Opinion Can Dustin Martin be the GOAT? (Answer: no)

[Meteoric Rise]

Player ratings are just SuperCoach points with a different weighting system.

The guys get paid to record stats. That’s what they are good at and what the clubs pay for. Not for their weighting of stats, clubs wouldn’t care for that.

I don’t care for their stat weighting. Buddy’s best 3 games where clearly better.

You do realise Gary Ayres medal voting only came in 2016 right? After Buddy’s best footy.

How many would Buddy have won then. So far we have Pies fans claiming Pendles would have won 3 and cats fans claiming Ablett would have won the same 3. Are you now claiming Buddy would have won the same 3?

Norm Smith voting:

Dusty 43 votes from a possible 45 in 3 GF's

Buddy 5 votes from a possible 90 in 6 GF's.

There are easier threads for you H.

 

[Mr Meow]

Bartlett played 27 finals, you picked his hottest 3 for goal kicking, played in a completely different era.

Dusty's finals exploits are well documented on this thread. You are not going to cast shade on that by hand-picking the best 2-3 finals played by some of the best players in history and then not even comparing them with any sort of context.

Not even sure what you are trying to do here....

How about pick who you think is the greatest finals player of each era then compare them to their main rivals and see if you can find anyone anywhere near as far as Dusty in front of their contemporaries.

I gave you a big list of players I wanted you to have a go at ranking for finals performances.

Naturally most players who play 25+ finals spread more evenly across their whole career (rookies, peak, veteran) will have lower averages and a few games that bring them down.

Your reply will be "well let's look at their best 4 year stretch and compare it to Martin's". I'm fine with saying Martin's 2017-2020 finals streak was absolute top tier. "Hottest/most dominant 4 years final stretch we've seen" fits the bill.

"Undisputed best finals player of all time" isn't some label that is automatically attached. Nuances exist, circumstances exist. What if Martin played 15 finals before he was 26, and they resembled his 2013-2015 efforts? His averages of course would be much lower. You would still be able to say "hottest 4 year finals streak" but the lack of strong finals aged 18-25 or in his 30s means any player who also had several excellent finals in those ranges would be considered. Their peak damage wouldn't be as high but they would be proven in more contexts and across a much wider time range.

Not many players got to play almost every final of their career during their best 4 years, which were also the years their club was the best in the comp (this would be like if Ablett only played 4 finals outside of 2007-2010, instead of 13). It's a detail that should be pointed out.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It also discredits the entire award when it can be manipulated like that.

It is why I like the AA because yes there can be biases but with so many people involved in the selection panel hopefully those biases can be weeded out.

Yep Gil McLachlan clearly on the selection panel for years because he is a football expert who watched every minute of every game and analysed each players' performances very precisely.

Laura Kane, jesus wept.

The other Kane, of the Cornes variety, spends all day every day trying to trigger people to click on his footy comments by making as many ludicrous comments as possible. Of course this then means he would look a total fool if he backtracked on those ludicrous-by-design comments when picking the AA team.

This is the pile of shyte that is picking that team each year Run my man. It is why we can often see some very clear bias in selections, and also why those selections do not have much credibility, certainly not enough to be relied upon the way you do.

 

[H00t]

How many would Buddy have won then. So far we have Pies fans claiming Pendles would have won 3 and cats fans claiming Ablett would have won the same 3. Are you now claiming Buddy would have won the same 3?

Norm Smith voting:

Dusty 43 votes from a possible 45 in 3 GF's

Buddy 5 votes from a possible 90 in 6 GF's.

There are easier threads for you H.

You were going on about coaches votes. When Buddy wasn’t going to get them as they weren’t giving them out.

I’m also not saying Buddy would have won 3 Gary Ayres awards. All I’ve stated his Buddy’s best 3 finals were better than any of Martin’s.

He also played only forward against much tougher opposition in closer games so was never going to be as consistent as Martin.

Martin won those awards. It just doesn’t automatically elevate his performances above someone who didn’t win those awards.

 

[Mr Meow]

It also discredits the entire award when it can be manipulated like that.

It is why I like the AA because yes there can be biases but with so many people involved in the selection panel hopefully those biases can be weeded out.

They all have flaws, the voting/selection systems. An average of a full set makes more sense than focussing on only one.

I think if you are ticking off AA, B&F, high coaches votes, high Brownlow votes it's fair to say you've had a very strong season as a midfielder. Therefore doing well in those categories many seasons is a good reflection of high-end consistency over long time frames. A fairly key criteria for assessing champion midfielders.

Of course key forwards and defenders you just can't compare them to midfielders for these types of things.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I gave you a big list of players I wanted you to have a go at ranking for finals performances.

Naturally most players who play 25+ finals spread more evenly across their whole career (rookies, peak, veteran) will have lower averages and a few games that bring them down.

Your reply will be "well let's look at their best 4 year stretch and compare it to Martin's". I'm fine with saying Martin's 2017-2020 finals streak was absolute top tier. "Hottest/most dominant 4 years final stretch we've seen" fits the bill.

"Undisputed best finals player of all time" isn't some label that is automatically attached. Nuances exist, circumstances exist. What if Martin played 15 finals before he was 26, and they resembled his 2013-2015 efforts? His averages of course would be much lower. You would still be able to say "hottest 4 year finals streak" but the lack of strong finals aged 18-25 or in his 30s means any player who also had several excellent finals in those ranges would be considered. Their peak damage wouldn't be as high but they would be proven in more contexts and across a much wider time range.

Not many players got to play almost every final of their career during their best 4 years, which were also the years their club was the best in the comp (this would be like if Ablett only played 4 finals outside of 2007-2010, instead of 13). It's a detail that should be pointed out.

That is a load of complex, unsupported, made up nonsense.

If you want to present evidence of something, do it yourself, don't ask me to do it.

If you reckon I said something in a post, how about quote the post so people can see what I actually said rather than rubbish you have made up.

Martin's best 3, 6, 9 or the career average of all his finals, or his collection of Grand Final performances is better than anyone we have seen. This, as far as can be told makes him the best finals player ever. This is not just something I have made up, it is a pretty commonly expressed view by people, including many great finals players.

Like, if a batsman makes the best innings of all time in a big game we don't exactly see headlines screaming "this isn't fair on every other player who wasn't at their best when their moment came." Absolute garbage by you tbh.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Yep Gil McLachlan clearly on the selection panel for years because he is a football expert who watched every minute of every game and analysed each players' performances very precisely.

Laura Kane, jesus wept.

The other Kane, of the Cornes variety, spends all day every day trying to trigger people to click on his footy comments by making as many ludicrous comments as possible. Of course this then means he would look a total fool if he backtracked on those ludicrous-by-design comments when picking the AA team.

This is the pile of shyte that is picking that team each year Run my man. It is why we can often see some very clear bias in selections, and also why those selections do not have much credibility, certainly not enough to be relied upon the way you do.

Norm smith voters on the other hand are a study in objective analysis, right meteor?
Luke Darcy? Gimme a spell.

 

[Noidnadroj]

"So you mean to tell me that Martin got more of the ball AND kicked more goals than all those superstars across the entirety of their careers?"

I don't think he actually told anybody that.

It's as silly as saying "so you're telling me Fyfe has collected more Brownlow votes than Ablett" because his average votes per game is higher.

Oh… I see … i insert their averages (not totals), and say Martin got more of the ball and kicks more goals … again using Martin’s averages in comparison.. but for some inexplicable reason you thought I meant the total number of disposals and goals kicked, and not averages.

So if I put Bradman’s average of 99.94, and Steve Waugh’s average of 50, and say Bradman scores more runs than Waugh did, then wow… I’m probably talking about their average runs per innings and not their career runs total.

But when you’re desperate to avoid the topic then any old excuse will do hey Pussy Cat?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You were going on about coaches votes. When Buddy wasn’t going to get them as they weren’t giving them out.

I’m also not saying Buddy would have won 3 Gary Ayres awards. All I’ve stated his Buddy’s best 3 finals were better than any of Martin’s.

He also played only forward against much tougher opposition in closer games so was never going to be as consistent as Martin.

Martin won those awards. It just doesn’t automatically elevate his performances above someone who didn’t win those awards.

How much evidence do you want?

The only objective ratings system available to us rates 6 of Dusty's finals performaces above the only one of 3 that was rated of Buddy's that you say were ALL better than Dusty's best.

Coaches votes. Smith Medals. Opinions from greats of the game. Player ratings.

All up against the might and power of 1 x Hawthorn supporter named H00t who says otherwise.

 

[Mr Meow]

That is a load of complex, unsupported, made up nonsense.

If you want to present evidence of something, do it yourself, don't ask me to do it.

If you reckon I said something in a post, how about quote the post so people can see what I actually said rather than rubbish you have made up.

Martin's best 3, 6, 9 or the career average of all his finals, or his collection of Grand Final performances is better than anyone we have seen. This, as far as can be told makes him the best finals player ever. This is not just something I have made up, it is a pretty commonly expressed view by people, including many great finals players.

Like, if a batsman akes the best innings of all time in a big game we don't exactly see headlines screaming "this isn't fair on every other player who wasn't at their best when their moment came." Absolute garbage by you tbh.

Are you saying of the list of players I gave you, that you wouldn't be able to rank them for finals performances? I'd appreciate it if you had a go. Use 4 year finals peak if you have to, just be consistent. You have a clear number 1 but not even an idea on who 2, 3, 4 etc might be. Which proves you don't really have a ranking system for best finals player in history at all.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Norm smith voters on the other hand are a study in objective analysis, right meteor?
Luke Darcy? Gimme a spell.

We know who votes for what in GF Medal voting, and there is no ability for anybody to be influenced by others on the panel.

14 people said Dusty was BOG in his 3 x GF's. 1 said he was 3rd BOG. Out of 15 different individuals. Amazing how so many clueless people can com to the exact same conclusion in a multi choice with 46 possible answers.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Are you saying of the list of players I gave you, that you wouldn't be able to rank them for finals performances? I'd appreciate it if you had a go. Use 4 year finals peak if you have to, just be consistent. You have a clear number 1 but not even an idea on who 2, 3, 4 etc might be. Which proves you don't really have a ranking system for best finals player in history at all.

Who are the list of players?

 

[Cdog71]

So to be clear, the original analysis "goal and disposal average over career" you would find to be a better measurement of career consistency than the 8 pronged tally/ranking method I provided. Fair enough, that's up to you

The only analysis I’ve agreed with is Rohan Connolly’s top 25 of the last 25 years.
I made comment on your post.
His analysis was based on
Peak
Accolades
Longevity
I like it and I like that he’s a credible journalist in the football industry not tangled up in articles put out by “Staff writers” at Fox.
I’ve already posted why I can’t agree with what You’ve proposed

 

[Mr Meow]

Oh… I see … i insert their averages (not totals), and say Martin got more of the ball and kicks more goals … again using Martin’s averages in comparison.. but for some inexplicable reason you thought I meant the total number of disposals and goals kicked, and not averages.

So if I put Bradman’s average of 99.94, and Steve Waugh’s average of 50, and say Bradman scores more runs than Waugh did, then wow… I’m probably talking about their average runs per innings and not their career runs total.

But when you’re desperate to avoid the topic then any old excuse will do hey Pussy Cat?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

To be clear I refer to you as "Noidy" to shorten your convoluted user name. It doesn't mean we're close friends or intimately involved, so your creepy "hey come here pussy-cat" stuff is better used in other settings. You are a weirdo sometimes.

Bradman and Waugh didn't play in the same era, not even close. If Martin had a 60 disposal average over 200 games in the 1960s of course I would highlight it. My list of 10 players all played together in the same era. I'm not trying to compare Sam Mitchell with Dick Reynolds or Ron Barrassi.

You said Dusty scored more goals and had more disposals than a big list of players. It was wrong. I quickly developed a tally and ranking system using 4 types of voting processes and 4 key statistics. For measuring overall output/consistency over career it works nicely, far better than your simple "goal and disposal average" analysis.

As a man who pretends to enjoy understanding and using data I thought you'd be impressed. If there are any points you're stuck on I can guide you through it. 8 21st century midfielders have had more consistent output than Dusty so far. A couple are on the way.

Martin was nonetheless a champion and nobody can ever take away 3 dominant finals series in premiership teams. Why the need to stretch it further than that?

 

[Mr Meow]

Who are the list of players?

KB, Carey, Matthews, Ayres, Brereton, Barrassi, Coventry, Dunstall, either Ablett, Hodge, Kennedy, Selwood, Judd, Pendlebury, Kernahan, Matera, McLeod, Mitchell, Pavlich, Chapman, Goodes, Black.

A good mix of what I'd say were strong finals performers.

Forget Martin for a second. How would you rank and differentiate the rest of them?

 

[Mr Meow]

The only analysis I’ve agreed with is Rohan Connolly’s top 25 of the last 25 years.
I made comment on your post.
His analysis was based on
Peak
Accolades
Longevity
I like it and I like that he’s a credible journalist in the football industry not tangled up in articles put out by “Staff writers” at Fox.
I’ve already posted why I can’t agree with what You’ve proposed

All of that is fine, but you now understand at least one method I have used to assess prolonged brilliance of 21st century midfielders. If you aren't enjoying it then just read the article you liked again. But I presented something to support a case. I think it's fair, you don't. Move on.

 

[Noidnadroj]

The topic being analysed there was overall consistency, hence Noidy showing overall goal/disposal averages. The longer your career, the more your averages will drop from your peak, so tallies work better.

We all love the banter but let’s be serious for a second if we can …I know I’m being optimistic .. however …

Martin’s consistency across his career is consistently questioned .. we hear it all the
time “great finals player but didn’t always turn up to play in H&A” etc….

So my reply to that ‘lack of consistency’, it’s relevant to sit back and think …hmmm … just how did that lack of consistency translate into career analysis?

So you take basically any players career stats in the modern era from game zero to game 300 or season one to season 15, and Martin AVERAGES more disposals AND more goals than majority of the greats - Judd, Voss, Cousins, Ricciuto, Bartel, Black, Lappin, Dangerfield…

Then others like Selwood and Pendles average 1 x disposal more, but Martin averages more than double their goals per game.

So if Pendles, Selwood, Danger, Judd et al are regarded as consistently elite players across their career, then how can Martin not be regarded constantly elite also when he has averaged more disposals and goals than nearly all of them?

In fact the ONLY modern day player to average more goals and disposals than Martin is GAJ .. and it’s 24.9 to 24.1 and 1.2 to 1.1.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

To be clear I refer to you as "Noidy" to shorten your convoluted user name. It doesn't mean we're close friends or intimately involved, so your creepy "hey come here pussy-cat" stuff is better used in other settings. You are a weirdo sometimes.

Bradman and Waugh didn't play in the same era, not even close. If Martin had a 60 disposal average over 200 games in the 1960s of course I would highlight it. My list of 10 players all played together in the same era. I'm not trying to compare Sam Mitchell with Dick Reynolds or Ron Barrassi.

You said Dusty scored more goals and had more disposals than a big list of players. It was wrong. I quickly developed a tally and ranking system using 4 types of voting processes and 4 key statistics. For measuring overall output/consistency over career it works nicely, far better than your simple "goal and disposal average" analysis.

As a man who pretends to enjoy understanding and using data I thought you'd be impressed. If there are any points you're stuck on I can guide you through it. 8 21st century midfielders have had more consistent output than Dusty so far. A couple are on the way.

Martin was nonetheless a champion and nobody can ever take away 3 dominant finals series in premiership teams. Why the need to stretch it further than that?

It doesn't need stretching because that is straight into the all time conversation right there, because nobody else has done it.

It is not our fault Dusty, inconveniently to your argument, and contrary to your claims, also played another 5 or so seasons at least at an elite level. Including 3rd & 7th in the Brownlow, an amazing 2nd season fully worthy of AA selection in many years, a fantastic season at 32yo where he was the 2nd highest rated forward in the AFL. This is not to mention sustaining by far the highest 1 v 1 offensive contest rate in the history of the stat over a 300 game career. Like, by miles the highest. Or his 5 x Richmond highest Coaches Vote getter OUTSIDE of the 3 seasons you mentioned.

Those are just the facts. Without the merest hint of embellishment.

 

[Cdog71]

All of that is fine, but you now understand at least one method I have used to assess prolonged brilliance of 21st century midfielders. If you aren't enjoying it then just read the article you liked again. But I presented something to support a case. I think it's fair, you don't. Move on.

Elite consistency, prolonged excellence is what you’ve highlighted.
Brilliance is a different thing.

 

[Mr Meow]

We all love the banter but let’s be serious for a second if we can …I know I’m being optimistic .. however …

Martin’s consistency across his career is consistently questioned .. we hear it all the
time “great finals player but didn’t always turn up to play in H&A” etc….

So my reply to that ‘lack of consistency’, it’s relevant to sit back and think …hmmm … just how did that lack of consistency translate into career analysis?

So you take basically any players career stats in the modern era from game zero to game 300 or season one to season 15, and Martin AVERAGES more disposals AND more goals than majority of the greats - Judd, Voss, Cousins, Ricciuto, Bartel, Black, Lappin, Dangerfield…

Then others like Selwood and Pendles average 1 x disposal more, but Martin averages more than double their goals per game.

So if Pendles, Selwood, Danger, Judd et al are regarded as consistently elite players across their career, then how can Martin not be regarded constantly elite also when he has averaged more disposals and goals than nearly all of them?

In fact the ONLY modern day player to average more goals and disposals than Martin is GAJ .. and it’s 24.9 to 24.1 and 1.2 to 1.1.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Well I've never used over the top, exaggerated language to criticise Martin's consistency (like the poster you originally challenged). We are comparing him to some of the most consistent midfielders, with the strongest longevity, of all time. It only seems like nit picking because of the standard it is compared to.

Which is like saying "Dangerfield had no impact in finals...notice he has no 4 year finals period close to Dusty". While conclusion itself would be silly, if you broke it down analytically then it is true his finals peak was not at the same impact.

Don't confuse "players A, B and C were more consistent and played good footy for more seasons" with "Dusty sucked and barely did anything besides 3 strong finals series".

Ignore the trolls, accept the data (whichever way you sell it, my method was more accurate and comprehensive than yours) and focus on what Dusty did have as a POD. Those 3 finals series and an exceptional career otherwise. Just not quite as consistent or prolific in many key metrics.

 

[Mr Meow]

Elite consistency, prolonged excellence is what you’ve highlighted.
Brilliance is a different thing.

That's fine and I'd appreciate it if more Richmond fans simply said "Martin at his best was the most brilliant/destructive player I've seen".

"Dusty was more consistent than these players because of disposal and goal averages" is silly. Especially when his contemporaries continue to play good footy, but technically footy than "hurts their averages".

 

[Mr Meow]

It doesn't need stretching because that is straight into the all time conversation right there, because nobody else has done it.

It is not our fault Dusty, inconveniently to your argument, and contrary to your claims, also played another 5 or so seasons at least at an elite level. Including 3rd & 7th in the Brownlow, an amazing 2nd season fully worthy of AA selection in many years, a fantastic season at 32yo where he was the 2nd highest rated forward in the AFL. This is not to mention sustaining by far the highest 1 v 1 offensive contest rate in the history of the stat over a 300 game career. Like, by miles the highest. Or his 5 x Richmond highest Coaches Vote getter OUTSIDE of the 3 seasons you mentioned.

Those are just the facts. Without the merest hint of embellishment.

What method are you thinking of using to rank and differentiate the list of strong finals players I gave you?

 

[Mr Meow]

That is a load of complex, unsupported, made up nonsense.

If you want to present evidence of something, do it yourself, don't ask me to do it.

If you reckon I said something in a post, how about quote the post so people can see what I actually said rather than rubbish you have made up.

Martin's best 3, 6, 9 or the career average of all his finals, or his collection of Grand Final performances is better than anyone we have seen. This, as far as can be told makes him the best finals player ever. This is not just something I have made up, it is a pretty commonly expressed view by people, including many great finals players.

Like, if a batsman akes the best innings of all time in a big game we don't exactly see headlines screaming "this isn't fair on every other player who wasn't at their best when their moment came." Absolute garbage by you tbh.

"Best 4 years final streak ever" is one thing.

It still has the caveat of:

"No strong finals performances aged 18-25, 30+ or in a non dynasty team".

Can that combination still lead us to "best finals player ever?". Sure.

Can it lead to UNDISPUTED best finals player ever? Not necessarily.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Because coaches votes are so valuable I excluded those players who didn't have coaches votes assigned during the majority of their career. So, best to keep it for 21st century debuts. With Judd he had two of his best seasons without retrievable coaches votes, so I had to use his Brownlow tally to rank him (that's why I left that cell blank for total coaches votes).

Remember, this is to determine 21st century consistency and overall contribution. That was the topic in question, whether Dusty showed elite consistency at the level of some other champion midfielders.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists
Ablett	965	262	8	6	8896	1546	445	261
Judd		210	6	5	6380	1499	228	208
Dangerfield	934	251	8	4	7908	1843	335	242
Pendlebury	907	223	6	5	10301	1768	201	300
Martin	795	213	4	2	7320	1160	338	221
Selwood	817	214	6	3	8746	1844	175	264
S.Mitchell	680	227	3	5	8687	1803	71	207
Fyfe	650	190	3	3	5762	1274	178	131
Bontempelli	757	188	6	6	5740	1245	232	197
Neale	741	209	4	6	7452	1740	128	135

You can then rank each player 1-10 for each category and assign them a "total score", whereby for each category 1st = 9 points, 2nd = 8 points and so on.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists	Total
Ablett	1	1	1	1	2	6	1	3	64
Judd		7	3	4	8	7	5	6	30
Dangerfield	2	2	1	7	5	2	3	4	52
Pendlebury	3	4	3	4	1	4	6	1	54
Martin	5	6	7	10	7	10	2	5	28
Selwood	4	5	3	8	3	1	8	2	46
S.Mitchell	8	3	9	4	4	3	10	7	32
Fyfe	9	9	9	8	9	8	7	10	11
Bontempelli	6	10	3	1	10	9	4	8	29
Neale	7	8	7	1	6	5	9	9	28

Then you can rank them for overall consistency:

1	Ablett
2	Pendlebury*
3	Dangerfield*
4	Selwood
5	S.Mitchell
6	Judd
7	Bontempelli*
8	Neale*
9	Martin
10	Fyfe*

* = career not finished (Bont and Neale especially will climb).

It isn't perfect, as no approach is perfect, but it is more accurate than "goal and disposal average". It isn't determining who had the most impact at their peak or who had the best 3 seasons. But it uses every data point for their entire careers and several different kinds of metrics (4 different voting systems, 4 different stats). I think it gives a pretty solid readout of consistency for the best 21st century midfielders.

So if Bont plays 16 x seasons and 300 games and averages 6 x clearances per game (1,800 total), he’ll be ranked below Pendlebury for elite consistency on the clearance metric if Pendles plays 460 games and averages 4 clearances per game (1,840). So despite being 50% superior in clearances, and playing 300+ games which about 110 players in the history of the game have done, Pendles gets the nod for consistency on that metric?

Is that how this works?



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

So if Bont plays 16 x seasons and 300 games and averages 6 x clearances per game (1,800 total), he’ll be ranked below Pendlebury for elite consistency on the clearance metric if Pendles plays 460 games and averages 4 clearances per game (1,840). So despite being 50% superior in clearances, and playing 300+ games which about 110 players in the history of the game have done, Pendles gets the nod for consistency on that metric?

Is that how this works?



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I chose 8 categories for totals and rankings. 4 are statistical and 4 are based on voting systems for performances.

Yes I am confident that the points allocated for each 21st century midfielder give a better overall measure of elite consistency than your rudimentary "goal/disposal average" summary.

It doesn't determine who did the most damage at their peak, who had the best individual season or who had the strongest finals series. But it addresses the topic that was being discussed.

Martin would've added to his case if he played 3 or 4 more seasons of decent footy, including seasons as an important veteran in contending teams. Of course he would have, even if his disposal and goal average technically declined. I know you would have argued for it, much like you argued that 2023 added to his legacy.

2022 added to Selwood and Dangers legacies even if technically they were "hurting their averages". Pendlebury the same in 2023.