Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?

[WalshistheGOAT]

We're looking at different data.

Player Ratings in Wheeloratings has McKay ahead of Colyer and Gibbons.

Well looks like we're both right then.

Point still stands that player ratings as a system are far too unreliable to adequately judge a player off of.

 

[Fadge]

This is a pretty fair comparison I'd say. Pendles is an absolute class act but he's never had the "showtime" that today's "superstars" need to have. I know Bucks rates him as our greatest (on Buck's own rating system) but I've never rated Pendles in the same class as John Greening or Peter Daicos....they were the creme de creme of our players over my 75 years. Pendles is on plane with Bob Rose, Bucks Wayne Richardson and Swanny for mine.

BUT, in 20 years time I reckon people across the AFL Spectrum will be far more impressed when they reflect on his playing career and how it reflected his coaching career. For just as Leigh Matthews grew in everyone else's estimations once he became a multiple premiership winning coach atop his playing success, (just like Barassi before him) I believe Pendles greatest period of success is still ahead of him.

He is already a brilliant on field coach (this is where he influences games...and its often invisible to opponents and their supporters)....but when he eventually hangs up his boots and takes over an AFL list, his knowledge of game plans and strategy along with his ability to read changes in games will make him an irrepressible coach. He leaves no stone un turned and is an excellent communicator, all in all a wonderful coach in waiting.


Reading a few of the posts in this thread has saddened me a bit as people these days seem hell bent on simply denigrating anyone to "get a response" from other posters. Pendles isn't deserving of denigration, idiots like Jimmy O'Dea or "Jacko" or Carman maybe but Pendles has always been a fair and positive role model for our game. That people want to slag someone who has played this long, at such a high standard, and led his team and his club through tough times, well I simply don't quite know what to say to those people. My grandfather would have told me to "button my lip" or to "stop sooking" if I complained like some in here but maybe that's just showing my age!

I'd rather congratulate a fine player on an exemplary career than drag his name and his legacy down for a simple reaction.

Great post.

The leadership/on field coaching element of his game is the very reason as to why I elevate him above others (who many rate as better individual players) in my rankings.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Great post.

The leadership/on field coaching element of his game is the very reason as to why I elevate him above others (who many rate as better individual players) in my rankings.

Wouldn't that put players like Voss, Selwood, Hodge etc ahead of him though? I don't think anyone could honestly argue Pendlebury has been a better leader than any of them?

 

[Fadge]

Wouldn't that put players like Voss, Selwood, Hodge etc ahead of him though? I don't think anyone could honestly argue Pendlebury has been a better leader than any of them?

I'd definitely have Voss ahead of Pendlebury (but Voss is excluded in the turn of the century discussions).

I also love Selwood and only had Pendlebury going past him after his 2023 Grand Final influence, and Hodge is also in my top 10 since the turn of the century, but a rung below Pendlebury and Selwood in terms of footballing ability.

Voss and Selwood were very different leaders to Hodge and Pendlebury too. The former were 'jump on my back and we'll get over the line' types, whilst Pendlebury and Hodge were very much on-field coaches.

Leadership is an important factor for me when ranking players.

 

[Vassp]

Not quite the next 5 or 6, but if you do a season by season analysis, Pendlebury comes out comfortably on top.

View attachment 1729986

Martin's 2023 currently tracking to be the equivalent of Pendlebury's 14th or 15th best season.

i think pendles is one of collingwoods greatest ever players.

Pendles stands on his own with an amazing body of work.

My take is that martin is a flawed genius, pendles isnt that player.- he is consistant and workman like.

edit, and a great footballer, with great vision and disposal.

 

[Hoops]

All time great

 

[Fadge]

The Rohan Connelly Best 25 of the last 25 years got me thinking what I believe is important when assessing players' careers.

After a bit of thought, mine's not to dissimilar, and I've gone with the following:
Peak - 40 points: Clearly the most important metric, and weighted accordingly. But it is not the be all and end all.
Longevity at peak - 20 points: This is an important factor, to distinguish between the players who had extended excellence, and those whose peaks were briefer.
General Longevity - 5 points: How long did a player maintain a high level of performance. For the players below, who performed at a very high level across the bulk of their careers, it basically translates to number of games played. But it would be quite different for players lower on this list.
Leadership - 10 points: I've always said this is an important attribute when ranking footballers.

I've left out accolades for the following reason:
1. I'm not binary about winning an award v. not winning an award;
2. Midfielders are much more likely to win awards than forwards/defenders;
3. Awards are accumulated based on peak and longevity at peak, which has already been considered.

I've run the numbers for the players I believe to be in my top 10 to have debuted since the turn of the century (first year = 2001), meaning the likes of Goodes, Pavlich, Scarlett and Black missed the cut.

And here it is:


We'll see how many positions Bontempelli climbs before his career is done.

Edit: Looking at these metrics, I suspected Hawkins replaces Hodge in the Top 10, so I calculated the data for him and he's equal 8th with Martin, pushing Hodge to 11th.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

The Rohan Connelly Best 25 of the last 25 years got me thinking what I believe is important when assessing players' careers.

After a bit of thought, mine's not to dissimilar, and I've gone with the following:
Peak - 40 points: Clearly the most important metric, and weighted accordingly. But it is not the be all and end all.
Longevity at peak - 20 points: This is an important factor, to distinguish between the players who had extended excellence, and those whose peaks were briefer.
General Longevity - 5 points: How long did a player maintain a high level of performance. For the players below, who performed at a very high level across the bulk of their careers, it basically translates to number of games played. But it would be quite different for players lower on this list.
Leadership - 10 points: I've always said this is an important attribute when ranking footballers.

I've left out accolades for the following reason:
1. I'm not binary about winning an award v. not winning an award;
2. Midfielders are much more likely to win awards than forwards/defenders;
3. Awards are accumulated based on peak and longevity at peak, which has already been considered.

I've run the numbers for the players I believe to be in my top 10 to have debuted since the turn of the century (first year = 2001), meaning the likes of Goodes, Pavlich, Scarlett and Black missed the cut.

And here it is:
View attachment 2203509

We'll see how many positions Bontempelli climbs before his career is done.

See the issue here is as always... You've just made up all these numbers and acted as if they're some sort of fact.

Dusty has a 5 for leadership... based on absolutely nothing whatsoever...
Dangers peak where he kicked 45 goals going at 29 touches and 1.9 goals a game somehow only a 36...
Bontempelli a 2 for general longevity yet he's pretty much been a gun since he joined the league and looks to have no signs of slowing down...

It's all just made up nonsense as always.

 

[Fadge]

See the issue here is as always... You've just made up all these numbers and acted as if they're some sort of fact.

Dusty has a 5 for leadership... based on absolutely nothing whatsoever...
Dangers peak where he kicked 45 goals going at 29 touches and 1.9 goals a game somehow only a 36...
Bontempelli a 2 for general longevity yet he's pretty much been a gun since he joined the league and looks to have no signs of slowing down...

It's all just made up nonsense as always.

Sorry.

I probably should have qualified every sentence and figure with IMO. Actually... you might notice I've used the qualifier 'I believe' on multiple occasions in my post.

I had Danger as the 5th highest 'peak'. Should he be up there with GAJ, Buddy, Martin and Judd? I don't think so.

And I did say that Bontempelli will likely pass some of the players on the list - I deal in actuals as opposed to 'he's showing no signs of slowing down'....

But as always, happy for you to compile your list and rationale.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Sorry.

I probably should have qualified every sentence and figure with IMO.

And I did say that Bontempelli will likely pass some of the players on the list - I deal in actuals as opposed to 'he's showing no signs of slowing down'....

Okay Fadge... can you explain why you have Danger's 2017 rated a 36 peak?

Or why Dusty's leadership a 5?

Seems like you've arbitrarily fudged some numbers to match your predetermined bias opinion

 

[bradfisher14]

How does Pendlebury get a higher rating for leadership than Judd? As far as I'm aware, Pendlebury never won a premiership as captain.

 

[Fadge]

Love how my 'opinion' promotes so much discussion...

1. Danger peak - I already said I rated GAJ, Buddy, Judd and Martin as higher peaks. Danger's 2017 was inferior to Martin's, particularly after including finals.

2. Dusty 5 for leadership. Check out what Martin did in the premiership years - 'carrying his team on his back'. It has been well documented by the Richmond faithful on this forum. He is also an elite professional - setting training standards bringing his teammates into games. His pass to Pickett to set him up for his first goal in the 2019 Grand Final an example. Do people think he should be a 0 or 1? Because I don't.

3. Judd was a good leader, not a great leader. Look at how he left both teams after he departed. Pendlebury's on field coaching is (with Hodge) as good as we've seen. Judd didn't do that, anywhere near to that extent.

Anyway, that's how I assess the players, and it's merely my humble opinion.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Curious where Gawn places in Fadgey's rankings?

Peak - Arguably the best ruck of all time, peaked at pretty close to the best player in the league in 2018 when he won the AFLCA award as a full time ruckman.
Longevity at peak - Still arguably the best ruck in the comp after 6 AA's.
General longevity - 33 and still playing fantastic footy
Leadership - Led Melbourne out of one of the biggest premiership draughts in history as one of their best players. Renowned for being a fantastic leader on and off field.

Id go

Peak - 36
Longevity at peak - 18
General Longevity - 4
Leadership - 9

Total - 67

One of the greatest players of all time.

 

[Fadge]

Curious where Gawn places in Fadgey's rankings?

Peak - Arguably the best ruck of all time, peaked at pretty close to the best player in the league in 2018 when he won the AFLCA award as a full time ruckman.
Longevity at peak - Still arguably the best ruck in the comp after 6 AA's.
General longevity - 33 and still playing fantastic footy
Leadership - Led Melbourne out of one of the biggest premiership draughts in history as one of their best players. Renowned for being a fantastic leader on and off field.

Id go

Peak - 36
Longevity at peak - 18
General Longevity - 4
Leadership - 9

Total - 67

One of the greatest players of all time.

Difficult for rucks because it takes them so long to get going.

Has played fewer games than Bont for a start.

I reckon you've overrated him in every metric, apart from possibly leadership (though Melbourne has had their off field issues under his watch, similar to Judd at West Coast).

Ensuring relativity with my other rankings:
Peak - 33 (same as N. Riewoldt, Pendlebury, Selwood)
Longevity at peak - 13 (one less than Danger, Bont - it took him a few years to get going, as it does most rucks)
General Longevity - 2 (same as Bont - similar number of games)
Leadership - 8.5 (slightly lower than Pendlebury and slightly higher than Riewoldt/Bont)

Total - 56.5

Great player no doubt, but outside the top 10 for mine.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Difficult for rucks because it takes them so long to get going.

Has played fewer games than Bont for a start.

I reckon you've overrated him in every metric, apart from possibly leadership (though Melbourne has had their off field issues under his watch, similar to Judd at West Coast).

Ensuring relativity with my other rankings:
Peak - 33 (same as N. Riewoldt, Pendlebury, Selwood)
Longevity at peak - 13 (one less than Danger, Bont - it took him a few years to get going, as it does most rucks)
General Longevity - 2 (same as Bont - similar number of games)
Leadership - 8.5 (slightly lower than Pendlebury and slightly higher than Riewoldt/Bont)

Total - 56.5

Great player no doubt, but outside the top 10 for mine.

Right... So arguably the greatest player in his position of all time, has a peak of 33 which included winning the "most accurate award in footy" according to you - The AFLCA?

Also how does Pendlebury have 6 AA's and get a 17 for longevity at peak but Gawn gets a 13 despite continuing to play AA level footy at age 33 when he's on 6 himself too?

Not to mention Danger who has the 2nd most AA's of all time, equal with Buddy and GAJ on 8... But has a measly 14 for that category despite outdoing Pendles by 2???

Do you understand how dumb that sounds?

 

[Fadge]

Right... So arguably the greatest player in his position of all time, has a peak of 33 which included winning the "most accurate award in footy" according to you - The AFLCA?

Also how does Pendlebury have 6 AA's and get a 17 for longevity at peak but Gawn gets a 13 despite continuing to play AA level footy at age 33 when he's on 6 himself too?

Not to mention Danger who has the 2nd most AA's of all time, equal with Buddy and GAJ on 8... But has a measly 14 for that category despite outdoing Pendles by 2???

Do you understand how dumb that sounds?

Very easy to criticise someone else's opinion, much harder to do it all yourself.

Have a go at it, see how you go?

But on Gawn v. Pendlebury - Pendlebury has played nearly twice as many games as Gawn, and many more at an 'elite' level.

Pendlebury started before Dangerfield, was better earlier, and has been more durable for longer. Danger beats Pendles at peak, but it's not difficult to conclude Pendles has been doing it for longer.

I also mentioned I excluded 'accolades', as they are an outcome of peak and longevity at peak. We shouldn't be seduced by someone who stuck into the AA team (for example) v. someone who just missed out. Or someone who was lucky to win a Brownlow, v. beaten favourites.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Very easy to criticise someone else's opinion, much harder to do it all yourself.

Have a go at it, see how you go?

If you can explain how Pendles has a rating of 17 for longevity at peak with 6 AA seasons while Danger got a 14 despite having 8 AA seasons then I'll gladly go through and rank each.

Logically it just comes across nonsense.

 

[Fadge]

If you can explain how Pendles has a rating of 17 for longevity at peak with 6 AA seasons while Danger got a 14 despite having 8 AA seasons then I'll gladly go through and rank each.

Logically it just comes across nonsense.

Refer to my updated post above.

But don't feel obligated to use my metrics - they are what are important to me.

Feel free to use your own brain.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Refer to my updated post above.

But don't feel obligated to use my metrics - they are what are important to me.

Feel free to use your own brain.

Yeah right... So his longevity is better, nobody is doubting that.

The criteria you gave was longevity at peak. AA seasons is a pretty damn good indicator of that, no?

8 vs 6 but somehow Danger is 3 points behind on it... Doesn't make a scrap of sense sorry Fadge.

Same with Gawn, yes he took a while to get going, his overall longevity may not be as good as Pendles, but to argue his peak has been 4 points lower is absolute nonsense. They've had the same amount of AA seasons and Gawn is every chance to make it 7 in 2025.

 

[Fadge]

Yeah right... So his longevity is better, nobody is doubting that.

The criteria you gave was longevity at peak. AA seasons is a pretty damn good indicator of that, no?

8 vs 6 but somehow Danger is 3 points behind on it... Doesn't make a scrap of sense sorry Fadge.

Same with Gawn, yes he took a while to get going, his overall longevity may not be as good as Pendles, but to argue his peak has been 4 points lower is absolute nonsense. They've had the same amount of AA seasons and Gawn is every chance to make it 7 in 2025.

So what?

Would you like me to explain my rationale again?

And stop forecasting - it's irrelevant when rating players as at Jan 14, 2025. Otherwise, I'd have Daicos at #1.

So, where are your rankings, and your rationale?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

So what?

Would you like me to explain my rationale again?

And stop forecasting - it's irrelevant when rating players as at Jan 14, 2025.

So, where are your rankings, and your rationale?

I'll get to them Fudge. But Pendles doesn't feature in my top 10.

 

[Fadge]

I'll get to them Fudge. But Pendles doesn't feature in my top 10.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Mr Meow]

Dangerfield with 8x AAs and the second most Brownlow votes ever seems to be marked harshly in some categories.

Was one of Adelaide's best players quite young - Geelong's best for most years in a perennial contending window - and (in a fair chunk of people's opinions) BOG in a winning grand final aged 32. Only Dustin having an all timer season in 2017 stopped Danger having back to back Brownlows, and he almost did anyway.

Even in 2024 when he was missing or coming back to fitness, Geelong were terrible. When he was playing consistently we were a premiership contender.

The only real mark against him was being disappointing in finals when lined up directly against Richmond/Martin through their great era. Otherwise his finals catalogue is pretty impressive as well.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Dangerfield with 8x AAs and the second most Brownlow votes ever seems to be marked harshly in some categories.

Was one of Adelaide's best players quite young - Geelong's best for most years in a perennial contending window - and almost BOG in a winning grand final aged 32. Only Dustin having an all timer season in 2017 stopped him having back to back Brownlows, and he almost did anyway.

Even in 2024 when he was missing or coming back to fitness, Geelong were terrible. When he was playing consistently we were a premiership contender.

The only real mark against him was being disappointing in finals when lined up directly against Richmond/Martin through their great era. Otherwise his finals catalogue is pretty impressive as well.

Absolutely agree. To have him significantly behind Pendles in terms of 'longevity of peak' is ridiculous. Imo both Dusty and Dangers absolute peaks in 2017 would be as close to GAJ's as you could get too, so not sure how he's ranked them so far behind in those categories.

 

[Fadge]

Dangerfield with 8x AAs and the second most Brownlow votes ever seems to be marked harshly in some categories.

Was one of Adelaide's best players quite young - Geelong's best for most years in a perennial contending window - and (in a fair chunk of people's opinions) BOG in a winning grand final aged 32. Only Dustin having an all timer season in 2017 stopped Danger having back to back Brownlows, and he almost did anyway.

Even in 2024 when he was missing or coming back to fitness, Geelong were terrible. When he was playing consistently we were a premiership contender.

The only real mark against him was being disappointing in finals when lined up directly against Richmond/Martin through their great era. Otherwise his finals catalogue is pretty impressive as well.

I reckon I've got his peak spot on - below GAJ, Buddy, Judd and Martin, slightly ahead of Bont, and comfortably ahead of the others.

Longevity at peak - maybe I have been influenced by his recent injury impacted seasons. I just don't think he's consistently made it to the field often enough to maintain 'longevity at peak', given his peak was so high.

Nonetheless, when it comes down to it, I'm comfortable where he's ranked relative to the other greats of the modern era.