Opinion Can Dustin Martin be the GOAT? (Answer: no)

[Mr Meow]

I think if anything Dusty was pretty consistent early career and most of his career. Which is partially why his average is so high. He started really well and didn’t take much time adapting to the league.

The biggest difference between him and other top players is how little time he spent at his peak. He had flashes in 2016, all of 2017, some of 2018 the last half of 2019 and the finals in 2020.

When he was hot he was on and he timed his runs to perfection. He just didn’t (or couldn’t) consistently reach that level compared to someone like Ablett who did it 8 years not stop as pretty much the best player in the comp.

Agreed, the wording can be tricky to differentiate but "consistency of elite/strong seasons" is close to what that analysis breaks down. Compared to most players, Dusty was consistent. But we are comparing him here to some of the most consistently strong midfielders of all time, who kept up a good pace until their mid 30s.

 

[Mr Meow]

It’s a terrible system but kudos to you for putting it forward. Most metrics just reward games played … Pendles can play in 2025 and 2026… he might play terrible footy for the most part, but still get a handful of Brownlow votes, get some disposals and clearances, kick some goals and walah … 2 x sh*te seasons elevates him up the rankings .

Travis Boak a classic example. He’s like a cockroach who should’ve retired already. But on he goes … and up and up your ‘21st century elite consistency’ rankings he climbs.

A system that ranks players for just playing with zero regard for how poorly they might play … Pretty silly really.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Of course you'd say it's a terrible system because you start with the conclusion and work backwards.

If it had Dusty at 1 you would praise its objective and accurate brilliance.

I actually had no idea where most players would end up outside of suspecting Ablett would be 1st.

It sure beats your lazy "these goal/disposal averages show he kicked more goals and won more disposals than these players" analysis. That was a new low for you. And you've put together some pretty embarrassing stuff. Happy to help you assemble something more accurate and comprehensive. Data management might not be an area you have much experience in.

 

[RUNVS]

Rance & Riewoldt both great players in there own right. But you will only get yourself laughed at saying that.

Not at all. Rance or Reiwoldt would be much more likely to be able to help win a premiership for the Swans than Martin is. We need a key defender or key forward much more than we need a forward-ish mid.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Neale's career isn't over, which is why like the others in that category is asterisked. He and Bont will rise up the consistency rankings so long as their veteran years are decent. I specifically included them to show some of the guys on the horizon for those elite consistency big hitters.

I agree that there's no perfect system, but "look at these averages, they show he scored more goals and got more disposals than these midfielders so was more consistent" is a pretty lazy and misleading one.

We are in the modern era. These players have had similar conditions and voting/statistical ranges have been quite close overall. This is not the same as comparing Hawkins with Coventry or Butters with Reynolds.

The issue you have is starting with the statements you want to be true and working backwards from there to come up with arguments. If Dusty retires early "his peers were too scared to retire", if Dusty plays 400 games "he adds to his legacy, the others couldn't keep up".

I'm not pointing that out to mock you, maybe you don't even have the self awareness to realise you do it.

You say ‘they will continue to rise up the rankings so long as their veteran years are decent’ … if Boak keeps playing then won’t he pass the likes of Martin, Swan, Judd and others (if he hasn’t already) just by playing, regardless of how sh*te he might be? Hmmm

It’s like watching Kohli … has played the last 5-years averaging 30 and taken his career average from 56 to 47 in the process, but they can’t retire him off. The Meowy rankings continues to elevate him based on total runs, catches taken etc…but llogically he should not be rated higher for elite consistency just because he continues to play.

A silly system, it really is. Although it did produce 3 x Cats players in the top-4 in an 18-team competition …funny that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

You say ‘they will continue to rise up the rankings so long as their veteran years are decent’ … if Boak keeps playing then won’t he pass the likes of Martin, Swan, Judd and others (if he hasn’t already) just by playing, regardless of how sh*te he might be? Hmmm

It’s like watching Kohli … has played the last 5-years averaging 30 and taken his career average from 56 to 47 in the process, but they can’t retire him off. The Meowy rankings continues to elevate him based on total runs, catches taken etc…but llogically he should not be rated higher for elite consistency just because he continues to play.

A silly system, it really is. Although it did produce 3 x Cats players in the top-4 in an 18-team competition …funny that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Assessing Dangerfield and Pendlebury's 2022-2024 seasons, yes they are legacy building rather than damaging if compared to Boak playing till 50 while averaging 5 disposals a game. And no they haven't replicated Kohli's late career "let's point and laugh at him" trajectory.

Let's deal with what has actually happened (decent seasons continuing to be added) without going for the most ridiculous logical stretch, Strawman or cross generational hypothetical you can muster.

So rather than looking at an 1800s hockey player and comparing their averages to a 21st century water polo player, let's actually dissect the analysis in question: 21st century midfielder elite consistency.

Your final sentence actually shows why you've protested so much. 3 Cats were highly ranked for consistency. That must sting! Can we get to why that actually hurts you? Again you find the conclusion and depending on how angry it makes you, commence whichever ridiculous argument or hypothetical you can think of.

Boaky: a great player. Very consistent over a long career. 3 AAs and 2 B&Fs. Around or just below Dusty for consistency? Much lower peak (but that's not what the topic was). Probably underrated overall relative to his overall output.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You seem to think any season that isn't AA or in Brownlow contention is a waste of time. Which would erase all but 5 of Dusty's seasons.

Dangerfield has remained one of Geelong's most important 3 players the past 3 seasons. His body is just barely hanging on, hence the reduced games and less minutes per game. But he is having good performances in the same way Ablett had good performances 33-36 years old. Dusty wasn't in 2024 which is why he retired earlier than those other guys. He was completely cooked.

Over the past 5 collective finals Geelong have played, Dangerfield has been our best performer despite being an old man. Of course that adds to his legacy. We look hopeless when he doesn't play or when he isn't fit. Prolonged excellence builds each players case. Ranking extremely high for the 8 categories I listed is a hell of a marker. You can't get there without being a modern great. Even if your averages technically decline each year.

Over the last 4 seasons where Dangerfield has clearly fallen below elite AFL midfielder level, Geelong has won 66% of its 68 games when Dangerfield has played. And 64% of its 18 games when he hasn't played. Basically doesn't move the needle.

Where has he been finishing in the B & F?

He would not in reality be in the Cats best 3 throughout those years but gets placed to advantage which boosts him up in average player ratings & coaches votes. When I say boosts him up, we are mainly talking about to 3rd or =3rd on these measure for his club. He has fallen well below the elite midfielders of the competition over the past 4 years, on every measure. Pendlebury & Dangerfield sit outside the best 20 midfielders in the competition from age 31 onwards. These seasons have zero place in any conversation about best players of the century.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Not at all. Rance or Reiwoldt would be much more likely to be able to help win a premiership for the Swans than Martin is. We need a key defender or key forward much more than we need a forward-ish mid.

Best recruit one then.

But your club's needs don't make Rance & Riewoldt better players than Dusty. That's just silly Run my man.

 

[Mr Meow]

Over the last 4 seasons where Dangerfield has clearly fallen below elite AFL midfielder level, Geelong has won 66% of its 68 games when Dangerfield has played. And 64% of its 18 games when he hasn't played. Basically doesn't move the needle.

Where has he been finishing in the B & F?

He would not in reality be in the Cats best 3 throughout those years but gets placed to advantage which boosts him up in average player ratings & coaches votes. When I say boosts him up, we are mainly talking about to 3rd or =3rd on these measure for his club. He has fallen well below the elite midfielders of the competition over the past 4 years, on every measure. Pendlebury & Dangerfield sit outside the best 20 midfielders in the competition from age 31 onwards. These seasons have zero place in any conversation about best players of the century.

Dangerfield plays 17 of 26 games a season the past few years. Per game his B&F, coaches and Brownlow votes have remained among our best despite playing closer to 70% time in ground.

2.58 coaches votes per game the past 3 seasons - easily the highest of our midfielders through that time period - which includes a premiership and a prelim. Dusty averaged 0.69 in 2024, so retirement was absolutely the correct call. That's about 30% of the output. And Dangerfield is older.

I won't include the 2024 Player Ratings comparison because I know you cherish that metric and I don't want to upset you.

 

[Noidnadroj]

But if you look at averages only, that means Dangerfield and Pendles have been actively damaging their legacies the past few years. Their averages have declined but they have still had good seasons.

Under the same conditions, retiring a few years earlier would then be a legacy building device. Dusty retiring earlier would somehow make Danger, Pendles and Ablett look worse. Especially for finals averages..

Dusty had one season of unmitigated brilliance. 2 that were very good but really the finals were what propelled them to greatness. Another great season where through no fault of his own he didn't get to play finals (like Ablett 2011-2017). Then some good ones.

But his votes generally did come in bursts. That was just the sort of player he was and why his overall Brownlow and coaches votes are already about to slip out of the top 10. Which fits with 4 AAs and 2 B&Fs, along with where his statistical tallies will end up. Excellent, but not quite matching the best.

End of 2022 Danger had played 303 games and was the same age as Martin.

Disposals : Martin : 24.2. Danger 23.8
Goals: Martin 1.12. Danger 1.04

So he had Danger for disposals and goals if they retired at the same games tally and age.

Dangers averages are now 23.5 and 0.99. So a whopping 0.3 less disposals and 0.05 goals.

So let’s not get too caught up in a narrative that averages take massive hits in the twilight of a career … the ‘hit’ is pretty minimal. Unless they are playing really crap footy, in which case they don’t deserve any ‘ribbon’ for longevity.

Oh … Pendles averages 4-years ago after 316 games :

Disposals : 26.4. Goals. 0.57

And now after 403 : 25.56. 0.50

So at same age as Dusty he averaged 2.2 more disposals but 0.55 less goals per game.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Dangerfield plays 17 of 26 games a season the past few years. Per game his B&F, coaches and Brownlow votes have remained among our best despite playing closer to 70% time in ground.

2.58 coaches votes per game the past 3 seasons - easily the highest of our midfielders through that time period - which includes a premiership and a prelim. Dusty averaged 0.69 in 2024, so retirement was absolutely the correct call. That's about 30% of the output. And Dangerfield is older.

I won't include the 2024 Player Ratings comparison because I know you cherish that metric and I don't want to upset you.

Lol, if my handlers got to pick and choose when I bowled to maximise my performance while others did all the donkey work I would have always taken out my teams bowling average as well.

He is not carrying anything like a full load, being placed totally to advantage and is still not anywhere in the top 20 mids for average output by ratings, coach votes or anything over the last 4 seasons. As for your tried and true aggregate method of rating players, he probaby falls outside the top 80.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Once again you ignore everything I say and then throw a few Strawmen in.

I didn't say Dusty was inconsistent. I said he was less consistent than the Uber consistent elite 21st century midfielders I highlighted. Well actually he came out ahead of Fyfe and I agree with that. Fyfe had a staggering peak but then was just a good player otherwise (relative to say Danger or Ablett).

You can be top 10 for several longevity metrics without being top 2. It's fine. It isn't me saying your favourite player sucked. But Dusty's first 6 years overall were very good rather than amazing and then his 30s again were decent rather than very strong. The 5 year period in between, especially when he hit those 2-3 month hot streaks? Electrifying. Dominant. Memorable late in seasons. But it doesn't mean his elite consistency matched the others in question.

Huh? You specifically said that prior to 2017 Martin was a very good, albeit inconsistent player. So thanks for the Strawman accusation, but my reply specifically address the pre-2017 period where you said he was inconsistent. He wasn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

End of 2022 Danger had played 303 games and was the same age as Martin.

Disposals : Martin : 24.2. Danger 23.8
Goals: Martin 1.12. Danger 1.04

So he had Danger for disposals and goals if they retired at the same games tally and age.

Dangers averages are now 23.5 and 0.99. So a whopping 0.3 less disposals and 0.05 goals.

So let’s not get too caught up in a narrative that averages take massive hits in the twilight of a career … the ‘hit’ is pretty minimal. Unless they are playing really crap footy, in which case they don’t deserve any ‘ribbon’ for longevity.

Oh … Pendles averages 4-years ago after 316 games :

Disposals : 26.4. Goals. 0.57

And now after 403 : 25.56. 0.50

So at same age as Dusty he averaged 2.2 more disposals but 0.55 less goals per game.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Martin was born a year later than Dangerfield.

Coaches votes in their 30s (the year they turned 30):

-Martin 101
-Dangerfield 223*

*yet to retire

Dangerfield an All Australian and Ayres medalist in that time frame. Our second best finals player in 2024 aged 34. Still going. Dusty had a crap season and then almost the second he turned 33 he tapped out.

 

[Mr Meow]

Huh? You specifically said that prior to 2017 Martin was a very good, albeit inconsistent player. So thanks for the Strawman accusation, but my reply specifically address the pre-2017 period where you said he was inconsistent. He wasn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Less consistent compared to 8 other 21st century midfielders, yes he was. Which was the whole argument. That still makes him more consistent than most players in history.

 

[Noidnadroj]

The system I presented looks at 8 categories, 4 are statistical and 4 are from voting systems. You then add together them together. This really isn't that hard. For elite 21st century midfielder consistency/longevity ranking it is several leagues above "disposal/goal averages".

You keep trying to break it down into individual components and making the most ridiculous Strawmen arguments you can to ridicule the overall premise. Frankly you have a fairly embarrassing and transparent way of twisting things to suit your arguments.

Martin as the 9th most consistent midfielder this century so far puts him right up there. That is tracking to finish top 30 or 40 this century. Incredible effort. For some reason you see it as an insult. He needed to have "most dominant finals streak AND most consistently elite midfielder this century".

Why you always need to overreach like that I have no idea. Few, if any, neutrals agree with you. It's an opinion for Richmond supporters only.

My opinion was about your ratings system which I said was silly. Who is your list of neutrals who rate your ratings system?

Hahha. Mr Meow rates it. Anyone else?

But it is late so I’ll give you an allowance for extra delusion that there are loads of people you imagine in your own world rate your silly system. News flash .. it’s a crowd of one.

Dopey.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

My opinion was about your ratings system which I said was silly. Who is your list of neutrals who rate your ratings system?

Hahha. Mr Meow rates it. Anyone else?

But it is late so I’ll give you an allowance for extra delusion that there are loads of people you imagine in your own world rate your silly system. News flash .. it’s a crowd of one.

Dopey.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Less silly than your "goals/disposal averages" gotcha attempt, which again was the whole point.

The irony of you saying no neutrals agree with something is beyond belief but a hilarious way to finish the night. It is you desperately trying to convince neutrals to elevate Martin's status (and now consistency) over other greats. You've failed and are now stuck shrieking about how poor a basic fact presentation is because Martin didn't end up ranked first.

Pathetic, but on brand and entertaining.

I look forward to the poll you run that neutrals wholeheartedly agree on, "Dustys consistency surpassed Ablett, Dangerfield, Judd, Pendlebury, Mitchell and Selwood...and we know Bont/Neale have no chance of getting there either".

Let me know when you have the results mailed in. Until then let's just enjoy your delusional fantasies.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Martin was born a year later than Dangerfield.

Coaches votes in their 30s (the year they turned 30):

-Martin 101
-Dangerfield 223*

*yet to retire

Dangerfield an All Australian and Ayres medalist in that time frame. Our second best finals player in 2024 aged 34. Still going. Dusty had a crap season and then almost the second he turned 33 he tapped out.

You couldn't make this shit up. Well, nobody else could.

Dusty turned 30 in 2021. He was the 7th highest rated player by average performance that season, and had he not been injured in the game that ended his season, he'd have likely been the 5th highest rated. He was on track for a 60+ coaches vote h&a season. Dangerfield hasn't played anywhere near that level over the last 4 years.

Dusty turned 32 in 2023 and had an excellent season being the 2nd highest rated forward behind Toby Greene, basically playing 90% forward and still getting 47 coaches votes in 20 matches. He was named in the AA squad.

The 2 poor years after 30 Dusty had were riddled with problems. The 2022 season you are giving anyone a mulligan for that, no pre-season off a shocking 2021 injury, further injury issues & his dad died, causing him great grief. No chance he would have even played any of the last 3rd of the season bar Richmond making finals.

2024 we could all see he was shot, reportedly due to a back issue & Richmond were only playing him to get him to 300 games & say good-bye & because the season didn't matter.

Apart from the 2 seasons clearly riddled with issues, his performance in the other 2 seasons was in reality at least as good or better than what Dagerfield has produced after turning 30.

 

[Mr Meow]

You couldn't make this shit up. Well, nobody else could.

Dusty turned 30 in 2021. He was the 7th highest rated player by average performance that season, and had he not been injured in the game that ended his season, he'd have likely been the 5th highest rated. He was on track for a 60+ coaches vote h&a season. Dangerfield hasn't played anywhere near that level over the last 4 years.

Dusty turned 32 in 2023 and had an excellent season being the 2nd highest rated forward behind Toby Greene, basically playing 90% forward and still getting 47 coaches votes in 20 matches. He was named in the AA squad.

The 2 poor years after 30 Dusty had were riddled with problems. The 2022 season you are giving anyone a mulligan for that, no pre-season off a shocking 2021 injury, further injury issues & his dad died, causing him great grief. No chance he would have even played any of the last 3rd of the season bar Richmond making finals.

2024 we could all see he was shot, reportedly due to a back issue & Richmond were only playing him to get him to 300 games & say good-bye & because the season didn't matter.

Apart from the 2 seasons clearly riddled with issues, his performance in the other 2 seasons was in reality at least as good or better than what Dagerfield has produced after turning 30.

When you say "make up" are you confused with what that actually means?

The tallies I produced with coaches votes from the year they turned 30 are entirely accurate.

You can reel off problems and excuses all you like. Dangers body isn't nearly what it was, hence why he plays 17 games a season and 70%ish time on ground through his senior years. It is a key reason his stats and vote tallies aren't what they were, but are still strong per minute on the field.

2.2x as many coaches votes in his 30s and still going, still important, still captain. Dusty did not want to be on the field last year and I really respect him pulling the plug, as he was useless in 2024. Much like Hawkins was. Dangerfield was still playing good footy a year older than when Dusty retired.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

When you say "make up" are you confused with what that actually means?

The tallies I produced with coaches votes from the year they turned 30 are entirely accurate.

You can reel off problems and excuses all you like. Dangers body isn't nearly what it was, hence why he plays 17 games a season and 70%ish time on ground through his senior years. It is a key reason his stats and vote tallies aren't what they were, but are still strong per minute on the field.

2.2x as many coaches votes in his 30s and still going, still important, still captain. Dusty did not want to be on the field last year and I really respect him pulling the plug, as he was useless in 2024. Much like Hawkins was. Dangerfield was still playing good footy a year older than when Dusty retired.

What you are inventing is the summary, not necessarily the stats. In the 2 years of the last 4 where Martin got any sort of a run at it, he average 2.5 coaches votes, & over 15.0 ratings points per game, from 35 games.

Dangerfield's last 4 years he averages 2.5 coaches votes and a player rating of about 13.5. Dangerfield has spent almost all his time playing in the easiest position to attract votes & ratings points. Dusty hasn't.

In 2022 & 2024 Dusty had his worst seasons of his career by every measure including games played and it is abundantly clear this is not caused by some sort of post 30 drop off simply by referencing his excellent performance in the other 2 seasons.

These 2 players have roughly performed around a similar level post 30yo other than Dangerfield did not have 2 seasons ruined by shocking injuries, grief etc. In the last 4 years, Martin was an elite mid-forward whenever he had a fair run at it. Dangerfield was not an elite midfielder, and has had to be managed to perfection to ensure he had every advantage.

Comparing these periods does absolutely nothing to tell us who of these has been the more valuable player in their careers in any event. For that, see their respective primes, when both were elite players in the competition.

 

[Mr Meow]

What you are inventing is the summary, not necessarily the stats. In the 2 years of the last 4 where Martin got any sort of a run at it, he average 2.5 coaches votes, & over 15.0 ratings points per game, from 35 games.

Dangerfield's last 4 years he averages 2.5 coaches votes and a player rating of about 13.5. Dangerfield has spent almost all his time playing in the easiest position to attract votes & ratings points. Dusty hasn't.

In 2022 & 2024 Dusty had his worst seasons of his career by every measure including games played and it is abundantly clear this is not caused by some sort of post 30 drop off simply by referencing his excellent performance in the other 2 seasons.

These 2 players have roughly performed around a similar level post 30yo other than Dangerfield did not have 2 seasons ruined by shocking injuries, grief etc. In the last 4 years, Martin was an elite mid-forward whenever he had a fair run at it. Dangerfield was not an elite midfielder, and has had to be managed to perfection to ensure he had every advantage.

Comparing these periods does absolutely nothing to tell us who of these has been the more valuable player in their careers in any event. For that, see their respective primes, when both were elite players in the competition.

Dustys portfolio in his 30s: total disposals, goals, clearances, coaches votes, Brownlow votes, awards, AA selections - it doesn't stack up with a number of modern champion midfielders. Imagine if he tried to play another 3 or 4 years like Ablett? Thank God he protected his averages by calling it when he did.

Let's be honest, on merit he wasnt playing football of a high enough standard to get to his 300th. But he deserved it for what he accomplished 2017-2020.

If you erased all the football he played in his 30s you really don't lose anything. If you take away Dangerfield, Ablett, Pendlebury etc in their 30s it caps them a bit despite previous excellence.

His elite longevity didn't match the best 10 or so midfielders this century. He was still a champion anyway.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Dustys portfolio in his 30s: total disposals, goals, clearances, coaches votes, Brownlow votes, awards, AA selections - it doesn't stack up with a number of modern champion midfielders. Imagine if he tried to play another 3 or 4 years like Ablett? Thank God he protected his averages by calling it when he did.

Let's be honest, on merit he wasnt playing football of a high enough standard to get to his 300th. But he deserved it for what he accomplished 2017-2020.

If you erased all the football he played in his 30s you really don't lose anything. If you take away Dangerfield, Ablett, Pendlebury etc in their 30s it caps them a bit despite previous excellence.

His elite longevity didn't match the best 10 or so midfielders this century. He was still a champion anyway.

No idea why any of that matters to this thread. Dusty did not decline worse than just about any player throughout his 30's. That is obvious from his 2021 & 2023 seasons. He suffered injuries & personal issues the others did not face. Dusty at his best in his 30's was as good or better than those other players at their best during their 30's.

What you are saying is basically tantamount to if any champion player suffers serious setbacks in his 30's it diminishes what he achieved when he was elite. It is total nonsense.

The other players totalled more B & C Grade level games in their 30's, means nothing in this debate.

 

[Mr Meow]

No idea why any of that matters to this thread. Dusty did not decline worse than just about any player throughout his 30's. That is obvious from his 2021 & 2023 seasons. He suffered injuries & personal issues the others did not face. Dusty at his best in his 30's was as good or better than those other players at their best during their 30's.

What you are saying is basically tantamount to if any champion player suffers serious setbacks in his 30's it diminishes what he achieved when he was elite. It is total nonsense.

The other players totalled more B & C Grade level games in their 30's, means nothing in this debate.

It matters when discussing elite longevity in the modern game. It doesn't diminish the level of the 5 year peak that preceded it. This is where you seem to get confused.

Martin just barely scraped 100 coaches votes in his 30s. Pendlebury has over 250 and was one of his sides most important players in a close winning grand final.

You could delete everything that happened after Martin's 2020 grand final and people wouldn't care, because in reality it amounted to one year as a good forward flanker. He barely got to 300 in an era when players are making it to 400.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Dustys portfolio in his 30s: total disposals, goals, clearances, coaches votes, Brownlow votes, awards, AA selections - it doesn't stack up with a number of modern champion midfielders. Imagine if he tried to play another 3 or 4 years like Ablett? Thank God he protected his averages by calling it when he did.

Let's be honest, on merit he wasnt playing football of a high enough standard to get to his 300th. But he deserved it for what he accomplished 2017-2020.

If you erased all the football he played in his 30s you really don't lose anything. If you take away Dangerfield, Ablett, Pendlebury etc in their 30s it caps them a bit despite previous excellence.

His elite longevity didn't match the best 10 or so midfielders this century. He was still a champion anyway.

If you set the bar around the area your setting it, 13+ player rating or say 45 coaches votes...

By my best reckoning,

Judd probably has around 10 seasons at best where he meets one of those

Dangerfield has 11 seasons meeting at least one of those.

Martin has 12 seasons meeting at least one.

Ablett has 13 seasons.

Pendlebury has 13 or 14.

So whatever stupid point you are trying to make is not even based on facts.

There are only 2 of these guys vying for the best of this group imo.

Ablett has a massive home & away record, clearly above all these guys, but a finals record not necssarily clearly above anyone in the group.

Martin has an unbelievable finals record, way above all thes guys, but a home & away record not necessarily better than anyone in the group. He also has the best individual season of the group.

 

[PhatBoy]

Cut him some slack…. 2020 was the last straw for his emotional well being as far as the Tigers and Dusty were concerned. Halfway through the second Meow let out an audible sigh of relief, with the Cats having kicked 5-goals on the bounce and Dusty goalless the yellow and black nightmare was finally over ….

Until it wasn’t….

It’s no wonder that a guy who claims indifference to the Tigers and no real heartburn compared to other teams is so worryingly triggered by this thread.

Dusty and the Tigers was 4-years ago Meowy… let it go champ, let it go… for your own sanity … please.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Its amazing how you are too silly to realise that our ACTUAL arch rivals, who have caused us just as much finals annoyance as the tigers along with the fact that we DIDNT have three decades of absolute dominance in home and away football against them, have dogs in this fight too, and the person you are arguing with has no problem nominating players from that team as possible greatest players as well.

At some stage that may sink into your consciousness instead of you having to fall back on this stupid ‘2020 broke them’ like you’re living in communist Russia or something

It’s football mate.

If you’re getting ‘broken’ by something, or you believe people are getting broken by it, you have bigger problems to worry about than where a player rates in the grand scheme of things.

 

[STPer18]

Is it true the pLaYEr RaTIngZ rated Chad Warner's 0 Norm Smith vote performance in the 2022 GF ahead of both Dangerfield and Smith's demolition job?

 

[STPer18]

Is it true the pLaYEr RaTIngZ rated Chad Warner's 0 Norm Smith vote performance in the 2022 GF ahead of both Dangerfield and Smith's demolition job?

Oh brother...