4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

nah, he was a thug, plain and simple. sure, he wasn't the only thug in his era, but that doesn't mean he wasn't any less of a thug

there is a difference between a thug and a 'hard' player

I agree he was a thug - just that many other players were more thuggish than him, and all of them less talented.    

15 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

He may well be the only VFL player to have faced that scrutiny but many more players were more thuggish than Matthews. His prosecution was media motivated and while what he did to Bruns was unacceptable, he was "unlucky" to be made the scapegoat for on-field, off-the-ball violence. Many players from that same era are lucky not to have longer "criminal records" for essentially similar behaviour. 

In my mind, Matthews does not have a mixed legacy because of this or his other violent acts. He just played the game hard like many others but (in my opinion) better than anyone else in the last 50 years.

Are you serious?

Stephen Smith still has trouble sleeping because of Matthews king hit behind the play from decades ago

Do you understand that?

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Are you serious?

Stephen Smith still has trouble sleeping because of Matthews king hit behind the play from decades ago

Do you understand that?

I'm not quite sure what you think I've misunderstood. All I was saying was that while Matthews was a thug, there were others far worse than him and none of them with his talent. Given the precedent set by Matthews being charged, players such as Ron Andrews, Robert Muir, Carl Ditterich, David Rhys-Jones, Jim O'Dea and many others too talentless to remember should consider themselves lucky not to have seen the inside of a courtroom in response to their exploits on the field.

52 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not quite sure what you think I've misunderstood. All I was saying was that while Matthews was a thug, there were others far worse than him and none of them with his talent. Given the precedent set by Matthews being charged, players such as Ron Andrews, Robert Muir, Carl Ditterich, David Rhys-Jones, Jim O'Dea and many others too talentless to remember should consider themselves lucky not to have seen the inside of a courtroom in response to their exploits on the field.

Matthews was a level up on all those players you have mentioned

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree he was a thug - just that many other players were more thuggish than him, and all of them less talented.    

yes, but originally you implied he wasn't a thug just a 'hard' man. ok you've retreated somewhat from that

Quote

In my mind, Matthews does not have a mixed legacy because of this or his other violent acts. He just played the game hard like many others but (in my opinion) better than anyone else in the last 50 years.

 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but originally you implied he wasn't a thug just a 'hard' man. ok you've retreated somewhat from that

 

You didn't see the air quotes I was using?

I didn't mean to imply that Matthews wasn't a thug. I was trying more to explain that thuggish player was not uncommon and that he wasn't the worst in that regard. If I remember correctly, the reason why he was charged over the Neville Bruns incident was because the then VFL had not taken enough action to clean up "behind the play" incidents which subsequently put pressure on the police to act. 

And I know it's a subjective argument, but I respectfully don't agree with SWYL. I think all the players I mentioned above were more "thuggish" than Matthews.

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Matthews was a level up on all those players you have mentioned

Make it 10 levels. 

He kicked 91 goals from the midfield when he was 25.  Won a B&F as a teenager in a premiership year. 

10 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Make it 10 levels. 

He kicked 91 goals from the midfield when he was 25.  Won a B&F as a teenager in a premiership year. 

Yes i know all that. He was also excessively violent throughout his long career. I saw a lot of it

Balmey claimed 3 victims in the '73 GF ...  Waite, Southby & McKay.  All knocked senseless from king hits.

It was a different game back then and there were any number of thugs going around ... those who didn't make to VFL or VFA level terrorised their way through the suburban ranks. 

The modern game is unbelievably clean by comparison.  These days players get rubbed out for a slightly misplaced hip & shoulder. 

As good as Matthews was there was no better pure footballer than Gary Ablett sr.   He had everything and could throw one too.  Carey, Matthews, Jezza & Flower round out my top 5.

Robbie would have won 2 or 3 Brownlows if he'd played in better performed teams - he was that good.  Jesaulenko was a freak who had 'Ablett' like qualities.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know all that. He was also excessively violent throughout his long career. I saw a lot of it

The difference between us seems to be that I don't care that he performed thuggish acts.  I genuinely couldn't give a rat's toss bag.

I judge him on his footy prowess.  Oh for him to have been a Melbourne player. 

Clearly, we see things differently.   I get it.

8 minutes ago, ProDee said:

The difference between us seems to be that I don't care that he performed thuggish acts.  I genuinely couldn't give a rat's toss bag.

I judge him on his footy prowess.  Oh for him to have been a Melbourne player. 

Clearly, we see things differently.   I get it.

You couldn't give a rat's toss bag

says it all. 

You ever been king hit from behind?

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You couldn't give a rat's toss bag

says it all. 

You ever been king hit from behind?

I have once.  Ended up in hispital. Nothing to do with you though.  It's life.

Those agrieved by Matthews' unlawful attack on their person are well justified, if that's their view.  That's their business. 

I'm not invested in their concerns.  I'll leave that to them.

I loved Matthews the player.  My choice. 

 

Let's not forget that he also delivered the filth its first flag in 32 years , also that mo he was sporting in the 80s was considerably offensive. 

46 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I have once.  Ended up in hispital. Nothing to do with you though.  It's life.

Those agrieved by Matthews' unlawful attack on their person are well justified, if that's their view.  That's their business. 

I'm not invested in their concerns.  I'll leave that to them.

I loved Matthews the player.  My choice. 

 

You are one strange person

your choice

11 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You are one strange person

your choice

No, I just don't take the actions of someone else to someone else personally.   Why would I ?

The bloke played 330 odd games in one of the toughest eras of footy and yes, commiited some brutal acts.   Like hundreds of others.

He's the best player I've seen and would have loved him in red and blue.   One thing I ain't is a hypocrite. 

This is going nowhere.  As I said, I get you don't get it.  Let's move on. 

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by ProDee

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

The difference between us seems to be that I don't care that he performed thuggish acts.  I genuinely couldn't give a rat's toss bag.

I judge him on his footy prowess.  Oh for him to have been a Melbourne player. 

Clearly, we see things differently.   I get it.

Interesting thoughts Pro, so the ends justifies the means then? And I do think that was Alan Jean's motto.

That is If I have to take out every opponent by whatever means to kick my 10 goals to win a game then all is justified. Fook the rules of the game then, and if they didn't exist, there wouldn't be a game. 

I have different values and I know those with questionable moral values often win the contest, it doesn't mean I need to respect them. 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

.  Oh for him to have been a Melbourne player. 

 

He nearly was later in his career.

We offered him $40k a year on a multi year contract, a fortune at the time and if not for the Hawks matching or getting very close, he would have been ours.

BTW, IMO, the best player I have seen and the first I would pick in my side.

Just to mention him again, the most talented I have seen, the great Tulip.

 

42 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Interesting thoughts Pro, so the ends justifies the means then? And I do think that was Alan Jean's motto.

That is If I have to take out every opponent by whatever means to kick my 10 goals to win a game then all is justified. Fook the rules of the game then, and if they didn't exist, there wouldn't be a game. 

I have different values and I know those with questionable moral values often win the contest, it doesn't mean I need to respect them. 

I don't concede that you have better "values" than me at all. 

Just a different perspective. 

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

No, I just don't take the actions of someone else to someone else personally.   Why would I ?

The bloke played 330 odd games in one off the toughest eras of footy and yes, commiited some brutal acts.   Like hundreds of others.

He's the best player I've seen and would have loved him in red and blue.   One thing I ain't is a hypocrite. 

This is going nowhere.  As I said, I get you don't get it.  Let's move on. 

So you would King Hit someone from behind in order to win a game?

yes or no

and stop saying "i don't get it" i do. 

 

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by Sir Why You Little

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

So you would King Hit someone from behind in order to win a game?

yes or no

and stop saying "i don't get it" i do. 

 

Matthews never king hit anyone to win a game, those acts were never premeditated imo, they happened on the spur of the moment.

No need to have a tennis match over this.  I loved the way he played and you're disgusted by the way he played.  You're welcome to your view and I assume (you agree) I'm welcome to mine. 

Edited March 15, 20178 yr by ProDee

My late hawthorn supporting grandmother almost disowned me when as a young tacker I snorted at her stuffed Matthews figure and labeled him nothing but a thug.  I didn't really mean the 'nothing but', however it did define him so far as I was and am concerned.