Opinion Can Dustin Martin be the GOAT? (Answer: no)

[Lunchtime]

Using a full set works nicely. For modern day midfielders:

Totals in the following categories

Goals
Goal Assists
Disposals
Clearances
Brownlow votes
Coaches votes
B&F victories
All Australian selections

Imagine thinking (average goals and disposals) would be a better marker for overall career contribution/consistency than tallies for those 8 categories.

Dusty will be behind some midfielders for those, so then it depends on whether 3 brilliant finals series bridges the gap. It will for some players but not for others.

Surely performances in Finals Footy is part of the overall assessment as well?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

First, I have bad news for all the Dusty diminishers. But then, I will finish off with a tiny little bit of good news to leave you with some hope.

As we saw in my earlier posts, the average player rating returned by Dusty in his highest rated 6 finals was 29.3. The bad news for you guys is not one of the highest rated players to have played since 2012 has a single performance rated as high as the AVERAGE of Dusty's best 6 performances. So let's have a bit of a list of some of the highest rated players who have played finals during this period.

Crows - Walker, Sloane, Laird
Lions - Neale, McLuggage, Daniher, Ashcroft
Blues - Cripps, Walsh, Curnow, Gibbs, Murphy, Judd, Kreuzer
Pies - Pendlebury, Degoey, Daicos, Moore, Crisp, Swan, Bobby Hill, Grundy, Cloke, Thomas
Bombers - Merrett, Stringer, Goddard
Dockers - Fyfe, Walters, Pavlich, Sandilands, Mundy, Brayshaw, Serong, Young
Cats - Stewart, Selwood, Scarlett, Enright, Johnson, Chapman, Ablett, Dangerfield, Hawkin, Kelly
Suns - no finals
GWS - Greene, Green, Coniglio, Kelly, Whitfield, Ward, Taylor, J Cameron
Hawks - Hodge, S Mitchell, Franklin, Roughead, Lake, Rioli, Lewis, Gibson, Lake
Demons - Petracca, Oliver, Gawn, May, Lever, Pickett, Viney, Brayshaw
North - Petrie, Waite, Cunnington, Del Santo, Higgins, Ziebell
Port - Gray, Boak, Dixon, Houston, Wines, Cornes, Byrne-Jones, Hartlett, Wingard, Rozee, Butters, Horne-Francis
St Kilda - Steele, Hill, Marshall, Sinclair, Wilkie
Swans - Kennedy, Parker, Heeney, Gulden, Franklin, Goodes, Hannebery, Papley
Eagles - Kennedy, McGovern, Hurn, Yeo, Gaff, Lecras, Naitanui, Prides, Embley
Bulldogs - Bontempelli, Dale, Daniel, Dunkley, Murphy, M Boyd, Johannisen, Picken, T Boyd, English, Liberatore, B Smith, Treloar

Not a single one of those has ever played a final rated as high as 29.3 - the astounding average of Dusty's best 6 finals player ratings. It is sort of like if you listed Steve Smith's highest 6 scores and none of a group of the 120 most likely contenders in world cricket had a single score above the average of Smith's top 6 scores. The planet would be stunned but they would respect the great player.

The good news is there are actually 5 individual finals performances(by players other than Dusty) above the average of Dusty's top 6 player ratings in finals.

Those are.....

2018 GF Shuey 35.7
2020 EF Ryder 30.9
2014 SF Goldstein 30.7
2022 GF Warner 29.9
2015 EF B Harvey 29.6

The average of Dusty's best 6 finals = 29.3
The average of the best 6 finals played by around 1000 other players to play finals since 2012 combined = 30.9

If you took a basket of all the most decorated players to play finals & be selected multiple AA during this period, Hodge, S Mitchell, T Mitchell, Pendlebury, Selwood, Ablett, Franklin, Dangerfield, Oliver, Cripps, Bontempelli, Gawn, Hawkins, Dangerfield, J Cameron, T Greene, Heeney, Daicos, Walsh whoever else...

You find their highest rated best 6 finals between them, and average the result, the result of Dusty's best 6 finals is higher. We know this because not one of them even has a single finals player rating above the average of Dusty's best 6.

And as we know this is fully supported by finals coaches votes.

I will give an award for the best diversionary tactic to try to avoid any serious discussion about this.

As Fadge would say, GO!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Career averages : Martin

Disposals : 24.2
Goals: 1.1

Dangerfield is 23.5 and 1.0
Cousins 22.6 and 0.8
Judd 22.9 and 0.8
Black 23.5 and 0.5
Voss 21.3 and 0.8
Petracca 23.3 and 1.0
Bontempelli 23.9 and 1.0
Crawford 22.4 and 0.7
Bartel 22.8 and 0.7

So you mean to tell me that Martin got more of the ball AND kicked more goals than all those superstars across the entirety of their careers? How can that possibly be?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You will find anyone who plays more games than Dusty will get points over him for "longevity" but then the games they play in excess of Dusty deducted from their records because they were no longer any good then. By the self same posters, I kid you not.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Remember Dusty's own coaches only believed him to be Richmond's best player of the season twice in his career.

Richmond greats like KB had 5 (2 in premiership years) and KBs 1980 finals series was better than anything Dusty provided.

Dusty the best finals player of the 2010s, but using that to try and include him in GOAT discussions is ridiculous.

So gracious of you to admit that, well done.

Bit like saying Bradman was the best batsman in the 1930's though isn't it.

 

[doppleganger]

So gracious of you to admit that, well done.

Bit like saying Bradman was the best batsman in the 1930's though isn't it.

Bradman was putting up numbers that no player has come near.

Dusty hasn't even put up better numbers than KB did in 1980, or GAZ did in 1989 or the Duck did in 94 etc

You continuing to post numbers comparing Dusty to fellow players of the 2010s is pointless as nobody disagrees with you. Dusty was the best finals player of the 2010s.

Being the best finals player of the 2010s doesn't make a player the GOAT.

 

[Cdog71]

Cdog71 pick your favourite 10 modern day midfielders and I am happy to run this exercise for you. A more accurate appraisal of midfielder elite consistency and prolonged excellence.

Who are your favourite 10 modern day midfielders?

This is the seat of the fire and this where we differ.
Elite consistency, prolonged excellence.
That’s just not how brilliance operates.

Pendlebury
*Buckley
*Boomer
Black
*Fyfe
Neale
*Bontempelli
*Judd
*Danger
*Dusty
*GAJ

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Bradman was putting up numbers that no player has come near.

Dusty hasn't even put up better numbers than KB did in 1980, or GAZ did in 1989 or the Duck did in 94 etc

You continuing to post numbers comparing Dusty to fellow players of the 2010s is pointless as nobody disagrees with you. Dusty was the best finals player of the 2010s.

Being the best finals player of the 2010s doesn't make a player the GOAT.

Give me some numbers for those guys then in finals compared to their main rivals at the time.

Then we can re-look at Dusty v his main rivals now. Then we can see who was further ahead of the pack for finals performances during their career.

Just remember, the average of Dusty's best 6 finals player ratings, is higher than any of his closest 20 odd main rivals has ever rated in any individual final. Maybe you missed that bit doppleganger

 

[Mr Meow]

Surely performances in Finals Footy is part of the overall assessment as well?

The topic being analysed there was overall consistency, hence Noidy showing overall goal/disposal averages. The longer your career, the more your averages will drop from your peak, so tallies work better.

 

[Mr Meow]

This is the seat of the fire and this where we differ.
Elite consistency, prolonged excellence.
That’s just not how brilliance operates.

Pendlebury
*Buckley
*Boomer
Black
*Fyfe
Neale
*Bontempelli
*Judd
*Danger
*Dusty
*GAJ

But like I just said, when Noidy posted his goal/disposal "findings", it was to address career contributions/consistency. He wasn't saying "okay these players had more goals or disposals, but Dusty had more impact in a stretch of finals".

 

[H00t]

First, I have bad news for all the Dusty diminishers. But then, I will finish off with a tiny little bit of good news to leave you with some hope.

As we saw in my earlier posts, the average player rating returned by Dusty in his highest rated 6 finals was 29.3. The bad news for you guys is not one of the highest rated players to have played since 2012 has a single performance rated as high as the AVERAGE of Dusty's best 6 performances. So let's have a bit of a list of some of the highest rated players who have played finals during this period.

Crows - Walker, Sloane, Laird
Lions - Neale, McLuggage, Daniher, Ashcroft
Blues - Cripps, Walsh, Curnow, Gibbs, Murphy, Judd, Kreuzer
Pies - Pendlebury, Degoey, Daicos, Moore, Crisp, Swan, Bobby Hill, Grundy, Cloke, Thomas
Bombers - Merrett, Stringer, Goddard
Dockers - Fyfe, Walters, Pavlich, Sandilands, Mundy, Brayshaw, Serong, Young
Cats - Stewart, Selwood, Scarlett, Enright, Johnson, Chapman, Ablett, Dangerfield, Hawkin, Kelly
Suns - no finals
GWS - Greene, Green, Coniglio, Kelly, Whitfield, Ward, Taylor, J Cameron
Hawks - Hodge, S Mitchell, Franklin, Roughead, Lake, Rioli, Lewis, Gibson, Lake
Demons - Petracca, Oliver, Gawn, May, Lever, Pickett, Viney, Brayshaw
North - Petrie, Waite, Cunnington, Del Santo, Higgins, Ziebell
Port - Gray, Boak, Dixon, Houston, Wines, Cornes, Byrne-Jones, Hartlett, Wingard, Rozee, Butters, Horne-Francis
St Kilda - Steele, Hill, Marshall, Sinclair, Wilkie
Swans - Kennedy, Parker, Heeney, Gulden, Franklin, Goodes, Hannebery, Papley
Eagles - Kennedy, McGovern, Hurn, Yeo, Gaff, Lecras, Naitanui, Prides, Embley
Bulldogs - Bontempelli, Dale, Daniel, Dunkley, Murphy, M Boyd, Johannisen, Picken, T Boyd, English, Liberatore, B Smith, Treloar

Not a single one of those has ever played a final rated as high as 29.3 - the astounding average of Dusty's best 6 finals player ratings. It is sort of like if you listed Steve Smith's highest 6 scores and none of a group of the 120 most likely contenders in world cricket had a single score above the average of Smith's top 6 scores. The planet would be stunned but they would respect the great player.

The good news is there are actually 5 individual finals performances(by players other than Dusty) above the average of Dusty's top 6 player ratings in finals.

Those are.....

2018 GF Shuey 35.7
2020 EF Ryder 30.9
2014 SF Goldstein 30.7
2022 GF Warner 29.9
2015 EF B Harvey 29.6

The average of Dusty's best 6 finals = 29.3
The average of the best 6 finals played by around 1000 other players to play finals since 2012 combined = 30.9

If you took a basket of all the most decorated players to play finals & be selected multiple AA during this period, Hodge, S Mitchell, T Mitchell, Pendlebury, Selwood, Ablett, Franklin, Dangerfield, Oliver, Cripps, Bontempelli, Gawn, Hawkins, Dangerfield, J Cameron, T Greene, Heeney, Daicos, Walsh whoever else...

You find their highest rated best 6 finals between them, and average the result, the result of Dusty's best 6 finals is higher. We know this bcause not one of them even has a single finals player rating above the average of Dusty's best 6.

And as we know this is fully supported by finals coaches votes.

I will give an award for the bst diversionary tactic to try to avoid any serious discussion about this.

As Fadge would say, GO!

You are the only one who actually considers player ratings as valuable information.

Buddy’s best 3 finals are better than any final performance from Martin.

 

[Mr Meow]

This is the seat of the fire and this where we differ.
Elite consistency, prolonged excellence.
That’s just not how brilliance operates.

Pendlebury
*Buckley
*Boomer
Black
*Fyfe
Neale
*Bontempelli
*Judd
*Danger
*Dusty
*GAJ

Because coaches votes are so valuable I excluded those players who didn't have coaches votes assigned during the majority of their career. So, best to keep it for 21st century debuts. With Judd he had two of his best seasons without retrievable coaches votes, so I had to use his Brownlow tally to rank him (that's why I left that cell blank for total coaches votes).

Remember, this is to determine 21st century consistency and overall contribution. That was the topic in question, whether Dusty showed elite consistency at the level of some other champion midfielders.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists
Ablett	965	262	8	6	8896	1546	445	261
Judd		210	6	5	6380	1499	228	208
Dangerfield	934	251	8	4	7908	1843	335	242
Pendlebury	907	223	6	5	10301	1768	201	300
Martin	795	213	4	2	7320	1160	338	221
Selwood	817	214	6	3	8746	1844	175	264
S.Mitchell	680	227	3	5	8687	1803	71	207
Fyfe	650	190	3	3	5762	1274	178	131
Bontempelli	757	188	6	6	5740	1245	232	197
Neale	741	209	4	6	7452	1740	128	135

You can then rank each player 1-10 for each category and assign them a "total score", whereby for each category 1st = 9 points, 2nd = 8 points and so on.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists	Total
Ablett	1	1	1	1	2	6	1	3	64
Judd		7	3	4	8	7	5	6	30
Dangerfield	2	2	1	7	5	2	3	4	52
Pendlebury	3	4	3	4	1	4	6	1	54
Martin	5	6	7	10	7	10	2	5	28
Selwood	4	5	3	8	3	1	8	2	46
S.Mitchell	8	3	9	4	4	3	10	7	32
Fyfe	9	9	9	8	9	8	7	10	11
Bontempelli	6	10	3	1	10	9	4	8	29
Neale	7	8	7	1	6	5	9	9	28

Then you can rank them for overall consistency:

1	Ablett
2	Pendlebury*
3	Dangerfield*
4	Selwood
5	S.Mitchell
6	Judd
7	Bontempelli*
8	Neale*
9	Martin
10	Fyfe*

* = career not finished (Bont and Neale especially will climb).

It isn't perfect, as no approach is perfect, but it is more accurate than "goal and disposal average". It isn't determining who had the most impact at their peak or who had the best 3 seasons. But it uses every data point for their entire careers and several different kinds of metrics (4 different voting systems, 4 different stats). I think it gives a pretty solid readout of consistency for the best 21st century midfielders.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The topic being analysed there was overall consistency, hence Noidy showing overall goal/disposal averages. The longer your career, the more your averages will drop from your peak, so tallies work better.

Career tallies have no significant role on any thrad like this. For the reason that players play uneven amounts of games. Surely you know this. If you want to give a guy points for exceptional longevity, that is fine, but Royce Hart was just about a unanimous choice for TOTC(20th century) despite playing just 187 games. Roger Merrett wasn't picked ahead of him due to having more career possessions in his 313 games. Bernie Quinlan wasn't picked ahead of him due to having more career goals.

 

[Mr Meow]

Career tallies have no significant role on any thrad like this. For the reason that players play uneven amounts of games. Surely you know this. If you want to give a guy points for exceptional longevity, that is fine, but Royce Hart was just about a unanimous choice for TOTC(20th century) despite playing just 187 games. Roger Merrett wasn't picked ahead of him due to having more career possessions in his 313 games. Bernie Quinlan wasn't picked ahead of him due to having more career goals.

Why would you use averages when comparing modern day midfielders, who all have the same conditions and have lived through very similar overall team statistical ranges (disposals, goals, votes etc)? It would automatically punish any player who plays an extra couple of seasons or more, whose statistical average may have dropped (especially as time on ground gets managed) but is still playing decent football.

A reminder, we are discussing midfielders debuting in the 21st century and measuring consistency/output over their entire careers.

Why are the modern star forwards in term of legacy viewed more through goal totals, than averages?

Coming back to midfielders: Dangerfield remains one of Geelong's 3 most important players, to the point where his early retirement would probably mean no finals for Geelong in 2024. Yet because his average goes down, him playing at an age older than Martin's retirement would somehow propel Martin above him for consistency.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You are the only one who actually considers player ratings as valuable information.

Buddy’s best 3 finals are better than any final performance from Martin.

You said that before but I will still give you points for a feeble attempt at a diversion.

Feeble, because Champion Data's player ratings are recorded after a team of people who are paid for the purpose record every action from every player in every match. And the clubs use their services, as does the media. So hey are trusted to that extent.

They say the only game they rated of what you call Buddy's best 3 finals wasn't within a bull's roar of any of Dusty's highest 6 rated finals.

Given Dusty has 3 extra Smith Medals, 3 extra Ayres Medals, far & away the most coaches votes in finals....I think they have good credibility here. You, not so much.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why would you use averages when comparing modern day midfielders, who all have the same conditions and have lived through very similar overall team statistical ranges (disposals, goals, votes etc)? It would automatically punish any player who plays an extra couple of seasons or more, whose statistical average may have dropped (especially as time on ground gets managed) but is still playing decent football.

A reminder, we are discussing midfielders debuting in the 21st century and measuring consistency/output over their entire careers.

Why are the modern star forwards in term of legacy viewed more through goal totals, than averages?

Coming back to midfielders: Dangerfield remains one of Geelong's 3 most important players, to the point where his early retirement would probably mean no finals for Geelong in 2024. Yet because his average goes down, him playing at an age older than Martin's retirement would somehow propel Martin above him for consistency.

First, you are arguing against nobody. It is already conceded there are elite players this century who have played more games over more seasons than Dusty. There are of course also those who have played less.

Second, you can't be giving these guys tin stars for longevity then asking us to ignore all the games past a certain age.

Third, you are finding a legitimate enough flaw in career v career average comparisons, then replacing it with an even more flawed way of making comparisons. You are essentially saying Kevin Bartlett is a miles more consistent goal kicker than Peter Hudson, which is palpably untrue.

You have advanced this position to try to win the argument by derailing it, rather than to add something meaningful to the discussion.

 

[doppleganger]

Give me some numbers for those guys then in finals compared to their main rivals at the time.

Then we can re-look at Dusty v his main rivals now. Then we can see who was further ahead of the pack for finals performances during their career.

Just remember, the average of Dusty's best 6 finals player ratings, is higher than any of his closest 20 odd main rivals has ever rated in any individual final. Maybe you missed that bit doppleganger

Already gave you some earlier. KB in 1980 kicked 21 goals and had 60 disposals in 3 finals game (an avg of 20 and 7gls). KB kicked was almost 40% of Richmond's goals himself and still avg 20 disposals per game.

Dusty isn't even Richmond's best finals player.

 

[RUNVS]

First, you are arguing against nobody. It is already conceded there are elite players this century who have played more games over more seasons than Dusty. There are of course also those who have played less.

Martin took so long to reach elite status though and after 4 or 5 years he had a huge drop off. Achieved very little once he was 30 or so.

Also proven when his side is outside the 8 Martin is far less effective, his performance dropping 25% in losses.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Because coaches votes are so valuable I excluded those players who didn't have coaches votes assigned during the majority of their career. So, best to keep it for 21st century debuts. With Judd he had two of his best seasons without retrievable coaches votes, so I had to use his Brownlow tally to rank him (that's why I left that cell blank for total coaches votes).

Remember, this is to determine 21st century consistency and overall contribution. That was the topic in question, whether Dusty showed elite consistency at the level of some other champion midfielders.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists
Ablett	965	262	8	6	8896	1546	445	261
Judd		210	6	5	6380	1499	228	208
Dangerfield	934	251	8	4	7908	1843	335	242
Pendlebury	907	223	6	5	10301	1768	201	300
Martin	795	213	4	2	7320	1160	338	221
Selwood	817	214	6	3	8746	1844	175	264
S.Mitchell	680	227	3	5	8687	1803	71	207
Fyfe	650	190	3	3	5762	1274	178	131
Bontempelli	757	188	6	6	5740	1245	232	197
Neale	741	209	4	6	7452	1740	128	135

You can then rank each player 1-10 for each category and assign them a "total score", whereby for each category 1st = 9 points, 2nd = 8 points and so on.

Player	Coaches votes	Brownlow votes	AA selections	B&F victories	Disposals	Clearances	Goals	Goal assists	Total
Ablett	1	1	1	1	2	6	1	3	64
Judd		7	3	4	8	7	5	6	30
Dangerfield	2	2	1	7	5	2	3	4	52
Pendlebury	3	4	3	4	1	4	6	1	54
Martin	5	6	7	10	7	10	2	5	28
Selwood	4	5	3	8	3	1	8	2	46
S.Mitchell	8	3	9	4	4	3	10	7	32
Fyfe	9	9	9	8	9	8	7	10	11
Bontempelli	6	10	3	1	10	9	4	8	29
Neale	7	8	7	1	6	5	9	9	28

Then you can rank them for overall consistency:

1	Ablett
2	Pendlebury*
3	Dangerfield*
4	Selwood
5	S.Mitchell
6	Judd
7	Bontempelli*
8	Neale*
9	Martin
10	Fyfe*

* = career not finished (Bont and Neale especially will climb).

It isn't perfect, as no approach is perfect, but it is more accurate than "goal and disposal average". It isn't determining who had the most impact at their peak or who had the best 3 seasons. But it uses every data point for their entire careers and several different kinds of metrics (4 different voting systems, 4 different stats). I think it gives a pretty solid readout of consistency for the best 21st century midfielders.

You can say that again.

 

[Cdog71]

Because coaches votes are so valuable

Looking at some of McRae’s votes for Daicos this season it’s starting to lose a little if it’s cred in my view.

It isn't determining who had the most impact at their peak

Like I said this is where we don’t agree. It’s absolutely imperative to determining talent and gauging it.
Nobel prizes aren’t given to people who were better than average for longer and world records aren’t established by people who were remarkably consistent.
It’s by individuals who reached a higher level in their field/discipline/sport.

Brownlow votes
Pendlebury has more 2 vote games than any player in history but you give that more weight than players who have had more best on grounds in the same amount of games.

I can’t see how you can recognise that as a way to judge a player against his peers.

 

[Mr Meow]

First, you are arguing against nobody. It is already conceded there are elite players this century who have played more games over more seasons than Dusty. There are of course also those who have played less.

Second, you can't be giving these guys tin stars for longevity then asking us to ignore all the games past a certain age.

Third, you are finding a legitimate enough flaw in career v career average comparisons, then replacing it with an even more flawed way of making comparisons. You are essentially saying Kevin Bartlett is a miles more consistent goal kicker than Peter Hudson, which is palpably untrue.

You have advanced this position to try to win the argument by derailing it, rather than to add something meaningful to the discussion.

Actually, Noidy posted his "goal and disposal average" gotcha to argue against someone who said Martin dipped in a number of H&A seasons. While that was a harsh comment, relative to other top 10 midfielders this century, he was not as consistent. "Impact of peak" is another discussion and is the one Martin fanatics are best placed to focus on.

The 8 categories I ran that simple tally analysis of, is a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of overall midfielder consistency/contributions. Break it into finals vs H&A - you've done that a million times anyway - but the former approach uses all of the data at hand, 4 different statistical categories and 4 different voting systems. The tallies, and rankings from players in the same era, are a viable approach for the topic in question. It isn't extrapolating to whether Coventry was better than a bloke from 1950 or whichever other place you want to take us to.

"He scored more goals and won more disposals than these players, therefore his consistency was better....because his average was higher" was wrong, lazy and deserved any kind of alternative analysis as an improvement. I provided one and maybe you will find something even better.

 

[Mr Meow]

You can say that again.

Yeah, Noidy's "he had a higher goal and disposal average than these players so was automatically more consistent" was far more accurate and comprehensive.

 

[Mr Meow]

Looking at some of McRae’s votes for Daicos this season it’s starting to lose a little if it’s cred in my view.


Like I said this is where we don’t agree. It’s absolutely imperative to determining talent and gauging it.
Nobel prizes aren’t given to people who were better than average for longer and world records aren’t established by people who were remarkably consistent.
It’s by individuals who reached a higher level in their field/discipline/sport.

Brownlow votes
Pendlebury has more 2 vote games than any player in history but you give that more weight than players who have had more best on grounds in the same amount of games.

I can’t see how you can recognise that as a way to judge a player against his peers.

So to be clear, the original analysis "goal and disposal average over career" you would find to be a better measurement of career consistency than the 8 pronged tally/ranking method I provided. Fair enough, that's up to you. What it definitely couldn't be used as, would be a determinant of "who kicked the most goals and won the most disposals". Which was the original claim.

Some players are just high impact during their best years, but more up and down. Fyfe is a good example. Dusty, compared to an Ablett, Pendlebury or Dangerfield - is another. It's fine. Everyone's career is different. He had a brilliant 4 year stretch of finals and a very good career otherwise, which is what gets him to sit in this rarefied air in the first place. But there are areas he wasn't as strong in as others when assessing entire careers.

Martin was playing very poor footy in 2024 leading into his 33rd birthday, and overall his 30s football was just not that high impact or consistent, and relatively short compared to some other contemporaries. He was sensational, especially in finals, aged 26-29 and built a lasting legacy during that peak. He was a very good, albeit inconsistent player before then. As an overall assessment of his career, what is wrong with that? It still labels him a champion. His best years were memorable and important. His overall tallies for important areas were still strong. There's no need to add any mayo on top to project him above these accurate summaries.

 

[H00t]

You said that before but I will still give you points for a feeble attempt at a diversion.

Feeble, because Champion Data's player ratings are recorded after a team of people who are paid for the purpose record every action from every player in every match. And the clubs use their services, as does the media. So hey are trusted to that extent.

They say the only game they rated of what you call Buddy's best 3 finals wasn't within a bull's roar of any of Dusty's highest 6 rated finals.

Given Dusty has 3 extra Smith Medals, 3 extra Ayres Medals, far & away the most coaches votes in finals....I think they have good credibility here. You, not so much.

Player ratings are just SuperCoach points with a different weighting system.

The guys get paid to record stats. That’s what they are good at and what the clubs pay for. Not for their weighting of stats, clubs wouldn’t care for that.

I don’t care for their stat weighting. Buddy’s best 3 games where clearly better.

You do realise Gary Ayres medal voting only came in 2016 right? After Buddy’s best footy.

 

[RUNVS]

Looking at some of McRae’s votes for Daicos this season it’s starting to lose a little if it’s cred in my view.

It also discredits the entire award when it can be manipulated like that.

It is why I like the AA because yes there can be biases but with so many people involved in the selection panel hopefully those biases can be weeded out.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Already gave you some earlier. KB in 1980 kicked 21 goals and had 60 disposals in 3 finals game (an avg of 20 and 7gls). KB kicked was almost 40% of Richmond's goals himself and still avg 20 disposals per game.

Dusty isn't even Richmond's best finals player.n

Bartlett played 27 finals, you picked his hottest 3 for goal kicking, played in a completely different era.

Dusty's finals exploits are well documented on this thread. You are not going to cast shade on that by hand-picking the best 2-3 finals played by some of the best players in history and then not even comparing them with any sort of context.

Not even sure what you are trying to do here....

How about pick who you think is the greatest finals player of each era then compare them to their main rivals and see if you can find anyone anywhere near as far as Dusty in front of their contemporaries.