Agree
Hardwick Fletcher MJ
Solomon Wallis Wellman
and
Wanganeen Fletcher Chris Daniher
Thompson Wallis Harvey
say "how bout no"
Not sure about the second one. Wallis only came good in 1996 and that was Bombers and Wanganeens last season and had Chris Daniher retired then, or was that 1998 he retired?
I'm assuming that's the 1993 GF backline.
Yep. As I remember it, anyway.
FWIW I think the current backline group (ie, Dempsey, Hibberd, Bags, Fletch, Hooker, Hurley - with Gleeson, Ashby, Goddard, & Carlisle in the mix) could possibly eclipse both.
There's a lot of potential.Both the 93 & 00 sides ended up having to rely on a very one dimensional big grunt (Wallis) to handle the big KPFs & allow the more talented talls a bit more freedom - Fletch was always susceptible to the Sav/Carey sized blokes. I don't really see that sort of a weak link amongst the current group (assuming all fit, if we're a few down then we start to scrape a bit)
The 2000 backline was simply perfect.
The current one is pretty good, and may be viewed better by the end of the year.
Garbage. The 2000 backline had a glaring weakness in Wallis. Was a bog ordinary player who was carried by the rest. Played his part, but was protected.
Sheedy never did develop a good CHB, but since he has left we now have 3 top shelf CHB's in Hurley, Hooker and Carlisle.
The 2000 backline was simply perfect.
The current one is pretty good, and may be viewed better by the end of the year.
Garbage. The 2000 backline had a glaring weakness in Wallis. Was a bog ordinary player who was carried by the rest. Played his part, but was protected.
Sheedy never did develop a good CHB, but since he has left we now have 3 top shelf CHB's in Hurley, Hooker and Carlisle.
Look, you aren't gonna get any argument from me about Wallis, but that's a different (and already done) argument.
But in 2000, Between Fletch, wellman and Wally, we had the talls covered.
The 2000 backline was simply perfect.
The current one is pretty good, and may be viewed better by the end of the year.
Garbage. The 2000 backline had a glaring weakness in Wallis. Was a bog ordinary player who was carried by the rest. Played his part, but was protected.
Sheedy never did develop a good CHB, but since he has left we now have 3 top shelf CHB's in Hurley, Hooker and Carlisle.
Look, you aren't gonna get any argument from me about Wallis, but that's a different (and already done) argument.
But in 2000, Between Fletch, wellman and Wally, we had the talls covered.
Agreed. But that is why I don't think it was perfect.
I have to agree with Ben that this backline could easily be as good. I mean, it has a Fletcher in it for starters :)
I don't think Wallis was really core to the 93 defence. He only played 8 games for the year and was borderline to play the GF.
Harvey punched above his size all season, and Fletch just kept having the big tasks.
I don't think Wallis was really core to the 93 defence. He only played 8 games for the year and was borderline to play the GF.
Harvey punched above his size all season, and Fletch just kept having the big tasks.
Harvey was AA CHB. Wallis was not our CHB in 93.
Wallis only playe 2 games in 1993 from memory and the only thing he did was knock out Hanna in the GF.
I don't think Wallis was really core to the 93 defence. He only played 8 games for the year and was borderline to play the GF.
Harvey punched above his size all season, and Fletch just kept having the big tasks.
Harvey was AA CHB. Wallis was not our CHB in 93.
Wallis only playe 2 games in 1993 from memory and the only thing he did was knock out Hanna in the GF.
8. But still, hardly key to the defence. Harvey was amazing at CHB that season.
Wallis played his best footy in the 99-00 teams. Having him there also gave the team the luxury of freeing up Wellman to play as a creative, attacking HB or wingman.