20 Disposals and a goal

[Cleansweep17]

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.

26.5 and 0.7 like I said earlier would be an elite mid category. Martin is a mid/fwd so he doesn’t fall under that category. Look at the team of the 21st century thread, everybody who has Dusty in the team is putting him as a HF. Whereas GAJ is C or Foll. 20 and 1 actually matches with what we subconsciously think, which is why I’m a little confused with the debate here.

 

[Cleansweep17]

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.

It would be extremely hard to average 20 and 1 without ever achieving it in a single season. You’d have to play 100% mid to get very high disposal numbers then 100% forward getting very high goals. Nobody has done that to my knowledge.

 

[boncer34]

Was it though? I saw exactly what this thread was secretly about immediately.

I may as well create a thread to discuss who we all think is the best player currently in the AFL who has the same name as an owl in Harry Potter. It is pretty obvious who I would want everyone talking about.

I don't know who it is

 

[Noidnadroj]

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).

He was one of 5 x small-medium forwards selected in the AA squad, so AA selectors thought he was elite.

He was 2nd in coaches votes across the season for small-medium forwards and came 2nd in B&F so coaches thought him elite.

He was second in Brownlow votes for small-medium forwards so umpires thought him elite.

He was 5th in competition for score involvements and was one of three players to average 20+ and 1+, so objective stats specifically relevant to mid-fwd players thought him elite.

He was second in player rankings so those objective ratings thought him elite.

So on balance I’d err on all of those measures and not heavily biased opinions from oppo fans on BigFooty who get a bit flustered when anything Tigers or Dusty related is being debated, and that’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

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

A few things on this.

1) Someone pointing out the flaws in your arguments, comparisons or analysis (or interpretations) doesn't make them upset. We're just chatting footy.

2) Don't compare data sets you know you can't derive legitimate conclusions from (case in point was MR deciding Murphy was a high impact finals player and Pendlebury was not). Although it's fairly obvious these are mostly trolling exercises, someone could think you were being serious. And this will happen when you line up averages from Selwood's 40 finals over a 16 year span vs 6 finals - all from Murphy's peak.

3) It might not be Murphy's fault, but it's hard to call someone a great finals player who never even played in a prelim, let alone a grand final. Two winning finals and he was good in both of them. He wasn't bad in the losses. A bit like a player playing 6 games in a given season, it's hard to say they were fantastic that season even if the averages from those 6 games were at a high level.

 

[RUNVS]

I don't know who it is

Errol

Errol was one of the Weasley family's owls.[4] He was a great grey owl,[3] or Strix nebulosa. He was "ancient" by 1992, and his poor eyesight caused him to hit objects in flight. According to Harry Potter, he resembled a moulting feather duster.[4] Ron Weasley often called Errol a "bloody bird,"...

harrypotter.fandom.com

 

[Mr Meow]

He was one of 5 x small-medium forwards selected in the AA squad, so AA selectors thought he was elite.

He was 2nd in coaches votes across the season for small-medium forwards and came 2nd in B&F so coaches thought him elite.

He was second in Brownlow votes for small-medium forwards so umpires thought him elite.

He was 5th in competition for score involvements and was one of three players to average 20+ and 1+, so objective stats specifically relevant to mid-fwd players thought him elite.

He was second in player rankings so those objective ratings thought him elite.

So on balance I’d err on all of those measures and not heavily biased opinions from oppo fans on BigFooty who get a bit flustered when anything Tigers or Dusty related is being debated, and that’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Not a small/medium forward though, was he? He was as much a midfielder as a forward. The AA side had 15 midfielders/forwards and exactly none of them were Martin. He had 13 coaches votes to round 17. His form was average the first 2/3 of the season and brilliant in the last 1/3. Weighting is higher when Richmond were well and truly in the finals hunt. The two dead rubbers aren't even worth mentioning for "the" big game player of recent times.

Not elite.

The irony of you calling others flustered for sharing a view that doesn't align with your own, is once again comedic brilliance.

 

[Orange crush]

It would be extremely hard to average 20 and 1 without ever achieving it in a single season. You’d have to play 100% mid to get very high disposal numbers then 100% forward getting very high goals. Nobody has done that to my knowledge.

Actualy that's pretty close to what TFG has done ... yeah he averaged the 20 and 1 in two seasons, but started a full time mid and then slowly moved to full time forward

 

[Noidnadroj]

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.

Why don’t they get that time forward? Ever thought it’s because they’re not able to win contests forward of the ball and are not good forwards?

If a midfielder can be a quality forward, they get minutes there : Danger, Martin, Petracca, Bont … if a midfielder isn’t spending time forward it’s because they’re no good at it : Selwood, Prestia, Pendles, Neale and so on ….


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

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.

That’s a silly argument. If a test batsman makes 50 was it an elite innings? No. If they average 50 are they an elite batsman? Yes.

If a bowler takes 2-46 off 12 overs was it an elite bowling performance? No. If they averaged 23 in their career are they an elite bowler? Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

A few things on this.

1) Someone pointing out the flaws in your arguments, comparisons or analysis (or interpretations) doesn't make them upset. We're just chatting footy.

2) Don't compare data sets you know you can't derive legitimate conclusions from (case in point was MR deciding Murphy was a high impact finals player and Pendlebury was not). Although it's fairly obvious these are mostly trolling exercises, someone could think you were being serious. And this will happen when you line up averages from Selwood's 40 finals over a 16 year span vs 6 finals - all from Murphy's peak.

3) It might not be Murphy's fault, but it's hard to call someone a great finals player who never even played in a prelim, let alone a grand final. Two winning finals and he was good in both of them. He wasn't bad in the losses. A bit like a player playing 6 games in a given season, it's hard to say they were fantastic that season even if the averages from those 6 games were at a high level.

If Murphy maintained his averages over 30 finals he’d be regarded as one of the greatest finals players in history. Nobody said 6 finals is enough of a data set to be conclusive on him as a finals player. MR should’ve done the list and only included players with 10+ finals, and Murphy disappears.

But for the 6 x finals opportunities he got, overall Murphy was a very good finals performer. The comparisons are just to highlight how his 6 finals were when compared against a couple of modern day greats. But then of course we should say ‘but it was only 6 finals and not enough data to draw conclusions on what he would’ve done if he played 20 finals’.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

If Murphy maintained his averages over 30 finals he’d be regarded as one of the greatest finals players in history. Nobody said 6 finals is enough of a data set to be conclusive on him as a finals player. MR should’ve done the list and only included players with 10+ finals, and Murphy disappears.

But for the 6 x finals opportunities he got, overall Murphy was a very good finals performer. The comparisons are just to highlight how his 6 finals were when compared against a couple of modern day greats. But then you say ‘but it was only 6 finals and not enough data to draw conclusions on what he would’ve done if he played 20 finals’.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I mean you could group him in with other players who had only 4-8 career finals and all of them in their peak years - then say Murphy was the best of that lot. Saying he played well for those finals is fine. Saying these averages showed he was a better big game player than Selwood, Judd and Pendlebury (etc)? It's a stretch for me. MR did it with Pendles but that is MR; he's a special unit.

 

[H00t]

That’s a silly argument. If a test batsman makes 50 was it an elite innings? No. If they average 50 are they an elite batsman? Yes.

If a bowler takes 2-46 off 12 overs was it an elite bowling performance? No. If they averaged 23 in their career are they an elite bowler? Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Different sports but also an overrating of 20 and 1

Averaging 50 runs over a series is elite, a bowling averaging of 23 over a series is elite.

Averaging 20 disposals or 1 goal over a season is not elite. Rare yes, but just because something is rare it does not elevate a player because of it.

 

[H00t]

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.

That’s not what you said at all in response to me.

It also fails to take in the drastically decreased possession counts. Disposals have sky rocketed in the last 20 years.

 

[RUNVS]

Different sports but also an overrating of 20 and 1

Averaging 50 runs over a series is elite, a bowling averaging of 23 over a series is elite.

Averaging 20 disposals or 1 goal over a season is not elite. Rare yes, but just because something is rare it does not elevate a player because of it.

Yep. Plenty of midfielders could do it if they spent a bit more time up forward.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I mean you could group him in with other players who had only 4-8 career finals and all of them in their peak years - then say Murphy was the best of that lot. Saying he played well for those finals is fine. Saying these averages showed he was a better big game player than Selwood, Judd and Pendlebury (etc)? It's a stretch for me. MR did it with Pendles but that is MR; he's a special unit.

Another one of your altered reality posts.

I specifically compared Murphy's finals record with the finals Selwood and Pendlebury played in the same age range. You know I did this because you responded to the post in which I did it. On the face of it, Murphy substantially outperformed the other pair.

Here is this very exchange so people can see you are being deceitful:

 

[Fadge]

Another one of your altered reality posts.

I specifically compared Murphy's finals record with the finals Selwood and Pendlebury played in the same age range. You know I did this because you responded to the post in which I did it. On the face of it, Murphy substantially outperformed the other pair.

Here is this very exchange so people can see you are being deceitful:

View attachment 1900300

'Outperformed the pair'.... according to your very specific, convenient criteria.

Notwithstanding the fact Murphy was playing in Elimination Finals and Semi-Finals, whilst Pendlebury and Selwood were playing in Qualifying, Preliminary and Grand Finals.

But let's not get pre-occupied with important considerations....

At least we are now hearing that players can be regarded as strong finals performers without needing to have Norm Smith Medals or Gary Ayres Medals on their CV...

 

[H00t]

It would be extremely hard to average 20 and 1 without ever achieving it in a single season. You’d have to play 100% mid to get very high disposal numbers then 100% forward getting very high goals. Nobody has done that to my knowledge.

It would be hard but you also wouldn’t need to play 100% or 100% forward.

Have half your seasons 18 and 2 the other half 25 and 0.5 would result in a 21.5 and 1.25 career.

Now not likely especially given the way AFL careers generally have a peak in performance towards the middle.

It’s more an exercise of showing the frivolity of solely trying to use career averages.

 

[Mr Meow]

Another one of your altered reality posts.

I specifically compared Murphy's finals record with the finals Selwood and Pendlebury played in the same age range. You know I did this because you responded to the post in which I did it. On the face of it, Murphy substantially outperformed the other pair.

Here is this very exchange so people can see you are being deceitful:

View attachment 1900302

And I already said why a sample size of 6 was inadequate.

I'm glad you overlooked this though so that we could get this peach of a response.

Meltdowns about deceit are not something I expected. Your shoddy "Murphy > Pendlebury/Selwood in finals" analysis belongs in the Tier 1/2 grand final team rubbish heap, and many of your other laughable forms of analysis.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Not a small/medium forward though, was he? He was as much a midfielder as a forward. The AA side had 15 midfielders/forwards and exactly none of them were Martin. He had 13 coaches votes to round 17. His form was average the first 2/3 of the season and brilliant in the last 1/3. Weighting is higher when Richmond were well and truly in the finals hunt. The two dead rubbers aren't even worth mentioning for "the" big game player of recent times.

Not elite.

The irony of you calling others flustered for sharing a view that doesn't align with your own, is once again comedic brilliance.

Ok, so you compare him against pure midfielders now?? Ok then.

So amongst midfielders in the entire competition he was #1 for goals and #1 for score involvements. How can the midfielder who kicked more goals and had more SI’s than any other midfielder in the entire competition not be rated elite?

What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying Botham wasn’t really elite … only averaged 33
with the bat and there’s hundreds of batsman who averaged more. And he only averaged 28 with the ball … there’s hundreds of bowlers who averaged less.

Then I say … if you’re comparing him to other bowlers that’s fine…extraordinary he could average 33 with the bat and make 14 test hundreds. Then you say … yeah, but compared against other batsman he wasn’t that elite. So I say … yeah, but if you compare him against other batsman, he also took 383 test wickets.

So against other midfielders for the season Martin kicked more goals and had more SI’s. Against other forwards Martin had more disposals, clearances, coaches votes, CP’s, Inside-50’s etc….

You rate Martin against both the pure midfielders AND the pure forwards at the SAME time, which is of course an impossible criteria. You expect him to compare favourably against BOTH at the same time despite playing let’s say 40% of the season give or take as a midfielder and 60% of the season as a forward.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

My score combines contested disposals with score impact measured in goals + assists. It is no more flawed than any other system. It just objectively measures what it says it measures, and it doesn't measure anything else at all. I make no claims other than that about it. You tell me my system is flawed. Of course it is, it isn't weighted for degree of difficulty, or level of scoring in the games the players participated in for example. But don't tell me it is flawed, I already know that. Show me a better way to rate midfielders and forwards for their attacking value. And then show that your system comes up with a better list than this:

All career:

Franklin 23.8
Dangerfield 23.1
Ablett 22.5
R Gray 22.13
Petracca 21.6
T Hawkins 19.9
Pavlich 19.8
Greene 19.48
Marcus 19.21
Judd 19.13
T Lynch 18.94
S Johnson 18.82
T Papley 18.7
L Breust 18.68
Martin 18.66
N Fyfe 18.62
Roughead 18.38
M Walters 18.32
C Rioli 17.9
J Riewoldt 17.28
N Riewoldt 17.22
E Betts 17.07
M Walters 15.57
J Cameron 15.17
J Stringer 15.09
J Kennedy(Eagles) 15.05
A Goodes 15.0
J Darling 14.86
T Papley 14.76
M Lecras 14.75
I Heeney 14.69
L Parker 14.61
D Swan 14.45
J Kennedy(Swans) 14.36
T Cloke 14.34
C Oliver 14.16
J Gunston 13.83
P Chapman 13.77
P Cripps 13.7
S Milne 13.61
L Shuey 13.19
S Pendlebury 13.15
M Murphy 12.46
C Cameron 12.22
L Ryan 10.82
C Mooney 10.67
N Daicos 7.41
O Henry 6.91

Finals:

Martin 32
Oliver 25.28
Petracca 23.76
P Cripps 23.33
M Murphy 23.18
E Betts 22.6
N Riewoldt 22.07
Franklin 22.05
Dangerfield 22
Greene 21.3
T Lynch 21.25
R Gray 19.32
J Roughead 19.21
L Breust 19.02
Pavlich 18.94
Marcus 18.33
J Kennedy(Swans) 17.9
S Johnson 17.01
C Rioli 16.97
L Ryan 16.9
D Swan 16.59
J Kennedy(Eagles) 16.37
Judd 16.33
T Vickery 16.25
J Gunston 16.02
T Hawkins 16.02
L Shuey 15.92
A Goodes 15.06
T Cloke 14.78
N Fyfe 14.64
C Cameron 14.53
J Darling 13.82
P Chapman 13.71
J Riewoldt 13.27
J Cameron 12.16
Ablett 12.1
L Parker 10.4
S Milne 9.09
M Lecras 9.09
C Mooney 8.65
S Pendlebury 8.15 Fadge
I Heeney 7.71
J Stringer 7.35
N Daicos 4.44


If you want something that rates a 50m pinpoint pass leading to a goal above a 2m handball to a team-mate under pressure...you already have the player ratings which does precisely that, in fact it rates every measurable action of every player for value. But you are so busy disagreeing with things you even disagree with the things that agree with you.

This is still the main "report" you made in this thread by the way and is what I showed to be a poor effort for the reasons stated. You THEN tried to follow it up with the "equivalent years" comparison, which did not suddenly provide a robust analysis either.

Two attempts, two failures. I am happy to accept a third.

 

[Mr Meow]

Ok, so you compare him against pure midfielders now?? Ok then.

So amongst midfielders in the entire competition he was #1 for goals and #1 for score involvements. How can the midfielder who kicked more goals and had more SI’s than any other midfielder in the entire competition not be rated elite?

What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying Botham wasn’t really elite … only averaged 33
with the bat and there’s hundreds of batsman who averaged more. And he only averaged 28 with the ball … there’s hundreds of bowlers who averaged less.

Then I say … if you’re comparing him to other bowlers that’s fine…extraordinary he could average 33 with the bat and make 14 test hundreds. Then you say … yeah, but compared against other batsman he wasn’t that elite. So I say … yeah, but if you compare him against other batsman, he also took 383 test wickets.

So against other midfielders for the season Martin kicked more goals and had more SI’s. Against other forwards Martin had more disposals, clearances, coaches votes, CP’s, Inside-50’s etc….

You rate Martin against both the pure midfielders AND the pure forwards at the SAME time, which is of course an impossible criteria. You expect him to compare favourably against BOTH at the same time despite playing let’s say 40% of the season give or take as a midfielder and 60% of the season as a forward.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I, and most others, didn't rate the first 2/3 of his season as elite and thought his last 1/3 wasn't good enough to make up the difference. You're acting like another consensus view is a shocking finding.

If that strong tail end of the season contained no dead rubbers (these were arguably his two best matches for the season) and Martin pulled Richmond to finals it could've been weighted a little higher. I weighted things most heavily when Richmond's season was well and truly alive rather than when it was toast.

The 15 forwards or midfielders selected were all better for longer. The strong finish got him into the squad of 44. Neutrals were fairly split on whether that was deserved or not.

None of these are revelations. And it shows that 20/1 isn't some magical elite barrier. I'll take Butters 27 and 0.5 (along with the many, many other criteria in which to appraise a players output), and it seemed the coaches did too.

 

[JohnZ]

It would be extremely hard to average 20 and 1 without ever achieving it in a single season. You’d have to play 100% mid to get very high disposal numbers then 100% forward getting very high goals. Nobody has done that to my knowledge.

Not true at all

An average of 25 & 0.5 followed by 15 & 1.5 comes out at 20 & 1

 

[Fadge]

Who could have possibly predicted this thread would turn into a Martin flogfest, led by the usual Martin fanbois?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

'Outperformed the pair'.... according to your very specific, convenient criteria.

Notwithstanding the fact Murphy was playing in Elimination Finals and Semi-Finals, whilst Pendlebury and Selwood were playing in Qualifying, Preliminary and Grand Finals.

But let's not get pre-occupied with important considerations....

At least we are now hearing that players can be regarded as strong finals performers without the need of having Norm Smith Medals or Gary Ayres Medals on their CV...

We are on a thread discussing mid-forward disposals and scoreboard impact, so it is not like I selected some irrelevant criteria to suit one player over another.

Murphy played well in his finals, it is as simple as that. If you want to do a deeper comparison of the Elimination and Semi-Finals the others played versus Murphy, or you want to make adjustments for the amount of goals scored overall in the games or whatever, I will only applaud this Fadge. Then we can all get a bit closer to the truth.

But if you want to offer zero and then say anyone offering any factual comparison is not adding value to the discussion, then as far as I am concerned you can **** off.