The most important metric when judging a player's career ?

[My Tilly]

Ablett became a legend with his incredible performances in the 1989 finals series and his 9 goals in the Grand Final. This elevated him into the GOAT discussions. But this was offset by his patchy performances in subsequent finals (as well as his mental issues in 1991.) So however you wanna rate Ablett on your list of all-time greats, the fact he wasn't able to deliver Geelong a premiership is a definite MINUS. It wasn't all on him. Malcolm Blight didn't exactly prioritise defence... The Geelong key backs were iffy and their mids were downhill skiers. But Ablett has to wear some of the blame. We can't just look the other way and pretend his failures never happened.

You just said consistency in finals is a big deal and here you are picking apart every final Ablett played in.
He was brilliant in the 1992 finals. In fact, his performance in the qualifying final against Footscray was typical Ablett. Down by 6 goals and he steps up big in the second quarter and flips the match on it's head.
Again, 1994 finals . . . two games back-to-back with 6 goals in an awesome display.
1995 finals, 4 goals (handed out another) against his bunnies in the prelim in only three quarters of football.

However which way you look at it, Ablett did his part. Like Lockett at St Kilda & Sydney, simply never had enough teammates who stood up for him on the day.

Carey was fairly well held in all his grand final appearances but unlike Lockett or Ablett, he had a defensive minded team with a great coach who had other players stand up for him on grand final days. Also helped to play opposition a step down in quality from that of West Coast, Hawthorn and Carlton.
And yes, I know North beat Carlton but come on, they were old by that stage and knocked off Essendon the week prior and were ripe for the picking.

 

[Fadge]

I'm not saying it's a "no brainer". It's probably much closer than what you think, but this is not what I'm saying...

When we evaluate the careers of superstars like Ablett and Dunstall, we should also take into account how they contributed to their club's premiership campaigns and whether they managed to deliver the flag or not. I think you'd be stupid to overlook that.

It's not the only way of measuring a player's worth. I never claimed that. But I think a gun player's contribution to premierships or their poor finals efforts are a hell of a lot more pertinent than how many AA blazers they have, or whether they finished 1st in the Brownlow count (as opposed to 2nd, 3rd, or 4th)

----------------------------------------------------

People in this thread seem to think AA selections are an infallible "metric". All Australian selection is more contingent on team success than ANY other individual award. Every year, the 22 selections are dominated by players from the top 8 clubs, while equally deserving players from struggling teams are snubbed. It's not some scientific measurement of the AFL's best 22 players - it's the biased opinions of commentators who are swayed by the performances of good players from winning teams.

Most individual awards are like that. Silly to pretend otherwise.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to use medals & awards as "metrics", then we should also use premiership medals.

---------------------------------------------------------

Tom Mitchell... 1 x Brownlow Medal.... 1 x MVP.... 2 x All Australian... 3 x Best and Fairest... 0 x Premierships
Dion Prestia... 0 x Brownlow Medals... 0 x MVPs... 0 x All Australian... 1 x Best and Fairest... 3 x Premierships


Using Sttew's formula, Titch is clearly a better player than Prestia

I'm not saying Prestia is better. I'm saying Mitchell's awards are largely meaningless compared to Prestia's efforts in helping Richmond win 3 flags.

I'd say it's pretty close between them in the final wash-up.


---------------------------------------------------------


Dunstall produced the goods in multiple premiership seasons. He delivered in multiple finals series and in multiple Grand Finals. That's a huge PLUS in his favour, however you want to rate him. Why would you overlook that?

Ablett became a legend with his incredible performances in the 1989 finals series and his 9 goals in the Grand Final. This elevated him into the GOAT discussions. But this was offset by his patchy performances in subsequent finals (as well as his mental issues in 1991.) So however you wanna rate Ablett on your list of all-time greats, the fact he wasn't able to deliver Geelong a premiership is a definite MINUS. It wasn't all on him. Malcolm Blight didn't exactly prioritise defence... The Geelong key backs were iffy and their mids were downhill skiers. But Ablett has to wear some of the blame. We can't just look the other way and pretend his failures never happened.

In my eyes , Wayne Carey was a better footballer than both Ablett and Lockett. All of them won MVPs and had a squillion AA selections... My opinion was chiefly aided by the way Carey led North to 2 flags, not just with his dominant on-field performances, but also with his leadership on and off the field. North had some good players in the 90's, but they were hardly an all-star team. Carey wasn't just a brilliant footballer, but a strong personality and a strong trainer who embodied Pagan's football philosophies. I reckon many of his teammates got swept along with him for the ride.

Compare that to Gary Ablett being given the green light to skip training sessions, or Plugger Lockett's unprofessional approach while at St Kilda. They might've been legendary superstars who kicked big bags of goals, but their individualistic selfish attitudes and poor training habits hindered their team in other ways.

It's worth remembering the Saints actually became a better team after Plugger left. Not saying that's all his fault. There are many factors: change of coaches, new kids emerging, etc... But you would think the Saints would've fallen into the abyss after the game's greatest goal kicker left them... Except they didn't... A couple of years later, they finished on top of the ladder and went into half time of the Grand Final looking like premiers.

They probably would've won a flag if Plugger had stayed loyal and resisted the AFL/Swans coin (but that's a whole other can of worms...)

Indeed some valid points, but in response it show how extraordinary Ablett Snr and Lockett were given they are both generally regarded in the top 5 all-time despite their various shortcomings.

But that's why we have the term 'flawed genius', and It's used in all walks of life...

 

[My Tilly]

Indeed some valid points, but in response it show how extraordinary Ablett Snr and Lockett were given they are both generally regarded in the top 5 all-time despite their various shortcomings.

But that's why we have the term 'flawed genius', and It's used in all walks of life...

You could do the same for arguably the best football player of all time. He played in quite a lot of finals where he was a no show. We tend to ignore those performances though and focus on all the accolades and awards.

 

[RUNVS]

Do you think 1x AA is better than 1x Brownlow?

No, but I think overall if you add up all the AA's it is a pretty good indicator of the best players of the last 25 years or so (say players who have won 4 AA's or more). Same can't be said for the Brownlow which is mostly just midfielders and often not even the best midfielders of that particular year.

 

[Hubnester]

To me it's about performance, contribution and consistency above all else.

In my view, individual awards are mostly meaningless. I look at who judges the winners and what contribues to them being in a position to win it.
All Australian is flawed due to biases and representation of player positions. The brownlow used used to mean a lot more, but we only have to look at what happened last year to rule that out as anything meaningful. "Most goals" is heavily influenced by team composition and performance, as are finals records, and so on.

I feel that Coaches Votes have a bit of value, in that you're trusting people who can identify a players' contribution in any given game to recognise it.
Best & Fairests are valid from an internal view, but if comparing player A vs Player B, its probably meaningless.

 

[Pred4termined]

No, but I think overall if you add up all the AA's it is a pretty good indicator of the best players of the last 25 years or so (say players who have won 4 AA's or more). Same can't be said for the Brownlow which is mostly just midfielders and often not even the best midfielders of that particular year.

Yeah I agree with that but if you use multiple AAs you have to use multiple Brownlows as well to be fair. No dud has won 2 Brownlows.

 

[Freomaniac]

For those that argue between MVP, Coaches award and Brownlow.

What I find helps is using all 3 and the Coleman to determine the actual best player of the season (assuming everybody got an AA)

Eg 2008

Brownlow Cooney

MVP GAJ

Coaches Award GAJ

Coleman Buddy

Best player of 2008 is GAJ. Won 2/4



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

do 2014 please....

Franklin won the coleman medal.

Priddis won the brownlow...

I dont know who won the MVP and the Coaches award. One of them was won by Robbie Gray, the other won by fyfe

 

[PhatBoy]

Rubbish.

Just because a handful of all-time greats were starved of finals success, it doesn't mean we should overlook the enormous contributions made by players to help their club achieve the ultimate prize.

Listen to the players and coaches: they all say the same thing. They play the game to win finals and to win a premiership. It dwarfs everything else. They all say the individual awards are nice little trinkets, but they mean nothing in the overall context of the game. Bob Skilton famously said he would trade his 3 Brownlow away just to have played in a winning final.

The typical argument against premierships in these discussions is bogus (e.g. Gary Ablett 0, Aaron Keating 1). Nobody ever compared Gary Ablett to Aaron f**king Keating. But when we're comparing the champion forwards, it's definitely a feather in Dunstall's cap that he played a starring role in 4 premierships (Best and fairest: 1988, 1989... 6 goals in the '86 GF, 7 goals in '91 GF). As good as Ablett was, he probably cost Geelong a premiership with his "no shows" in the 92, 94 and 95 Grand Finals... (in addition to quitting on his team in 1991 and getting rubbed out in that year's finals.)

Dunstall wasn't the sole reason why Hawthorn won 4 premierships from 1986-1991. He played in a great team. But he was probably the biggest reason why the Hawks won 4 flags with him as the spearhead.

Sam Mitchell and Luke Hodge dominated the Hawthorn midfield throughout the Clarkson dynasty and were the lynchpins in 4 premierships. As far as individual awards go, they both made the All Australian team only 3 times (the same number of times as Matthew Boyd, Dan Hannebery, Travis Boak and Brendon Fevola). No disrespect to those others - all good players - but none of their careers even compares to Hodge & Mitchell.


I think it's lunacy to overlook the contributions made by star players to their team's premiership success.

The players all say that's the thing which drives them; the reason why they play the game and make all the sacrifices they do.

They don't care about making the All Australian team.

All this post does is put a value on what means the most to players, which everyone already knew.

It doesn’t even attempt to answer the question as to what plays a role in evaluating the quality of a player

 

[My_Username]

Do you think 1x AA is better than 1x Brownlow?

For everyone except midfielders, yes.

 

[GWT6]

Norm Smiths - Dusty is the greatest

Earned Norm Smiths or the ones given because the media love the story?

 

[Pred4termined]

For everyone except midfielders, yes.

Really? If a forward wins a Brownlow that’s a mammoth effort. I think only Lockett has won a Brownlow and Coleman in the same year.

 

[RUNVS]

Yeah I agree with that but if you use multiple AAs you have to use multiple Brownlows as well to be fair. No dud has won 2 Brownlows.

True, but while AA isnt perfect and if you are a half back or small forward you are regularly dudded it is better than the Brownlow in terms of positions other than midfielders also being included. The Brownlow can't tell you squat about who was the best key forward of an era, best ruckman or best defender.

 

[Goomba1973]

I think games played really, majority of players don't even get to 100 games let alone 150, 200 ect.....

So many greats of the game never won a premiership, or a Brownlow or a Norm Smith, Coleman ect..... but their legacy is not less because of missing out to anyone with the exception of the stat monkeys looking for goats. If you played over 100 games of top flight level footy .... you were a very very good footballer.

 

[Val Keating]

BnF in a premiership year

 

[Sttew]

BnF in a premiership year

That's a good one. To be the best player in the best team...

Corey Enright did it twice at Geelong 2009 & 2011

 

[My_Username]

BnF in a premiership year

Actual BnF, I'd agree.

But as has been pointed out, some clubs have very curious methods of determining BnF that don't seem to actually produce the best player.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Sun Score

(ask your dad)

 

[Sttew]

Actual BnF, I'd agree.

But as has been pointed out, some clubs have very curious methods of determining BnF that don't seem to actually produce the best player.

What, like counting your best 18 or how many games?

 

[Schauermann]

I take everything into account.

 

[My_Username]

What, like counting your best 18 or how many games?

Like factoring in the bonuses in the various players contracts for BnF results...

 

[Sttew]

Like factoring in the bonuses in the various players contracts for BnF results...

Who does that? If true it is bizarre

 

[My_Username]

Who does that? If true it is bizarre

No club would admit to it (who would accept part of their contract that way if they did?)

But there is a long history of 'curious' results that seem to be related.

Probably happens less now with the salary cap being closely monitored and player managers ensuring things are on the up and up, but back in the semi-professional days....You really wanted to ensure that 'performance related' aspects of your contract were based on clear measures, not club opinions.

 

[Back One Out]

I still think as a metic even if it has flaws the All Australian is the best one, even if it is only useful for players of the 21st century.

Really?

How would you rate Rod Carter vs Andrew Dunkley vs Heath Grundy in the pantheon of Sydney defenders?
All three of them were excellent full backs for the Swans over a long period (200+ games)
Not a single All Australian blazer between them!


What about these five midfielders? Kade Simpson... Jude Bolton... Tyson Edwards... Marcos Ashcroft... Nathan Jones
All of them loyal 300 game stalwarts for their club and none of them were ever selected in an All Australian team.
Not for lack of class or consistency. They were better footballers than some other lucky players who caught the AA selectors fancy.


What use is the All Australian team as a "metric" for comparing footballers if it only recognises 3.5% of AFL players in any given year? What about the other 96.5% of players? Do we just ignore them? What about the gun players who were in the top 5% but missed AA selection? You're basically dismissing their great season as equal with some hack who played 3 games.


Luke McPharlin, Josh Gibson, Harry Lumumba and Adam McPhee were all selected in just ONE All Australian team.
Are you going to tell me the first two had comparable careers to the last two?

Dustin Fletcher, Sean Wellman, James Clement and Darren Gaspar were dual All Australian defenders
Would any sane person argue that Fletcher's career was on a par with those other three?

Dustin Martin has fewer All Australian blazers than Chris Judd, Ben Cousins, Patrick Dangerfield, Joel Selwood, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan, Brad Johnson, Scott West, Mark Ricciuto, Andrew McLeod, Simon Goodwin, and Nathan Buckley. Do you think that's an accurate measure of his footy career or his standing in the game? I don't...

 

[Fadge]

Dustin Fletcher, Sean Wellman, James Clement and Darren Gaspar were dual All Australian defenders
Would any sane person argue that Fletcher's career was on a par with those other three?

Fletcher played for longer, but Clement at his best was a better footballer. Clement was a dual Best and Fairest for Collingwood and a further two podium finishes against a single Best and Fairest for Fletcher. Your call is justified with regard to Wellman and Gaspar.

Dustin Martin has fewer All Australian blazers than Chris Judd, Ben Cousins, Patrick Dangerfield, Joel Selwood, Scott Pendlebury, Dane Swan, Brad Johnson, Scott West, Mark Ricciuto, Andrew McLeod, Simon Goodwin, and Nathan Buckley. Do you think that's an accurate measure of his footy career or his standing in the game? I don't...

It's a reasonable measure when assessing Martin's performances across home and away seasons. His finals performances are what elevate him above many in the above list, but there are certainly arguments that up to half of the above have (at least) comparative standings in the game, with Judd comfortably ahead.

 

[M Malice]

The eye test.