Do we judge personal abilities more if they have team success?

[fumbler]

So after listening to SEN and hearing some of the absolute nonsense that one of the commentators spruik I decided I would let the footballing public decide.

A player who is in the top ten players doesn't have team success, is he/she still counted as top ten players or do they fall due to their side being an absolute JOKE?

Do we rate players like Bob Skilton, Gary Ablett Snr, Haydn Bunton Snr, Tony Lockett, Robert Harvey, Matthew Richardson etc. higher than we rate players who have won Premierships like Chris Judd, Royce Hart, Leigh Matthews, Michael Voss, Jason Dunstall, Alex Jesaulenko and Dane Swan,

Ted Whitten​

?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Macpotata]

yes

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Generally players in a premiership are touted higher.

Also Whitten played in 1954.

 

[fumbler]

Generally players in a premiership are touted higher.

Also Whitten played in 1954.

Thanks, changed it over.

My take is that if a footballer is a great player no matter what success his team has he/she will always be a great player.

 

[Gydafud]

Well it's pretty common (especially around here) for people to list "X premierships" to rate a players ability.

I always thing that's a team/club achievement and shouldn't be counted against a players quality.

 

[Royce Hafey]

Well it's pretty common (especially around here) for people to list "X premierships" to rate a players ability.

I always thing that's a team/club achievement and shouldn't be counted against a players quality.

But if a player contributed significantly to a finals win, even more to a GF win that should count for a lot more than a contribution to a home and away win. So, for example, Cotchin was understandably discounted by a lot of people for his failure in a couple of finals, even though he was our best player in the loss to Carlton in 2013. The fact that he was a Premiership Captain counts for something because he played a Captain's game in the GF whereas Bruce Monteath's 3 possession game in 1980 doesn't count.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Yes

Nick Riewoldt was a far better player than Jono Brown but some would have you believe otherwise because Browny is a good country boy who likes a few frothies and just happened to be part of a threepeat

 

[Anja_Nees]

Yes

Nick Riewoldt was a far better player than Jono Brown but some would have you believe otherwise because Browny is a good country boy who likes a few frothies and just happened to be part of a threepeat

A good example. Brown was great but Riewoldt would be seen in a different light if they had swapped teams.

The interesting one is Riewoldt v Riewoldt. Few would deny Nick was the better player but Jack now has a few AA selections and Colemans and a premiership medal now to boot. Probably the better CV.

 

[RUNVS]

A good example. Brown was great but Riewoldt would be seen in a different light if they had swapped teams.

The interesting one is Riewoldt v Riewoldt. Few would deny Nick was the better player but Jack now has a few AA selections and Colemans and a premiership medal now to boot. Probably the better CV.

which goes to show how misleading awards are sometimes.

 

[Kwality]

So after listening to SEN and hearing some of the absolute nonsense that one of the commentators spruik I decided I would let the footballing public decide.

A player who is in the top ten players doesn't have team success, is he/she still counted as top ten players or do they fall due to their side being an absolute JOKE?

Do we rate players like Bob Skilton, Gary Ablett Snr, Haydn Bunton Snr, Tony Lockett, Robert Harvey, Matthew Richardson etc. higher than we rate players who have won Premierships like Chris Judd, Royce Hart, Leigh Matthews, Michael Voss, Jason Dunstall, Alex Jesaulenko and Dane Swan,

Ted Whitten​

?

What are your thoughts?

Leave your own club players out of it & we might see.

 

[Anja_Nees]

which goes to show how misleading awards are sometimes.

Yes, Zaine Cordy is a premiership CHF and Chris Grant is not. Brent Renouff is a premiership ruckman and Primus is not. It’s not indicative of a player’s ability.

Riewoldt would be a dual premiership player if his team had held it together in some crucial moments. Pav came bloody close too but Brown appears to be held in a standing they aren’t because his team was dominant.

 

[And_ROOS]

Team sport. You play to win Premierships, and give fans of clubs memories. But its the success that boosts players in the eyes of others. Thats why I have heard on radio and on here about players who were really good, maybe even great, being touted as "elite" because they were in a Premiership team. But thats why we rate the special talents so highly. The guys in good teams that were a cut above the competition but couldn't give their teams success stand out because they were legendary. Where as good Premiership players get rated higher because they won something.

 

[Back One Out]

Team success is the only thing which matters

If a player racks up 50 touches, but his team loses, then it was all for nought.
He tried. They lost. Better luck next week/next year, etc.

Players should be judged by how they contribute to their team's success

If a player was a valuable, integral member of a premiership side and made a difference between winning the flag or not, this means far more than any meaningless individual awards that people slobber over.

People who argue over which players are the best and ignore the points above and say that team success is irrelevant are MORONS.

Dustin Martin was a far better player when he did what was required for Richmond to win in 2017 than when he kick-chased across half back in 2016 and inflated his stats with ineffective play that helped Supercoach teams win.

Sam Mitchell's crowning achievement as a footballer was the integral role he played as centreman in four premiership teams. Not the Brownlow Medal he won, the 5 best and fairest awards nor his All Australian selections

 

[hoianbulldog]

Players should be rated on their performance independent of the teams. Its an easy out for people to factor in premierships.

Although 5 day and 5 night premierships does get you a lot of drink cards.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Team success is the only thing which matters

If a player racks up 50 touches, but his team loses, then it was all for nought.
He tried. They lost. Better luck next week/next year, etc.

Players should be judged by how they contribute to their team's success

If a player was a valuable, integral member of a premiership side and made a difference between winning the flag or not, this means far more than any meaningless individual awards that people slobber over.

People who argue over which players are the best and ignore the points above and say that team success is irrelevant are MORONS.

Dustin Martin was a far better player when he did what was required for Richmond to win in 2017 than when he kick-chased across half back in 2016 and inflated his stats with ineffective play that helped Supercoach teams win.

Sam Mitchell's crowning achievement as a footballer was the integral role he played as centreman in four premiership teams. Not the Brownlow Medal he won, the 5 best and fairest awards nor his All Australian selections

Everything you say is true but the thread is about rating an individual v anoher individual to determine who was a better footballer.

Many a hawthorn player has multiple premierships but wouldnt get close as footballers to many who have none.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

Would you consider Shaun Burgoyne (4 premierships) a better player than Patrick Dangerfield (Brownlow medallist)?

Sure they don't play in the same position, but I think a premiership doesn't define the player but rather the team.

So when it comes to a player's accolades, I never like to include premierships because while a player can perform their role to a satisfactory level, they also have 21 of the players there to support them. Some can make a player look better.

That's not saying anything bad about Burgoyne, he is an incredible player. Decent pace, defensive pressure and hard to take down. But his premiership medals mean very little to me when it comes to personal achievements.

 

[RUNVS]

Would you consider Shaun Burgoyne (4 premierships) a better player than Patrick Dangerfield (Brownlow medallist)?

Sure they don't play in the same position, but I think a premiership doesn't define the player but rather the team.

So when it comes to a players accolades, I never like to include premierships because while a player can perform their role to a satisfactory level, they also have 21 of the players there to support them. Some can make a player look better.

That's not saying anything bad about Burgoyne, he is an incredible player. Decent pace, defensive pressure and hard to take down. But his premiership medals mean very little to me when it comes to personal achievements.

Agreed. Premierships also has a lot to do with who a player was drafted by. Imagine if Luke Hodge was drafted pick 4 in 2001 instead of pick 1 and Hodge went to Fremantle. He would be the exact same person, the exact same player, but odds are he would have retired with zero Premierships rather than 4.

 

[Scotland]

Yes. As far as good players go, Brian Lake is a prime example. A B&F winner and dual AA at the Dogs and a 3 time premiership player at the Hawks. His prime was at the Dogs, and he didn't magically become a better player by joining a very good team at age 30.

Ablett at Gold Coast is another example. Was still the best player in the comp in his first few years despite playing in a poor team. Mitch Duncan or Allen Christensen didn't magically pass him because they played in the 2011 flag while the Suns won the spoon.

We probably won't win a flag in the next 2-3 years but that won't stop me from naming Josh Kennedy in our GOAT team. He and Peter Sumich are easily the best two key forwards we've ever had, even though Mitchell White and the big Q played in flags.

Fans get carried away with their team's role players. Every player in the bottom half of the 22 gets overrated, and every player on the fringe becomes a potential star. Mitch Hallahan, Brent Prismall, Jed Lamb - simply being on the fringe of a good team doesn't make you a star player. Meanwhile Kyle Cheney couldn't crack a game at Melbourne then played at Hawthorn and Adelaide (6 top 5 finishes in a row, played every game in 2016). The reality is if you made a composite team of the premier and spoon winner each year it would be somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30. No room for Beams, Zorko, Rockliff... in the Richmond 22? Pfft.

Good teams work to the strengths of their best players and get the most out of their lesser knowns. It's a salary capped comp so if you can find a Podsiadly in the state league and get him to play a role when you need it then that's great. If you can get young guys in their first and second years playing roles that's great.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So after listening to SEN and hearing some of the absolute nonsense that one of the commentators spruik I decided I would let the footballing public decide.

A player who is in the top ten players doesn't have team success, is he/she still counted as top ten players or do they fall due to their side being an absolute JOKE?

Do we rate players like Bob Skilton, Gary Ablett Snr, Haydn Bunton Snr, Tony Lockett, Robert Harvey, Matthew Richardson etc. higher than we rate players who have won Premierships like Chris Judd, Royce Hart, Leigh Matthews, Michael Voss, Jason Dunstall, Alex Jesaulenko and Dane Swan,

Ted Whitten​

?

What are your thoughts?

An emphatic YES!

 

[00Stinger]

you are obviously refering to Cornes who is a contradicting toss bag.

when judging a players abilities, team success should be irrelevant. if anything over the years it has been proven time and time again that it is harder to play in a crap team than a great team

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[gavaniacono]

A good example. Brown was great but Riewoldt would be seen in a different light if they had swapped teams.

The interesting one is Riewoldt v Riewoldt. Few would deny Nick was the better player but Jack now has a few AA selections and Colemans and a premiership medal now to boot. Probably the better CV.

J has a higher footy IQ than N if not the talent.

 

[Anja_Nees]

J has a higher footy IQ than N if not the talent.

Probably does. If I were picking a footy side from scratch and could take one at his peak I would pick Nick.

 

[roacheee]

g ablett, the pontiff, best i've ever seen. others will say he never won a flag so they rate him less, as if losing those gf's were somehow anything to do with him

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Using flags as a measure of ability is an unfortunate side effect of American sports becoming popular. In the NBA it can be useful to compare how many championships (rings) a player has won because one player makes up 20% of the team. The inclusion of a superstar can turn a draft lottery team into a contender overnight. Any one player can have a huge impact on the teams performance. In Aussie Rules where there are 18 players on the field, probably not so useful.

 

[master bate]

Yes

Nick Riewoldt was a far better player than Jono Brown but some would have you believe otherwise because Browny is a good country boy who likes a few frothies and just happened to be part of a threepeat

I think likeability has more impact than premierships there, most realised Brown was a young player and not the most vital player in the flags and from 2004 onwards the Saints had much stronger sides than the Lions.

Brown was power, pack marks, intimidation and big set shot goals. Riewoldt's non stop running and work rate and will himself to mark the ball rather than out muscle opponents and that wasn't as sexy a way to play the game.

Anyway, they sit in a pretty similar category of the best you can be without reaching the Carey or Franklin level so it's not a huge misrepresentation of their careers.