In order to begin to make definitive declarations as to who rates as the GOAT, a debate as to what the definition of what one constitutes a player as the GOAT is a starting point.There is no doubt that Matthews was a truly great player, he deserves the accolades he gets.
But I find things like best player of the 20th century a bit ridiculous. There are many factors which make this ridiculous: lack of memory of players from a long time ago, the changes in the game, but, most of all, recency bias.
Haydn Bunton won 3 Brownlows, including a Brownlow in his first year - but he played too long ago for anyone to remember.
Gordon Coventry is still second on the all time goal kicking list, played in the 1920s and 1930s.
Bob Pratt kicked 150 back when there were a lot less games.
There are many more I could cite.
Too hard to compare.
It is like comparing Hart, Bartlett and Martin - different game in different eras. Hart could turn a game, as could Dusty, while Bartlett was a model of consistency over 400 games which is simply amazing.
Again, too hard to compare.
DS
Can judgement be made without first hand observation? Can it be made by the testimonies of others? If it can only be made by personal observation then it would possibly be better to make a judgement within the sphere of your personal experience rather than that of a time outside of your own.
Finals, grand finals, premierships, home and away, individual/team performance, games/goals, leadership, the context of their opposition/resources/environment, and a vast array of demonstrated attributes and skills over the course of a player's career, etc, I imagine would be part of the discourse.
Last edited: