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

[Meteoric Rise]

Oh brother...

Fancy a bloke on the losing team rating high just because he had 29 disposals, 18 contested, 2 goals(from an expected score of 7.5 points) & an assist, 10 clearances, 6 tackles, 22 pressure acts, 6 score involvements, 5 inside 50's, 7 intercepts and went at 72% efficiency.

CD should have a system that doesn't allow that to happen.

 

[RUNVS]

Fancy a bloke on the losing team rating high just because he had 29 disposals, 18 contested, 2 goals(from an expected score of 7.5 points) & an assist, 10 clearances, 6 tackles, 22 pressure acts, 6 score involvements, 5 inside 50's, 7 intercepts and went at 72% efficiency.

CD should have a system that doesn't allow that to happen.

Much harder to have stats like that in a team that is being crushed too. Easy to look good if your team is winning very very easily.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Much harder to have stats like that in a team that is being crushed too. Easy to look good if your team is winning very very easily.

I do have a small amount of sympathy for the vote givers here because most of Warer's best work appears to have been done in the 4th term long after the game was done as a contest.

But he performed all those acts within the match. And being a statistical system it rates all acts the same whether the game is there to be won or not. All of these things need to be viewed in context to be understood.

In Dusty's 3 GF's he was the highest rated player in each, and by a clear margin each time. He received 14 BOG's & a 3rd BOG from the Smith Medal judges. And 4 max BOG votes + 2 max second BOG votes from the coaches. Often there is a much greater level of dispute between the 3 systems of rating player performances in GF's, so the player given the Smith Medal is not such a unanymous BOG.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Happy to admit my Dusty obsession here. Not sure I'd be spending a whole summer weekend posting on a Daicos thread or an Ablett thread though. But I guess those guys didn't snuff my team out in 3 finals in short order, likely costing my club at least 2 flags.

 

[RUNVS]

I do have a small amount of sympathy for the vote givers here because most of Warer's best work appears to have been done in the 4th term long after the game was done as a contest.

But he performed all those acts within the match. And being a statistical system it rates all acts the same whether the game is there to be won or not. All of these things need to be viewed in context to be understood.

In Dusty's 3 GF's he was the highest rated player in each, and by a clear margin each time. He received 14 BOG's & a 3rd BOG from the Smith Medal judges. And 4 max BOG votes + 2 max second BOG votes from the coaches. Often there is a much greater level of dispute between the 3 systems of rating player performances in GF's, so the player given the Smith Medal is not such a unanymous BOG.

Maybe so, but you have to admit when your team is smashing the other team it is easy to look really really good.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Maybe so, but you have to admit when your team is smashing the other team it is easy to look really really good.

It is easy to see subjective voters are biased towards players from winning teams, agreed. This is why the player ratings sytem acts as a very good counterpoint or confirmation of votes.

 

[RUNVS]

It is easy to see subjective voters are biased towards players from winning teams, agreed.

I remember Brent Primsal looked like a really solid player in the amazing Geelong side, but when he got traded to the much less amazing Essendon he looked very average.

Not saying Martin is average, but I think how easily Richmond won those games needs to be taken into account. The real test of a player is the very very close games, or games where their team is being pumped.

There is a reason for instance Goodes was our best player in the 2014 Grand Final and Warner our best in 2022. The cream rises to the top when the team is playing badly.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I remember Brent Primsal looked like a really solid player in the amazing Geelong side, but when he got traded to the much less amazing Essendon he looked very average.

Not saying Martin is average, but I think how easily Richmond won those games needs to be taken into account. The real test of a player is the very very close games, or games where their team is being pumped.

I am not sure that is correct. Fortunately we have something like the ratings system that just tallies up the value of all the acts a player performs in a match, and totally ignores the scoreline. It tells you which player played best in the match, rather than which player looked best.

As stated in my earlier post, the recognition of Dusty's dominance in his 3 GF's was just about as unanymous as you are going to get. He did it equally when his team was in front, behind and level. His performance in the 2020 GF totally put to bed any suggestions he was somehow a downhill skiier in GF's.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

While I have got you here PhatBoy wonder if I could get a supportive comment from you about the fact there are only 5 individual finals performances above the AVERAGE Player rating of Dusty's best 6 finals performances since ratings begun?

If we see a finals player rating of 29.3 as footballs version of the Msson-Dixon line, let's cal it the Dustin Martin line, as it is the average rating of his best 6 finals....can you also comment for me on the fact none of his rivals for best player this century have ever crossed that line in a final since player ratings began in 2012. Ie none of the other players seen as the best of this century has ever had a single final rated above the AVERAGE of Dusty's top 6 finals.

Love to hear your comments on that.

 

[RUNVS]

I am not sure that is correct. Fortunately we have something like the ratings system that just tallies up the value of all the acts a player performs in a match, and totally ignores the scoreline. It tells you which player played best in the match, rather than which player looked best.

As stated in my earlier post, the recognition of Dusty's dominance in his 3 GF's was just about as unanymous as you are going to get. He did it equally when his team was in front, behind and level. His performance in the 2020 GF totally put to bed any suggestions he was somehow a downhill skiier in GF's.

Look at the big victories for any match. The club that has the big win always has a lot of players who racked up the stats and looked amazing, even players who most of us would consider to be pretty average players. It is easy to make a good player look great and an average player look good in a big win.

 

[STPer18]

Fancy a bloke on the losing team rating high just because he had 29 disposals, 18 contested, 2 goals(from an expected score of 7.5 points) & an assist, 10 clearances, 6 tackles, 22 pressure acts, 6 score involvements, 5 inside 50's, 7 intercepts and went at 72% efficiency.

CD should have a system that doesn't allow that to happen.

Why did the Norm Smith judges give him 0 votes? One of these systems are deeply flawed.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why did the Norm Smith judges give him 0 votes? One of these systems are deeply flawed.

Norm Smith judges will prioritise who they think had the most influence on the result, but they will miss lots of less noticeable actions like pressure acts for eg.

Ratings points prioritise who they think had the most influence on the scoreline.

Where the same player is recognised by both as clear BOG it is a fair bet he was. This was the case for Dusty in each of his 3 GF's.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Look at the big victories for any match. The club that has the big win always has a lot of players who racked up the stats and looked amazing, even players who most of us would consider to be pretty average players. It is easy to make a good player look great and an average player look good in a big win.

Sure, but not quite as easy to make them rate high in the player ratings, as Nikos & Bobby Hill found out in the 2023 GF.

 

[STPer18]

Norm Smith judges will prioritise who they think had the most influence on the result, but they will miss lots of less noticeable actions like pressure acts for eg.

Ratings points prioritise who they think had the most influence on the scoreline.

Where the same player is recognised by both as clear BOG it is a fair bit he was. This was the case for Dusty in each of his 3 GF's.

OK. The ratings formula or Normy voters had a huge stinker in the '22 GF then.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

OK. The ratings formula or Normy voters had a huge stinker in the '22 GF then.

You think so?

They are answering 2 different questions. Warner had the most valuable acts in the match. The fact he had the vast majority of them when the game was dead as a contest didn't impress the Smith Medal voters.

 

[STPer18]

You think so?

They are answering 2 different questions. Warner had the most valuable acts in the match. The fact he had the vast majority of them when the game was dead as a contest didn't impress the Smith Medal voters.

I guess a certain level of nuance needs to be applied to these trinkets and ratings then.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I guess a certain level of nuance needs to be applied to these trinkets and ratings then.

To all things in life.

 

[doppleganger]

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

Not hottest 3, just his three 1980 finals

They are better than any finals series Dusty produced.

gAZ Snr's 1989 finals were better than any of Dusty's.

Dusty is the best finals player of the 2010s, and arguably Richmond's 3rd best player of the 2010s.

He is well behind the real GOAT contenders.

 

[Mr Meow]

Considering you are approaching 800 posts on this thread I would not be throwing stones if I were you.

I'm also the 2nd highest poster on the Pendlebury thread and was the highest on the rolling AA threads. When they are stuck resorting to pointing at post count leaderboards, you know the battle is already won and you can file another victory in the debate department. The petulant tantrums seen after that 8 variable midfielder consistency analysis were a sight to behold.

I've posted a lot about who I think have been the best players in my lifetime (and why), and who they are in an ongoing season of football. Those topics have drawn 4 or 5 Richmond supporters into angry protests like we saw this weekend - if you reply to all of them and they always need the last word, then yeah posts stack up. When they're out of ideas you get a "HAHA salty bout those Richmond flags your heart is destroyed!!" - a rather hilarious riposte from bitter old men who can't deal with people disagreeing with their biased positions. Ones which neutrals are closer to mocking than siding with.

 

[doppleganger]

Your system that ranks Pendles as a more consistent Brownlow vote winner than Lachie Neale who has won 2 Brownlows and being judged BOg in the Brownlow twice … yes, twice as often... that system?

Your system also rates Travis Boak as a more consistent ball winner than Dane Swan … the greatest ball winner I’ve ever seen.

Why do you keep using 'consistent' when talking averages?

Averages simply take sum of output of all the set (AFL example is total disposals) and divide by the set (games played).

It provides no detail on consistency.

Player A 3 games - 23, 18, 10 - an avg of 17
Player B 3 games - 14, 15, 16 - an avg of 15

Player B is the more consistent player.

Consistent players have a tighter distribution of disposals (or whatever you are trying to focus on).

Travis Boak would get spat out in any comparison with Swan as he didn't have the peak that Swan did.

But in second tier type mids (ie Prestia) makes much more sense to use totals v avg as Boak having 3500 is ****ing impressive and points to a much greater career then going Prestia had an avg of 23.6 compared to 23.3 for Boak so he was better.

 

[Mr Meow]

Why do you keep using 'consistent' when talking averages?

Averages simply take sum of output of all the set (AFL example is total disposals) and divide by the set (games played).

It provides no detail on consistency.

Player A 3 games - 23, 18, 10 - an avg of 17
Player B 3 games - 14, 15, 16 - an avg of 15

Player B is the more consistent player.

Consistent players have a tighter distribution of disposals (or whatever you are trying to focus on).

Travis Boak would get spat out in any comparison with Swan as he didn't have the peak that Swan did.

But in second tier type mids (ie Prestia) makes much more sense to use totals v avg as Boak having 3500 is ****ing impressive and points to a much greater career then going Prestia had an avg of 23.6 compared to 23.3 for Boak so he was better.

Bingo.

And I used it to compare players of the same tier and era - ones who all had seriously impressive peaks. And no it wasn't exhaustive as some like Swan could've been looked at, but I wanted to include a couple of very consistent current midfielders as well. That was the whole topic, along with elite longevity, after all...

If you come out 9th on the consistency/longevity measure it doesn't mean you were inconsistent. You just weren't quite as consistent as the other players looked at, ones whose best and worst games weren't as far apart, and whose careers produced good quality football more often/deeper into their 30s. That's it. They're all fair comments and the data backs it up, much like asking any footy head on the street would. How destructive/high a peak was is another thing, and Dusty - especially in those 3 finals series - was super in that category.

 

[Cdog71]

Why do you keep using 'consistent' when talking averages?

Averages simply take sum of output of all the set (AFL example is total disposals) and divide by the set (games played).

It provides no detail on consistency.

Player A 3 games - 23, 18, 10 - an avg of 17
Player B 3 games - 14, 15, 16 - an avg of 15

Player B is the more consistent player.

Consistent players have a tighter distribution of disposals (or whatever you are trying to focus on).

Travis Boak would get spat out in any comparison with Swan as he didn't have the peak that Swan did.

But in second tier type mids (ie Prestia) makes much more sense to use totals v avg as Boak having 3500 is ****ing impressive and points to a much greater career then going Prestia had an avg of 23.6 compared to 23.3 for Boak so he was better.

Can averages show that someone was consistently better over the same period compared to another?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why do you keep using 'consistent' when talking averages?

Averages simply take sum of output of all the set (AFL example is total disposals) and divide by the set (games played).

It provides no detail on consistency.

Player A 3 games - 23, 18, 10 - an avg of 17
Player B 3 games - 14, 15, 16 - an avg of 15

Player B is the more consistent player.

Consistent players have a tighter distribution of disposals (or whatever you are trying to focus on).

Travis Boak would get spat out in any comparison with Swan as he didn't have the peak that Swan did.

But in second tier type mids (ie Prestia) makes much more sense to use totals v avg as Boak having 3500 is ****ing impressive and points to a much greater career then going Prestia had an avg of 23.6 compared to 23.3 for Boak so he was better.

That's brilliant analysis, everyone who plays midfield or half back has a tighter distribution of disposals than players who spend more time forward.

Well done for thinking of that Dopple.

I wonder which of them had more consistent scoreboard impact, and were more consistent a winning offensive contests?

And I wonder what happened when Dusty played the sweeper mid accumulator role for 1 year in 2016....

Ahhhhh - 16 of his last 17 games that season 28 disposals or more. Looks a pretty tight distribution. 3rd Brownlow, 3rd Coaches votes.

 

[jakson68]

I cant believe this thread hasn't been shut down yet.

Dusty has been out of the game for only a couple of years and I have already forgotten he played.
Players like Ablett, Lockett and co retired many years ago and I still remember them vividly.

Perhaps it is just unfortunate that Martin didn't play great football outside of a couple of years.

He sort of reminds me of a band like Whitesnake. Did a couple of great things that were memorable.
Then you have Pendles, who is basically The Rolling Stones. Brilliant for decades (can't think of a poor year).
Of course, no list is complete without GAJ and Mathews, The Beatles, or even Taylor Swift. Hit, after hit, after hit.

To the three Richmond nuffies that are holding onto hope, let it go.
Your club and Dusty, were lucky enough to be at the right place, right time and had a win against Adelaide, GWS and Covid.

Take the win and let it go.
Dusty had some great moments but he isn't even in the conversation with some of the great players of our time.

 

[Mr Meow]

Can averages show that someone was consistently better over the same period compared to another?

If you have error bars and showed a statistically significant difference. Only mean was used (so only one method to calculate average, that shows nothing about distribution), we could instead use median and even an ANOVA analysis for different categories.

For consistency, the distribution of individual data points for each category could be used (per season, or for the full set of games as separate data points). Wouldn't be possible for AA or B&Fs because the the former is just a voting system at the end of a full season, while the latter we would need every single game's B&F read out. It is accepted that midfielders with very consistent elite performance across a season do well in those categories. If you didn't win an AA selection or a B&F, it's fair to assume there was some variance between your best and worst games. E.g a large period of the season just "good", with a hot streak early or late.

I will once again emphasise that no system is perfect, but it's entertaining to see something more comprehensive mocked by a person (not you) who thought "career goal/disposal averages" was the most accurate and definitive analysis there was. 4 different key statistical metrics, and 4 different voting metrics, then a tallying and ranking system, is undoubtedly a stronger approach to validate 21st century midfielder consistency/longevity. For the thousandth time, I have never claimed it measured "dominance of peak" or "most brilliant footballer I've seen".