Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?

[Fadge]

They also never gave coaches votes for finals games until 2016, so your numbers are again not an apples v apples comparison.

Pendles had huge finals series in 2010, 2011 and 2012. 2012 (only year we have player ratings) he was 4th, 1st and 4th for player ratings in the 3 finals he played, so clearly getting votes.

So all three seasons the margin would be much bigger towards Pendles, as he obviously is getting coaches votes if winning a norm smith, and being top rated players on the ground.

Dusty had 3 meh finals in that period where he barely avg 10 in player ratings (obviously no extra votes for Dusty).

Instead of an apples v apples comparison, you are including Dusty finals votes his dominant period, but only comparing H&A back in 2010-12 when Pendles was dominant in finals.

Pendles would have brained him by 60 votes in 2010, 2011 and well into the 80s in 2012 if you added finals votes to H&A gap..like you have for Dusty..

So again, Pendles the more dominant.

Don't you just love how Meteoric Ruse 'adjusts' Martin's Player Ratings for things he didn't actually do in games in 2020, but neglects to highlight the variances in Coaches Votes included Gary Ayres Medal votes from 2016 (when Martin played his best finals), and excluded them from beforehand (when Pendlebury played his best finals)?

And also, whilst Martin had the biggest gap, Pendlebury had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th biggest gaps (and that was excluding finals coaches votes)?

I'm sure it was just an honest oversight though...

 

[Mr Meow]

Don't you just love how Meteoric Ruse 'adjusts' Martin's Player Ratings for things he didn't actually do in games in 2020, but neglects to highlight the variances in Coaches Votes included Gary Ayres Medal votes from 2016 (when Martin played his best finals), and excluded them from beforehand (when Pendlebury played his best finals)?

And also, whilst Martin had the biggest gap, Pendlebury had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th biggest gaps (and that was excluding finals coaches votes)?

I'm sure it was just an honest oversight though...

Wherever you sit in these debates, the most certain thing is that MR's "analysis" is the worst and most one sided on the entire forum. The 5 seasons in which Martin played finals but was not stellar, are brushed under the carpet. He was a superb finals player the seasons Richmond were dominant. He wasn't great when they weren't. There isn't one losing final where he played very well.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

And Pendles played before and is still going...so even more seasons to Pendles.

What a champion.

They also never gave coaches votes for finals games until 2016, so your numbers are again not an apples v apples comparison.

Pendles had huge finals series in 2010, 2011 and 2012. 2012 (only year we have player ratings) he was 4th, 1st and 4th for player ratings in the 3 finals he played, so clearly getting votes.

So all three seasons the margin would be much bigger towards Pendles, as he obviously is getting coaches votes if winning a norm smith, and being top rated players on the ground.

Dusty had 3 meh finals in that period where he barely avg 10 in player ratings (obviously no extra votes for Dusty).

Instead of an apples v apples comparison, you are including Dusty finals votes his dominant period, but only comparing H&A back in 2010-12 when Pendles was dominant in finals.

Pendles would have brained him by 60 votes in 2010, 2011 and well into the 80s in 2012 if you added finals votes to H&A gap..like you have for Dusty..

So again, Pendles the more dominant.

What a moronic approach.
Yeah don't compare peak with peak, compare Dusty's peak with Pendles past his peak.

But Pendles still gets a season!
LOL

Yeah most people just stop at the GFs.
Pendles himself won a norm smith in 2010 and received votes in two other GFs (2011 and 2023).

Dusty played 16 finals, was great in 10 of them and meh to poor in the other 6.

Pendles was also the Pies best finals player in 2011 and 2012 (potential Gary Ayers medals if around).

Pendles played in 31 finals - avg 24 disposals, 5 clearances and 5 tackles

He played more great finals (17) than Dusty did.

2007 EF, SF
2010 QF, PF GF Replay
2011 QF, PF, GF
2012 QF, SF, PF
2019 QF
2022 QF, SF, PF
2023 PF, GF


Yep Dusty was bog ordinary in finals in 13,14,15 and 22 - Richmond flopped.
When Dusty played well he delivered flags, so deserves all praise he gets.

Pendles also won a norm in a flag, and received votes in 2023 when his last quarter won us the game. 2011 he was our best by a mile, but Geelong were too good. He had 3 MASSIVE GFs himself.

Pendles was also huge for us in finals in 2007 (as a 19 year old), 2011, 2012 and 2022 (as a 34 year old) where he helped Collingwood go deep in finals.

Dusty gets Pendles for a peak season, 2017, but outside of that it is Pendles.

The artist formerly known as Doppleganger is now to be known as Fadge's Doppleganger.

You are now listing Pendlebury finals with player ratings of 14.4, 15.8, 12.8, 17.0, 17.1, 14.3, 17.4 as "great" finals for Pendlebury. Which is pretty funny, because Dusty's overall career average player rating including all his quiet finals is comfortably over 18. That is, Dusty's career finals average is above 7 Pendlebury finals you are describing as great. Which tells us all we need to know, Dusty's "average" is above Pendlebury's "great" in finals.

Dusty has 6 of his 16(38%) finals performances above a player rating of 26. Pendlebury has zero of 18 rated finals above 24.7. You don't get player ratings in the high 20's too often running around picking up cheap touches and passing them sideways. During his earlier 13 finals before player ratings Pendlebury averaged 24 disposals and exactly 1 Goal + Goals assist. This is more or less in line with his overall career finals average for disposals and just above his average for goals + goal assists, which is 0.77.

Dusty's corresponding career career finals averages are 22 disposals and a massive 2.8 goals + assists.

You can write reams mate, you are not making Pendlebury's finals performances come anywhere near Dusty's.


Just consider this.

Dusty 3 Grand Finals for 43 Norm Smith Medal votes. Average votes per match 14.33.

Pendles 4 GF's + replay(5 matches in all) for 13 Norm Smith Medal votes. Average votes per match 2.6.

And you are trying to dress up SP getting votes in 3 of these matches as if it is somehow equivalent to Dusty almost maxing all 3 Grand Finals he played in.

Anyway, as I said earlier in the post, Fadge's Doppleganger, AKA Doppleganja.

 

[Mr Meow]

The artist formerly known as Doppleganger is now to be known as Fadge's Doppleganger.

You are now listing Pendlebury finals with player ratings of 14.4, 15.8, 12.8, 17.0, 17.1, 14.3, 17.4 as "great" finals for Pendlebury. Which is pretty funny, because Dusty's overall career average player rating including all his quiet finals is comfortably over 18. That is, Dusty's career finals average is above 7 Pendlebury finals you are describing as great. Which tells us all we need to know, Dusty's "average" is above Pendlebury's "great" in finals.

Dusty has 6 of his 16(38%) finals performances above a player rating of 26. Pendlebury has zero of 18 rated finals above 24.7. You don't get player ratings in the high 20's too often running around picking up cheap touches and passing them sideways. During his earlier 13 finals before player ratings Pendlebury averaged 24 disposals and exactly 1 Goal + Goals assist. This is more or less in line with his overall career finals average for disposals and just above his average for goals + goal assists, which is 0.77.

Dusty's corresponding career career finals averages are 22 disposals and a massive 2.8 goals + assists.

You can write reams mate, you are not making Pendlebury's finals performances come anywhere near Dusty's.


Just consider this.

Dusty 3 Grand Finals for 43 Norm Smith Medal votes. Average votes per match 14.33.

Pendles 4 GF's + replay(5 matches in all) for 13 Norm Smith Medal votes. Average votes per match 2.6.

And you are trying to dress up SP getting votes in 3 of these matches as if it is somehow equivalent to Dusty almost maxing all 3 Grand Finals he played in.

Anyway, as I said earlier in the post, Fadge's Doppleganger, AKA Doppleganja.

A better way to do it is to get the player ratings (as dreadfully off the mark as they can be) average for each finals series either man played in.

So for Dusty, get the average scores for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022.

Then do the same for Pendles for every season he played finals.

It won't be a perfect comparison because Pendles has played finals in many more seasons outside of his peak 23-29 year old period. From memory Martin has only played one final outside of that age range, in 2022 when he was awful. But it would be a start. Martin shouldn't be rewarded for finals series where he was average, Richmond were eliminated and so he didn't get to be average several more times.

The data would show what is already known, that Martin had 3 stellar finals series in his peak and 5 finals series where there was a BOG but nothing else you'd really call good.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Wherever you sit in these debates, the most certain thing is that MR's "analysis" is the worst and most one sided on the entire forum. The 5 seasons in which Martin played finals but was not stellar, are brushed under the carpet. He was a superb finals player the seasons Richmond were dominant. He wasn't great when they weren't. There isn't one losing final where he played very well.

Lol in one of the years you say Dusty was not stellar in finals, he recorded a 26.4 player rating in the one final where he was fit. Pendlebury has never played a final where he has rated above 25 from 18 attempts.

The other 4 "years" of finals were single matches. This does absolutely zero to diminish the damage Dusty did in the 3 finals series(10 matches) he totally dominated.


"There isn't one losing final where he played very well." - in other words, every final Dusty played well, Richmond won.

 

[Fadge]

A better way to do it is to get the player ratings (as dreadfully off the mark as they can be) average for each finals series either man played in.

So for Dusty, get the average scores for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022.

Then do the same for Pendles for every season he played finals.

It won't be a perfect comparison because Pendles has played finals in many more seasons outside of his peak 23-29 year old period. From memory Martin has only played one final outside of that age range, in 2022 when he was awful. But it would be a start. Martin shouldn't be rewarded for finals series where he was average, Richmond were eliminated and so he didn't get to be average several more times.

The data would show what is already known, that Martin had 3 stellar finals series in his peak and 5 finals series where there was a BOG but nothing else you'd really call good.

And, of course, we don't get the Player Ratings for Pendlebury's best two finals series' - 2010 and 2011....

 

[Meteoric Rise]

A better way to do it is to get the player ratings (as dreadfully off the mark as they can be) average for each finals series either man played in.

So for Dusty, get the average scores for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022.

Then do the same for Pendles for every season he played finals.

It won't be a perfect comparison because Pendles has played finals in many more seasons outside of his peak 23-29 year old period. From memory Martin has only played one final outside of that age range, in 2022 when he was awful. But it would be a start. Martin shouldn't be rewarded for finals series where he was average, Richmond were eliminated and so he didn't get to be average several more times.

The data would show what is already known, that Martin had 3 stellar finals series in his peak and 5 finals series where there was a BOG but nothing else you'd really call good.

You have lost the plot.

 

[Fadge]

Lol in one of the years you say Dusty was not stellar in finals, he recorded a 26.4 player rating in the one final where he was fit. Pendlebury has never played a final where he has rated above 25 from 18 attempts.

Again, ignoring Pendlebury's best 5 finals that were played in 2010 and 2011.

You're going to continue to be called out on your lies if you want to post in this thread.

 

[Mr Meow]

Lol in one of the years you say Dusty was not stellar in finals, he recorded a 26.4 player rating in the one final where he was fit. Pendlebury has never played a final where he has rated above 25 from 18 attempts.

The other 4 "years" of finals were single matches. This does absolutely zero to diminish the damage Dusty did in the 3 finals series(10 matches) he totally dominated.


"There isn't one losing final where he played very well." - in other words, every final Dusty played well, Richmond won.

What is his 2018 average, and what are his scores for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2022 finals series?

If you don't reveal the data you are even more of a fraud.

 

[Mr Meow]

You have lost the plot.

Data not provided = you concede. I'm happy with that. Time to move on then.

 

[Mr Meow]

Again, ignoring Pendlebury's best 5 finals that were played in 2010 and 2011.

You're going to continue to be called out on your lies if you want to post in this thread.

Very convenient and I'm not sure why he would even pretend this flaw in his analysis doesn't exist. It is so bleedingly obvious, much the same as trying to get Gary Ablett's Gary Ayres vote average and pretending it is reflective of his career finals performance.

 

[Fadge]

The data would show what is already known, that Martin had 3 stellar finals series in his peak and 5 finals series where there was a BOG but nothing else you'd really call good.

Yep.

The fact of the matter is that when Richmond didn't have everything going for them, Martin was nowhere to be seen.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

And, of course, we don't get the Player Ratings for Pendlebury's best two finals series' - 2010 and 2011....

Neither have you provided a scintilla of objective or unbiased evidence to support your claim Pendelbury's best 5 finals performances were during 2010-11.

What unbiased data we do have from that period is Smith Medal voting.

Pendlebury 3 qualifying matches(2010-11), 12 votes.

v Dusty 3 qualifying matches, 43 votes.

That doesn't look too close to me.

 

[Mr Meow]

Yep.

The fact of the matter is that when Richmond didn't have everything going for them, Martin was nowhere to be seen.

And it's fine to be chief destroyer of the best team in the land, nobody is taking that away from Martin. He destroyed sides in those finals and was very good through the whole seasons (albeit 2017 was so much better than the subsequent seasons).

Over egging the pudding by pretending there weren't 5 failed finals series, or trying to overstate his H&A consistency, are the two areas they always trip themselves up over. It doesn't mean he wasn't a champion. But when you are ridiculing Pendlebury to overstate just how great Martin was over his entire career, these things are suitable to bring up.

 

[Fadge]

The other 4 "years" of finals were single matches. This does absolutely zero to diminish the damage Dusty did in the 3 finals series(10 matches) he totally dominated.

Really?

So if he had have torn those finals series to shreds and carried Richmond through to later stages of the finals series, including another possible premiership, you wouldn't be using them to talk up his legacy?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Lol how's these 2 absolute clowns Fadge & Mr Meow PM'ing each other like crazy trying to figure out there joint game plan to make Pendlebury's middling to good finals record somehow look as good as the finals record of the best finals player the game has known.

 

[Mr Meow]

Lol how's these 2 absolute clowns Fadge & Mr Meow PM'ing each other like crazy trying to figure out there joint game plan to make Pendlebury's middling to good finals record somehow look as good as the finals record of the best finals player the game has known.

Data provided? Or laughy laughy reactions and silly rants?

I don't see what's so shameful about getting average finals scores for the seasons in question. You can do the same for Pendlebury, but you have to fess up that the two best scores won't be available as the data wasn't collected. Saying "Pendlebury NEVER achieved these scores" just makes you look like a moron.

And just a heads up, the irrefutable best finals player ever will have more than 3 strong finals series. Certainly they'd have at least one strong finals series when their team wasn't the best in the land. 3 strong, vs 5 failed, leaves room to ponder many others with more comprehensive catalogues.

 

[Yoda_]

Lebron not an NBA great ? your stupidity can not be overstated.

that was not what was said at all champ

 

[Fadge]

Lol how's these 2 absolute clowns Fadge & Mr Meow PM'ing each other like crazy trying to figure out there joint game plan to make Pendlebury's middling to good finals record somehow look as good as the finals record of the best finals player the game has known.

Possibly the closest you've got to a factual statement today.

Total PM's shared between myself and Meow in the last week = 0.

 

[Fadge]

that was not what was said at all champ

It actually is what was said, champ.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Really?

So if he had have torn those finals series to shreds and carried Richmond through to later stages of the finals series, including another possible premiership, you wouldn't be using them to talk up his legacy?

Of course I would. But the presence of those matches in Dusty's CV doesn't mean he isn't the best finals player the game has known. Nobody else has ever torn 3 finals series to shreds in the history of the game, mainly because it is incredibly difficult to do. Pendlebury hasn't had a single finals series where he is clearly the best player in that finals series.

 

[Mr Meow]

Possibly the closest you've got to a factual statement today.

Total PM's shared between myself and Meow in the last week = 0.

Why on Earth would I care about Pendlebury's greatness, as a Geelong supporter? Both he and Martin were champs (present tense for Pendles...longevity matters), both had very different things that made them champs. A complete belittling of one to overstate the greatness of the other will draw criticism. And that's the trap MR always falls into whenever talking about a great player that isn't Dusty. Which ironically is really the only thing that draws any criticism or caveat highlighting of Martin anyway. If he was less over the top, the praise for his hero would be more lavish. Shitting on every other great player isn't how you convince the masses your guy was "the greatest".

 

[Yoda_]

unpopular opinion but Pendle's is like Lebron in the NBA, his longevity does not equate to greatness.

Is he in the top 10 footballers ever? is he in the top 10 footballers of the last 25 years?

both probably not. he is however a very good player who played for a long time. Maybe criminally under rated with what he has done but as he isn't a real game changer like the very best sees him a rung below.

It actually is what was said, champ.

So no Fadge, not really what was said at all. I never called him a great, if you want semantics, I didn't say he was not a great either.

So lets move on from the semantics you wish to go after that has nothing to do with said thread

 

[Fadge]

So no Fadge, not really what was said at all. I never called him a great, if you want semantics, I didn't say he was not a great either.

So lets move on from the semantics you wish to go after that has nothing to do with said thread

WTF?

 

[Mr Meow]

Ironically Pendlebury = LeBron is actually a status elevator, despite the intentions of that post.

He needed to find a player that was well below LeBron's level but had a long and good career, for it to work.