NOZ

[elephants]

It's not a technicality.

The terms were very clear and both parties agreed.

Noz knew what needed to happen for him to avoid the loss.

agreed so basically its who will win these 6 categories not who is the better player as there was a clear winner there.

That's up for interpretation. Others (like me) put far less value on All-Australian.

Noz doesn't really have a right to be annoyed, he lost :P

[Holz]

It's not a technicality.

The terms were very clear and both parties agreed.

Noz knew what needed to happen for him to avoid the loss.

agreed so basically its who will win these 6 categories not who is the better player as there was a clear winner there.

That's up for interpretation. Others (like me) put far less value on All-Australian.

Noz doesn't really have a right to be annoyed, he lost :P

well he made a bold prediction he tipped a 51 average spud to be better than a superstar.

Martin basically just lived up to expectations and wingard turned from a spud to a superstar better than martin. I certaintly didnt see it coming.

its kind of like saying who will be better next year Melbourne or Sydney. than Sydney finishing 3rd and Melbourne 4th despite people saying Meblourne were the better team.

amazing tip especially for a 1 for 1 bet. It should have been $1 if Noz losses and $100 if he wins.

[elephants]

It's not a technicality.

The terms were very clear and both parties agreed.

Noz knew what needed to happen for him to avoid the loss.

agreed so basically its who will win these 6 categories not who is the better player as there was a clear winner there.

That's up for interpretation. Others (like me) put far less value on All-Australian.

Noz doesn't really have a right to be annoyed, he lost :P

well he made a bold prediction he tipped a 51 average spud to be better than a superstar.

Martin basically just lived up to expectations and wingard turned from a spud to a superstar better than martin. I certaintly didnt see it coming.

its kind of like saying who will be better next year Melbourne or Sydney. than Sydney finishing 3rd and Melbourne 4th despite people saying Meblourne were the better team.

amazing tip especially for a 1 for 1 bet. It should have been $1 if Noz losses and $100 if he wins.

Everyone can have their own opinion on who was better, but the terms/facts of the bet said Dusty was better ;)

[Mailman the 2nd]

Anyone can name an All Australian squad Holz, of course Wingard looks more impressive considering Port were completely useless last year. People just unfairly compare the two players.

You can't make up stats

[Vinny]

I would argue Wingard was better but at the end of the day, a bet is a bet!

[Holz]

Anyone can name an All Australian squad Holz, of course Wingard looks more impressive considering Port were completely useless last year. People just unfairly compare the two players.

You can't make up stats

i more saying its amazing that you can mount a case for wingard.

1.8 goals 19 contested marks 7.9 CP i50 marks 33
1 goals 7 consted marks 7 CP i50 marks 14

wingard was the beter forward by a long margin

24 touches to 21 itsnt that big a deal. I would rather almost double the goals for just 3 more touches.

im all stats. i rarely watch games actually i just look at the stats.

[Mailman the 2nd]

If you understand the stats, then you can see how Martin wins the contest :)

[JBs-Hawks]

Look at the stats, all of Wingards good games were against bottom 8 teams ;)

[tbagrocks]

Fortunately stats say little about class ;)

[Holz]

If you understand the stats, then you can see how Martin wins the contest :)

depends what stats your looking, if you give a weight to stats when the game was on the line than wingard has an edge. Plenty of mids out there not many HFF guys out there who can rack up alomst 2 goals a game while getting 20+ touches a game.

wingard was a top 5 midfield forward. There are alot better mids than martin.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Well then its Noz's fault for picking the wrong criteria then.

Considering they both agreed it doesn't really matter which one was "actually better."

Tbh, I'd rather have Martin in my team.

[JBs-Hawks]

Just found the post, Wingard scored 8 SC centuries, only 1 against a top 8 side.

[Holz]

Well then its Noz's fault for picking the wrong criteria then.

Considering they both agreed it doesn't really matter which one was "actually better."

Tbh, I'd rather have Martin in my team.

i would rather martin too if it was just onfield cosnidering the off field issues Wingard all the way, however last year, the comparison would be a joke ths year you can mount a case for Wingard. Just a very imprsive call from Noz seems weird for it to be punished instead of rewarded.

wheraes martin did exactly what we all knew he was going to do.

by the way im calling Wingard the worst pick of 2014. probably truly think martin was better and i know all about him only beating up weak teams and getting score inflated with miracle comebacks.

just impressed of the call that he could come close to martin.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Not really, if you look at all the statistic averages:


Martin had more kicks, disposals, behinds, tackles, hitouts (lol), uncontested, effective disposals, rebound 50s, bounces,


Wingard had more clangers, handballs, inside 50s, goals, time on ground, frees, goal assists and contested marks.


You take that Wingard averaged 7% more TOG per match than Martin and Richmond generally had a much harder draw and while Wingard only barely beat Martin in most of his stat advantages (except goals), Martin convincingly beat Wingard in the stats he did better in.

[tbagrocks]

Stats, that's what every players ability should be rated on :P  sheesh