Talk:Peter Hudson

"arguably the greatest..."
Huddo was great, but to say "arguably the greatest..." is hard to conclude. I mean Coventry, Pratt, Todd, Wade, Lockett, Dunstall, McKenna, and yes of course... Ablett Snr... were all prolific full-forwards...weren't they? Someone was the selected full-forward in the AFL Team of the Century and he had a red stripe on his jumper...someone who could fly like a bird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaker5 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 March 2007
 * ... and here you are seemingly arguing whether its true or not, hence the phrasing seems to have proved its point. :)
 * The text in the introduction gives ample detail of Hudson's prolific scoring. As you posed a query about some other great forwards and offered a comment re the AFL TOTC as a criterion perhaps I can help you a little with your comparison.
 * Hudson: 289 senior games for New Norfolk, Hawthorn and Glenorchy 1963 to 1981, 1,721 goals at an average of 5.95 goals per game;
 * Lockett: 281 games with St Kilda and Sydney, 1,360 goals - average of 4.84 goals per game
 * Coventry: 306 games, 1299 goals - average 4.25 goals/game
 * Coleman: 98 games, kicked 537 goals - average 5.47 goals/game
 * At least in the Hudson article's introduction the word "arguably" appears. I note that the entry on John Coleman says in part "Confirming his status as the greatest full-forward to play the game, he was named as the full-forward in the AFL's team of the century." - relying upon the AFL TOTC committee's judgement from the VFL/AFL competition only to bestow such a definitive title. Quite rightly they were only looking at the one League's history. No mention or consideration of other greats such as Ken Farmer (SANFL, 1929-1941, 224 games, 1419 goals -  average 6.33 goals/game) or George Doig (WANFL, 1933-1945, 223 games, 1165 goals - average 5.47 goals/game) entered into the AFL TOTC deliberations, nor would they have considered Hudson's Tasmanian football career.
 * I think you have proved that the point could be argued, but you basis for argument is limited to say the least if you rely only on the VFL/AFL. Hudson was a great player in two States and to me the wording seems appropriate.
 * There is of course a separate argument altogether over whether or not descriptors such as "Champion" or "greatest" should be used at all in Wikipedia. But that was not the point of your comment as I read it.
 * Pudgey 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of the descriptor "champion" serves a purpose...it defines one who has played the game at a level over-and-above the ordinary. It could be number of goals, marks, kicks, effectiveness in play, tagging opposition, and so on. It differentiates players. But the use of the term "greatest", well that could mean many things. It could mean the best average as in Hudson's case. However, it could mean the most goals kicked in a season - Pratt's 150 was in fewer games played than Hudson, or it could mean the highest number of goals in a finals series or a grand final i.e. Ablett's 1989 finals performance, or it could mean the longest sequence of centuries scored - Ablett's hat-trick 1993-95, or it could mean the most number of goals in a game (or perhaps 'all' of the goals in a game) as in Doig's case. And the circumstances under which the player is playing football should be taken into account as well. Hudson and Coleman played in champion teams that won premierships, so is this the same as Lockett's situation with St Kilda or Sydney that did not win premierships when he played? Better footballers around Coleman and Hudson ensured that more opportunities to score goals would become available. If Lockett had played in those teams at Essendon or Hawthorn of that ere, he may have had an even more prolific career. So it is not conclusive to say the "greatest", but more appropriate to say "one of the greatest". But if I had to pick a FF, I would phrase it like this:


 * ...once upon a time a champion walked on onto the turf...to do what no other full-forward has ever done...to kick goals...to kick a hundred goals...to do it three years in a row...and to do it all in his thirties...Jaker5 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've edited the intro to read "one of the greatest" and we'll all seemingly be quite happy with that. I couldn't quite bring myself to the lyrical phrasing you suggested. :)   Pudgey 05:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems entertaining to me that if we're to argue for 'the greatest' and consider Pudgey's extension of that: to argue over items of consideration that would constitute the greatest, perhaps other qualities and considerations would Arguably be of even greater import or at least, considered in addition to those highlighted by pudgey. I agree that what has been brought up in this discussion all goes together to make up what should be 'in play' in considering 'the greatest of all' ... and I think these kinds of discussions are great in their intrinsic worth to people - especially in that they bring out qualities in people (here, in those of the past "Greats" of football). To me, when one is debating best performers in any field a consideration of the overall contribution to the overall cause involved is as worthy a measurement stick as any other, and to consider even further the context in which each achieved his feat. If we are to look at the latter first, however, it could also be argued with reference to the list of great full-forwards that Pudgey has included here that the existing game's nature might also be considered as part of any measuring stick, and the quality of footballers of the day. Longevity, at least in VFL terms - which has historically been proven itself the greatest Australian competition during the times of most of these forwards - must also be some consideration. It would seem that Gordon Coventry, in a day where little was available to encourage a player to continue well into their 30's, must also rate as a possibility. If we also consider that he played in a day and era when balls or passes were not necessarily directed at full-forwards and play was more kick-to-kick, then it could be argued that his feat over an entire career (including any 'twilight') of a goal average of 4.25 goals per game might be a greater achievement, when placed in era context, with that of Peter Hudson, who averaged 5.95 per game, in an era heavily bent on passing and handpassing the ball.

Likewise, although the career was shorter, it could be even further argued that, perhaps, John Coleman was the greatest ... for the game from the 1930's to early 1950's had not changed as much as it had by the 1970's, at which time the flow of the game had undertaken remarkable alteration and many rules had changed to open the game up more, and Coleman scored a game average of 5.47 goals. Now in his day, in the game's playing style and conditions, that would have been a phenomenal feat!

Then there is the legitimate consideration of how the goals were achieved and from where. If we were to consider accuracy and distance from which goals were scored, we would also have to consider Peter McKenna. If we were to highlight spectacle, we might have to lean towards, Ablett, Coleman or Pratt, or even Lockett, depending on what struck us the most. If we were to ignore competition, as Pudgey said, we would have to give it to Ken Farmer, in terms of prolific goalkicking.

To me, though, there is one consideration left out that is often a typical 'miss' in life - and that consideration takes me right back to my introduction: it is the contribution made by a forward to the overall score or performance of the whole team. That is, we not only have to consider the number of, or average, goals scored by the player himself, but how many others did he cause or support in achieving team goals. In other words, not only would he be scoring high rates himself, but also 'giving away' goals - handpassing, or shepherding and using his body well to position other players, on some regular basis, to also score goals. To me, if we were to include this parameter, I think we'd have to look very seriously at Jason Dunstall, who has made some absolutely brilliant team plays that have resulted in goals. "Arguably"?? ... you ask? Well, that's what truly makes the whole subject 'arguable'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidowi (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

goal less record
I remember reading, I think in Robert Walls book on Tassie Footy players that Hudson was kept goaless on a 4th occassion, during his last state game. He retired from state games after that because he was kept goaless. Can any body confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hudson → Peter Hudson (footballer) – My prior page move to have Peter Hudson as a dab page has been undone. A common name such as this should be a primary dab page - even more so in this case since there are currently five uses for the name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No argument given that the footballer, arguably one of the greatest players of all time, is not the primary topic. We don't disambiguate simply because a name is common, see e.g. John Howard (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Footballer is clear WP:Primary, one of the most successful players in the history of his sport, compared to a darts player who has played professionally for only two years, a TV chef without a stand alone article, a Royal Navy Officer with just five incoming links and a British Army Officer averaging less than 100 page views a month. Jevansen (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A Hall of Fame member is most suitable for a primary topic, compared to the other much less notable articles. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Peter Hudson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917040457/http://www.afl.com.au/aflhq/awards/halloffame/legends/tabid/855/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/aflhq/awards/halloffame/legends/tabid/855/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419120046/http://www.150years.com.au/150Moments/150MomentsArticle/tabid/11382/Default.aspx?newsId=55972 to http://www.150years.com.au/150Moments/150MomentsArticle/tabid/11382/Default.aspx?newsId=55972
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827004003/http://www.aflhalloffame.com.au/home/inside.asp?ID=94 to http://www.aflhalloffame.com.au/home/inside.asp?ID=94&pnav=93
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106185917/http://stats.afl.com.au/public/home.shtml to http://stats.afl.com.au/public/home.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * F1575.HudsonMark.jpg