Top 100 players since 1980

[Blind Turn]

I reckon he's a bit unlucky to miss out but it's hard to fit them all in.

As a comparison, Cyril Rioli won premierships, starred in 2015’s decider, and did freakish things weekly. He’s only just on the list. Garry Wilson was probably the best rover in the comp when the Krakouers debuted. I’ve only just re-included him.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Gray was on the list 12 months or so ago and would be literally a handful of spots back. Again, my somewhat subjective take on watching players for 45 years, is that Isaac Heeney is producing a level of quality that impresses me marginally more than the consistent season upon season career of Gray. However, somewhat objectively, I needed to see it shown to the degree he had over that last 2-3 years rather than in flashes. A season of rubbish in 2025 would tarnish that view without a doubt. I also want this list to be dynamically changing rather than just based on end of career status. Heeney and Merrett are in the conversation as best players in the comp at present and thoroughly deserve consideration at this point. But I also recognise that others would prefer Gray, Wayne Johnston, Rance, or even Tony Shaw. Again, you might be right in that I’ve jumped the gun on Heeney. But his level of performance has been eye-catching and I feel like he’s found his mojo as an elite footballer. Let’s see how it pans out over the next few years. I’ll be fully hands up in acknowledgement of my misreading of this if he falls off a cliff

Fair enough. I think overall it's a pretty good list and whilst my positioning would be different, I'd have most of the same names you have. There's probably 6 or 7 "clear" changes I'd make but after that it becomes small margins and personal preferences.

I might share my thoughts on who'd I'd swap and why (if interested) rather than try and do a 100 of my own.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I think my first change would be:

Out: Jobe Watson
In: Scott West

With all due respect, this swap feels less "personal preference" and more of a no brainer. They were both quite similar players in many ways - neither were blessed with pace but both were inside beasts that could find the contested ball/win a clearance at will with good vision and neat (if unremarkable) disposal. They were both the leader of their midfield and the "engine room" for their respective sides. The clear difference is that West was elite for far, far longer - and I would also argue his peak was higher (without accounting for the controversy surrounding Jobe's peak). West won the best and fairest 7 times to Jobe's 3 and was All Australian 5 times to Jobe's 2. He was top 3 in the Brownlow 4 times to Jobe being top 10 once. Not only did West play over 100 more games, he was a B&F winner at age 20 and was still All Australian (and runner up in the Brownlow) at age 31. By comparison, Watson's peak was very short - he was lucky not to be delisted at 20, didn't crack 10 BL votes until 24 and was no longer elite at 29.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

The next change I'd probably make is:

Out: Mark Mercuri
In: Eddie Betts

Rationale: Was Mercuri smooth moving? Yes! Did he have a fantastic season in '99? Absolutely. Top 100 since 1980? Not all that close for mine. In fact, outside of '99, I'm not sure he was amongst the game's elite (i.e. top 10-15 or so) any other year. Just in double checking, he was not All Australian any other year, did not crack 10 votes in the Brownlow any other year and as far as I can tell, was not top 3 in the B&F any other year. He would have big games (including in finals) and was influential beyond the stat sheet but for top 100, you need to be amongst the game's best week in, week out, year in, year out in my view.
There's a few option on who I could have brought in but I've decided to mention Eddie Betts first. For the time period in question (45 years of modern footy), he kicked (comfortably) more goals than any other small forward. On top of that, he recorded the most assists since the stat was kept. All up, he recorded 958 goals + assists - that's ridiculous for anyone in 21st century footy, let alone a small, crumbing forward (next best being about 200 behind). Add to that an elite peak (75 goals in a season, 3 straight AA's and 6 times in 7 years in the squad), unusual longevity (350 games) and a ridiculous highlights package and I reckon he's in. He's arguably the best in his position for the time period (not even close to true for Mercuri) which is why I'd bring in Betts.

 

[Blind Turn]

I think my first change would be:

Out: Jobe Watson
In: Scott West

With all due respect, this swap feels less "personal preference" and more of a no brainer. They were both quite similar players in many ways - neither were blessed with pace but both were inside beasts that could find the contested ball/win a clearance at will with good vision and neat (if unremarkable) disposal. They were both the leader of their midfield and the "engine room" for their respective sides. The clear difference is that West was elite for far, far longer - and I would also argue his peak was higher (without accounting for the controversy surrounding Jobe's peak). West won the best and fairest 7 times to Jobe's 3 and was All Australian 5 times to Jobe's 2. He was top 3 in the Brownlow 4 times to Jobe being top 10 once. Not only did West play over 100 more games, he was a B&F winner at age 20 and was still All Australian (and runner up in the Brownlow) at age 31. By comparison, Watson's peak was very short - he was lucky not to be delisted at 20, didn't crack 10 BL votes until 24 and was no longer elite at 29.

There is definitely an argument for choosing West. As similar players he definitely has the greater span of elite years. No question. I’d argue though, that Jobe’s peak performing years were superior to West’s. The number of team lifting games he inspired were eye-catching. West went about his business in a super-consistent way of which I admire massively but he was a beige player and at their peak I’d choose Jobe. Again, this is my subjective take, and I have absolutely no issue in others objectively preferring West. Also, Jobe’s BnF total would definitely have been 2, or even 3, more if not for injury. 2011, 2013 and 2014 he missed games despite consistently being his side’s best player when fit. I think it was probably the ability to will himself upon a contest at crucial times in a game that sways me as much as anything.

 

[Blind Turn]

The next change I'd probably make is:

Out: Mark Mercuri
In: Eddie Betts

Rationale: Was Mercuri smooth moving? Yes! Did he have a fantastic season in '99? Absolutely. Top 100 since 1980? Not all that close for mine. In fact, outside of '99, I'm not sure he was amongst the game's elite (i.e. top 10-15 or so) any other year. Just in double checking, he was not All Australian any other year, did not crack 10 votes in the Brownlow any other year and as far as I can tell, was not top 3 in the B&F any other year. He would have big games (including in finals) and was influential beyond the stat sheet but for top 100, you need to be amongst the game's best week in, week out, year in, year out in my view.
There's a few option on who I could have brought in but I've decided to mention Eddie Betts first. For the time period in question (45 years of modern footy), he kicked (comfortably) more goals than any other small forward. On top of that, he recorded the most assists since the stat was kept. All up, he recorded 958 goals + assists - that's ridiculous for anyone in 21st century footy, let alone a small, crumbing forward (next best being about 200 behind). Add to that an elite peak (75 goals in a season, 3 straight AA's and 6 times in 7 years in the squad), unusual longevity (350 games) and a ridiculous highlights package and I reckon he's in. He's arguably the best in his position for the time period (not even close to true for Mercuri) which is why I'd bring in Betts.

Betts was on the list for several years and is another who is on the cusp of entry. I’m probably doing a disservice to him by leaving him out but I’m not so sure it would be at the expense of Mercs. Sure, Mercs’ aesthetically pleasing style counts for a lot here but, as you highlight, it’s backed up by some outstanding finals contributions and one of the best single midfield maestro years we’ve seen. It’s a shame things fell away for him after 2000 but that doesn’t detract from the level he did reach and the impact he had in a successful era. In terms of aesthetically gifted players, is he any less deserving than the universally acclaimed Robbie Flower who only won one BnF and didn’t have many notable big game heroics or other major awards/accolades? I like to romanticise the wizardry of gifted players but they need some substance to their careers too. Mercs definitely had that, and I’d argue that Flower’s longevity as a talismanic presence in a woeful club culture is also substantial. There’s no way in hell I’d leave Flower off this list, at this stage, and Mercs is not out of his league in this respect.

If I were to chose between Betts and West I would select Betts and he might be worth a reconsideration.

Is Dipper under the pump perhaps? A finals beast who was a surprise Brownlow winner versus a long career full of wizardry. Objectivity is impossible between two very different players which inevitably means subjectivity will determine my choice.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Betts was on the list for several years and is another who is on the cusp of entry. I’m probably doing a disservice to him by leaving him out but I’m not so sure it would be at the expense of Mercs. Sure, Mercs’ aesthetically pleasing style counts for a lot here but, as you highlight, it’s backed up by some outstanding finals contributions and one of the best single midfield maestro years we’ve seen. It’s a shame things fell away for him after 2000 but that doesn’t detract from the level he did reach and the impact he had in a successful era. In terms of aesthetically gifted players, is he any less deserving than the universally acclaimed Robbie Flower who only won one BnF and didn’t have many notable big game heroics or other major awards/accolades? I like to romanticise the wizardry of gifted players but they need some substance to their careers too. Mercs definitely had that, and I’d argue that Flower’s longevity as a talismanic presence in a woeful club culture is also substantial. There’s no way in hell I’d leave Flower off this list, at this stage, and Mercs is not out of his league in this respect.

If I were to chose between Betts and West I would select Betts and he might be worth a reconsideration.

Is Dipper under the pump perhaps? A finals beast who was a surprise Brownlow winner versus a long career full of wizardry. Objectivity is impossible between two very different players which inevitably means subjectivity will determine my choice.

Thanks for your response - you needn't remove or add anyone - just suggesting the changes I would make if it were my list. As for the Mercuri and Flower discussion - I don't think there is any comparison to be had there. Flower is regarded by many to be the greatest winger of all time (I'd personally lean to P. Matera but no doubt Flower is in the top 3 or so). Mercuri is just not in that kind of conversation. Similarly, many regard Flower to be Melbourne's (a team that's won 13 flags) 2nd greatest ever player (behind Barrassi). Mercuri would not make Essendon's top 25. Not sure about Flower not having big game heroics or any accolades. Yes, his team was awful and so he played very few finals. But you know what were more intense and highly skilled games at the time? State games. Not only was Flower picked at every opportunity to represent Victoria, he was consistently Victoria's best player when it was the best players in the country and it meant something. In fact, he was named Victoria's best player in '77, '78 '80, '82 and '83 - the latter two with him as state captain. Even then, after being coaxed out of retirement, Melbourne finally made finals in Flower's last season on the back of a recruitment drive where the main selling point was "let's make finals for Flower", such was his universal love/respect. Despite being at the end of his career and pretty banged up, Flower kicked 5 goals from a wing in his first final and was brilliant. He kicked 4 the following week and was very good again. Heartbreakingly, they lost the Prelim when Stynes crossed the mark and Bucky kicked truly, but I have no doubt that Melbourne would have won had Dipper not completely crushed Flower at the start of the game, forcing him from the field for large parts of the game and needing to play on painkilling injections.
Even the accolades thing isn't fair on Flower. He played in the carnival era so AA's weren't available like they are today, but he was still named AA twice. On top of those, The Team of the Year (equivalent of current AA) was introduced near the end of his career and he made the team in it's first, second and third years ('82, '83,'84). Had it existed prior, he certainly would have made it in '77, '78 and '80 as well. That's 6 All Australian equivalents.. As for the B&F thing, it's long been regarded as one of the great mysteries in football (the long running theory/joke is that someone on the match committee was dyslexic as Laurie Fowler - an unremarkable back pocket - won the B&F 3 times when Flower was clearly Melbourne's best). Even then, Flower still finished top 2 in the B&F 5 times. He was also top 3 in the Brownlow several times, which s remarkable for a winger in a struggling side. He ended his career with 150 Brownlow votes (in an era with much lower tallies) compared to Mercuri who had just 53 (nearly half of which came in his 1 elite year). I'd be surprised if you had any other mids in your top 100 with such a low tally.
With the Mercuri selection/comparison, it does seem on the outside like there's an element of nostalgia and bias from your beloved club's last period of success from 2 and a half decades ago. You mention his contribution to a successful period but really the club only won 1 flag and in the year they won it, Mercuri received Brownlow votes in 1 game for the whole season, was not named in the bests in any of the 3 finals and didn't even finish top 10 in the B&F. His contribution - whilst classy at times - was not massive that year (and was a disappointingly big step back from his 1 elite year the season prior). In fact, Mercuri never finished top 10 in Essendon's B&F again after '99. That flag team was devastating in 2000 but you have included 3 (worthy) candidates from that side already (whilst other triple premiership sides have less representation) so I don't think his involvement in 'team success' should influence his inclusion much, if at all. He and Flower are worlds apart as players IMO.

As for Dipper - you're right, comparisons are very difficult but I think you've assessed him about right - he could be in and he could be out - he's a real 'cusp of selection' kind of level IMO, given the quality of players that didn't make it. As you say, he did win a Brownlow, won 5 flags, was a finals beast and was clearly best on ground in at least 1 Grand Final. He was tough and uncomprimising but also a very good player, being selected for Team of the Year (i.e. AA) in '84, '86 and '87 (competing with wingmen like Flower, Hawkins, Rhys-Jones, etc). I think the most surprising thing about his 1986 Brownlow win was that he escaped suspension moreso that a performance perspective. He played every game that year, easily got the most disposals of his career (6th in the league), equalled his highest goal tally, was named in the Team of the Year (and went on to win the flag with a good contribution in finals). Looking at his vote games, they seem to be well deserved, with him averaging over 30 disposals and 2.5 goals a game for the matches he received 3 votes. With all that said, I can definately see an argument for others ahead and for him falling out of the 100, especially if you don't include his Grand Final heroics in '78.

 

[Blind Turn]

Thanks for your response - you needn't remove or add anyone - just suggesting the changes I would make if it were my list. As for the Mercuri and Flower discussion - I don't think there is any comparison to be had there. Flower is regarded by many to be the greatest winger of all time (I'd personally lean to P. Matera but no doubt Flower is in the top 3 or so). Mercuri is just not in that kind of conversation. Similarly, many regard Flower to be Melbourne's (a team that's won 13 flags) 2nd greatest ever player (behind Barrassi). Mercuri would not make Essendon's top 25. Not sure about Flower not having big game heroics or any accolades. Yes, his team was awful and so he played very few finals. But you know what were more intense and highly skilled games at the time? State games. Not only was Flower picked at every opportunity to represent Victoria, he was consistently Victoria's best player when it was the best players in the country and it meant something. In fact, he was named Victoria's best player in '77, '78 '80, '82 and '83 - the latter two with him as state captain. Even then, after being coaxed out of retirement, Melbourne finally made finals in Flower's last season on the back of a recruitment drive where the main selling point was "let's make finals for Flower", such was his universal love/respect. Despite being at the end of his career and pretty banged up, Flower kicked 5 goals from a wing in his first final and was brilliant. He kicked 4 the following week and was very good again. Heartbreakingly, they lost the Prelim when Stynes crossed the mark and Bucky kicked truly, but I have no doubt that Melbourne would have won had Dipper not completely crushed Flower at the start of the game, forcing him from the field for large parts of the game and needing to play on painkilling injections.
Even the accolades thing isn't fair on Flower. He played in the carnival era so AA's weren't available like they are today, but he was still named AA twice. On top of those, The Team of the Year (equivalent of current AA) was introduced near the end of his career and he made the team in it's first, second and third years ('82, '83,'84). Had it existed prior, he certainly would have made it in '77, '78 and '80 as well. That's 6 All Australian equivalents.. As for the B&F thing, it's long been regarded as one of the great mysteries in football (the long running theory/joke is that someone on the match committee was dyslexic as Laurie Fowler - an unremarkable back pocket - won the B&F 3 times when Flower was clearly Melbourne's best). Even then, Flower still finished top 2 in the B&F 5 times. He was also top 3 in the Brownlow several times, which s remarkable for a winger in a struggling side. He ended his career with 150 Brownlow votes (in an era with much lower tallies) compared to Mercuri who had just 53 (nearly half of which came in his 1 elite year). I'd be surprised if you had any other mids in your top 100 with such a low tally.
With the Mercuri selection/comparison, it does seem on the outside like there's an element of nostalgia and bias from your beloved club's last period of success from 2 and a half decades ago. You mention his contribution to a successful period but really the club only won 1 flag and in the year they won it, Mercuri received Brownlow votes in 1 game for the whole season, was not named in the bests in any of the 3 finals and didn't even finish top 10 in the B&F. His contribution - whilst classy at times - was not massive that year (and was a disappointingly big step back from his 1 elite year the season prior). In fact, Mercuri never finished top 10 in Essendon's B&F again after '99. That flag team was devastating in 2000 but you have included 3 (worthy) candidates from that side already (whilst other triple premiership sides have less representation) so I don't think his involvement in 'team success' should influence his inclusion much, if at all. He and Flower are worlds apart as players IMO.

As for Dipper - you're right, comparisons are very difficult but I think you've assessed him about right - he could be in and he could be out - he's a real 'cusp of selection' kind of level IMO, given the quality of players that didn't make it. As you say, he did win a Brownlow, won 5 flags, was a finals beast and was clearly best on ground in at least 1 Grand Final. He was tough and uncomprimising but also a very good player, being selected for Team of the Year (i.e. AA) in '84, '86 and '87 (competing with wingmen like Flower, Hawkins, Rhys-Jones, etc). I think the most surprising thing about his 1986 Brownlow win was that he escaped suspension moreso that a performance perspective. He played every game that year, easily got the most disposals of his career (6th in the league), equalled his highest goal tally, was named in the Team of the Year (and went on to win the flag with a good contribution in finals). Looking at his vote games, they seem to be well deserved, with him averaging over 30 disposals and 2.5 goals a game for the matches he received 3 votes. With all that said, I can definately see an argument for others ahead and for him falling out of the 100, especially if you don't include his Grand Final heroics in '78.

Yes, I remember Flower performing well for Victoria a few times. In terms of appreciation for his career you’re probably preaching to the converted. I loved him. But it’s mainly from the aesthetic imprint he left.

Your thorough exposé on his career accolades is fantastic and there are probably some things I overlooked on his resumè such as top ten BnF placings and VIC captaincy.

I don’t think it’s just a nostalgic thing for me with Mercs. I genuinely think that his skill set and clutch moments in big games are forgotten by the larger public though.

This quote from the Essendon past players website justifies my memories of him more than any argument against his legitimacy might sway me;

“James Hird described Mercuri as the best player he had played with and Kevin Sheedy said he was among the best players he had coached - high praise indeed.”

These two worked the closest with him whilst he played in a successful era. They had a lot of great players to compare him to.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Also, Jobe’s BnF total would definitely have been 2, or even 3, more if not for injury

It seems utterly strange to be defending a player's position in this list for the theoretical possibility of what they could have done if not for injury, something that is not considered for other players but also just absurd on its face - surely this list is for what the players actually did on the field, when fit?

 

[Blind Turn]

It seems utterly strange to be defending a player's position in this list for the theoretical possibility of what they could have done if not for injury, something that is not considered for other players but also just absurd on its face - surely this list is for what the players actually did on the field, when fit?

It was brought up here in a discussion about Jobe specifically and it’s simply to support the notion that at his peak he was in a position to have won a few more BnF. Scott West played nearly every game every season and that helps his cause in gaining club BnFs. Jobe was the best player at his club over a period of 6 seasons. West wasn’t the best player at his club over the period he won 7 BnFs. Chris Grant and Brad Johnson were better players and it could be argued might’ve been a bit stiff not to have won a couple of those. The winning of BnFs is relative to a few factors and one of them is missing a games when you’re in career-best form. Another is voting formats that favour players who play every game at a consistent level. I think it’s a fair point to raise and it would apply to any players who were denied awards by unfortunately timed injuries such as Hird in 2003 when he had possibly his best season and finished on 19 votes when the winners finished on 22. He missed 5 games in the middle of the season. That has to be taken into account when you’re trying to pump up the achievements of the winners that year. Hird didn’t get the accolade but he was possibly the best performed player during the season.

And of course, this forum is open for fans to also point out players who were denied accolades due to misfortune. That’s why I’ve made this thread - to generate (respectful) discussion. I am open to changing my opinion based on stuff I wasn’t aware of. Naturally, I use Hird and Jobe as my examples because, as a fan, I was acutely aware of these nuances. Yet, in this very discussion I have learnt about the possibility that Flower only won a single BnF because a dyslexic mistook him for Laurie Fowler That’s fantastic info to learn and even though I already rate Flower highly anyway, it makes him even more endearing to me.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Having Joel Selwood ahead of Kevin Bartlett is ridiculous.

 

[Blind Turn]

Having Joel Selwood ahead of Kevin Bartlett is ridiculous.

I tried explain it clearly in the OP. It’s focussed on 1980 onwards. KB showed me enough to consider him highly despite being predominantly a forward in the 80s. I saw remnants of the rover he once was. Selwood, was an inspiration and instrumental in successful Cats eras. I think that his standing here is warranted. KB, from an overall career perspective, would be ahead. But that is not what I’m evaluating here seeing as I didn’t see KB prior to 1980 so I can’t fairly judge that period of his career.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I tried explain it clearly in the OP. It’s focussed on 1980 onwards. KB showed me enough to consider him highly despite being predominantly a forward in the 80s. I saw remnants of the rover he once was. Selwood, was an inspiration and instrumental in successful Cats eras. I think that his standing here is warranted. KB, from an overall career perspective, would be ahead. But that is not what I’m evaluating here seeing as I didn’t see KB prior to 1980 so I can’t fairly judge that period of his career.

Ok , I didn't realise

 

[SSSSSS]

Mercuri, Merrett, Jab Watson.

Wow.

 

[Blind Turn]

Mercuri, Merrett, Jab Watson.

Wow.

All fantastic footballers. All in the conversation as best handful of players in the comp at their peak. Mercuri has the added bonus of being possibly the most aesthetically pleasing player I’ve seen. Snort Franklin and Smug Mitchell have been given their dues here without bias. How about you pull your head in with the ‘Jab’ bullshit. Uncalled for in a thread I’ve created for respectful discussion.