The never ending Priddis debate - part II

[Pottering]

Paid experts like Luke Darcy, Dermott Brereton and Brian Taylor you mean?
Yes, he is far and away our best inside ball winner at the moment, the problem is what he does with the ball once he's won it, and what he does when he doesn't have the ball. There's more to the game than getting your hands on the football.
And why would I talk about other players in a thread specifically about Priddis?

Paid experts like the umpires, and the coaches, and the Eagles match committee and the All Australian panel plus just about every other commenator you failed to list.

First rule of footy; get the pill. I've seen guys whose skills are sublime on the training track but who can't get near it come match day. In the game against Adelaide he hit 3 lace out passes to our leading forwards who I think kicked 3 goals, he's not the total dud he's portrayed as. He's an average kick at best and his work ethic would suggest he would done as much work as humanly possible to be a better kick. There's only about 5 guys in whole comp who are the complete package and because Priddis ain't one of them that seems to be enough for calls for his head.

 

[Valleyboy9]

Yes, like say a good forward line, back line and ruck group, all of which it has been widely acknowledged we have

Not sure of your point. ?????????????????????
Care to elaborate

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

If all you've got to add is personal insults, might be time to give the thread a rest.

That goes for everyone, it's starting to get personal again and I've got a card quota to maintain. Fair warning.

People seem to think I only post warnings to get my post count up. Some of those people are having a little break. Discuss the topic, not the poster please, unless you want to join them.

 

[Godfather32]

Paid experts like the umpires, and the coaches, and the Eagles match committee and the All Australian panel plus just about every other commenator you failed to list.

First rule of footy; get the pill. I've seen guys who's skills are sublime on the training track but who can't get near it come match day. In the game against Adelaide he hit 3 lace out passes to our leading forwards who I think kicked 3 goals, he's not the total he's portrayed as. He's an average kick at best and his work ethic would suggest he would done as much work as humanly possible to be a better kick. There's only about 5 guys in whole comp who are the complete package and because Priddis ain't one of them that seems to enough for calls for his head.

- The umpires that are paid to umpire games, not for talent evaulation?
- The coaches, like Worsfold who left the team because he was burnt out and lead us to that terrible season in 2013? He obviously never made any mistakes in evaluating the talent on his team. Or the coaches who didn't consider him the best player in the league last year?
-The all-Australian panel that didn't pick (and have never picked) Priddis in the All-Australian team? *Incidentally he is one of two players to win the Brownlow and not make the All-Australian team, the other is Woewodin

And you pick one of his only good games in the last few years to illustrate that he's "an average kick at best", never mind that in 90% of the games he plays his disposal would be amongst the worst in the league. It doesn't matter that he tries hard, his skills just aren't up to the modern game.
People call for Priddis to be dropped because he is a net negative to the team.

 

[Eagle87]

Paid experts like the umpires, and the coaches, and the Eagles match committee and the All Australian panel plus just about every other commenator you failed to list.

First rule of footy; get the pill. I've seen guys who's skills are sublime on the training track but who can't get near it come match day. In the game against Adelaide he hit 3 lace out passes to our leading forwards who I think kicked 3 goals, he's not the total he's portrayed as. He's an average kick at best and his work ethic would suggest he would done as much work as humanly possible to be a better kick. There's only about 5 guys in whole comp who are the complete package and because Priddis ain't one of them that seems to enough for calls for his head.

If you go back 6 months Pottering runs exactly the same arguments....

6 months before that the same ...

Rinse repeat ....

No substance, just "The experts" ... the "paid professionals" ...

Priddis is the poster boy for an impotent midfield, which is impotent because of its lack of skill, speed and damage. Oddly the 3 negative characteristics that most resonate re Matt. So the centre of our entire midfield; the guy with the most time on ball; the most possessions epitomizes all the worst traits of our worst ever midfield.

And this is always how it was going to turn out based on him being a guy with tremendous attributes, except in any those 3 key areas.

In addition, can you run me through the other players who are measurably better with Matt alongside them than without him? You know how, for example, you could put Judd with McNamara and the latter could look handy at times

Priddis remains, at best, a good ordinary footballer, a plodder playing in the position of thoroughbreds and as such he's a perpetual ceiling on the quality of our midfield. Which is our weakest area. And his lack of flexibility means we are stuck with him in that role if he plays. This was predictable more than half a decade ago when we could see what was developing. And kept bringing this up. The proof as they say is in the pudding. The pudding being team performance. Which isn't good.

But those experts and paid professionals ....

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

If you go back 6 months Pottering runs exactly the same arguments....

6 months before that the same ...

Rinse repeat ....

As opposed to those on the other side of the argument, who are constantly coming up with exciting new points?

 

[Eagle87]

As opposed to those on the other side of the argument, who are constantly coming up with exciting new points?

Well, I knew you'd go there, and as usual you selectively quoted in the manner of trolls.

The key part was the bit about substance, as in any considered and reasonably presented argument for - as opposed to "but the experts".

You really should card yourself troll

 

[Eagle87]

As opposed to those on the other side of the argument, who are constantly coming up with exciting new points?

Being serious for a second though, I've largely stayed out of this because it's essentially just been re-fired up by a couple of either entirely stupid or trolling kids who've been routinely put back in their box by others who could be arsed.

It's only when the old discredited wombler comes pottering along with the same discredited non-arguments (mere appeals to authority) that I thought I'd respond.

FWIW until we start the season proper it's impossible to add anything, because we can't see any changes, which is the only thing that takes this debate forward in any direction

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Well, I knew you'd go there, and as usual you selectively quoted in the manner of trolls.

The key part was the bit about substance, as in any considered and reasonably presented argument for - as opposed to "but the experts".

You really should card yourself troll

But why would you point out that he continually makes the same points, and then go on to make the same counterpoints you've made time and again already? It's not like anyone is in any doubt as to where you stand on the issue.

And I "selectively quoted" the part of your post that I took issue with. I'm not sure why it's incumbent on me to work out which part you consider "the substance" and only address that, or why it's trolling to not do so.

BTW I think you've addressed all those points in your subsequent post, in any event.

 

[Eagle87]

But why would you point out that he continually makes the same points, and then go on to make the same counterpoints you've made time and again already? It's not like anyone is in any doubt as to where you stand on the issue.

And I "selectively quoted" the part of your post that I took issue with. I'm not sure why it's incumbent on me to work out which part you consider "the substance" and only address that, or why it's trolling to not do so.

The next line specifically addressed his lack of substance. It even used the word substance.

For a learned man such as you it shouldn't have been that hard...

By comparison to his appeals to authority, I have actually opinions based on my own observations which appear to have some merit. But you know that.

By contrast, "But the experts, the paid professionals" isn't an argument worth repeating....

 

[Eagle87]

Anyway, on with the season.

Let's hope something gives and our midfield becomes something we can be proud of and that worries other teams. And wins.

Regardless of who is in it

 

[eagles rule]

a short poem :

Hating Priddis must make watching Wce unenjoyable .
Winning against bottom 8 teams unenjoyable
Wce player winning the Brownlow unenjoyable
Following Wce unenjoyable

 

[Pottering]

If you go back 6 months Pottering runs exactly the same arguments....

6 months before that the same ...

Rinse repeat ....

No substance, just "The experts" ... the "paid professionals" ...

Priddis is the poster boy for an impotent midfield, which is impotent because of its lack of skill, speed and damage. Oddly the 3 negative characteristics that most resonate re Matt. So the centre of our entire midfield; the guy with the most time on ball; the most possessions epitomizes all the worst traits of our worst ever midfield.

And this is always how it was going to turn out based on him being a guy with tremendous attributes, except in any those 3 key areas.

In addition, can you run me through the other players who are measurably better with Matt alongside them than without him? You know how, for example, you could put Judd with McNamara and the latter could look handy at times

Priddis remains, at best, a good ordinary footballer, a plodder playing in the position of thoroughbreds and as such he's a perpetual ceiling on the quality of our midfield. Which is our weakest area. And his lack of flexibility means we are stuck with him in that role if he plays. This was predictable more than half a decade ago when we could see what was developing. And kept bringing this up. The proof as they say is in the pudding. The pudding being team performance. Which isn't good.

But those experts and paid professionals ....

Yeah, no substance in all those accolades he's received, just incredibly lucky! Funny how blokes like Pendlebury and Dangerfield are juxtaposed with Priddis and yet "team performance" had us ahead of both those sides. Those two must be absolute duffers going on that logic.

 

[Eagle87]

Yeah, no substance in all those accolades he's received, just incredibly lucky! Funny how blokes like Pendlebury and Dangerfield are juxtaposed with Priddis and yet "team performance" had us ahead of both those sides. Those two must be absolute duffers going on that logic.

Yawn .....

 

[Eagle87]

a short poem :

Hating Priddis must make watching Wce unenjoyable .
Winning against bottom 8 teams unenjoyable
Wce player winning the Brownlow unenjoyable
Following Wce unenjoyable

That's a really shit poem...

Critical analysis aside, you've enjoyed watching us the last couple of years?

There's been the odd high point but generally, yes, it's been tough viewing.

 

[Pottering]

- The umpires that are paid to umpire games, not for talent evaulation?
- The coaches, like Worsfold who left the team because he was burnt out and lead us to that terrible season in 2013? He obviously never made any mistakes in evaluating the talent on his team. Or the coaches who didn't consider him the best player in the league last year?
-The all-Australian panel that didn't pick (and have never picked) Priddis in the All-Australian team? *Incidentally he is one of two players to win the Brownlow and not make the All-Australian team, the other is Woewodin

And you pick one of his only good games in the last few years to illustrate that he's "an average kick at best", never mind that in 90% of the games he plays his disposal would be amongst the worst in the league. It doesn't matter that he tries hard, his skills just aren't up to the modern game.
People call for Priddis to be dropped because he is a net negative to the team.

So the umpires, right in the thick of the action, don't have a clue about who's played well? Pull the other one! And by "coaches" I meant all 18 AFL coaches who had Priddis right up there in their award. Are all 18 of those blokes nincompoops? The All Australian panel picked him in the squad which comprises about 10% of all players, not something to sniff at. I picked the Adelaide game because it illustrated that even when he's on song kicking it's as though it never happened, selective blindness perhaps?

Like I keep saying, the bulk of informed opinion is against you and fellow anti-Priddis types. You can moan all you like, but unless it's all some kind of David Copperfield mass hypnotism then the consensus is he's a pretty fair player.

 

[javaguice]

People seem to think I only post warnings to get my post count up. Some of those people are having a little break. Discuss the topic, not the poster please, unless you want to join them.

Is this a warning?

 

[Godfather32]

So the umpires, right in the thick of the action, don't have a clue about who's played well? Pull the other one! And by "coaches" I meant all 18 AFL coaches who had Priddis right up there in their award. Are all 18 of those blokes nincompoops? The All Australian panel picked him in the squad which comprises about 10% of all players, not something to sniff at. I picked the Adelaide game because it illustrated that even when he's on song kicking it's as though it never happened, selective blindness perhaps?

Like I keep saying, the bulk of informed opinion is against you and fellow anti-Priddis types. You can moan all you like, but unless it's all some kind of David Copperfield mass hypnotism then the consensus is he's a pretty fair player.

Yep, the umpires, right in the thick of the action don't have time to see who's actually playing well, I would imagine it would be the last thing on their mind. I'd say they're in a terrible position to see who's played well during a game.
So how many of the 17 opposition coaches think Priddis is good enough to bother tagging? Out of all our midfielders they actually encourage Priddis to get the ball because they know they'll more than likely get it back.
You picked one game which has been acknowledged many times as a good game by plenty of anti-Priddis types. One good game doesn't excuse the rest where he's lucky if the ball even goes in the same direction that he aims it.
Just because the bulk of opinion is against us doesn't mean we're wrong, after all the majority voted Abbott in and look how well that's going.

 

[Godfather32]

a short poem :

Hating Priddis must make watching Wce unenjoyable .
Winning against bottom 8 teams unenjoyable
Wce player winning the Brownlow unenjoyable
Following Wce unenjoyable

Winning finals and premierships is pretty enjoyable though

 

[Pottering]

Yep, the umpires, right in the thick of the action don't have time to see who's actually playing well, I would imagine it would be the last thing on their mind. I'd say they're in a terrible position to see who's played well during a game.
So how many of the 17 opposition coaches think Priddis is good enough to bother tagging? Out of all our midfielders they actually encourage Priddis to get the ball because they know they'll more than likely get it back.
You picked one game which has been acknowledged many times as a good game by plenty of anti-Priddis types. One good game doesn't excuse the rest where he's lucky if the ball even goes in the same direction that he aims it.
Just because the bulk of opinion is against us doesn't mean we're wrong, after all the majority voted Abbott in and look how well that's going.

So, for a hundred odd years footy has got it wrong by tasking the adjudicators of the actual match with determing who the better players were? And now there's 3 of them who convene to work out the votes wouldn't that actually give an even broader perspective?

The tagging question's been answered before; indirectly by Roos and Thompson on AFL 360 last year: you tag players who can be affected by tags rather than simply sending a tagger to the best player. Priddis has shown that tagging him generally has little effect whereas Shuey and Gaff have struggled with tags. And you can't realistically tag more than two.

And sorry, but if the Adelaide game was a complete outlier how did he rack up all those votes in the other games in a myriad of polls?

And your "majority" logic falls flat; we all have to vote whether we like it or not (or at least get the ballot), the informed and the uninformed, whereas those awards Priddis has excelled in are voted on by a select few who are chosen for their knowledge and insight. Also Abbott is now being judged in a role he hadn't played before, PM. Likewise Rudd/Gillard looked good in the 2s (as opposition leaders) but couldn't handle the step up to the top league.

 

[Pottering]

Being serious for a second though, I've largely stayed out of this because it's essentially just been re-fired up by a couple of either entirely stupid or trolling kids who've been routinely put back in their box by others who could be arsed.

It's only when the old discredited wombler comes pottering along with the same discredited non-arguments (mere appeals to authority) that I thought I'd respond.

FWIW until we start the season proper it's impossible to add anything, because we can't see any changes, which is the only thing that takes this debate forward in any direction

"mere appeals to authority" is rich! When posters like myself cite copious "authorities" to back up our own opinion of Priddis that evidence is dismissed as irrelevant, that we (the entire football industry it seems) have got it wrong, yet when other posters here claim to be "authorities" themselves based on their own alleged frame by frame breakdown of every Priddis performance this somehow turns the argument 180 degrees? Which "authorities" are actually worthy of the title?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

So, for a hundred odd years footy has got it wrong by tasking the adjudicators of the actual match with determing who the better players were?

Personally I think the answer to that is yes. The umpires should really be too busy adjudicating the game to also grade players' performances. Maybe it was different in earlier times, but with the speed of the game these days it's just too much of an ask for them. And when you look at individual games they certainly come up with some odd results.

 

[kranky al]

As opposed to those on the other side of the argument, who are constantly coming up with exciting new points?

when one of us just randomly restarts the thread after months by saying ... Oooh i dunno .... priddis is slow and shit - you might have a point

We just respond- we have a roster - a smartphone app automatically alerts the duty dog to cockwittery in the plodd thread

Hurr durr - priddus dun try hardsters -e87 gets a guernsey

Herp derp - brownlow - smotie puts on the cape and mask

Wharrgarrrble - coaches votes - its off to the phone box for paran...

Etc etc

 

[Smotie]

The tagging question's been answered before; indirectly by Roos and Thompson on AFL 360 last year: you tag players who can be affected by tags rather than simply sending a tagger to the best player. Priddis has shown that tagging him generally has little effect whereas Shuey and Gaff have struggled with tags. And you can't realistically tag more than two.

And yet the only game in which Priddis was tagged last year (by none other than Roos) by a relative no name for Melbourne he took him out of the game.
He ended up with 20 ineffectual disposals.

 

[Godfather32]

So, for a hundred odd years footy has got it wrong by tasking the adjudicators of the actual match with determing who the better players were? And now there's 3 of them who convene to work out the votes wouldn't that actually give an even broader perspective?

The tagging question's been answered before; indirectly by Roos and Thompson on AFL 360 last year: you tag players who can be affected by tags rather than simply sending a tagger to the best player. Priddis has shown that tagging him generally has little effect whereas Shuey and Gaff have struggled with tags. And you can't realistically tag more than two.

And sorry, but if the Adelaide game was a complete outlier how did he rack up all those votes in the other games in a myriad of polls?

And your "majority" logic falls flat; we all have to vote whether we like it or not (or at least get the ballot), the informed and the uninformed, whereas those awards Priddis has excelled in are voted on by a select few who are chosen for their knowledge and insight. Also Abbott is now being judged in a role he hadn't played before, PM. Likewise Rudd/Gillard looked good in the 2s (as opposition leaders) but couldn't handle the step up to the top league.

Most of this has been addressed by other posters, but can you name one other major sport in the world where the umpires vote for the leagues major player award? You can't because it's a completely ridiculous idea that was maybe relevant in the 1940's. The umpires should be focused on adjudicating the game, not worried about who the best player on the field is. Rugby league did away with this in the 90's.
The Adelaide game was a complete outlier because it was one of the only games in recent memory where he actually deserved the votes. It's been discussed plenty of times (and you know this) that he's always named in the best players/gets brownlow votes because he is prolific with the ball. People who don't watch the game see his gaudy stats and write an article about how great he is, put him on the best player lists etc etc. People who watch the game with their eyes open see that most of those stats are empty, a large percentage of his disposals either directly advantage the other team or at the least do nothing to advantage ours. Those same people see that the majority of Priddis' tackles are at the bottom of packs where he lies like a turtle on top of other players, not in open play. Those same people see his opponent running off him and damaging us the other way, whilst he labours along behind them pointing at another player to cover his man, or does his best witches hat impersonation.