Scott Pendlebury - Standing in the game?

[Fadge]

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.

I don't look at peaks as a single year. Otherwise, Martin's peak would be 40, and longevity at peak a 5.

I look at how Martin performed between 2016 to 2020, and GAJ between 2007 and 2014, for example.

 

[Mr Meow]

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.

Dangerfield averaged 119.5 coaches votes per season 2016-2017. You'd be hard pressed to do any more for showing a high peak. Geelong would've been a 9th-13th team without him those seasons. But contrary to some opinions you can't carry sides of that quality through finals. Hence he got stuck trying to do too much in a couple of finals from those seasons. He still had a couple of crazy finals against Sydney those years though. 65 disposals and 5 goals between those two knockout games.

Regarding longevity, Danger and Pendles both had 10 seasons where they picked up 48 coaches votes or more. 2.87 coaches votes per game for PFD over a 337 game career is insane. At 334 games Pendles had a 2.49 average (I didn't give his current average because of course the last few years it's declined; he's playing where others would be retired). Dusty was 2.69 over a 302 game career. Along with the 8 AA seasons and remaining one of his side's most important players aged 34, his longevity is up there with the best. He plays 17-18 games a year through his twilight years, you could possibly take off fractional marks for that but I reckon it's harsh.

 

[Fadge]

Dangerfield averaged 119.5 coaches votes per season 2016-2017. You'd be hard pressed to do any more for showing a high peak. Geelong would've been a 9th-13th team without him those seasons. But contrary to some opinions you can't carry sides of that quality through finals. Hence he got stuck trying to do too much in a couple of finals from those seasons. He still had a couple of crazy finals against Sydney those years though. 65 disposals and 5 goals between those two knockout games.

Regarding longevity, Danger and Pendles both had 10 seasons where they picked up 48 coaches votes or more. 2.87 coaches votes per game for PFD over a 337 game career is insane. At 334 games Pendles had a 2.49 average (I didn't give his current average because of course the last few years it's declined; he's playing where others would be retired). Dusty was 2.69 over a 302 game career. Along with the 8 AA seasons and remaining one of his side's most important players aged 34, his longevity is up there with the best. He plays 17-18 games a year through his twilight years, you could possibly take off fractional marks for that but I reckon it's harsh.

Just call me a harsh mofo

 

[Arr0w]

Another spreadsheet?

 

[Mr Meow]

Just call me a harsh mofo

If he didn't peeve a lot of neutrals with his FIGJAM vibes, I'd say most would recognise Dangerfield's career as a hybrid pf Pendlebury and Martin's strengths: 8 AAs, 4 B&Fs, Brownlow Medal, Leigh Matthews Trophy, Coaches Association Award, Gary Ayres Award, 934 coaches votes and could still end up with the most Brownlow votes in history (12 votes off GAJ currently). Without him coming over in 2016, Geelong's rebuild starts close to a decade ago. Maybe his legacy will grow once he retires, but I expect he'll still be annoying people from commentary for a while after that.

 

[Cdog71]

Looks like it did keep you up at night.
For starters…not sure how leadership is quantifiable so really that’s where it starts to go sideways for me.
Longevity at peak and Longevity..hmm
Was it the only way you could fudge the numbers? (Did you see what I did there).
It still doesn’t really get to the crux of the matter, how do you determine who are the most valuable players.
For mine first and foremost sport is about winning and the greatest players win games.
I’d pick Dangerfield ahead of Pendlebury 7 days a week.
At least your consistent.
Collingwood is the most successful club because they have been above average for longer.
Pendlebury has been consistently above average for longer so ibso facto he’s the best player outside of GAJ and Buddy.
It’s the same in other sports, players you can’t defend who score are the most valuable players.

 

[Cdog71]

No recognition of accolades….geez.
You can only play as well as the other team let’s you, how can you not judge them against their peers.
A player had 8 best on grounds against the bottom 8 teams so is rated more highly than someone who had two best on grounds against the highest standard of opponents in the highest level of competition?

 

[Fadge]

No recognition of accolades….geez.
You can only play as well as the other team let’s you, how can you not judge them against their peers.
A player had 8 best on grounds against the bottom 8 teams so is rated more highly than someone who had two best on grounds against the highest standard of opponents in the highest level of competition?

As I posted, 'accolades' are a result of peak plus longevity of peak.

Whether a player had 2 x BOG against the best opposition, or 4 x top 3 BOG against the best opposition, it's all considered.

And it's not binary. Meaning Neale in 2023 was not necessarily rated higher than Bont and /or Daicos because he has a Brownlow from that year and they don't...

 

[Fadge]

WalshistheGOAT - still waiting for your rankings.

It took me 20 minutes to do mine.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Looks like it did keep you up at night.
For starters…not sure how leadership is quantifiable so really that’s where it starts to go sideways for me.
Longevity at peak and Longevity..hmm
Was it the only way you could fudge the numbers? (Did you see what I did there).
It still doesn’t really get to the crux of the matter, how do you determine who are the most valuable players.
For mine first and foremost sport is about winning and the greatest players win games.
I’d pick Dangerfield ahead of Pendlebury 7 days a week.
At least your consistent.
Collingwood is the most successful club because they have been above average for longer.
Pendlebury has been consistently above average for longer so ibso facto he’s the best player outside of GAJ and Buddy.
It’s the same in other sports, players you can’t defend who score are the most valuable players.

You mean to tell me we can't judge leadership watching on the TV???

Ground breaking stuff. Fadge might have to explain how he knows how good of a leader Pendles and the rest of them are?

WalshistheGOAT - still waiting for your rankings.

It took me 20 minutes to do mine.

I went to the gym campaigner, some of us have lives.

 

[Fadge]

Dangerfield... Brownlow Medal, Leigh Matthews Trophy, Coaches Association Award

Same situation as Martin, where these were all won in the same year (acknowledging his 2017 was also top shelf, and why I'm not binary about winning v. not winning awards).

....and could still end up with the most Brownlow votes in history (12 votes off GAJ currently).

We both know that seat is only being kept warm for N. Daicos.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Here would be my assessment using Fadge's ridiculous criteria. The ranking order is how I actually rate them overall regardless of their totals in this experiment. I removed leadership as a factor because at the end of the day us fans have absolutely no clue what any of these players are truly like behind the scenes. We aren't privy to that sort of insight though I'm sure all of them are fantastic leaders in their own right.



For me Pendles is somewhere between 10-20 this century. It's very hard to split players of his ilk but he's certainly nowhere near Dusty, Danger, Gawn, Goodes etc for me.

GAJ, Judd and Buddy the clear top 3 with nobody close to them imo.

 

[Fadge]

Here would be my assessment using Fadge's ridiculous criteria. The ranking order is how I actually rate them overall regardless of their totals in this experiment. I removed leadership as a factor because at the end of the day us fans have absolutely no clue what any of these players are truly like behind the scenes. We aren't privy to that sort of insight though I'm sure all of them are fantastic leaders in their own right.

View attachment 2203738

For me Pendles is somewhere between 10-20 this century. It's very hard to split players of his ilk but he's certainly nowhere near Dusty, Danger, Gawn, Goodes etc for me.

If my criteria is 'ridiculous', why use it?

I asked you to use YOUR brain to come up with YOUR criteria for YOUR rankings...

But my favourite part is how Gawn receives the same ranking points for 'longevity at peak' as Pendlebury, despite doing it for half as long, and only gets one point less for longevity, despite playing just over half as many games...

 

[Cdog71]

As I posted, 'accolades' are a result of peak plus longevity of peak.

Whether a player had 2 x BOG against the best opposition, or 4 x top 3 BOG against the best opposition, it's all considered.

And it's not binary. Meaning Neale in 2023 was not necessarily rated higher than Bont and /or Daicos because he has a Brownlow from that year and they don't...

I understand what you’ve posted.
I don’t agree with it.

 

[Fadge]

I understand what you’ve posted.
I don’t agree with it.

Nobody said you had to. That's the thing about opinions.

How 'bout you do your version?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

If my criteria is 'ridiculous', why use it?

I asked you to use YOUR brain to come up with YOUR criteria for YOUR rankings...

Hence why I stated my top 10 in order in the left hand column. I then used your criteria to compare it.

I couldn't really give a stuff if Fyfe or Dusty only managed to stay at their best for 4-5 seasons, their best was that good that they'll always be remembered as better players than Pendles imo. They hit a peak only handful of players ever have.

Its like Travis Boak vs Robbie Gray. I don't care how consistent Boak was, how many accolades he picked up, what he's like as a bloke... If you ask me to pick between Gray or Boak to win a game I'm taking Gray every day of the week no matter the circumstances. Gray was a magician with the football. Boak was just a damn good player.

 

[Fadge]

Hence why I stated my top 10 in order in the left hand column. I then used your criteria to compare it.

I couldn't really give a stuff if Fyfe or Dusty only managed to stay at their best for 4-5 seasons, their best was that good that they'll always be remembered as better players than Pendles imo. They hit a peak only handful of players ever have.

Its like Travis Boak vs Robbie Gray. I don't care how consistent Boak was, how many accolades he picked up, what he's like as a bloke... If you ask me to pick between Gray or Boak to win a game I'm taking Gray every day of the week no matter the circumstances. Gray was a magician with the football. Boak was just a damn good player.

So your criteria is simply 'the vibe'?

(Not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[Fadge]

I couldn't really give a stuff if Fyfe or Dusty only managed to stay at their best for 4-5 seasons, their best was that good that they'll always be remembered as better players than Pendles imo. They hit a peak only handful of players ever have.

Footy didn't start 25 years ago...

 

[Mr Meow]

Same situation as Martin, where these were all won in the same year (acknowledging his 2017 was also top shelf, and why I'm not binary about winning v. not winning awards).


We both know that seat is only being kept warm for N. Daicos.

Another useful way we can look at absolute peak (and how many seasons at that level) are the top season coaches votes tallies for each player (best to stick to midfielders for obvious reasons).

Ablett: 105, 104, 95, 92, 92, 80 (note that 2014 had 72 votes from 14 games, it was set to be a monster season)
Dangerfield: 121, 118, 97, 92, 73, 65
Martin: 122, 90, 90, 77, 70, 61
Pendlebury: 96, 79, 76, 73, 72, 68

Bolded are the 90+ vote monster seasons, along with Ablett's cut-short 2014.

So that's 6 monster seasons for Ablett, 4 for Dangerfield, 3 for Martin and 1 for Pendlebury. Ablett's tallies would be even more ridiculous if his Geelong finals had coaches votes recorded.

Regarding Daicos it's possible. Vote inflation has been crazy over the past decade. Look how many votes the top 5 get now compared to say 2008.

For longevity Pendlebury is at the top.

 

[Cdog71]

Pendlebury may well be the most humble competitor in my lifetime.
Humble in regards to wanting the glory.
I don’t see Pendlebury as the guy who wants the ball to win the game who wants the glory.
I’ve got him at 9 of last 25 years. It’s cool to see him play with a guy like NDaicos. Both play makers but Daicos has alotve appetite.and wants the glory and I think that’s what makes the most valuable players because really the only stat that matters is the scoreboard.
Goals from 1v1 contests wins games it’s as simple as that.
That’s why I and most have Buddy #1
Pendlebury has more in terms of being advanced with the ball in hand probably more than 95% of players.
It can be successful in stats but that doesn’t determine the outcome of games.
Goals scored determines the outcome of games and sport is about winning.
Pendlebury has played 31 finals and been in the bests more than any player.
Remarkable how consistent he is in preparing to do his best and producing his best a great of the game for sure.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Footy didn't start 25 years ago...

Do you honestly think any player who played the majority of their career before 2000 would get a game in the AFL today?

Do you think Diesel would dominate like he did coming up against man mountains like Fyfe and Cripps in todays game?

AFL players are lightyears ahead of the players of yesteryear. So forgive me if I stand by my comments that those players reached a level only a handful ever have.

 

[Cdog71]

Nobody said you had to. That's the thing about opinions.

How 'bout you do your version?

It’s where all this started.
It’s agreeing with someone who actually had the balls and a credible reputation to out on the line.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Another useful way we can look at absolute peak (and how many seasons at that level) are the top season coaches votes tallies for each player (best to stick to midfielders for obvious reasons).

Ablett: 105, 104, 95, 92, 92, 80 (note that 2014 had 72 votes from 14 games, it was set to be a monster season)
Dangerfield: 121, 118, 97, 92, 73, 65
Martin: 122, 90, 90, 77, 70, 61
Pendlebury: 96, 79, 76, 73, 72, 68

Bolded are the 90+ vote monster seasons, along with Ablett's cut-short 2014.

So that's 6 monster seasons for Ablett, 4 for Dangerfield, 3 for Martin and 1 for Pendlebury. Ablett's tallies would be even more ridiculous if his Geelong finals had coaches votes recorded.

Regarding Daicos it's possible. Vote inflation has been crazy over the past decade. Look how many votes the top 5 get now compared to say 2008.

For longevity Pendlebury is at the top.

The game has shifted closer to a basketball style league where a handful of players get to eat while the rest of the team play supporting roles. Salary cap, the draft system, extra teams etc have contributed to that.

People complained about the Brownlow results last year with Cripps obliterating the record, but proper analysis of his and Carltons season's made it fairly clear he was in for an all time record count. Same with Daicos, obviously just behind Cripps who had a slightly better year.

Unfortunately this has meant there's far more focus on the 5-6 gun players in a team, and how the supporting cast can help make them the most damaging versions of themselves. The supporting cast don't get the plaudits, but they're arguably as important as they've ever been in the game.

 

[Mr Meow]

The game has shifted closer to a basketball style league where a handful of players get to eat while the rest of the team play supporting roles. Salary cap, the draft system, extra teams etc have contributed to that.

People complained about the Brownlow results last year with Cripps obliterating the record, but proper analysis of his and Carltons season's made it fairly clear he was in for an all time record count. Same with Daicos, obviously just behind Cripps who had a slightly better year.

Unfortunately this has meant there's far more focus on the 5-6 gun players in a team, and how the supporting cast can help make them the most damaging versions of themselves. The supporting cast don't get the plaudits, but they're arguably as important as they've ever been in the game.

Yep I agree with this completely. And I fully admit this had already started taking place through Ablett's career and especially Dangerfield's. The same "superstar" vote inflation was evident compared to say Buckley, Voss and Hird's era - let alone before them.

It doesn't mean Daicos, Cripps, Neale and co haven't put together incredible seasons lately. But the nature of the game and the attention they get externally means vote tallies in particular are going to keep getting crazier (who knows, maybe they're finally maxing out) and it's not a reflection that the top players are actually better than their previous era peers used to be.

Naturally the further apart the eras, the more difficult to compare players. It's best to compare ones where careers at least had some kind of overlap IMO.

 

[Gone Critical]

Fadge Mr Meow

All jokes and pissing aside, where do you rank Pendlebury from players of the AFL era? Obviously Collingwood bias would see you rank him higher than others but do you see him as one of those all time greats? Dustin Martin, Gary Ablett, Lance Franklin?

Most probably see him as a rung below, if not two rungs below which is no slight at all. He has been a bloody good player

I think Pendles position is these arguments has some unique characteristics.

His longevity of excellence has him reasonably placed to overtake Bucks as Collingwoods greatest ever player. At the same time he isn't in my best 10 players since 2010

GAJ
Buddy
Dusty
Fyfe
Danger
Bont
Judd
N Reiwoldt
Kennedy (WCE)
Goodes

He is a cracking player, worth paying just to watch him. His weaknesses that have him a rung below the very best mids is he isn't the same goalkeeping threat. The most elite mids have to have that.

I still have Bucks just ahead as the best Pie at least in people's living memory which currently takes us back to the 1950s roughly. Pendles has never really been the best player in the comp at any time but has been near the top for so long.

He will be overtaken by Nick Daicos in Collingwood rankings in the next 5 seasons would be my guess because I think Daicos will go a.long way past Pendles in the long term and be clearly Collingwoods best ever. He will end up being Collingwoods only candidate for the AFL greatest team of all time. Pendles as good as he has been doesnt get a look in at that level. Dusty does.