Draft Review 2005 - Redo the 2005 Draft

[Blueboys7]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

What made his 2009 better?

Why don't you tell us why Pendles had a better year instead of countering his opinion and logic with a one line comment or question?

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Why don't you tell us why Pendles had a better year instead of countering his opinion and logic with a one line comment or question?

More disposals per game, better user of the ball, more contested marks and more creative. Being over 6ft 3 gives him an unfair advantage over Murphy when pressing forward as a legitimate marking option.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

More disposals per game, better user of the ball, more contested marks and more creative.

Negligible (0.2) difference in disposals according to footywire. Disposal Efficiency about 3% in Pendles favour, almost entirely accounted for by Murphy's behinds. I've always thought Murphy uses the ball very well, despite a shocker in 08'.

I know in 2009 up to round 20 Murphy led contested mark average so not sure about that comment. With Pendles being 191cm, you'd have expected it to be much more distinct than that.

You say Pendles is more creative, yet Murphy impacted the scoreboard significantly more in 09'. This is because he's creative with play reading and ball use. Being creative doesn't just mean shooting a handball out of pack. (And before any defensive-work jibes, Murphy averaged more tackles than Pendles and only half a R50 less p/game in 09')

The more we go, the more subjective you get, so I'm going to try to escape the realm of my opinion vs yours by looking to external sources.

In their repsective B&F's for 09' Murphy placed 2nd, Pendlebury 6th. Murphy placed top 10 Brownlow, Pendles 16th.

Both made the All Australian squad of 40, neither made the final 22. On BF Pendles omission wasn't blinked at; whereas Murphy, who had made quite a few posters AA team was discussed as a bit stiff to miss out.

Indeed when turning to media outlets, 3AW had 11 of their experts present their 2009 AA Teams; 4 had Murphy, none had Pendles. Same can be said of Matt Burgan's 2009 AA team predictions on the AFL website.

I am of little doubt Murphy had the better year and it seems most places I look confirm this. You want to lock Pendles in as the better player, quite obviously and if we were talking about who played better last season I wouldn't be disagreeing; but that it was a year dogged by injury for Murphy stops me from using it to form a sweeping conclusion. Like it or not, this completely reasonable.

 

[Super Hans]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Higgins is better than Pendleburry, Thomas and Murphy put together.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Negligible (0.2) difference in disposals according to footywire. Disposal Efficiency about 3% in Pendles favour, almost entirely accounted for by Murphy's behinds. I've always thought Murphy uses the ball very well, despite a shocker in 08'.

I know in 2009 up to round 20 Murphy led contested mark average so not sure about that comment. With Pendles being 191cm, you'd have expected it to be much more distinct than that.

You say Pendles is more creative, yet Murphy impacted the scoreboard significantly more in 09'. This is because he's creative with play reading and ball use. Being creative doesn't just mean shooting a handball out of pack. (And before any defensive-work jibes, Murphy averaged more tackles than Pendles and only half a R50 less p/game in 09')

The more we go, the more subjective you get, so I'm going to try to escape the realm of my opinion vs yours by looking to external sources.

In their repsective B&F's for 09' Murphy placed 2nd, Pendlebury 6th. Murphy placed top 10 Brownlow, Pendles 16th.

Both made the All Australian squad of 40, neither made the final 22. On BF Pendles omission wasn't blinked at; whereas Murphy, who had made quite a few posters AA team was discussed as a bit stiff to miss out.

Indeed when turning to media outlets, 3AW had 11 of their experts present their 2009 AA Teams; 4 had Murphy, none had Pendles. Same can be said of Matt Burgan's 2009 AA team predictions on the AFL website.

I am of little doubt Murphy had the better year and it seems most places I look confirm this. You want to lock Pendles in as the better player, quite obviously and if we were talking about who played better last season I wouldn't be disagreeing; but that it was a year dogged by injury for Murphy stops me from using it to form a sweeping conclusion. Like it or not, this completely reasonable.

We are talking about two outstanding young players. I feel Pendlebury was vastly underrated by most people in his first few years. Statistically in 2009 they are almost identical, but I do believe Pendlebury is a far better user of the ball and has better awareness in traffic which brings others into the game.
I also think if you look at the non Carlton/Collingwood posters on this thread have overwhelmingly agreed.

 

[the distributer]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

The reason I note Murphy's problem is that it is the first time Pendles had a clearly better year than him ... surprise surprise! Had it been reversed I would do the same notation of the Collingwood players variable considerations; as I'm only interested in a fair comparison.

As for your contention Murphy was only better in his first year, I just shake my head. In 2007 Murphy was basically Carlton's No.1 mid and tagged incessantly. Similar average stats really are irrelevant. His 07' was better than Pendles, and the next similar and the next definitely better. Or are you trying to tell me now that Pendles was better in 2009 as well?

It took until 2010, when Murphy was injured, for Pendlebury to put a clear space between them; and IMO it wouldn't be a reasoned man who let a situation like that settle it overall. Hence why I give them neck and neck OVERALL at this point.



You guru you!

I've even seen Collingwood posters not do this; so I suggest you're a little off the mark here, as opinions do vary in football matters.

you're forgetting one thing there tiger, not only did pendles overtake murph last year he overtook almost every other onballer in the comp, pendles is now regarded by many to be a top 5 midfielder in the competion, murphy's never been regarded that highly.

i agree that murph was at least the equal of pendles in their careers before last year though but that's no gaurantee that he to can step up like pendles has, pendles broke his leg at the end of 09 and still managed to have a steller norm smith winning 2010 season, the gap as it stands is quite large, im not saying murph cant improve too but he has to actualy do it first, his 08/09 form wont cut the mustard when comparing him to pendles anymore.

 

[HFF]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

I don't care if Murphy has been a decent player for 4/5 years and Pendlebury could be deemed a plodder for his first 3 years

Pendlebury's best football is well ahead of Murphy's. His awareness in traffic and his delivery by foot is what stands him well ahead.

The fact that he stood up in a Prelim and a GF speaks volumes. Hell Endleperry's norm smith came less than a fortnight after he shed a heap of weight due to illness.

The guy is all class and is comfortably amongst the elite mids in the comp.

This in its entirety.

 

[jonesy86]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Weren't both Pendlebury and Murphy included in the '09 AA squad and both missed the final team?

Seems to me both were very good in '09.

 

[LiverpoolRed]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Clearly Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls is number 1.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

(And before any defensive-work jibes, Murphy averaged more tackles than Pendles and only half a R50 less p/game in 09')

Possibly to most idiotic way to measure defensive accountability, but ok.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

i agree that murph was at least the equal of pendles in their careers before last year though but that's no gaurantee that he to can step up like pendles has

All you Pies fans really have your skirts up don't you. If I was saying there was a guarantee, then I'd just say Murphy was better, as I believe he was before 2010.

To me we're not talking about who is the best player this instant. It's who is the best player from this draft, and what that throws into the mix is a little bit of what happened before now and the potential of what may happen after.

Based on all those things, I'm not prepared to split these guys until I see if an injury-free Murphy steps, as looked very likely last season prior to his surgery.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Statistically in 2009 they are almost identical, but I do believe Pendlebury is a far better user of the ball and has better awareness in traffic which brings others into the game.

Goals are a pretty BIG stat for a midfielder. They matched up pretty well except Murphy was far more damaging with the ball in his hands. I've put my reasons, subjective and otherwise, as to why I think his year was better; and I think those reason stack up better than yours do.

I also think if you loom at the non Carlton/Collingwood posters on this thread have overwhelmingly agreed.

Not all, but a clear majority, certainly. As I said though, I base my opinion on conservative common sense and it doesn't surprise me that I'm in the minority.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Possibly to most idiotic way to measure defensive accountability, but ok.

Matched in contested possession, shaded on clearances, better 1%'ers. Just think quantification is worthy when people rely on kinda just saying stuff.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Goals are a pretty BIG stat for a midfielder. They matched up pretty well except Murphy was far more damaging with the ball in his hands. I've put my reasons, subjective and otherwise, as to why I think his year was better; and I think those reason stack up better than yours do.



Not all, but a clear majority, certainly. As I said though, I base my opinion on conservative common sense and it doesn't surprise me that I'm in the minority.

10 non Collingwood/Carlton supporters have given their opinion since the thread was bumped. This is the closest we can get to taking out obvious biases. The results were Pendlebury 9-Murphy 1.

Pretty conclusive.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

10 non Collingwood/Carlton supporters have given their opinion since the thread was bumped. This is the closest we can get to taking out obvious biases. The results were Pendlebury 9-Murphy 1.

Pretty conclusive.

Pfft! And 5 billion flies eat shit. You keep wanting to play the bias card and I think that's pissweak considering I've laid out what I consider to be fair and logical reasoning and backed it up when called to. Why not make the effort to point out where my reasoning falls down exactly?

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Pfft! And 5 billion flies eat shit. You keep wanting to play the bias card and I think that's pissweak considering I've laid out what I consider to be fair and logical reasoning and backed it up when called to. Why not make the effort to point out where my reasoning falls down exactly?

Pendlebury is a far better decision make, and can find a way out of traffic that few can match. He brings other players into the game with this elite vision. I believe he is a significantly better user of the ball than Murphy. he gets it more and is more creative with it. Pretty simple in my opinion.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Pendlebury is a far better decision make, and can find a way out of traffic that few can match. He brings other players into the game with this elite vision. I believe he is a significantly better user of the ball than Murphy. he gets it more and is more creative with it. Pretty simple in my opinion.

No point bouncing subjective superlatives back and forth; I don't agree that prior to 2010 Pendles was the better player and have backed that up with a range of objective reasons that you've not countered in any way.

That I'm waiting for this season to see what an injury-free Murphy can do is central to my opinion on where I place them overall draft-wise. Unless you want to address either of these points, we have nothing meaningful left to discuss.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

No point bouncing subjective superlatives back and forth; I don't agree that prior to 2010 Pendles was the better player and have backed that up with a range of objective reasons that you've not countered in any way.

That I'm waiting for this season to see what an injury-free Murphy can do is central to my opinion on where I place them overall draft-wise. Unless you want to address either of these points, we have nothing meaningful left to discuss.

Love the arrogance of this post. Your points are all objective, whilst mine subjective! Fact is he is a larger bodied midfielder who wins more of the ball. He is a longer kick and a better contested mark.
Most pundits agree he is a more creative player who uses the ball better. Fact 9 out of 10 objective supporters on this thread agree with me and disagree with you.
Case closed.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Love the arrogance of this post. Your points are all objective, whilst mine subjective!

Well **** me if you can't read!

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Well **** me if you can't read!

Good comeback, Potsy!

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Good comeback, Potsy!

Mate. I'm done. Was trying to have a decent discussion. No point when you start claiming I've said stuff I haven't. I've been very clear and reasonable. If you don't want to tackle the actual points, then there's simply no point going on.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Mate. I'm done. Was trying to have a decent discussion. No point when you start claiming I've said stuff I haven't. I've been very clear and reasonable. If you don't want to tackle the actual points, then there's simply no point going on.

Would of thought i made some reasonable points in my earlier post. Firstly quoting facts, then consensus opinion. You choose to ignore as it seems many Carlton supporters have a habit of doing. To stereotype they get all excited every year thinking they are a genuine chance at the top 4, when all others can see the gaping holes in their list.
I'm done too!

 

[morebeer]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Pendles comfortably but Murphy still quality.

Would love either of them at Essendon. Stop your squabbling, you both won.

 

[the distributer]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

All you Pies fans really have your skirts up don't you. If I was saying there was a guarantee, then I'd just say Murphy was better, as I believe he was before 2010.

To me we're not talking about who is the best player this instant. It's who is the best player from this draft, and what that throws into the mix is a little bit of what happened before now and the potential of what may happen after.

Based on all those things, I'm not prepared to split these guys until I see if an injury-free Murphy steps, as looked very likely last season prior to his surgery.

murph can play, no doubting that, but pendles has the score on the board at this stage, i always said they were fairly even talent wise, very different mids though.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

The way I see it as follows.

Prior to 2010, Pendlebury and Murphy were amongst the finest young players in the competition and both looked like having the potential to be amongst the best overall. You could mount cases for both of them as the better player, realistically they were pretty close. In 2010 Pendlebury became elite whereas Murphy is yet to become elite. He may one day become elite, he may never reach that level. Right now Pendlebury is a much better player. Right now Pendlebury has played much better football than anything Murphy has played to date. That Murphy may have equaled him had he never been injured is irrelevant to the debate.

Using Murphy's injury as a reason for why he is not as good as Pendlebury is fair enough even if it is highly subjective. But....Using Murphy's injury to say "Murphy is as good as Pendlebury because Murphy was injured so he didn't get the chance to be as good as Pendlebury" is a ridiculous argument.

Had Murphy never been injured he may have improved exponentially to become an elite player as Pendlebury has done. The fact of the matter though is that he has not.

Pendlebury clearly.