This is the question that running around Melbourne talk back radio, regarding Lou Richards not being made a legend of the game.
When I was a kid, on Sunday mornings watching the footy wrap ups, Lous handball competition, I think I was one of many kids that learnt to appreciate and love the game through Lou. And there's no doubt he's a legend for what he did for the game since finishing his career at Collingwood a thousand years ago.
The problem that I think most people have, including myself was that we're actually far too young to know what kind of player he was - I know that my old grandfather didn't much care for him, being a staunch saints man himself.
When I first heard he wasn't being inducted as a legend of the game, I was appalled, at first, then I guess the thing that first got my mind going in the opposite direction was that I heard that Collingwood didn't even include him in their team of the century - so when their club president gets on the radio to make comments about it, it's pretty surprising seeing as he didn't seem so supportive at the time of drumming up the list for Collingwood?
I guess then you look at his playing record, and there's nothing that really stands out as being a champion, and when considered against players who are already inducted, you've got to be joking.
So far the list reads;
Darrel Baldock
Ron Barassi
Kevin Bartlett - god bless you Uncle Kev
Haydn Bunton
Roy Cazaly
John Coleman
Gordon Coventry
Jack Dyer
Polly Farmer
Peter Hudson
Bill Hutchinson
Alex Jesaulenko
Jock McHale
John Nicholls
Bob Pratt
Dick Renyonds
Barrie Robran
Bobby Skilton
Norm Smith
Ias Stewart
Teddy Whitten
And if you can say Lou Richards, based on playing ability, is up there with these guys with a straight face, then he should be in, but until that happens you've got to be joking!
Have a great day!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment