Squad for NAB Cup Grand Final

[alex_is_on_fire]

Statistically, Reilly was our 3rd best player last year, with 418 disposals. Only Thompson & VB had more. On a disposal per game basis he falls to 6th, with Sloane, Vince & Scott Stevens averaging more.

Those are the facts.

He was the 3rd highest accumulator of possessions. That doesn't make him our 3rd best midfielder.

Facts, like stats can be twisted and created to mean any sort of interpretation.

Since his move to the half back line, he's been very good but it doesn't matter how much spin you put on the stats, he wasn't our 3rd best midfielder last year.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Statistically, Reilly was our 3rd best player last year, with 418 disposals. Only Thompson & VB had more. On a disposal per game basis he falls to 6th, with Sloane, Vince & Scott Stevens averaging more.

Those are the facts.

 

[Vader]

Might I suggest reading beyond the first 2 paragraphs?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Might I suggest reading beyond the first 2 paragraphs?

Admit it, you chuckled.

 

[Vader]

Admit it, you chuckled.

Guilty as charged.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Might I suggest reading beyond the first 2 paragraphs?

Are you referring to me, or Wood_Duck?

But you’re talking about averages, collection of data and comparing player’s performance by the accumulation of stats. That’s fine if you want to base out analysis on ‘how many time they got it’ but you said he was the 3rd best player and you cannot make a judgment of ‘being best’ by just looking at one area.

Being the 3rd best, you have to include other variables such as, what did he do with it, what did his direct opponent do when we didn’t have the ball, what was the result of his turn overs and how many passages of play were lost or gained because he was in possession.

You said ‘best’ but that’s a very different story to what you are telling.

 

[Vader]

I said that statistically he was the 3rd best - and then went on to prove it via the use of said statistics.

I also said that you can put whatever context you like around those statistics. What went unsaid (but was implied) was that he may not have actually been the 3rd best midfielder overall, particularly given the different roles he was given at various times. It's a bit like comparing apples & oranges.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I said that statistically he was the 3rd best - and then went on to prove it via the use of said statistics.

I also said that you can put whatever context you like around those statistics. What went unsaid (but was implied) was that he may not have actually been the 3rd best midfielder overall, particularly given the different roles he was given at various times. It's a bit like comparing apples & oranges.

Fair enough.

 

[Paladin]

He was the 3rd highest accumulator of possessions. That doesn't make him our 3rd best midfielder.

Facts, like stats can be twisted and created to mean any sort of interpretation.

Since his move to the half back line, he's been very good but it doesn't matter how much spin you put on the stats, he wasn't our 3rd best midfielder last year.

Exactly. He may have gathered a few disposals but anyone who watched a few of Reilly games in the middle could tell you that he was terrible. Our worst midfielder by a huge margin. So bad we had to hide him down back which isnt a good look when you are one of very few senior players running around and should be in your prime.

If Neil had more faith in Danger and Van Berlo and less in Reilly we might of been embarrassed on a few less occasions.

Porps despite only playing rarely in the middle in the afl is 10 times the midfielder.

 

[Truck Rutten]

Statistically, Reilly was our 3rd best player last year, with 418 disposals. Only Thompson & VB had more. On a disposal per game basis he falls to 6th, with Sloane, Vince & Scott Stevens averaging more.

Those are the facts.

Now, we can put whatever context we like around them. You can argue that he was supposedly tagging some players who made a mess of us from time to time. You can also argue that he played the last few games in defence, rather than in the midfield.

BTW, I think you're stretching it a bit to suggest that Dangerfield had a better finish to the season. In the last 6 games (ie post-NC) Dangerfield had 27, 12, 21, 16, 31 & 15 disposals, for an erratic average of 20.3 disposals per game +/- 7.42 (standard deviation). In the same period, Reilly had 19, 20,20, 22, 25 & 17, for a much more consistent average of 20.5 disposals per game +/- 2.74. There's next to nothing in the average, but Reilly's consistency wins out easily.

That's statistics though. Dangermouse was mainly in the midfield & forward line, Reilly was mainly in defence. We're not exactly comparing apples with apples.

The comparison with Porps is an interesting one. Porps has never spent a lot of time in the midfield, playing mainly in the forward line due to a lack of pace/engine size. Yes, I rate Porps the better player overall, but there's a reasonable case to be made that Reilly is the better midfielder.

Statistically Kane Cornes has been one of the best midfielders in the league for 5+ years. No matter how technical Champion Data get with awarding points, there are some facets of a footballers performance that can't be quantified by some boffin punching numbers into a spreadsheet, and stats alone are an even more simplistic measure of a players performance.

Okay, I took it that you were referring to their exposed midfield ability full stop, not just last season. My list was if we were playing for points tomorrow, who would I run through the midfield before Reilly. I think I was pretty generous listing Dangerfield as arguable.

Even just on last year in isolation, Reilly was clearly not our 3rd best midfield option. If he was, he wouldn't have been moved from the tagging role to defence.

I'm not sure there's anything to be taken from those numbers over the last 6 rounds last year. As you say, Danger had gone into the pivot pretty much full time, while Reilly was moved to defence. And this was a team that overused the ball horribly over the past couple of seasons, particularly when under pressure coming out of defence. I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few players average possession counts drop down a bit this year.

Admittedly he hasn't spent stacks of time in there, but based on what they've shown when played in the midfield over their careers, I don't think there's any doubt that Porps is a better player in there. And by a fair margin too. He can win clearances, terrific balance, best player I've seen at our club other than Bunji at controlling a loose ball. Good evasion, vision and great skills. He's just in a different class to Reilly (and most players).

 

[amer]

**** off with the stats vader, unless you're going to use them correctly - as a peripheral measure. They do not tell the whole story in a free-roaming, full-dimensional game such as australian rules football.

 

[Coopers]

Statistically Kane Cornes has been one of the best midfielders in the league for 5+ years. No matter how technical Champion Data get with awarding points, there are some facets of a footballers performance that can't be quantified by some boffin punching numbers into a spreadsheet, and stats alone are an even more simplistic measure of a players performance.

Unstatististically Kane Cornes was an AA a couple (more?) times and won a B&F. He got close to a brownlow.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Truck Rutten]

Well based on last years performance he was....

No way did Vince / Porps (obviously) / Douglas / Danger have better years than Reilly last year... I think he was on par with VB and easily qualified as our 3rd or 4th best midfielder in 2011....

Its more of an indication of our list than how good Reilly was....

But honestly - based on last year which midfielder outplayed him other than Sloane and Thommo (and possibly VB?)... the guy was 3rd at our club for disposals / 2nd in tackles / 6th in clearances (dougie, vince, sloane, VB were marginally better).

No, he just wasn't. The third best midfielder at your club doesn't get played as a tagger to start with. And they certainly don't get sent to the backlines when your team has been getting smashed up in all the key midfield measures for the previous 18 rounds. Thank Christ for Thommo.

Now, a B&F voting system that allows 15 individual players to receive votes in a single round is certainly not beyond reproach, but Vince, Dangerfield and for that matter Sloane too, all finished above Reilly. vB was way ahead of him.

Anyway, as I said in response to Vader, I wasn't judging the players on last year in isolation.

 

[Truck Rutten]

Unstatististically Kane Cornes was an AA a couple (more?) times and won a B&F. He got close to a brownlow.

What the hell are you talking about?

Wow, sounds like the second coming of Haydn Bunton Snr. Wonder why Port are trying to pension him off at 28 then

Come on, are you serious?

 

[cmndstab]

People seem to get very angry around here when statistics are brought out Reilly collected the third most possessions last year. It's a fact. You can then draw whatever conclusion you like from those numbers.

Carl - going a couple of pages back, I don't think that Reilly has poor disposal under pressure because he's scared of a bump. Quite the opposite - if he was scared of the bump, he'd just dispose of it as soon as he saw the player coming, but all too often he holds on waiting in vain for a good option to open up and ends up slammed into the grass. He's not scared of the bump, in my opinion, he's just not a very quick thinker in footy terms.

 

[amer]

People seem to get very angry around here when statistics are brought out Reilly collected the third most possessions last year. It's a fact. You can then draw whatever conclusion you like from those numbers.

Carl - going a couple of pages back, I don't think that Reilly has poor disposal under pressure because he's scared of a bump. Quite the opposite - if he was scared of the bump, he'd just dispose of it as soon as he saw the player coming, but all too often he holds on waiting in vain for a good option to open up and ends up slammed into the grass. He's not scared of the bump, in my opinion, he's just not a very quick thinker in footy terms.

It is not the statistic, it's the claim beside the statistic, as said by Vader - that Reilly was our "third best player" last year. Even statistically that's contentious.

 

[cmndstab]

It is not the statistic, is the claim beside the statistic, as said by Vader - that Reilly was our "third best player" last year. Even statistically that's contentious.

The obvious intention of that first sentence was to say that Reilly gathered the most possessions, referred to as "stats". It's an extremely common to refer to the player who received the most touches as "the leading player statistically".

 

[amer]

The obvious intention of that first sentence was to say that Reilly gathered the most possessions, referred to as "stats". It's an extremely common to refer to the player who received the most touches as "the leading player statistically".

Yes, it is common. It's also not what Vader said. He said Reilly was statistically our third best midfielder. That in itself is highly debatable, and cannot be argued statistically on the basis of a single number.

Again poo permeates Vader's Canberra Call.

 

[cmndstab]

Yes, it is common. It's also not what Vader said. He said Reilly was statistically our third best midfielder. That in itself is highly debatable, and cannot be argued statistically on the basis of a single number.

Again poo permeates Vader's Canberra Call.

Trying to debate whether every word Vader writes should be taken literally or not seems kind of petty to me. I think it's a better plan to actually take what was intended.

 

[amer]

Trying to debate whether every word Vader writes should be taken literally or not seems kind of petty to me. I think it's a better plan to actually take what was intended.

What we can draw from this is that Vader intends to paint Reilly in some sort of positive light.

And that's not on.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Yes, it is common. It's also not what Vader said. He said Reilly was statistically our third best midfielder. That in itself is highly debatable, and cannot be argued statistically on the basis of a single number.

Again poo permeates Vader's Canberra Call.

But it was a fact. What Vader said, was a 100% fact, no if's, no but's and no maybe's. 100% fact.

Last season, Brent Reilly was our 3rd highest possession winner.

 

[amer]

But it was a fact. What Vader said, was a 100% fact, no if's, no but's and no maybe's. 100% fact.

Last season, Brent Reilly was our 3rd highest possession winner.

For ****'s sake human.

3rd highest possession winner =/= third best midfielder. Process that, honestly!

 

[Paladin]

3rd highest possession winner, worst midfielder is how Vader should of presented the stats.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

For ****'s sake human.

3rd highest possession winner =/= third best midfielder. Process that, honestly!

Put his whole post into context, and 'statistically' become the key word.

Look, I argued the same point but he does make a valid point when you put the entire post into the correct context.

 

[ringo200]

FWIW the prospectus has Reilly as statistically our 6th best midfielder, behind Thompson, Douglas, Vince, VB and Sloane.