Autopsy Adelaide d Geelong by 15 points

Remove this Banner Ad

There's an element of truth to that, particularly the first paragraph. But Buzza has been utterly abysmal. We're not talking about taking marks but missing simple goals, or doing good things but not enough of them. He's looked totally out of his depth. A key forward who can't take simple marks has no place in the game. My father-in-law (who could be president of the Gerbil-faced Optimism fan club) tried telling me Hawkins was the same at the same stage. My remarks to that mostly can't be printed.

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!
 
I think Buzza could only dream of Richo's early average of 5 marks a game.

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:
So, you start by saying Champion data is highly suspect, even though it's the gold standard of AFL data.
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.
Then infer your opinion is superior, or in other words, a player's DE stands up against a plethora of statistical information gathered by experts that determines a player's worth in a particular game? That's my opinion? Got it, I'll take that.
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.
Now, to kill one of several desperate straw man arguments you've attempted, I said Guthrie's overall effectiveness was rubbish as rated by champion data, not his DE, which was high. Not my opinion either, that's the professional scorers summary. Quit retreating to this to save your weak, weak position.
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?
As i said, the data is online for all to find and view. If you're so insulted that Champion gave Guthrie a poor score, and that your opinion is superior, why even bother with all the desperate straw man arguments?
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

There's an element of truth to that, particularly the first paragraph. But Buzza has been utterly abysmal. We're not talking about taking marks but missing simple goals, or doing good things but not enough of them. He's looked totally out of his depth. A key forward who can't take simple marks has no place in the game. My father-in-law (who could be president of the Gerbil-faced Optimism fan club) tried telling me Hawkins was the same at the same stage. My remarks to that mostly can't be printed.
Hello, the gerbils are back!:p
 
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, anyone who knows anything about AFL statistics thinks so. If you think not, let's hear what is? You and your DE? Lol.

You have not provided any of the data you refer to.

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.
 
No, anyone who knows anything about AFL statistics thinks so. If you think not, let's hear what is? You and your DE? Lol.

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.
 
It absolutely proves my point completely. Nice try with the shit stirring and insult though too by the way.
It proves nothing.
Otherwise, lets just rank the players on disposal count and DE shall we?
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.

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 only have to watch the Guthrie video edit that was posted in the thread to see he made two howlers, one poor kick and the rest were on target. Hence the 87%. It’s not rocket science. Y’all overcomplicating it.
 
Joel Selwood was rejected by Hawthorn because of his dicky knees.

Henderson

Crameri

Mitch Clark

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
 
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.
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.
 
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
Hawthorn too
 
The DE is one method to highlight what was a reasonable performance from Guthrie

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).
 
Knights is less than average and should have been moved on some years ago. It could seem that too many in senior positions at the GFC are asleep at the wheel, too comfortable and lost any, if they ever had it, mongrel to win Grand Finals.
I am sure the fire still burns for Scarlett- perhaps another BBQ- but the rest including admin , not so sure.
I agree, whilst they have been greats on many levels, it's time for a transition or a reboot.
 
You only have to watch the Guthrie video edit that was posted in the thread to see he made two howlers, one poor kick and the rest were on target. Hence the 87%. It’s not rocket science. Y’all overcomplicating it.


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.
 
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.
I counted the kickins in my errors.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Adelaide d Geelong by 15 points

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top