- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,269
- 12,200
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Pendlebury is a bit like Boomer Harvey.
Very good player for a very long period of time.
But meh.
Very good player for a very long period of time.
But meh.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Ow what you would’ve done to have ‘meh’ in your midfield. He might’ve dragged you over the line against the Lions like he did for us. Meh.Pendlebury is a bit like Boomer Harvey.
Very good player for a very long period of time.
But meh.
'Meh' has played in 9 times as many Preliminary Finals as Carlton has since his career began.Ow what you would’ve done to have ‘meh’ in your midfield. He might’ve dragged you over the line against the Lions like he did for us. Meh.
HilariousPendlebury is a bit like Boomer Harvey.
Very good player for a very long period of time.
But meh.
Luckily they drafted Marc Murphy instead!Ow what you would’ve done to have ‘meh’ in your midfield. He might’ve dragged you over the line against the Lions like he did for us. Meh.
Pendlebury is a bit like Boomer Harvey.
Very good player for a very long period of time.
But meh.
C'mon mate, he kicked 19 against WCE...Imagine if 'Flat Track Charlie Curnow' had Pendles final record.
But he lacks in score involvements, so it doesn’t matter…Has to be up there for most coaches votes ever. Ablett - anybody else higher? Dangerfield might run him close.
You’re actually spot on. He’s not dominant as a contested and clearance player, and he’s not dominant as an attacking mid, in terms of score involvements. He’s not up there for metres gained. He is up there for effective disposals and efficiency, but these disposals don’t convert to downfield scores, at least not as often as for other mids, and don’t contribute to big metres gained numbers, suggesting he handballs a lot and kicks relatively short.But he lacks in score involvements, so it doesn’t matter…
Hook, line and sinker...You’re actually spot on. He’s not dominant as a contested and clearance player, and he’s not dominant as an attacking mid, in terms of score involvements. He’s not up there for metres gained. He is up there for effective disposals and efficiency, but these disposals don’t convert to downfield scores, at least not as often as for other mids, and don’t contribute to big metres gained numbers, suggesting he handballs a lot and kicks relatively short.
And that’s why his coaches votes/game average is lower than a number of mids who do dominate either contested/clearance or score involvements or both. His career coaches votes are up there because of his longevity.
I daresay most coaches votes is a pretty good marker for the best midfielders debuting 2005 onwards (they can only be found for all players 2006 onwards besides the winners the previous 3 years). Judd's debut season of 2002 means his stellar 2004-2005 are missing so it's tricky to rate him other than adding equivalent totals for his two best seasons. I'd say he has 160-200 votes missing overall.You’re actually spot on. He’s not dominant as a contested and clearance player, and he’s not dominant as an attacking mid, in terms of score involvements. He’s not up there for metres gained. He is up there for effective disposals and efficiency, but these disposals don’t convert to downfield scores, at least not as often as for other mids, and don’t contribute to big metres gained numbers, suggesting he handballs a lot and kicks relatively short.
And that’s why his coaches votes/game average is lower than a number of mids who do dominate either contested/clearance or score involvements or both. His career coaches votes are up there because of his longevity.
Position | Player | Coaches votes |
1 | Ablett | 1020 |
2 | Dangerfield | 894 |
3 | Pendlebury | 889 |
4 | Selwood | 817 |
5 | Martin | 783 |
6 | Judd | 725 |
7 | S.Mitchell | 720 |
8 | Bontempelli | 664 |
9 | Fyfe | 635 |
10 | Neale | 617 |
11 | Cotchin | 593 |
12 | Boak | 590 |
13 | Swan | 571 |
14 | Kennedy | 561 |
15 | Hodge | 560 |
16 | Goodes | 560 |
17 | Parker | 547 |
18 | Mundy | 521 |
19 | Oliver | 504 |
20 | Merrett | 498 |
21 | Cripps | 482 |
22 | Murphy | 478 |
23 | Sloane | 462 |
24 | Gray | 453 |
25 | Bartel | 440 |
26 | Sidebottom | 433 |
27 | Macrae | 427 |
28 | Petracca | 419 |
29 | Wines | 418 |
30 | Priddis | 413 |
31 | Hannebery | 401 |
32 | Laird | 396 |
33 | Gaff | 390 |
34 | Burgoyne | 385 |
35 | Watson | 377 |
36 | Duncan | 363 |
37 | T.Mitchell | 362 |
38 | J.Kelly | 360 |
39 | Lewis | 351 |
40 | Prestia | 334 |
Appreciate the effort, but it looks like that ranking is strongly correlated with the number of seasons played, for a given player.Judgement call was to exclude players who had most of their career outside of the Coaches Votes era (so Black misses out but Goodes is included). Obviously many careers are still in progress so it'll be interesting to see where everyone ends up:
Position Player Coaches votes 1Ablett 1020 2Dangerfield 894 3Pendlebury 889 4Selwood 817 5Martin 783 6Judd 725 7S.Mitchell 720 8Bontempelli 664 9Fyfe 635 10Neale 617 11Cotchin 593 12Boak 590 13Swan 571 14Kennedy 561 15Hodge 560 16Goodes 560 17Parker 547 18Mundy 521 19Oliver 504 20Merrett 498 21Cripps 482 22Murphy 478 23Sloane 462 24Gray 453 25Bartel 440 26Sidebottom 433 27Macrae 427 28Petracca 419 29Wines 418 30Priddis 413 31Hannebery 401 32Laird 396 33Gaff 390 34Burgoyne 385 35Watson 377 36Duncan 363 37T.Mitchell 362 38J.Kelly 360 39Lewis 351 40Prestia 334
Why do you keep bringing up number of seasons played? You still have to be a very good footballer who consistently plays very good games of footy against your peers to get coaches votes.Appreciate the effort, but it looks like that ranking is strongly correlated with the number of seasons played, for a given player.
Would be good to get a column for number of seasons, and average coaches votes per game, to cross reference.
Did you estimate and add coaches votes for 2003-05 for all players on that list who played those seasons (ie Hodge and Mitchell as well as Judd and GAJ)?
It really is astounding.Why do you keep bringing up number of seasons played? You still have to be a very good footballer who consistently plays very good games of footy against your peers to get coaches votes.
It’s even more impressive if a player can continue to be amongst the best on ground for so long. Why’re you discrediting that?
It’s like me saying if Richmond didn’t play in a GF in 2020, Dusty wouldn’t have another Norm Smith. He still had to play it and win it.
If you retire at 31 with a coaches votes average of 3 game I don't necessarily think that is better than a player who plays on until 36 and in that time his coaches votes average drops from 2.9 to 2.5 a game in the end. Different if we are comparing him to a player who was out of his league at the time they were both 31 (e.g 3.2 votes per game compared to 2 votes per game).Appreciate the effort, but it looks like that ranking is strongly correlated with the number of seasons played, for a given player.
Would be good to get a column for number of seasons, and average coaches votes per game, to cross reference.
Did you estimate and add coaches votes for 2003-05 for all players on that list who played those seasons (ie Hodge and Mitchell as well as Judd and GAJ)?
I did all players for the estimate. So Hodge and Mitchell got a solid bump but not as big as Judd and Goodes. Ablett's 2004-2005 were similar to his coaches votes 49 of 2006 (it was still he and the regular gang getting votes before they became stars together) but I still went conservative on those (30 votes each). Most players on the list if they had those seasons they were rookie ones and not N.Daicos level rookie seasons.Appreciate the effort, but it looks like that ranking is strongly correlated with the number of seasons played, for a given player.
Would be good to get a column for number of seasons, and average coaches votes per game, to cross reference.
Did you estimate and add coaches votes for 2003-05 for all players on that list who played those seasons (ie Hodge and Mitchell as well as Judd and GAJ)?
Why do you keep bringing up number of seasons played? You still have to be a very good footballer who consistently plays very good games of footy against your peers to get coaches votes.
It’s even more impressive if a player can continue to be amongst the best on ground for so long. Why’re you discrediting that?
It’s like me saying if Richmond didn’t play in a GF in 2020, Dusty wouldn’t have another Norm Smith. He still had to play it and win it.
I’m not discrediting it. I didn’t say “coaches votes total mean nothing, the only thing that means something is average votes/game”. But the opposite isn’t true either - that totals mean everything and averages mean nothing.If you retire at 31 with a coaches votes average of 3 game I don't necessarily think that is better than a player who plays on until 36 and in that time his coaches votes average drops from 2.9 to 2.5 a game in the end. Different if we are comparing him to a player who was out of his league at the time they were both 31 (e.g 3.2 votes per game compared to 2 votes per game).
Pendlebury averaging 0.32 coaches votes per game less than Martin, having played 4 seasons more, I consider irrelevant as 4 years ago Pendlebury's coaches votes average was 2.78 per game (identical to Martin's is nowl). So a punishment for time played after doesn't make sense, unless that player was truly a liability - obviously not the case for Pendlebury 2023.
I know Martin's Brownlow votes per game took a knock this season but he still had a decent-great season for a 32 year old (depending on who you ask). That isn't decreasing from his legacy or class as a player at all even though his average will take a hit where Fyfe (for example) hasn't.
Getting per games averages will also simply inflate players in their prime. Better to just have the tallies and do the maths in your head about what will be required as far as quality seasons for them to move through the table. This is what we do with the goal kicking list.