Who is the best Key Defender of the 21st Century?

[Jeremias]

It seems you think the coaches votes, contested possession, tackle, disposal and other stats are not collected and reported accurately now. Wow, that is new. What makes you think that?

Sorry, where did I say that, or anything close to it?

Why are you making up rubbish?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

LoL you have outdone yourself with this botching of data.

Also the AA team is based off H&A, not finals.

Richmond winning finals is irrelevant when talking AA selections.

If you put forward that at the start of the century it would have raised eyebrows.

But if you also said that one club would finish top 4 after H&A 14 times, winning many more games than everyone else and include 5 of the top 20 players in terms of games won in the history of the competition....then it would make sense.

That team blessed to have some champions of the game.

Again it aint unsurprising, when one team is that far ahead in H&A wins they will have champions who perform year-in-year out.

The other clubs (and players) pop up for a few years and then fall away.

So yes, if you are basing your "best" on AA awards, which heavily favour sustained H&A dominance, it is unsurprising that Geelong are dominant...as they were the one team where players continued to win.

The Geelong champions are 300 game stars who were able to sustain their peak performance over a long duration.

Meanwhile you have the rest - StK stars of 09-10, guys like Montagna and Dal Santo who bob up for a few elite seasons, but cant sustain it. BL - their premiership stars like Lappin, Aler, Black, C.Johnson, Leppa none chalked up the 5 or 6 AAs as the team fell away after their run of dominance.

Why are you combining anything?


Just look at simple most wins ever table.

Filled with champions of the game - Bartlett, Doull, Matthews, Tuck, Coventry, Madden.

Geelong from the 21st century have added 5 to the list of the top 20 winningiest players ever (and that doesnt include Gaz or Danger (Danger needs 15 more wins to bump C.Langford out of 20th)).

All the other teams combined in the 21st century have only added 4 to the list - S.Burgoyne, Goodes, Franklin and Pendles.

Yet you are surprised that Geelong have some champions who collect AA awards??


Herp derp.

Your lack of comprehension (and need to warp any stats to favour Richmond) is again why it aint adding up.

Geelong have been streets ahead of the rest in the 21st century, largely off the back of some all time champion players, Scarlett being one of them.

Lol, you seem perfectly satisfied that within a system of equalisation the AA selectors have deemed about 80% of the top 9 or 10 mids, forwards and backs belong to a cohort representing 7% of the playing population of the AFL.

We might expect the team that has won the most game to have the highest representation....maybe not dwarfing the other 17 clubs combined by orders of magnitude though.

For one small example brother dopple....

Cats dynasty team 2007-11 AA selections - 30

Hawks dynasty team 2011-15 AA selections - 13

The two clubs won the same amount of flags, made the same amount of Grand Finals and PF's, so the Geelong players objectively measured did no better ultimately. They won about 5% more home and away matches, like 1 per season. But got about 130% more AA selections.

Would you expect if a team averaged 12 wins per season in a 5 year period they would have 2.3 times as many AA selections as another team that averaged 11 wins over a 5 year period?

Naturally this would be the case though because you looked up AFL tables and saw Geelong have a group of players entering the most ever wins top 20.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry, where did I say that, or anything close to it?

Why are you making up rubbish?

This is not measured by contested possessions, disposal numbers, or tackle count.

There are far better and more accurate stats to use for key defenders, and I’m wondering why you didn’t bother.

For other stats to be more accurate would require the stats being quoted to be to at least some extent inaccurate, would it not?

Untwist your knickers mate. If you got your words wrong, just say that.

 

[Jeremias]

Untwist your knickers mate. If you got your words wrong, just say that.

Oh I see. You’re now being deliberately obtuse.

Bold the next 5 words and then read the bolded section again in its entirety.

and more accurate stats to use for key defenders

Hopefully that becomes clearer for you. If it doesn’t I’m not sure what to tell you.

What’s next? Hitouts? Goals? Metres gained?

 

[doppleganger]

None if this means anything unless you can show Scarlett achieved things Rance didn't.

What like avg player ratings?

Scarlett kept his opponents goal less avross a finals series....when did Rance manage this?

All the same things that made Rance 2013-18 a better player than Scarlett 2006-09 and beyond would have highly likely made Rance a better player than Scarlett 2002-05. Unless you think Scarlett 2002-05 was somehow on another level to Scarlett 2006-09 and beyond(was AA in 2011 from memory.)

From a Geelong best and fairest perspective 2001 to 2005 was Scarletts peak.

BNF finish of 2nd, 4th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd.

From 2006-2011 his best finish was 5th, and was 7th in 2011.

So yes, even in your comparisons, you are using the later half of Scarlett's career and not including his real peak which was pre 2006.

If he was then your longevity goes out the window. If he wasn't then Rance was simply a better footballer.

LoL...Scarlett was better and was better for longer, hence getting an AA in 2003 and another AA in 2011.

His best finishes in the BnF, ie coaches votes were all pre 2006.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

What like avg player ratings?

Scarlett kept his opponents goal less avross a finals series....when did Rance manage this?

From a Geelong best and fairest perspective 2001 to 2005 was Scarletts peak.

BNF finish of 2nd, 4th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd.

From 2006-2011 his best finish was 5th, and was 7th in 2011.

So yes, even in your comparisons, you are using the later half of Scarlett's career and not including his real peak which was pre 2006.

LoL...Scarlett was better and was better for longer, hence getting an AA in 2003 and another AA in 2011.

His best finishes in the BnF, ie coaches votes were all pre 2006.

The B & F finishes are not telling us that Scarlett played better in that period. These are effected by how many matches individual players play and so on. Also who you are up against. Rance in all his relevant seasons had Cotchin(Brownlow and Coach MVP winner) Riewoldt(3 x Coleman winner) and Dustin Martin(Brownlow & Coaches MVP with record votes + triple NS Medallist etc)

By the time Scarlett was up against the Abletts and Selwoods etc at around their best, and Bartel, as you say, he was sinking down the order a fair bit despite still being well in his prime.

Scarlett going longer is indisputable as Rance was cut down by an ACL in his absolute prime then decided to quit. There is absolutely no reason to think Rance wouldn't have been good enough to play as many or more games and also outstrip Scarlett for awards etc had he played his career out to its natural conclusion. Playing longer does not automatically make you a better player. Of course.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Oh I see. You’re now being deliberately obtuse.

Bold the next 5 words and then read the bolded section again in its entirety.

and more accurate stats to use for key defenders

Hopefully that becomes clearer for you. If it doesn’t I’m not sure what to tell you.

What’s next? Hitouts? Goals? Metres gained?

You seem to be a bit of a battler tbh so fair enough yeah, hitouts goals and metres gained, you got me, that is what I was planning. But don't tell anyone, I amkeeping it secret.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Oh yeah, forgot about that.

And a better performance than Bobby Hill's Norm Smith Medal game in the 2023 Grand Final....

Player ratings don’t always align with what logically are the best players within each individual game.

I’ll explain it this way. (Just an example). Rance’s game in the 2018PF might’ve resulted in Richmond being 4-goals better off - this is of course meaningless in a 6-goal loss in a PF.

Hill’s game in the 2023 GF might’ve resulted in the Pies being 2-goals better off. Obviously absolutely crucial in a close game and a match winning effort and he gets the votes accordingly.

So in the context of each individual game Hill’s game was of course much more important and thus better.

However, over a 23-game season, what the Player Ratings are saying is Rance’s contributions which made the team 4-goals better off is in the long run going to be more valuable than Hill who made his team 2-goals better off.

Ask anyone who won the contests to set up Hill’s uncontested goals? Nobody remembers. But whoever did would’ve got more Player Ratings points than Hill for the resultant goals.

To be clear. I believe Hill was BOG, and I believed Hill was far better than Rance in the context of each game.

So you need to look at the Ratings over an extended period and not isolated anomalies. you’ll see the ratings reflect who we regard as the best players in the game very well.

Just remember, in very simple terms, if the contribution of a player results in their team being 4-goals better off, it will rate them higher than a player who makes their team 2-goals better off, irrespective of the result. And this won’t always make sense in the context of an individual game result, but it makes sense in the long run as the player who contributes to the team being 4-goals’ better off will be more valuable than the player making their team ‘2-goals’ better off.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So back to this AA fiasco. It is hilarious really.

So Cats 07-11 win 1 game per season more than Hawks 2011-15. AA result Cats 30 v Hawks 13.

According to Fadge and doppleganger this is all legit and strictly above board. After all when a team is a more winning team they are bound to dominate AA selections.

Until we get to phase 2.

Phase 2 of course is 2017-20.

Tigers win 1.25 home and away games per season more than Cats. AA result? From the above of course we expect Richmond to get roughly 2.4 times as many AA selections as Geelong.

Cats 11 v Tigers 9.

 

[Noidnadroj]

LoL.

In Rance's peak, from 2014-18, there were only 3 key forwards who avg 3+ goals a game in a season - Buddy, Josh Kennedy and Roughy.

TomaHawk never had a season where he avg 3. Jack only had 2, way before Rance entered his prime.

Scarlett had the following key forwards who had seasons where they averaged 3+ goals during his 10 year prime, from 2002-11:

Buddy, Roughy, Lloyd, J.Brown, Fevola, Pavlich, B.Hall, Gehrig, N.Riewoldt, Neitz, S.Lucas, Tredrea, Richardson, A.Lynch

Back when Scarlett was playing, key forwards were still kicking bags as teams hadnt heavily invested in the team defensive structures that really came in the 2010s.

Rance played on 7 forwards who will be in the top-28 goal kickers of all time. How many of the top-28 did Scarlett regularly play on?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Player ratings don’t always align with what logically are the best players within each individual game.

I’ll explain it this way. (Just an example). Rance’s game in the 2018PF might’ve resulted in Richmond being 4-goals better off - this is of course meaningless in a 6-goal loss in a PF.

Hill’s game in the 2023 GF might’ve resulted in the Pies being 2-goals better off. Obviously absolutely crucial in a close game and a match winning effort and he gets the votes accordingly.

So in the context of each individual game Hill’s game was of course much more important and thus better.

However, over a 23-game season, what the Player Ratings are saying is Rance’s contributions which made the team 4-goals better off is in the long run going to be more valuable than Hill who made his team 2-goals better off.

Ask anyone who won the contests to set up Hill’s uncontested goals? Nobody remembers. But whoever did would’ve got more Player Ratings points than Hill for the resultant goals.

To be clear. I believe Hill was BOG, and I believed Hill was far better than Rance in the context of each game.

So you need to look at the Ratings over an extended period and not isolated anomalies. you’ll see the ratings reflect who we regard as the best players in the game very well.

Just remember, in very simple terms, if the contribution of a player results in their team being 4-goals better off, it will rate them higher than a player who makes their team 2-goals better off, irrespective of the result. And this won’t always make sense in the context of an individual game result, but it makes sense in the long run as the player who contributes to the team being 4-goals’ better off will be more valuable than the player making their team ‘2-goals’ better off.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Lol perfectly explained but these clowns don't want perfect explanations. They want pub logic.

 

[Noidnadroj]

LoL.

In Rance's peak, from 2014-18, there were only 3 key forwards who avg 3+ goals a game in a season - Buddy, Josh Kennedy and Roughy.

TomaHawk never had a season where he avg 3. Jack only had 2, way before Rance entered his prime.

Scarlett had the following key forwards who had seasons where they averaged 3+ goals during his 10 year prime, from 2002-11:

Buddy, Roughy, Lloyd, J.Brown, Fevola, Pavlich, B.Hall, Gehrig, N.Riewoldt, Neitz, S.Lucas, Tredrea, Richardson, A.Lynch

Back when Scarlett was playing, key forwards were still kicking bags as teams hadnt heavily invested in the team defensive structures that really came in the 2010s.

BTW … Jack and Rance played in the same team, so Jack’s goal averages probably aren’t overly relevant…


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

Lol, you seem perfectly satisfied that within a system of equalisation the AA selectors have deemed about 80% of the top 9 or 10 mids, forwards and backs belong to a cohort representing 7% of the playing population of the AFL.

We might expect the team that has won the most game to have the highest representation....maybe not dwarfing the other 17 clubs combined by orders of magnitude though.

For one small example brother dopple....

Cats dynasty team 2007-11 AA selections - 30

Hawks dynasty team 2011-15 AA selections - 13

The two clubs won the same amount of flags, made the same amount of Grand Finals and PF's, so the Geelong players objectively measured did no better ultimately. They won about 5% more home and away matches, like 1 per season. But got about 130% more AA selections.

Would you expect if a team averaged 12 wins per season in a 5 year period they would have 2.3 times as many AA selections as another team that averaged 11 wins over a 5 year period?

Naturally this would be the case though because you looked up AFL tables and saw Geelong have a group of players entering the most ever wins top 20.

I might get time for this over upcoming holidays (because it’s p*ssing with rain in Melbourne next week), but I believe a good way to get a feel for any ‘favouritism’ for Cats players is to perhaps look at who makes AA when not finishing in the top-5 / top-10 of their own team’s B&F. Unlike coaches votes or Brownlow votes, B&F’s generally reward positional based performance which is what AA teams are selected on.

This isn’t going to be anything definitive, but it will be interesting to see if there’s any pattern emerge. And it would also be good to provide the average finishing position in the B&F. So if it’s 3 x players selected and they finish 4th, 6th, 8th, the ‘average’ B&F finish would be 6th.

If Geelong are much the same as all other teams then any conspiracy can be quashed.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I might get time for this over upcoming holidays (because it’s p*ssing with rain in Melbourne next week), but I believe a good way to get a feel for any ‘favouritism’ for Cats players is to perhaps look at who makes AA when not finishing in the top-5 / top-10 of their own team’s B&F. Unlike coaches votes or Brownlow votes, B&F’s generally reward positional based performance which is what AA teams are selected on.

This isn’t going to be anything definitive, but it will be interesting to see if there’s any pattern emerge. And it would also be good to provide the average finishing position in the B&F. So if it’s 3 x players selected and they finish 4th, 6th, 8th, the ‘average’ B&F finish would be 6th.

If Geelong are much the same as all other teams then any conspiracy can be quashed.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I will be really interested to see the results. And I like the methodology.

But I am beyond being able to be convinced all of Geelong's AA selections are not tainted by some form of bias. Not necessarily any conspiracy of course but their dominance of AA selections does not look like the logical outcome of their actual performances.

You have to ask whether the likes of Mark Blicavs, Tyson Stengle, Cam Guthrie, Matthew Egan, Matthew Ling, and sundry others are getting anywhere near selection in the years they were selected if they had the exact same performances at say Fremantle, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs for example. To me the answer to this is very obviously no.

For me it is just a matter of by what mechanism the bias has infiltrated the system of selection.

 

[doppleganger]

Lol, you seem perfectly satisfied that within a system of equalisation the AA selectors have deemed about 80% of the top 9 or 10 mids, forwards and backs belong to a cohort representing 7% of the playing population of the AFL.

Your extrapolation of numbers is woeful.

We might expect the team that has won the most game to have the highest representation....maybe not dwarfing the other 17 clubs combined by orders of magnitude though.

They havent just won the most games, it is not even close....they dwarf the rest, 100 more than Richmond for fecks sake.

For one small example brother dopple....

Cats dynasty team 2007-11 AA selections - 30

Hawks dynasty team 2011-15 AA selections - 13

The two clubs won the same amount of flags, made the same amount of Grand Finals and PF's, so the Geelong players objectively measured did no better ultimately.

Finals are irrelevant when talking AA.

This clearly is something you fail to grasp.

You continue to drop in finals performance as if it is relevant, it aint.

They won about 5% more home and away matches, like 1 per season. But got about 130% more AA selections.

Your idiotic use of ratios to try and fluff your narrative is laughable.

Hawks H&A seasons were much less impressive than Geelong...they had two 3rds for starters.

Geelong in 2007 finished 3 games clear on top (or in idiotic Meteor ratio world, 300% better than Hawks biggest gap to second) and in 2008 they finished 4 games clear on top...(400% better than Hawks best gap to second).

No clubs since have ever finished 3 or 4 games clear of second at the end of H&A. Not even the mighty Rance lead Tigers.

Unlike Geelong, Hawthorn excelled in finals....unfortunately this is completely irrelevant to AA awards.

So yes again your comparison is nonsense.

You are comparing a historic outlier of a H&A team, one who dominated consecutive H&A seasons like no other in the 21st century, with a team who came 3rd a couple of times in H&A but lifted in finals.

But then are surprised that the dominant H&A team (300% and 400% better) then dominates a H&A award??

Comprehension fail.

Would you expect if a team averaged 12 wins per season in a 5 year period they would have 2.3 times as many AA selections as another team that averaged 11 wins over a 5 year period?

You continue to highlight that you dont get it.

There is no wins to selections rule or ratio.

The obvious reality is that each season the best performed teams have the majority of best players.

It also helps if you are a consistently strong player with a media profile before the season as you already have a reputation. Dominate media from the get go, and so may get a nod in a line ball type decision with a no name break out type player.

The last 3 years the minor premier (none really standouts, unlike those 07-08 Cats teams) has had the most selections...who would have guessed!!

Dees with 5 in 2021, Cats with 5 in 2022 (those ****ing Cats again, bloody always being looked after) and Pies with 3 in 2023.

What does your ratio say, did Collingwood get dudded by only having 3 this year?

How many AA selections should a team that won 21 games and finished 4 games clear of second receive? Should it be 25% more than a team who wins 17 games? Or 400% more than a team who was only 1 game clear on top?

Naturally this would be the case though because you looked up AFL tables and saw Geelong have a group of players entering the most ever wins top 20.

Geelong have been fortunate enough to have some ALL time champions play for them in the 21st century.

There is no conspiracy, just your awful comprehension and Richmond bias.

Geelong have been blessed with some ALL time champions, 300+ games winners who maintained a higher level of performance for much longer than most...especially the majority of players who have pulled on a Tiger jumper in the 21st century.

As a result they are more highly decorated, including recieving multiple AAs amongst other accolades.

This includes Scarlett being better than Rance.

But of course everyone else has it wrong, and the Tiger is always better for some obscure reason...it might be being a "big game player" in one thread, avg player ratings in another, how good a single peak season was next, potentially how many avg coaches votes if that suits, or the ratio of goals to inside 50s in the next if all else fails.

 

[Drexl 31]

Scarlett. For one of the greatest moments in AFL history.....belting Ballantyne with a well-timed left hook.

 

[doppleganger]

I will be really interested to see the results. And I like the methodology.

But I am beyond being able to be convinced all of Geelong's AA selections are not tainted by some form of bias. Not necessarily any conspiracy of course but their dominance of AA selections does not look like the logical outcome of their actual performances.

You have to ask whether the likes of Mark Blicavs, Tyson Stengle, Cam Guthrie, Matthew Egan, Matthew Ling, and sundry others are getting anywhere near selection in the years they were selected if they had the exact same performances at say Fremantle, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs for example. To me the answer to this is very obviously no.

For me it is just a matter of by what mechanism the bias has infiltrated the system of selection.

LoL, pretty simple stuff...if you play well for a team that has a strong H&A season you are a better chance than if in a battling team.

Mark Blicavs - 2022 AA, Bench. He was 2nd in the BnF of the minor premier and 11th in coaches votes in 2022.

Tyson Stengle - 2022 AA, FP. It was Stengle or C.Cameron for the FP, one goal split em...but Stengle greater score involvements got him over the line, pretty standard for the FP to go to the small forward who contributes most to the scoreboard.

C.Guthrie - 2020 AA, wing. BnF in a top4 team, and 12th in coaches votes in 2020.

Hardly anything strange about those 3.

And then in 2007, they were the minor premier finishing 3 games clear. None of the clubs you listed have ever finished 3 games clear on top...so a moot point.

Matthew Ling (assume Cameron Ling) - 2007 AA, Int. Ling was 3rd in Cats BnF in the dominant minor premier. Always potentially 20 mids you could include, Ling the best two way mid in the game at the time.

Matthew Egan - 2007 AA, CHB. A rising star who busted his foot in Rd22 and was never seen again. The AA KPD position back then was given to guys like Bock, Basset, Rutten, Bolton...Egan wasnt a surprise.

 

[Fadge]

However, over a 23-game season, what the Player Ratings are saying is Rance’s contributions which made the team 4-goals better off is in the long run going to be more valuable than Hill who made his team 2-goals better off...

You guys are still dying on this hill by defending the indefensible Player Ratings using the Rance and Hill example?

Wowee.

But I'm sure we can all agree that effecting a spoil to stop an opposition player gaining possession that might result in a goal at a stage of a game when the result is beyond doubt has far more scoreboard impact than a player who has gained an uncontested possession as a result of gut running to space and converts truly to keep his team within striking distance of the opposition...

 

[Fadge]

Rance played on 7 forwards who will be in the top-28 goal kickers of all time. How many of the top-28 did Scarlett regularly play on?

I think what you meant to say was 'Rance played at the same time as forwards who will be in the top 28 goalkickers of a time'.

We've already agreed that Rance rarely stood the opposition's dominant key forward... that was left to Astbury and Grimes, to allow Rance to play his role. A role he played extremely well, which is why he is being discussed in the best 4 key defenders since the turn of the century, whilst Grimes and Astbury aren't.

 

[Fadge]

Matthew Ling (assume Cameron Ling) - 2007 AA, Int. Ling was 3rd in Cats BnF in the dominant minor premier. Always potentially 20 mids you could include, Ling the best two way mid in the game at the time.

But he assures us he watched enough Geelong games to arrive at an informed conclusion on Scarlett's performance...

 

[Zevon]

Friends, please remember the thread title when you’re posting. There have now been quite a few posts about generic AA selection that have little to do with who is the best key defender of the 21st century.

I get that threads will go on little detours from time to time, so what’s already been posted can stay. But let’s keep it on topic moving forward from here.

 

[philthy05]

Scarlett played on generational key forwards…. ?? Really ??

Given Buddy launched in 2008 and Lonergan played on him from 2010. And given Jack Riewoldt launched from 2010. And Hawkins played for the Cats. And Lloyd’s last good year was 2004.

What’s your list of generational KPF’s Scarlett regularly played on?

N. Riewoldt tredrea brown fevola Pavlich Gehrig just to name a few. There’s a tonne I’m missing.


Did you just start watching football? There’s no shame in that but gee, at least be open to the idea that players existed before rance.



As I mentioned earlier, the afl nerfed offenses during rances peak. It was an era of low scores , packed 50’s, counter attacking football and small forwards like papley Cameron and betts being amongst the top goal kickers.

 

[Jeremias]

You seem to be a bit of a battler tbh so fair enough yeah, hitouts goals and metres gained, you got me, that is what I was planning. But don't tell anyone, I amkeeping it secret.

Do you plan on answering any of the questions asked of you, or are you simply now resorting to insults?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think what you meant to say was 'Rance played at the same time as forwards who will be in the top 28 goalkickers of a time'.

We've already agreed that Rance rarely stood the opposition's dominant key forward... that was left to Astbury and Grimes, to allow Rance to play his role. A role he played extremely well, which is why he is being discussed in the best 4 key defenders since the turn of the century, whilst Grimes and Astbury aren't.

They say imitation is the best form of flattery.

Thans mate, nice to know I am having some influence on you.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think what you meant to say was 'Rance played at the same time as forwards who will be in the top 28 goalkickers of a time'.

We've already agreed that Rance rarely stood the opposition's dominant key forward... that was left to Astbury and Grimes, to allow Rance to play his role. A role he played extremely well, which is why he is being discussed in the best 4 key defenders since the turn of the century, whilst Grimes and Astbury aren't.

You have just made that up out of your imfadgination.

Rance 1 v 1 contests from 2013-2018: 4.8, 5.1, 5.1, 4.7, 5.6, 5.0 career loss % 21.6%

Astbury 1 v 1 contests from 2013-2018: 4.4, 5.4, 2.8, 2.4, 4.2, 3.1 career loss % 25.3%

Grimes 1 v 1 contests from 2013-18: 1.1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.1, 2.1, 2.6 career loss % 22.1%

Why would the opposition team keep kicking it to the Rance 1 v 1 contest more if he is playing on inferior players, and less to the Grimes and or Astubry Match ups if they are playing on superior players?

Does. Not. Make. Any. Sense.