne Football Club was founded in 1867 after the amalgamation of the Albert Park and Emerald Hill Football clubs. Also being a founding member club of both the VFA (1877) and VFL (1897).

I thought the amalgamation with Albert Park FC was with SMFC in 1880? Is it possible two different clubs merged in 1867? If so, who did they become because, as I understand it, SMFC didn't come into existence (with that name) until 1874. If that's wrong, what did happen in 1874? Would be great to clarify this timeline. Not sure if this stuff should be in a separate thread entitled something like Swans early history - or SMFC history - or similar?

I did buy a club hoodie last year with the original South Melbourne Swan emblem and est 1874 inscription. I do adore it!

Is that emblem like in my avatar or different? And when you say "original" do you know if it dates to 1874 or do you mean only that it is old and associated with SMFC as opposed to the Sydney Swans?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I thought the amalgamation with Albert Park FC was with SMFC in 1880? Is it possible two different clubs merged in 1867? If so, who did they become because, as I understand it, SMFC didn't come into existence (with that name) until 1874. If that's wrong, what did happen in 1874? Would be great to clarify this timeline.

1858
The first game of football played, Melbourne Grammar defeated St Kilda Grammar, two months earlier than the Melbourne Grammar v's Scotch College game that most books mention.

1860
Rob Hess claims that an Emerald Hill team existed as early as 1860. The first hard evidence I've personally seen of teams playing football in the South Melbourne/Albert-Park/Emerald Hill area is a match report of a 20 a side game from 1864, games are likely to have been going on prior to that date.

1867
The "South Melbourne" club is founded in the evening of May 21st in the Rose of Denmark pub. It undoubtedly involved players with experience elsewhere but this was a brand new foundation. As the Argus reported it was "A meeting of gentlemen desirous of forming a football club on Emerald-hill." This is the club usually referred to as Albert Park.

1869
After a turbulent meeting held in a school in Clarendon street in which several gentlemen "singularly vehement, if not elegant, in their language" argued for keeping the South Melbourne name, changing to Emerald Hill, or combining the two - the club changed it's name to "Albert Park."

1874
The "Cecil" club is founded in a temperance meeting hall, the club changed it's name shortly after it's foundation to "South Melbourne" because that name had become vacant. This is the club usually referred to as South Melbourne.

1876
So many North Melbourne players defect to the Albert Park club (who award gold medals as part of the end of year festivities) that North goes into hiatus, is unable to field a team.

1877
VFA competition starts with 6 senior teams, Carlton, Melbourne, Albert Park, St.Kilda, Geelong and the reformed and rebranded North Melbourne (Hotham). South Melbourne is among the junior teams, which also included Essendon and Hawthorn.

1880
The Albert Park and South Melbourne clubs amalgamate on 22 January 1880, they finish the season in third place. The win their first flag next year.

Not sure if this stuff should be in a separate thread entitled something like Swans early history - or SMFC history - or similar?

A good idea, perhaps one of moderators might try, this stuff has popped up in a few threads over the years.

[KSAS]

Is that emblem like in my avatar or different? And when you say "original" do you know if it dates to 1874 or do you mean only that it is old and associated with SMFC as opposed to the Sydney Swans?

Hi bloodspirit, the Swan logo on my hoodie is different to your avatar as it's an aggressive looking Swan with grimacing teeth and the VFL logo dating to the 1970's. Your avatar is the original Swan logo dating back to the 1930's when the club changed it's mascot from "The Bloods" to "The Swans" due to the high influx of WA players in the team at the time (also unofficially referred as the "Foreign Legion" due the club going on nation wide recruiting spree).

Here is a link of the various club Swan logo designs dating from the 1930's:
Logo Review: Sydney Swans | Ben Newton

P.S. I had grown up assuming the Swan mascot came about because of the South Melbourne ground being adjacent to Albert Park Lake (Lake Oval) where many Swans graze on its waters.

The club was originally known as "The Blood Stained Angels" which was then later abbreviated to "The Bloods". I remember reading somewhere the club was also known as the "Red and White Beauties" pre VFL.

[KSAS]

1858
The first game of football played, Melbourne Grammar defeated St Kilda Grammar, two months earlier than the Melbourne Grammar v's Scotch College game that most books mention.

1860
Rob Hess claims that an Emerald Hill team existed as early as 1860. The first hard evidence I've personally seen of teams playing football in the South Melbourne/Albert-Park/Emerald Hill area is a match report of a 20 a side game from 1864, games are likely to have been going on prior to that date.

1867
The "South Melbourne" club is founded in the evening of May 21st in the Rose of Denmark pub. It undoubtedly involved players with experience elsewhere but this was a brand new foundation. As the Argus reported it was "A meeting of gentlemen desirous of forming a football club on Emerald-hill." This is the club usually referred to as Albert Park.

1869
After a turbulent meeting held in a school in Clarendon street in which several gentlemen "singularly vehement, if not elegant, in their language" argued for keeping the South Melbourne name, changing to Emerald Hill, or combining the two - the club changed it's name to "Albert Park."

1874
The "Cecil" club is founded in a temperance meeting hall, the club changed it's name shortly after it's foundation to "South Melbourne" because that name had become vacant. This is the club usually referred to as South Melbourne.

1876
So many North Melbourne players defect to the Albert Park club (who award gold medals as part of the end of year festivities) that North goes into hiatus, is unable to field a team.

1877
VFA competition starts with 6 senior teams, Carlton, Melbourne, Albert Park, St.Kilda, Geelong and the reformed and rebranded North Melbourne (Hotham). South Melbourne is among the junior teams, which also included Essendon and Hawthorn.

1880
The Albert Park and South Melbourne clubs amalgamate on 22 January 1880, they finish the season in third place. The win their first flag next year.


A good idea, perhaps one of moderators might try, this stuff has popped up in a few threads over the years.

Thanks RNR, that is the best concise history of the club's foundation I've come across! You've certainly have done extensive research. I didn't even realise there was both a Albert Park and South Melbourne teams in the VFA when it first formed in 1877. I get the sense it's so easy to get confused tracing the foundation of the SMFC, which may explain why authors have given their various interpretations of what took place. Going by your timeline what I've now realised (and your argument) is that the name SMFC first came into existence in 1867 and is the same club involved in all the pursuing threads which lead to the 1880 Albert Park amalgation and adopting it's Red and White colours, hence why 1867 can technically be recognised as the club's foundation year (even earlier to 1860 if it had futher direct links to Emerald Hill FC which is mind boggling! It would make us 3rd oldest team in the comp!).

I know one of the two South Melbourne teams had blue and white colours. I'm guessing that would be the 1874 formed team, on the assumption 1867 SMFC formed team which later (1869) changed it's name to Albert Park had already adopted the red and white colours?