Opinion Rank these players in order from 1-6: Gary Ablett Jnr, Nathan Buckley,James Hird, Chris Judd, Dustin Martin, Michael Voss

[Daka]

Dusty is such a strange player to try and rate. Objectively his H&A performances are that of a gun player but not close to the greatest of all time. For example he's had the same number of All Australians and Brownlows as Shane Crawford and he's never brought up in these discussions.

But then Dusty is almost certainly the best finals player of all time. He's probably played 50 less dominant games but ~5 more dominant finals than any of the others on this list.

Does that make him number 1? Maybe it does.

AA is not a great marker for how good a player has been... I do not get why people use All-Australians as argument. Martin was AA in 2018 and was arguably better in 2019 no AA, also no AA in 2023 when he could easily have been.

I think he is a Victim of his own standards but in saying that, other players also get robbed of AA so that's why it's not great example & why it shouldn't be used to judge players B&F results are much better marker, how much they have been top 5.

 

[Partridge]

AA is not a great marker for how good a player has been... I do not get why people use All-Australians as argument. Martin was AA in 2018 and was arguably better in 2019 no AA, also no AA in 2023 when he could easily have been.

I think he is a Victim of his own standards but in saying that, other players also get robbed of AA so that's why it's not great example & why it shouldn't be used to judge players B&F results are much better marker, how much they have been top 5.

I think AA had merit for a while, but it's really become a popularity contest now for whichever players are currently being salivated over. I wouldn't trust half the selectors to know more than a potplant to be honest.

The decline started in 2008 when Judd was appointed captain. Took a side that missed the finals, and his captaincy was so inspirational, so incredible, that they..........missed the finals. Obvious AA captain really. It's been downhill from there and if you are one of the anointed players by the footy media (Dangerfield, Bontempelli etc.), you're going to get picked most of the time whether you deserve it or not.

 

[JackOutback]

I think AA had merit for a while, but it's really become a popularity contest now for whichever players are currently salivating over. I wouldn't trust half the selectors to know more than a potplant to be honest.

The decline started in 2008 when Judd was appointed captain. Took a side that missed the finals, and his captaincy was so inspirational, so incredible, that they..........missed the finals. Obvious AA captain really. It's been downhill from there and if you are one of the anointed players by the footy media (Dangerfield, Bontempelli etc.), you're going to get picked most of the time whether you deserve it or not.

Bit strange to pot someone's captaincy because they couldn't make 21 other players better than they were. Like, I'm not saying it was the right choice, but shit captains have taken their team to finals and vice versa. Captaincy in football is largely the coin toss.

 

[My Tilly]

Martin was AA in 2018 and was arguably better in 2019 no AA, also no AA in 2023 when he could easily have been.

Not even close to one of the top 22 players in the country.
Maybe top 40 but plenty of others played better and were stiff to miss.

 

[M Malice]

Gary Ablett Jnr > Chris Judd > Michael Voss > Nathan Buckley > James Hird > Dustin Martin.

 

[astrowizzle]

Gary Ablett Jnr
James Hird & Michael Voss
Chris Judd
Dustin Martin
Nathan Buckley

 

[Mr Meow]

AA is not a great marker for how good a player has been... I do not get why people use All-Australians as argument. Martin was AA in 2018 and was arguably better in 2019 no AA, also no AA in 2023 when he could easily have been.

I think he is a Victim of his own standards but in saying that, other players also get robbed of AA so that's why it's not great example & why it shouldn't be used to judge players B&F results are much better marker, how much they have been top 5.

Non-favourites win the Brownlow, coaches and league MVP awards a decent amount as well though. BnFs are great but somewhat difficult to compare between sides of differing quality etc.

Every award has its own flaws and therefore focussing on only one is the worst way to go about it. An aggregate is the best system (not perfect, but better than focusing on one only. In reality too many of the awards are midfielder focused to be able to compare forwards/defenders with midfielders)

For players with the majority of their careers this century:

-Brownlow
-League MVP
-Coaches Association Award
-Norm Smith
-Coleman
-BnF wins
-AA selections

Is a solid start. For comparing players where their prime years 2016 onwards, throw in the Ayres award (but understand you can't hold that against Chris Judd or Gary Ablett, who had their peak finals years well before the award came out.

Martin would get 12 points, or 15 points from 2016 onwards.

Dangerfield would get 15 points, or 16 points from 2016 onwards.

Ablett would get 24 points.

Voss on 11 points, but no coaches award existing before 2003 and he did have a league MVP (one year) plus a Brownlow (in another year) during that time frame so could have been on 12-14 points. And the leadership/captain intangible (most courageous player and league best captain multiple times)?

Hird on 12 points with some of the above caveats.

Buckley on an impressive 16 points.

Judd also on 16.

Pendlebury on 13.

S.Mitchell and Selwood on 9 (both snubbed a bit on this criteria).

You could try weighting things differently (e.g a Brownlow or Coaches is worth two points, or a BnF is worth half a point) but it gets pretty complicated and overly subjective. Likewise with removing the coaches award as those with several excellent years before 2003 are likely marked down unfairly by its absence - but then it introduces guesswork.

 

[Lingsface]

Jnr
Voss
Judd
Martin
Hird
Buckley

 

[peetoo]

Lions no voss = spoon
Lions with voss = three Pete with much of it on the road

 

[100action]

Rank these players in order from 1-6.

Gary Ablett Jnr, Nathan Buckley, James Hird. Chris Judd, Dustin Martin, Michael Voss.

1. Voss
2. Gaj
3. Hird
4. Martin
5. Judd
6. Buckley

 

[The King!]

Ablett
Buckley
Judd
Voss
Martin
Hird

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Lions no voss = spoon
Lions with voss = three Pete with much of it on the road

Brisbane had a better record without Voss in 98.

Have a look at Gold Coast in 14 without Ablett.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

Great group of six however I'm not interested in awards, All Australian's, etc as a guide, just don't see the point as I just prefer to go with my judgment which really isn't helping matters because outside Gary Ablett Jnr being a clear number one, anyone of the other 5 sensational players could have a case for being the second best, just so bloody hard. Splitting hairs with Buckley and Voss who had some great battles, awesome footballers both of them, Hird was freakish on occasions winning many a game for the Bombers, early Judd was a 'jet' and certainly the best of the group in his early days but the second half of his career wasn't to shabby either, great great player, then we have Dusty who is the best finals player of the group and his Brownlow year was Ablett Jnr like, just dominated. All in all my call is a five way dead-heat for second and if this sensational group were reincarnated footballers tomorrow I'd want every bloody one of them in my side.

 

[Mr Meow]

Brisbane had a better record without Voss in 98.

Have a look at Gold Coast in 14 without Ablett.

1997 they did fall in a hole once he was injured. 1 win from their last 5 games.

1998 they were a mess in general ala Gold Coast 2012.

1999 when he played a full season they had a 16-5 record when he played and showed their first signs of the dynasty quality to come.

So I think you're being harsh on Voss. It's up for debate whether they'd go on to be a force without him, despite the talent elsewhere in the team.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

GAJ
Judd
Voss
Buckley
Martin
Hird

 

[tropicaltiger]

easy

1-Dustin Martin​

eq 6th-Gary Ablett Jnr, Nathan Buckley, James Hird, Chris Judd, Michael Voss​

 

[augie]

This is why looking up stats and not watching games causes problems. Buckley played a very good game, BOG may have been close between the two early in the last quarter, and at that stage and Collingwood were in the lead.
In the last Quarter Voss physically dominated the Collingwood team, they folded under his wrecking ball style and he won the Lions the game.

It was such a terrible decision that the rule was changed after that game - votes must now be given at the end of the game. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

This is the reason why they call folklore folklore. The only other player in contention for BOG that day was Rocca. BOG was not close between Buckley and Voss early in the last quarter. Buckley was a mile in front. And your statements about Voss dominating the entire Collingwood team and winning the lions the game is pure hyperbole. He influenced the game, but there was not a single moment in the last quarter involving Voss that changed the game.

As for things from that game that brought about an important change in rules, I'll go with the taller goal posts as a result of the Rocca "goal" as the most significant acceptance of error.

 

[GWT6]

This is the reason why they call folklore folklore. The only other player in contention for BOG that day was Rocca. BOG was not close between Buckley and Voss early in the last quarter. Buckley was a mile in front. And your statements about Voss dominating the entire Collingwood team and winning the lions the game is pure hyperbole. He influenced the game, but there was not a single moment in the last quarter involving Voss that changed the game.

As for things from that game that brought about an important change in rules, I'll go with the taller goal posts as a result of the Rocca "goal" as the most significant acceptance of error.

Hahaha - you seem to have Eddie Maguire levels of delusion. Maybe this is his burner account!

3 of the five judges said they got it wrong, and they would have changed their vote if they were able to. They literally changed the rule because of it. But you keep believing it champ.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

GAJ
Judd
Voss
Hird
Buckley
Martin


On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[augie]

Hahaha - you seem to have Eddie Maguire levels of delusion. Maybe this is his burner account!

3 of the five judges said they got it wrong, and they would have changed their vote if they were able to. They literally changed the rule because of it. But you keep believing it champ.

Fairly childish response with the personal comments, but sticking to the facts, no judge said it would have changed the result. Buckley was the rightful winner. Changing the votes to the end of the game was done to ensure that if there was a close result, the full game was taken into account.

 

[Elixuh]

1 voss
2 gaj
3 judd
4 figjam
5 hirdy
…………..
6 dustbin

 

[GWT6]

Fairly childish response with the personal comments, but sticking to the facts, no judge said it would have changed the result. Buckley was the rightful winner. Changing the votes to the end of the game was done to ensure that if there was a close result, the full game was taken into account.

So you're just going to ignore the facts on this one? This is why people give you childish responses.

 

[werdna78]

Non-favourites win the Brownlow, coaches and league MVP awards a decent amount as well though. BnFs are great but somewhat difficult to compare between sides of differing quality etc.

Every award has its own flaws and therefore focussing on only one is the worst way to go about it. An aggregate is the best system (not perfect, but better than focusing on one only. In reality too many of the awards are midfielder focused to be able to compare forwards/defenders with midfielders)

For players with the majority of their careers this century:

-Brownlow
-League MVP
-Coaches Association Award
-Norm Smith
-Coleman
-BnF wins
-AA selections

Is a solid start. For comparing players where their prime years 2016 onwards, throw in the Ayres award (but understand you can't hold that against Chris Judd or Gary Ablett, who had their peak finals years well before the award came out.

Martin would get 12 points, or 15 points from 2016 onwards.

Dangerfield would get 15 points, or 16 points from 2016 onwards.

Ablett would get 24 points.

Voss on 11 points, but no coaches award existing before 2003 and he did have a league MVP (one year) plus a Brownlow (in another year) during that time frame so could have been on 12-14 points. And the leadership/captain intangible (most courageous player and league best captain multiple times)?

Hird on 12 points with some of the above caveats.

Buckley on an impressive 16 points.

Judd also on 16.

Pendlebury on 13.

S.Mitchell and Selwood on 9 (both snubbed a bit on this criteria).

You could try weighting things differently (e.g a Brownlow or Coaches is worth two points, or a BnF is worth half a point) but it gets pretty complicated and overly subjective. Likewise with removing the coaches award as those with several excellent years before 2003 are likely marked down unfairly by its absence - but then it introduces guesswork.

I created my own spreadsheet which adds all these awards, plus premierships, goals and disposals. It skews towards length of time in the game.

My top 10 are:
L Matthews
G Ablett JR
K Bartlett
L Franklin
J Dunstall
T Lockett
B Harvey
M Pavlich
W Carey
N Riewoldt

 

[loki04]

1. Buckley
2. Ablett jnr
3. Judd
4. Martin
5. Hird
6. Voss

 

[loki04]

Interestingly how do you rate Pendles vs Bucks and Swan.

Swan's best was better than Pendles and both played together in those seasons.

Buckley > Swan > Pendles.

As footballers.