There is something very humorous about you having a supremely optimistic Geelong supporting father in law. Would make for some terrific xmas day conversation after a few drinks!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Autopsy Adelaide d Geelong by 15 points
- Thread starter catempire
- Start date
- Tagged users None
There is something very humorous about you having a supremely optimistic Geelong supporting father in law. Would make for some terrific xmas day conversation after a few drinks!
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,287
- AFL Club
- Geelong
6.
Current players could only dream of the amount of space afforded players in Richo's early days. Work rate will help that to some extent.
Cam Mooney averaged 1.5 marks per game in his first 9.
Hawkins 3.5.
Buzza 3.0
Last edited:
It appears suspect from the little you have provided. It is your opinion that it is "gold standard". You continue to use your opinion to support your claim.
No, I gave my opinion claiming it was equal to yours, not superior. You have not provided any of the data you refer to. The information "gathered by experts" you claim supports your opinion, but you have not provided it, other than one minor detail, I assume that was the best you could come up with.
No strawman arguments from me. Since you did not provide the "rubbish" data to support your opinion it appeared that you were referring to his DE, so what were you actually referring to?
It is up to you to provide evidence to support your sensational claims, not up to others to chase up your data for you.
Cam Guthrie has played over 130 games and is a best 22 and has been for a number of years. Clearly the views of Chris Scott, Mathew Scarlett, Brian Cook, Joel Selwood and Patrick Dangerfield do not mean much to you. Fair enough. You need to reduce the personal slanging and try to stick to the discussion.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,393
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hello, the gerbils are back!
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
No, anyone who knows anything about AFL statistics thinks so. If you think not, let's hear what is? You and your DE? Lol.
The worst 7 ranked Geelong players on the night (Champion).
Cameron Guthrie 53
Jack Henry 50
Wylie Buzza 46
Jamaine Jones 32
Sam Simpson 28
Daniel Menzel 27
Brandan Parfitt 26
Top 4
P. Dangerfield 158
Gary Ablett jnr 113
Tom Hawkins 112
Tim Kelly 107
There's the proof.. to cut through the BS, a high DE doesn't mean a player was effective in a particular game. Champion scrutinises those stats a lot closer. The scores of those bottom 7 are all poor. For a 130+ senior player in Guthrie, particularly. He shouldn't be ranked with the fringe in any game, for the good of the team he needs to pick it up, big time.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,701
- 149,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
That's not proof numbnuts. That's supercoach scores as a measurement. That's always been derided.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
Derived from Champion Data. Weighted, yes. The player rankings though are completely relevant.
16 touches at 85% DE does not necessarily equal an effective game in the scheme of a team performance, which this proves.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,701
- 149,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
So you've essentially used SC scores as your proof.
That's nowhere near good enough.
That's nowhere near good enough.
Champion Data ranking points and supercoach scores are built on a series of arbitrary assumptions on how completely different footballing actions are of relative values. They've put a ton of work into the algorithms, but it's still far from perfect and their careful guarding of the IP makes it hard to trust.
If I was going to look at a statistical model to evaluate players it would probably be something like the work done by HPN... but honestly the numbers are just too unreliable. Footy is not a remotely scientific method of reliably generating repeatable outcomes.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
It absolutely proves my point completely. Nice try with the shit stirring and insult though too by the way.
Otherwise, lets just rank the players on disposal count and DE shall we?
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,701
- 149,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
It proves nothing.
Who said that should be the case?
Merely that your method not only proves nothing but has long been derided as a means to judge performance.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
Sure. Reference where I said it was perfect. It's not the point of the conversation.
Point is -
steady2 thinks a high disposal efficiency assumes an effective performance
I've proven this is untrue, as well as the opposite. A player can have a low DE% and still be very effective overall.
Done.
You described them as the gold standard... I would contend the inherent flaws makes that a highly misleading statement.
Either way the fact that Guthrie went at a high DE is interesting considering how most will only remember his turnovers. And I would honestly be concerned about any performance with poor DE. It's so easy for disposals to be effective that a bad efficiency means you are actively preventing your side from retraining possession.
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
This is why DE isn't reliable. 1 / 2 handballs (or lots for that matter, they're easier to hit targets), dinky little kicks (champion scores low), or lots of uncontested possessions - none will score as high.
DE doesn't gauge how bad the 'bad' disposals were either. Champion scoring does, as it values the better disposals (longer / accurate kicks, contested) with more points.
If Dangerfield bursts out of the middle after winning a contest possession + clearance, runs 35 metres, then gets the footy into deep forward 50 but misses a target. Perfect? No. Low on DE scale? Yes. Inefficient? No. Effective? Most likely yes. The ball is in the team's forward 50 at the very least.
You mean North Melb - Neville someone their recruiting bloke at the time admitted it - they were super keen on Joel - did all their homework on him - they wanted to pick him - but they got cold feet at the death - because of his knee issues
Good old Norf hey - lol
I do not need to counter your "proof" since others have already done this.
Do not attempt to misrepresent what I think. The DE is one method to highlight what was a reasonable performance from Guthrie, better to look at the game and actually see what he did. As I said, since he returned our backline has been able to move the ball forward and Guthrie's attempts to run, carry and break the lines is a welcome variation to the slower methodical approach which often ends up delivering the ball into a forward line stacked with opposition players.
Zouz Kitty
Miss Kitty
Hawthorn too
PatrickBateman
Norm Smith Medallist
I hope the MC don't have the same level of expectation from senior players, it's fundamentally a reason why our side is struggling to take the next step. 'Reasonable' won't beat Richmond. Neither will a poor defensive approach, and lack of physical presence (Guthrie).
I agree, whilst they have been greats on many levels, it's time for a transition or a reboot.
JapanFootball
Senior List
Dropped more than one... And it’s becoming a massive problem. He can’t one grab marks. Even the ones he takes are juggled.
Though of note, any of his kickins, are not counted to his DE%.
He made at least 2 there also, which increase his clanger count to 6 I think. That would also bring down his stats a tad.
I thought his last quarter was very good, just those clangers under no pressure highlight that we only remember the bad
sometimes.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,287
- AFL Club
- Geelong
He dropped more than one but only the one was a sitter, the others had a degree of difficulty from hard to very hard.
Could someone explain how the disposal efficiency is 88% or 14 from 16 disposals yet still have 4 turnovers?
