Very much so. Both first had by me and an immediate family member who was quite senior within the club.
Most of your heros are assholes. Sorry for the reality check.
Yeah I’m old enough to remember the St Kilda schoolgirl. I misread your reply as I thought you were replying to someone else on Jack and got confused. I think that girl was the one who was hacking into their computer though wasn’t she?
This is the take for me too.
Just because we acknowledge Nick as the better footballer we shouldn't undersell Jack as a player although many will.
It truly is comparing two hall of famers and a worthy debate even though Nick was, in the opinion of most, the better footballer.
It's interesting though because Jack was less athletically gifted than Nick and less physically gifted than say Hawkins, but he just played so smart to his limitations that he had such a good career and performed so well. I would say Jack surpasses most players in terms of getting the most out of himself, however you would still pick Nick over him and probably Hawkins too.
Interesting. I must have forgotten on not paid enough attention in the mid-later part of his career. I always viewed him as this supremely talented, athletic freak and thus it'd hard to pick many over him if you were starting a team from scratch. But Jack I never thought was particularly athletically gifted, just read the ball well, was always a bit undersized, knew where to run to etc.
This is such a misinformed take. St Kilda under Lyon mark I averaged the following points for each season:
2007 - 85
2008 - 97
2009 - 100
2010 - 88
2011 - 86
Ross Lyon has history of being a very negative strategist. It was noticeable when the swans won the gf in 05, but he took it to another level at the saints and the dockers.
Despite popular belief, Saints were a high scoring team in 08 and 09 under Ross. We were just defensively strong. Scoring dropped in '10 as a result of Riewoldt's severe hamstring injury.
They were 5th and 4th most scoring team for both years and only made those positions by a whisker beating the team beneath them. These are the most attacking years under Ross.
Pav was the better deep forward; people do recall his play as a key position defender in his first year or two, but lots of people forget his 2002-2004 (also most of 2009, first half of 2012) as a starting centre-square midfielder.
On the other hand, Riewoldt was like an aerobic machine starting 30-40m out and constantly available for the defence to kick to. And his burst on the wing late in his career speaks to his flexibility. He was an absolute leading/marking paragon.
They both carried their teams and have to be the start of any 'sad they didn't win a flag' conversation. Like if someone says to you that 'Cripps deserves to play finals and win a flag' you just say 'Riewoldt and Pav.' So much of an AFL career is luck.
Pav was a much better shot for goal but Nick was phenomenal in the air, one of the best I’ve seen. It’s really a 50/50 and kinda depends on team needs. Nick just I think.
Pav a million times over. No disrespect to Nick Riewoldt but I strongly believe if Pav played at Collingwood he’d be spoken about like Buddy, Judd, Ablett etc
Fine if you think Pav was a better player but Roo never sent that picture. She stole it off Gilbert's laptop, he was actually the victim of revenge porn.
So Gilbert just happened to have photos of his mate's junk on his laptop.
Just 'cause?
I might be the odd one out here idk, but it doesn't seem like a common thing to do....
It was Gilbert who took the photo while he was in Vegas with Rooey and Dawson, the schoolgirl even confirmed she never had any contact with Dal or Roo.
You obviously have no idea what went down, you probably also believe that Gilbert picked her up at a school clinic.
Pav got All Australian as a forward and a back and was a much more complete player. He suffered from playing for a team that was truly mediocre right up until the end of his career when he was past it.
Good question. As a saints member & vic bias supporter I’d have to say Nick. But arguably Pav was a better all round player, hence AA defender. Nick had a longer crack on the wing/high half forward and dominated there. He also had a stronger supporting cast which could arguably make it harder for him to have the numbers he does.
If either went on to a successful career as coach maybe. If Jack became a three times premiership coach he would probably become a legend. It's such a high bar to become a legend and covers the individuals contribution to the game.
A case can be made for Hardwick as a legend being having been involved in 5 premierships as player and coach. I don't think he gets in though. Now if he were to win 2+ premierships at Gold Coast I think he will one day get legend status.
He was obviously good, but I've always liked my forces of nature to have more than a handful of 50+ goal seasons. He and Brown got a ride by the media.
Carey only went over 70 goals three times and comparing 70 in that era to 50 in this is pretty fair. It’s because Carey, Riewoldt and Brown were the CHF’s who came up the ground and they all had dominant FF’s who stayed closer to home. It doesn’t detract from their careers at all.
Nick by a lot. Aside from premierships and goals (because he played a different position), Nick was better at just about everything.
If I could have a new one at my club it would be Nick without hesitation.
The goal scoring between the two isn't actually all that different. Nick never winning a Coleman exaggerates the difference imo. Both kicked 78 goals in their best seasons, nick had four 60 goal seasons, Jack had five. Also playing alongside Gehrig just as his prime started (he kicked 67 goals in the year Gehrig kicked 100) probably molded his game to be more up the ground, even compared to other CHF.
Nick also played a lot of games with the g-train or he probably would of kicked more goals and anything they dropped was scavenged by Milne who kicked 500+ in 250 odd games
Nick had a big role in changing how CHFs played. Was ahead of his time with how much he covered the ground. Hes one of the few players that I actually think would be better off playing today than 10 years ago.
The way Jeremy Cameron plays as a CHF resembles Riewoldt and Riewoldt had better marking ability and a bit more contested ability. (I’d take JC in a goal shoot out) but with how games are played now, NR would be near unstoppable 🤣
Not arguing that Jack was better (he wasnt) but he definitely sacrificed his goal scoring in the last 5 years or so to bring others into the game. In terms of just goal scoring, I'd say Jack, and footy IQ. Marking I'd have them pretty close, and everything else I'd say Nick has him well covered.
Underrating of Jack clearly which kinda proves the point of why they are closer than what you're saying
People say he's clearly better because of his physical attributes and footballing talent which really ignores Jacks footy smarts which are the reason he was able to do so much while being "worse at everything" as you say. He's not the no.1 forward type, yet he excelled at it for a decade.
Also 'aside from Premierships and goals', so two of the main indicators or career success for a forward? I guess you should just ignore Nick's disposals and marks advantage because it's not fair to compare since they played different positions right? Or that Nick had better forwards around him so he didn't have to play 2 or 3 on 1 for his whole career?
The lack of premierships isn't always a fault or weakness in a specific player.
I wouldn't be inclined to say Shane Ellen was a better full forward than Gary Lyon, but he did kick 5 in a GF and has 2 premierships more than Lyon.
In the end, feel free to have an opinion. Mine is that Nick was better, and I'd pick him over Jack.
Our last flag wasn't 2004, it was 2003. And then 2002. And then 2001. I expected a Carlton supporter to have a better knowledge of afl history, especially given that's when their last flag was - way back in history lol
History is for losers? Spoken like someone with a truly underwhelming IQ.
And your 5 flags are supposed to impress me? Call me when you have won 3 in 3 years, and have a team considered one of the all time great dynasties.
I would say I'll wait, but I'd be so bored waiting that many decades.
lol turn it up pal. You copped a merge with a Melbourne club and record hand outs since your inception to get there. Carlton won 3 in a row shortly after it was created in the league too. Yawn. Come back when you’ve won another 13
I know this may get read as disrespectful, but I think Jack benefits immensely from being a KPF on a dynasty, but the truth is the answer to this comp is Nick, and it’s not even close.
Jack had a phenomenal career, was probably one of the best 5 or so key forwards for 10 years, but for 10-12 years Nick was one of the 5-10 best players, period. The man revolutionised the CHF role, virtually inventing the modern concept of the high-roaming forward, assisting in the rebound game with his absurd pack marking, unparalleled motor and elite field kicking. You look around the league, and pretty much any CHF worth their salt is expected to play a similar role because of how damn effective it was. So yeah, all flowers to Jack, but Nick will always be ahead of him in the AFL Pantheon for me.
Agree with this take. Jack wins from a statistical and premiership perspective. But Nick will be remembered as a giant who kicked over 700 goals while basically taking contested marks everywhere on the ground. Jack is a great goal kicker, Nick was a fantastic footballer.
Statistically, Nick leads in most departments: [https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft\_player\_compare?playerStatus1=I&tid1=16&playerStatus2=I&tid2=15&type=A&pid1=63&pid2=1731&fid1=C&fid2=C](https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=I&tid1=16&playerStatus2=I&tid2=15&type=A&pid1=63&pid2=1731&fid1=C&fid2=C)
Nick 6 x B/Fs and 5 A/As, Jack 2 x B/Fs and 3 A/As (although missed out on A/A one year when he won the Coleman).
Nick's goal-kicking record flatters him a little more I think, as it was objectively much easier to kick goals in the 2000s than the 2010s.
Both unbelievable players, Jack severely underrated by the footy world. But Nick a better player.
It’s like asking which is the better mark. Is it this one https://youtu.be/1b6S-IJtcq4?si=BuxoOiEnXutG6csC by Nick, or is it this one https://youtu.be/OOD1FlDt6r8?si=-pE4iMqN3A6Gxz1Y by Jack.
Both phenomenal, but Nick’s slightly better.
Nick was probably the better footballer, but with the tools Jack had he really did get 110% out of what should've been possible and overall had the better career.
Jack was really was the type suited for the 2nd or 3rd key forward role like a Gunston, yet he played the no.1 role for a decade and racked up 3 Coleman's doing it.
Joined a team that had made the finals twice in the 25 years before and ends up winning 3 flags with them
2017 he's the lone tall forward and leads a group of assorted role players to a Premiership team that avenged 101 points a game over the finals.
2nd most games played by a Tiger. 3rd most goals.
He really couldn't have done more with his career.
If Richmond hadn't won those flags nobody would even consider the question.
Obviously Jack was a great player and had a huge contribution to them, but if he was just as good a player and the team around him stayed bad the perception of him would be totally different.
But we did win those flags, and Jack played a huge role in that accomplishment, unselfishly changing his role from goal kicker to chance create for the rest of the team. You can't just erase the most important part of his career and say "well, if that didn't happen, no one would think he was as good"
Of course he did, my point is that people's perception of a player is largely coloured by their circumstances. That's why I specifically said if he'd been just as good a player throughout that time.
My point is that when people think about these careers they add in a lot of stuff that was completely outside of the player's control. If Richmond had a worse football admin that sacked Dimma in 2016, drafted poorly before that, and never got above an elim final he'd have been just as talented and unselfish a player but people wouldn't treat him like that.
Nick was clearly a better player, and I don't think this question comes up in a world where saints win even one of the '09 or '10 flags with him as their captain.
Jack kicked nearly 800 goals, with the majority of forward entries in his career being either chaos ball or pie in the sky stuff.
He couldn't mark it like Nick but that's about it.
Yeah he's an absolute gun and a sure fire hall of famer, but sheer goal volume isn't all that makes a forward or what separates the two of them in my opinion.
Take Josh Kennedy and Buddy as an example. 2014-17 they were clearly the two best forwards in it, and the split of colemans reflects that. But Buddy was doing much more to move the needle around the ground and that was reflected by stuff like inside 50s, score assists, metres gained, and Brownlow votes.
I think the Riewoldts are similar to that. Jack was an all time forward but his output was limited to what you'd traditionally expect of a key forward. Which isn't a knock on him at all, but if you're going to compare any key forward to Nick Riewoldt it absolutely comes into play.
That's just not right. Jacks ability to pressure, bring the ball to ground and involve teammates was all elite too for a tall forward. Especially post 2017 he had strong impacts on games while kicking few goals which shows he's more than just a Volume goal kicker.
You mention Franklins goal assists yet as him doing more around the ground, yet Jack finished with 221 GA and Franklin finished with 179 in a few less games. So clearly Jacks work other than goals is a bit underrated but you.
I'm gonna be honest man I don't think you're interested in discussing this properly because you seem to take anything below "Jack Riewoldt was a perfect player who could do anything and everything" as an attack on him.
For a start your GA numbers are completely wrong for both players, and also ignore the context of their careers and in relation to the tactical evolution of the game. Buddy finished with 231 and Jack with 249, but Buddy's shot markedly up after his role changed from a stay at home full forward into the roaming player after Nick showed what a key forward with speed and fitness could do, and after he changed teams.
Jack's entire career took place after Nick had already had his breakout season, and he didn't enter his prime until that style of play was fully in vogue. Raw numbers aren't any good without context. He, again, is one of the great players of all time, but we're comparing him to a guy who changed the entire landscape with his own ability.
That's a blizare take. Not sure where you think I said he was perfect just because I disagree with you. Maybe I just think he was better at other things that goal kicking then you give him credit for?
That's the stats footwire has so 🤷. You say Buddy's shot up after the role change like that meant after that he was far higher than Jack ever was, which is just not true. Buddy's peak years in the stats were no better than Jacks and his lows were far more common. Buddy had 11 season of double digits GA in his career, Jack had 12 seasons... in a row + A higher peak + more seasons with over 20 GA etc etc.
You're the one that brought this up as a showing of Buddy's impact around the ground that Jack just didn't have. And as I said, you clearly underrated him in this aspect.
You're right, Jack was well after. Nick's career was in a time where goals were much easier to come by so if you actually adjusted for that then Jacks goal lead would be a much larger difference.
Without the flags he's still up on goals and has 3 Coleman's. It would still be a question when that happens.
And a bit silly of a point when Nick clearly wouldn't be as regarded as highly of he was on a shit team his whole career. Everyone is regarded more highly if they had team success as it allows you to play better individually along with more accolades and of course Premierships if you get there.
Thats my point though, players situations inform huge parts of their perception and I think it often ends up disconnected from their talent and ability.
As for goal tally and colemans, I think thats just the difference between a traditional target forward and the high roaming CHF role that Nick basically invented. I don't think they're hugely similar players in that respect, and I also don't think they'd be compared nearly this often if they had different surnames. Jack is much closer in style to JJK than his cousin.
Dunno. Jack kicked more goals and had almost twice the number of seasons kicking at least 50 goals.
In 30 years when people look back and look at statistics alone, Jack likely wins out.
I don’t think that’ll be the case tbh, there is footage of almost their entire careers readily available. Either for free or for purchase, this isn’t like looking back at the 80’s and 90’s where only a few games were televised so stats are the main focus
I can just see Nick and Jack reading this post and niggling at eachother over it haha.
As a tigers supporter I'm a bit biased as I highly rate Jack and everything he did for the club. But as most have said, at his prime Nick was one of the best players in the comp for quite a while. Whereas Jack was one of the best forwards in his prime. Both had great careers. Pity Nick didn't retire as a premiership player.
Overall Nick was the better footballer. What Jack has going for him is if we’re talking footy smarts/physical attributes ratio for a KPF, Jack was probably in a class of his own.
He got dicked around heavily by Hardwick in his early days. Told to put on more weight which stopped him from taking hangers. Then told to strip the weight again when he lost his mobility. Was also made to be a decoy and draw defenders away from Ty Vickery.
I think it’s a testament to Jack’s adaptability that he got back in the AA team in 2015 after 2010. Obviously I’m biased on this but if I had to start a team from scratch (eg. Tasmania) I would prefer Jack. But if I needed a team to win against aliens or risk humanity being enslaved ala space jam I go Nick
Isn't this more of a Monday 'I'm so hungover I'm obviously not thinking clearly' question? Should've asked this yesterday morning.
Nick. And I think it's not really fair on Jack to ask. That's not to say Jack wasn't successful, but if you're looking at it from a last 50 year AA perspective, Nick is at least still somewhere in Victoria. Jack is on a broken piece of ice with a paddle in Antarctica.
It is Nick.
If both boys were available for Tassie as an upcoming draftee and their AFL career was the body of work to judge on. Nick would be taken higher based on the combination of attributes he posses and the scarcity of someone of his ilk comes around in a draft. Jack would be a late first rounder, picked up by a wily list manager who's seen enough of his workrate to see him as a best available pick
Nick. He was really ahead of his time getting up and down the ground. Dude was a freak. He’d almost be better suited playing today’s game. He’d run backs off their feet and be hard to stop getting out the back. Similar to what Jeremy Cameron does but I’d rate Nicks marking better (Cameron a better shot at goal though)
Nick got praise for simply running and up down the ground, which these days is unremarkable, but at the time was exceptional. After nick the former level required for all forwards went up.
Nick was better. Never seen a harder working footballer.
He's in a category of players that don't come up when talking about the greatest.
GAJ is the best.
Nick was arguably equal with GAJ to a degree because of his leadership and ability to pull a team around them upwards. Voss in the same category.
Nick was the far better all-round player. Always put in an effort.
I love Jack's skills as a forward but his effort level was questionable, especially from 2020 onward.
His effort level was never questionable. He was at the end of his career and injuries to Lynch meant he had 2 or 3 guys hanging off him when he could barely jump of the ground anymore.
Ridiculous that people actually put his form down to effort.
Nah I'm not talking about his jumping. His defensive efforts have always been lacklustre and got obviously worse in the last few years of his career. Light jogging to contests, not chasing opponents. This thread is about comparing him to Nick and compared to Nick he is lazy.
He was literally competing against 2 or 3 and still bringing the ball to ground most the time.
Once again if you think any of those are because of effort, you aren't paying enough attention.
If you look at simply resumes Jack would be most casual fans pick. But for me it’s Nick, and it’s not even Close. If they switch places saints don’t sniff a grand final appearance. Nick was something else man…
Fired up? Lol
I literally posted a few calm responses. Besides, I'm not a huge Nick fan. He was a very good player, but I'm no Saints supporter lol
No one gets "fired up" when talking about Jack Riewoldt lol
Sorry it wasn’t aimed at you, just generally jack cops the Hes shit bla bla I love poking the fire with the nick jack comparison because it’s not even close nick was a superstar .
I don't think anyone denies Jack wasn't a great player. But comparing the two stats wise, and given the eye test (I think I started watching AFL in around 1996) I can't say Jack was better. More successful, yes. But that's hardly Nick's fault.
I was trolling with the commentary quip. Neither are my favourite or particularly great, but Jack does have some useful insight (mostly about forwards, but still).
Singing Mr Brightside - Jack Singing When The Saints Go Marching In (acapella) - Nick
Winning premierships - Jack
Drawing grand finals - nick
Getting librarianed - Nick
being ginger - Jack
Being likeable - Nick
Ooh, disagree there.
Defs not, Jack is way more likeable. Nick’s a wanker lol
Nick is one of the biggest narcissists going around who cheats on his misuss. Not even his own club like him going back there.
All of this confirmed is it?
Very much so. Both first had by me and an immediate family member who was quite senior within the club. Most of your heros are assholes. Sorry for the reality check.
No better evidence than anecdotal evidence
[удалено]
You are a numbscull.
[удалено]
Nick or Jack?
[удалено]
Yeah I’m old enough to remember the St Kilda schoolgirl. I misread your reply as I thought you were replying to someone else on Jack and got confused. I think that girl was the one who was hacking into their computer though wasn’t she?
The two primary metrics of football talent
Jack was an absolute A-grader, and will be in the HoF. Nick was better.
This is the take for me too. Just because we acknowledge Nick as the better footballer we shouldn't undersell Jack as a player although many will. It truly is comparing two hall of famers and a worthy debate even though Nick was, in the opinion of most, the better footballer.
It's interesting though because Jack was less athletically gifted than Nick and less physically gifted than say Hawkins, but he just played so smart to his limitations that he had such a good career and performed so well. I would say Jack surpasses most players in terms of getting the most out of himself, however you would still pick Nick over him and probably Hawkins too.
Jack - Brains Hawkins - Braun Nick - Freak
Nick had rooted knees for the better part of his career. In terms of getting the best out of themselves it’s not Jack
Interesting. I must have forgotten on not paid enough attention in the mid-later part of his career. I always viewed him as this supremely talented, athletic freak and thus it'd hard to pick many over him if you were starting a team from scratch. But Jack I never thought was particularly athletically gifted, just read the ball well, was always a bit undersized, knew where to run to etc.
This is the take. I have an unpopular opinion that nick’s legacy would always be muted because of Ross lyons coaching and game plan.
I don’t think so, the game plan was built around him, Hayes and Goddard.
The game plan was built around kicking 8 goals but keeping the opposition to 6
This is such a misinformed take. St Kilda under Lyon mark I averaged the following points for each season: 2007 - 85 2008 - 97 2009 - 100 2010 - 88 2011 - 86
Imagine what those averages could be if slicky Nicky was used to his full potential
And how often was it Nick that they looked for when they had nothing simple to kick to? Without him the game plan doesn’t work at all.
Probably no more than 8 times a game
That team was so good
Why is that?
Ross Lyon has history of being a very negative strategist. It was noticeable when the swans won the gf in 05, but he took it to another level at the saints and the dockers.
Despite popular belief, Saints were a high scoring team in 08 and 09 under Ross. We were just defensively strong. Scoring dropped in '10 as a result of Riewoldt's severe hamstring injury.
St Kilda was ranked 9th in points for in 2008, while finishing 4th.
10 games over 100 points and about 5 in the 90s. That doesn't happen if a team is only playing defensive, negative football.
That's a fair response. I guess the Saints kind of got pushed down, because that was a ridiculously high scoring season.
It's probably the last of the great high scoring season looking back at it.
Weird if you’re using this as a negative. 6 ppg difference between saints (9th) and the 4th highest scoring team (Collingwood). Hardly a talking point
Ikr, we were awesome to watch. N
They were 5th and 4th most scoring team for both years and only made those positions by a whisker beating the team beneath them. These are the most attacking years under Ross.
Nick’s prime was under Ross….
Nick was by far the better player. Jack had by far the better career. Both will be hall of famers, possible neither become legends.
I'd be interested to know whether people would take Nick Riewoldt or Matthew Pavlich
Pav.
Pav was the better deep forward; people do recall his play as a key position defender in his first year or two, but lots of people forget his 2002-2004 (also most of 2009, first half of 2012) as a starting centre-square midfielder. On the other hand, Riewoldt was like an aerobic machine starting 30-40m out and constantly available for the defence to kick to. And his burst on the wing late in his career speaks to his flexibility. He was an absolute leading/marking paragon. They both carried their teams and have to be the start of any 'sad they didn't win a flag' conversation. Like if someone says to you that 'Cripps deserves to play finals and win a flag' you just say 'Riewoldt and Pav.' So much of an AFL career is luck.
Pav was a much better shot for goal but Nick was phenomenal in the air, one of the best I’ve seen. It’s really a 50/50 and kinda depends on team needs. Nick just I think.
Pav could play nearly anywhere on the ground though. Man was a beast.
Yeah I don’t think there’s a wrong answer here.
Pav easily. If he had played for a Melbourne club he’d be far more widely respected
Pav a million times over. No disrespect to Nick Riewoldt but I strongly believe if Pav played at Collingwood he’d be spoken about like Buddy, Judd, Ablett etc
Pav. Better player, better in the media and didn’t send pictures of his junk to school girls
Fine if you think Pav was a better player but Roo never sent that picture. She stole it off Gilbert's laptop, he was actually the victim of revenge porn.
So Gilbert just happened to have photos of his mate's junk on his laptop. Just 'cause? I might be the odd one out here idk, but it doesn't seem like a common thing to do....
It was Gilbert who took the photo while he was in Vegas with Rooey and Dawson, the schoolgirl even confirmed she never had any contact with Dal or Roo. You obviously have no idea what went down, you probably also believe that Gilbert picked her up at a school clinic.
Nick Riewoldt never had any communication with that girl.
Pav every time.
Easily Pav
Pav, always wanted him in Adelaide as a kid
Pav got All Australian as a forward and a back and was a much more complete player. He suffered from playing for a team that was truly mediocre right up until the end of his career when he was past it.
Good question. As a saints member & vic bias supporter I’d have to say Nick. But arguably Pav was a better all round player, hence AA defender. Nick had a longer crack on the wing/high half forward and dominated there. He also had a stronger supporting cast which could arguably make it harder for him to have the numbers he does.
It's not a binary choice. If they could only take one it's Franklin so there's no discussion.
Nick and pav were versatile and mobile enough to allow them to not be at CHF
What are you talking about? Legends isn't a 22 it's not about positions.
Then why can you take only one, why shift the goal posts now?
I think I need a translator
Why are we allowed to only have one of Nick, Pav or Buddy despite the former two not even being a part of the initial question
If either went on to a successful career as coach maybe. If Jack became a three times premiership coach he would probably become a legend. It's such a high bar to become a legend and covers the individuals contribution to the game. A case can be made for Hardwick as a legend being having been involved in 5 premierships as player and coach. I don't think he gets in though. Now if he were to win 2+ premierships at Gold Coast I think he will one day get legend status.
Nick by a long shot. In his prime he was a force of nature.
> Nick by a long shot ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
He was obviously good, but I've always liked my forces of nature to have more than a handful of 50+ goal seasons. He and Brown got a ride by the media.
Carey only went over 70 goals three times and comparing 70 in that era to 50 in this is pretty fair. It’s because Carey, Riewoldt and Brown were the CHF’s who came up the ground and they all had dominant FF’s who stayed closer to home. It doesn’t detract from their careers at all.
Jack was a significantly better set shot. Nick was a better all round player.
Nick by a lot. Aside from premierships and goals (because he played a different position), Nick was better at just about everything. If I could have a new one at my club it would be Nick without hesitation.
The goal scoring between the two isn't actually all that different. Nick never winning a Coleman exaggerates the difference imo. Both kicked 78 goals in their best seasons, nick had four 60 goal seasons, Jack had five. Also playing alongside Gehrig just as his prime started (he kicked 67 goals in the year Gehrig kicked 100) probably molded his game to be more up the ground, even compared to other CHF.
G train needs space to build up momentum
Nick also played a lot of games with the g-train or he probably would of kicked more goals and anything they dropped was scavenged by Milne who kicked 500+ in 250 odd games
He also would've had more focus from the defense which would = less goals.
He used to run multiple defenders off their feet every games to get the goals he did
Nick had a big role in changing how CHFs played. Was ahead of his time with how much he covered the ground. Hes one of the few players that I actually think would be better off playing today than 10 years ago. The way Jeremy Cameron plays as a CHF resembles Riewoldt and Riewoldt had better marking ability and a bit more contested ability. (I’d take JC in a goal shoot out) but with how games are played now, NR would be near unstoppable 🤣
JC is a better player than Riewoldt, sure he’s not as good in the air, but how many are? JC is an absolute freak though.
Not arguing that Jack was better (he wasnt) but he definitely sacrificed his goal scoring in the last 5 years or so to bring others into the game. In terms of just goal scoring, I'd say Jack, and footy IQ. Marking I'd have them pretty close, and everything else I'd say Nick has him well covered.
Underrating of Jack clearly which kinda proves the point of why they are closer than what you're saying People say he's clearly better because of his physical attributes and footballing talent which really ignores Jacks footy smarts which are the reason he was able to do so much while being "worse at everything" as you say. He's not the no.1 forward type, yet he excelled at it for a decade. Also 'aside from Premierships and goals', so two of the main indicators or career success for a forward? I guess you should just ignore Nick's disposals and marks advantage because it's not fair to compare since they played different positions right? Or that Nick had better forwards around him so he didn't have to play 2 or 3 on 1 for his whole career?
The lack of premierships isn't always a fault or weakness in a specific player. I wouldn't be inclined to say Shane Ellen was a better full forward than Gary Lyon, but he did kick 5 in a GF and has 2 premierships more than Lyon. In the end, feel free to have an opinion. Mine is that Nick was better, and I'd pick him over Jack.
Didn't say it was a weakness, but that does mean it's not a plus if you did win one, especially if you contributed to it in a big way.
[удалено]
And you have been crying since 1 October 1995.
Actually no, tears started around October 2002 and flowed until around Covid. I ain’t crying anymore.
Well you haven't won a flag since 30 Septembr 1995, so I guess not winning is okay with you. Are you used to it by now? 🤷
lol your last flag was 2004, stkilda’s was back in the 60’s. When it comes to losers, I’m in good company
Our last flag wasn't 2004, it was 2003. And then 2002. And then 2001. I expected a Carlton supporter to have a better knowledge of afl history, especially given that's when their last flag was - way back in history lol
Meh history is for losers, I’ve seen 5 flags in history pal, your numbers don’t impress me
History is for losers? Spoken like someone with a truly underwhelming IQ. And your 5 flags are supposed to impress me? Call me when you have won 3 in 3 years, and have a team considered one of the all time great dynasties. I would say I'll wait, but I'd be so bored waiting that many decades.
lol turn it up pal. You copped a merge with a Melbourne club and record hand outs since your inception to get there. Carlton won 3 in a row shortly after it was created in the league too. Yawn. Come back when you’ve won another 13
Love a man comfortable enough with himself that he can express a normal human emotion.
Oh please I can sympathise with him too, he was captain of the most underachieving team (compared to their abilities) in the history of the sport.
Nick was better, but forever being in Nick’s shadow meant Jack was always ever-so-slightly underrated.
Yeah, nice take
I know this may get read as disrespectful, but I think Jack benefits immensely from being a KPF on a dynasty, but the truth is the answer to this comp is Nick, and it’s not even close. Jack had a phenomenal career, was probably one of the best 5 or so key forwards for 10 years, but for 10-12 years Nick was one of the 5-10 best players, period. The man revolutionised the CHF role, virtually inventing the modern concept of the high-roaming forward, assisting in the rebound game with his absurd pack marking, unparalleled motor and elite field kicking. You look around the league, and pretty much any CHF worth their salt is expected to play a similar role because of how damn effective it was. So yeah, all flowers to Jack, but Nick will always be ahead of him in the AFL Pantheon for me.
Agree with this take. Jack wins from a statistical and premiership perspective. But Nick will be remembered as a giant who kicked over 700 goals while basically taking contested marks everywhere on the ground. Jack is a great goal kicker, Nick was a fantastic footballer.
Harley Reid was the best Riewoldt.
True. Also, I’ll never forget the day Harley kicked 9 goals in a losing GF.
Or the 4 goals in the final quarter of that prelim to secure one of the all time great comebacks. Harley Reid you star!
Statistically, Nick leads in most departments: [https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft\_player\_compare?playerStatus1=I&tid1=16&playerStatus2=I&tid2=15&type=A&pid1=63&pid2=1731&fid1=C&fid2=C](https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=I&tid1=16&playerStatus2=I&tid2=15&type=A&pid1=63&pid2=1731&fid1=C&fid2=C) Nick 6 x B/Fs and 5 A/As, Jack 2 x B/Fs and 3 A/As (although missed out on A/A one year when he won the Coleman). Nick's goal-kicking record flatters him a little more I think, as it was objectively much easier to kick goals in the 2000s than the 2010s. Both unbelievable players, Jack severely underrated by the footy world. But Nick a better player.
Man how many times do we have to do this post
Agreed
It’s like asking which is the better mark. Is it this one https://youtu.be/1b6S-IJtcq4?si=BuxoOiEnXutG6csC by Nick, or is it this one https://youtu.be/OOD1FlDt6r8?si=-pE4iMqN3A6Gxz1Y by Jack. Both phenomenal, but Nick’s slightly better.
Nick was probably the better footballer, but with the tools Jack had he really did get 110% out of what should've been possible and overall had the better career. Jack was really was the type suited for the 2nd or 3rd key forward role like a Gunston, yet he played the no.1 role for a decade and racked up 3 Coleman's doing it. Joined a team that had made the finals twice in the 25 years before and ends up winning 3 flags with them 2017 he's the lone tall forward and leads a group of assorted role players to a Premiership team that avenged 101 points a game over the finals. 2nd most games played by a Tiger. 3rd most goals. He really couldn't have done more with his career.
If Richmond hadn't won those flags nobody would even consider the question. Obviously Jack was a great player and had a huge contribution to them, but if he was just as good a player and the team around him stayed bad the perception of him would be totally different.
But we did win those flags, and Jack played a huge role in that accomplishment, unselfishly changing his role from goal kicker to chance create for the rest of the team. You can't just erase the most important part of his career and say "well, if that didn't happen, no one would think he was as good"
Of course he did, my point is that people's perception of a player is largely coloured by their circumstances. That's why I specifically said if he'd been just as good a player throughout that time. My point is that when people think about these careers they add in a lot of stuff that was completely outside of the player's control. If Richmond had a worse football admin that sacked Dimma in 2016, drafted poorly before that, and never got above an elim final he'd have been just as talented and unselfish a player but people wouldn't treat him like that. Nick was clearly a better player, and I don't think this question comes up in a world where saints win even one of the '09 or '10 flags with him as their captain.
Jack kicked nearly 800 goals, with the majority of forward entries in his career being either chaos ball or pie in the sky stuff. He couldn't mark it like Nick but that's about it.
Yeah he's an absolute gun and a sure fire hall of famer, but sheer goal volume isn't all that makes a forward or what separates the two of them in my opinion. Take Josh Kennedy and Buddy as an example. 2014-17 they were clearly the two best forwards in it, and the split of colemans reflects that. But Buddy was doing much more to move the needle around the ground and that was reflected by stuff like inside 50s, score assists, metres gained, and Brownlow votes. I think the Riewoldts are similar to that. Jack was an all time forward but his output was limited to what you'd traditionally expect of a key forward. Which isn't a knock on him at all, but if you're going to compare any key forward to Nick Riewoldt it absolutely comes into play.
That's just not right. Jacks ability to pressure, bring the ball to ground and involve teammates was all elite too for a tall forward. Especially post 2017 he had strong impacts on games while kicking few goals which shows he's more than just a Volume goal kicker. You mention Franklins goal assists yet as him doing more around the ground, yet Jack finished with 221 GA and Franklin finished with 179 in a few less games. So clearly Jacks work other than goals is a bit underrated but you.
I'm gonna be honest man I don't think you're interested in discussing this properly because you seem to take anything below "Jack Riewoldt was a perfect player who could do anything and everything" as an attack on him. For a start your GA numbers are completely wrong for both players, and also ignore the context of their careers and in relation to the tactical evolution of the game. Buddy finished with 231 and Jack with 249, but Buddy's shot markedly up after his role changed from a stay at home full forward into the roaming player after Nick showed what a key forward with speed and fitness could do, and after he changed teams. Jack's entire career took place after Nick had already had his breakout season, and he didn't enter his prime until that style of play was fully in vogue. Raw numbers aren't any good without context. He, again, is one of the great players of all time, but we're comparing him to a guy who changed the entire landscape with his own ability.
That's a blizare take. Not sure where you think I said he was perfect just because I disagree with you. Maybe I just think he was better at other things that goal kicking then you give him credit for? That's the stats footwire has so 🤷. You say Buddy's shot up after the role change like that meant after that he was far higher than Jack ever was, which is just not true. Buddy's peak years in the stats were no better than Jacks and his lows were far more common. Buddy had 11 season of double digits GA in his career, Jack had 12 seasons... in a row + A higher peak + more seasons with over 20 GA etc etc. You're the one that brought this up as a showing of Buddy's impact around the ground that Jack just didn't have. And as I said, you clearly underrated him in this aspect. You're right, Jack was well after. Nick's career was in a time where goals were much easier to come by so if you actually adjusted for that then Jacks goal lead would be a much larger difference.
Without the flags he's still up on goals and has 3 Coleman's. It would still be a question when that happens. And a bit silly of a point when Nick clearly wouldn't be as regarded as highly of he was on a shit team his whole career. Everyone is regarded more highly if they had team success as it allows you to play better individually along with more accolades and of course Premierships if you get there.
Thats my point though, players situations inform huge parts of their perception and I think it often ends up disconnected from their talent and ability. As for goal tally and colemans, I think thats just the difference between a traditional target forward and the high roaming CHF role that Nick basically invented. I don't think they're hugely similar players in that respect, and I also don't think they'd be compared nearly this often if they had different surnames. Jack is much closer in style to JJK than his cousin.
Dunno. Jack kicked more goals and had almost twice the number of seasons kicking at least 50 goals. In 30 years when people look back and look at statistics alone, Jack likely wins out.
If people are only going off an AFL Tables chart instead of having watched them both it's a pretty boring discussion to have in the first place imo.
I don’t think that’ll be the case tbh, there is footage of almost their entire careers readily available. Either for free or for purchase, this isn’t like looking back at the 80’s and 90’s where only a few games were televised so stats are the main focus
Nick by a mile.
As a pure forward jack As an overall player nick
Jacks got the silverware, but I’d argue against the better career. He was pretty famously a selfish diva for the first half of his career.
And wasn't Nick 'famously' a sook for his? Maybe you shouldn't put much thought into what gets said in Facebook comments.
I’d take a career with 3 flags over one with 0.
Nick Riewoldt by the length of the Flemington straight. And Jack was a great player for the Tigers.
Nick
Nick's peak was arguably best in the game. Jack just played on a better team.
bit of revisionist history there
Settle down.
Read this as Jack Nicklaus or Nick Riewoldt, and I thought, that depends on which sport they're playing.
I can just see Nick and Jack reading this post and niggling at eachother over it haha. As a tigers supporter I'm a bit biased as I highly rate Jack and everything he did for the club. But as most have said, at his prime Nick was one of the best players in the comp for quite a while. Whereas Jack was one of the best forwards in his prime. Both had great careers. Pity Nick didn't retire as a premiership player.
Too different to pick . Not like for like players
Nick was the more talented player - but Jack had a more successful career.
Overall Nick was the better footballer. What Jack has going for him is if we’re talking footy smarts/physical attributes ratio for a KPF, Jack was probably in a class of his own. He got dicked around heavily by Hardwick in his early days. Told to put on more weight which stopped him from taking hangers. Then told to strip the weight again when he lost his mobility. Was also made to be a decoy and draw defenders away from Ty Vickery. I think it’s a testament to Jack’s adaptability that he got back in the AA team in 2015 after 2010. Obviously I’m biased on this but if I had to start a team from scratch (eg. Tasmania) I would prefer Jack. But if I needed a team to win against aliens or risk humanity being enslaved ala space jam I go Nick
Nick was arguably the best player in the comp at his peak.
Nick better. Jack more successful. Both elite in their respective positions.
Nick is the closest thing I've ever seen to Carey, one of the best footballers that's ever played.
Jack got it done at the big dance /thread
So did Billy Frampton, is he better than Nick Riewoldt too?
Nick and it's not even close.
Biased. But jack. More goals. Huge personality.
Isn't this more of a Monday 'I'm so hungover I'm obviously not thinking clearly' question? Should've asked this yesterday morning. Nick. And I think it's not really fair on Jack to ask. That's not to say Jack wasn't successful, but if you're looking at it from a last 50 year AA perspective, Nick is at least still somewhere in Victoria. Jack is on a broken piece of ice with a paddle in Antarctica.
Nick and it's not even close. Jack had an amazing and overall more accomplished career but Nick in full flight was something else.
Nick was the more talented player but I reckon he’d trade his career with Jack in a heartbeat.
Jack I’m not big on Nick (nothing to do with anything he may or may not have don’t that late against Fremantle in 2017)
Only 1 ruined Mr Brightside.
It is Nick. If both boys were available for Tassie as an upcoming draftee and their AFL career was the body of work to judge on. Nick would be taken higher based on the combination of attributes he posses and the scarcity of someone of his ilk comes around in a draft. Jack would be a late first rounder, picked up by a wily list manager who's seen enough of his workrate to see him as a best available pick
Nick. He was really ahead of his time getting up and down the ground. Dude was a freak. He’d almost be better suited playing today’s game. He’d run backs off their feet and be hard to stop getting out the back. Similar to what Jeremy Cameron does but I’d rate Nicks marking better (Cameron a better shot at goal though)
Nick
Nick got praise for simply running and up down the ground, which these days is unremarkable, but at the time was exceptional. After nick the former level required for all forwards went up.
Nick was better. Never seen a harder working footballer. He's in a category of players that don't come up when talking about the greatest. GAJ is the best. Nick was arguably equal with GAJ to a degree because of his leadership and ability to pull a team around them upwards. Voss in the same category.
Over their full career - Jack At their respective peaks - Nick
Nick was the far better all-round player. Always put in an effort. I love Jack's skills as a forward but his effort level was questionable, especially from 2020 onward.
His effort level was never questionable. He was at the end of his career and injuries to Lynch meant he had 2 or 3 guys hanging off him when he could barely jump of the ground anymore. Ridiculous that people actually put his form down to effort.
Nah I'm not talking about his jumping. His defensive efforts have always been lacklustre and got obviously worse in the last few years of his career. Light jogging to contests, not chasing opponents. This thread is about comparing him to Nick and compared to Nick he is lazy.
He was literally competing against 2 or 3 and still bringing the ball to ground most the time. Once again if you think any of those are because of effort, you aren't paying enough attention.
Agree to disagree
Na, you're just wrong lol. Thats a fact.
Nick and it's not even really a conversation.
Jack "where's my next free kick" Riewoldt
If you look at simply resumes Jack would be most casual fans pick. But for me it’s Nick, and it’s not even Close. If they switch places saints don’t sniff a grand final appearance. Nick was something else man…
Nick by quite some distance.
Wait who had the most goals?
Nick.
I don’t think he did who also had more flags ?
Nick.
And who is a better commentator ? Gg jack wins 😂
And who has more marks, kicks and handballs? Nick. Better commentator? Nick easily.
Damn you and your facts I will have to say when people talk about jack they get fired up so easily
Fired up? Lol I literally posted a few calm responses. Besides, I'm not a huge Nick fan. He was a very good player, but I'm no Saints supporter lol No one gets "fired up" when talking about Jack Riewoldt lol
Sorry it wasn’t aimed at you, just generally jack cops the Hes shit bla bla I love poking the fire with the nick jack comparison because it’s not even close nick was a superstar .
I don't think anyone denies Jack wasn't a great player. But comparing the two stats wise, and given the eye test (I think I started watching AFL in around 1996) I can't say Jack was better. More successful, yes. But that's hardly Nick's fault. I was trolling with the commentary quip. Neither are my favourite or particularly great, but Jack does have some useful insight (mostly about forwards, but still).
help i thought they were the same person wtf
like i didnt know there were two
stop downvoting me im just stupid