I recently was discussing the stardom of two current players with some fellow AFL supporters and during the conversation the word “star” came up continually. It made me wonder if we use the word too much when talking about current footballers. So I decided to do my own list on what makes someone a star.
What Makes A Footballer A Star?
Robert Harvey is a true example of a star
To me a star is someone who meets a number of these criteria’s:
- Can change the flow, state of the game and win the game for his team.
- Leads by example (does not have to be in the leadership group).
- Changes the way the game is played.
- Can still reach a high standard even while being tagged.
- Continuously plays at a high standard game in – game out.
- Can still be a star even when playing for a poorly performing side.
- You have to be special and have that X-Factor (like Buddy).
Potential does not equal stardom, I am bemused how people rate footballers just on their potential or after one or two good years. To be a star you have to star year in and year out.
Examples Of Current Stars
- Judd can turn the game around on its head with runs that breaks the pack and the ability to kick amazing goals.
- Cousins and Harvey, I have lost count of how many games they have busted open with their gut runs.
- Hodge played brave and injured football in 2008. His game against Adelaide in Adelaide in 2008 was a great example.
- Buddy while only has played two great years but with his freaky x factor, you know he will be a star.
- Pavlich has the ability to play midfield, forward and kick bags of goals and stars while playing for an under performing team.
- Gary Ablett again has stared for a number of years.
- Mathew Scarlett has for a few years managed to keep full forwards quite and ineffective.
Examples of Current Good Players who ARE NOT Stars
Joel Selwood is one player who will become a star going on from his last two years
This list may not be popular with certain fans but what I aim to show is that just because you are a good player or can get the football it does not make you a star.
- Daniel Kerr looked like a star when playing with Cousins and Judd but the inability to star when tagged and playing for an under performing team imo just makes him a good player. J Brown and Aker are another two examples.
- Joel Corey and Jimmy Bartel have Brownlows, millions of possessions and Premierships between them but I seriously doubt they could star without each other and Ablett taking the pressure off from taggers. Very good players but they do NOT win games by themselves.
- Joel Selwood imo is one who can and will become a star, his 08 game against Fremantle was amazing.
- Nick Riewoldt is one who should be a star with his running and marking ability but his poor kicking and lack of game breaking games just makes him a good player.
- Luke Ball and Nick Dal Santo with injuries, average form remain them as good players.
All these players have the ability to be stars and all will probably become stars by the end of their careers. However I am talking about in todays game and not using potential as a criteria on what makes someone a star.
If you do not agree with my rating system or even the players I have used as examples please comment and let me know who you would rate as a star. I welcome your input.
Loading ...
January 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Oh, GOOD post, Jermayn — very good. One might almost say SPECIAL!
Do we use ‘star’ too often? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
What IS a star? The guy who you reckon wins the game for your team?
Of your list of attributes, I think #1, #3 (rarely) and #5 hit this particular nail right on the head. Can I add another one? #8. Can bring the crowd to their feet (regularly).
On current lists, stars include (in no particular order) Andrew McLeod, Dean Cox, Judd, Ablett, Jonathan Brown, Fevola (that hurts!), Brent Harvey, Brad Johnson (fading fast), Chad Cornes. (Probably others I can’t think of atm.)
Robert Harvey, Richo and Riewoldt were/are terrific athletes who play footy — NOT stars in my opinion.
Franklin gets a ‘mercurial’ rating from me at this stage (but with a bullet).
You make an excellent point with Bartel, Corey, Kerr and Akermanis. All rely (or relied) on the team around them and shine/shone against that background. Steven King and Charlie Gardiner at the Saints further illustrate the point, though I acknowledge they’re not in the class of the others.
I’m starting to smell liniment in the air….
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Rushed behinds
January 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I agree with the #8 attribute that you added “Can bring the crowd to their feet (regularly)”.
I slightly disagree with you having J Brown and Cornes as stars.
J Brown has the potential but with injuries, teams form slide and inaccuracy issues I do not think he has lived up to the potential (remember I don’t rate potential as criteria for stardom) he showed when he played in the early 2000′s.
I also personally rate Harvey as a Star: 370 odd games (longevity), two Brownlows (consistency) and his foot skills between 20m and 40m were amazing. BUT I guess each to their own.
You named Cox and you raise a good point as with my listed criteria, one of them was change the way the game is played. Cox has almost killed off the tall lumbering ruckman with his midfield style play.
Thanks for your comments AussieRulesBlog
Jermayns last blog post..Christmas vs Xmas: Is Xmas really evil?
January 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Nice idea for a post.
Really enjoyed and agree on a lot of counts.
This is exactly the sort of argument Ben was raising on ContestedFooty with the Franklin- overrated? post.
It bothers me that we call good players in great teams stars.
James Roses last blog post..Browsers
January 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
@ James: Even worse is the penchant of TV voices to label just about anyone who can get a kick as a “superstar”. Often it’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but just as often a serious labelling.
@ Jermayn: I’m not sure that longevity, in itself, is a worthy criterion for ‘star’ status, i.e., re Robert Harvey. There are a lot of blokes who’ve played 200+ and 300 games who’ve been journeymen. Michael Tuck played a shitload of games, but how many were memorable? Ditto Harvey. Kevin Bartlett, on the other hand, also played a shitload of games, but lit up the field with skill every other week (Star Rule #8) [and changed the game -- the holding the ball rule was changed due to KB's uncanny ability to bounce just as he was tackled: see Star Rule #3]. As for 20-30m kicking, mate, I can do THAT.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Off topic, but can’t miss the chance…
January 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Sorry to clog up the board. I also meant to comment on Harvey’s two Brownlows. Have a look at the list of Brownlow winners. How many genuine stars do you find? You could say the same about B&Fs. I think there’s a real distinction between what umpires reward in the brownlow votes, what match committees reward in B&Fs and what the rest of us look for in ‘stars’.
With the changes in the game, we’re now getting to that same stage with statistics. When Peter Knights and Paul Van der Haar put on their epic marking duel back in the 80s, a mark was a MARK. With today’s keepings-off football, a bloke can collect 20 ‘marks’, but never have an opponent within cooee of him.
I really think star status is about a whole lot of things other than stats… many of them intangible and subjective (ideal material for blog discussions!)
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Off topic, but can’t miss the chance…
January 7th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Thanks for all your comments and AussieRulesBlog, dont worry about clogging up the conversation
@James – I guess another true mark of a champion or a star is when they are remembered 10-20 years later. I doubt very much if half of the ‘so called super stars’ of todays game would be remembered. I agree that Buddy only has one/ maybe two years of good footy behind him so at the moment he probably would be a very good player but a few more super years and he will not be over rated.
@AussieRulesBlog – Obviously you do not rate Harvey at all
We can disagree about him as a star though. In defense to him his 20m to 30m kicks are amazing especially when kicked to forwards.
Agree that K Bartlett was a gem and changed the holding the ball rule. I also agree that stats on disposals are rubbish, for example in 07 or 08 Basset got the record for marks in a game but only like two were actually contested.
Jermayns last blog post..The Air I breathe
January 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
@AussieRulesBlog the most recent example of Harvey turning a game that I can remember and that may help change your view is the 2005 final against Adelaide…
James Roses last blog post..Melbourne gets bailed out by fans, MCC and AFL
January 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am
As a Saints man, James, you’d see Harvey in a different light and I respect that. We do tend to invest a lot more emotional capital in the blokes wearing our colours.
At the same time though, the most recent example of him turning a game is three years ago?
Anyway, it’s time for me to get off his case and turn to more current targets — like Richo!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Bombers’ training
January 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Have to agree with AussieRulesBlog that if 3 years ago is the last time R Harvey turned a game it makes his job of hacking him a lot easier. Even Richo has changed a game between then and now
I thought his first quarter in his last game was amazing with his pin point passes to help keep them in the game. Also in R Harvey defense, he imo was still one of the top 5 players this year for the Saints.
January 10th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Sorry not the most recent example.
I mean most recent example that I was pretty certain you would of watched.
James Roses last blog post..Primary Research
January 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Using the new Cricket star Warner is a good example. After one game he was given something five pages in several newspapers talking about how good he is, next Gilly etc. You cannot judge a player (cricket or AFL) on one game or year….
January 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Good example Jermayn. The media’s optimistic/pessimistic overblown hyperbole sets the agenda for public discourse. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that overblown media speculation precipitated Hayden’s decision to retire, for instance. Perhaps, by addressing the issue in such a public way, we bloggers are making a start to correcting this situation…
Let’s wait to see the media reaction to first games from Cousins and Watts. London to a brick it’s more of the same.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Bombers’ training
January 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
First thing that a good player needs is his confidence which makes him to achieve his success.
Hailees last blog post..Orange, California
January 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Comment on Warner, True he can not be ‘judged’ on one game, however the man hits the ball sweeter then just about anyone in the history of the game. That shot off Steyn (who at the moment is the best bowler in the world) over long on was phenomenal. If after just a handful of state one day games i guy can debut like that against imho the best team in the world, then the sky is the limit. The key is to find consistency, teams will work him out and self doubt will creep in but the guy is an excitement machine. Talk about changing the game he will make 400 the new 300. oh yeah and i reckon he might have that ability to get people through the turnstiles and out of their seats. He has failed in two matches since and i have watched every ball purely for the fact that i do not want to miss seeing him in the ‘zone’ The guy is a STAR
January 19th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Since that game Deano he has done nothing and not even looked like doing anything since. I would not be surprised to see him dropped in a game or two…
Warner imo is a lot like the Collingwood guy who won the Anzac medal in his first game at the age of 17 or something and then struggled to get a game for Collingwood and ST Kilda since. Potential and a great start to his career but he could not carry it on since.
btw Deano, thank you for commenting and giving us your opinion. Look forward to more of your input
Jermayns last blog post..Gives You Hell – The All American Rejects
January 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Mark McGough was a one trick pony. He was a ‘wet tracker’ who only played well when the conditions suited or the sting had gone out of the game. With the physicallity and other variables involved in AFL (i.e tagging, strength and ability of direct opponent, conditions, state of game etc) it is a lot easier to be found out if there are any, or in McGough’s case, several weaknesses.
Whilst cricket has some of these variables (strength of opponent, pitch and weather conditions) it really is quite a simple game. You see the ball, you hit the ball. Warner hits the ball sweeter then just about anybody i’ve seen. The big issue for him is now that he has played poorly twice not to let the biggest enemy you can have in cricket (the thing between your ears!!) start to play games with him. Even the very best suffer from self doubt and external pressure. If he keeps it simple, blocks out the things he cannot control and focuses on see ball, hit ball he will be a revelation.
if he can’t win the inevitable battle within himself then i will be the first to put my hand up and admit thati was wrong. Some guys work their arses off to become elite athletes, others are born with exceptional physical attributes and carve out great careers. Then you have the blokes who are just plain freaks – guys who can do things that even elite sportsmen can’t do and make it look effortless. i’m talking about Buddy, Ablett SNR, Aker, Daicos, Gilchrist, Viv Richards,Federer etc, This bloke has the ‘ability’ to join them. Sorry ’bout the longevity once i get going i can’t stop. Cheers Deano
January 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Yes agree that McGough (thanks for his name) was a one trick pony but Malthouse did not help – same as with the older Cloke brother.
Even with that list you gave of excellent sportsmen for several sports, they all had talent but like we have discussed in this article. Talent means nothing. You still have to work hard. I like using Steve Waugh as a good example of a talented young cricketer but struggled to stay in team until he developed the ability to work hard (like you said at the end of your 2nd para).
and Deano, do not be sorry about the longevity of your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to add to the argument
Jermayns last blog post..Survival Guide for Ex Potters House Members
January 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The key thing about the blokes in your list, Deano, is that they produced the top-shelf goods CONSISTENTLY and over an EXTENDED PERIOD (Note: Buddy has a ways to go on both yet IMO). It should also be noted that real ‘stars’ work even harder once they’ve arrived. The quote seems to be attributed to Samuel Goldwyn, but I’m sure I’ve heard a golfer of days gone by use it too: “The harder I work, the luckier I get”.
It’s possible that the South Africans were surprised by Warner, but have quickly worked out a plan to curb him, as you’d expect. Subsequent ‘failures’ suggest he has a bit more work to do to genuinely deserve a spot at the top.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Rags to riches. . .
January 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
with all due respect jermayn i believe that your argument is flawed and very narrow minded. To suggest that, and i quote “talent means nothing” is a pretty outlandish statement. i’m not denying that hard work counts, two blokes from my team in Daniel Cross and Dale Morris are in the side because it is their best attribute. But there can be no denial that genetics and natural talent are just as if not more important. Gary Ablett Snr was widely renowned as the worst trainer at the club and was terrible during pre season yet was arguably the greatest and most exciting footballer of all time. Shane Warne ate baked beans, smoked cigarettes, drank beer and shagged different women every day yet still managed to be the greatest bowler of all.
i want anyone out there to tell me off the top of their heads, the last white man to hold the world record for the 100 metre sprint and the last black man to hold the world record for the 1500 metres freestyle. There are reasons why black people run fast, why asian people dominate gymnastics, why kenyans and ethiopians dominate middle distance running etc. Genetics. it’s why Russell Robertson is smaller than your average midfielder yet can jump higher then anyone in the comp. You can’t ‘work hard’ at jumping higher or running faster. Sure you can improve but there is only so far your body can take you.
imho there are four things that make an elite sportsperson. Natural talent, Genetics, Hard work and luck. You don’t need them all but you certainly need at least two of them. If it was purely down to hard work then the bloke we were talking about named McGough would still be playing. The reason he does not play elite football any more is because he was not talented enough, not because he didn’t work hard enough. Cheers mate
January 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Deano – I have to say that I agree with most of your comments hear.
I personally doubt Ablett snr and even Warne would play at the highest level with their same attitude in todays AFL and cricket but I have written an article about that – http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/would-gary-ablett-snr-get-a-game-in-todays-afl
I agree that the ability to play the game is the number one important factor but you look at Stynes (brownlow), Kennelly & Croad (premiership players) who have athlete ability and did play AFL as their first chosen sport (Gaelic & Rugby) and imo it shows a trend towards athletes than natural footballers like Ablett snr, Robo, Lockett etc.
I also thirdly agree that McGough was found out with his talent rather than hard work.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I think that recruiting pendulum is swinging again. There’s less emphasis on pure athletic factors and more on footy-specific skills. In today’s game, if you can’t kick well, almost every time, you won’t get many games. A 10.5 100m is still useful, but if the guy doesn’t have footy smarts, you could be wasting your effort. Stynes, Croad and Kennelly were all recruited to the game a long time ago.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Rags to riches. . .
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
What about Nit Nat getting recruited before a pure footballer like Daniel Rich??
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Since we’re on more specific examples, what about the O’hAilpin boys? There’s no question Setanta, at least, was a good athlete, but pretty clearly he won’t be a top-flight AFL player. . . I wonder how many ‘boom’ Irish recruits there’ll be to find another Stynes/Kennelly? And is it worth it in the end? Individualised examples can show anything. I think we’re talking about a more general trend. I’d contend that the ‘athletic’ era is coming to a close and that ‘footballers’ are coming back into favour.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Rags to riches. . .
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I hope you are right AussieRulesBlog, I really do…
btw would you classify Franklin as an athlete or a footballer? I personally would rate him as a footballer.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Franklin is an instinctive and natural footballer who is possessed with sheer athletic genius. The guy could be so good that it is scary. By the way Jermayn i noticed Warner had his eye in this arvo.lol. sorry matei had to have a dig.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I would agree with that, Franklin is first a footballer and then an athlete. He just knows when to move and lead, where to go and when to go for the mark or stay on the ground. A definite footballer, you cannot teach this…
and yes Deano, Warner sure had his eye in, I like the top order of Australia now with Marsh as well. At the moment he is a 50/50 of making an impact, with confidence and experience he will be good.
Jermayns last blog post..Lack of God is the Reason Churchs Dont Grow
January 27th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@ Jermayn: I don’t think I can make a call on Franklin yet. His major attributes, thus far, are agility and speed (athleticism). Of the purely football skills, he’s not a great contested mark (yet?) and his kicking is patchy. I’m also not convinced on his ‘footy smarts’ yet.
Of course if you kick a ton, especially with Franklin’s accuracy rate, you’re not a mug, but his size and agility make him a compelling target and extremely difficult to defend against — more so with the current interpretations of the laws of the game favouring forwards to an unprecedented degree. Having Roughhead and Boyle in the same half also makes his life easier than if he was playing a lone hand.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Rags to riches. . .
January 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@AussieRulesBlog – I agree that while he has played 1.5 excellent years, it does NOT yet make him a star. Definitely a star in the making but another two or three years like 2008 will make him the best forward since Carey imo.
In regards to his attributes, I disagree that his ‘footy smarts’ are ify, I watch him play and even with poor kicking and lack of strength in contested marks (not many are in todays game) he is just uncanny when the ball comes down in his area. He knows where it will bounce (most of the time) and he gets there faster than anyone else. With him only 21-22 these ‘footy smarts’ will only improve.
btw thanks for your opinion.