I wouldn't have Matty Allan anywjere near this team.

Watched round 22 1997 the other night - when Porter was in the ruck, we pushed forward, scored goals.

The minute Allan was in there the Tigers would bang on two or three quick ones.

Allan was shit except for 1999. One season wonder.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

I wouldn't have Thornton in there just yet. He has learnt to swim but he aint exactly catching waves.

Over Pearce yes, over Fevola..... maybe?

Fevola is easily capable of 80+ goals in a year. Whitnall was a star when we were a good side and Fevola has been (03 and 04) in a shit side booting 60+.

There wouldn't be much difference. Considering what fev is capable of, he has the edge. Whitnall will have good and bad days, Fev can be consistently great, if he puts his mind to it.

Fev could be something special. Whether he becomes it is another story.

_________________
Corinthians 9:6- 8

I assume we're picking the side on performances in that period. In which case, Whitnall shits on Fevola from a great height.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

thats harsh.

99 was indeed his best, but he did sturggle with injuries after that.

whom would you put in his place in the side?

it's a bit rich to critise his selection on game.

pearce was more of a one season wonder than allan.

4th string forward picking up the leftovers with some fine finishing, harldy comparable to a 1st string ruck who had to play often a whole game in the middle.

Porter performed better tha Allan during his time at Carlton. One could argue that even McKernan did better.

I'd have Barnaby French in before Allan.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

Hmm. Looking at it that bluntly, you'd have to say that the memories of some blokes have been positively tainted due to their involvement in a certain premiership team...That said, Allan in 1999 was shitloads better than Pearce in 1995, I reckon.

It's obvious McKernan did better than Allan while McKernan was at the club. What was it, 41 games to 10? And a B+F? Surely you jest. A B+F's a B+F, no matter which way you slice it.

_________________
Cer 'ch 'n alluog Blues

Allan was really good in 1999. A lot better than anything French has produced in his seasons here.

I see Deanos point. Porter was good too. From 1995-2005, Madden was All Australian once, and Allan was All Australian once. McKernan won a best and fairest. Porter played some great seasons for Carlton.........

This is a bit confusing though. Is it sheer talent or consistent performance during this period?

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Fev and Whitnall was a toss up for me, I went with Fev cause I think he would kick more goals especially in that side.

Allan is more worthy than Porter as back up ruck.

97 Allan had 213 more hit outs, 266 more disposals and 6 more goals
98 Allan had 233 more hit outs, 185 more disposals and 13 more goals
99 Porter did not play and Allan was the comps best
00 Allan had 177 more hit outs, 189 more disposals and 12 more goals

I liked Ports and wished we never traded him as he did become our no.1 ruck but he didn't hold a candle to Allan.

Those stats are pretty hollow. What was the game comparison in thos years?

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

In 97 Allan played 17 more games
In 98 3 more
1n 00 9 more

Allan kept him out the side. As I said Porter was a more likeable character and was dudded by the club when they traded him as he didn't want to go but Allan has the runs on the board.

Just to prove my impartiality, I agree with TheGame. Allan was awesome in 99, and did enough. Also agree that the Porter trade was awful.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Allan was awesome in '99. I agree on that.

I don't reckon he was that flash for the rest of it.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

You were bound to get one right sometime.

the fact of the matter is, porter was never our 1st selection ruck. he played mainly has a back up to allan.

i loved ports though. was gutted when he got traded