AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[HTPunter]

If you just use the eye test and not awards like AA or NS - Dusty was the strongest mid, most untacklable, who was an unreal kick (including at goal) and clutch too.

He is only beaten by GAJ for me for actual traits. And early career Judd.

Sure others played 300+ games, or were silkier in space, or got named as bench on AA year after year - but I’d still pick Dusty ahead of them.

 

[theasian]

The AFL will almost certainly release an AFL Team of the Century (Australian Rules) sometime down the track at which point the cut-off would be a clearer line in the sand date I would say. This would include WAFL/SANFL/TANFL etc. so players like M McIntosh, G Robran, K Farmer, R Ebert would be in contention.

Voss played more games after 2000 so I agree he would most likely be included in this century. The elephants in the room are Wayne Carey and Tony Lockett though and I also agree that players should not be penalised for spreading careers over two centuries.

Carey didn't have much impact in the 21st century and his best was clearly in the 20th century while Lockett played just 3 games .

It's more the likes of Hird, Buckley, Voss, Fletcher, Wanganeen, Mcleod, Ricciuto who played across the 90s and 00s.

 

[RUNVS]

Carey didn't have much impact in the 21st century and his best was clearly in the 20th century while Lockett played just 3 games .

It's more the likes of Hird, Buckley, Voss, Fletcher, Wanganeen, Mcleod, Ricciuto who played across the 90s and 00s.

I think these players need to be in one category only. You can't have a player in both the 20th century and 21st century team. I think the easiest way to do it is which century did they play more games in.

You can take their entire body of work into account when making the decision, but they can only be selected in the side they played more games in (20th or 21st century).

 

[theasian]

I think these players need to be in one category only. You can't have a player in both the 20th century and 21st century team. I think the easiest way to do it is which century did they play more games in.

You can take their entire body of work into account when making the decision, but they can only be selected in the side they played more games in (20th or 21st century).

I don't think any of the players mentioned will get selected in a new Team of the 20th Century.

Wanganeen might give Bernie Smith a run for his money at Back Pocket, but thats it.

 

[Mr Meow]

Carey didn't have much impact in the 21st century and his best was clearly in the 20th century while Lockett played just 3 games .

It's more the likes of Hird, Buckley, Voss, Fletcher, Wanganeen, Mcleod, Ricciuto who played across the 90s and 00s.

27, 28, 25, 25, 27, 24 and 27 years old for those players in the year 2000 though. So you're losing 6-9 years of their career for "21st century". That means they have to absolutely stand head and shoulders above players whose entire careers were in the 2000s (well more specifically from their 3rd year onwards). Moreso for the 27/28 year olds. Voss, Fletcher and McLeod have that extra slice in the 21st century.

Voss is right around the cut off point for me, if I did it again I might have him edging out Fyfe as Fyfe's longevity was poor anyway and Voss's years through the dynasty were immense. But you are still having to take his career outside of his Brownlow year, and then chopping out a guy who has 2 and a league MVP. And Voss played more of his footy in the 90s. Fine margins.

McLeod I did include. Slightly less competition for the back flank spot. But its on the premise of excluding his blistering early years that culminated in two Norm Smith's and perhaps his most electric phase of football.

Are people doing it differently to me? If they decide a player has enough great years in the 2000s, they just rank based on their entire career and include their 90s work? Or they do solely include them based on a pretend scenario where their career work was only the 2000s stuff? If it's the latter I'd not include Voss, if it was the former then I would.

 

[theasian]

27, 28, 25, 25, 27, 24 and 27 years old for those players in the year 2000 though. So you're losing 6-9 years of their career for "21st century". That means they have to absolutely stand head and shoulders above players whose entire careers were in the 2000s (well more specifically from their 3rd year onwards). Moreso for the 27/28 year olds. Voss, Fletcher and McLeod have that extra slice in the 21st century.

Voss is right around the cut off point for me, if I did it again I might have him edging out Fyfe as Fyfe's longevity was poor anyway and Voss's years through the dynasty were immense. But you are still having to take his career outside of his Brownlow year, and then chopping out a guy who has 2 and a league MVP. And Voss played more of his footy in the 90s. Fine margins.

McLeod I did include. Slightly less competition for the back flank spot. But its on the premise of excluding his blistering early years that culminated in two Norm Smith's and perhaps his most electric phase of football.

Are people doing it differently to me? If they decide a player has enough great years in the 2000s, they just rank based on their entire career and include their 90s work? Or they do solely include them based on a pretend scenario where their career work was only the 2000s stuff? If it's the latter I'd not include Voss, if it was the former then I would.

I think it's mostly the bolded , specially when it's very close. but the quality of those 21st Century seasons matter.

Let's say for me , it was Voss vs Black, Mitchell & Pendles for the Inside Mid spot, and if you include only 21st Century, except Black & Voss the other 2 have well over 15+ years and Voss had only 7. But Voss was the best Mid in those dynasty years and won MVP in both 2002 & 2003, while none of Black , Mitchell & Pendles were regarded the best mid in the competition at any time i the 21st century depsite their accolades.


Regards to Hird vs Stevie J for a HFF spot , just felt that Hird's body of work over the 21st cnetury was not enough to be included over Stevie J, though if you consider Hird's whole career he would pip SJ for the spot.

Buckley got lucky because there weren't much wing options in the 21st Century and his outstanding kicking skills complemented the team I selected.

 

[Frewy]

I think it's mostly the bolded , specially when it's very close. but the quality of those 21st Century seasons matter.

Let's say for me , it was Voss vs Black, Mitchell & Pendles for the Inside Mid spot, and if you include only 21st Century, except Black & Voss the other 2 have well over 15+ years and Voss had only 7. But Voss was the best Mid in those dynasty years and won MVP in both 2002 & 2003, while none of Black , Mitchell & Pendles were regarded the best mid in the competition at any time i the 21st century depsite their accolades.


Regards to Hird vs Stevie J for a HFF spot , just felt that Hird's body of work over the 21st cnetury was not enough to be included over Stevie J, though if you consider Hird's whole career he would pip SJ for the spot.

Buckley got lucky because there weren't much wing options in the 21st Century and his outstanding kicking skills complemented the team I selected.

It's very messy at the moment because the original was made for the VFL/AFL Centenary of Football 02 Sep 96 not based on turn of the century 1999. My gut feeling is they will formalise our debates sometime around 2040-2050 when there is the potential for an AFL 50 year team to be announced for 1990-2040 depending on how how they want to do it and eligibility.

On the above I believe the Centenary will change to when the AFL changed its name in 1990 which also coincided with the commencement of professional Australian Rules football through the AFLPA bargaining agreement. The game and it's supporters are not ready for that yet, probably not even by then since GF's will played at the MCG until 2057.

Until this is all rectified Lockett, Carey, Voss, Hird, Buckley, Ricciuto etc have to sit in no mans land unfortunately. You just have to state upfront whether your team considers them eligible or not and I'll probably change my 21st century rolling team now to include them with Lockett/Franklin or Carey/Riewoldt to cover my bases.

 

[dropbear101]

I started think about this separately and went back to find some analysis, thanks by the way. I kind of glossed over CHF because I had Pav as a lock utility on the bench with Goodes as 2nd resting/mobile ruck.

I'm now more inclined to put Pav on-field at CHF, Goodes into utility and drop Cox back in as a 2nd ruck. It breaks me a little because Nick Riewoldt was my favourite player for many years, but I think Pav has the accolades, legacy and comparable forward stats even with the midfield and back time.

the thing is though, cox isn't as good as reiwoldt or goodes. so, i'd go with your original plan.

pav's position is the bench he isn't as good as any player on the field. but as a utility hes very useful. can play all 6 forward positions (limited pressure though). can play as a mdifielder or extra midfielder and can play back in either the two key position posts or the 3rd tallish player. even then goodes is probably better as a utility anyway. simply because at his best, he is better.

 

[Frewy]

the thing is though, cox isn't as good as reiwoldt or goodes. so, i'd go with your original plan.

pav's position is the bench he isn't as good as any player on the field. but as a utility hes very useful. can play all 6 forward positions (limited pressure though). can play as a mdifielder or extra midfielder and can play back in either the two key position posts or the 3rd tallish player. even then goodes is probably better as a utility anyway. simply because at his best, he is better.

It's a vicious circle, because I was going back to check AAs and noticed Franklin was named CHF five times to Riewoldt's three. By that fact it's then Carey or Franklin at CHF then Lockett or Lloyd at FF (eligibility pending of course). So yeah Pav stays on the bench as utility and Cox misses.

The alternative is booting a general forward spot from my team leaving a FF (Lloyd/Lockett), true CHF (Riewoldt/Carey), Hybrid Tall on flank (Franklin), Mid/Fwd (Martin), General Fwd (S Johnson), Goalsneak/Crumber (Betts).

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Dustin Martin makes the bench in my second team. Nothing to be ashamed of. Just doesn't cut it with the big guns. If we have a team of 2015-2020, he makes it, but not close to a Team of the Century. As a midfielder he was only Richmond's Best Player, twice this century. His own club only judged him the best twice. Don't let the hype overshadow the facts. Tony Free won two.

Same ill informed argument you have tried to peddle on other threads.

By coaches votes(awarded by same people who give B & F votes) Dusty would have been Richmond's leading player in around 6 seasons at least, probably more. The difference is the different criteria used between issuing coaches votes and b&f votes at Richmond. If Dusty puts on a masterclass in a massive game he gets a maximum of 5 b & f votes, where several other players might also get 5 and and another group get 4. But in so many of these cases Dusty's contribution will be so much more valuable than other players who get maximum or near maximum b&f votes. This is no guide to who Richmond's best player is except to a person like you who has his eyes glued shut to avoid seeing the reality of the situation. The system is designed to restrict the relative amount of votes a player can get with a brilliant performance.

In Brownlow votes it is the same, Dusty Richmond's best in about 6-8 seasons. In player ratings the same.

Richmond paid Dustin Martin more money on average per season in his current contract than any player has been paid by any established club at any time in the history of the game and this remains the case still 6 years into the contract. That tells you what value the Richmond FC has placed on Dustin Martin.

 

[Frewy]

Updated

Note - X / Y / Z players – Allocated for potential ineligibility of X.

Defenders
FB - S Silvagni / M Scarlett
CHB – J Leppitsch / H Taylor
Key Def – J McGovern
Gen Def - C Enright
Run Def - A McLeod
Def/Mid - L Hodge (VC)

Midfield
Ruck - M Gawn
Rover - G Ablett
Inside Mid - P Dangerfield
2nd Mid - M Voss (C)
3rd Mid – C Judd (2VC)
Wing - P Matera / I Smith

Forwards
FF: M Lloyd / J Riewoldt
CHF: W Carey / N Riewoldt
Key Fwd: L Franklin
Gen Fwd: S Johnson
Fwd/Mid: D Martin
Sml Fwd: E Betts

Interchange
Resting ruck - A Goodes
Utility - M Pavlich
Int Mid – N Buckley / S Pendlebury (3VC) / J Selwood
Int Fwd/Mid - J Hird / B Harvey / R Gray

Coach - A Clarkson

Threats – S Pendlebury (Mid upgrade), L Neale (Mid), M Bontempelli (Mid), T Stewart (Run Def, Gen Def), T Hawkins (FF), C Oliver (Mid, Inside Mid), J Cameron (CHF), L Breust (Gen Fwd), T Greene (Int Fwd/Mid, Gen Fwd), D Moore (CHB)

Still hurting my brain - Johnson & Johnson, 51/49 on Steve over Brad

Unlucky
R Harvey (Mid), M Ricciuto (Mid), D Cox (Ruck), B Johnson (Gen Fwd), S Goodwin (Utility), A Rance (FB), D Swan (Mid), B Cousins (Mid), G Wanganeen (Gen Def), D Glass (FB), B Hall (Key Fwd), J Akermanis (Fwd/Mid), S Mitchell (Mid), S Black (Mid), N Fyfe (Mid), J Kennedy (FF), S Milne (Sml Fwd)

Ineligble - T Lockett (3 games after 2000).

 

[theasian]

It's very messy at the moment because the original was made for the VFL/AFL Centenary of Football 02 Sep 96 not based on turn of the century 1999. My gut feeling is they will formalise our debates sometime around 2040-2050 when there is the potential for an AFL 50 year team to be announced for 1990-2040 depending on how how they want to do it and eligibility.

On the above I believe the Centenary will change to when the AFL changed its name in 1990 which also coincided with the commencement of professional Australian Rules football through the AFLPA bargaining agreement. The game and it's supporters are not ready for that yet, probably not even by then since GF's will played at the MCG until 2057.

Until this is all rectified Lockett, Carey, Voss, Hird, Buckley, Ricciuto etc have to sit in no mans land unfortunately. You just have to state upfront whether your team considers them eligible or not and I'll probably change my 21st century rolling team now to include them with Lockett/Franklin or Carey/Riewoldt to cover my bases.

Not really . Let your 21st century team be about players who actually played in the 21t Century.

If you want a team from 1996 onwards, you will have to name it as such, or you can have a rolling bicentanial team.

 

[Frewy]

Not really . Let your 21st century team be about players who actually played in the 21t Century.

If you want a team from 1996 onwards, you will have to name it as such, or you can have a rolling bicentanial team.

That's my point unless it's defined by the OP or the AFL which it isn't, then it's just opinion and you can't be wrong. For this thread I'll just hedge my bets for now and dual name positions with any better players that played in both centuries.

 

[Fadge]

Same ill informed argument you have tried to peddle on other threads.

By coaches votes(awarded by same people who give B & F votes) Dusty would have been Richmond's leading player in around 6 seasons at least, probably more. The difference is the different criteria used between issuing coaches votes and b&f votes at Richmond. If Dusty puts on a masterclass in a massive game he gets a maximum of 5 b & f votes, where several other players might also get 5 and and another group get 4. But in so many of these cases Dusty's contribution will be so much more valuable than other players who get maximum or near maximum b&f votes. This is no guide to who Richmond's best player is except to a person like you who has his eyes glued shut to avoid seeing the reality of the situation. The system is designed to restrict the relative amount of votes a player can get with a brilliant performance.

In Brownlow votes it is the same, Dusty Richmond's best in about 6-8 seasons.

This post says everything we need to know about your analytical skills if you think 5/4/3/2/1 voting (or 3/2/1 voting), where the perceived best player on the ground is 5 times better than the 5th best player, who in turn is infinitely better than the 6th best player (1 vote compared to 0 votes), is more accurate than a system where all players on the ground can receive votes, and multiple players can be given the same ranking as one another for their performances on the day.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Same ill informed argument you have tried to peddle on other threads.

By coaches votes(awarded by same people who give B & F votes) Dusty would have been Richmond's leading player in around 6 seasons at least, probably more. The difference is the different criteria used between issuing coaches votes and b&f votes at Richmond. If Dusty puts on a masterclass in a massive game he gets a maximum of 5 b & f votes, where several other players might also get 5 and and another group get 4. But in so many of these cases Dusty's contribution will be so much more valuable than other players who get maximum or near maximum b&f votes. This is no guide to who Richmond's best player is except to a person like you who has his eyes glued shut to avoid seeing the reality of the situation. The system is designed to restrict the relative amount of votes a player can get with a brilliant performance.

In Brownlow votes it is the same, Dusty Richmond's best in about 6-8 seasons. In player ratings the same.

Richmond paid Dustin Martin more money on average per season in his current contract than any player has been paid by any established club at any time in the history of the game and this remains the case still 6 years into the contract. That tells you what value the Richmond FC has placed on Dustin Martin.

Then obviously he is severely overpaid and over hyped. Your club has deemed him your best player twice. Only twice. He is not fit to walk in the shadows of the greats let alone make a team of the century.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Then obviously he is severely overpaid and over hyped. Your club has deemed him your best player twice. Only twice. He is not fit to walk in the shadows of the greats let alone make a team of the century.

Let this poster be known and judged by the foolishness of his words.

 

[RUNVS]

Let this poster be known and judged by the foolishness of his words.

People can't use the "he won 3 B&F's at our club" as a positive and then ignore all the times he did not win your B&F.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

People can't use the "he won 3 B&F's at our club" as a positive and then ignore all the times he did not win your B&F.

B & F is just one indicator. And no indicator is failsafe. We need to consider that each club has different criteria for their b & f voting and so the same player could play the same at 2 different clubs, and all else being equal get 2 different b & f results.

With Richmond's B&F's I think only roughly half have been won by midfielders since Hardwick started coaching. Grimes, Rance, Riewoldt(2), Short, Lynch are specialist forwards and defenders who have won B&F's in that time. Kellaway, Bowden(x2) Gasper and Richardson were specialist forwards and defenders who won b&f's in the 10 years prior. So 11 times since 2000 the Richmond B & F has been won by a specialist forward or defender. I am pretty sure this is unique to Richmond.

So Richmond 11 specialist forwards or defenders win b & f from 2000.

Collingwood in comparison have about 4 B & F winners who did not play mainly midfield from 2000, and 5 in the last 34 years.

Hawthorn have had about 8 x B & F's who weren't mainly midfielders from 2000 onwards.

Carlton have had about 5 B & F's who weren't mainly mids from 2000 onwards.

Geelong about 7 x b & f's since 2000 who were specialist forwards or defenders.

You could go through every club but I am pretty sure Richmond will have the highest or close to highest incidence of specialist forwards or defenders winning their b & f from 2000 onwards. It is pretty clear Richmond does not vote for their b&f the way most other clubs do. And if they did Martin would have about 5 or 6 x best and fairests. Lance Franklin has won 1 x b & f in his career, Jack Riewoldt has won 2. Franklin is by any reasonable measure a better player than Riewoldt and it is fair to assume if Franklin played for Richmond he would have won more than 1 b & f in his career.

 

[Fadge]

B & F is just one indicator. And no indicator is failsafe. We need to consider that each club has different criteria for their b & f voting and so the same player could play the same at 2 different clubs, and all else being equal get 2 different b & f results.

With Richmond's B&F's I think only roughly half have been won by midfielders since Hardwick started coaching. Grimes, Rance, Riewoldt(2), Short, Lynch are specialist forwards and defenders who have won B&F's in that time. Kellaway, Bowden(x2) Gasper and Richardson were specialist forwards and defenders who won b&f's in the 10 years prior. So 11 times since 2000 the Richmond B & F has been won by a specialist forward or defender. I am pretty sure this is unique to Richmond.

So Richmond 11 specialist forwards or defenders win b & f from 2000.

Collingwood in comparison have about 4 B & F winners who did not play mainly midfield from 2000, and 5 in the last 34 years.

Hawthorn have had about 8 x B & F's who weren't mainly midfielders from 2000 onwards.

Carlton have had about 5 B & F's who weren't mainly mids from 2000 onwards.

Geelong about 7 x b & f's since 2000 who were specialist forwards or defenders.

You could go through every club but I am pretty sure Richmond will have the highest or close to highest incidence of specialist forwards or defenders winning their b & f from 2000 onwards. It is pretty clear Richmond does not vote for their b&f the way most other clubs do. And if they did Martin would have about 5 or 6 x best and fairests. Lance Franklin has won 1 x b & f in his career, Jack Riewoldt has won 2. Franklin is by any reasonable measure a better player than Riewoldt and it is fair to assume if Franklin played for Richmond he would have won more than 1 b & f in his career.

You really do tie yourself in knots apologising for Martin.

I love how you go back to 2000, when there was an 11 year period (2000 to 2010), when Martin either didn't play, or wasn't in the mix as a first year player in 2010, where 6 non midfielders won the award. In the 13 years since 2011, there have been 5 x non midfielders. And two of those years - Grimes in 2021 and Lynch in 2022 - Martin didn't play enough games to be in the mix anyway.

If Martin was good enough, he would have had the same number of b&f's that the truly elite midfielders of the era have - GAJ, Judd, Pendlebury, etc. But unfortunately Martin had all-time great midfielders such as Cotchin, Jackson (lol), Prestia and Taranto who won b&f's ahead of Martin in 6 of those years...

 

[Noidnadroj]

You want to quote possessions yet refuse to add the fact he averages more clangers than anyone in the history of the game. Your own club only voted him their best player twice this century. Does not come close to being in the team.

GAS shouldn’t be in the 1900’s team then, correct? He won 1 x B&F. No Brownlow. No flag. How is he even considered? Weird.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[South of the Yarra]

GAS shouldn’t be in the 1900’s team then, correct? He won 1 x B&F. No Brownlow. No flag. How is he even considered? Weird.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

As he is not a midfielder who dominates these awards. To win only 2 B and F as a midfielder is just not up to scratch.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You really do tie yourself in knots apologising for Martin.

I love how you go back to 2000, when there was an 11 year period (2000 to 2010), when Martin either didn't play, or wasn't in the mix as a first year player in 2010, where 6 non midfielders won the award. In the 13 years since 2011, there have been 5 x non midfielders. And two of those years - Grimes in 2021 and Lynch in 2022 - Martin didn't play enough games to be in the mix anyway.

If Martin was good enough, he would have had the same number of b&f's that the truly elite midfielders of the era have - GAJ, Judd, Pendlebury, etc. But unfortunately Martin had all-time great midfielders such as Cotchin, Jackson (lol), Prestia and Taranto who won b&f's ahead of Martin in 6 of those years...

Lol you are trying to claim Martin is not a truly elite player and reckon I am tying myself in knots. Collingwood have had 5 permanent forwards or defenders win their b&f in the last 34 years. Richmond have had 6 from 2010(14 years) onwards when Dusty started playing. You think both clubs are using any sort of similar criteria for their b&f voting?

Most other clubs there would be a much stronger correlation between coaches votes/Brownlow votes/player ratings on one hand and b&f voting on the other. But Richmond clearly uses a massively different criteria for coaches votes and b&f votes.

And it is not explainable by the binary nature of coaches votes etc throwing up less reliable results than the less binary nature of b&f votes. Player ratings are the least binary of all and I would wager you Martin has been Richmond's leading ratings player a lot more than 2 times....see below for the answer.

But of course you are not interested in discussing these things you just want to troll Dusty. Good luck in that endeavour, you will only make yourself look like a prized goose.

Here we go, Dusty's average player ratings finishes from Richmond players:

2023 2nd
2022 7th
2021 1st
2020 1st
2019 1st
2018 1st
2017 1st
2016 2nd
2015 4th
2014 6th
2013 6th
2012 4th
2011 no ratings
2010 no ratings

So 5 x 1st and 2 x 2nd and that is about the size of where he would have finished in the b&f count under most other clubs' criteria.

Total Coaches votes he went:

2023 3rd
2022 19th
2021 1st
2020 1st
2019 1st
2018 1st
2017 1st
2016 1st
2015 =1st
2014 3rd
2013 1st
2012 13th
2011 likely top 3
2010 likely top 6

So take your choice. By TOTAL coaches votes he has been Richmond's best player in 7 seasons and equal best in an 8th season. By AVERAGE player ratings he is Richmond's best player in 5 seasons and 2nd best in another 2. I can't be bothered checking Brownlow votes, but it will of course be a similar picture to coaches votes.

He has been Richmond's best big game player by miles, even you won't require evidence to believe that. He has been Richmond's highest paid player, again, by a margin. By any measure bar b&f WINS he has been Richmond's best and most valuable player over his career by a long long distance, and the 2 big anomalies are his b&f wins(his overall results are extremely consistent and strong as Noidnadroj has repeatedly shown, and his AA selections at 4 are a bit mysteriously low compared to several players he has proven much better than when it has ever mattered.

SO as usual you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Mr Meow]

Another great thread being ruined by those trying to turn it into the Martin show.

Sad.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Lol you are trying to claim Martin is not a truly elite player and reckon I am tying myself in knots. Collingwood have had 5 permanent forwards or defenders win their b&f in the last 34 years. Richmond have had 6 from 2010(14 years) onwards when Dusty started playing. You think both clubs are using any sort of similar criteria for their b&f voting?

Most other clubs there would be a much stronger correlation between coaches votes/Brownlow votes/player ratings on one hand and b&f voting on the other. But Richmond clearly uses a massively different criteria for coaches votes and b&f votes.

And it is not explainable by the binary nature of coaches votes etc throwing up less reliable results than the less binary nature of b&f votes. Player ratings are the least binary of all and I would wager you Martin has been Richmond's leading ratings player a lot more than 2 times....see below for the answer.

But of course you are not interested in discussing these things you just want to troll Dusty. Good luck in that endeavour, you will only make yourself look like a prized goose.

Here we go, Dusty's average player ratings finishes from Richmond players:

2023 2nd
2022 7th
2021 1st
2020 1st
2019 1st
2018 1st
2017 1st
2016 2nd
2015 4th
2014 6th
2013 6th
2012 4th
2011 no ratings
2010 no ratings

So 5 x 1st and 2 x 2nd and that is about the size of where he would have finished in the b&f count under most other clubs' criteria.

Total Coaches votes he went:

2023 3rd
2022 19th
2021 1st
2020 1st
2019 1st
2018 1st
2017 1st
2016 1st
2015 =1st
2014 3rd
2013 1st
2012 13th
2011 likely top 3
2010 likely top 6

So take your choice. By TOTAL coaches votes he has been Richmond's best player in 7 seasons and equal best in an 8th season. By AVERAGE player ratings he is Richmond's best player in 5 seasons and 2nd best in another 2. I can't be bothered checking Brownlow votes, but it will of course be a similar picture to coaches votes.

He has been Richmond's best big game player by miles, even you won't require evidence to believe that. He has been Richmond's highest paid player, again, by a margin. By any measure bar b&f WINS he has been Richmond's best and most valuable player over his career by a long long distance, and the 2 big anomalies are his b&f wins(his overall results are extremely consistent and strong as Noidnadroj has repeatedly shown, and his AA selections at 4 are a bit mysteriously low compared to several players he has proven much better than when it has ever mattered.

SO as usual you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

Has led Richmond’s Brownlow counting 7 times. Coaches votes 7 times.

In 2020 Short won the B&F with 26 coaches votes. Vlastuin was third with 21 coaches votes. Martin was second with 70 coaches votes. Huh?

So coaches give votes in both the coaches award, and the best and fairest, so what gives?

Grimes won Richmond’s B&F in 2021 with 6 coaches votes.

Naicos (96 coaches votes) came equal second in the Pies B&F with Maynard (4 coaches votes). But aren’t both awards getting votes from the coaches ?

In a B&F there’s lots of coaches giving votes based on performing a role. Did Maynard perform a good job on Tony Greene? Whilst Maynard only had 6 touches, he kept Greene goalless, so here’s 5 votes. Did Naicos perform well in the mids. Well, he had 37 and kicked 2 … but he did lapse a couple of times defensively by not following team structures. Ok, we will give him 4 votes.

Richmond’s B&F’s largely rewards the execution of your role. This doesn’t always marry up to how well you played in the traditional sense - that’s more done by the coaches votes and Brownlow votes which Martin has ‘won’ 7 times.

Geelong probably did something similar in 1988-1989, when Ablett was at the peak of his powers and was beaten to the B&F in consecutive seasons by Mark Bos.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Has led Richmond’s Brownlow counting 7 times. Coaches votes 7 times.

In 2020 Short won the B&F with 26 coaches votes. Vlastuin was third with 21 coaches votes. Martin was second with 70 coaches votes. Huh?

So coaches give votes in both the coaches award, and the best and fairest, so what gives?

Grimes won Richmond’s B&F in 2021 with 6 coaches votes.

Naicos (96 coaches votes) came equal second in the Pies B&F with Maynard (4 coaches votes). But aren’t both awards getting votes from the coaches ?

In a B&F there’s lots of coaches giving votes based on performing a role. Did Maynard perform a good job on Tony Greene? Whilst Maynard only had 6 touches, he kept Greene goalless, so here’s 5 votes. Did Naicos perform well in the mids. Well, he had 37 and kicked 2 … but he did lapse a couple of times defensively by not following team structures. Ok, we will give him 4 votes.

Richmond’s B&F’s largely rewards the execution of your role. This doesn’t always marry up to how well you played in the traditional sense - that’s more done by the coaches votes and Brownlow votes which Martin has ‘won’ 7 times.

Geelong probably did something similar in 1988-1989, when Ablett was at the peak of his powers and was beaten to the B&F in consecutive seasons by Mark Bos.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This is spot on. These clown posters have been deliriously celebrating finally finding a chink in Dusty's armour, only it is no chink at all. It is merely the coaches voting in the b&f reflecting how well the player performed the role he was given. You perform a minor role exceptionally well you get 5 votes, you perform a major role exceptionally well you get 5 votes. Dusty playing under the voting system a Leigh Matthews or Kevin Bartlett played under has won about 6-7 b & f's by now. Richmond construct their best and fairest voting to try to get the team to perform as well as possible, to a greater extent than other clubs, most of whom seem to see it as more important that their best player over the season wins their b & f.

But it is funny watching South of the Yarra wildly celebrate hooking a massive tuna all the time not realising all he has hooked is a red herring. Not to mention watching Fadge repeatedly high 5ing him for his "impressive" haul.