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

[Sirlemsip]

You might want to dig up a quote to be making claims like that.

I have explained my position on Dusty's mere 2 B & F's. Discussed it many times on this thread in detail. Richmond's B&F's votes reward the players who play sacrificial roles which Dusty doesn't, obviously, because he is the main man. They also don't fully reward brilliant performances for which Dusty is well known. Other clubs operate differently. But this is the only reason Dusty doesn't have 6-8 Richmond B&F's. Richmond clearly recognised who their best player was when the paid Dusty the highest contract in history.

Apologies, that was one of the other Richmond nuffies in here.

What do you define as a 'Sacrificial role'. Because the bulk of recent winners are 'Main man' type players - either midfield clearance specialists (Taranto, Prestia, Cotchin x3), goal scorers (Riewoldt x2, Lynch) or a combination of those (Dusty x2, Deledio x2).

You could also argue that Rioli and Short are very much aggressive players who set up attack from the HB line.
So other than those two and Grimes, who exactly would you consider not a 'main man'?

 

[JackOutback]

Martin
4 All Australians in 15 seasons - 27%

Ablett
8 All Australians in 19 seasons - 42%

Franklin
8 All Australians in 19 seasons - 42%

Add to that that both Ablett and Buddy had 4 more seasons than Martin, meaning it is even harder to keep the percentage up and it is even more impressive.

Chris Judd six times AA in 14 seasons for 42% also. Five times B&F at 36%. It’s clear who the truly elite players were this century.

 

[doppleganger]

But how many more than 6 consecutive seasons(a whole prime period for most players) would you expect a player to finish each year as the form player of the comp before you would recognise the excellence of the achievement?

LoL at you claiming seasons where Dusty's player ratings was only 13 as elite and a form player in the comp!?

In 2015 and 2016 Dusty wasn't even a top 40 player in the league according to player ratings.

Dusty only had four seasons where he was at elite level, that is solid but nowhere near GOAT territory.

Id just to check - does finals performance mean anything to you? If so, how important is it?

Dusty was the best finals player of the 2010s, not important when talking GOATs.

 

[Cdog71]

Rory Sloane (14.51) has a higher career avg player rating than Dusty (14.35).

Obviously Rory was consistently better than Dusty over their careers.

That just illustrates the point further how flawed your thinking is.

career
Representative team honours
International team honours
Career highlights
Years	Club	Games (Goals)
2009–2024	Adelaide	255 (136)
Years	Team	Games (Goals)
2020	Victoria	1 (0)
2017	Australia	2 (0)
Adelaide co-captain: 2019; captain: 2020–2022 All-Australian team: 2016 2× Malcolm Blight Medal: 2013, 2016 Robert Rose Award: 2017 Showdown Medal: 2017 (game 1) 22under22 team: 2012

Rory might be a good guy but to say he’s consistently better than Martin
you’ve lost all credibility.

I dont know why I bother.

 

[RUNVS]

That just illustrates the point further how flawed your thinking is.

career
Representative team honours
International team honours
Career highlights
Years	Club	Games (Goals)
2009–2024	Adelaide	255 (136)
Years	Team	Games (Goals)
2020	Victoria	1 (0)
2017	Australia	2 (0)
Adelaide co-captain: 2019; captain: 2020–2022 All-Australian team: 2016 2× Malcolm Blight Medal: 2013, 2016 Robert Rose Award: 2017 Showdown Medal: 2017 (game 1) 22under22 team: 2012

Rory might be a good guy but to say he’s consistently better than Martin
you’ve lost all credibility.

I dont know why I bother.

It is quite simple though.

So just as an example

Sloane in his career averaged 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 4 for instance, so overall he averaged 6.3

Whereas Martin averaged his career 3, 3, 4, 9, 10, 8, 8, 3 so overall he averaged 6.0

Now obviously I am just making up numbers here to illustrate a point but someone who is consistently above average will often beat someone who has a higher ceiling but was much more inconsistent.

 

[RUNVS]

Chris Judd six times AA in 14 seasons for 42% also. Five times B&F at 36%. It’s clear who the truly elite players were this century.

Yes I never considered it before but percentage of AA's for a players career is actually a pretty good way of telling their ability and consistency. I imagine only the best end up with percentages over 40%.

 

[Mr Meow]

You might want to dig up a quote to be making claims like that.

I have explained my position on Dusty's mere 2 B & F's. Discussed it many times on this thread in detail. Richmond's B&F's votes reward the players who play sacrificial roles which Dusty doesn't, obviously, because he is the main man. They also don't fully reward brilliant performances for which Dusty is well known. Other clubs operate differently. But this is the only reason Dusty doesn't have 6-8 Richmond B&F's. Richmond clearly recognised who their best player was when the paid Dusty the highest contract in history.

This is such a hilarious way to try to give Dusty 6-8 B&Fs, much like there have been attempts to give him 7 AAs.

6 combined AA/B&Fs is an accurate reflection of his consistency and elite longevity. Around 10th or 11th in the all time Brownlow/Coaches votes leaderboard in a couple of seasons is also about fair enough.

As much as it would be nice to say "well really if you are being fair he should have 7 AAs, 8 B&Fs and be the all time best Brownlow/Coaches votes/disposal/clearance leader" we have to live in reality.

There was a single season where he one ANY of the big 3 league-wide H&A awards that reward elite consistency. There were 3 finals series where he played to a high level.

"Ablett should have won 5 Brownlows" is a more accurate statement than "Dusty should have won 6-8 B&Fs" but it is not a point people need to worry about because his accolades and standings in various categories speak for itself.

 

[Mr Meow]

A) - that is not true(2020 PF & GF for just 2 obvious egs)

B) - it is not divinable, ie we have no way of knowing what happens if Dusty didn't play in those games, &

C) - it is no measure of who the best player is. The best player is the player who plays best, especially when it matters most.

The two matches you highlighted are the ONLY two examples of dominant Dusty finals when Richmond were in jeopardy. And the Port one is the only match where it was so close to the end, that you could definitively say he was the difference. The Geelong GF is fair enough too because he got the team going. The second half Richmond had about 9 of the best 11 players though, so it depends whether you think that would have happened or not anyway.

The other finals where Dusty excelled, Richmond were dominant anyway. It doesn't take credit away, but there is a striking lack of strong Dusty finals in situations where the match was close or Richmond lost. He had one good final in seasons where Richmond weren't the premier!

 

[RUNVS]

"Ablett should have won 5 Brownlows" is a more accurate statement than "Dusty should have won 6-8 B&Fs" but it is not a point people need to worry about because his accolades and standings in various categories speak for itself.

Yep, like how Buddy has 4 Coleman medals, which is essentially the Brownlow for forwards, only without the bias from the umpires.

 

[RUNVS]

The two matches you highlighted are the ONLY two examples of dominant Dusty finals when Richmond were in jeopardy. And the Port one is the only match where it was so close to the end, that you could definitively say he was the difference. The Geelong GF is fair enough too because he got the team going. The second half Richmond had about 9 of the best 11 players though, so it depends whether you think that would have happened or not anyway.

The other finals where Dusty excelled, Richmond were dominant anyway. It doesn't take credit away, but there is a striking lack of strong Dusty finals in situations where the match was close or Richmond lost. He had one good final in seasons where Richmond weren't the premier!

To me Goodes' stock only went up in the 2014 Grand Final. He was such a good player he managed to play well when almost every one of his teammates failed. His performance that day only enhanced his reputation in my eyes as it is so hard to play well in games where your team is crap.

Buddy turned up that day too, the only two Swans that could really hold their heads high.

 

[Mr Meow]

Chris Judd six times AA in 14 seasons for 42% also. Five times B&F at 36%. It’s clear who the truly elite players were this century.

There are no 21st century midfielders with less than 10 combined B&Fs and AAs that deserve to be in the conversation for "best". In the conversation for top 10, sure, depending on dominance of peak and other accomplishments. If you were not even playing decent football up to game 300 in the modern era, you better have shown damn elite consistency in previous seasons to be a contender.

Judd did that with the 6x AA, 5 B&Fs, 2 Brownlows and 2 League MVPs. In fact the Brownlows and League MVPs were collected in 4 separate seasons, meaning by some metric he was voted the best player in the comp on 4 separate occasions.

 

[Mr Meow]

To me Goodes' stock only went up in the 2014 Grand Final. He was such a good player he managed to play well when almost every one of his teammates failed. His performance that day only enhanced his reputation in my eyes as it is so hard to play well in games where your team is crap.

Buddy turned up that day too, the only two Swans that could really hold their heads high.

Yep. All of the champions I can think of had dominant performances in winning finals, but also heroic stands in losing ones where their team were bested.

2016 onwards many such efforts have even gone unrewarded with coaches/Norm Smith votes (winners get the spoils most times), but they were still full of merit. Selwood played some outrageous finals in losing teams and was arguably our best overall finals performer through his 30s despite physically getting worn down.

 

[RUNVS]

Yep. All of the champions I can think of had dominant performances in winning finals, but also heroic stands in losing ones where their team were bested.

2016 onwards many such efforts have even gone unrewarded with coaches/Norm Smith votes (winners get the spoils most times), but they were still full of merit. Selwood played some outrageous finals in losing teams and was arguably our best overall finals performer through his 30s despite physically getting worn down.

Yes.

I mean playing really well when your team is smashing another team is fine, good even, but the real test of a player is in the really close games or the games where your team is being smashed. Being smashed especially shows real mental strength on behalf of said player who is able to play their best even when they know there is no chance of victory.

 

[Cdog71]

Yep, like how Buddy has 4 Coleman medals, which is essentially the Brownlow for forwards, only without the bias from the umpires.

AA’s and Coleman medals.
It’s still flawed
2012 Jack Reiwoldt wins the Coleman in a team that finishes 12th on ten wins
But Hawkins gets named at FF and Reiwoldt overlooked.
Though Geelong have 5 more wins in the H/A.

 

[Mr Meow]

AA’s and Coleman medals.
It’s still flawed
2012 Jack Reiwoldt wins the Coleman in a team that finishes 12th on ten wins
But Hawkins gets named at FF and Reiwoldt overlooked.
Though Geelong have 5 more wins in the H/A.

Hawkins wasn't the issue. Dean Cox was in a forward pocket. For a while they tried to squeeze two ruckmen in.

But just because there is an occasional poor AA omission, doesn't mean you ignore the award. You either have to ignore accolades entirely or rely on League MVP, Brownlow and Coaches Association awards only - and we all know you can have an absolutely brilliant season while just barely missing out on all or most of those.

I have in fact never seen non-Richmond supporters dispute the fairness of Martin's AA and B&F numbers. He has had very good seasons where neither were won, but for things like the Brownlow, the hot and cold streaks were apparent and that lack of consistency sees you in jeopardy for winning either award.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The two matches you highlighted are the ONLY two examples of dominant Dusty finals when Richmond were in jeopardy. And the Port one is the only match where it was so close to the end, that you could definitively say he was the difference. The Geelong GF is fair enough too because he got the team going. The second half Richmond had about 9 of the best 11 players though, so it depends whether you think that would have happened or not anyway.

The other finals where Dusty excelled, Richmond were dominant anyway. It doesn't take credit away, but there is a striking lack of strong Dusty finals in situations where the match was close or Richmond lost. He had one good final in seasons where Richmond weren't the premier!

Just to be really clear here, you are saying Dusty was not only THE DIFFERENCE between winning & losing a PF & GF but was also clearly and unanymously BOG by every conceivable measure in both of those games. Can you find anyone else in history that can even come close to matching that?

You are writing it like yeah whatever, every good player does this.

But let's just have a look at the other 5 where Dusty was clear BOG.

2017 GF Richmond leads by 9 points at HT. What happens if Dusty does a Danger & turns it up in the second half? Crows had smashed Richmond h & a.

2017 QF Richmond leads by 9 at HT, 13 at 3/4 time. The game still had to be won. What happens if Dusty does a Danger and turns it up after HT? Cats had beaten Richmond just a few weeks earlier.

2020 SF Tigers comfortably ahead all night but game still not dead 3/4 time(23 pt lead.) Saints had beaten Tigers well in h&a.

2019 QF Tigers 11 points up 1/2 time before Dusty put Lions to the sword with great goals Q3. Lions 8.17 v Tigers 18.4. What happens if you put Dusty on the Lions team kicking 6 amazing goals without a miss, and say Zorko 0.3 on Richmond's team? 12.7 v 14.13 Lions way, very comfortable margin for the Lions.

2019 GF Agreed, Tigers could have replaced Dusty with K McIntosh and still won.

It is a pretty stupid line of argument regardless, because the players are all on notice to bring their best in these games, and nobody did that better than Dusty. However, it is clear from the above, that it is spurious at best to assume all these games would be won without Dusty's presence.

 

[Cdog71]

Hawkins wasn't the issue. Dean Cox was in a forward pocket. For a while they tried to squeeze two ruckmen in.

But just because there is an occasional poor AA omission, doesn't mean you ignore the award. You either have to ignore accolades entirely or rely on League MVP, Brownlow and Coaches Association awards only - and we all know you can have an absolutely brilliant season while just barely missing out on all or most of those.

I have in fact never seen non-Richmond supporters dispute the fairness of Martin's AA and B&F numbers. He has had very good seasons where neither were won, but for things like the Brownlow, the hot and cold streaks were apparent and that lack of consistency sees you in jeopardy for winning either award.

Over looking the Coleman medal winner for the equal second placers is about as glaring an oversight and it is an issue.
Not to mention the selection of team is never with the thought of actually competing that’s why there’s so many inside Mids and rarely defenders selected to play on small fwds.

You’ll never convince me what you’ve come up with determines the best players.
It’s talent that wins games.

Rory Sloane…geez

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes.

I mean playing really well when your team is smashing another team is fine, good even, but the real test of a player is in the really close games or the games where your team is being smashed. Being smashed especially shows real mental strength on behalf of said player who is able to play their best even when they know there is no chance of victory.

You guys are just making shit up now. The real test is producing your best when it matters most. And for an even togher hill to climb, making your team WIN when it matters most.

 

[HairyO]

All this talk about Martin vs Ablett is a GOAT thread. Is this to decide whether Dusty is the 3rd or 4th best player?

Cos you also need to consider Daddy Ablett.

 

[HairyO]

Yes I never considered it before but percentage of AA's for a players career is actually a pretty good way of telling their ability and consistency. I imagine only the best end up with percentages over 40%.

Except the AA selectors are clueless flogs who get it wrong every single year.

 

[RUNVS]

You guys are just making shit up now. The real test is producing your best when it matters most. And for an even togher hill to climb, making your team WIN when it matters most.

Surely you have to admit it is easier to perform if your team is smashing the opposition.

 

[RUNVS]

Except the AA selectors are clueless flogs who get it wrong every single year.

They do get it wrong sometimes, but overall they are far more accurate than the umpires deciding the Brownlow and even the coaches deciding the coaches award or whatever it is called.

The All Australian is the best award when it comes to accuracy, selecting players who are not midfielders and also determining who are the best players for said positions in a given season. Yes there are mistakes, and they try and push too many midfielders into the side, but it is the award I trust the most given it is basically the only subjective award that isn't just a midfielders award.

 

[Mr Meow]

Just to be really clear here, you are saying Dusty was not only THE DIFFERENCE between winning & losing a PF & GF but was also clearly and unanymously BOG by every conceivable measure in both of those games. Can you find anyone else in history that can even come close to matching that?

You are writing it like yeah whatever, every good player does this.

But let's just have a look at the other 5 where Dusty was clear BOG.

2017 GF Richmond leads by 9 points at HT. What happens if Dusty does a Danger & turns it up in the second half? Crows had smashed Richmond h & a.

2017 QF Richmond leads by 9 at HT, 13 at 3/4 time. The game still had to be won. What happens if Dusty does a Danger and turns it up after HT? Cats had beaten Richmond just a few weeks earlier.

2020 SF Tigers comfortably ahead all night but game still not dead 3/4 time(23 pt lead.) Saints had beaten Tigers well in h&a.

2019 QF Tigers 11 points up 1/2 time before Dusty put Lions to the sword with great goals Q3. Lions 8.17 v Tigers 18.4. What happens if you put Dusty on the Lions team kicking 6 amazing goals without a miss, and say Zorko 0.3 on Richmond's team? 12.7 v 14.13 Lions way, very comfortable margin for the Lions.

2019 GF Agreed, Tigers could have replaced Dusty with K McIntosh and still won.

It is a pretty stupid line of argument regardless, because the players are all on notice to bring their best in these games, and nobody did that better than Dusty. However, it is clear from the above, that it is spurious at best to assume all these games would be won without Dusty's presence.

I'm saying that Dusty's 2020 PF/GF were exceptional, different making games when Richmond were in jeopardy. If he was injured in the first minute of the prelim OR the grand final, you could argue Richmond don't get that third flag.

I'm also in no way discrediting the impact Martin had in the tail end of each 3 premiership seasons, his hot streaks were a huge factor in Richmond finding their mojo each time and flexing when it mattered.

But it remains silly to overstate just how important Martin was in the results of any winning Richmond final 2017-2019. The team mauled their opponents, ones who proved ill equipped to handle Richmond. You seem to think the only difference was Martin. It simply isn't true.

 

[Mr Meow]

Surely you have to admit it is easier to perform if your team is smashing the opposition.

Exactly - and we only need to look at some other tough Richmond finals where they weren't dominant to see how true that was - 2013 EF, 2014 EF, 2015 EF, 2018 PF and 2022 EF. There isn't a single noteworthy Martin performance in any of those. So his finals record, while still brilliant, wasn't perfect. Richmond just didn't play many finals outside of 2017-2020 to test that further. It is certainly interesting to imagine how he might've performed if he played 12 finals in his 30s, or 10 before he was 26. Richmond being terrible during those phases means we only have limited data, but it is still data that tells us something.

 

[Mr Meow]

They do get it wrong sometimes, but overall they are far more accurate than the umpires deciding the Brownlow and even the coaches deciding the coaches award or whatever it is called.

The All Australian is the best award when it comes to accuracy, selecting players who are not midfielders and also determining who are the best players for said positions in a given season. Yes there are mistakes, and they try and push too many midfielders into the side, but it is the award I trust the most given it is basically the only subjective award that isn't just a midfielders award.

Exactly and for midfielders there are pretty much 8-9 spots each year. That is a lot of opportunity to be included in the team of the year.

It can be a harsh award when looking at the roles that receive very few spots - ruckmen, KPFs, KPDs and small forwards/defenders. For midfielders, it is one of the best awards there is for assessing elite consistency across a season and to not be in the top 8 brings question marks. Fyfe and Martin both were outrageously dominant when playing their best games, but did not have the "across a whole season excellence" as many times as some others mentioned. And their AA tallies do reflect that accurately.