As part of the VFL/AFL’s 100th
season celebrations in 1996, a Team Of The Century was selected and announced. While the team is in part now
an historical artifact, it still to some extent shapes comparisons between the
great players, and serves as a benchmark for discussing new stars. For example,
when there are discussions about whether Matthew Scarlett is the best full-back
of all-time, the main reference point for comparison is usually Stephen
Silvagni, who was often referred to as ‘Full-back Of The Century’ after he was
named in the side.
But how much are those
reference points actually historical ‘accidents’, determined by the Team
selection process itself? As I’ll get into below, Silvagni probably wasn’t even
the first choice of the selection panel. There were rules and limitations
around the selection process – how much did that affect the final outcome?
My conclusion: a little. I
think the majority of the team had a reasonably strong ‘consensus’, but there
may have been some ‘quirks’ in a few of the positions.
(P.S. – If at any point your
response is “How can they be compared? No-one saw them all play”, just stop
reading; this type of sports discussion isn’t for you.)
The Team Of The Century
– and the rule that got Silvagni selected
Alright, first let’s re-cap
who was selected:
Now here’s the main point to
note. Also as part of the 1996 celebrations the Australian Football Hall of
Fame was established with an initial set of 136 inductees. To be eligible for
selection in the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century, a player had to be in that
initial Australian Football Hall of Fame class (and actually played in the
VFL/AFL of course, so no Barrie Robran or Merv McIntosh), unless they were not
yet eligible to be in the Hall of Fame – i.e. present-day players and recent
retirees. (That initial Hall of Fame class also had selection boundaries, with
30 players each from the three periods of 1901-1930, 1931-1960, and 1961-1995,
and some from pre-1901).
As selection panel member Allen
Aylett recounted years later, this rule played a large part in Silvagni being
selected into the team. Aylett’s view is that the panel
preferred either David Dench or Geoff Southby, but neither were eligible to be
selected as they only made the Hall Of Fame a few years later. Now you could argue
that if they were not in the 100-odd initial inductees maybe they shouldn’t be
in the ‘greatest ever’ team of 21, but it sounds like they were the preferred
candidates of the panel in any case. (Also, to get in the Hall of Fame, they
weren’t competing for 100-odd spots against players from all eras, they were
competing for the 30 spots allocated to players from 1961-1995.)
Collingwood full-back Jack
Regan was eligible and the overwhelming favourite to be selected, but Aylett
says the two oldest members of the panel (Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs) who saw
Regan play weren’t supportive of him. That is when they started considering
Silvagni as a candidate, noting too they would have been short of other options
since there were only a few full-backs in the initial Hall of Fame class.
Hence, Carlton’s Silvagni
ended up being selected and wound up as the ‘benchmark’ for full-backs ever
since, whereas before that barely anyone rated him higher than Regan (at least
based on accounts of Regan, as even then not a lot of people would have seen
him play) – or even Dench or Southby. Now it is true Silvagni was partway
through his career in 1996, and subsequent accomplishments may have seen him
considered the ‘greatest’ full-back eventually anyway. But it sounds likely he at
least would not have been ‘Full-back Of The Century’ if Dench or Southby had
been eligible.
The nominations
Each of the 18 field positions
had three nominations, with the three-man interchange able to be made up of
players from any position not in the starting 18.
It is unclear whether the
nominations happened first, and the selections were made from those
‘shortlists’, or the selections were made first and nominations filled out
around them to build suspense for the announcement. From what Aylett says about
the process to find a candidate for the full-back position after Dench and
Southby were ruled out, it may well have been the latter.
If the nominations did come
first, it is also uncertain whether players could only be considered for ‘one
side of the field’ only; i.e. they were up against two other nominations rather
than five for pockets, flanks, and wings. I expect that at least some players
were up against others for specific roles – one of the back pocket groups is
clearly a ‘second ruck’ role, while one of the forward pocket groups looks like
a ‘second rover’ role. (I do know what it was for the readers’ vote, which I’ll
get to below.)
Anyway, these were the nominations:
The main thing of note in
terms of the selection process is that six players were nominated for more than
one position: Rantall, Bourke, Reynolds, Ablett Sr, Bartlett, and Matthews. Of
particular note is that Ablett Sr wasn’t nominated as a half-forward flank,
which is the position he is most associated with, and Reynolds wasn’t nominated
as a rover. That means Ablett Sr had to ‘get past’ either Matthews in the
forward pocket or Coleman at full-forward to earn a spot in the first 18, both
of which were a tall order. And while Reynolds was known to play on the wing or
half-forward, he is certainly most well-known as a rover (or ruck rover). In
the end, Reynolds was named at half-forward, again suggesting that perhaps the
selections came first and the nominations came second.
Nicholls nominated as a back
pocket but not a ruck also makes me think the team may have come first. Dempsey
was a ruck that was well-known for also playing in the back pocket, and Mueller
played on multiple lines, but Nicholls was primarily a ruck who ‘rested’
forward. I expect the panel decided that the two ‘best’ rucks were Farmer and
Nicholls, and placed one at ruck and the other in the back pocket – and similarly
for Skilton and Bunton in the rover and forward pocket positions.
Another thing of note, which
I’ve pointed out above for full-backs, is that some positions were not high on
options; for a few of them (backs mostly) if you were in the initial Hall of
Fame class you were a good chance of being a Team of The Century nomination.
Conversely, for positions full
of ‘stars’ it is noteworthy who wasn’t nominated. In particular Tony Lockett,
Jason Dunstall, Peter Hudson, and Gordon Coventry were not nominated at
full-forward, so based on that you’d assume the panel rated Coleman and Pratt
and even Ablett as being better in that position.
The readers vote
Leading up to the
announcement, Herald Sun readers also had a chance to vote from the ‘nominations’
in each position, and name their interchange. I remember ticking the boxes and
posting my vote! Here’s the published
‘readers team’:
Noting that the readers were
limited by the nominations (so they couldn’t pick Lockett for example), the
readers team as a whole was fairly much in line with the panel’s choices. Given
that fans
picked three full-forwards on field when given a broader range of options in
2014,
limiting their options may not have been the worst move.
They agreed with the panel on
fifteen of the twenty-one spots: Nicholls, Doull, Whitten, Murray, Bourke,
Stewart, Greig, Jesaulenko, Hart, Coleman, Bunton, Farmer, Barassi, Skilton,
and Dyer – with Ablett Sr on field rather than the bench. Hence, I’m
comfortable in saying there was a fair degree of ‘consensus’ on the Team of The
Century – although apart from not being able to pick some players, I reckon
there’s a good chance that six players being nominated in multiple positions
affected the outcome.
The readers team doesn’t
include Leigh Matthews! I repeat, the player that is often considered the
greatest footballer ever – Leigh Matthews – was not in the readers’ team, not
even on the interchange! What happened?
It’s unclear whether the
readers team was decided by who had the most votes, or who had the most votes
in that position. I know for sure from filling out the form that there
were only three possible candidates in each spot on the field. My guess is that
Ablett Sr is in the final ‘readers team’ over Matthews because he got the most
‘ticks’ in that forward pocket spot, and Skilton got the rover position because
he had the most ‘ticks’ in that spot. But Matthews could well have got more total
votes than either Ablett or Skilton. And if Matthews didn’t get many
‘interchange’ votes, because he was usually picked on field as either the
forward pocket or rover, maybe that’s how he missed out there too.
Similarly with Dick Reynolds.
Reynolds not only may have his vote split over two positions, they are also –
as discussed above – two positions he is not heavily associated with. Greig is
far more well-known as a wing than Reynolds, and Bartlett is more well-known as
a forward. Reynolds may have been ‘shafted’ in the readers’ team in part
because of this.
Though it is worth noting that
some of Bartlett’s vote could have been split too with the forward pocket. This
suggests that perhaps more people voted for Bartlett relative to Reynolds than
they did for Bartlett relative to Bunton, resulting in Bartlett in being named
at half-forward on the readers team, and Bunton beating out Aylett for the
forward pocket.
Note the readers picked Regan.
It feels like the only two people at the time who didn’t think it should be
Regan at full-back were Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs.
Finally, the readers picked
Charlie Sutton over Bernie Smith. Smith is clearly considered a ‘great’, but this
selection seems more lineball the more I think about it. I find it interesting
that The
Sporting Life unofficial ‘All-Australian’ teams in the late 1940s and early
1950s picked Sutton four times and Smith only once.
Smith didn’t even get picked in the year he won the Brownlow! – it was Sutton
and Magarey Medal winner John Marriott. Jack Dyer’s book ‘The Greatest’ also
left Smith out of the best side from 1947 to 1956 (and picked Sutton as the
best back pocket ever). Did having fellow Geelong player Bob Davis on the
selection panel help get Smith over the line? Did they want a South Australian
representative in the dawn of the national competition? This all suggests at
least he wasn’t as ‘out of the box’ in his position as his selection led me to
believe.
An ‘alternative truth’
Team Of The Century
Considering the above
observations, I propose this ‘alternative truth’ VFL/AFL Team Of The Century,
if the selection process had been a touch different.
It is mostly the same as the
official team. We ignore the ‘old guys’ on the panel though, and go back to the
‘conventional wisdom’ of the time that Regan was the greatest full-back ever,
no questions asked. Regan did poll well in the Brownlow, so we’re not just
relying on anecdotes here. Now the debate becomes whether Silvagni surpassed
Regan after 1996.
We’ll also side with the
Herald Sun readers of the time and those Sporting Life selectors, and pick
Sutton over Smith.
The half-forward flank
situation is murky, due to Ablett Sr not being nominated there, and Bartlett
and Reynolds being nominated in multiple positions. I think we can say the
readers sided with Bartlett over Reynolds at half-forward. Whether they would
have sided with Jesaulenko or Ablett Sr over Bartlett is unclear. But since
Bartlett didn’t actually make the official team, let’s put Jesaulenko and
Ablett Sr on the half-forward flanks, and give Bartlett a spot on the bench
instead. Reynolds stays in the team too, as he made the official team, and I
think he may well have got ‘shafted’ by the selection process for the readers
team.
Note that if this selection
had happened a few years later I reckon Wayne Carey (not even nominated in
1996) would have been picked over Hart at centre half-forward, although that
may have depended upon whether Carey was involved in any scandal at the time.
So if you want an alternative ‘20th century’ VFL/AFL team, replace
Hart with Carey instead.
The 21st
century ‘greats’
OK, now since the VFL/AFL Team
Of The Century was released, there have been a number of attempts to update it,
on the view that it essentially stands as an ‘all-time team’ as much as a 20th
century record. For instance, one of the most ‘searchable’ attempts was by
the Herald Sun in 2014, where they made four changes.
(Many would argue that it’s
best just to start again since the AFL started, but I’ve seen that done plenty
of times, and I’m of the view it’s one continuous league.)
Below are some of the more
common suggestions I’ve seen for changes to accommodate more recent legends,
and what I think of them.
Gavin Wanganeen over Smith or
Sutton: I’ve warmed to this one now I’ve found out Smith may not
have clearly stood out to his contemporaries as someone extraordinary, while
noting that Wanganeen himself picked up five All-Australian selections. Both
Smith and Wanganeen won Brownlow Medals from the back pocket, so there isn’t
really a strong argument for one or the other on that basis (other than I don’t
know how Wanganeen beat Greg Williams in 1993, and Smith had an all-time
great acceptance photo). As for Wanganeen v Sutton – Sutton is
more revered, though in part because he’s synonymous with one club. Wanganeen
looks more like the ideal of a modern defender. I think there’s a decent case
to be made for Wanganeen here.
(Corey Enright and Chris
Johnson are other recent small defenders that get support, but probably more as
mainstays of successful teams – though Enright being ‘twice best-and-fairest’
of a premiership team is a nice argument to have in one’s – ahem – back pocket…)
Silvagni or Scarlett over
Regan: This probably wouldn’t even be a discussion if the pre-1996
consensus had survived the Team Of The Century selection. Silvagni was pretty
much who he was by the mid-90s. Let the Magpies have this one… (Otherwise,
Silvagni v Scarlett is a tough one I reckon. I also think the stats are kind to
Dustin Fletcher.)
A ‘true’ defender over
Nicholls: Yeah, a second ruck resting in the back pocket is very much
a thing of the past. But it’s still enough of the past I’d allow it,
particularly because Nicholls is generally regarded as closer in greatness to
Farmer than any ‘true’ back pocket is to him. (Bourke
moving to the back pocket is a better suggestion than I first appreciated
though.)
Luke Hodge or Andrew McLeod
over Murray: I think there’s something to this one. Hodge
and McLeod had basically the same longevity as Murray. They definitely had more
team success, and won two Norm Smith Medals each, although not getting to the
Grand Final is hardly Murray’s fault. But even still I think Murray may have a
slight edge. He racked up best-and-fairest awards for fun, although in a relatively
poor team. Outside of the team though he not only won a Brownlow Medal, he got
a truckload of votes in his career – only Skilton had more when he retired.
Plus, there’s less doubts over his status as an ‘actual’ defender. At the
least, I don’t think either Hodge or McLeod go clearly past him.
Gary Ablett Jr, Chris Judd, Michael
Voss, James Hird, Nathan Buckley, any great inside midfielder over Bourke and
Greig: The All-Australian team has infamously left out ‘true’
wing players for years to fit more inside midfield stars in, and revisions of
the Team Of The Century have sometimes pulled the same thing to fit in the 21st-century
midfield stars. Were Ablett Jr, Judd, Voss, etc. better players than Bourke and
Greig? Possibly. Were any of them actually wings? Probably not. I don’t think
there’s a ‘true’ wing/outside midfielder in the 21st century that is
rated as highly as people rated Bourke and Greig. I might accept Adam Goodes,
since I’m not sure he even had a position.
Greg Williams over Stewart: I
haven’t mentioned Williams much yet, who I ‘kicked out’ of the Team Of The
Century above without comment. Williams was great. Three Brownlows beats two
though, and the readers didn’t pick Williams back in ’96. (P.S. ‘Diesel’
probably should have had three Brownlows; again, I don’t know how Wanganeen
beat him in 1993.)
Carey over Hart: This
hurts, but I accept it.
Lance Franklin over Carey: Hmm,
it’s tempting…
Lockett or Franklin over
Coleman: I get the argument. Lockett has kicked more goals than
anyone in VFL/AFL history. Franklin was a marvel to watch, and
has kicked the most ‘era-adjusted’ goals ever. Coleman kicked about
half their total amounts before his career ended prematurely. But on goals
per game, only Hudson is close. Really, the main reason why
this is even a debate seems to me simply that John Coleman dislocated his knee.
Or maybe that many more people in Australia could tell you who Lockett and
Franklin are.
Judd or Voss or Hird or
Buckley, etc. over Barassi: This seems a little wrong to
consider since Barassi was central to defining the ruck rover position. As much
of an icon as he is though, he also seems to be the one that experts – when
pressed – admit was just a rung below the game’s greatest on‑ballers. I think
from a pure footballing standpoint either Judd or Voss could be considered a
better choice, I personally lean towards Judd. Lucky we have a fourth bench
spot now, so I can somewhat avoid the ire of any Demon fans reading this.
Ablett Jr over Skilton or
Bunton (or Matthews): Man, you could make an argument these are four of the best players ever. Skilton got the rover spot over Bunton in
the Team Of The Century. Matthews was a star up forward, and Ablett Jr was very
capable there. I think Ablett Jr should be in the starting 18, and I’d bench
Bunton who also had by far the shortest VFL/AFL career of the four.
Dustin Martin over Bartlett: I
reckon the consensus for best-ever Tiger shifted after Martin won his third
Norm Smith Medal in the 2020 Grand Final. Dusty probably gets in over KB now –
not that Bartlett actually ever was in the ‘official’ team – and I think
there’s a decent case he takes one of the onfield forward spots as a midfielder-forward.
Martin, Carey, and Ablett Sr as a half-forward line is the stuff of dreams or
nightmares. Jezza is more versatile coming off the bench anyway. (Could Hird be
half-forward instead of Martin? Yes that’s definitely a reasonable view, but
Martin seems to be at the ‘top of the pyramid’ now. Plus, he’s just cooler than
Hird was.)
Anyone over Whitten or Doull: Nope.
Although Teddy probably wasn’t anywhere near as much of a pure centre half-back
as these exercises make it seem like he was.
Taking my ‘alternative truth’
Team Of The Century as a starting point then, an updated all-time VFL/AFL team
could be this – with the benefit of a fourth interchange player like current
teams:
That’s not a lot of changes
given the passage of about 30 years, but many
of the main stars in that time have been inside midfielders or forwards. So
unless we’re somewhat ‘cheating’ to get guys like Judd or Buckley on the wings,
I think the half-back and centre lines should stay as they are. You might
disagree though.
OK that was a bit, but hope it
was of interest. Don’t ask me about an all-time All-Australian team; I’m too
tired now to even consider how to fit Robran in…
