SEN Best Team Since 2000

[Cleansweep17]

Best team of the century = All Australian. Has to be the most important consideration. The question was not name the best performed team in finals this century. Not even sure why you're arguing this point. Dusty is in the SEN team

You answered your own question.

Dusty is in despite only 4 AAs. So finals matter to everybody else, reasonable people don’t just go AA = how good you are. It seems to be a Geelong and Pies supporter thing and it’s pretty obvious why. But whatever.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Bahahahahaha

Dangerfield has been an excellent finals player.

Mate, take your hand out of your pants for three quarters of a second and get used to the idea that players other than Dustin Martin have had good finals careers.

Other players exist.

Dangerfield is in my team because of finals and his H&A achievements.

You keep assuming my opinions when you know f all about them.

 

[PhatBoy]

Dangerfield is in my team because of finals.

You keep assuming my opinions when you know f all about them.

Then provide some context for them.

 

[Lunchtime]

Bahahahahaha

Dangerfield has been an excellent finals player.

Mate, take your hand out of your pants for three quarters of a second and get used to the idea that players other than Dustin Martin have had good finals careers.

Other players exist.

I don't think anyone is doubting Dangerfield isn't good in finals. A Gary Ayres Award (Player of Finals) in 2022 proves that.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Then provide some context for them.

His H&A record is elite, now with a Gary Ayres award and a flag in 2022 it elevates him into my team when otherwise he may be on the bench or not in the team at all.

Without the Gary Ayers award (and I think 2nd in 2022 NS) I’d put him in the 2nd tier with the above players probably behind Neale and maybe bont tbh.

Bont to me has a more impressive H&A record than all these players. But he’s average in finals. Which I don’t rate and why he’s 2nd for me.

I think I’m being pretty fair, so it’s annoying when you say I’m being outrageous all the time.

 

[PhatBoy]

His H&A record is elite, now with a Gary Ayres award and a flag in 2022 it elevates him into my team when otherwise he may be on the bench or not in the team at all.

Without the Gary Ayers award (and I think 2nd in 2022 NS) I’d put him in the 2nd tier with the above players probably behind Neale and maybe bont tbh.

Bont to me has a more impressive H&A record than all these players. But he’s average in finals. Which I don’t rate and why he’s 2nd for me.

I think I’m being pretty fair, so it’s annoying when you say I’m being outrageous all the time.

Even without the GA award - again with the awards - he’s shown himself throughout his career to be a fantastic finals player. The notion that you have to be the one guy winning an award in a given game or year to be an exceptional player is ridiculous.

 

[Lunchtime]

His H&A record is elite, now with a Gary Ayres award and a flag in 2022 it elevates him into my team when otherwise he may be on the bench or not in the team at all.

Without the Gary Ayers award (and I think 2nd in 2022 NS) I’d put him in the 2nd tier with the above players probably behind Neale and maybe bont tbh.

Bont to me has a more impressive H&A record than all these players. But he’s average in finals. Which I don’t rate and why he’s 2nd for me.

I think I’m being pretty fair, so it’s annoying when you say I’m being outrageous all the time.

Even if he didn't win the Gary Ayres Award, in my opinion I had Dangerfield ahead of Bontempelli. Things can change of course and the Bont can go ahead of Danger but currently I have Danger in front of Bont

 

[Lunchtime]

Even without the GA award - again with the awards - he’s shown himself throughout his career to be a fantastic finals player. The notion that you have to be the one guy winning an award in a given game or year to be an exceptional player is ridiculous.

Dangerfield averages 24 disposals and 0.8 goals per game. That's serviceable. That's a good record in Finals matches I think?

Not sure anyone can dispute that?

 

[PhatBoy]

Dangerfield averages 24 disposals and 0.8 goals per game. That's serviceable. That's a good record in Finals matches I think?

Not sure anyone can dispute that?

All his output across home and away games and finals are basically identical and of his 28 finals he’s played numerous exceptional games and he’s done it in big wins, defeats, tight games etc - yes he’s had the odd shocker like most players. But even when he has, it’s been rare for him to ‘go missing.’ Aside from one grand final (out of 28 finals appearances) his ‘bad’ finals games have generally been ones where he’s still won plenty of ball but turned it over too much

 

[Lunchtime]

All his output across home and away games and finals are basically identical and of his 28 finals he’s played numerous exceptional games and he’s done it in big wins, defeats, tight games etc - yes he’s had the odd shocker like most players. But even when he has, it’s been rare for him to ‘go missing.’ Aside from one grand final (out of 28 finals appearances) his ‘bad’ finals games have generally been ones where he’s still won plenty of ball but turned it over too much

Agreed and you're just confirming what I said....Dangerfield is a good players in Finals. The stats say that which I presented above.

It shouldn't be a knock on him or anyone else if they don't reach the level in Finals footy that Martin got to. Martin in Finals footy was something else - very very damaging.

It's like Bradman...its not a knock if a player doesn't average in the 90s in Test cricket (although as we speak currently there is a batsman who is but that's a different topic, check out his record if you follow cricket).

Anyway Dangerfield is a good Finals player. For me its clear. My eyes tell me that in conjunction with his stats in Finals footy.

 

[PhatBoy]

Agreed and you're just confirming what I said....Dangerfield is a good players in Finals. The stats say that which I presented above.

It shouldn't be a knock on him or anyone else if they don't reach the level in Finals footy that Martin got to. Martin in Finals footy was something else - very very damaging.

It's like Bradman...its not a knock if a player doesn't average in the 90s in Test cricket (although as we speak currently there is a batsman who is but that's a different topic, check out his record if you follow cricket).

Anyway Dangerfield is a good Finals player. For me its clear. My eyes tell me that in conjunction with his stats in Finals footy.

Yes Kamindu Mendis is, at this stage, a freak.

 

[Lunchtime]

Yes Kamindu Mendis is, at this stage, a freak.

Pasqual Handi Kamindu Dilanka Mendis

Kamindu Mendis Profile - Cricket Player Sri Lanka | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Kamindu Mendis cricket player from Sri Lanka profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

Have a look at those stats. But yeah best we take that topic to the cricket board.

But yep, great start in Test career.

 

[Lingsface]

Neale is pushing for a gig now.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Even if he didn't win the Gary Ayres Award, in my opinion I had Dangerfield ahead of Bontempelli. Things can change of course and the Bont can go ahead of Danger but currently I have Danger in front of Bont

Yeah fair as of now I’d go:

1. Danger
__________
2. Neale
3. Bont
4. Cripps
__________




5. Pendlebury

 

[joe444]

McLeod - wrong decade.
Lloyd - wrong decade.
Riccuito - wrong. Should be Simon Black.
Betts - cool highlights, bro, but Stevie J averaged almost twice disposals (20 v 12), number of marks (5 v 3), averaged as many goals, dominated two grand finals and revolutionised goalkicking technique.

 

[PhatBoy]

McLeod - wrong decade.
Lloyd - wrong decade.
Riccuito - wrong. Should be Simon Black.
Betts - cool highlights, bro, but Stevie J averaged almost twice disposals (20 v 12), number of marks (5 v 3), averaged as many goals, dominated two grand finals and revolutionised goalkicking technique.

People need to stop putting ‘wrong decade’ in the Andrew McLeod debate ‘against’ column.

Pretty much the only reason to do this is because of his two Norm Smith medals coming in the 1990s. So yeah while his two most memorable games might have come in that decade, 4 of his 5 All Australian selections came in the 2000s. 239 of his matches were played this century.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Even without the GA award - again with the awards - he’s shown himself throughout his career to be a fantastic finals player. The notion that you have to be the one guy winning an award in a given game or year to be an exceptional player is ridiculous.

The awards represent performance by measure of influence, not pure stats that you keep wanting to use. In the 2019 QF Neale got 51 disposals. Dusty got 14 disposals and 6 goals. Stats and champion data would rate Neale higher, but people with common sense realised Dusty was BOG and had more influence.

Whenever you hear me saying so and so medal, replace in your mind performance in so and so.

I’ve told you this many times but you keep thinking I’m mean the piece of metal is magic or something. It’s getting old.

I’m not the only one saying this either. Literally everybody is referencing the Gary Ayres award and being premiership captain to move him up in their rankings.

I’m convinced it’s because certain Geelong players you like didn’t achieve the medals so this is how you cope.

 

[joe444]

People need to stop putting ‘wrong decade’ in the Andrew McLeod debate ‘against’ column.

To clarify - without his outstanding 97 to 99 half back performances in the mix, he's an A+ performer but not a once-in-a-generation one.

Also, give me Chappy over Betts as a pure forward pocket any day. This side shouldn't be picked on highlight reels.

 

[PhatBoy]

To clarify - without his outstanding 97 to 99 half back performances in the mix, he's an A+ performer but not a once-in-a-generation one.

Also, give me Chappy over Betts as a pure forward pocket any day. This side shouldn't be picked on highlight reels.

Perhaps but he’s still in consideration. His performances this century were outstanding and consistent

As for Betts - 7 seasons of 42 goals or more, 5 of 50+, and rarely played in anything more than ‘okay’ teams.

Think he was a bit better than just a highlight reel player mate.

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

Naicos over Judd but otherwise looks okay

 

[joe444]

Betts:

Perhaps but he’s still in consideration. His performances this century were outstanding and consistent

As for Betts - 7 seasons of 42 goals or more, 5 of 50+, and rarely played in anything more than ‘okay’ teams.

Think he was a bit better than just a highlight reel player mate.

Always be wary of the random statistical cutoff point, I mean how many seasons did he have more than 89 shots?

But fair play.

 

[Roobs321]

Tom Stewart being 'strongly considered' and 'unlucky to miss out' for the last spot in the fullback line sort of took me aback, kind of snuck up on me how rated his career is. Was surprised he already had accumulated 5 AAs and was 30+.

 

[joe444]

Tom Stewart being 'strongly considered' and 'unlucky to miss out' for the last spot in the fullback line sort of took me aback, kind of snuck up on me how rated his career is. Was surprised he already had accumulated 5 AAs and was 30+.

When a defender starts getting tagged, that should tell you something. That he starts beating it by playing as a mid, that should tell you another. I wouldn't have him in the elite class for the past decades, but he's damn good.

For players like him, I think the unfair criticism of "he plays on nobody" should be a badge of honour.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I suppose you'll believe whatever you want to believe. I think Gawn is a fair distance behind Cox.

I"d actually take a fit, prime NicNat over both of them.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

At least for the first decade though you needed talls, the mad running game came later

I think Malthouse started the mad running game with the Pies didn't he? Interchange numbers exploded under him.