Good thread ianh!

_________________
#DonTheStash

Oops, I stuffed that one and probably others

2000 we had a few AA-McKay, Ratten, Camporeale, Whitnall and Kouta

Hickmott?

Yes falls within the criteria and has to be on the radar, but I had others just ahead of him.

The reason I chose the cut-off I did was to exclude those who had exposure to the club environment when it was (by the one true measure, winning the flag) the best in the business. I wanted to look at who our best were from the time that we could no longer claim that distinction, but I accept that there is no magic to that cut-off point. If we expand the criteria such that Allan was in consideration I would have him as our best ruckman in the period, Beaumont would be thereabouts but probably would push anyone out in my view.

Did it off the top of my head, then looked into it a bit more to see what players I’d missed. Scotland, Lappin and Houlihan were the 3 I missed.

Final team:
Simpson Jamison Teague
Docherty Waite Tuohy
Stevens Judd Gibbs
Hamill Whitnall Houlihan
Betts Fevola Lappin
Kreuzer Murphy Cripps

Carrazzo Curnow Curnow Scotland

_________________
@cecil_anderson

McKay and Ratten were AA in 2001 as well.

Hamill was recruited 1994 so does not fit criteria.

Good.

_________________
#DonTheStash

You’re right. Just debuted in 96. Would probably have to be Walker in his place then.

I’m not convinced this team, which is our best of the last 20 years, would be good enough to win a flag.

_________________
@cecil_anderson

Hickmont has to be in the team IMO.

_________________
#DonTheStash

That's an interesting question. I think good enough to pinch one but certainly not a walk-up start. Clearly weaknesses in the ruck and key defence, although the way the game is headed those positions seem to be losing importance, rucks because even the best going around don't seem to translate their dominance regularly into midfield dominance by their team and key defenders because the traditional multiple tall forward structure is more and more being replaced by one tall and a combination of mid-3rd tall and smaller types .

The mids are potent and, naturally given the criteria, bat very deep. That in my mind would translate to winning the midfield battle more often than not against any team going around in the period. The forwards have stars in Fev and Eddie and a supporting cast that would thrive on the midfield supply.

GAMES ARE WON IN MIDFIELD and that midfield would prevail more often than not and the forward line would not waste that dominance too often, nor would the defence be carved up.