SA Footy

This week two blokes play there 300th games for there respective clubs. Why supporters of both clubs would rate Andrew Mcleod and Shane Crawford highly, how do you think these two guys rate in the history of the game? One has got two norm smith medals, so obviously is a big game player, while the other is a brownlow medallist, which speaks for itself.

I think the really unfortunate thing for Crawf, is that he's acted like such a idiot so often, that his footy itself has got a little lost. Super player over many years, and regarded very highly for his leadership at Hawks, but will probably go down in history as the bloke who pulled down Sam Newmans jocks on National TV.

Andrew McLeod is an immortal of the game.
Shane Crawford is not.
Nuff said.

I rate them both highly.
Too hard to separate them.
Great players, well done!

Chuck Norris wrote:I rate them both highly.
Too hard to separate them.
Great players, well done!

Well put.
Both great players that I'm sure we'd all happily welcome at our respective clubs.

Goldberg wrote:I think the really unfortunate thing for Crawf, is that he's acted like such a idiot so often, that his footy itself has got a little lost. Super player over many years, and regarded very highly for his leadership at Hawks, but will probably go down in history as the bloke who pulled down Sam Newmans jocks on National TV.

You spend too much time watching TV and not enough watching the football. There was a thread on another forum about memories of Shane Crawford, and not one mentioned Sam Newman's shorts.

Go Crawf!! We love you

I know that threads that ask "which player is better?" are supposed to promote discussion, but what always come up with them is the individual awards or premierships these players played in. Some players don't win Brownlow Medals because they don't get noticed enough by the umpires as opposed to other players - look at Scott West for example. Then players like him have a great year, but there is one player who stood out even more.

Then the premierships come up. Some players don't get to play in a premiership for a number of reasons:
-They got injured at the wrong time - using the SANFL example of Gavin Colville for instance
-They play in a team who doesn't get near the opportuinity to play in a flag side - like Bob Skilton. This doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't good enough to lift the side to win the flag - he and other star players make up one person in the team only
-Players who change clubs for personal reasons (like moving back to their home state), then the club they played for wins the flag a couple of years later

So I'm not too sure why Brownlows/Magareys and premierships have to be the benchmark to determine which player is the better.

spell_check wrote:I know that threads that ask "which player is better?" are supposed to promote discussion, but what always come up with them is the individual awards or premierships these players played in. Some players don't win Brownlow Medals because they don't get noticed enough by the umpires as opposed to other players - look at Scott West for example. Then players like him have a great year, but there is one player who stood out even more.

Then the premierships come up. Some players don't get to play in a premiership for a number of reasons:
-They got injured at the wrong time - using the SANFL example of Gavin Colville for instance
-They play in a team who doesn't get near the opportuinity to play in a flag side - like Bob Skilton. This doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't good enough to lift the side to win the flag - he and other star players make up one person in the team only
-Players who change clubs for personal reasons (like moving back to their home state), then the club they played for wins the flag a couple of years later

So I'm not too sure why Brownlows/Magareys and premierships have to be the benchmark to determine which player is the better.

you have to use some criteria for determining who is the better player.............brownlows/premierships are a good start. But it's not the be all and end all like you mentioned.

amber_fluid wrote:

spell_check wrote:I know that threads that ask "which player is better?" are supposed to promote discussion, but what always come up with them is the individual awards or premierships these players played in. Some players don't win Brownlow Medals because they don't get noticed enough by the umpires as opposed to other players - look at Scott West for example. Then players like him have a great year, but there is one player who stood out even more.

Then the premierships come up. Some players don't get to play in a premiership for a number of reasons:
-They got injured at the wrong time - using the SANFL example of Gavin Colville for instance
-They play in a team who doesn't get near the opportuinity to play in a flag side - like Bob Skilton. This doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't good enough to lift the side to win the flag - he and other star players make up one person in the team only
-Players who change clubs for personal reasons (like moving back to their home state), then the club they played for wins the flag a couple of years later

So I'm not too sure why Brownlows/Magareys and premierships have to be the benchmark to determine which player is the better.

you have to use some criteria for determining who is the better player.............brownlows/premierships are a good start. But it's not the be all and end all like you mentioned.

Not the be all and end all, but I would find that a better place to start would be their strengths and weaknesses in their game, and their consistency, as well as their matchwinning qualities.

It’s not generally known…

Andrew McLeod has racked up more best on grounds (28) in Brownlow Medal voting than any other Crow. He is ranked seventh in VFL/AFL history in this category behind Robert Harvey, Nathan Buckley, Scott West, Greg Williams, John Platten and Peter Matera.

the joker wrote:It’s not generally known…

Andrew McLeod has racked up more best on grounds (28) in Brownlow Medal voting than any other Crow. He is ranked seventh in VFL/AFL history in this category behind Robert Harvey, Nathan Buckley, Scott West, Greg Williams, John Platten and Peter Matera.

I knew this!!! (Read the Crows forum first )

spell_check wrote:I know that threads that ask "which player is better?" are supposed to promote discussion, but what always come up with them is the individual awards or premierships these players played in. Some players don't win Brownlow Medals because they don't get noticed enough by the umpires as opposed to other players - look at Scott West for example. Then players like him have a great year, but there is one player who stood out even more.

Then the premierships come up. Some players don't get to play in a premiership for a number of reasons:
-They got injured at the wrong time - using the SANFL example of Gavin Colville for instance
-They play in a team who doesn't get near the opportuinity to play in a flag side - like Bob Skilton. This doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't good enough to lift the side to win the flag - he and other star players make up one person in the team only
-Players who change clubs for personal reasons (like moving back to their home state), then the club they played for wins the flag a couple of years later

So I'm not too sure why Brownlows/Magareys and premierships have to be the benchmark to determine which player is the better.

You're right Spelly. To be honest, I've never seen the need to compare players anyway. They are both champion footballers and we should leave it at that.

This morning on SEN, Kevin Bartlett was asking people to call in to say which player they thought was better. I think McLeod would have had the vox populi in that exercise. I didn't mind that, even though I'm a Crawford fan, I respect other peoples' opinions.

However, one guy annoyed me by saying McLeod was a better player because he had won 2 Norm Smith medals. I mean, what sort of comparision was that? How can Crawford win a Norm Smith if the team he has played for over the years hasn't been good enough to make a Grand Final.

Both players are champions and you would be thrilled to have either one of them playing in your team.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

spell_check wrote:I know that threads that ask "which player is better?" are supposed to promote discussion, but what always come up with them is the individual awards or premierships these players played in. Some players don't win Brownlow Medals because they don't get noticed enough by the umpires as opposed to other players - look at Scott West for example. Then players like him have a great year, but there is one player who stood out even more.

Then the premierships come up. Some players don't get to play in a premiership for a number of reasons:
-They got injured at the wrong time - using the SANFL example of Gavin Colville for instance
-They play in a team who doesn't get near the opportuinity to play in a flag side - like Bob Skilton. This doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't good enough to lift the side to win the flag - he and other star players make up one person in the team only
-Players who change clubs for personal reasons (like moving back to their home state), then the club they played for wins the flag a couple of years later

So I'm not too sure why Brownlows/Magareys and premierships have to be the benchmark to determine which player is the better.

You're right Spelly. To be honest, I've never seen the need to compare players anyway. They are both champion footballers and we should leave it at that.

This morning on SEN, Kevin Bartlett was asking people to call in to say which player they thought was better. I think McLeod would have had the vox populi in that exercise. I didn't mind that, even though I'm a Crawford fan, I respect other peoples' opinions.

However, one guy annoyed me by saying McLeod was a better player because he had won 2 Norm Smith medals. I mean, what sort of comparision was that? How can Crawford win a Norm Smith if the team he has played for over the years hasn't been good enough to make a Grand Final.

Both players are champions and you would be thrilled to have either one of them playing in your team.

I agree with both of you guys, well said.

It would be like saying (for eg.) that Kym Koster was a better player than Robert Harvey because he played in two premierships.

I think the only legitimate comparisons people can even discuss are same positions in the same era's (ie, Lockett, Dunstall, Modra etc) but even then there are variable factors that will never provide a definitive answer, so it's all pretty much a pointless exercise.

MarblePark wrote:Andrew McLeod is an immortal of the game.
Shane Crawford is not.
Nuff said.

that belongs in the best jokes thread

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

MarblePark wrote:Andrew McLeod is an immortal of the game.
Shane Crawford is not.
Nuff said.

that belongs in the best jokes thread

Don't get me wrong.
Crawford is a fantastic player, one of the best players of his generation, but in another 150 years we won't give a rat's tossbag (thanks blighty) about Crawford...
Andrew McLeod is already a legend. One of the best players ever (and I hate the crows), and in 150 years time he will still be mentioned with reverence...

MarblePark wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

MarblePark wrote:Andrew McLeod is an immortal of the game.
Shane Crawford is not.
Nuff said.

that belongs in the best jokes thread

Don't get me wrong.
Crawford is a fantastic player, one of the best players of his generation, but in another 150 years we won't give a rat's tossbag (thanks blighty) about Crawford...
Andrew McLeod is already a legend. One of the best players ever (and I hate the crows), and in 150 years time he will still be mentioned with reverence...

brilliant an encore performance :lol

MarblePark wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

MarblePark wrote:Andrew McLeod is an immortal of the game.
Shane Crawford is not.
Nuff said.

that belongs in the best jokes thread

Don't get me wrong.
Crawford is a fantastic player, one of the best players of his generation, but in another 150 years we won't give a rat's tossbag (thanks blighty) about Crawford...
Andrew McLeod is already a legend. One of the best players ever (and I hate the crows), and in 150 years time he will still be mentioned with reverence...

You're looking at it from a South Australian point of view. In Victoria they hold a completely different outlook.

DingoWoopWoop wrote:This week two blokes play there 300th games for there respective clubs. Why supporters of both clubs would rate Andrew Mcleod and Shane Crawford highly, how do you think these two guys rate in the history of the game? One has got two norm smith medals, so obviously is a big game player, while the other is a brownlow medallist, which speaks for itself.

You forgot 2 times premirship player.