AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[PhatBoy]

If i had a choice between the two, I'd go Cyril everytime. Love Betts, but Cyril was a big part of a successful team for a reason.

Yes, because he played for one

 

[HairyO]

Yes, because he played for one

Reamed your lot in the 2008 GF in his first year of AFL. Was huge in the 2014 GF, and thoroughly deserved the Norm Smith in the 2015 GF.

So yes, he played for a successful team which was successful in part because of his incredible contribution.

 

[PhatBoy]

Reamed your lot in the 2008 GF in his first year of AFL. Was huge in the 2014 GF, and thoroughly deserved the Norm Smith in the 2015 GF.

So yes, he played for a successful team which was successful in part because of his incredible contribution.

He kicked the same amount of goals as Tom Lonergan, Max Rooke, Gary Ablett and Cameron Mooney and had a whopping 10 touches.

Reamed is somewhat misleading.

He was a good player. Take him out and his team is still exceptional.

 

[HairyO]

He kicked the same amount of goals as Tom Lonergan, Max Rooke, Gary Ablett and Cameron Mooney and had a whopping 10 touches.

Reamed is somewhat misleading.

He was a good player. Take him out and his team is still exceptional.

You havent watched it eh? Too painful?

 

[PhatBoy]

You havent watched it eh? Too painful?

I’ve watched it plenty.

Unlike you I haven’t loaded up on LSD beforehand to make the assertion that we were reamed by Cyril Rioli

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

In Jack Riewoldt

 

[Arr0w]

B: Corey Enright - Brian Lake - Matthew Scarlett
HB: Andrew McLeod - Alex Rance - Luke Hodge
C: Nathan Buckley - Sam Mitchell - Chris Judd
HF: Dustin Martin - Matthew Pavlich - Steve Johnson
F: Cyril Rioli - Nick Riewoldt - Lance Franklin
R: Max Gawn - Gary Ablett Jr - Patrick Dangerfield
I: Simon Black - Scott Pendlebury - Mark Ricciuto - Adam Goodes

Decent side, although I would have Cox just ahead of Gawn, same with Voss ahead of Dangerfield

 

[nickcat0]

CHANGES AT END OF SEASON 2021:
IN: GAWN
OUT: COX

CHANGES AT END OF SEASON 2020:
IN: D.MARTIN
OUT: B.JOHNSON

FB:	C.ENRIGHT (GEEL)	M.SCARLETT (GEEL)	J.MCGOVERN* (WC)
HB:	A.MCLEOD (ADEL)	A.RANCE (RICH)	L.HODGE (HAW) (vc)
C:	N.BUCKLEY (COLL)	M.VOSS (BRIS) (c)	B.COUSINS (WC/RICH)
HF:	P.DANGERFIELD* (ADEL/GEEL)	N.RIEWOLDT (STK)	D.MARTIN* (RICH)
FF:	L.FRANKLIN* (HAW/SYD)	M.LLOYD (ESS)	J.AKERMANIS (BRIS/WB)
RR:	M.GAWN* (MELB)	C.JUDD (WC/CARL)	G.ABLETT* (GEEL/GC)
INT:	A.GOODES (SYD)	N.FYFE* (FREM)	S.PENDLEBURY* (COLL) - D.SWAN (COLL)
COACH:	ALASTAIR CLARKSON (HAW)

thoughts?

That's a great team.

I recently selected my All-Aus team from players of the AFL era (1990 onwards), and in the XVIII, I had 10 of your team.

Given that most of those that I included in my team, that don't feature in yours, had their best years in the 90s, I'd say I'm pretty much in agreement with this team.

 

[Seeds]

Reamed your lot in the 2008 GF in his first year of AFL. Was huge in the 2014 GF, and thoroughly deserved the Norm Smith in the 2015 GF.

So yes, he played for a successful team which was successful in part because of his incredible contribution.

Lol. He has one of the worst grand final records going around. Bar a qtr and a half in 2015 and 5 minutes in 2008 he was largely missing in action in his 5 grand finals.

And did you seriously bring up the 2014 grand final? A game that was party time for hawks fowards and rioli had only 9 disposals, 0 goals and only 2 tackles for the entire match.

rioli fan boys are basically a deluded cult.

 

[HairyO]

Lol. He has one of the worst grand final records going around. Bar a qtr and a half in 2015 and 5 minutes in 2008 he was largely missing in action in his 5 grand finals.

And did you seriously bring up the 2014 grand final? A game that was party time for hawks fowards and rioli had only 9 disposals, 0 goals and only 2 tackles for the entire match.

rioli fan boys are basically a deluded cult.

Sure, if you only look at stats. But he did 2 intercepts which directly led to goals. Only one of them was a stat.

Maybe watch the game.

Watch 2015 too. In that quarter and a half he absolutely dominated. And would have had a late goal too, but Roughy took an uncontested mark on the goal line.

 

[Fadge]

Buckley and Voss out, because their careers straddled the late 90's and early 2000's. 100 games not enough to make this team.

Replace them with Black and Sam Mitchell.

 

[nickcat0]

Buckley and Voss out, because their careers straddled the late 90's and early 2000's. 100 games not enough to make this team.

Replace them with Black and Sam Mitchell.

Bucks played 138 of his 280 career games, and Voss 161 out of his 289 career games in this century. I'd suggest they've played enough games, at a high enough level to easily make this side.

 

[theyellowsash]

Betts over rioli every day for me.

Betts had the unfortunate situation of playing mostly for poor teams, but he's easily the greatest small forward of the last 20 years.

 

[Roddy]

Sure, if you only look at stats. But he did 2 intercepts which directly led to goals. Only one of them was a stat.

Maybe watch the game.

Watch 2015 too. In that quarter and a half he absolutely dominated. And would have had a late goal too, but Roughy took an uncontested mark on the goal line.

Anyone who desperately clings to statistics to judge the performance of a player like Cyril should be givien ZERO credibility regarding their football knowledge.

Massive CDS (Cyril derangement syndrome) going on in this thread....

 

[HairyO]

Anyone who desperately clings to statistics to judge the performance of a player like Cyril should be givien ZERO credibility regarding their football knowledge.

Massive CDS (Cyril derangement syndrome) going on in this thread....

Its more that the very same people who say:
"Look at how few stats Cyril got, he cant be that good"
Also say:
"Mitchell is a crab, his stats mean nothing"

 

[Fadge]

Bucks played 138 of his 280 career games, and Voss 161 out of his 289 career games in this century. I'd suggest they've played enough games, at a high enough level to easily make this side.

Buckley - 138 games for 82 Brownlow votes. 5 seasons with more than 20 games.
Voss - 161 games for 94 Brownlow votes. 7 seasons with more than 20 games.

Black - 291 games for 175 Brownlow votes.
Mitchell - 329 games for 227 Brownlow votes.

I would also have Fyfe ahead of Buckley and Voss - 202 games for 187 Brownlow votes. Though I have Black and Mitchell ahead of Fyfe, and Fyfe therefore misses the team (he may jump ahead of one or both of them by the time his career finishes, though I fear injury has been/will continue to be the differentiating factor).

You cannot have Buckley and/or Voss ahead of any of Black, Mitchell or Fyfe unless you subconsciously include the pre 2000 components of their careers.

Black/Mitchell -> Fyfe -> Voss -> Buckley

 

[Seeds]

In Jack Riewoldt

We got a nomination for richmonds cam mooney!

awesome.

 

[nickcat0]

Buckley - 138 games for 82 Brownlow votes. 5 seasons with more than 20 games.
Voss - 161 games for 94 Brownlow votes. 7 seasons with more than 20 games.

Black - 291 games for 175 Brownlow votes.
Mitchell - 329 games for 227 Brownlow votes.

I would also have Fyfe ahead of Buckley and Voss - 202 games for 187 Brownlow votes. Though I have Black and Mitchell ahead of Fyfe, and Fyfe therefore misses the team (he may jump ahead of one or both of them by the time his career finishes, though I fear injury has been/will continue to be the differentiating factor).

You cannot have Buckley and/or Voss ahead of any of Black, Mitchell or Fyfe unless you subconsciously include the pre 2000 components of their careers.

Black/Mitchell -> Fyfe -> Voss -> Buckley

I'm not disparaging Black, Mitchell or Fyfe; they're all great players and worthy of consideration. I was merely pointing out that Buckley and Voss played more than 100 games in the 21st Century, and had a body work that made them worthy of consideration.

On a side note, I'm never that impressed by how many Brownlow votes a player has. I don't trust Umpires to manage a game or make the correct decision whenever there's a contest for the ball, why should I trust them to judge which players were the best on ground?

Forget Brownlow votes, Voss was the leader and the heartbeat of those Lions teams that won 3 Premierships and reached 4 Grand Finals; that to me is more noteworthy.

On the other hand, perhaps the reason Umpires make so many sh*t decisions is because they're concentrating on who is playing well, rather than looking for foul play.

 

[Seeds]

Buckley - 138 games for 82 Brownlow votes. 5 seasons with more than 20 games.
Voss - 161 games for 94 Brownlow votes. 7 seasons with more than 20 games.

Black - 291 games for 175 Brownlow votes.
Mitchell - 329 games for 227 Brownlow votes.

I would also have Fyfe ahead of Buckley and Voss - 202 games for 187 Brownlow votes. Though I have Black and Mitchell ahead of Fyfe, and Fyfe therefore misses the team (he may jump ahead of one or both of them by the time his career finishes, though I fear injury has been/will continue to be the differentiating factor).

You cannot have Buckley and/or Voss ahead of any of Black, Mitchell or Fyfe unless you subconsciously include the pre 2000 components of their careers.

Black/Mitchell -> Fyfe -> Voss -> Buckley

Black does not belong in this conservation. He was a level below all those other players.

 

[Fadge]

On a side note, I'm never that impressed by how many Brownlow votes a player has. I don't trust Umpires to manage a game or make the correct decision whenever there's a contest for the ball, why should I trust them to judge which players were the best on ground?

I couldn't agree more with this.

However, it is as good a measure as anything else when evaluating a player's performance in a given year. Particularly when one player has a 21 game 5 Brownlow vote year (Buckley 2006) as opposed to something like Black's 2007 and 2008 (42 games for 45 votes)

 

[Fadge]

Black does not belong in this conservation. He was a level below all those other players.

I agree, if you consider their full careers.

But it is a different story if you assess their careers from 2000 onwards.

 

[Seeds]

I agree, if you consider their full careers.

But it is a different story if you assess their careers from 2000 onwards.

This is why we have to account for their full careers As long as they played a couple of good seasons in the relevant era. As the pool of players that played all their peak in one era is much smaller then we realise.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I'm not disparaging Black, Mitchell or Fyfe; they're all great players and worthy of consideration. I was merely pointing out that Buckley and Voss played more than 100 games in the 21st Century, and had a body work that made them worthy of consideration.

On a side note, I'm never that impressed by how many Brownlow votes a player has. I don't trust Umpires to manage a game or make the correct decision whenever there's a contest for the ball, why should I trust them to judge which players were the best on ground?

Forget Brownlow votes, Voss was the leader and the heartbeat of those Lions teams that won 3 Premierships and reached 4 Grand Finals; that to me is more noteworthy.

On the other hand, perhaps the reason Umpires make so many sh*t decisions is because they're concentrating on who is playing well, rather than looking for foul play.

I agree to an extent but:

(a) Brownlow votes are not the only measure that can be used here - Mitchell and Black lead every metric available that you choose to name for the time period in question.
(b) People say they don't trust umpires to know which players are the best, etc but when you look at the all time leaders it's not filled with "what the?". It broadly correlates and even if they make the odd error for a game here or there, trends over a career will still prove to be accurate particularly here in a context where we are talking about more than double the amount of votes, not 10 or 15 votes here or there.
(c) "Voss was the heartbeat of those Lions teams that won 3 flags and 4 grand finals". Very important, true and would work in an argument against basically every player bar these two. I mean, Black was also a central figure and heart beat to 3 flags and 4 Grand Finals too. He was AA every flag year, won a Brownlow in a flag year, won a Norm Smith in a flag year and won 2 B&F's across the 3 flag years. He was as important as Voss was to their success. Meanwhile, Mitchell's team won 4 flags and played in 5 Grand Finals and he was their best player, winning more than twice as many B&F's as anyone else and was their best mid by a mile (heartbeat) and best finals player to boot. If anything, you have undermined Buckley by bringing the "heartbeat to success" into the argument.

 

[Fadge]

This is why we have to account for their full careers As long as they played a couple of good seasons in the relevant era. As the pool of players that played all their peak in one era is much smaller then we realise.

Yep, this is where views will vary in discussions of this nature.

Some will consider player's entire careers and therefore be correct when including Buckley/Voss ahead of Black/Mitchell/Fyfe, whilst others will only consider performances from 2000 onwards, and will be correct when assessing Black/Mitchell/Fyfe to be ahead of Voss/Buckley.

 

[Noidnadroj]

I see some of these things differently, but that is fine.

Quickly on Kallis/Stokes and players like that, they are 50-60% load bowlers. There is a big difference between being the 4th seamer and largely being bowled to advantage and being say Andre Nel(not a great example as wasn’t a great bowler and had a poor technique,) or Matthew Hoggard. Nel has to take a full load come what way. Kallis is a 4th seamer if conditions suit seamers he gets to bowl to advantage, maybe sometimes a 3rd seamer if they play 2 spinners because seam is not suited. He isn’t going to get isolated too often in tough conditions bowling 35 overs in two days on a road, whereas Nel is. To underline this, Kallis bowled about 20 overs per test he played in. Nel bowled about 35 per test he played in. Nel had a slightly better bowling average. If Kallis were genuinely a better bowler than Nel I don’t think these figures would come out looking that way. The story is very similar with Hoggard v Stokes. Test teams will bowl their best bowlers and then figure out the rest of their plan from there.

Kallis was a really good test cricketer. Class bat, perfect 3rd/4th seamer depending on conditions. I don’t think he’d be a very memorable cricketer if he could only bowl and not bat. Stokes is similar only not as good a bowler or bat I would say. When deployed to advantage with the ball he is often quite good and has certainly had the odd inspired spell in tougher conditions, but not anywhere near to the extent of say Matthew Hoggard for example. If you look at Stokes ODI and T20I bowling he is basically sh1t. In ODI’s he bowls about 6 overs per completed innings I would estimate. In T20’s he bowls maybe 2.75. He is a 60% load bowler often used to make up part of the 5th bowler quota. He has some ability with the ball but does not have a good basic technique so he is not sufficiently reliable to be a full time bowler at international level. Proper international allrounders bowl full loads, come what may. His test batting is below average for a good test bat. His ODI batting is genuinely good, he is suited to that format, less catchers, but time to get in. His T20 batting is hit or miss but for his role he is decent enough. Joe Root is by far and away a better test cricketer than Stokes.

Anyway, I don’t want to sound like a smart alec about the cricket, I have spent a lot of my life playing coaching and following cricket including about 17 of the last 20 summers in the UK for cricket purposes. So I am quite familiar with UK cricket.

I can see you like players who can fulfil different roles in both sports. There is a value to being able to play different roles as I posted before. But I don’t think you are picking role players in your team of the century in either sport. There are no 3rd and 4th seamers or 6th bats in a cricket team of the century. Your 4th seamer who can bat is someone like Wasim Akram in cricket. Your keeper bat is probably Sangakkara batting about 5 or 6. In other words you need to be an out and out gun at least in one facet of the game to get a look in. I think that is much the same with the AFL team of the century. Barring perhaps an Adam Goodes or someone else who can play some second ruck, I am not thinking of secondary roles for players. There should be no need.

I think the trap people can fall into when analysing cricket stats is taking too much notice of career averages to assess current ratings.

As an example, Stokes has played test cricket since 2013, debuting as a highly rated 23yo. After 13 matches he was averaging 48 with the ball with a SR of 75 - after 20 matches it was still 40 with the ball. After 20 matches he was averaging 28 with the bat.

His 53 matches from 2016 onwards (a 25yo) he has averaged 40.6 with the bat and 28.7 with the ball. This places him over his last 53 matches comfortably with the greatest all-rounders of all time. Now I accept if you take out a selection of performances from anyone’s averages (particularly the last 10 matches prior to retirement when they’ve likely been poor, and Stokes hasn’t had his career ending run off poor performances yet) most would improve statistically.

But 53 matches in all conditions across 6-years is a huge sample size, so to average 40/28 with bat and ball is extraordinary quality. If … and it’s a big IF …. he maintains those averages for another few years or even betters them, his career stats will sit comfortably in the top few batting all-rounders in the history of test cricket.

Time will tell …..


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com