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

[Noidnadroj]

No, this isn't how you deduce whether Dusty is in fact #2 of all modern players in the view of the public. They could see Buddy as overrated in terms of being above GAJ, but it doesn't mean they think Dusty is above Buddy. You have no idea when each person says overrated whether it means they think the player should go down 1 place or 50. I would still not be comfortable as using this poll as evidence for GAJ > Buddy, if I took your interpretation of it at face value that would be a slam dunk conclusion.

The best way to do it would be to get everyone to submit a list ranking the players 1-10 and then assigning a ranking score per vote, e.g 1 = 10 points, 2 = 9 etc.

We actually had something like this on BigFooty albeit with a different set of players (all midfielders) in a thread theasian made. From 6 players (GAJ, Judd, Voss, Dusty, Buckley, Hird) there was an unbelievably clear player in 1st place (do I really need to say who it was?), Judd had a good lead in #2 and I believe Dusty fell around 4th, in a group where not too much separated them (Dusty, Buckley, Hird).

Any poll of course has the large caveat of unknown proportions of different supporter bases voting. Not to mention non football reasons obviously affecting a few of those overrated votes. A couple of which are very obvious and since I want to stick to discussing football only, will leave it at that.

Wowsers … if loads more people say Pendles, Danger, Goodes are overrated than say Dusty is overrated, and Dusty was ranked higher… then that poll… involving thousands and thousand of votes, rate Martin a lot higher than those players you argue are at the level if not higher than Martin.

So your opinion on Martin v all those players doesn’t mesh with the opinion of the masses. That’s cool.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

Wowsers … if loads more people say Pendles, Danger, Goodes are overrated than say Dusty is overrated, and Dusty was ranked higher… then that poll… involving thousands and thousand of votes, rate Martin a lot higher than those players you argue are at the level if not higher than Martin.

So your opinion on Martin v all those players doesn’t mesh with the opinion of the masses. That’s cool.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

There's a reason that this isn't how polls or rankings of anything works. Why don't I list my 10 favourite films and people say overrated, underrated or about right - then we try and figure out where the hell people think they sit. Rather than people simply submitting a 1-10 list for the films concerned. We could do the same with the census, or for voting in politicians. Or you could get your head out of your arse and admit you're trying to place Martin #2 on the most flimsy pretence possible.

At least your narrative is now forced to become Dusty > Buddy (a laughable concept...but let's play along), and you can give up the idea that he was ever considered above Ablett.

We have a more scientific approach that I just posted - a simple 1-6 ranking of 6 top modern midfielders and then an average score determined to give overall ranking. Martin finished 4th of 6th, and was closer to his tier 3 peers (Buckley and Hird) than he was to GAJ and Judd.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This thread is going to still be on the main page in 10 years time isn't it.

Because oppo posters furious the

• unanimous finals GOAT,
• triple Smith Medallist,
• triple Ayres Medallist,
• Brownlow medallist with then record votes,
• Coaches MVP with still record votes,
• player with the greatest finals scoreboard impact of any player this century,
• player with the lowest Grand Final deficit v whole oppo team in our lifetimes, 2nd lowest ever behind Coleman(who only played 2 Grand Finals)
• player with the greatest season ever played
• who finished 6 consecutive seasons as the form player of the competition(most in history)
• who has the greatest offensive 1 v 1 stats by miles of any player
• who unified the big 3 footy awards, Brownlow, Coaches MVP, top average player ratings,
• who did all this while splitting himself between the 2 most hotly contested roles on a footy field,

didn't play for them. They are obsessed with Dusty.

The top 4 most jealous oppo posters alone have posted 2000 times. Lol, you have posted 313 times.

Oh that's right, finals should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Wait so you would just argue for or against it depending on whether it supports a Richmond player? I applaud your transparent confession of hypocrisy, that's a rare slip from you around that topic.

Wait so you would argue against it or for it depending on whether it diminishes a Richmond player?

Accusing someone else of a crime you are openly committing yourself isn't going to carry much force.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So you are actually trying to argue that making a "new" 1-10 ranking based on this approach would be more accurate than asking people to rank them 1-10 and determining an average score?

Well at least we know your career, whatever the hell it was, did not require sharp analytical or numerical skills concerning data analysis.

All subjective rankings are open to question.

When a hugely larger number of people have the same view in opposition to a subjective ranking, it carries much more force than if those in opposition were more evenly dispersed.

 

[PhatBoy]

Pretty sure when I argued that in relation to polling on Jack Riewoldt v Hawkins v Kennedy I was completely shot down by all and sundry as not being able to accept the decision …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

How is Jack Riewoldt hated at all let alone on the scale of Patrick Dangerfield

I like Jack and I’m pretty sure most people do too. He was a bit of a w***er for about two seconds but like most young players he grew up, and again he was plastered everywhere when he sung Mr Brightside and again everyone got over it.

I’m not unable to accept anything.

I’m also familiar with how ‘overrated’ polls work (the poll you’re talking about wasn’t anything to do with players being overrated) and the fact that - this place proves it - Dangerfield is incredibly unpopular player.

People voting in an online newspaper poll - gee I’m sure they’re not letting any of that cloud their judgement

 

[Mr Meow]

All subjective rankings are open to question.

When a hugely larger number of people have the same view in opposition to a subjective ranking, it carries much more force than if those in opposition were more evenly dispersed.

All approaches are also open to question.

Is there a reason you have never offered this bright new approach to determining public opinion before: "I'm going to list players...say whether this ranking makes them overrated or underrated and I will formulate a new list". Or why we have never seen it used on the forum?

There is an honest reason for this and I would gain a little respect for you if you admitted it: something was found that could actually let you elevate Dusty above either GAJ or Buddy. Flimsy as it is, you can pretend people have Ablett as a clear #1 and Dusty clear #2 now - the rest below. Which ironically still diminishes one of your main ideas, that Dusty > Ablett. So let's see how heavily you lean into something that would say GAJ > Dusty > Buddy. And see if neutrals roll in to support this new finding.

 

[Noidnadroj]

There's a reason that this isn't how polls or rankings of anything works. Why don't I list my 10 favourite films and people say overrated, underrated or about right - then we try and figure out where the hell people think they sit. Rather than people simply submitting a 1-10 list for the films concerned. We could do the same with the census, or for voting in politicians. Or you could get your head out of your arse and admit you're trying to place Martin #2 on the most flimsy pretence possible.

At least your narrative is now forced to become Dusty > Buddy (a laughable concept...but let's play along), and you can give up the idea that he was ever considered above Ablett.

We have a more scientific approach that I just posted - a simple 1-6 ranking of 6 top modern midfielders and then an average score determined to give overall ranking. Martin finished 4th of 6th, and was closer to his tier 3 peers (Buckley and Hird) than he was to GAJ and Judd.

If Martin is ranked 3 and has way way way less overrated and way more underrated than Danger who is ranked 6th, then what is the overwhelming opinion of the thousands of football followers who participated in this particular poll? Don’t get yourself into knots by quoting movie reviews please Margaret Pomeranz… just deal with the data this poll has delivered.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

If Martin is ranked 3 and has way way way less overrated and way more underrated than Danger who is ranked 6th, then what is the overwhelming opinion of the thousands of football followers who participated in this particular poll? Don’t get yourself into knots by quoting movie reviews please Margaret Pomeranz… just deal with the data this poll has delivered.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The first step in any peer review process is to look at the strength of the method used. It is what every conclusion rests on. This was probably the worst designed poll I have ever seen.

I posted the actual quantitative analysis of ranking GAJ, Judd, Voss, Martin, Buckley and Hird. That was the order they came out in after 100 data points (I stopped tallying in the 90s but there was no shift in the nature of lists submitted after). A ranking based scoring system. Come back and give me something similar with these 10 players, then you can say Martin is ranked above all but 1 of them in terms of public opinion.

Until then...we actually know Ablett > Judd > Voss > Martin > Buckley > Hird was what the passionate BigFooty tribe came up with. 4th of 6 champion AFL midfielders is still very good and about where my opinion sits as well. Those trying to place him number 1 are only extremist Richmond supporters, so we're right back to where we started.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All approaches are also open to question.

Is there a reason you have never offered this bright new approach to determining public opinion before: "I'm going to list players...say whether this ranking makes them overrated or underrated and I will formulate a new list". Or why we have never seen it used on the forum?

There is an honest reason for this and I would gain a little respect for you if you admitted it: something was found that could actually let you elevate Dusty above either GAJ or Buddy. Flimsy as it is, you can pretend people have Ablett as a clear #1 and Dusty clear #2 now - the rest below. Which ironically still diminishes one of your main ideas, that Dusty > Ablett. So let's see how heavily you lean into something that would say GAJ > Dusty > Buddy. And see if neutrals roll in to support this new finding.

I don't need to pretend anything. I rate Dusty above all players in the AFL era at least. Most others don't, I accept that. But you can't seem to accept that I do.

But once again we are seeing you mixing concepts to try to muddy the waters and confuse people.

What we were discussing was what the poll shows. We were not discussing my personal position.

 

[Noidnadroj]

How is Jack Riewoldt hated at all let alone on the scale of Patrick Dangerfield [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I like Jack and I’m pretty sure most people do too. He was a bit of a w***er for about two seconds but like most young players he grew up, and again he was plastered everywhere when he sung Mr Brightside and again everyone got over it.

I’m not unable to accept anything.

I’m also familiar with how ‘overrated’ polls work (the poll you’re talking about wasn’t anything to do with players being overrated) and the fact that - this place proves it - Dangerfield is incredibly unpopular player.

People voting in an online newspaper poll - gee I’m sure they’re not letting any of that cloud their judgement [emoji23]

Judd, Pendles, Goodes and Nick Riewoldt were all ranked below Martin and had more overrated and less underrated than Martin.

This poll is just another poll … except this one was done after Martin has retired, and away from BF where Richmond are without peer the most hated and annoying supporter group for the last 8-years and nobody wants to provide them positivity …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The first step in any peer review process is to look at the strength of the method used. It is what every conclusion rests on. This was probably the worst designed poll I have ever seen.

I posted the actual quantitative analysis of ranking GAJ, Judd, Voss, Martin, Buckley and Hird. That was the order they came out in after 100 data points (I stopped tallying in the 90s but there was no shift in the nature of lists submitted after). A ranking based scoring system. Come back and give me something similar with these 10 players, then you can say Martin is ranked above all but 1 of them in terms of public opinion.

Until then...we actually know Ablett > Judd > Voss > Martin > Buckley > Hird was what the passionate BigFooty tribe came up with. 4th of 6 champion AFL midfielders is still very good and about where my opinion sits as well. Those trying to place him number 1 are only extremist Richmond supporters, so we're right back to where we started.

Lol you are talking about a rating of midfielders that pitted 2 mid-forwards(Dusty & Hird) v 4 specialist mids - and Dusty still comes in 4th.

If they were rated in the role Dusty made famous, he kicks them all into a cocked hat, especially in the biggest games. Like, he slam dunks the lot of them.

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't need to pretend anything. I rate Dusty above all players in the AFL era at least. Most others don't, I accept that. But you can't seem to accept that I do.

But once again we are seeing you mixing concepts to try to muddy the waters and confuse people.

What we were discussing was what the poll shows. We were not discussing my personal position.

I accept that you rate him highly, of course I do. It's when you pretend others do as well, that I correct you. But you can't seem to accept that.

We are discussing whether that analytical approach was the best one. It clearly isn't, or else it would be how literally everything is voted on and ranked. Get your players, rank the best (simple) or 1-10 and average ranking score (more quantitative). Those are viable approaches. "Give an overrated/underrated verdict on each player in this list" is not. And I say this as someone recognising that Ablett as a clear number 1 over Buddy is what said approach gives us. But bad data is bad data.

 

[Mr Meow]

Lol you are talking about a rating of midfielders that pitted 2 mid-forwards(Dusty & Hird) v 4 specialist mids - and Dusty still comes in 4th.

If they were rated in the role Dusty made famous, he kicks them all into a cocked hat, especially in the biggest games. Like, he slam dunks the lot of them.

The thread title was "rank these players", not "rank their midfield output".

Once again a lack of comprehension that would be amusing if it wasn't so concerning.

But at least we are now straight back to you flip flopping on whether public opinion matters or not. It obviously doesn't if people rank players 1st to last and we get an average score, but it does if we have a random list and "overrated, about right or underrated" verdicts are assigned.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I accept that you rate him highly, of course I do. It's when you pretend others do as well, that I correct you. But you can't seem to accept that.

We are discussing whether that analytical approach was the best one. It clearly isn't, or else it would be how literally everything is voted on and ranked. Get your players, rank the best (simple) or 1-10 and average ranking score (more quantitative). Those are viable approaches. "Give an overrated/underrated verdict on each player in this list" is not. And I say this as someone recognising that Ablett as a clear number 1 over Buddy is what said approach gives us. But bad data is bad data.

Exactly where and with what words did I "pretend" others rate Dusty as highly as I rate him?

You just made that up.

 

[Mr Meow]

Exactly where and with what words did I "pretend" others rate Dusty as highly as I rate him?

You just made that up.

Where do you think people rate him? I'll give you a list (let's keep it to AFL era only, 10 off the top of my head to compare him to):

Carey
Williams
Judd
Voss
Franklin
Lockett
Ablett Junior
Pavlich
Goodes
Dangerfield

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The thread title was "rank these players", not "rank their midfield output".

Once again a lack of comprehension that would be amusing if it wasn't so concerning.

But at least we are now straight back to you flip flopping on whether public opinion matters or not. It obviously doesn't if people rank players 1st to last and we get an average score, but it does if we have a random list and "overrated, about right or underrated" verdicts are assigned.

It is funny how the 2 mid-forwards rate 4th & 6th then.

 

[Mr Meow]

It is funny how the 2 mid-forwards rate 4th & 6th then.

Yes it's another conspiracy, where people discriminate against midfielders who rotated forward and scored lots of memorable goals. People are naturally biased to overrate pure midfielders, who score less goals.

Sometimes you really need to think before you post.

There were 3 clear tiers based on average scores: Ablett in tier 1, a league of his own. Judd and Voss in tier 2, with a decent gap to the next player. Martin, Buckley and Hird in tier 3 - with not a hell of a lot splitting them. That's based on numbers.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Where do you think people rate him?

Lol, there are rising 8 billion people in the world.

Exactly which ones am I supposed to have a razor sharp insight into where they rate Dusty?

The pretty clear suggestion from that poll is that "people" rate Dusty number 2.

 

[Mr Meow]

Lol, there are rising 8 billion people in the world.

Exactly which ones am I supposed to have a razor sharp insight into where they rate Dusty?

The pretty clear suggestion from that poll is that "people" rate Dusty number 2.

So now you have no idea where people rate him, so how would you know whether they rank him higher or lower than you?

You do realise that if we shuffled around the order of those names in the HS poll and got people to answer, we could end up with entirely different conclusions? I.e if Buddy was put in 6, Ablett in 8 and Martin in 1. It isn't a quantitative approach because people aren't actually saying where each player sits in their own ranking. Getting people to vote for either the best, or ranking them 1-10 and getting an average score are the only quantitative ways you could actually order a list.

One of many examples is that the ones who said Martin was "overrated" could have him at 10, while those who said underrated could have him at 2. And the same would be true for every player - we have no actual idea where they rank the players if they say underrated, and in many cases no idea when they say overrated.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes it's another conspiracy, where people discriminate against midfielders who rotated forward and scored lots of memorable goals. People are naturally biased to overrate pure midfielders, who score less goals.

Sometimes you really need to think before you post.

Who were the respondents?

You are leaping on one poll and attacking another poll merely because one elevates Dusty above where the other has him.

The amazing thing is at the same time you are accusing others of doing the same as if it is a hanging offence.

 

[PhatBoy]

Judd, Pendles, Goodes and Nick Riewoldt were all ranked below Martin and had more overrated and less underrated than Martin.

This poll is just another poll … except this one was done after Martin has retired, and away from BF where Richmond are without peer the most hated and annoying supporter group for the last 8-years and nobody wants to provide them positivity …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sure they are. The cosmic conspiracy ballet goes on.

 

[Boston tiger]

That had to change rules because Dusty was just too god damn good.

 

[RUNVS]

Because oppo posters furious the

• unanimous finals GOAT,
• triple Smith Medallist,
• triple Ayres Medallist,
• Brownlow medallist with then record votes,
• Coaches MVP with still record votes,
• player with the greatest finals scoreboard impact of any player this century,
• player with the lowest Grand Final deficit v whole oppo team in our lifetimes, 2nd lowest ever behind Coleman(who only played 2 Grand Finals)
• player with the greatest season ever played
• who finished 6 consecutive seasons as the form player of the competition(most in history)
• who has the greatest offensive 1 v 1 stats by miles of any player
• who unified the big 3 footy awards, Brownlow, Coaches MVP, top average player ratings,
• who did all this while splitting himself between the 2 most hotly contested roles on a footy field,

didn't play for them. They are obsessed with Dusty.

The top 4 most jealous oppo posters alone have posted 2000 times. Lol, you have posted 313 times.

Oh that's right, finals should be taken with a grain of salt.

Except it has been proven something like 5% of bigfooty fans agree with you.

You can't seem to accept that fact for some reason, and despite your likely hundreds of hours on this thread at this point I strongly suspect you have convinced precisely 0 people of your point.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Except it has been proven something like 5% of bigfooty fans agree with you.

You can't seem to accept that fact for some reason, and despite your likely hundreds of hours on this thread at this point I strongly suspect you have convinced precisely 0 people of your point.

I am here to put Dusty's case. It is up to others what they think.