20 Disposals and a goal

[Cleansweep17]

yes, an era where midfielders got considerably less of the ball than they do now, and an era where majority of the goals were kicked by the big forwards.

I think we’ll just agree to disagree on this. I personally don’t believe that the talent pool of AFL players have dropped off a cliff since the 60s - 80s because they can’t get those numbers anymore.

 

[Mr Meow]

Ok …. Let’s compare him on both disposals and goals as he split time between mid and forward … oh, he was one of three players in the competition to average 20+ 1+ across the season - and avenged 7.7 SI’s across the ‘season’ which is Uber elite. Wowsers. Good suggestion to review him on both midfield and forward combo via the 20 and 1, confirms his elite status as it’s clearly rarified air to achieve that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Once again you're identifying a role more than a benchmark.

You're correct that a bunch of Tigers supporters and David Hoyne campaigned for that elite status, especially once that wet sail kicked in when Richmond's season was effectively toast. The campaign overall was a failure.

At the conclusion of round 17 Martin averaged 21.9 disposals, a goal and half a goal assist. Objectively these are solid numbers on paper. He had just 13 coaches votes.

A mid/forward hybrid collecting 13 coaches votes from the first 2/3 of the season qualifies as elite? He did finish well though when it didn't matter, except the 1-2 punch where Richmond were knocked out (St Kilda, Bulldogs) he didn't play in one and he was a non-factor in the other (0 coaches votes). Boy did he make up for it in the two dead rubbers though (a whopping 17 coaches votes).

 

[Mr Meow]

You can make certain allowances for players as you suggest. But you cannot decry Murphy's finals record. He got to play very few finals but in those he did play, you can only say he performed well, without qualification.

You are selecting players you want to be good and trying to make them good even when the facts say otherwise. Then selecting players you want to be poor and trying to make them look poor even when the facts say otherwise. The facts say Murphy played well in the 6 finals he played, such that if he repeated that over a dozen or more finals matches and or was lucky enough to play for a team that could contend seriously, he would rightly be seen as an excellent finals player. You cannot wish those facts away due to some pre-conceived media fandom informed view that Murphy wasn't very good when compared to other marquee wage type players.

Forget whatever tit for tat we've had around various topics. But surely, surely you don't actually think averages from a 6 finals career aged 22-26 can be compared to a bloke who had 6 finals in the bank by the time he was 20, and had another 7 when he was 33 or over?

That is like measuring Murphy's 100 metre sprint times once a year between 22 and 26, then comparing the average to Selwood's who has had his measured a couple of times every year 18-34.

If you've had just 6 finals from 4 seasons, it's not your fault, but you really shouldn't even be entered into these finals discussions. Otherwise you are automatically rewarded, and any finals hardened veteran punished. But afltables might tell you the first fella was an all time finals great.

Measuring equivalent years is similarly flawed just because the sample sizes become too small to begin with. At least Martin's 2017-2020 run covered 12 finals, which is a hell of a lot more convincing than 6. If you're using 6 you might as well be happy with 3 or 4 which is the length of one full finals campaign.

 

[H00t]

Which modern day players aren’t elite that averaged at least 20 and 1 in the OPs list?

You can’t even keep your story straight without jumping from point to point.

You said 2.7 is the same as 1 goal in todays game.

But Matthews being the 9th highest goal kicker of all time and winning a Coleman shows he was a lot better goal kicker than an average forward in todays game.

If it was so common everyone would be doing it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

yes, an era where midfielders got considerably less of the ball than they do now, and an era where majority of the goals were kicked by the big forwards.

Some of these claims you are making don't seem to be backed up by much in the way of evidence RUNVS.

Here are the top 30 goal kickers by average goals per game in 1978(ignoring those who played less than 10 games):

Blight, Matthews, Lofts, Monteath, Primmer, Briedis, Shaw, Bartlett, Catoggio, Murphy, Wilson, Burdett were not key position players. Of the taller players, Moore and Galt were not key forwards, but second rucks at the time. The other 16 were essentially full forwards and centre half forwards, though some of those like Daniher, and Laughlin from memory mixed it up by playing on flanks at times.



If you then look at 2023, again ignoring players under 10 matches, you have Greene, C Cameron, Breust, Fritsch, Langford, Henry, Rankine, Weightman, Walters and Higgins who are not tall or recognised as key position players. And of those Langford and Fritsch in particular often played effectively full forward. The truth is key position forwards dominate the top 30 goal kickers more now than they did in 1978.

So what are you basing your claim on?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Forget whatever tit for tat we've had around various topics. But surely, surely you don't actually think averages from a 6 finals career aged 22-26 can be compared to a bloke who had 6 finals in the bank by the time he was 20, and had another 7 when he was 33 or over?

That is like measuring Murphy's 100 metre sprint times once a year between 22 and 26, then comparing the average to Selwood's who has had his measured a couple of times every year 18-34.

If you've had just 6 finals from 4 seasons, it's not your fault, but you really shouldn't even be entered into these finals discussions. Otherwise you are automatically rewarded, and any finals hardened veteran punished. But afltables might tell you the first fella was an all time finals great.

Measuring equivalent years is similarly flawed just because the sample sizes become too small to begin with. At least Martin's 2017-2020 run covered 12 finals, which is a hell of a lot more convincing than 6. If you're using 6 you might as well be happy with 3 or 4 which is the length of one full finals campaign.

My list that showed Murphy in an elevated position in average career finals performance is merely an objective list. I made no claims about him, just listed the facts.

If you want to compare him with Selwood and Pendlebury finals at the same age, go right ahead, I am all eyes. There is no doubt smaller finals samples sizes will throw up anomalies and players who played more finals outside their prime years will not do as well on such a list. But you can't dismiss Murphy's performances out of hand credibly without making meaningful like for like comparisons to other players. Based on my criteria contested possessions x goals + assists this would be the comparison of Murphy v Pendlebury within that age range of 22-26yo in finals only:

Murphy(6 finals) = 12.7 cp x 1.83 G + GA = 23.21

Pendlebury(11 finals 2010-13) 12.9 cp x 1 G + GA = 12.9

Selwood(10 finals 2010-13) 12.1 cp x 1.4 G + GA = 16.94

Now you can be like Fadge and say I don't like those results so I am going to say the results lie, or you can just say ok, those are the facts and based on that criteria, Murphy had a greater scoreboard impact in finals from a similar amount of contested possessions when compared to either Selwood or Pendlebury at the same ages.

From there you could go into all sorts of detail as to who had greater defensive impact, who played in higher scoring matches, who played against better average finals opponents and so on. But on the face of it, Marc Murphy has clearly outperformed this pair in finals for contest and scoreboard impact when we select only finals when they were all aged 22-26yo.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

But he’s such a great decision maker and damaging ball user to set-up scores and impact the game … except in finals from 2011-2023….

And I thought I found someone below 0.52 as Brad Sewell didn’t kick any goals in his 16 finals. But he had 10 x GA’s so was 0.63! The search for a midfielder to inflict less scoreboard damage than Pendles in finals from 2011-2023 continues!!



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Myths build up around players from certain clubs it seems. Or players with a certain type of cachet.

As we can see with the Marc Murphy "surprisingly" good finals record, some people when faced with facts which clearly contradict the myths they believe will immediately start wanting the facts to change rather than their own incorrect belief.

Fortunately there are some of us who can look at something like that and say jeez, I wouldn't have thought that, Marc Murphy actually has a very impactful finals record and Pendlebury does not, so I will need to alter the way I think about those two in terms of their finals performances.

 

[Mr Meow]

My list that showed Murphy in an elevated position in average career finals performance is merely an objective list. I made no claims about him, just listed the facts.

If you want to compare him with Selwood and Pendlebury finals at the same age, go right ahead, I am all eyes. There is no doubt smaller finals samples sizes will throw up anomalies and players who played more finals outside their prime years will not do as well on such a list. But you can't dismiss Murphy's performances out of hand credibly without making meaningful like for like comparisons to other players. Based on my criteria contested possessions x goals + assists this would be the comparison of Murphy v Pendlebury within that age range of 22-26yo in finals only:

Murphy(6 finals) = 12.7 cp x 1.83 G + GA = 23.21

Pendlebury(11 finals 2010-13) 12.9 cp x 1 G + GA = 12.9

Selwood(10 finals 2010-13) 12.1 cp x 1.4 G + GA = 16.94

Now you can be like Fadge and say I don't like those results so I am going to say the results lie, or you can just say ok, those are the facts and based on that criteria, Murphy had a greater scoreboard impact in finals from a similar amount of contested possessions when compared to either Selwood or Pendlebury at the same ages.

From there you could go into all sorts of detail as to who had greater defensive impact, who played in higher scoring matches, who played against better average finals opponents and so on. But on the face of it, Marc Murphy has clearly outperformed this pair in finals for contest and scoreboard impact when we select only finals when they were all aged 22-26yo.

This is a weird way to talk about your "findings". It implies you don't want any kind of discussion or interpretation of them whatsoever, which includes adding context, disclaimers or why the comparisons may or may not be robust. I notice you've started doing this quite frequently.

Needless to say if you were submitting these findings as a report and tried this approach ("these are the facts! I didn't say you should glean anything from them!) you would be laughed out of the room. It would be considered a flimsy approach. And a list comparing averages from a 6 data point set to 30 plus, where one player has finals from 4 years in their peak and another has finals covering 16 years - yes this is is a poor comparison.

But whatever, if you wanted to add something pointless just so that you could reprimand anyone who actually calls it pointless, you have achieved your goal.

 

[Cleansweep17]

You can’t even keep your story straight without jumping from point to point.

You said 2.7 is the same as 1 goal in todays game.

But Matthews being the 9th highest goal kicker of all time and winning a Coleman shows he was a lot better goal kicker than an average forward in todays game.

If it was so common everyone would be doing it.

20 and 1 is todays game is elite.

20 and 1 in the 80s is not elite (imo) it would have to be like 20 and 1.5/2

Hence why I asked out of the modern players who on the OPs list that averaged above 20 and 1 aren’t elite. Everybody that achieved it looks elite to me, what about you?

And no I didn’t say 2.7 was the same as 1.

I think it’s pretty simple, if you can get 20 and 1 you can be considered an elite mid/fwd.

If you get something like 25 and 0.8 you are an elite mid.

If you get something like 15 and 3 you are an elite fwd.

That’s all it’s just classifications of the types of players. It’s not a direct comparison to say one is better than the other. Although I do believe mid/fwds are generally the more valuable players though due to their versatility.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is a weird way to talk about your "findings". It implies you don't want any kind of discussion or interpretation of them whatsoever, which includes adding context, disclaimers or why the comparisons may or may not be robust. I notice you've started doing this quite frequently.

Needless to say if you were submitting these findings as a report and tried this approach ("these are the facts! I didn't say you should glean anything from them!) you would be laughed out of the room. It would be considered a flimsy approach. And a list comparing averages from a 6 data point set to 30 plus, where one player has finals from 4 years in their peak and another has finals covering 16 years - yes this is is a poor comparison.

But whatever, if you wanted to add something pointless just so that you could reprimand anyone who actually calls it pointless, you have achieved your goal.

Lol that is all perfectly correct until you read the very post you are replying to here in which I entered the very type of discussion you are claiming I am trying to avoid. More importantly than that I made a perfectly fair comparison between all the finals the 3 players played in the same age range.

You seem to have somehow forgotten all the detail of the very post you were responding to and gone ahead and responded as if that post was never made. And then describe my approach as weird.


You are a bit nqr my friend.

 

[Lingsface]

I can count 6 for Chapman with 2014 bombers being 2 possesions off and 2010 Geelong 1 Goal off.

 

[Ricmel]

20 and 1 is todays game is elite.

20 and 1 in the 80s is not elite (imo) it would have to be like 20 and 1.5/2

This is a good example of why comparing across eras is fraught. Probably correct that averaging a goal a game in today's era puts you in top shelf, only about 35 mid/smalls did it in 2023.

But equally, whilst goal averages have probably reduced over time, disposal averages have gone up. A 20 possession game has become a benchmark, not an outlier.

Personally i don't think the 20/1 stat is a measure of anything too much. In Dusty's case he is a player that gets to both run through the mid and gather possessions and spend time forward and get the opportunity to kick goals. Most mids don't get that time forward.

 

[Cleansweep17]

This is a good example of why comparing across eras is fraught. Probably correct that averaging a goal a game in today's era puts you in top shelf, only about 35 mid/smalls did it in 2023.

But equally, whilst goal averages have probably reduced over time, disposal averages have gone up. A 20 possession game has become a benchmark, not an outlier.

Personally i don't think the 20/1 stat is a measure of anything too much. In Dusty's case he is a player that gets to both run through the mid and gather possessions and spend time forward and get the opportunity to kick goals. Most mids don't get that time forward.

True, but Dusty has licence to go forward because he is an elite goal kicker, you can’t say that about every mid. Lachie Neale, Chris Judd and Pendlebury for example aren’t allowed to play a fwd pocket role because they wouldn’t be good at it. Dusty can kick bags of 4 and 6s in big finals playing 50% forward, the others not so much.

 

[Ricmel]

True, but Dusty has licence to go forward because he is an elite goal kicker, you can’t say that about every mid. Lachie Neale, Chris Judd and Pendlebury for example aren’t allowed to play a fwd pocket role because they wouldn’t be good at it. Dusty can kick bags of 4 and 6s in big finals playing 50% forward, the others not so much.

All of Pendlebury, Neale and Judd would kick 40 plus per year playing forward. They are just too good to take out of the midfield.

 

[Fadge]

All of Pendlebury, Neale and Judd would kick 40 plus per year playing forward. They are just too good to take out of the midfield.

It's called having a balanced team.

Pendlebury has played in a team that has finished top 4 nine times in his career so far, and he has 14 x top 3 finishes in his club best and fairest.

I think his coaches know how to deploy him best, in consideration of the broader playing list.

 

[Cleansweep17]

All of Pendlebury, Neale and Judd would kick 40 plus per year playing forward. They are just too good to take out of the midfield.

Maybe but considering they only play about 25% more midfield time than Dusty and Dusty kicks about double the goals, they wouldn’t be as good if they did the same mid/fwd time split.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All of Pendlebury, Neale and Judd would kick 40 plus per year playing forward. They are just too good to take out of the midfield.

First, not all players who play forward play deep forward, and it was the case with Dusty last year he mainly played in front of the ball but not deep forward. So those players you mention if played forward, they don't automatically go deep forward into the zone where a player can kick 40+ goals.

But then even if they did, they need to be good enough at the role to do it. That is far from automatic.

Dusty is the best offensive 1 v 1 contest winner in the AFL over the 12 years the stat has been kept and by a mile. Of those participating in >1 offensive 1 v 1 on average, his ranking in the AFL was:

2023 2nd
2022 1st
2021 1st
2020 6th
2019 12th
2018 5th
2017 3rd
2016 (would have been 3rd but had 0.8 offensive 1 v 1 contests on average)
2015 2nd
2014 2nd
2013 outside top 50
2012 (only 0.9 offensive 1 v 1's on average but nobody over 1 on average finished ahead of him)

So Dusty averages wining 49.1% of his offensive 1 v 1's. Nobody else we have ever been able to find has a career offensive 1 v 1 win % above low 40's. Of the players you mention:

Judd averaged 27.3%
Neale 33.3%
Pendlebury 31.3%

Dusty himself, who is a great shot at goal, has never kicked above 37 goals in a single season. Last season he played around 85% forward and scored just 25 goals. Obviously he is not playing deep forward isolated, but it shows pretty clearly that you don't just take a Scott Pendlebury for eg out of the midfield and place him forward and he automatically scores 40 goals+ for the season. Dusty's run playing some deep forward in finals from 2017 where he scored: 0, 3, 2, 1, 6, 2, 4, 0, 1, 2, 4, 1 - an average of about 2.3 goals per full final in that period(adjusted for the shortened match times in 2020) shows the damage he can cause when stationed deep forward and isolated for even around 35% of game time. But there is very little evidence any other modern mid could do anything like that because nobody else has done anything like it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It's called having a balanced team.

Pendlebury has played in a team that has finished top 4 nine times in his career so far, and he has 14 x top 3 finishes in his club best and fairest.

I think his coaches know how to deploy him best, in consideration of the broader playing list.

You could have just posted that. Nobody is playing Pendlebury forward because he is not especially good at it.

 

[Mr Meow]

26.5+ disposals and 0.7+ goals is another arbitrary set of lines we can draw that definitely qualifies as elite.

Ablett: 10 seasons
Dangerfield: 6 seasons
Martin: 1 seasons

I'm a little surprised to see Martin's cupboard fairly bare on that combination.

 

[H00t]

And no I didn’t say 2.7 was the same as 1.

While we were talking about Matthews’ career averages you said this

That’s what 20 and 1 is nowadays.

Definitely implying 2.7 = 1 in today’s game.

 

[H00t]

20 and 1 is todays game is elite.

20 and 1 in the 80s is not elite (imo) it would have to be like 20 and 1.5/2

Hence why I asked out of the modern players who on the OPs list that averaged above 20 and 1 aren’t elite. Everybody that achieved it looks elite to me, what about you?

And no I didn’t say 2.7 was the same as 1.

I think it’s pretty simple, if you can get 20 and 1 you can be considered an elite mid/fwd.

If you get something like 25 and 0.8 you are an elite mid.

If you get something like 15 and 3 you are an elite fwd.

That’s all it’s just classifications of the types of players. It’s not a direct comparison to say one is better than the other. Although I do believe mid/fwds are generally the more valuable players though due to their versatility.

Here’s the thing about career averages and judging a player. They are judged on their best performances and how long they kept that up.

So someone who was averaging 20 and 1 at their best would normally be much higher at their peak. Also you can average over 20 and 1 while never achieving it in a single season.

Great players have achieved over 20 and 1. They aren’t great because they achieved over 20 and 1. If anything a player who went 20 and 1 in every single game he played wouldn’t be considered elite in anything but consistency.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

26.5+ disposals and 0.7+ goals is another arbitrary set of lines we can draw that definitely qualifies as elite.

Ablett: 10 seasons
Dangerfield: 6 seasons
Martin: 1 seasons

I'm a little surprised to see Martin's cupboard fairly bare on that combination.

1 goal per game is 43% more goals than 0.7 goals per game.

26.5 disposals is 32.5% more disposals than 20.

So for an equivalent to 20 + 1 you would need to set the bar at 28.6 disposals and 0.7 goals.

For 26.5 disposals(the mark you selected) you would need around 0.75 goals per game to be equivalent to 20 + 1.

But then to be equivalent to Martin's performance they have to go over the threshold by the same amount he did.

Martin went:

22.1 & 1.5, 10 & 50% over 20 + 1

22.4 & 1.1, 12 & 10% over

24.2 & 1.0, 21% & 0 over

25.4 & 1.2, 27 & 20% over

26 & 1, 30 & 0% over

29.8 & 1.5, 49 & 50% over

25.4 & 1.4, 22 & 40% over

26.1 & 1.4, 30% & 40% over

25.7 & 1.4, 24% & 40% over

22.6 & 1.2, 13% & 20% over

23.6 & 1.2, 18% & 20% over

So on average Dusty is 24% above each marker.

So to equate to what he has done you are adding another 24% to each marker, meaning starting from a base of say 26.5 disposals and 0.75 goals(equivalent of 20 + 1) you need to average 24% above both markers to be matching Dusty. So the bar just went up to 32.86 disposals & 0.93 goals. Or if you like 30.4 disposals and 1 goal neat. That is the equivalent of what Dusty averaged in those 11 seasons. Ablett and Dangerfield will be around that type of ball park give or take based on their best 11 seasons averaged, but they are two of the 3 most productive players in the modern era, the 3rd being Dusty of course.

 

[RUNVS]

26.5+ disposals and 0.7+ goals is another arbitrary set of lines we can draw that definitely qualifies as elite.

Ablett: 10 seasons
Dangerfield: 6 seasons
Martin: 1 seasons

I'm a little surprised to see Martin's cupboard fairly bare on that combination.

Martin has also never averaged more than 500 metres gained in a season. Gulden has so Gulden is clearly the better player

 

[Cleansweep17]

While we were talking about Matthews’ career averages you said this

Definitely implying 2.7 = 1 in today’s game.

Because his average of 2.7 for a mid/fwd is the best so 20 and 2.7 would be 1 person. There are obviously elite players who would be under that. Hence I suggested 20 and 1.5/2 would be the 20 and 1 equivalent for the era he played in.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Another stupid comparison.

Selwood played a heavy amount of finals from 19 years old. He also started primarily as a wing option the first 2-3 years. Then he played 17 finals in his 30s.

It would be something similar for Pendlebury.

Selwood still frequented Geelong's best players and hit good numbers in these early/late periods. But it's silly to compare raw averages for one player who had 40 finals spread fairly evenly over a 16 year career - to a guy who only played 6 finals, all aged between 22 and 26 years old.

You get so worked up without even comprehending what was said. I said it wasn’t a large enough data set, but if people were wondering why Murphy was rated highly in MR’s ranking, then here is clear evidence as to why he was rated very highly. His averages over his 6 x finals were outstanding.

Of course 6 x finals is not enough to say he was a great finals player, but he was great in majority of the 6 x finals he played…. hence his high ranking.

You get into such a lather so quickly nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com