Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)

[Cousin of Daicos]

The coaches rated Phillips very highly.

And?

The coaches rate lots of players I don't. Like Langdon, like Reid. But then clearly don't rate players I do, like Daicos. What's your point? I was asked why I don't shit on Will Hoskin-Elliott and I explained why.

 

[Maggie5]

BOG against Freo...........................Phillips.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

And?

The coaches rate lots of players I don't. Like Langdon, like Reid. But then clearly don't rate players I do, like Daicos. What's your point? I was asked why I don't **** on Will Hoskin-Elliott and I explained why.

I think he’s just saying he rates the coaches opinions above yours.

But that is just their opinion and yours is yours.

All good.

 

[PyrrhicVic]

And?

The coaches rate lots of players I don't. Like Langdon, like Reid. But then clearly don't rate players I do, like Daicos. What's your point? I was asked why I don't **** on Will Hoskin-Elliott and I explained why.

It's hard to take your opinion seriously when you just plainly state you "don't rate" players like Langdon and Phillips. Langdon would have been a Norm Smith Medalist if we held on, and Phillips' numbers are recognized to be of an elite standard.

 

[jackcass]

It's hard to take your opinion seriously when you just plainly state you "don't rate" players like Langdon and Phillips. Langdon would have been a Norm Smith Medalist if we held on, and Phillips' numbers are recognized to be of an elite standard.

1. Recognised by whom
2. Which "numbers"

 

[Saintly Viewed]

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I think he’s just saying he rates the coaches opinions above yours.

But that is just their opinion and yours is yours.

All good.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

I just figured we were all adult enough not to have a cry when we hear one we don't like. I'm not telling anyone else not to like Phillips. I've only ever explained why I don't like him (as a player, seems like a ripping bloke though). Obviously everyone sees the game differently, particularly differently to me evidently.

As I've always said, I trust my eyes first, stats second. Treloar lately has been racking up the stats, but anyone can visibly see he's had minimal impact. I"m shocked when I see his disposal numbers because I really haven't noticed him much at all.

Almost every single time you hear someone praise Phillips, you only hear one thing. He runs. That's it. He runs. Like somehow the ability to run (slowly mind you) for a really long time is somehow the most important ability a player can have. You know what? Endurance is a brilliant quality for a footballer to have...when it's paired with more important attributes, such as strength, speed, good decision making, good disposal (just general footy smarts) of which - in my opinon, Phillips doesn't generally display.

It's the same reason I don't rate Crocker (So I guess 4/44 then). He has literally no visible assets/weapons that make him an AFL standard footballer. No height, no speed, no strength, no real strong marking ability, not a great set shot. So I just used ot get VERY frustrated when he'd get picked over someone like Daicos/Sier who are both players that have at LEAST one asset that warrants AFL senior chances.

Daicos has pace (kinda), he has beautiful skill, a great set shot and can actually stick a tackle.

Sier is very quick over 20m, finds the ball in and under, is a big strong body and just an all round inside mid beast.

Yet a player like Phillips gets a game ahead of both of them.....because he can run slowly for a long time. I just don't get it myself.

 

[PyrrhicVic]

1. Recognised by whom
2. Which "numbers"

1. Champion Data
2. Uncontested disposals, meters gained, distance covered

 

[Kirby]

No idea but losing 2 of your best players mid season deserves something....anything.

jackcass is prepared to give you Tom Phillips?

 

[Soups]

No idea but losing 2 of your best players mid season deserves something....anything.

You can have Ben Crocker.

 

[Maggie5]

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

I just figured we were all adult enough not to have a cry when we hear one we don't like. I'm not telling anyone else not to like Phillips. I've only ever explained why I don't like him (as a player, seems like a ripping bloke though). Obviously everyone sees the game differently, particularly differently to me evidently.

As I've always said, I trust my eyes first, stats second. Treloar lately has been racking up the stats, but anyone can visibly see he's had minimal impact. I"m shocked when I see his disposal numbers because I really haven't noticed him much at all.

Almost every single time you hear someone praise Phillips, you only hear one thing. He runs. That's it. He runs. Like somehow the ability to run (slowly mind you) for a really long time is somehow the most important ability a player can have. You know what? Endurance is a brilliant quality for a footballer to have...when it's paired with more important attributes, such as strength, speed, good decision making, good disposal (just general footy smarts) of which - in my opinon, Phillips doesn't generally display.

It's the same reason I don't rate Crocker (So I guess 4/44 then). He has literally no visible assets/weapons that make him an AFL standard footballer. No height, no speed, no strength, no real strong marking ability, not a great set shot. So I just used ot get VERY frustrated when he'd get picked over someone like Daicos/Sier who are both players that have at LEAST one asset that warrants AFL senior chances.

Daicos has pace (kinda), he has beautiful skill, a great set shot and can actually stick a tackle.

Sier is very quick over 20m, finds the ball in and under, is a big strong body and just an all round inside mid beast.

Yet a player like Phillips gets a game ahead of both of them.....because he can run slowly for a long time. I just don't get it myself.

I agree everyone is entitled to an opinion and also to challenge that opinion (playing fair of course).

I want to pick on on a couple of points about his running. Firstly he isn't slow, further he is one that creates the play by his hard running. Runs to create an option, running to pick up a player, he is very creative with his running patterns.

But the real question I want to ask is can you tell me how many times this year his opponent has beaten him because in my view when assessing a player's game, you also need to take into account what his opponent has done. For example a low impact game might not mean much but if his opponent has been held then that for me is a win.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I agree everyone is entitled to an opinion and also to challenge that opinion (playing fair of course).

I want to pick on on a couple of points about his running. Firstly he isn't slow, further he is one that creates the play by his hard running. Runs to create an option, running to pick up a player, he is very creative with his running patterns.

But the real question I want to ask is can you tell me how many times this year his opponent has beaten him because in my view when assessing a player's game, you also need to take into account what his opponent has done. For example a low impact game might not mean much but if his opponent has been held then that for me is a win.

I won't lie, I couldn't tell you what his opponent did. Same way I didn't realise Beams was playing a semi-lockdown on Seb Ross. We don't find that out until after most games.

I'm yet to read an article about Phillips being asked to sacrifice his game to keep an opponent quiet.

Whereas I HAVE read such an article about:

- Pendles
- Treloar
- Beams
- Sidebottom

so....take that as you will

 

[Maggie5]

I won't lie, I couldn't tell you what his opponent did. Same way I didn't realise Beams was playing a semi-lockdown on Seb Ross. We don't find that out until after most games.

I'm yet to read an article about Phillips being asked to sacrifice his game to keep an opponent quiet.

Only going to respond to what I asked as don't like going into something else.

Well I actually do watch what his opponent is doing before a give a player a small whack because how else can you judge a player's game?

That is how I watch a game, where they are playing, their positioning, where they run to, any clever play, their mistakes etc and it is only after a game that I look at their stats and their opponent. Sometimes within games you can see that their opponent is beating them.

Not sure how else you can assess a player without taking all that into consideration.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Only going to respond to what I asked as don't like going into something else.

Well I actually do watch what his opponent is doing before a give a player a small whack because how else can you judge a player's game?

That is how I watch a game, where they are playing, their positioning, where they run to, any clever play, their mistakes etc and it is only after a game that I look at their stats and their opponent. Sometimes within games you can see that their opponent is beating them.

Not sure how else you can assess a player without taking all that into consideration.

Because there's 36 players on the field and I can't watch them all at all times while also trying to watch the game? Costing goals is something that stands out to me...a lot. That's something that both Phillips and Langdon do a LOT of. Particularly Langdon. Unfortunately that's really becoming an issue for Howe too, but for me Howe's good outweighs it...at the moment.

For me, whatever good Phillips and Langdon do doesn't outweigh the bad. Like, at all.

I mean, that Grand Final many argue Langdon was one of our best but you know what stood out to me? The 2 goals he cost us that I would argue cost us a premiership.

Goal 1) Being the rather dumb footballer he is, he decided to try and nurse the ball through for a rushed behind despite being under pressure as opposed to hammering it through, leading to West Coast's first goal and getting them going. At that point of the gam,e there wasn't much time left in the first quarer and we were up by 5 goals. The psychology difference between them going in 5 goals to nothing down at quarter time and only 2 goals down is HUGE

Goal 2) Both he and Crisp (? Maybe Howe) were involved in the 2 on 1 where they were beaten by Ryan which led to the Sheed goal that won the match.

So for AAAAALLLLLL the good he supposedly did (which some might argue is ultimately...his job?) he completely undid it in my eyes costing 2 goals that arguably cost a flag. He got their game going when we had them on the ropes and then was part of the finishing blow.

Sorry, unforgiveable for me.

 

[jackcass]

jackcass is prepared to give you Tom Phillips?

Can every thread not be about Tom Phillips FFS

 

[jackcass]

You can have Ben Crocker.

I'm not sure our VFL team can afford to sacrifice anyone. Maybe we can offer up Daisy, Blues don't seem to want him.

 

[sr36]

Can every thread not be about Tom Phillips FFS

Why? What have you got against Tom Phillips? ...

 

[Kirby]

Can every thread not be about Tom Phillips FFS

 

[Maggie5]

Because there's 36 players on the field and I can't watch them all at all times while also trying to watch the game? Costing goals is something that stands out to me...a lot. That's something that both Phillips and Langdon do a LOT of. Particularly Langdon. Unfortunately that's really becoming an issue for Howe too, but for me Howe's good outweighs it...at the moment.

For me, whatever good Phillips and Langdon do doesn't outweigh the bad. Like, at all.

I mean, that Grand Final many argue Langdon was one of our best but you know what stood out to me? The 2 goals he cost us that I would argue cost us a premiership.

Goal 1) Being the rather dumb footballer he is, he decided to try and nurse the ball through for a rushed behind despite being under pressure as opposed to hammering it through, leading to West Coast's first goal and getting them going. At that point of the gam,e there wasn't much time left in the first quarer and we were up by 5 goals. The psychology difference between them going in 5 goals to nothing down at quarter time and only 2 goals down is HUGE

Goal 2) Both he and Crisp (? Maybe Howe) were involved in the 2 on 1 where they were beaten by Ryan which led to the Sheed goal that won the match.

So for AAAAALLLLLL the good he supposedly did (which some might argue is ultimately...his job?) he completely undid it in my eyes costing 2 goals that arguably cost a flag. He got their game going when we had them on the ropes and then was part of the finishing blow.

Sorry, unforgiveable for me.

Now you are really stretching.

Goals scored in the game go back to the centre and it starts off again. Hard to blame one player. Why not Grundy for the free (which wasn't there but was close), why not other players that missed easy shots at goal and so it goes on and on.

Actually it is quite easy watching the game they way I do but you have to start off being objective, try it.

If you can't do that, at least see who the opponent is and what they are doing, then you can fairly say a player has had a bad game because he was beaten in his position.

 

[jackcass]

Why? What have you got against Tom Phillips? ...

Emma Stone!

 

[PyrrhicVic]

Because there's 36 players on the field and I can't watch them all at all times while also trying to watch the game? Costing goals is something that stands out to me...a lot. That's something that both Phillips and Langdon do a LOT of. Particularly Langdon. Unfortunately that's really becoming an issue for Howe too, but for me Howe's good outweighs it...at the moment.

For me, whatever good Phillips and Langdon do doesn't outweigh the bad. Like, at all.

I mean, that Grand Final many argue Langdon was one of our best but you know what stood out to me? The 2 goals he cost us that I would argue cost us a premiership.

Goal 1) Being the rather dumb footballer he is, he decided to try and nurse the ball through for a rushed behind despite being under pressure as opposed to hammering it through, leading to West Coast's first goal and getting them going. At that point of the gam,e there wasn't much time left in the first quarer and we were up by 5 goals. The psychology difference between them going in 5 goals to nothing down at quarter time and only 2 goals down is HUGE

Goal 2) Both he and Crisp (? Maybe Howe) were involved in the 2 on 1 where they were beaten by Ryan which led to the Sheed goal that won the match.

So for AAAAALLLLLL the good he supposedly did (which some might argue is ultimately...his job?) he completely undid it in my eyes costing 2 goals that arguably cost a flag. He got their game going when we had them on the ropes and then was part of the finishing blow.

Sorry, unforgiveable for me.

This is a hilariously bad take. Langdon was best afield for us, if the opposition has repeat inside 50s (as WC did) you will concede goals regardless of your defenders.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Now you are really stretching.

Goals scored in the game go back to the centre and it starts off again. Hard to blame one player. Why not Grundy for the free (which wasn't there but was close), why not other players that missed easy shots at goal and so it goes on and on.

Actually it is quite easy watching the game they way I do but you have to start off being objective, try it.

If you can't do that, at least see who the opponent is and what they are doing, then you can fairly say a player has had a bad game because he was beaten in his position.

If I wasn’t objective, I’d still dislike players like Maynard.

Maybe I’m just harsher than most.

I’d argue most you aren’t objective enough.

You’re right though, you can argue all sorts of players had terrible games in the Grand Final which led to the loss. Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Grundy, Treloar, Phillips, lots of them.

But most of those players aren’t average players with a history of stuff ups costing goals. So it would seem somewhat illogical to harp on players who don’t have histories would it not?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

This is a hilariously bad take. Langdon was best afield for us, if the opposition has repeat inside 50s (as WC did) you will concede goals regardless of your defenders.

Lol nice try.

What repeat inside 50s were we being bombarded by in the FIRST quarter while we were up by 5 goals?

Also, the losing 2 on 1 he was a part of was on the wing. Not in defence. And it was still ultimately a 2 on 1 where he was part of the 2...and lost. Which led to a flag winning goal.

 

[Maggie5]

If I wasn’t objective, I’d still dislike players like Maynard.

Maybe I’m just harsher than most.

I’d argue most you aren’t objective enough.

You’re right though, you can argue all sorts of players had terrible games in the Grand Final which led to the loss. Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Grundy, Treloar, Phillips, lots of them.

But most of those players aren’t average players with a history of stuff ups costing goals. So it would seem somewhat illogical to harp on players who don’t have histories would it not?

Sorry, I don't think you are objective. If you haven't taken into consideration some of the points I raised, I doubt your objectivity (no offence).

Harsher is okay, I am pretty harsh on Mayne as long as you can back it up with examples.

Everyone agrees that he needs to clean up his disposal efficiency but can also see what he brings to the team. Not every player will be a star.

 

[jackcass]

1. Champion Data
2. Uncontested disposals, meters gained, distance covered

You forgot to mention he's also elite in turnovers, clangers, the differential between total possessions and effective possessions, missed tackles, uselessly minding space instead of covering an opponent everyone watching can see will be the next in the chain, fumbles, and opposition score involvements.

In fact, I heard a rumour the AFL are changing the breakdown in how teams score to:

From centre clearances:
From stoppages:
From intercepts:
From involvement by T Phillips: