AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[PhatBoy]

They certainly do Trav. They certainly do. But mentioning it around here is like setting a pigeon among the cats.

Not really. Because Geelong has had players in the period mentioned that lift, drop, or plateau in big games. I don’t think anyone is arguing that a player like dangerfield either matches or returns less in big games than he does normally.

That has nothing to do with players like Johnson or Chapman or other players from teams who aren’t Geelong or Richmond though.

I noticed the Ottens comparison was conspicuously unadressed also

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Not really. Because Geelong has had players in the period mentioned that lift, drop, or plateau in big games. I don’t think anyone is arguing that a player like dangerfield either matches or returns less in big games than he does normally.

That has nothing to do with players like Johnson or Chapman or other players from teams who aren’t Geelong or Richmond though.

I noticed the Ottens comparison was conspicuously unadressed also

You have lost me with your last sentence in this post. Please enlighten us….

 

[PhatBoy]

You have lost me with your last sentence in this post. Please enlighten us….

Well there seems to be such a skewed dependence on finals performances for many of your opinions in this thread.

In statistically the most dominant team over five seasons that ever played the game, Ottens was generally regarded as Geelong’s best and often most important finals player. Using that logic he should be in or around this side.

Note - I don’t think he should be I think Dean Cox is by a mile the best ruckman I’ve ever seen - but applying that same incredibly finals-dependent criteria shouldn’t he be in the mix? Reading a few of your posts that seems like all that matters

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Well there seems to be such a skewed dependence on finals performances for many of your opinions in this thread.

In statistically the most dominant team over five seasons that ever played the game, Ottens was generally regarded as Geelong’s best and often most important finals player. Using that logic he should be in or around this side.

Note - I don’t think he should be I think Dean Cox is by a mile the best ruckman I’ve ever seen - but applying that same incredibly finals-dependent criteria shouldn’t he be in the mix? Reading a few of your posts that seems like all that matters

Wow, ok, a bit of a left field non sequitur from what I was discussing, but hey, I want everyone to be happy.

First, I am honoured you want a Richmond player as first ruck in your team of the century, and you have Jack as your best forward of the last 5 seasons. . I am slowly but surely turning you, you are almost a Richmond man.

Seriously though, I don’t feel at this point anywhere near sufficiently informed to argue over the merits of rucks.

I don’t resile from my open bias towards players who consistently do well in the biggest matches. It is a perfectly sensible approach to judging the relative merits of players from where I sit. So players who have had a fair crack at playing finals, judge them mainly on that. Players who didn’t get much of a crack at it like Flower, Hawkins, Skilton etc, it stands to reason these players cannot be automatically relegated below others who have done well in finals. You just need to take what evidence there is in their cases and judge them based on that.

Say you are an AFL coach, and I offered you the following guaranteed traits in players that are not known to you, you have to take one of these guys on a big contract and can’t take more than one. Any of the players could have other desirable traits not knowable by you, all you know is they are guaranteed to have the trait listed:

Player 1. excellent and consistent big game performer whose best performances are when it matters most, can be prone to quieter matches when not much is on the line

Player 2. demoralises weaker opponents with record breaking performances

Player 3. consistent week in week out excellent player, mainly always plays at a similar level, not noted for tearing big games apart, never embarrasses himself in any contest

Player 4. randomly and inconsistently stunningly brilliant and poor could cut any team to ribbons in any match or just vanish from any contest, big game or not.

You are wanting to win a flag or multiple flags. Which player are you choosing?

So you don’t reference needs, this is the first player you are picking on your list, then you build from there, but you have access to plenty of mature experienced high end talent, so winning flags early could be realistic if you pick the right players and don’t mess it up with your coaching, Chris Scott style. Let’s see if we actually disagree about the importance of finals/big game performances….

 

[PhatBoy]

Wow, ok, a bit of a left field non sequitur from what I was discussing, but hey, I want everyone to be happy.

First, I am honoured you want a Richmond player as first ruck in your team of the century, and you have Jack as your best forward of the last 5 seasons. . I am slowly but surely turning you, you are almost a Richmond man.

Seriously though, I don’t feel at this point anywhere near sufficiently informed to argue over the merits of rucks.

I don’t resile from my open bias towards players who consistently do well in the biggest matches. It is a perfectly sensible approach to judging the relative merits of players from where I sit. So players who have had a fair crack at playing finals, judge them mainly on that. Players who didn’t get much of a crack at it like Flower, Hawkins, Skilton etc, it stands to reason these players cannot be automatically relegated below others who have done well in finals. You just need to take what evidence there is in their cases and judge them based on that.

Say you are an AFL coach, and I offered you the following guaranteed traits in players that are not known to you, you have to take one of these guys on a big contract and can’t take more than one. Any of the players could have other desirable traits not knowable by you, all you know is they are guaranteed to have the trait listed:

Player 1. excellent and consistent big game performer whose best performances are when it matters most, can be prone to quieter matches when not much is on the line

Player 2. demoralises weaker opponents with record breaking performances

Player 3. consistent week in week out excellent player, mainly always plays at a similar level, not noted for tearing big games apart, never embarrasses himself in any contest

Player 4. randomly and inconsistently stunningly brilliant and poor could cut any team to ribbons in any match or just vanish from any contest, big game or not.

You are wanting to win a flag or multiple flags. Which player are you choosing?

So you don’t reference needs, this is the first player you are picking on your list, then you build from there. Let’s see if we actually disagree about the importance of finals/big game performances….

I probably take player 3 first. I value consistency. Chances are if someone is that good regularly, they’re just as likely to produce their once a month standout game in a final anyway.

Yes it’s a great asset to have an Ottens or Martin etc-like habit of producing memorable finals but you have to get there. 2017 aside where he was outstanding from start to finish and probably would have carried 17 paraplegics to the finals, would Martin have even been given the chance to shine in finals if you took out, say, Cotchin or Riewoldt or Rance or Grimes or whoever?

Luke Hodge is the first player I’ve generally thought of over the last decade when I think of great finals players. He and Andrew McLeod before him.

But I also think of them - Hodge more so - as players who were ultra consistent no matter who the opposition or the round or the stakes, but you remember their great finals performances simply because the games are a bigger occasion.

I stand by what I said.

I don’t think a player like Brad Ottens should be anywhere near a team like this even though he was an all Australian and generally a good performer whenever he was fit, but he is the epitome of what you’re talking about in that he almost universally produced his very best football in finals and it was genuinely elite. I’m not picking Brad Ottens first for team imagined or real over a Cox or Sandilands or Gawn

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I probably take player 3 first. I value consistency. Chances are if someone is that good regularly, they’re just as likely to produce their once a month standout game in a final anyway.

Yes it’s a great asset to have an Ottens or Martin etc-like habit of producing memorable finals but you have to get there. 2017 aside where he was outstanding from start to finish and probably would have carried 17 paraplegics to the finals, would Martin have even been given the chance to shine in finals if you took out, say, Cotchin or Riewoldt or Rance or Grimes or whoever?

Luke Hodge is the first player I’ve generally thought of over the last decade when I think of great finals players. He and Andrew McLeod before him.

But I also think of them - Hodge more so - as players who were ultra consistent no matter who the opposition or the round or the stakes, but you remember their great finals performances simply because the games are a bigger occasion.

I stand by what I said.

I don’t think a player like Brad Ottens should be anywhere near a team like this even though he was an all Australian and generally a good performer whenever he was fit, but he is the epitome of what you’re talking about in that he almost universally produced his very best football in finals and it was genuinely elite. I’m not picking Brad Ottens first for team imagined or real over a Cox or Sandilands or Gawn

Well you know what PB. It is fine for you to have that criteria for what you value mostly in a player. But surely it should be fine, within the bounds of reason, for people to genuinely value different traits to you.

But you write of Martin as if he was some sort of encumbering cannon that has to be carried to the finals battlefield by all the soldiers to be effective. I am pretty sure for eg he has by far the most Brownlow votes(a home and away award) of any Richmond player during his career. In fact it is not in any doubt. Here is where he sits on the all-time Brownlow votes per game played list, 10th. He sits above some very very highly rated players on that list:



On the all time total aggregate Brownlow votes list Martin sits 9th so longevity and consistency are not an issue, if you think Brownlow votes are any guide. I am not sure we have a better guide to historic home and away performance. There are two current players above Martin on the above list. Fyfe, and Dangerfield. Both are shocking kicks and even worse when the whips are cracking, and Martin’s finals record surely elevates him well above them.

It is also notable the player you said was just a better player than Martin full stop, Gary Ablett Jnr, currently sits below Martin on the above list, and does not have a finals resume that could even hold a candle to Martin’s. I am no Martin sycophant, I would much rather champion the cause of a Cyril Rioli for example who I think is very unfairly maligned in some foolish circles. But if everyone doesn’t know how good Dusty is by now they need to stop and think about his achievements in some sort of context.

I think you are a bit out of date with your great finals players. There have been many great ones. A hell of a lot of prominent commentators seem to be of the opinion Martin is entitled to be seen as the best ever. He has played in 10 winning finals for Richmond and I think he has been adjudged best on ground in 7 of those, including his only 3 Grand Finals. And just quietly he hasn’t embarrassed himself in almost all the other finals he has played in save the 2018 PF when he was clearly injured. Triple Brownlow Winner(and triple Sandover Medallist) Hayden Bunton at 1.04 votes is the only VFL/AFL player to average above 1 Brownlow vote per game in home and away footy. Martin probably averages 1.6 to 1.7 votes across his 15 finals including those where he was injured or not fully mature. If you start removing those, his peak finals performances would be well above 2 votes per match. That is, his average at peak final performance from a good sample size of 11 games sits between 1st and 2nd best on ground.

So you can talk about Hodge, Chapman, Ablett Jnr, Johnson, Ottens, McLeod or anyone you want. I doubt any of them even come close to matching what Martin has done in his 15 finals to date. Perhaps you can find someone who has…..but I doubt it. I am shocked I even have to tell anyone this.

 

[PhatBoy]

Well you know what PB. It is fine for you to have that criteria for what you value mostly in a player. But surely it should be fine, within the bounds of reason, for people to genuinely value different traits to you.

But you write of Martin as if he was some sort of encumbering cannon that has to be carried to the finals battlefield by all the soldiers to be effective. I am pretty sure for eg he has by far the most Brownlow votes(a home and away award) of any Richmond player during his career. In fact it is not in any doubt. Here is where he sits on the all-time Brownlow votes per game played list, 10th. He sits above some very very highly rated players on that list:

View attachment 1278499

On the all time total aggregate Brownlow votes list Martin sits 9th so longevity and consistency are not an issue, if you think Brownlow votes are any guide. I am not sure we have a better guide to historic home and away performance. There are two current players above Martin on the above list. Fyfe, and Dangerfield. Both are shocking kicks and even worse when the whips are cracking, and Martin’s finals record surely elevates him well above them.

It is also notable the player you said was just a better player than Martin full stop, Gary Ablett Jnr, currently sits below Martin on the above list, and does not have a finals resume that could even hold a candle to Martin’s. I am no Martin sycophant, I would much rather champion the cause of a Cyril Rioli for example who I think is very unfairly maligned in some foolish circles. But if everyone doesn’t know how good Dusty is by now they need to stop and think about his achievements in some sort of context.

I think you are a bit out of date with your great finals players. There have been many great ones. A hell of a lot of prominent commentators seem to be of the opinion Martin is entitled to be seen as the best ever. He has played in 10 winning finals for Richmond and I think he has been adjudged best on ground in 7 of those, including his only 3 Grand Finals. And just quietly he hasn’t embarrassed himself in almost all the other finals he has played in save the 2018 PF when he was clearly injured. Triple Brownlow Winner(and triple Sandover Medallist) Hayden Bunton at 1.04 votes is the only VFL/AFL player to average above 1 Brownlow vote per game in home and away footy. Martin probably averages 1.6 to 1.7 votes across his 15 finals including those where he was injured or not fully mature. If you start removing those, his peak finals performances would be well above 2 votes per match. That is, his average at peak final performance from a good sample size of 11 games sits between 1st and 2nd best on ground.

So you can talk about Hodge, Chapman, Ablett Jnr, Johnson, Ottens, McLeod or anyone you want. I doubt any of them even come close to matching what Martin has done in his 15 finals to date. Perhaps you can find someone who has…..but I doubt it. I am shocked I even have to tell anyone this.

Sorry but as a pure midfielder Ablett averaged 31 touches and just under 2 goals contributed a game in finals footy. He was probably best on ground in a grand final in 2008, and was very good in 2009, and very good in all our prelims. He played his first five, and last two, seasons basically as a small forward.

You’re arguing something I haven’t even raised though - I’m not disputing Martin’s standing in finals. You seem to be taking everything as some sort of effort to discredit him or say he’s not that good or that he shouldn’t be in this team or whatever.

I’m saying that much of the criteria you use to justify the hyperbole you deliver around him, doesn’t make a lot of sense if you apply the same logic to every other player.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry but as a pure midfielder Ablett averaged 31 touches and just under 2 goals contributed a game in finals footy. He was probably best on ground in a grand final in 2008, and was very good in 2009, and very good in all our prelims. He played his first five, and last two, seasons basically as a small forward.

You’re arguing something I haven’t even raised though - I’m not disputing Martin’s standing in finals. You seem to be taking everything as some sort of effort to discredit him or say he’s not that good or that he shouldn’t be in this team or whatever.

I’m saying that much of the criteria you use to justify the hyperbole you deliver around him, doesn’t make a lot of sense if you apply the same logic to every other player.

You said straight out you considered Hodge and McLeod the best finals players. Which means you think they were better finals players than Martin.

You are now listing some of Ablett’s finals performances, perhaps in an effort to respond to my statement his finals record wouldn’t hold a candle to Martin’s. It doesn’t. It is ok for you to just say Martin has been better than even all these brilliant players in finals. But it seems you can’t bring yourself to say it. Perhaps because you have also said on this thread there are a load of other players you would select as a pure forward before Martin since 2017. Or perhaps you have some other reason you just don’t want to acknowledge it. Or perhaps you really believe it. If it is the latter, you are in denial of a plainly obvious truth, which is sad, you are better than that.

Martin is I think rightly seen as the pre-eminent player of the last decade, and given he can equally effectively play in the midfield or forward, he walks into any team of the century as a pure forward, but you elevating 7 or more forwards above him as a forward from 2017 onwards is frankly embarrassing. It is easy to see how embarrassing that is, you have him in your team of the century, but cannot say what position because in the midfield elevates him above certain players you favour and you cannot pick him forward because you have stated he isn't even better in the forward line than at least 7 other players through his 5 peak seasons.

You need to just re-think the whole thing.

 

[PhatBoy]

You said straight out you considered Hodge and McLeod the best finals players. Which means you think they were better finals players than Martin.

You are now listing some of Ablett’s finals performances, perhaps in an effort to respond to my statement his finals record wouldn’t hold a candle to Martin’s. It doesn’t. It is ok for you to just say Martin has been better than even all these brilliant players in finals. But it seems you can’t bring yourself to say it. Perhaps because you have also said on this thread there are a load of other players you would select as a pure forward before Martin since 2017. Or perhaps you have some other reason you just don’t want to acknowledge it. Or perhaps you really believe it. If it is the latter, you are in denial of a plainly obvious truth, which is sad, you are better than that.

Martin is I think rightly seen as the pre-eminent player of the last decade, and given he can equally effectively play in the midfield or forward, he walks into any team of the century as a pure forward, but you elevating 7 or more forwards above him as a forward from 2017 onwards is frankly embarrassing. It is easy to see how embarrassing that is, you have him in your team of the century, but cannot say what position because in the midfield elevates him above certain players you favour and you cannot pick him forward because you have stated he isn't even better in the forward line than at least 7 other players through his 5 peak seasons.

You need to just re-think the whole thing.

‘Luke Hodge is generally the first player I think of over the last decade and Andrew McLeod before him.’

Yeah not sure you know what you’re arguing.

It’s alright mate, we all know he can play

 

[PhatBoy]

I suppose I should have been rating Martin’s finals play pre-2017

 

[Meteoric Rise]

‘Luke Hodge is generally the first player I think of over the last decade and Andrew McLeod before him.’

Yeah not sure you know what you’re arguing.

It’s alright mate, we all know he can play

"Oh yeah, I know he can really play, BUT he isn’t in the best 4 mids this century and he isn’t in the best 7 forwards even in his peak years….but I will say I have him in my Team of the Century because I know people will ridicule me if I don’t."

That may not be your actual position, but it is how you have made it look. Perhaps you will forgive me for seeking some clarity and encouraging you with a few basic contextual facts.

But still no definitive statement from you re Martin and where exactly he fits into your team or how you rate him versus other highly rated players of the century.

Only he doesn’t get a mention in your list of great finals players, Ablett Jnr is a better player full stop because 33 disposals and hints that you think Chapman in his pomp was as good in finals and at least 7 players are better forwards than him through his peak years when he was tearing finals series apart with his attacking play. And hints that Martin alone of all these players needed to be carried to finals by his team despite his very imposing home and away record.

You need to own your words and the meaning behind them and stop trying to make out I am misunderstanding what you are getting at. If you want the right to say that, earn it. Say something clear about whether Martin is in the best 4 mids or best 7 forwards this century. Or how the hell else you are squeezing him into your Team of the Century.

 

[PhatBoy]

"Oh yeah, I know he can really play, BUT he isn’t in the best 4 mids this century and he isn’t in the best 7 forwards even in his peak years….but I will say I have him in my Team of the Century because I know people will ridicule on me if I don’t."

That may not be your actual position, but it is how you have made it look. Perhaps you will forgive me for seeking some clarity and encouraging you with a few basic contextual facts.

But still no definitive statement from you re Martin and where exactly he fits into your team or how you rate him versus other highly rated players of the century.

Only he doesn’t get a mention in your list of great finals players, Ablett Jnr is a better player full stop because 33 disposals and hints that you think Chapman in his pomp was as good in finals and at least 7 players are better forwards than him through his peak years when he was tearing finals series apart with his attacking play. And hints that Martin alone of all these players needed to be carried to finals by his team despite his very imposing home and away record.

You need to own your words and the meaning behind them and stop trying to make out I am misunderstanding what you are getting at. If you want the right to say that, earn it. Say something clear about whether Martin is in the best 4 mids or best 7 forwards this century. Or how the hell else you are squeezing him into your Team of the Century.

Translation:


I don’t really have any basis on which to say Martin is essentially the best forward of the millennium

That’s what I’ve gotten at, and no amount of essays in response, will change that.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Translation:


I don’t really have any basis on which to say Martin is essentially the best forward of the millennium

That’s what I’ve gotten at, and no amount of essays in response, will change that.

You are being foolish. I have not at any stage said or even hinted I think Martin is "the best forward of the millenium.” You are using a straw man argument now. My statement that you scoffed at was along the lines that he might even be the most desirable forward(in the AFL) to have in your team in some of his peak years. My clear statement is he is in my best 7 forwards of the century, and thus would definitely be in my team on that basis, if not in some sort of hybrid mid/forward role. That is 100% clear, you can’t twist that and shouldn’t be trying.

Just make a proper clear statement that makes some sort of sense. Stop trying to squirm out of the queer position you have put yourself in by saying Martin is in your team of the century, but not as a forward and we can only presume not as a mid, because the field of midfielders is stronger than forwards and there are 7 forward positions and only 4 mid positions. You are hilarious. .

Put me out of my misery PB, I am dying of curiosity here. Is Martin in your best 4 mids or if not how are you fitting him into your team?

 

[PhatBoy]

You are being foolish. I have not at any stage said or even hinted I think Martin is "the best forward of the millenium.” You are using a straw man argument now. My statement that you scoffed at was along the lines that he might even be the most desirable forward(in the AFL) to have in your team in some of his peak years. My clear statement is he is in my best 7 forwards of the century, and thus would definitely be in my team on that basis, if not in some sort of hybrid mid/forward role. That is 100% clear, you can’t twist that and shouldn’t be trying.

Just make a proper clear statement that makes some sort of sense. Stop trying to squirm out of the queer position you have put yourself in by saying Martin is in your team of the century, but not as a forward and we can only presume not as a mid, because the field of midfielders is stronger than forwards and there are 7 forward positions and only 4 mid positions. You are hilarious. .

Put me out of my misery PB, I am dying of curiosity here. Is Martin in your best 4 mids or if not how are you fitting him into your team?

I pick him on a half forward flank

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

If you big game flakers and a "small forward" then its Dusty, Stevie J and Chapman .

Chappy lived for big games

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t really understand why MR has to be so black and white about this.

In a cricket team for England Ben Stokes at various stages isn’t in the best 4 bowlers and, though he probably IS now in their best 6 batsmen, at some stages he hasn’t been. But he’s still among the first players I’d pick. I dont see why there is this rabid determination to classify Martin as either one of the best 6 forwards of the millennium or in the best 5 midfielders

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I pick him on a half forward flank

So would I.

The last things I don’t get is why you scoffed when I said Martin was perhaps the most desirable forward to have in your team in some recent years and how you are picking him in your team of the century as a forward if he is not even in the best 7 or more forwards of the last few years.

But you don’t have to answer to that if you prefer not to. Your selection of Martin on a flank in a good enough admission your comments were not well thought through. IMO playing a mixture of high half forward and sometimes isolated closer to goal would be Martin’s natural position in a star studded team like this and there wouldn’t be anyone better at that role that we have seen so far this century, though there have obviously been some mid sized players who were very good at it. Martin has clearly benefitted from the support of the structures put around him by his team but in this sport these days there is not a great player for whom that statement is untrue.

 

[HTT]

I hadn't previously analysed goals + goal assists in finals, so thanks for the concept.

Dangerfield isn't overly high in this stat, so I was curious to look up one of his contemporaries in Nathan Fyfe. Fyfe has had 11 from his 11 finals. Not great either from such an esteemed player. It made me think that having a match winner elevate himself in finals is pretty important to winning a flag, unless perhaps you've got a superstar team like the Lions from the early 00s (haven't checked their individuals tallies). It's also made me value Petracca's 11 from 3 finals more than I previously would. He's matched Fyfe from 8 less finals in just this series alone and was no doubt pivotal in what we did in September. And maybe why Danger and Fyfe don't have a medallion, although that may be unfair.

Would have loved to have seen an older Fyfe in finals. He's the same age as Dusty, but his last final was in 2015. Dusty didn't start dominating finals until 2017.

 

[PhatBoy]

So would I.

The last things I don’t get is why you scoffed when I said Martin was perhaps the most desirable forward to have in your team in some recent years and how you are picking him in your team of the century as a forward if he is not even in the best 7 or more forwards of the last few years.

But you don’t have to answer to that if you prefer not to. Your selection of Martin on a flank in a good enough admission your comments were not well thought through. IMO playing a mixture of high half forward and sometimes isolated closer to goal would be Martin’s natural position in a star studded team like this and there wouldn’t be anyone better at that role that we have seen so far this century, though there have obviously been some mid sized players who were very good at it. Martin has clearly benefitted from the support of the structures put around him by his team but in this sport these days there is not a great player for whom that statement is untrue.

My comments were thought through fine.

As I said. I’m not picking Ben Stokes in the best 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen, or 1 wicketkeeper in England. He’s also the first player I would pick for England.
At no stage has Martin been the best forward in any season, or the most desirable. The sheer lack of anybody else in this thread backing up the claim is proof of how ‘poorly thought out’ such a claim is. However his ability in general, as an effective forward and elite midfielder, make him one of the first players picked for a team like this.

No amount of your mental gymnastics or different twists you are trying to put on everything and the non-uniform logic you like to apply will change that.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don’t really understand why MR has to be so black and white about this.

In a cricket team for England Ben Stokes at various stages isn’t in the best 4 bowlers and, though he probably IS now in their best 6 batsmen, at some stages he hasn’t been. But he’s still among the first players I’d pick. I dont see why there is this rabid determination to classify Martin as either one of the best 6 forwards of the millennium or in the best 5 midfielders

Cricket selection, which has its own unique set of problems to solve is a very odd thing to bring up here. In particular I am not sure the Stokes example translates to footy at all. In cricket you tend to select your best 4 available bowlers, best available keeper/bat and best 5 available bats, and your best available all-rounder(batsman/bowler.) If as with say Butler and Stokes in ODI’s and T20’s for England your best available keeper/bat and best available all-rounder also happen to be in your best 5 bats then you can add your sixth and sometimes 7th best bat to your team. If some of your best 4 bowlers(which Stokes virtually never is) also bat usefully, then this may allow you to add an extra bowler. Stokes will get selected in most teams because cricket teams tend to need at least one player who can bat AND bowl usefully.

In a real balanced footy team, you don’t pick 5 inside mids, your best 4 will do the job. Martin plays inside mid at Richmond because he is better than the other available inside mids in that team and the role is so crucial. I would say he is a relatively better forward than mid, he just happens to excel at playing midfield as well. In the team of the century you would have no need to play Martin as an inside mid when there are others as good or even better at that role. You would just play him in his best position, forward of the ball.

For Dangerfield it is the opposite. He is a relatively better inside mid than forward. As with Martin playing midifield at Richmond, Dangerfield is good enough as a forward at club level to be better than other available options his team has. But in the team of the century we can easily find better forwards than Dangerfield. So for mine he is either one of the best 4 inside mids, or best 3 wingers, or he doesn’t get selected. I don’t think he has played wing much so it is a bit difficult to judge him for that role, but he would appear to have decent attributes for it. Just not his kicking. I doubt he is in the best 4 inside mids of the century.

I would say there are very few if any footballers genuinely good enough at two roles to get selected in either role on merit in the team of the century, and I include Martin in that. For mine, unlike with cricket, you don’t need all-rounders to balance this team. Maybe just a player with the ability to hold another position and play second ruck is the only exception. Step forward Noah Balta.

 

[PhatBoy]

Cricket selection, which has its own unique set of problems to solve is a very odd thing to bring up here. In particular I am not sure the Stokes example translates to footy at all. In cricket you tend to select your best 4 available bowlers, best available keeper/bat and best 5 available bats, and your best available all-rounder(batsman/bowler.) If as with say Butler and Stokes in ODI’s and T20’s for England your best available keeper/bat and best available all-rounder also happen to be in your best 5 bats then you can add your sixth and sometimes 7th best bat to your team. If some of your best 4 bowlers(which Stokes virtually never is) also bat usefully, then this may allow you to add an extra bowler. Stokes will get selected in most teams because cricket teams tend to need at least one player who can bat AND bowl usefully.

In a real balanced footy team, you don’t pick 5 inside mids, your best 4 will do the job. Martin plays inside mid at Richmond because he is better than the other available inside mids in that team and the role is so crucial. I would say he is a relatively better forward than mid, he just happens to excel at playing midfield as well. In the team of the century you would have no need to play Martin as an inside mid when there are others as good or even better at that role. You would just play him in his best position, forward of the ball.

For Dangerfield it is the opposite. He is a relatively better inside mid than forward. As with Martin playing midifield at Richmond, Dangerfield is good enough as a forward at club level to be better than other available options his team has. But in the team of the century we can easily find better forwards than Dangerfield. So for mine he is either one of the best 4 inside mids, or best 3 wingers, or he doesn’t get selected. I don’t think he has played wing much so it is a bit difficult to judge him for that role, but he would appear to have decent attributes for it. Just not his kicking. I doubt he is in the best 4 inside mids of the century.

I would say there are very few if any footballers genuinely good enough at two roles to get selected in either role on merit in the team of the century, and I include Martin in that. For mine, unlike with cricket, you don’t need all-rounders to balance this team. Maybe just a player with the ability to hold another position and play second ruck is the only exception. Step forward Noah Balta.

Mate, find someone who wants Dangerfield picked to have this argument with. Please. For everyone’s sake.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

My comments were thought through fine.

As I said. I’m not picking Ben Stokes in the best 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen, or 1 wicketkeeper in England. He’s also the first player I would pick for England.
At no stage has Martin been the best forward in any season, or the most desirable. The sheer lack of anybody else in this thread backing up the claim is proof of how ‘poorly thought out’ such a claim is. However his ability in general, as an effective forward and elite midfielder, make him one of the first players picked for a team like this.

No amount of your mental gymnastics or different twists you are trying to put on everything and the non-uniform logic you like to apply will change that.

You don’t seem to have noticed there is also a sheer lack of people criticising the claim on this thread. Just YOU. So others not supporting my claim is proof of how poorly thought out my claim is. But others not supporting your position seems to also be proof of how poorly thought out my claim is.

You might need to re-think that one.

However, I would welcome other views on the matter, either way.

In a cricket team by the way, a player who is not in your best 6 bats or best 4 bowlers or 1 wicketkeeper is rarely going to be your first player picked. England have a rare ability to not produce greats who would be automatic first picked in their teams. Their teams tend to be very even, so your position on Stokes may just about be valid for their team, if it were not for the fact he is in their best 6 bats in the short formats at least. Stokes would not be first player picked say for a current Australian test team, or anywhere near it. Smith and the gun fast bowlers would be picked before him without hesitation, assuming all were at their peak level.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Mate, find someone who wants Dangerfield picked to have this argument with. Please. For everyone’s sake.

?

Stop being strange. I am not suggesting you want Dangerfield selected. I am just using him as a convenient example to help make a perfectly valid point about players who are capable of playing multiple roles. You are acting like you are paranoid.

Calm. The f*ck. Down.

 

[PhatBoy]

You don’t seem to have noticed there is also a sheer lack of people criticising the claim on this thread. Just YOU. So others not supporting my claim is proof of how poorly thought out my claim is. But others not supporting your position seems to also be proof of how poorly thought out my claim is.

You might need to re-think that one.

However, I would welcome other views on the matter, either way.

In a cricket team by the way, a player who is not in your best 6 bats or best 4 bowlers or 1 wicketkeeper is rarely going to be your first player picked. England have a rare ability to not produce greats who would be automatic first picked in their teams. Their teams tend to be very even, so your position on Stokes may just about be valid for their team, if it were not for the fact he is in their best 6 bats in the short formats at least. Stokes would not be first player picked say for a current Australian test team, or anywhere near it. Smith and the gun fast bowlers would be picked before him without hesitation, assuming all were at their peak level.

So what if it’s rare.

It’s rare that your first player picked for an AFL side real or hypothetical is going to be a hybrid player but hey, here we are.

And while it’s an even broader tangent than the one I already started, excepting Smith who is arguably the best player with the bat since Bradman, and MAYBE Cummins, Stokes would easily be picked before any other current Australian player.

Kallis before him at stages was behind AB De Villiers as SA’s best batsman but still would have been the first name on their team sheet.
Flintoff for England. While he WAS during the ashes, their actual best bowler, for most of his career in the year or two either side of that series he wasn’t. But he’d have been the first player named (till Pietersen fully arrived anyway).

Having someone in a role where they are neither one thing nor the other doesn’t automatically diminish their worth as a player.

Hell look at Geelong right now. While most of our fans don’t necessarily agree, the club’s opinion of Blicavs epitomises what I’m talking about.

He’s not the best ruckman in the side, since Henry emerged he’s not the best key defender. He’s not the best spare defender, he’s not the best run-with player etc. but in the eyes of the match committee he’s one of the first picked each week

 

[schmuttt]

I guess it is only part of the overall picture of a player's performance, but in the end there is nothing more telling than goals or goal assists or goals saved - but the latter would be like the LBW of football, you would have to impute that a goal would have occurred had it not been saved.

I think some posters and footy supporters in general are still stuck in the old 1970’s Sunday Observer stats showing a player had 18 kicks 7 handballs, 4 marks, and scored 3 goals 2 behinds. Many players of the era were also stuck in those stats and that was all they ever tried to accumulate, kicks, marks, handballs, and shots at goal. In the beautifully nicknamed “Hungry” Bartlett’s case, he even dispensed with the handballs and just tried to accumulate kicks. Shepherds, tackles, 1%ers, smothers, goal assists, spoils, defensive pressure and so on, well in Bartlett’s case you could just forget those altogether. Many other players built their games along similar lines, to a greater or lesser degree.

The footy world has changed, first slowly, then quickly, and now completely. Now with so much video analysis showing the effect of certain actions in passages of play, players are expected to make whatever play gives their team the best chance to score or save goals. And the data collected has now changed to be much more advanced as well. And part of that change was the recording of that vital little statistic called goal assists. To some extent, we can now see who does the real damage. And players like Marin and Petracca do real damage.

While there is some rain in the cricket, let’s look at a few comparisons of players' best two seasons in context to see who does the damage in terms of scoreboard impact compared to time spent forward….

For some context at the top let’s list Coleman Medallist Harold MacKay 2021 season at the top, but then shift focus to some of the small forwards and mid/forwards being discussed in this thread.

Player and Year and Player Age	Player Games played in that season	Player Season Disposals Average	Player Goals	Player Goal Assists	Player Goals+Goal Assists	Total goals scored by player’s team in games he played	Player Goal+Goal Assists % of goals scored in the games he played
Harold McKay 2021 Coleman Medallist, 23yo	19	9.7	58	6	64	223	29%
Gary Ablett Jnr, 2010, 25yo	24	31.5	44	15	59	389	15%
Gary Ablett Jnr, 2012, 27yo	21	33.75	26	19	45	188	24%
Dustin Martin, 2011, 19yo	22	22.1	33	20	53	287	18.5%
Dustin Martin, 2017, 26yo	25	29.75	37	29	66	331	20%
Christian Petracca, 2021, 25yo	25	29.2	29	19	48	323	15%
Christian Petracca, 2017, 21yo	22	19	26	19	45	302	15%
Jake Stringer, 2021, Essendon, 26yo	19	15	41	13	54	237	23%
Jake Stringer, 2015, Bulldogs, 21yo	22	15	56	19	75	308	24%
Steve Johnson, 2010, Geelong, 26yo	22	18.6	63	24	87	378	23%
Steve Johnson, 2011, Geelong, 27yo	23	22.33	50	31	81	390	21%
Paul Chapman, 2004, Geelong, 22yo	25	14	38	16	54	328	16.5%
Paul Chapman, 2009, Geelong, 27yo	20	27	37	19	56	307	18%
Eddie Betts, Adelaide, 2016, 29yo	24	13.5	75	24	99	396	25%
Eddie Betts, 2012, Carlton, 25yo	22	13	48	25	73	299	24%
Cyril Rioli, 2011, 21yo	19	16	29	29	58	295	20%
Cyril Rioli, 2015, 25yo	24	16	42	28	70	393	18%
Stephen Milne, 2005, 25yo	24	11	61	17	78	374	21%
Stephen Milne, 2012, 32yo	22	13	56	19	75	345	22%
Patrick Dangerfield, 2017, Geelong, 27yo	24	30	45	20	65	335	19%
Patrick Dangerfield, 2020, Geelong, 30yo	21*(80% time games)	26*(multiplied by 1.25 to adjust)	17	23	*50(adjusted)	*275(adjusted)	18%

So when we look at it in context it looks a bit different to just saying a certain player has never kicked more than x goals in a season or another player kicked over 40 goals y times.

Note I have chosen each player’s most prolific season and also what I considered to be their best season relative to their team’s goals kicked.

Looking at this, we can see that even despite 2021 Coleman Medallist McKay’s lack of goal assists, none of these very high calibre small forwards/mid forwards are challenging his last or second last touch on 29% of Carlton’s 2021 goals.

Betts comes closest with 24 and 25% in his best two seasons. But of course he was a stay at home specialist goal sneak and basically played all his footy with the role of scoring or assisting goals. His numbers are prolific and he stands out above other players as a pure goal sneak.

Stringer and Milne were also mainly stay near goals forwards and we see this in their lower disposal averages, and their best score impact seasons recording the last or second last touch on 21-24% of their teams goals. Stringer spent a fair bit of time attending centre bounces in 2021 of course so his direct hand in 23% of his team’s goals in games he played was noteworthy.

Johnson is an interesting one. In 2010 & 2011 he appears to have shot the lights out with a direct hand in 21 & 23% of his team’s goals whilst amassing disposal averages around 19 and 22. But there is a bit of a trick to him in these seasons. He is the master of the unnecessary goal(sure he kicked plenty of necessary ones as well before Cats supporters jump all over me.) In 2010 he got 53 goals+goal assists in 10 games against teams who did not make finals. In the other 12 matches v finals teams he got a respectable but unremarkable 34 goals+goal assists. In 2011 it was 43 goals + goal assists in 8 games v non-finalists including an eye-watering 17 v Mark Neeld’s hapless Demons and 16 in 2 games v the first year Suns. In the other 15 games v finalists he got 38 goals+goals assists. So his numbers in his most prolific two seasons are no doubt hugely inflated by him and the Carts beating up weak opponents. To underline this his finals record of 61 goals+ goal assists in 26 games is below the often maligned(for lack of scoring impact) Rioli’s finals average.

Ablett Jnr with a relatively modest looking 26 goals in 2012 at 2nd year Suns, actually had a massive scoring impact season relative to his team’s performance. He had a direct hand in 24% of their goals - Betts like numbers - but while accumulating 33 disposals per match. The trouble with Ablett Jnr seems to be his finals performances. 23 disposal average and 1.33 goals+goal assists is well below his overall career numbers indicating he was not what you would call a “big game player.”

Cyril Rioli had a much better scoring impact than people seem to give him credit for, and was very much a big game player, his averages rising in finals.

Petracca still has a way to go to rival the others for scoring impact across whole seasons, but the next few years he will be in his prime so I expect good things from him. His big finals performances are already putting some of the more prolific guys listed to shame.

Martin’s scoring impact as a 19yo in 2011 looks unrivalled, amongst these guys at least. In his second AFL season he had a direct hand in 18% of Richmond’s goals, likely playing a bit more forward than midfield as this was prior to him having the fabled midfielder’s “tank.” Martin’s 2017 as we know was phenomenal, but averaging 30 disposals he also deigned to have a direct hand in 20% of Richmond’s season goals, 66 in all. You can see that on the goal assist front Martin and particularly Rioli stand out, only bettered by Johnson’s circle work inflated figure in 2011.

It would also be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge Dangerfield’s 2 very respectable scoring impact seasons in 2017 and 2020 when he had a direct hand in 18 & 19% of the Cats’ goals. What a shame he forgets the way from the change rooms to the ground at half time in finals.

So for my small and medium forwards, Betts, Rioli, Martin, Petracca - the last 2 spending time in the midfield, and I will need to find one more somewhere along the line. Current youngsters like Pickett and Bolton I think will come right into calculations in the next 10 seasons or so, so I might just reserve a spot for one of them. . Pickett already has a 49 goal+ goal assist season on his resume in his second year. Bolton had a lazy 43 in 20 games this season plus he belted the sh!t out of some bloke who was hassling Dan Rioli’s missus.

These stats are super interesting, thanks for posting.