Game Day Round 22 - Pies vs Cats Matchday Discussion (Marsh the sub, late change Cloke out and White in)

[Anzacday]

Must agree with Shpeshal Ed re the obsession with stats.
It's the first thing we look at is the number of disposals.
There have been plenty of sheep dogs who skirted the packs and got lots of the ball that I didn't rate.
I want to know if Treloar is a good player; makes smart decisions, good in traffic, explosive pace, a good kick, hard at it etc.
Cyril is the opposite of all this, doesn't get much of the ball, but I think he might be a good player.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

A bit in 2011 !!! He won the brownlow that year

Don't be so damn naive. 2010 was the year he SHOULD have won the Brownlow and everyone knows it. Don't play that bullshit game with me.

Also, have you seen how far behind in "second" Swan is in the coaching award? He's basically there on most likely mostly Bucks' votes alone.

 

[ottoman]

Don't be so damn naive. 2010 was the year he SHOULD have won the Brownlow and everyone knows it. Don't play that bullshit game with me.

Also, have you seen how far behind in "second" Swan is in the coaching award? He's basically there on most likely mostly Bucks' votes alone.

With all respect SE he won the Brownlow in 2011 so how is stating that he had a good year in 2011 Naive. He may have had a better season the year before but stating that a guy played well in the year he won a brownlow is hardly a bullshit game or naive.
Do agree with you 100% regarding stats. We do look too much into them. For example if we saw the following stats on the weekend
Adams 24 possessions 74% efficiency
Danger 24 possessions 74% efficiency
Then statistically we might think both players were the same. But I would bet my life that Danger would have been more damaging with his possessions.

 

[northpie]

Don't be so damn naive. 2010 was the year he SHOULD have won the Brownlow and everyone knows it. Don't play that bullshit game with me.

Also, have you seen how far behind in "second" Swan is in the coaching award? He's basically there on most likely mostly Bucks' votes alone.

Now you are just making things up to suit your deluded ideas not going to waste any more time

 

[northpie]

Must agree with Shpeshal Ed re the obsession with stats.
It's the first thing we look at is the number of disposals.
There have been plenty of sheep dogs who skirted the packs and got lots of the ball that I didn't rate.
I want to know if Treloar is a good player; makes smart decisions, good in traffic, explosive pace, a good kick, hard at it etc.
Cyril is the opposite of all this, doesn't get much of the ball, but I think he might be a good player.

So you think Swanny no good either Anzacday?

 

[jmac70]

In terms of his disposal quality they're roughly in the same vacinity. I just think Adams is a little more....effective? (for want of a better word) than Swan with his posessions. Take as an example, Swan will do a lot of the old Ablett Jr. 1/2 handballs and fluff up his numbers and that will count as an "effective" stat because he hit his target.

But odds are a handball from Adams was from the bottom of a pack to someone on the outside who gets us a clearance.



I look forward to debating such a subjective topic with you where you will I'm sure rely on the stats that say Swan yet again got 35 posessions to "stick it to me" and show me how wrong I am about Swan's game. Where as I'll rely on my eyes. Stats can lie a hell of a lot.

So you are saying that one of the most decorated players in Collingwood's history is little more than an accumulator who does not influence the result of games? Your opinion is more valid that most of the greatest players the game has ever seen. Can you see how some people may think you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So you are saying that one of the most decorated players in Collingwood's history is little more than an accumulator who does not influence the result of games? Your opinion is more valid that most of the greatest players the game has ever seen. Can you see how some people may think you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

What do you mean "some people".
The Clown actually thinks he knows more than Bucks, Players, Board Members, Eminent Historians and Quality Journo's/Commentators.
Someone used the word 'deluded' earlier....very apt indeed

 

[Good_Old]

Like every other team, the cats seem to find another gear against us. With their season on the line I can see us getting pumped by about 10 goals.

Welcome back to Menzel btw.

 

[Anzacday]

So you think Swanny no good either Anzacday?

Not at all I love Swanny.
His ability, (which he lost for a while) to burst from a pack or get out of a tight spot is still impressive.
He's always there for the handball/kick as an escape route or outlet when needed.
He's never been a great kick and I personally couldn't care how many touches he gets, I just want him or any player to impact the game favourably.

 

[BEEG]

Like every other team, the cats seem to find another gear against us. With their season on the line I can see us getting pumped by about 10 goals.

Welcome back to Menzel btw.

We have played about 18 mini Grand Finals this year

 

[PicaBoo]

Bucks and Ed wouldn't be happy with THAT loss against the Tigers and the fall out of Pendles post match comments. So I reckon we will go in hard, end of the season, Scharenberg wants to improve his contract too.
Pies by 14 points.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

So you think Swanny no good either Anzacday?

What? What the hell are you talking about? I even specifically mentioned ANZAC Day as a game he DOES do really well in. I actually said, I'd gush over him more if he could more consistently do what he does on ANZAC Day. Christ.

With all respect SE he won the Brownlow in 2011 so how is stating that he had a good year in 2011 Naive. He may have had a better season the year before but stating that a guy played well in the year he won a brownlow is hardly a bullshit game or naive.
Do agree with you 100% regarding stats. We do look too much into them. For example if we saw the following stats on the weekend
Adams 24 possessions 74% efficiency
Danger 24 possessions 74% efficiency
Then statistically we might think both players were the same. But I would bet my life that Danger would have been more damaging with his possessions.

I never said stating he had a good year in 2011 is naive. The post he responded to was to ME saying that I haven't seen Swan be really effective and damaging since 2010 and most/some/bit of 11.

He then went on to to say that 2011 was his brownlow year so how could 11 be inferior to 10? THAT'S the naivety. I'd be surprised if many people could believe Swan's 2011 was legitimately better than his 10. They were both great years for him, but his 10 was better and were it not for the in joke the umpires had going in 2010 they wouldn't have had to give him a make-up Brownlow in 2011. Don't interpret that as me saying he wasn't deserving of a Brownlow, but 2010 was the year he SHOULD have won it. Much like Judd in 05/06.

So you are saying that one of the most decorated players in Collingwood's history is little more than an accumulator who does not influence the result of games? Your opinion is more valid that most of the greatest players the game has ever seen. Can you see how some people may think you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

Currently? Yeah. Over his career? No. I'm not saying Swan has ALWAYS been a fairly ineffective accumulator. But I think he has been the last few years.

Yeah, I can see how people can believe I don't know what I'm talking about. You're always going to have that on a forum where people have differing views and opinions. I've never been one to buy into the way the wind is blowing, which happens a lot in this industry. "Oh look, Swan/Ablett etc. etc. had 35 possessions, well, they must have been BOG".

It's a bullshit "norm" that everyone has just come to accept and it pisses me off. The breaking point for me was the game agains the Gold Coast where Ablett racked up 53 in a 90 something point loss. He could not have been MORE ineffective in that game but was given BOG noms everywhere. Why? Well, you know, he got 53 possessions so he must have dominated right?

Dale Thomas' 30 in that game were FAAAAAAAAR more influential and effective, but because of the sheer number Ablett got, combined with his reputation in the industry, people just said he was best on ground. I'm not saying Ablett isn't an amazing player, I'm using that particular game as an example of what I'm talking about. Swan (especially in the last few years) has played a LOT of those types of games where he racks up a lot of numbers without really going a hell of a lot but because he's Dan Swan and it's just accepted now that Lots of possessions = Good game. Sorry, I don't buy into it. I just don't and never will.

As much as I"m not a huge fan of Cyril Rioli, I'm actually hoping that he starts to change the way people think about high possession vs low possession games.

 

[mattys123]

2nd last game day of the year, and I'm actually looking forward to this one, unlike most of you it seems.

How we respond after last week's absolute shocker will tell us a lot about where this young group is going.

If we give a shot early on but fade poorly once again it will show that there needs to be serious development in just about every area still.

We should dominate the Cats in the middle, just about every side does, but their strong defense keeps them in a lot of games. Therefore this game probably comes down to how we deliver it inside our forward 50. If we just shank it in like last week, forget it, no matter how good the effort is we will lose by a decent margin once again.

But if we think about how we are using it going forward we have a chance here, the Cats are not a top 8 side, in fact I rank them 10th (and us 11th) on talent (Port should be in the 8).

If you asked me to place a bet on this game it would be on the Cats for sure, but in the 1-24 margin range I reckon, given the weather and that it just means a little more to them then us.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

2nd last game day of the year, and I'm actually looking forward to this one, unlike most of you it seems.

How we respond after last week's absolute shocker will tell us a lot about where this young group is going.

If we give a shot early on but fade poorly once again it will show that there needs to be serious development in just about every area still.

We should dominate the Cats in the middle, just about every side does, but their strong defense keeps them in a lot of games. Therefore this game probably comes down to how we deliver it inside our forward 50. If we just shank it in like last week, forget it, no matter how good the effort is we will lose by a decent margin once again.

But if we think about how we are using it going forward we have a chance here, the Cats are not a top 8 side, in fact I rank them 10th (and us 11th) on talent (Port should be in the 8).

If you asked me to place a bet on this game it would be on the Cats for sure, but in the 1-24 margin range I reckon, given the weather and that it just means a little more to them then us.

We won't dominate the middle. We never dominate the middle. We said that the last time we played them and they still destroyed us in the middle. Once again, proving why I just try and ignore stats. They lie a lot.

As to your first point, I don't personally think another 100 point hammering means much long term. This group has been spent since the Port game. The only difference now is that they have nothing to play for so I'm basically expecting another 100 point hammering followed by an embarrassing loss to Essendon.

 

[Pera]

Would love nothing more than to end Geelongs season. Theyve given us a torrid run in finals besides that 2010 prelim and it would give me a small amount of satisfaction on the year.

 

[jmac70]

We won't dominate the middle. We never dominate the middle. We said that the last time we played them and they still destroyed us in the middle. Once again, proving why I just try and ignore stats. They lie a lot.

As to your first point, I don't personally think another 100 point hammering means much long term. This group has been spent since the Port game. The only difference now is that they have nothing to play for so I'm basically expecting another 100 point hammering followed by an embarrassing loss to Essendon.

You need a holiday.

 

[Saint]

I agree that it will either be 10 points to the Pies or 50 points to the cats. But I reckon that's a 50-50 bet. I think the pies will come out breathing fire after last week (they're proud men fighting for contracts etc) and take it right up to the cats. If the magpies are still in the game at quarter time, the self belief that died in the second half last week might remain.

It was the poor conversion in the forward line in the second quarter that really killed the magpies last week. I doubt a repeat of that is even possible.

If the pies come out like that against the cats, they'll be 5 goals in front at half time and the cats won't be able to peg it back.

At $2.95, head to head, it's a good bet on the pies this week to end Geelong's season. If the cats had enough of the old fight in them, it would have shown last week.

 

[betterthanu]

I still think the Pies are a better team than Geelong. You guys just lost confidence with a tough run of opponents imo. Im penning Pendles in for a monster game and pies to win.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

You need a holiday.

What? There was actually a modicum of positivity in that post.

 

[jmac70]

What? There was actually a modicum of positivity in that post.

Hey, you know me, Mr Positive.

 

[Anzacday]

So you think Swanny no good either Anzacday?

What? What the hell are you talking about? I even specifically mentioned ANZAC Day as a game he DOES do really well in. I actually said, I'd gush over him more if he could more consistently do what he does on ANZAC Day. Christ.

He was replying to/questioning me.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

He was replying to/questioning me.

I know. He said "either" implying I had that opinion also.

 

[ppoiter]

Very interested to see how we play tonight, no hope of a win, or even of getting within 20 points IMO. Having said that, a solid performance where you can see effort has been made to make up for last week is essential.

GO PIES

 

[northpie]

What? What the hell are you talking about? I even specifically mentioned ANZAC Day as a game he DOES do really well in. I actually said, I'd gush over him more if he could more consistently do what he does on ANZAC Day. Christ.



I never said stating he had a good year in 2011 is naive. The post he responded to was to ME saying that I haven't seen Swan be really effective and damaging since 2010 and most/some/bit of 11.

He then went on to to say that 2011 was his brownlow year so how could 11 be inferior to 10? THAT'S the naivety. I'd be surprised if many people could believe Swan's 2011 was legitimately better than his 10. They were both great years for him, but his 10 was better and were it not for the in joke the umpires had going in 2010 they wouldn't have had to give him a make-up Brownlow in 2011. Don't interpret that as me saying he wasn't deserving of a Brownlow, but 2010 was the year he SHOULD have won it. Much like Judd in 05/06.



Currently? Yeah. Over his career? No. I'm not saying Swan has ALWAYS been a fairly ineffective accumulator. But I think he has been the last few years.

Yeah, I can see how people can believe I don't know what I'm talking about. You're always going to have that on a forum where people have differing views and opinions. I've never been one to buy into the way the wind is blowing, which happens a lot in this industry. "Oh look, Swan/Ablett etc. etc. had 35 possessions, well, they must have been BOG".

It's a bullshit "norm" that everyone has just come to accept and it pisses me off. The breaking point for me was the game agains the Gold Coast where Ablett racked up 53 in a 90 something point loss. He could not have been MORE ineffective in that game but was given BOG noms everywhere. Why? Well, you know, he got 53 possessions so he must have dominated right?

Dale Thomas' 30 in that game were FAAAAAAAAR more influential and effective, but because of the sheer number Ablett got, combined with his reputation in the industry, people just said he was best on ground. I'm not saying Ablett isn't an amazing player, I'm using that particular game as an example of what I'm talking about. Swan (especially in the last few years) has played a LOT of those types of games where he racks up a lot of numbers without really going a hell of a lot but because he's Dan Swan and it's just accepted now that Lots of possessions = Good game. Sorry, I don't buy into it. I just don't and never will.

As much as I"m not a huge fan of Cyril Rioli, I'm actually hoping that he starts to change the way people think about high possession vs low possession games.

Ed I was responding to Anzacday's comments. you really don't have a clue

 

[northpie]

We won't dominate the middle. We never dominate the middle. We said that the last time we played them and they still destroyed us in the middle. Once again, proving why I just try and ignore stats. They lie a lot.

As to your first point, I don't personally think another 100 point hammering means much long term. This group has been spent since the Port game. The only difference now is that they have nothing to play for so I'm basically expecting another 100 point hammering followed by an embarrassing loss to Essendon.

stats don't matter . afl coaches opions and votes don't matter, the brownlow doesn't matter, only the all knowing Ed's deluded opinion matters!