Updated Swans Team of the Century?

[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.

[Captain]

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.

All fair points, but 300+ games and a premiership gets Micky O over the line IMO.

[Blood Fever]

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.

Great post, especially about Morwood playing in mediocre teams. Still, I would give the nod to Mickey O because he became a lot stronger physically in the second half of his career and played as a key position full forward with great success, despite not being able to train a lot due to knee tendonitis.

[Aprilbr]

This thread got me to thinking which, if any, of our current young guns may one day be in the Swans Team of the Century (Next)? My money is on Mills, Heeney and Blakey being the most likely if their careers continue to takeoff.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Captain]

This thread got me to thinking which, if any, of our current young guns may one day be in the Swans Team of the Century (Next)? My money is on Mills, Heeney and Blakey being the most likely if their careers continue to takeoff.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Jordan Dawson?

[stevoswan]

"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!

That's Sheedy though.....for all the cudo's he receives, the bottom line is, he is a nasty bastard. He was on field and not much has changed off it.