AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[Fadge]

I think the OP needs to start considering the careers of players since 2001 only when determining the ins and outs for this team.

Meaning the positions of the likes if McLeod, Buckley, Voss, Cousins, etc. become vulnerable.

 

[VicBased]

Your logic is flawed due to your very simple binary assessment of winning a Brownlow gives a tick, whilst not winning a Brownlow is a cross.

Lachie Neale wouldn't have been in the top 5 players in the competition in 2023. That list is Bontempelli, N. Daicos, Butters, Greene and Curnow. Possibly not even top 10. Pendlebury has had at a minumim a handful of better seasons than Neale's 2023.

Another factor, one that has been thrown down our throats by Richmond supporters in the Dusty v. Dangerfield comparisons - if Pendlebury was wearing a Brisbane jumper and Neale a Collingwood jumper in the 2023 Grand Final, Brisbane would be the 2023 premiers... and that is with Pendlebury as a 35 year old and Neale in the prime of his career.

Neale has been a great player, but no, he doesn't replace Pendlebury in this team.

I don't think Lachie would give a damn about what you are surmising.
He has a Brownlow around his neck so that means 20 or thirty Umpires thinking very differently to you, and rightly so.
But hey, you go on thinking that way.

 

[Fadge]

I don't think Lachie would give a damn about what you are surmising.
He has a Brownlow around his neck so that means 20 or thirty Umpires thinking very differently to you, and rightly so.
But hey, you go on thinking that way.

I wouldn't expect Lachie Neale to give a rat's toss bag about what I posted about him on BigFooty.

But I'm not the only person on the planet who has suggested he wasn't the best player in the competition, despite how the umpire's votes fell his way.

In fact, I recall him being interviewed after the Brownlow last year, and he was the first to acknowledge it was somewhat of a 'surprise victory'.

Regardless, my point was less about Lachie Neale and more about how we shouldn't be binary about anointing the Brownlow winner as the best player in the competition for that season (particularly when the three major awards were split between 3 different players).

 

[Cleansweep17]

Your logic is flawed due to your very simple binary assessment of winning a Brownlow gives a tick, whilst not winning a Brownlow is a cross.

Lachie Neale wouldn't have been in the top 5 players in the competition in 2023. That list is Bontempelli, N. Daicos, Butters, Greene and Curnow. Possibly not even top 10. Pendlebury has had at a minumim a handful of better seasons than Neale's 2023.

Another factor, one that has been thrown down our throats by Richmond supporters in the Dusty v. Dangerfield comparisons - if Pendlebury was wearing a Brisbane jumper and Neale a Collingwood jumper in the 2023 Grand Final, Brisbane would be the 2023 premiers... and that is with Pendlebury as a 35 year old and Neale in the prime of his career.

Neale has been a great player, but no, he doesn't replace Pendlebury in this team.

My statement is actually contrary to that, as I currently don’t have Neale in despite having two more Brownlows. So I don’t get what logic you are questioning. I believe another AA this year would be the tipping point. Which I believe is more than fair.

It’s the same reason why Goodes and Fyfe are considered better despite having less longevity/AA selections. This is a widely held view despite you thinking otherwise.

 

[Fadge]

It’s the same reason why Goodes and Fyfe are considered better despite having less longevity/AA selections. This is a widely held view despite you thinking otherwise.

Goodes, with 372 games, doesn't have longevity?

 

[Engimal v3]

Any team without Cox as ruck is taking the piss

 

[Fadge]

Any team without Cox as ruck is taking the piss

Yep. Mason extremely underrated in this thread.

 

[VicBased]

Yep. Mason extremely underrated in this thread.

Like it, Dean might not though.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Goodes, with 372 games, doesn't have longevity?

4AAs which you don’t rate as good enough consistency.

Then you have Fyfe who’s even worse with 3

Both players are rated higher than Pendles primarily due to the two Brownlows. Same rules apply to Neale who would have 4AAs if he won this year.

When you pick a team to play a game it’s based on how good their peaks were. Longevity means nothing if you want to win a game on the day.

 

[Fadge]

When you pick a team to play a game it’s based on how good their peaks were. Longevity means nothing if you want to win a game on the day.

That's your view.

I balance out longevity with peak to form a conclusion.

I'm also not binary where a Brownlow winner gets a tick whilst a non Brownlow winner gets a cross.

I mean, there aren't many people aside from you to go on record as saying 'Cooney was the best player in 2008'...

 

[Cleansweep17]

That's your view.

I balance out longevity with peak to form a conclusion.

I'm also not binary where a Brownlow winner gets a tick whilst a non Brownlow winner gets a cross.

I mean, there aren't many people aside from you to go on record as saying 'Cooney was the best player in 2008'...

Adam Cooney wasn’t the best in 2008 because he only won the Brownlow. GAJ was because he won the MVP and Coaches award. (2 of the 3) big awards.

So again do you rate Goodes and Fyfe higher than Pendles despite having less longevity than Pendles? It’s just a simple yes or no answer.

I’m actually the one balancing it out here.

 

[Fadge]

Adam Cooney wasn’t the best in 2008 because he only won the Brownlow.

Really?

Because you've previously stated this:

 

[Fadge]

So again do you rate Goodes and Fyfe higher than Pendles despite having less longevity than Pendles? It’s just a simple yes or no answer.

I’m actually the one balancing it out here.

You're not balancing anything out. You're taking a very simplistic view where binary awards are the be all and end all.

If you look at each player's best seasons, the difference is marginal (regardless of who were lucky enough to win awards and who wasn't).

So then obviously you need to consider longevity, and I reckon Pendles has been marginally better for longer than Goodes, and miles better for longer than Fyfe.

If you look at the best 30 seasons from the 3 players combined, you'd have a handful of Fyfe's seasons, 10 or 11 of Goodes' seasons, and 14 or 15 of Pendlebury's seasons.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Really?

Because you've previously stated this:
View attachment 1888876

Meant non Geelong players. Should’ve been more clear. Hence why I didn’t include Scarlett or Enright as the best defenders. We were talking about opposition quality in that discussion.

 

[Cleansweep17]

You're not balancing anything out. You're taking a very simplistic view where binary awards are the be all and end all.

If you look at each player's best seasons, the difference is marginal (regardless of who were lucky enough to win awards and who wasn't).

So then obviously you need to consider longevity, and I reckon Pendles has been marginally better for longer than Goodes, and miles better for longer than Fyfe.

If you look at the best 30 seasons from the 3 players combined, you'd have a handful of Fyfe's seasons, 10 or 11 of Goodes' seasons, and 14 or 15 of Pendlebury's seasons.

Yes Pendles has had a lot more consistently worse seasons than Goodes and Fyfe’s peak. I don’t think that’s a reason to say he’s better.

 

[Fadge]

Yes Pendles has had a lot more consistently worse seasons than Goodes and Fyfe’s peak. I don’t think that’s a reason to say he’s better.

Ok.

Do a ranking of the top 30 seasons of the three players combined.

In fact, just do the top 10.

I suggest you'll be very surprised.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Ok.

Do a ranking of the top 30 seasons of the three players combined.

In fact, just do the top 10.

I suggest you'll be very surprised.

I don’t need to, I’ll go with yours as long as Fyfe and Goodes have the top 2 seasons where they won the Brownlow and other big awards.

That’s my point Pendles peak isn’t good enough to be considered by most people. Hence his vulnerability in the team where most people have him on the bench.

Not saying he’s overall better but even Cotchin managed to be the best player in a season. Brownlow and MVP in 2012. Pendles has never done that period.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Ok.

Do a ranking of the top 30 seasons of the three players combined.

In fact, just do the top 10.

I suggest you'll be very surprised.

If Lachie Neale won his 3rd Brownlow in 2022 would you say he’d be better than Pendles? I definitely would. He was 1 vote off it. That’s the difference between the two of them atm.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Fadge]

I don’t need to, I’ll go with yours as long as Fyfe and Goodes have the top 2 seasons where they won the Brownlow and other big awards.

That’s my point Pendles peak isn’t good enough to be considered by most people. Hence his vulnerability in the team where most people have him on the bench.

Not saying he’s overall better but even Cotchin managed to be the best player in a season. Brownlow and MVP in 2012. Pendles has never done that period.

Oh my.

Binary assessment.

Brownlow = tick.

No Brownlow = cross.

And doubling down by using Cotchin as a Brownlow winner as an example.

OMFG.

 

[Fadge]

If Lachie Neale won his 3rd Brownlow in 2022 would you say he’d be better than Pendles? I definitely would. He was 1 vote off it. That’s the difference between the two of them atm.

I don't look at a list and see Barry Bloggs has won a Brownlow, or two, and therefore deduce he must have been a better player over the course of his career than everyone who has never won one...

 

[Cleansweep17]

Oh my.

Binary assessment.

Brownlow = tick.

No Brownlow = cross.

And doubling down by using Cotchin as a Brownlow winner as an example.

OMFG.

Put aside the awards, everybody accepts he’s never been the best player in the comp. So no matter how you slice it his peak is considerably subpar compared the other mids in this side (and even some out of it). It’s what significantly marks him down unfortunately. If his peak was better he’d be around Buckley level at a minimum. But he’s in the next tier below, around Bont level (hence both on interchange)

 

[Cleansweep17]

I don't look at a list and see Barry Bloggs has won a Brownlow, or two, and therefore deduce he must have been a better player over the course of his career than everyone who has never won one...

If they play the same position nobody would say a 3x Brownlow medalist (the only one in the modern era) with more big awards is worse than a 0 time Brownlow winner. It would be ludicrous and you know it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I mean you do it with with Dusty cause of his 2 2 less AAs than Pendles. So spare me the hypocrisy.

 

[Fadge]

I mean you do it with with Dusty cause of his 2 2 less AAs than Pendles. So spare me the hypocrisy.

I don't do it with Dusty because of his fewer AA's, I do it based on how they've performed given ALL the data, and comparing each players' best X seasons as I suggested you do with Pendlebury, Goodes and Fyfe.

For example, when you consider ALL the data, Martin clearly has THE best individual season, but Pendlebury has 2 of the best 3, 3 of the best 5, 7 of the best 12, 12 of the best 20, and 14 of the best 25 seasons.

How can anyone say Pendlebury hasn't been the better player if that is the conclusion formed?

 

[Fadge]

If they play the same position nobody would say a 3x Brownlow medalist (the only one in the modern era) with more big awards is worse than a 0 time Brownlow winner. It would be ludicrous and you know it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

It depends.

If Neale won another Brownlow in the same manner he won this year's - not considered good enough for AA, beaten in his club best and fairest - I still wouldn't put him ahead of Pendlebury.

If he dominated the year, was clearly the best player, and smashed open a finals series which resulted in a Brisbane flag, then that would be a different story.

Not all Brownlow years are the same.

 

[Cleansweep17]

I don't do it with Dusty because of his fewer AA's, I do it based on how they've performed given ALL the data, and comparing each players' best X seasons as I suggested you do with Pendlebury, Goodes and Fyfe.

For example, when you consider ALL the data, Martin clearly has THE best individual season, but Pendlebury has 2 of the best 3, 3 of the best 5, 7 of the best 12, 12 of the best 20, and 14 of the best 25 seasons.

How can anyone say Pendlebury hasn't been the better player if that is the conclusion formed?

Because of his peak just like the other two. Anyway we are going in circles, we aren’t going to agree. Most people don’t rate Pendles as a tier 1 player hence the bench spot. I like others don’t even rate him as good as danger who statistically smashes him on pretty much every front. Better longevity and peak.