I heard the cries of posters for a real issue to be debated, and could only come up with 17 Lance ideas, 15 Campo ones and a thread about compulsory alter-egos in the off season so we could all have a competition to guess who's who...

Anyway, a real one also popped into my head. What does 'Best' in Best Players mean to you? After 4 years of being good in bits, mediocre for long lengths of time and poor for the remainder, what do you think 'Best' means? Is it contribution to the team? Is it possessions won? How many times did Camporeale hit the Best in 2005 when his contribution was not perhaps there (this is not a dig at Camporeale). How many times did Sos get in the Best when he only got 5 stats deep in defence?

When Mike & Dan did the Bullants articles, we often asked Mitchell who the best players were. His would be very different to ours, more often based on roles played in the team rather than possessions, or for us, contested possession - thats why Stinear, Bentick and McCormick would often register in our best players.

What do you think?

I think "best" can mean whatever you want it to mean. Or more that if someone is aksing for opinions on who they think the "best" is that they should give some defintion of what they think "best" is.

The best individual may not be the best in terms of team balance.

People often decalre the likes of Wayne Carey the best ever. I suppose his influence on games and his ability to win a game off his own boot was pretty special, but I never saw him keeping Gary Ablett goalless in a GF, or tearing things apart at the centre bounces. "Best" will probably always have a degree of interpretation, and that's what makes it good, because there will be some many differing opinons.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

It means George to me.

He was a best and he was a player

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

Take, for example, Round 18 v Richmond of last year. It's a good memory so why not....

http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... ch_id=1486

Best were listed as: Stevens, Kouta, Whitnall, Simpson, Scotland, Carrazzo, Fisher, Waite.

Now in a good win it could be a bit harder to argue best players, but in this game, AB was the key man in that first quarter. In the previous game against the Tigers, their midfield shot ours to pieces as Kouta, Stevens and Campo were rendered useless. But in this one, AB killed Coughlan out of the middle and stopped their drive when it mattered - in the first half, creating the margin we were able to keep up for the rest of the game. Stevens only got 23 stats but 4 goals, and most of those were in dead time to my memory. Camporeale missed out despite 24 possessions which fits my memory of the game, as they were mainly from HBR's at HBF.

So is 'Best':
* possessions
* good when it mattered ie when the game is there to be won
* performing in big roles
* a recently deceased soccer player?

In a win; the players who you feel did the most to cause the win to happen. If a loss; those who did their best to limit the damage!

I think 'best' should always have a spot for the guy who:
"tried his butt off all day, never dropped his head, and made a legitimate difference to the outcome because of it" - even if that means a 105 point loss instead of a 106 point loss as a result of that effort.

I have the same problem with my rugby team when we give 3-2-1 - the same couple of guys could share the 3 points quite easily, but 2 and 1 always need to have a large part of the above....

I think "Best" means the player or group of players who have done the most out on the ground to guarantee the best result for their club.

This can mean contributing to a win, or keeping a 100 point loss from becoming a 120 point loss.

That's what I've always thought.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with possessions.

_________________
Congratulations CK95

It's better than just being fair.

_________________
Corinthians 9:6- 8

mols....Steven Edgar came over from East Fremantle to play 14 games and kick 1 goal.

Played 1990-91....DOB:01-02-1967.

175cms....76kg.

I'm pretty sure he wore #9 too; from memory a centreman.

_________________
No ones listening till you make a mistake.

Thanks Warbs. Did he look as though he would make it? Was he flashy? Why didn't he make it? Was he a right footer?

On topic, if best does not equate to possessions is it fair to say that the press are crap at picking best players? It just seems so often that the guy who gets 25-30 stats has to be mentioned?

Best is exactly that 'The Best'. Who has the most impact. Kouta has been best heaps of times. Wiggins has never been close.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

I don't want to downplay a Carlton player's ability mols; but my memory of him was that he didn't quite cut it at the highest level....unfortunately.

He was a stylish player (a blonde) from memory that had a bit of class about him.

_________________
No ones listening till you make a mistake.

To me it simply means who contributed the most to the sides performance during the match.

The papers and Brownlow Votes etc really p*ss me off as they tend to just go with whover had the most possessions.

Thanks Warbs. The Blueseum is designed to be as factual as possible, but when players only play a handful of games it is implied that they werent good enough, I guess unless an injury ends their career. 'Didn't quite cut it' says alot without being nasty, I'll use that.

http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-index.php? ... en%20Edgar

TheGame......your barb against Wiggins really wasn't required, was it? It looks like a petty barb at a guy that we all know works hard. Further, not all players are there to be natural ball-winners as they are there to try to stop someone - I wonder how many times Sexton made the Best Players? Hogg? Franchina? Sporn has made the Best Players twice for beating James Hird with fewer possessions than Wiggins has achieved (in other games). It's the purpose of the question... what does 'Best' mean?

You suggest it means just that. Best. Thanks, thats real useful. Your expansion as 'the most impact' is more useful. Impact I guess can be both positive and negative, meaning the Sporn / Hird scenario (negating) or earning the ball (positive)? How does the Bentick scenario above meet people's definitions?

I just wanted to clarify what best means. Trying hard is a good attribute but has no relevence to your overall performance.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

whoever has the most positive influence on a game in terms of team play

_________________
There's so much I could say...

Understood, thanks.

I get what you mean - if you try hard and beat say a key opponent, then you could be in the Best. If you try hard and give up 5 goals, you ain 't good enough. So trying hard isn't in the best.

See to me defensive types get ignored in 'Best players'. maybe because I was a full back in my teen years and never got a gong? But Carrazzo has had some great games by beating his opponent and still earning 20 possies, yet Campo would get 25 and not beat his opponent and make the Best.

I thought Carrazzo was fantastic last year. You get no arguments there.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

'Best' is an adjective...isn't it?

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Yup.

_________________
No ones listening till you make a mistake.