AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[KissKiss]

For a rolling team you may not need to have won all those awards to be in the team right now. But as the century gets longer it gets way way way harder to justify. At the moment I already think a dual Brownlow medallist (who could have had 3) and who has been a top 5-10 midfielder for many years now is falling just short. If you are short of those accolades (like Pendles and Selwood are) and trying to get one of the 4-6 midfield spots then you pretty much will have zero chance of being in the team in 75 years. Might even struggle to be in the second team by then

 

[PhatBoy]

No he couldn’t he never won 2/3 either. Are you suffering from psychosis?

And it’s not my fault Priddis outpolled Ablett in 2014. Blame Ablett’s weak ass shoulder.

What does that even mean?

The fact that YOU bring that year up - which I wouldn’t even be able to name, by the way - to me it’s just ‘that season Ablett was playing the way he always did but got injured two thirds of the way through’ - says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else mate.

Bahahahahahaua ‘Ablett’s weak ass shoulder.’

Yeah he only got through 19 seasons of professional contact sport. Does trying to sound like a teenage American masturbation champion take its toll on your psyche after a while or is it just something you learn to cope with as time goes on?

 

[Cleansweep17]

What does that even mean?

The fact that YOU bring that year up - which I wouldn’t even be able to name, by the way - to me it’s just ‘that season Ablett was playing the way he always did but got injured two thirds of the way through’ - says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else mate.

Bahahahahahaua ‘Ablett’s weak ass shoulder.’

Yeah he only got through 19 seasons of professional contact sport. Does trying to sound like a teenage American masturbation champion take its toll on your psyche after a while or is it just something you learn to cope with as time goes on?

It means you aren’t reading my posts properly. Why would you bring up Priddis when it goes against my contention? It’s very strange and it happens all the time.

Ooof I know I’ve hit a nerve when you bring out your pillow talk.

There is nothing to be ashamed about having a gimp shoulder. Many players suffer from chronic conditions. Lucky it didn’t get exposed earlier on in GAJs career, probably wouldn’t have won anything.

 

[Cleansweep17]

For a rolling team you may not need to have won all those awards to be in the team right now. But as the century gets longer it gets way way way harder to justify. At the moment I already think a dual Brownlow medallist (who could have had 3) and who has been a top 5-10 midfielder for many years now is falling just short. If you are short of those accolades (like Pendles and Selwood are) and trying to get one of the 4-6 midfield spots then you pretty much will have zero chance of being in the team in 75 years. Might even struggle to be in the second team by then

^Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[My_Username]

If Pendles is excluded on the awards basis (which is a crock, but let's just run with it), so too is Martin.

Martin only ever had one season where he performed as the best player in the competition as adjudged by the key awards, which is the same as Pendlebury (despite his Coaches Award year not even being his best season).

Norm Smith medals mightn't be a 'major award', but winning 3 of them is still something.

 

[Fadge]

Norm Smith medals mightn't be a 'major award', but winning 3 of them is still something.

I think you missed my disclaimer - 'I think it's a crock, but let's just run with it....'

I don't live in a world where Wines, Priddis and Woewodin are better players than Pendlebury, Selwood and Bontempelli just because the former players have won a Brownlow whilst the latter group haven't...

 

[Fadge]

^Couldn’t have said it better myself.

You're right there.

 

[Fadge]

For a rolling team you may not need to have won all those awards to be in the team right now. But as the century gets longer it gets way way way harder to justify. At the moment I already think a dual Brownlow medallist (who could have had 3) and who has been a top 5-10 midfielder for many years now is falling just short. If you are short of those accolades (like Pendles and Selwood are) and trying to get one of the 4-6 midfield spots then you pretty much will have zero chance of being in the team in 75 years. Might even struggle to be in the second team by then

This is a classic example as to why we can't be binary about those who have won awards = tick, whilst those who haven't = cross.

I'd still rate Neale a rung below both Selwood and Pendlebury, but agree with your assertion around their position in the team at the end of the century.

 

[PhatBoy]

It means you aren’t reading my posts properly. Why would you bring up Priddis when it goes against my contention? It’s very strange and it happens all the time.

Ooof I know I’ve hit a nerve when you bring out your pillow talk.

There is nothing to be ashamed about having a gimp shoulder. Many players suffer from chronic conditions. Lucky it didn’t get exposed earlier on in GAJs career, probably wouldn’t have won anything.

Chipping me for ‘Pillow talk’ followed by a reference to gimps?

You know what a chronic condition is right? Something a player suffers from more or less their whole career usually through overuse? He f**ked his shoulder because it was smashed into the turf at Carrara you simpleton

Yeah it sure was lucky it wasn’t ‘exposed’ earlier in his career that you could break your shoulder by having it broken hey

You can literally google ‘Gary Ablett Brent McCaffer’ and see when his ‘Chronic’ injury happened two thirds of the way into his 13th season of AFL football

No you’ve really thought that comment through. Well done again, good research and another sign of high intelligence.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Chipping me for ‘Pillow talk’ followed by a reference to gimps?

You know what a chronic condition is right? Something a player suffers from more or less their whole career usually through overuse? He f**ked his shoulder because it was smashed into the turf at Carrara you simpleton

Yeah it sure was lucky it wasn’t ‘exposed’ earlier in his career that you could break your shoulder by having it broken hey

You can literally google ‘Gary Ablett Brent McCaffer’ and see when his ‘Chronic’ injury happened two thirds of the way into his 13th season of AFL football

No you’ve really thought that comment through. Well done again, good research and another sign of high intelligence.

No it can happen after. We had it with Delidio, he never got injured beforehand.

From 2014-2020 he had a shoulder problem that’s a good chunk of his career, he also busted it again in the 2020 GF by Cotchin. Yeah seems chronic to me. You can bet it’s still f’ed to this day.

 

[PhatBoy]

No it can happen after. We had it with Delidio, he never got injured beforehand.

From 2014-2020 he had a shoulder problem that’s a good chunk of his career, he also busted it again in the 2020 GF by Cotchin. Yeah seems chronic to me. You can bet it’s still f’ed to this day.

Of course it can happen after: that’s what happens AFTER someone gets their body smashed by someone

A chronic condition is Ben Stokes’ knee. It’s deteriorated over time because he’s been bowling on it since he was a child.

Someone suffering an impact injury that doesn’t heal properly isn’t them having some sort of chronic problem that’s just there because they’re weak you clown

Tom Hawkins - our own player: HE has a chronic back injury. It’s been that way since the very early stages of his career and is in now way related to impact or any violent incident on the field

 

[Mr Meow]

No it can happen after. We had it with Delidio, he never got injured beforehand.

From 2014-2020 he had a shoulder problem that’s a good chunk of his career, he also busted it again in the 2020 GF by Cotchin. Yeah seems chronic to me. You can bet it’s still f’ed to this day.

Who or what is a "Delidio"?

 

[Cleansweep17]

Of course it can happen after: that’s what happens AFTER someone gets their body smashed by someone

A chronic condition is Ben Stokes’ knee. It’s deteriorated over time because he’s been bowling on it since he was a child.

Someone suffering an impact injury that doesn’t heal properly isn’t them having some sort of chronic problem that’s just there because they’re weak you clown

Tom Hawkins - our own player: HE has a chronic back injury. It’s been that way since the very early stages of his career and is in now way related to impact or any violent incident on the field

Jesus mate lighten up, I could say Gary prefers nutrigrain over weet-bix and you’d think I’m having a go at him for being unhealthy.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jesus mate lighten up, I could say Gary prefers nutrigrain over weet-bix and you’d think I’m having a go at him for being unhealthy.

It’s the way you put this shit across mate and you do it all the time and it’s why people respond to you the way they do.

Saying ‘so and so was shit.’ ‘So and so was hopeless.’ ‘So and so was soft’ or however you want to put it - people are GOING to pull you up on it: especially when you contradict yourself even in the very same post - case in point in that other thread where you literally said ‘yeah ok Tom Lynch may not have played all that great in two finals. But how good could Cam Mooney have been, he missed a shot at goal from right in front.’

Ie. you made a concession, a relevant one, about one player, based on two games worth of evidence: a reasonable and well thought out sentence which any reader would consider and go ‘yep, fair play he’s acknowledged that his own player had his faults.’ Then you’ve followed it by making a blanket statement about an opposition player’s entire quality based on one kick.

THATS why people ridicule some of the stuff you write. If you actually eased up on the bullshit, you do periodically show you can actually observe the game but people aren’t going to acknowledge that if you season it with rubbish are they.

 

[Cleansweep17]

It’s the way you put this s**t across mate and you do it all the time and it’s why people respond to you the way they do.

Saying ‘so and so was s**t.’ ‘So and so was hopeless.’ ‘So and so was soft’ or however you want to put it - people are GOING to pull you up on it: especially when you contradict yourself even in the very same post - case in point in that other thread where you literally said ‘yeah ok Tom Lynch may not have played all that great in two finals. But how good could Cam Mooney have been, he missed a shot at goal from right in front.’

Ie. you made a concession, a relevant one, about one player, based on two games worth of evidence: a reasonable and well thought out sentence which any reader would consider and go ‘yep, fair play he’s acknowledged that his own player had his faults.’ Then you’ve followed it by making a blanket statement about an opposition player’s entire quality based on one kick.

THATS why people ridicule some of the stuff you write. If you actually eased up on the bullshit, you do periodically show you can actually observe the game but people aren’t going to acknowledge that if you season it with rubbish are they.

So I can’t point out Mooneys miss being shit even though we were comparing GF performances? Ok, I’ll consult you next time before posting.

 

[PhatBoy]

So I can’t point out Mooneys miss being s**t even though we were comparing GF performances? Ok, I’ll consult you next time before posting.

Mate what were you trying to point out?

You basically tried to say ‘this guy can’t be any good at football because he missed one kick across all his football.’

What sort of comment is that?

 

[citizen-erased]

For a rolling team you may not need to have won all those awards to be in the team right now. But as the century gets longer it gets way way way harder to justify. At the moment I already think a dual Brownlow medallist (who could have had 3) and who has been a top 5-10 midfielder for many years now is falling just short. If you are short of those accolades (like Pendles and Selwood are) and trying to get one of the 4-6 midfield spots then you pretty much will have zero chance of being in the team in 75 years. Might even struggle to be in the second team by then

As a huge pendles fan, i do agree
The "awards" metric is flawed as it throws up anomalies.

If im picking 6 mids from 01 onwards;
Voss
GAJ
Judd
Dusty (park him HF on paper)
Pendles (bench)
And im tossing between black v bont at the moment for the last mid spot.

2 of them are missing brownlows but both have been instrumental in premierships.
Does black automatically get in because of a brownlow? Not for me.

The pendles v dusty argument seems moot for me. Both are in surely

 

[doppleganger]

As a huge pendles fan, i do agree
The "awards" metric is flawed as it throws up anomalies.

The actual voting system itself is designed that way.

Pendles has received the most 2 vote games in history. Is that because he is a bit less "obvious" than the power type midfielders like Danger and Judd who were more easily noticed when bursting from a pack (but often just blazing).

Pendles polled in over 100 games, more than Judd was able to, and is big chance to go outright 3rd next year for total career browlow votes.

If im picking 6 mids from 01 onwards;
Voss
GAJ
Judd
Dusty (park him HF on paper)
Pendles (bench)
And im tossing between black v bont at the moment for the last mid spot.

Voss only played 6 seasons from 01 onwards, he would drop out...aint enough.

Pendles and Dusty both in.

S.Mitchell, Selwood would be better than Voss, Black and still ahead of the Bont.

IMHO

 

[Lingsface]

The actual voting system itself is designed that way.

Pendles has received the most 2 vote games in history. Is that because he is a bit less "obvious" than the power type midfielders like Danger and Judd who were more easily noticed when bursting from a pack (but often just blazing).

Pendles polled in over 100 games, more than Judd was able to, and is big chance to go outright 3rd next year for total career browlow votes.

Voss only played 6 seasons from 01 onwards, he would drop out...aint enough.

Pendles and Dusty both in.

S.Mitchell, Selwood would be better than Voss, Black and still ahead of the Bont.

IMHO

I think Bont is already ahead of Pendlebury, he is Pendlebury that can kick 4 and has that X factor with all the quality attributes that Pendlebury has. The mountain of work that Pendelbury has done is great but Bont can turn a game.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Going to be controversial here but I think Luke Hodge is overrated. A very good player for sure, but he wasn't really a game changing sort of player and shouldn't be in this 21st century team.

Nah. He changed the course of plenty of games (including two Norm Smiths so not as though he was only turning it on against crap teams). He could play in just about any position across the ground (only Goodes comes to mind in terms of flexibility) plus he was a terrific on field leader. He kicked some amazing goals, had huge moments in huge games and was tough as nails.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nah. He changed the course of plenty of games (including two Norm Smiths so not as though he was only turning it on against crap teams). He could play in just about any position across the ground (only Goodes comes to mind in terms of flexibility) plus he was a terrific on field leader. He kicked some amazing goals, had huge moments in huge games and was tough as nails.

Bartel.

But I agree with your point.

 

[Sttew]

Nah. He changed the course of plenty of games (including two Norm Smiths so not as though he was only turning it on against crap teams). He could play in just about any position across the ground (only Goodes comes to mind in terms of flexibility) plus he was a terrific on field leader. He kicked some amazing goals, had huge moments in huge games and was tough as nails.

How quickly people forget

 

[Mr Meow]

Hodge is almost first picked.

 

[citizen-erased]

I think Bont is already ahead of Pendlebury, he is Pendlebury that can kick 4 and has that X factor with all the quality attributes that Pendlebury has. The mountain of work that Pendelbury has done is great but Bont can turn a game.

bont has kicked 4 three times & biggest haul is 26 in a season
Pendles once and had a haul of 24.
and i'd add that Bont has far greater stints forward than Pendles.

also, being on the end of it multiple times, pendles can turn a game...last years GF also an example.

The actual voting system itself is designed that way.

Pendles has received the most 2 vote games in history. Is that because he is a bit less "obvious" than the power type midfielders like Danger and Judd who were more easily noticed when bursting from a pack (but often just blazing).

Pendles polled in over 100 games, more than Judd was able to, and is big chance to go outright 3rd next year for total career browlow votes.

Voss only played 6 seasons from 01 onwards, he would drop out...aint enough.

Pendles and Dusty both in.

S.Mitchell, Selwood would be better than Voss, Black and still ahead of the Bont.

IMHO

have to disagree on Voss. 3 of those seasons were better than anything i've selwood and mitchell put out.
have to adjust for the players that were still top of their game towards latter part of their career in early century.

 

[JackOutback]

have to disagree on Voss. 3 of those seasons were better than anything i've selwood and mitchell put out.
have to adjust for the players that were still top of their game towards latter part of their career in early century.

Not a fan of the argument 'they played some of their best footy in the 90s'. If you try to put them in a team of the 20th century, the same argument would be they played some of their best footy in the 00s. You're effectively eliminating players from the conversation who straddled the eras. I look at the overall quality of the player, which puts guys like Voss and Cousins right in contention.