On 11/08/2018 at 08:25, Sir Why You Little said:

It wasn’t said in a joking matter.....

 

So what, is your attitude...

speaks volumes

Life is better with the ignore function, SWYL

Interesting quote from Leigh Mathews some years ago: 

“When I look back I was a young, driven, selfish, egotistical, brutal, callous - call it all of those words - footballer," he says.

"As a 61-year-old middle-aged grandfather now, I kind of think 'Jeez, that was a nasty piece of work'."

For once I couldn’t agree more with Mathews - although somewhat understated I believe.

Let's just say Matthews was a thug and a coward who preferred to hit people who weren't  looking at him and who had no idea what was about to happen to them. It takes no courage to do that.

Let's have no more talk about Leigh Matthews.

  On 11/08/2018 at 07:33, Sir Why You Little said:

That’s your opinion. 

Stephen Smith Still gets headaches to this day, i am not sure about Peter Giles or McMullin. 

I saw the Stephen Smith hit at the ground. It was pure thuggery, planned and executed

I saw it and the Giles hit 2. Have hated him with a passion ever since. He was a thug.

A punch is unlikely to kill someone on a grass field. The Micheal Long incident in the 2000 grand final was the worst and most likely to kill I have seen on the football field.

Matthews played in a different era I dislike restrospective views and standards.

  On 11/08/2018 at 09:24, ProDee said:

It doesn't make sense to me that any ongoing headaches can be attributed to one hit decades ago when the player in question played 200 games.  Smith may lay all of the blame at that one hit and he may be right, but I doubt it.  

That said, and listen carefully, it doesn't change the act for me either way.  It was a callous brutal act that was shocking.  Whether he has ongoing headaches, or not doesn't change my view of the hit.

I find it strange that your view of the hit is affected by any resultant headaches.  For me it was terrible either way.  The ongoing headaches don't make it worse.

Sorry i don’t follow your logic, and don’t particularly want to. If someone is still having headaches and sleep deprivation 40 years after a king hit from behind, that does make things far worse, for the innocent recipient. I don’t care how Matthews feels at all, i hope he has the odd “flashback” and wakes up in a cold sweat. 

But for you to dismiss the ongoing situation that Smith has to endure is a fairly ordinary attitude in my opinion. But that is for you to deal with.

 stuff happens on a footy field, i am not disputing that, but what Matthews did was at another level, he should have been deregistered for life after the Bruns incident in 1985, but he was to big a name in the VFL by then, so it doesn’t suprise me at all that he only got “4 weeks” and was chaired off the ground as a Hero later that year  

He got no applause from me  

 

Edited August 11, 20186 yr by Sir Why You Little

  On 11/08/2018 at 07:12, ProDee said:

No it's not.  The greatest player in history deserves a statue.

It was a very different era with different standards.  I hate it when people try and judge different eras on today's standards.

I know you'll say that you're not doing that and that you thought the same way back then.  Great.  We all have different opinions.  I reckon it's great that he has a statue and he thoroughly deserves it.

Disagree on all points.

Except one. Yes it was a different era and there were different standards. But in that era Matthews was regarded as vicious thug. He was judged at the time as being a mindless thug with a propensity for premeditated violence.  99% of his peers were not mindless thugs. He remains the only VFL or AFL player to be charged by the police for an on field action and his viciousness saw the introduction of video to make sure such brutality was appropriate punished (and stop the inevitable legal issues that would have occurred if there was not a system put in place).

He could easliy have killed Bruns, Smith or Giles.  He can be judged on that. 

Edited August 11, 20186 yr by binman

  On 11/08/2018 at 14:19, binman said:

Disagree on all points.

Except one. Yes it was a different era and there were different standards. But in that era Matthews was regarded as vicious thug. He was judged at the time as being a mindless thug with a propensity for premeditated violence.  99% of his peers were not mindless thugs. He remains the only VFL or AFL player to be charged by the police for an on field action and his viciousness saw the introduction of video to make sure such brutality was appropriate punished (and stop the inevitable legal issues that would have occurred if there was not a system put in place).

He could easliy have killed Bruns, Smith or Giles.  He can be judged on that. 

And by the by i know you love winding people up and your choice of avatars is part of that shtick.

But having a player from another club, particularly one that that king hit two of our great servants, as your avatar is ban worthy in my opinion. But each to their own 

#tearitdown

  On 11/08/2018 at 14:23, binman said:

And by the by i know you love winding people up and your choice of avatars is part of that shtick.

But having a player from another club, particularly one that that king hit two of our great servants, as your avatar is ban worthy in my opinion. But each to their own 

I was going to change it today.  It was only ever meant to put the wind up SWYL.

I'll keep it a bit longer.

Btw, what is it with Leftists who want to ban or close down everything they don't like ?

Edited August 11, 20186 yr by ProDee

  On 11/08/2018 at 14:05, Sir Why You Little said:

Sorry i don’t follow your logic, and don’t particularly want to. If someone is still having headaches and sleep deprivation 40 years after a king hit from behind, that does make things far worse, for the innocent recipient. I don’t care how Matthews feels at all, i hope he has the odd “flashback” and wakes up in a cold sweat. 

But for you to dismiss the ongoing situation that Smith has to endure is a fairly ordinary attitude in my opinion. But that is for you to deal with.

 stuff happens on a footy field, i am not disputing that, but what Matthews did was at another level, he should have been deregistered for life after the Bruns incident in 1985, but he was to big a name in the VFL by then, so it doesn’t suprise me at all that he only got “4 weeks” and was chaired off the ground as a Hero later that year  

He got no applause from me  

 

And I don't follow your logic.

You're saying that if Smith didn't get these symptoms your views on the hit would soften.  The hit was the hit.  It wouldn't be mitigated by a lack of headaches. 

Tony Lockett was the greatest full forward I've seen.  He was also a thug.  But because he doesn't have a Melbourne player as one of his high profile incidents he seemingly isn't put in the Matthews basket.

Carl Ditterich was a thug.  But because his victims were often on the end of someone wearing red and blue he doesn't get mentions.

It's all very hypocritical.

I can judge the footballers and leave aside some of their brutal moments.  It was a different era.  Every time you think of Matthews you think of brutality.  I'm aware of all that too, but I can also compartmentalise the football exploits.

Happy to have a differing view. 

  On 11/08/2018 at 03:59, bingers said:

Yes, Whitten was also a thug.

I heard Skilton laugh about how Whitten broke his nose. Yes, really funny. What a moron.

Whitten was a thug on and off field if the rumours are to be believed

  On 11/08/2018 at 16:20, FireInTheBelly said:

#tearitdown

#MeTooth

  On 11/08/2018 at 20:05, ProDee said:

Btw, what is it with Leftists who want to ban or close down everything they don't like ?

Reactionary or Radicals are usually intolerant of other's views.  Whether Left or Right.

  On 11/08/2018 at 13:19, Wrecker45 said:

A punch is unlikely to kill someone on a grass field. The Micheal Long incident in the 2000 grand final was the worst and most likely to kill I have seen on the football field.

Matthews played in a different era I dislike restrospective views and standards.

I agree. I remember how stunned I was by that incident. Happened just in front of me.  It's the main reason I support a send-off rule, at least for Grand Finals. Imagine if we made it to the Grand Final and somebody did that to Clarry in the first minutes.

  On 11/08/2018 at 20:05, ProDee said:

I was going to change it today.  It was only ever meant to put the wind up SWYL.

I'll keep it a bit longer.

Btw, what is it with Leftists who want to ban or close down everything they don't like ?

Do you see everything through the prism of left and right political views?

What a very strange way to understand life

  On 11/08/2018 at 23:42, binman said:

Do you see everything through the prism of left and right political views?

What a very strange way to understand life

It's extraordinary to me, completely unfathomable to me, that someone would suggest a ban over a photo of a statue in someone else's avatar.  

It's one of the more extraordinary comments I've seen on Demonland in 16 years.  So one ponders what this individual must object to in real life.  The conclusions are as obvious as they are sad.

A few random observations on Matthews...

Remember we used to do preseason training at Wattle Park and at the time Hawthorn used to train there as well doing hill runs. His (Matthews) legs were as big as the tree trunks. No wonder he was hard to move off the ball.

It always amazed me no one took action on Matthews and knocked him out of existence. As many point out it was a different time and if I was coaching I would have seriously considered taking him out.

I don't think he would have got a lot of support from teammates, as he says he was selfish and arrogant. His ongoing feud with Scott is legendary, they didn't speak and from what I'm told when they did the medicine ball sit up exercise together they seriously tried to knock each other out with it.

Apparently he used to pack up his bag and leave at the end of the game and had nothing to do with teammates.

Great player, I really can't be bothered crucifying the guy over things from the past. Think he is an average commentator on the game, don't put much stake in what he says but that's based on current commentary and has nothing to do with the past.

If what Bruns says is true then it's pretty average of Matthews not to meet with him but then again everyones different, it's his choice.

As a coach I think he got the keys to the Ferrari with Brisbane, I don't rate him as highly as his record and others.

  On 11/08/2018 at 14:19, binman said:

But in that era Matthews was regarded as vicious thug. He was judged at the time as being a mindless thug with a propensity for premeditated violence. 

2

I don't think that's right Bin.  In that era he was regarded as a remarkably tough footballer who took the culture of the game to its limits but not beyond except on a few occasions.  There wasn't much talk when he flattened Smith or Giles and virtually none when he flattened McMullin.  Any talk was all over in a day or two.  It was an era when the sort of thing Matthews did was fairly common and whilst Matthews did it more often he wasn't considered a thug.  And he was hugely admired for his unbelievable football ability.

He and Carey are the two best footballers I've ever seen play.  Neither are particularly admirable people although people change and I think Matthews has.  His interview with Mike Sheahan is very good and a good insight into the man.  And those suggesting he was a coward off the field are kidding themselves IMO.  If you want another insight into Matthews watch Pert's interview with Sheahan.  It's a fantastic story.

 

  On 11/08/2018 at 20:16, ProDee said:

And I don't follow your logic.

You're saying that if Smith didn't get these symptoms your views on the hit would soften.  The hit was the hit.  It wouldn't be mitigated by a lack of headaches. 

Tony Lockett was the greatest full forward I've seen.  He was also a thug.  But because he doesn't have a Melbourne player as one of his high profile incidents he seemingly isn't put in the Matthews basket.

Carl Ditterich was a thug.  But because his victims were often on the end of someone wearing red and blue he doesn't get mentions.

It's all very hypocritical.

I can judge the footballers and leave aside some of their brutal moments.  It was a different era.  Every time you think of Matthews you think of brutality.  I'm aware of all that too, but I can also compartmentalise the football exploits.

Happy to have a differing view. 

I have already been through this. 

Matthews took his violent intentions to another level in a very violent era, i went to the ‘71 GF so i was exposed to it as a young kid

  On 11/08/2018 at 22:28, Dr. Gonzo said:

Whitten was a thug on and off field if the rumours are to be believed

not just rumours saw him action on and off the field,thought he owned the world and could do what he wanted,never a hero to me

  On 12/08/2018 at 01:21, Sir Why You Little said:

I have already been through this. 

Matthews took his violent intentions to another level in a very violent era, i went to the ‘71 GF so i was exposed to it as a young kid

The degrees are marginal.  I think your views are self-serving because you can identify with Melbourne players.

And I suspect we're a similar age, we just have different views.

I was there that day at Princess Park, standing right behind the goals. Happened in the goal square whilst the play was at the other end. To this day it is still the the most cowardly, gutless act I have ever seen (and I've seen quite a few). Yes they were different times, but was still shocking by the standards of the day. As I pass his statue today, the urge to spit will be as strong as ever.

It sickens me how the media and AFL treat this filthy thug as a legend of the game and that the powers that be allowed a statue of him to be erected at such a significant site.

Not sure if my memory serves me right, but does anyone else recall that Smith had just returned from cancer treatment?

  On 11/08/2018 at 14:23, binman said:

And by the by i know you love winding people up and your choice of avatars is part of that shtick.

But having a player from another club, particularly one that that king hit two of our great servants, as your avatar is ban worthy in my opinion. But each to their own 

whats wrong with avatar

  On 12/08/2018 at 01:29, ProDee said:

The degrees are marginal.  I think your views are self-serving because you can identify with Melbourne players.

And I suspect we're a similar age, we just have different views.

Can't wait for the game to begin. Might give us a break from this. You two should get a private room.