Given the speed of the game and the sheer fitness required to paly it...far greater than in decades past ( just admit it all) then G A Jnr is easily in the top ten players.

Food for thought. some of the "hallowed" greats ( of yore ) wouldnt get a game today!! theybe blowing hard after quarter time !!

That's a ridiculous assertion. The best players of yesteryear would be every bit as good in the professional fulltime environment of today.

Ablett has had 37 games as an elite player, the previous hundred were nothing special. He needs to do it for longer.

I suppose we'll just disagree, as youre obviously caught in a time warp. Look at athletics.. youre as good as anything is good. Some brilliant times were posted by some runners and they were good in their day.. THEN compare them to times of today... they arent in the same league as today.

Dont confuse "good in their day " to the current yardstick..When measuring you need to use what ever is accepted rule of the day..and by todays standard many wouldnt run out a game today..its just far too fast.

If you claim Abblett wouldnt make your top 30..who are the thirty that would eclipse him ??

I suppose we'll just disagree, as youre obviously caught in a time warp. Look at athletics.. youre as good as anything is good. Some brilliant times were posted by some runners and they were good in their day.. THEN compare them to times of today... they arent in the same league as today.

Dont confuse "good in their day " to the current yardstick..When measuring you need to use what ever is accepted rule of the day..and by todays standard many wouldnt run out a game today..its just far too fast.

If you claim Abblett wouldnt make your top 30..who are the thirty that would eclipse him ??

As much as I hate to admit it, Hannabal is spot on in this instance.

Players from yesterday didn't have the sports science, training regimes or technology that players use to such fantastic advantage in the modern game.

It is like comparing apples and oranges, you simply can't do it.

I dont disagree they were very good.. I dont 'not' acknowlwdege they didnt have the sports science either.

And that also goes to the argument. They didnt have this..they aweren as fit overall..

Again ...many were good in the their day...but by the litmus test of "ever"..then Some such as G QA jnr easily sit high on the tree.

Look at it this way.. Ablett could go back in time and hold his own...tell me how many could time jump to today and do that ??

We're not taling about who 's the greatest high jumper in 1960..or fastest runner in 36..or quickest in teh pool in 54.. its who highest fastest quickest ever.. and they my friends are nearly all contemporaies !!

That's a ridiculous assertion. The best players of yesteryear would be every bit as good in the professional fulltime environment of today.

Ablett has had 37 games as an elite player, the previous hundred were nothing special. He needs to do it for longer.

Completely Agree. If Ablett sustains his current level over the next couple of years he will be in high company. Its feasible he could do it the way he is going.

It ridiculous to extrapolate what other players MIGHT have been ..we can only judge on what they were ( or are )

What are we running here..some sort of handicap system ??

It ridiculous to extrapolate what other players MIGHT have been ..we can only judge on what they were ( or are )

What are we running here..some sort of handicap system ??

Those statements makes your comments in post # 50 in this thread seem rather ridiculous then.

Those statements makes your comments in post # 50 in this thread seem rather ridiculous then.

do explain why...your logic seems confined to yourself currently

He's not as hot as Kouta was in 2000.

I suppose we'll just disagree, as youre obviously caught in a time warp. Look at athletics.. youre as good as anything is good. Some brilliant times were posted by some runners and they were good in their day.. THEN compare them to times of today... they arent in the same league as today.

Dont confuse "good in their day " to the current yardstick..When measuring you need to use what ever is accepted rule of the day..and by todays standard many wouldnt run out a game today..its just far too fast.

If you claim Abblett wouldnt make your top 30..who are the thirty that would eclipse him ??

Are you saying that someone like Jezza or Bobby Skilton or Leigh Matthews wouldn't train so that they would reach the fitness demands of today's game. What a ridiculous idea! of course they would. And they would be the same elite champions as they were in their day. In fact, I was watching a bit 'footy flashbacks' and saw Skilton do the same side step and change pace that Ablett would employ today and slotted through a goal. ..........)thinks) Jezza probably wouldn't have a [censored] at half time

some of you fail to grasp reality..or even logic. I am not saying some of these players could not extrapolate into todays game.. if they were here today they might. BUT THEY ARE NOT. What they have achieved they have achieved ..Its over. Their runs are on the board..and the new kids are putting theirs.

We're not necesaarily saying ( well Im not ) that Ablett is the best ever. .But I will ertainly place him higher than just making teh top 30..her has to be amongst the best dozen.

Its no relevance to compare what anyone might have achived today..if they were here today.. we can only compare what they DID do.

The Skiltons and the Griegs etc rate highly on the all time..without doubt..and Id put G A jnr in the same league as them easily.

Players either stack up or they dont ..it cant be on any augmented system of granting them allowances for when they played.

some of you fail to grasp reality..or even logic. I am not saying some of these players could not extrapolate into todays game.. if they were here today they might. BUT THEY ARE NOT. What they have achieved they have achieved ..Its over. Their runs are on the board..and the new kids are putting theirs.

I don't think that people are failing to grasp your logic, merely that they are disagreeing with your assertion (because that's pretty much all it is), that historical context is irrelevant in a discussion of the greatest players of all time.

It is interesting that you raise the notion of "runs on the board" - after all, your insistence upon the irrelevency of context raises the dillema of how one is to objectivley evaluate players in this framework. You seem to suggest that 100m times and the like are good objective indicators and ought to bear direct comparison. If we take your "runs on the board" proposition a little more literally though - what better criteria is there for assessing a forward than goals kicked or goals per game?

Tony Lockett: 1306, 4.9/game

Jason Dunstall: 1254, 4.7/game

I submit that due to changes in the way that the game is being played, these feats are not likely to be equalled any time soon.

But as you seem to think that context is irrelevant, poor Wayne Carey comes off looking pretty plain with 671 goals at 2.75/game.

Of course you might argue that other aspects of Carey's game make up for this lack of "runs on the board", but you certainly can't appeal to the "cult of the full forward" that players like Lockett and Dunstall enjoyed when you make your defence.

Indeed, one Jonathon Brown is looking pretty shabby averaging around 2 goals a game...

Tony Lockett: 1306, 4.9/game

Jason Dunstall: 1254, 4.7/game

I submit that due to changes in the way that the game is being played, these feats are not likely to be equalled any time soon.

But as you seem to think that context is irrelevant, poor Wayne Carey comes off looking pretty plain with 671 goals at 2.75/game.

True. Carey was not a true FF like Lockett and Dunstall, hence the lower scoring average.

However, back to Ablett ... he's 24 and has played 137 games. Right now, I reckon he's the best player in the league, even if you include Judd, Brown and Franklin in the comparison. And he's shining in a great team (just like many of the others listed did).

But comparisons with the others can only really be done when Ablett's career is over. With the exception of Judd, everyone else on YM's list is either retired or in the twilight. I'll wait until Ablett jnr (and Judd) ends up playing a couple of hundred games before making a meaningful end comparison.

If you claim Abblett wouldnt make your top 30..who are the thirty that would eclipse him ??

As stated earlier, Ablett had a reasonable first 100 games where he played more forward than midfield and has had a brilliant last 37 games where he's nearly double his disposals. But if I had to judge his career today, assuming he never played again, I'd rate the following ahead of him in terms out the output and influence they had at the time they played.

In no particular order: Matthews, Ablett Snr, Carey, Hart, Bartlett, Dunstall, Lockett, Simon Madden, Blight, Voss, Williams, Daicos, Flower, Hird, Matera, Watson, Brereton, Jezza, Garry Wilson, Ricciuto, Buckley, Judd, Brown, McLeod, Black, Kernahan, Cable, Dench, Darren Jarman, Knights, ... I could probably add Gerard Healy, SOS, Tuck, Greig, Kouta, Doull, Glen Jakovich, Lappin, Stynes, but you've got to stop somewhere. And I was a little too young for Polly and Skilts.

Of course you'll disagree with some, and it's a subjective opinion only, but remember, I really only rate Ablett's last 37 games as elite.

But comparisons with the others can only really be done when Ablett's career is over.

I (largely) agree, and you'll note that I haven't actually made any judgements of my own. My point is merely that it is silly to pretend that comparisons like these are made in a vacuum. Even the criteria of "how would a certain player fare in today's game?" is problematic because, by definiton, you are no discussing the "best players of all time" but rather, "which players are best at playing Australian Rules football in the 2008 style?" Indeed, who would these players be surrounded by? It is foolish to deny the unavoidabile subjectivity that underlies these sorts of comparisons, and thus foolish to ignore the contexts in which they are made.

Your post only confirms that the terms of the debate are ill defined - are we are discussing the abilties of a player at his height or the contributions that he made over the course of his career? It has not been established.

Allen Jackovich anyone?

I've been thinking about Ablett today and thought I'd ask for other posters' viewpoints on the man. I didn't want to start a new thread so I thought I'd dig up this old chestnut, with a few posters' points of view already outlined.

I personally feel his game has gone backwards. I don't see him being as damaging as it was even up to the middle of last season.

I felt last year as though he was almost "playing for a Brownlow" and I wonder if that type of play has stuck to his game.

Now, obviously, I'm not saying he's a very good player, but his 38 posession game on Monday didn't warrant a single vote from either coach and that pretty much sums up where I'm coming from.

Fair point 45. That said, he himself was disappointed with his game last week. He asked his coaches to implement more work for him in the lead up to Round 3. To regain some touch.

I still think he is a fantastic player.

Fair point 45. That said, he himself was disappointed with his game last week. He asked his coaches to implement more work for him in the lead up to Round 3. To regain some touch.

I still think he is a fantastic player.

Nowhere near as good as his old man, never will be. not sure why there is so much discussion about it.

In terms of players of the decade (2000-2009), would struggle to fit in to my top 10.

Nowhere near as good as his old man, never will be. not sure why there is so much discussion about it.

In terms of players of the decade (2000-2009), would struggle to fit in to my top 10.

Junior is Good, but i am with you G Ablett Snr was just a freak-the 1989 GF has it all. Anyone who has never watched it, please do soon.