Mega Thread Nick Daicos - Can he be the GTWEB? Part 2

[ShereKhan]

So that excludes Bont over the last 3 years.

On that basis, who has been the best player in the game since the start of 2023?

I guess by process of elimination we arrive at Serong, Heeney or Neale?

Who have all been inferior performers to 1. Daicos and 2. Bont since the start of 2023.

Hahha … nice Strawman. I said, anyone who has not been in the best 2 players on the ground in 7 finals, cannot be the ‘undisputed’ best player in the game.

I never said it was wrong for some people to rate him the best. But don’t be shocked when a lot of people don’t.

If he’d smashed a few finals out of the park, then in addition to his H&A performances he’d greatly strengthen his case to be ‘undisputed’ best player in the game.

Bontempelli has been a superior player to Naicos across 2023-2025.

Player ratings:

2023: Bont 1st 18.71. Daicos 13th 15.39
2024: Bont 1st 19.08. Daicos 7th 16.78
2025: Bont 1st 19.79. Daicos 16th 15.61

So who was the undisputed best player in the game from probably 2008-2013? GAJ:

2012 ratings: GAJ 1st 21.37
2013: GAJ 1st 20.09
2014: GAJ 1st 22.21

What about 2015? Fyfe won the Brownlow despite missing 3 games.

2015 : Fyfe 2nd 18.80

2016 Danger was undisputed best player of that season: 1st 20.50

2017: Martin 1st 20.86

So the ratings are not the be all and end all by any stretch. But when we’ve had players who’ve been clearly rated the best for a season or more … an it’s not really in dispute … they’ve also led player ratings … and more importantly, they’ve rated much higher than Naicos ever has.

So again … if Naicos was ‘undisputed’ best player in the game, he’d be rating well over 18 and even in the 20’s as other superstars have done. He hasn’t.

So I’m fine with many thinking he’s the best in the game. But any sort of thinking he’s head and shoulders above half a dozen other mids is not what I and many others believe.

 

[Fadge]

What are you using to determine best 2?

Multiple Norm Smith medal judges had Daicos in the best two on the ground in the 2023 GF.

Your PlayARaTinGs have him as best in a final.

And a big LOL that you run with top2...what voting system only stops at acknowledging top2??

The Cherry picker at it again!!

If only Collingwood were a shitter team and waited until Daicos was 27 or 28 and in his prime until he notched up his 7th final....

 

[Mr Meow]

So, no nominations?

I expected as much.

Do the analysis on every player mentioned in this thread the past 2 hours. Then show how it compares to your full Daicos analysis.

Hint: this is the same as a peer reviewer asking a scientist to perform a very basic experiment. Screeching "too much work!" would make you a laughing stock in your profession.

 

[Fadge]

Hahha … nice Strawman. I said, anyone who has not been in the best 2 players on the ground in 7 finals, cannot be the ‘undisputed’ best player in the game.

I never said it was wrong for some people to rate him the best. But don’t be shocked when a lot of people don’t.

If he’d smashed a few finals out of the park, then in addition to his H&A performances he’d greatly strengthen his case to be ‘undisputed’ best player in the game.

Bontempelli has been a superior player to Naicos across 2023-2025.

Player ratings:

2023: Bont 1st 18.71. Daicos 13th 15.39
2024: Bont 1st 19.08. Daicos 7th 16.78
2025: Bont 1st 19.79. Daicos 16th 15.61

So who was the undisputed best player in the game from probably 2008-2013? GAJ:

2012 ratings: GAJ 1st 21.37
2013: GAJ 1st 20.09
2014: GAJ 1st 22.21

What about 2015? Fyfe won the Brownlow despite missing 3 games.

2015 : Fyfe 2nd 18.80

2016 Danger was undisputed best player of that season: 1st 20.50

2017: Martin 1st 20.86

So the ratings are not the be all and end all by any stretch. But when we’ve had players who’ve been clearly rated the best for a season or more … an it’s not really in dispute … they’ve also led player ratings … and more importantly, they’ve rated much higher than Naicos ever has.

So again … if Naicos was ‘undisputed’ best player in the game, he’d be rating well over 18 and even in the 20’s as other superstars have done. He hasn’t.

So I’m fine with many thinking he’s the best in the game. But any sort of thinking he’s head and shoulders above half a dozen other mids is not what I and many others believe.

LOLOLOLOL.

PLaYeR RaTiNGZ.

So you're saying Daicos has actually been BOG in a final? Because with this post, you are saying that.

Absolutely all over the shop, you nuffies.

 

[Fadge]

Do the analysis on every player mentioned in this thread the past 2 hours. Then show how it compares to your full Daicos analysis.

Hint: this is the same as a peer reviewer asking a scientist to perform a very basic experiment. Screeching "too much work!" would make you a laughing stock in your profession.

Nope, this is not a scientific journal, it's BigFooty, and BigFooty is not my profession.

An obvious comment has been made, if you think it's ridiculously over the top', prove it.

Come on, it should be easy. All I need is a single name of a current player.

Let's go.

 

[Mr Meow]

Nope, this is not a scientific journal, it's BigFooty.

An obvious comment has been made, if you think it's ridiculously over the top', prove it.

Come on, it should be easy. All I need is a single name of a current player.

Let's go.

An "obvious" comment backed by zero evidence or analysis.

So in other words you can't or won't. Just what I thought, and a slammed shut verdict of you completely making shit up then passing it off as fact.

Someone who can't understand this logic is really behind the curveball in terms of how things are discovered, proven/disproven or how arguments are even remotely justified.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

LOLOLOLOL.

PLaYeR RaTiNGZ.

So you're saying Daicos has actually been BOG in a final? Because with this post, you are saying that.

Absolutely all over the shop, you nuffies.

Snookered from every angle, it's become impossible to argue logically that Daics is not tracking towards GOAT and possibly GTWEB

 

[doppleganger]

Hahha … nice Strawman. I said, anyone who has not been in the best 2 players on the ground in 7 finals, cannot be the ‘undisputed’ best player in the game.


Player ratings rambling

Daicos was the stand-out clear best player on the ground in the 2025 PF according to your favorite ratings.



A 26.3 rated final with a gap of more than 8 back to second, not just top2....BEST with daylight to the rest.

 

[Fadge]

So in other words you can't or won't. Just what I thought, and a slammed shut verdict of you completely making shit up then passing it off as fact.

One single name, to completely obliterate my 'shit made up and passed of as fact'.

Go.

 

[Fadge]

Daicos was the stand-out clear best player on the ground in the 2025 PF according to your favorite ratings.

View attachment 2529187

A 26.3 rated final with a gap of more than 8 back to second, not just top2....BEST with daylight to the rest.

Jeepers!

30% better than the next best player on the ground!

Unprecedented!

 

[Mr Meow]

One single name, to completely obliterate my 'shit made up and passed of as fact'.

Go.

I gave you the names. Start by analysing any single one of them. I already know that you won't though, so this is a waste of time.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

One single name, to completely obliterate my 'shit made up and passed of as fact'.

Go.

There's no one obviously

All good triers but none of them were dominating and forcefully moving the needle from their 2nd year, regularly being the match winner

 

[Fadge]

I gave you the names. Start by analysing any single one of them. I already know that you won't though, so this is a waste of time.

So you're saying all of Bont, Heeney, Serong and Butters have:
1. Been matchwinners in a greater percentage of games in their respective careers than Daicos has so far in his career, and
2. been matchwinners in more of their first 95 games than Daicos has in his first 95 games.

That's what you're saying about all 4 players? Really?

Oh boy.

No analysis needed there.

Come on, all I need is a single name that fits either of the criteria above. You nominate the name and which criteria.

Go.

 

[Fadge]

There's no one obviously

All good triers but none of them were dominating and forcefully moving the needle from their 2nd year, regularly being the match winner

But where is your peer reviewed paper, in the same way as you'd need to for a scientific journal!

Maybe I should make it a possibility for him, and accept any selected 95 games from any current player, with a greater number of matchwinning performances than Daicos has had in his career to date? That might be a bit fairer.

 

[Mr Meow]

So you're saying all of Bont, Heeney, Serong and Butters have:
1. Been matchwinners in a greater percentage of games in their respective careers than Daicos has so far in his career, and
2. been matchwinners in more of their first 95 games than Daicos has in his first 95 games.

That's what you're saying about all 4 players? Really?

Oh boy.

No analysis needed there.

Come on, all I need is a single name that fits either of the criteria above. You nominate the name and which criteria.

Go.

"No analysis needed" is almost word for word what I predicted you saying, in a refusal to even attempt to provide a shred of evidence for your initial claim. A pattern present in almost all of your pretend "facts" or "consensus". Anyway it's been fun deconstructing exactly how baseless your opinions are. I'm not sure what else we get from you saying "I won't defend my opinions, but I will keep calling them facts!" another 30 times.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

But where is your peer reviewed paper, in the same way as you'd need to for a scientific journal!

I carefully reviewed the names and as none of them were "John Coleman" the conclusion was obvious

 

[Fadge]

"No analysis needed" is almost word for word what I predicted you saying, in a refusal to even attempt to provide a shred of evidence for your initial claim. A pattern present in almost all of your pretend "facts" or "consensus". Anyway it's been fun deconstructing exactly how baseless your opinions are. I'm not sure what else we get from you saying "I won't defend my opinions, but I will keep calling them facts!" another 30 times.

Come on. Just one name.

 

[Mr Meow]

Come on. Just one name.

You can pick any of Cameron, Gawn, Andrews, Heeney, Butters, Serong, Cripps, Neale or Bontempelli.

Treat them all as individual experiments. I, as the peer reviewer, are giving you the option to do ANY of the 9 pieces of work. Just to show that you can at least attempt to do it.

You won't though. You will refuse and say "JUST ONE NAME" like a buffoon, which proves nothing and leaves your original statement as flimsy and unproven as possible.

 

[Fadge]

You can pick any of Cameron, Gawn, Andrews, Heeney, Butters, Serong, Cripps, Neale or Bontempelli.

Treat them all as individual experiments. I, as the peer reviewer, are giving you the option to do ANY of the 9 pieces of work. Just to show that you can at least attempt to do it.

You won't though. You will refuse and say "JUST ONE NAME" like a buffoon, which proves nothing and leaves your original statement as flimsy and unproven as possible.

I'll tell you what - give me a name where there is a genuinely possibility, in fact even a remote possibility, and I'll provide the evidence. I'll even get Corny and Dopples to peer review.

You are embarrassing yourself with the list you've provided.

 

[theprospector]

You can pick any of Cameron, Gawn, Andrews, Heeney, Butters, Serong, Cripps, Neale or Bontempelli.

Treat them all as individual experiments. I, as the peer reviewer, are giving you the option to do ANY of the 9 pieces of work. Just to show that you can at least attempt to do it.

You won't though. You will refuse and say "JUST ONE NAME" like a buffoon, which proves nothing and leaves your original statement as flimsy and unproven as possible.

This guy is either a really bad lecturer/professor or master troll

 

[Mr Meow]

I'll tell you what - give me a name where there is a genuinely possibility, in fact even a remote possibility, and I'll provide the evidence. I'll even get Corny and Dopples to peer review.

You are embarrassing yourself with the list you've provided.

Sure, I'll give them to you one by one then.

Do Butters, while refreshing us all with the already completed Daicos analysis as well.

"I'll even get my Pies supporters to peer review" is as moronic as the peer review process in science involving their own labs...you do get that, right? It has as much credibility as Trump asking one of his underlings if his tie looks good.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I'll tell you what - give me a name where there is a genuinely possibility, in fact even a remote possibility, and I'll provide the evidence. I'll even get Corny and Dopples to peer review.

You are embarrassing yourself with the list you've provided.

"Cripps"

Mr 37%

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Except, he kicked 1 goal 3 behinds...

Oh boy.

felt like a few more chances than that! Some absolute sitters missed, one of those days where he had to be literally at the goalline to score. Anyway he just really stood out, even 4 goals instead of 6 would have made him BOG IMO. Loved the WA speedy small armada generally, even though they got beaten by the seemingly slower/bigger-bodied Vics.

 

[Fadge]

Sure, I'll give them to you one by one then.

Do Butters, while refreshing us all with the already completed Daicos analysis as well.

So you think Butters has a greater percentage of matchwinning games, or more matchwinning games in his first 95 games?

Or both?

And I'm not doing them 1 by 1 - If Butters is your most likely, and you are proven wrong, you have failed.

So make sure you're confident.

Is it Butters, and which of the two criteria. I don't want you just throwing darts in the hope that one of them stick.

Actually, put some skin in the game - do your analysis first so as to ensure it is even a remote possibility, give me the results of your analysis, and then I'll do my own if it is possible.

Go.

 

[Cdog71]

Daicos was the stand-out clear best player on the ground in the 2025 PF according to your favorite ratings.

View attachment 2529187

A 26.3 rated final with a gap of more than 8 back to second, not just top2....BEST with daylight to the rest.

Sidebottom had a run with role on Mcluggage trying to shut him down like Mannagh the week before.
Sidebottom gets 18, Mcluggage gets it 37 times and kicks a goal.

NDaicos didn’t score a goal or get a kick in the last quarter you lost by over 5 goals and Daicos was the best player on the ground.

Ok