Review Geelong Bombs the Dons by 66 points

[foodles05]

While I am unabashedly a Parfitt fan, let's not read too much in a player's ability to dominate one of the weakest midfields in the competition.

So asking for idiots to stop bashing him for 1 month was reading too much into his performance for you?

 

[iameviljez]

So asking for idiots to stop bashing him for 1 month was reading too much into his performance for you?

Yeah. It's a footy forum, you're going to get dissent, especially with a player with 100 games (nearly) under his belt who is still yet to perform with consistency. TBH the thing I picked up most out of your rant is that it's important to log off BigFooty from time to time...

 

[CatToTheFuture]

An outside rando's rankings after watching the replay for anyone who cares.
Everyone starts at 0 and only goes up (i.e. most players average out to a 5 and below that doesn't necessarily mean a "bad" game. Not everyone can be a stand out.)

Dangerfield 12/10
Hawkins 12/10
-
Stanley 8/10
Stengle 8/10
Selwood 8/10
-
C Guthrie 7/10
Parfitt 7/10
Stewart 7/10
Dahlhaus 7/10
Smith 6/10
Holmes 6/10
-
Close 5/10
Blicavs 5/10
Atkins 5/10
Higgins 4/10
Tuohy 4/10
Z Guthrie 4/10
-
Kolodjashnij 3/10
Cameron 3/10
Henry 3/10
de Koning 2/10
Evans 2/10
Ratugolea 2/10

What Dangerfield and Hawkins did as a two-man team in the first half was something I've never seen before. Kick, clearance, mark, goal, kick, clearance, mark, goal. Those two essentially won the game in a half.

Best of luck next week, I'm think I'm going to be tipping Geelong...

Surprised the big Sav gets a 2. Generous

Also, thanks for the insights. I still think Sydney look strong

 

[Drunkcat]

What fwit give them ratings SDK and Sav 2, nearly half the side was under par did we lose?

 

[iameviljez]

What fwit give them ratings SDK and Sav 2, nearly half the side was under par did we lose?

Both ratings were pretty on point. Sav was generous.

 

[FredLeDeux]

What fwit give them ratings SDK and Sav 2, nearly half the side was under par did we lose?

More than half, akshully.
You're right, overall they are complete drivel.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

What fwit give them ratings SDK and Sav 2, nearly half the side was under par did we lose?

SDK only played half a game, not his fault. But the rating itself was fine.

I'd have given Sav a 1 for his mark in defence

 

[iameviljez]

More than half, akshully.
You're right, overall they are complete drivel.

No, I think the observer made it clear that 5 is an "average AFL standard" kind of game. On that, 9 players were below the average AFL standard and I don't think that's unreasonable for most. Higgins perhaps a bit stiff, as was Zuthrie, but the rest had very little influence for varying reasons.

Varying reasons = playing half a game (Cameron, De Koening, Evans), having rusty hands (Tuohy) or playing in a very untested defence (Zuthrie, Henry, Kolo).

 

[FredLeDeux]

No, I think the observer made it clear that 5 is an "average AFL standard" kind of game. On that, 9 players were below the average AFL standard and I don't think that's unreasonable for most. Higgins perhaps a bit stiff, as was Zuthrie, but the rest had very little influence for varying reasons.

5 out of 10 is below average.
Actually, the whole post is a good example of why this way of rating players is hopelessly inadequate.

 

[iameviljez]

5 out of 10 is below average.
Actually, the whole post is a good example of why this way of rating players is hopelessly inadequate.

They wrote in their preamble "most players average out to a five".

 

[FredLeDeux]

They wrote in their preamble "most players average out to a five".

Who cares if he wants to create his own version of mathematics or arithmetic, in real life 5 out of 10 is below average.

 

[iameviljez]

Who cares if he wants to create his own version of mathematics or arithmetic, in real life 5 out of 10 is below average.

Meh, most organisations that rate players out of ten tend to average out to about a 6 or a 7 anyway.

Mathematically, if players can score both a zero and a ten, then five is exactly average.

[0 1 2 3 4] <five options here 5 five options here> [6 7 8 9 10]

 

[scaryness]

What fwit give them ratings SDK and Sav 2, nearly half the side was under par did we lose?

Who said there was a 'par'? What does a player need to do hit 'par'? Is 'par' set on an individual basis or a universal basis, or maybe even a positional basis?

10 players could play under 'par' and the team still win if two players win the entire game by themselves in 40 minutes.

 

[foodles05]

Yeah. It's a footy forum, you're going to get dissent, especially with a player with 100 games (nearly) under his belt who is still yet to perform with consistency. TBH the thing I picked up most out of your rant is that it's important to log off BigFooty from time to time...

I'm confused but to clarify you thought that asking people to lay off Parfitt for 1 month was over the top considering how well he played?

 

[foodles05]

Yeah. It's a footy forum, you're going to get dissent, especially with a player with 100 games (nearly) under his belt who is still yet to perform with consistency. TBH the thing I picked up most out of your rant is that it's important to log off BigFooty from time to time...

Also I am pretty sure that if you think "dissent" was what I was railing against you have missed the point. That's ok though.

 

[standupand]

Who said there was a 'par'? What does a player need to do hit 'par'? Is 'par' set on an individual basis or a universal basis, or maybe even a positional basis?

10 players could play under 'par' and the team still win if two players win the entire game by themselves in 40 minutes.

Hard to take these semantics over the number 5 seriously when 2 players were given the impossible number 12 out of 10.