My top 50 would be 100% inherently bias but would also be better than the ESPN and Robbo's.
Printable View
My top 50 would be 100% inherently bias but would also be better than the ESPN and Robbo's.
I don't think there is any way to create a list that isn't inherently biased.
For example:
Bailey Dale is in the top 50 players in the AFL.
- That isn't a question - it is a complete statement of fact. He plays a unique role (well, relatively unique) and every footy side (prob with the exception of Carlton who have Saad) are trying to find a player to play it...Collingwood have Crisp of course but like every other side who find themselves with an exceptional half-back they turn them into a 'good' mid-fielder.
Now - if like the HUN/ESPN polls, you don't create a list based on position types then you will never, ever come to this conclusion...
Even using the CD position descriptions is not enough - and no system that puts Dale and Duryea into the same category (general defender) will ever come up with the correct answer here.
I guess what I'm trying to say if you are the best/second best at your designated role - in the case of Dale/Saad, that role is clearly 'rebound/running defender' - and EVERY club wants one of those players, and you are being paid commensurate with the value you bring your team (and in the case of both of these footballers I believe that to be true!) THEN you are simply going to be 'BETTER' than the 10th midfielder on the list. You just are. Or does this trigger a debate about the 50-best vs the 50-Most Valuable or some other such thing? I sincerely don't know...but I know the mix of the list is wrong and not representative of footy in 2023.
Under-valued: Lock-down small defenders, Key defenders, Running defenders, outside mids, rucks and small forwards.
Over-valued: Inside mids
Correctly valued: Tall forwards.