Sam Mitchell vs Adam Goodes

[eth-dog]

Brownlows are irrelevant, show me this alleged elite performance in every position without appealing to awards.

Brownlow medals are irrelevant? Dude, just quit while you're behind.

 

[HolyWars]

Not a master of any. 17 disposals a game, 1 goal a game, he's mediocre on both fronts.

Have to strongly disagree with this. This would leave Rioli as also being "mediocre" on both fronts with 15.4 disposals a game, 1.4 goals a game. Goodes was a champion player that played on too long. As we know, it's what you do with the ball that counts, and Goodes was no exception.

 

[Lethality]

Have to strongly disagree with this. This would leave Rioli as also being "mediocre" on both fronts with 15.4 disposals a game, 1.4 goals a game.

No it wouldn't, it would leave him as an elite half-forward. The claim on Goodes is that he was both elite as a midfielder and as a forward. And the facts just disagree with this. Moreover, Goodes was a tall forward, so he would need to have a higher goal average still, which he doesn't.

 

[Lethality]

Brownlow medals are irrelevant? Dude, just quit while you're behind.

Yeah they are. You're appealing to an authority to avoid discussing actual performance, which is the area where Goodes fails.

Anytime you want to discuss Goodes performance, I'll be waiting.

 

[eth-dog]

Yeah they are. You're appealing to an authority to avoid discussing actual performance, which is the area where Goodes fails.

Anytime you want to discuss Goodes performance, I'll be waiting.

You're dismissing the most coveted individual prize in the game, which rewards actual performance over a season. Which he's won a pair of, in two different positions.

Anytime you're willing to argue not idiotically I'll be waiting

 

[Lethality]

You're dismissing the most coveted individual prize in the game, which rewards actual performance over a season. Which he's won a pair of, in two different positions.

Anytime you're willing to argue not idiotically I'll be waiting

The Brownlow is proven not to go to the best player, or in some cases not even very good players, so there's no reason to even offer it as evidence, apart from desperation.

In terms of empirical evidence, primary or secondary, you haven't offered anything in support of your opinion of Adam Goodes as a footballer. For Sam Mitchell even his most recent game can be offered as proof of his credentials.

 

[eth-dog]

The Brownlow is proven not to go to the best player, or in some cases not even very good players, so there's no reason to even offer it as evidence, apart from desperation.

In terms of empirical evidence you haven't offered anything in support of your opinion of Adam Goodes as a footballer.

The vast majority have been given to players who were considered best for that year. The only person who thinks that it's a poor argument is you, which says quite a bit.

You use stats. How about this one: in 2003 (year he won his first Brownlow) only 39 players averaged 20 disposals or more. You can't use career stats to justify an argument when at the start of his career, less than 6% of players averaged more than 20 disposals in a year of football.

 

[BORK]

Was happy that brownlows avoided being mentioned for most of the first page. A fair perception would be that Goodes is lucky to have two and Mitchell possibly the unluckiest in history not to have one.

I would argue that Mitchell has a BOG in a grand final even though he does not have a norm smith.

A bit of luck could have Mitchell as a two time brownlow and norm smith winner really.

Mitchell also had 41 more career brownlow votes before this season than Goodes from nearly 100 less games.

If brownlows were really the be all and end all of this discussion it would favor Mitchell as he has a career average of 0.78 votes per game well eclipsing Goodes average of 0.47 votes per game.

 

[Lethality]

The vast majority have been given to players who were considered best for that year. The only person who thinks that it's a poor argument is you, which says quite a bit.

Not at all. Priddis, Cooney, Woewoedin, Akermanis, Bartel, the list goes on and on, were not considered the best in their Brownlow years.

You use stats. How about this one: in 2003 (year he won his first Brownlow) only 39 players averaged 20 disposals or more.

Yeah only 10% of the competition And that's counting players who weren't even midfielders, like defenders, forwards, etc. Not to mention that Adam didn't average 20 that year either.

You can't use career stats to justify an argument when at the start of his career, less than 6% of players averaged more than 20 disposals in a year of football.

Over 7% actually. 543 players used, 39 of whom averaged over 20.

Narrow it down to midfielders and Goodes wasn't in the top 20% of disposal earners, even if he did average 20 disposals a game, which he didn't.

 

[juss]

Goodes for me. Supreme athlete, so versatile, a nightmare match up. Hos absolute best was some of the best footy of the modern era. He played 1 or 2 seasons too long though, which seems to be hurting his rep.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Because it's bigfooty and sweeping statements without evidence are permissible i would guess that it's easier to find a player that will give you 80% of what Mitchell gives than it is to find a player than can give you 80% of what goodes could give you.

Having said that comparing players who are such different types of players is silly. Both are superstars and who you'd chose would probably come down to what your team needed

 

[BORK]

Because it's bigfooty and sweeping statements without evideif ce are permissible i would guess that it's easier to find a player that will give you 80% of what Mitchell gives than it is to find a player than can give you 80% of what goodes could give you.

Having said that comparing players who are such different types of players is silly. Both are superstars and who you'd chose would probably come down to what your team needed

Seeing how close the poll has been has more than justified this thread. I had trouble splitting them and was unsure if I was out of touch with the rest of bigfooty on the issue. Appears they are actually hard to separate and has led to some interesting reflection and discussion so far.

 

[The King!]

Mitchell is a more consistent player, arguably the most consistent star I have seen

I personally think goodes best was better though, just his bad games were below


I think the fact he could play every position gives him an edge

 

[Procrastinator35]

You're dismissing the most coveted individual prize in the game, which rewards actual performance over a season. Which he's won a pair of, in two different positions.

Anytime you're willing to argue not idiotically I'll be waiting

The fact the 3 best footballers this past 50 years have not won it, is an indictment on the award. That Hardie, Woewodin & Wilson won it, says even less.

 

[Superstar swan]

Goodes could tear teams apart on his day, near unstoppable when he was up.

Id take mitchell over judd and cousinds etc.

For me its goodes. (Biased i know)

 

[eth-dog]

Not at all. Priddis, Cooney, Woewoedin, Akermanis, Bartel, the list goes on and on, were not considered the best in their Brownlow years.



Yeah only 10% of the competition And that's counting players who weren't even midfielders, like defenders, forwards, etc. Not to mention that Adam didn't average 20 that year either.



Over 7% actually. 543 players used, 39 of whom averaged over 20.

Narrow it down to midfielders and Goodes wasn't in the top 20% of disposal earners, even if he did average 20 disposals a game, which he didn't.

Priddis was an exceptional circumstance where Ablett was injured 14 or 15 rounds into the season and Fyfe was suspended twice. Of the remaining ones eligible, he was among the favourites. Cooney was considered up there for most of the year. Woewoedin was also considered up there in a very even year. Aker? Are you even being serious? And Bartel too? Jimmy was considered top 2, nobody could split him and Ablett.

Incorrect, less than 6%. Players not used are still on an AFL list, so why should they be discluded from the discussion?

The fact the 3 best footballers this past 50 years have not won it, is an indictment on the award. That Hardie, Woewodin & Wilson won it, says even less.

Sorry, Gary Ablett jr has won it twice. He's arguably the best player ever (except to Hawthorn fans). So...

 

[Lethality]

Priddis was an exceptional circumstance where Ablett was injured 14 or 15 rounds into the season and Fyfe was suspended twice. Of the remaining ones eligible, he was among the favourites. Cooney was considered up there for most of the year. Woewoedin was also considered up there in a very even year. Aker?

I stopped reading at Woewoedin.

Incorrect, less than 6%. Players not used are still on an AFL list, so why should they be discluded from the discussion?

Um, maybe because they don't have an average. It's hardly fair to compare the averages of players and claim that Goodes is in a certain percentile if you're claiming players who never got out onto the field. No doubt this even includes injured players, rookies, etc. How desperate.

So, short of counting the Brownlow as something it's not, and including averages of players who did not even play, I guess you have no argument here.

 

[The Swert]

The one thing holding Mitchell back from greater acclaim and possibly a Brownlow is his lack of goalkicking.

He's not one of those damaging players who can rip a game apart with 3 or 4 goals like Judd/Cousins/Ablett could.

However he's a playmaker - he makes his own space, uses the ball sharply on either foot and consistently excels in his role season after season.

Goodes was more versatile, he had an ability to take a game by the scruff, and was probably a better leader. Although he did sometimes go missing.

Mitchell was more consistent as shown by getting more Brownlow votes over his career, but Goodes had more standout performances as shown by him winning 2 Brownlows.

Hard to split since they each have their own pros and cons. But I'd argue that Mitchell can boast the better career due to winning more Premierships (even if that's more a team award than individual)

 

[daffo]

Just on career alone, you have to go Goodes.

 

[Jables]

I think they are both extremely impactful in different ways that are hardly comparable, but you did say career ... Mitchell. Being a great player with 4 flags is preferable to being a great player with 2 flags and 2 brownlows. Both captained a premiership. Both have a lot of B&F's but Mitchell has one more in a more successful era. No one ever slights Carey or Lethal for not having a Brownlow for fear of being laughed at, though I would not say it's not prestigious.

 

[Lethality]

The one thing holding Mitchell back from greater acclaim and possibly a Brownlow is his lack of goalkicking.

He's not one of those damaging players who can rip a game apart with 3 or 4 goals like Judd/Cousins/Ablett could.

However he's a playmaker - he makes his own space, uses the ball sharply on either foot and consistently excels in his role season after season.

Goodes was more versatile, he had an ability to take a game by the scruff, and was probably a better leader. Although he did sometimes go missing.

Mitchell was more consistent as shown by getting more Brownlow votes over his career, but Goodes had more standout performances as shown by him winning 2 Brownlows.

Hard to split since they each have their own pros and cons. But I'd argue that Mitchell can boast the better career due to winning more Premierships (even if that's more a team award than individual)

Winning two brownlows doesn't prove more standout performance. Carey had plenty of standout games without winning the award, for example.

 

[BORK]

If polling brownlow votes is an example of an outstanding performance then before this season commenced Mitchell had 96 career games where he polled votes compared to 75 for Goodes.

Mitchell also had 42 bogs compared to 30 for Goodes. This is despite nearly 100 less games played by Mitchell. I would guess that Mitchell has also extended that lead since this season commenced.

 

[RobbyRoy]

Priddis was an exceptional circumstance where Ablett was injured 14 or 15 rounds into the season and Fyfe was suspended twice. Of the remaining ones eligible, he was among the favourites. Cooney was considered up there for most of the year. Woewoedin was also considered up there in a very even year. Aker? Are you even being serious? And Bartel too? Jimmy was considered top 2, nobody could split him and Ablett.

Incorrect, less than 6%. Players not used are still on an AFL list, so why should they be discluded from the discussion?

Sorry, Gary Ablett jr has won it twice. He's arguably the best player ever (except to Hawthorn fans). So...

I'm with you completely on how good Goodes was, but this line of arguing is not doing you any favours. As you have chosen to ignore a couple of times, Mitchell is a more successful Brownlow poller than Goodes, and really should be a Medalist. Means nothing. In terms of your argument, what does being "up there" mean? Ablett was almost unanimously considered the best player in Cooney and Bartel's winning years and I believe both winners were double figure odds to win. Aker was likely double figure odds as well and Woewoedin...we don't even need to talk about that one.

I think Adam Goodes is better because I've watched he and Mitchell play a lot of football. I don't need Brownlows or stats to make my mind up.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Mitchell by miles.

 

[nickcat0]

The question asked was, "Which player boasts the better football career?" ...................... Individual awards are all well and good, but it's all about flags; and Mitchell's four trumps Goodes' two, so Mitchell has had "the better career" .................. Now if the question had been "Who was the better player?" or "Who could dominate more when on form?" I might have answered differently.

And for those who asked where Mitchell stood in Hawthorn's list of great players, Dunstall had him 3rd after Matthews and Hudson, considering only players that he'd seen.