View Full Version : murphy vs pendlebury
Two young guns who have lots of potential. But who would you rather on your team and who do you think is and will be the better player?
Cassius_Clay
20 Apr 2007, 19:02
The one that went #1 :rolleyes:
whippersnipper
20 Apr 2007, 19:04
Dale Thomas. Best athlete from the draft. Heard he excels at netball as well:)
delirious1
20 Apr 2007, 19:07
Murphy is obviously the better player, find some other avenue where you can convince yourself your team is the "best"
trueblue_91
20 Apr 2007, 19:15
Dumb Poll.
One went at no 1 and he should be the best and he is.
Pendlebury will be a star but not as good as murph.
Even the collingwoood supporters agree
Dale Thomas. Best athlete from the draft. Heard he excels at netball as well:)
And softball. :)
unfortunately we didn't have the chance to pick murphy so...
gormanisahack
20 Apr 2007, 22:02
nah pendlebury is better.
Magpie Mick
21 Apr 2007, 20:33
Pendlebury was very good today extremely skillfull, lovely kick of the footy...
Eddie Vedder
22 Apr 2007, 09:33
Would have to say that it looks like both Pendlebury and Dale Thomas have both improved a great deal this season and both would probably be better than Murphy at this stage..
Pendlebury definitely better than Murphy
The Royal Sampler
23 Apr 2007, 12:28
Thomas played one hell of a game on Saturday. Pendlebury has also been outstanding. I think it's very close.
Thomas played one hell of a game on Saturday. Pendlebury has also been outstanding. I think it's very close.
But parrot says that Thomas is ordinary and soft and Pendlebury is going backwards and we all know that parrot is a genius.
But parrot says that Thomas is ordinary and soft and Pendlebury is going backwards....
You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say Pendlebury was going backwards. :)
You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say Pendlebury was going backwards. :)
Sorry about that parrot. Just thought these statements might have indicated this:
"Pendlebury has been a disappointment so far. Looks composed, but gets run down because of a lack of awareness, and he takes ages to get boot to ball, and sprays them."
"I previously rated Pendlebury highly, but in the past few matches I've seen, there are some major problem areas."
So did you get the chance to see Thomas on Saturday? In case you didn't he was sensational - showed exceptional courage, skill, fitness and poise in a hotly contested game. He went off after getting hurt throwing himself at another contest. At that point he was probably the reason we were still in the game. Gem of a footballer. You should have a look at him when you get the chance.
Sorry about that parrot. Just thought these statements might have indicated this:
"Pendlebury has been a disappointment so far. Looks composed, but gets run down because of a lack of awareness, and he takes ages to get boot to ball, and sprays them."
"I previously rated Pendlebury highly, but in the past few matches I've seen, there are some major problem areas." ...
Yes, those comments are entirely correct. :)
Yes, those comments are entirely correct. :)
Sorry you couldn't reply re Thomas' game, you must have been consoling yourself after Josh Kennedy turned in his usual consistent 6 possession game on the weekend.
J-Ro-20
23 Apr 2007, 13:56
Murphy is obviously the better player, find some other avenue where you can convince yourself your team is the "best"
haha this is so true...
polls like this start to make me dislike all carlton supporters
Cassius_Clay
23 Apr 2007, 14:28
Pendlebury will end up 10 times the better player Kennedy is. Thats really all that matter because Carlton had a choice between the 2.
Murphy > Gibbs > Pendlebury >>>>> Thomas > Kennedy
That is all.
Different players, but both have cool heads.
Both very good inside players but have the ability to play outside aswell, which is very handy.
When I saw Scott the first time, I thought he can be as good as Marc.
Not even going to judge these 2 yet. But i'll just say they're not that far apart at the minute. They will both be very good players. That Collingwood/Carlton rivalry will get back to where it should be with the likes of Murphy/Gibbs vs. Thomas/Pendlebury. Can't wait to see these clashes in the future. Think they're all great.
andypie
23 Apr 2007, 14:42
Two young guns who have lots of potential. But who would you rather on your team and who do you think is and will be the better player?
i would rather murphy for sure, he is still the pick of that draft, but very happy with pendebury. i think he will prove to be the pick of the rest in the top 5. cant believe everyone wants to compare thomas and ellis, i think pendlebury is better than both.
andypie
23 Apr 2007, 14:44
Dale Thomas. Best athlete from the draft. Heard he excels at netball as well:)
could be worse. could excel at nothing like kennedy. ;)
bit of a worry when you have parrot as your backup
Pendlebury will end up 10 times the better player Kennedy is. Thats really all that matter because Carlton had a choice between the 2.
Murphy > Gibbs > Pendlebury >>>>> Thomas > Kennedy
That is all.
I agree with Clay:
Murphy>>>Gibbs>>>>>Pendlebury>>>Thomas>>Kennedy.
But not sure it will be too big a mistake, because Kennedy could still become a solid CHF and all clubs need them. No star, but a Spalding type who can crash packs and bring it down to the ground. Carlton may not end up regretting taking him over Pendlebury, as Pendlebury will never be this type of player.
TheGeneral
23 Apr 2007, 16:22
10 times better than Kennedy?
LMAO. :D
Pendlebury concedes soft goal every week because he has no defensive side to his game and shits bricks when in defence because he has no idea. Bryce has shown more poise in defence than Pendlebury in his first four games and not been caught out due to a lack of a defensive side to his game.
Krakouer caught him out last week and kicked an easy goal on him.
Kennedy has hardly played four quarters this year because we've been propping up our Captain to save face and he's down on confidence as a result. Kennedy was the best forward in the 2005 draft and it was no loss overlooking a lesser mid in Pendlebury after taking Murphy who was the standout player.
Our list is in better shape for the long haul with Murphy, Gibbs, Kennedy and Grigg than Murphy, Pendlebury, Gibbs and Grigg. Grigg will be a better allround player than Pendlebury with his speed and at least he'll get a proper football education from Carlton.
dalethomas13
23 Apr 2007, 16:48
10 times better than Kennedy?
LMAO. :D
Pendlebury concedes soft goal every week because he has no defensive side to his game and shits bricks when in defence because he has no idea. Bryce has shown more poise in defence than Pendlebury in his first four games and not been caught out due to a lack of a defensive side to his game.
Krakouer caught him out last week and kicked an easy goal on him.
Kennedy has hardly played four quarters this year because we've been propping up our Captain to save face and he's down on confidence as a result. Kennedy was the best forward in the 2005 draft and it was no loss overlooking a lesser mid in Pendlebury after taking Murphy who was the standout player.
Our list is in better shape for the long haul with Murphy, Gibbs, Kennedy and Grigg than Murphy, Pendlebury, Gibbs and Grigg. Grigg will be a better allround player than Pendlebury with his speed and at least he'll get a proper football education from Carlton.
He may concede a soft goal but at least he can 'kick goals' and not shank em from 15-20m out.
As for the 'lesser mid' comments, well time will tell if thomas or pendles will become better than murphy from 05 draft with the runs pretty evenly matched atm, however pendles >>>>>>>>>kennedy everyday of the week. Paddy Ryder was a far better option than kennedy.
one_twelve112
23 Apr 2007, 16:53
I see 54 for Murph and 27 for Pendlebury. If actually faced with a situation that you could have either of these players at your club, I doubt there is a single; supporter, coach, captain, player, boot studder etc. that would not pick Murphy.
andypie
23 Apr 2007, 18:20
I see 54 for Murph and 27 for Pendlebury. If actually faced with a situation that you could have either of these players at your club, I doubt there is a single; supporter, coach, captain, player, boot studder etc. that would not pick Murphy.
correct but thats not a shock is it? murphy has always been accepted by all both before and since as the pick of that draft.
Mr Cannons
23 Apr 2007, 21:28
Am I the only one watching Thomas when he does something courageous, for the size of him he outsandingly brave.
[ToTTi]
23 Apr 2007, 21:35
Obviously I'm gunna say Murph, he's a star. But I rate Pendlebury though, will be a player :thumbsu:
I see 54 for Murph and 27 for Pendlebury. If actually faced with a situation that you could have either of these players at your club, I doubt there is a single; supporter, coach, captain, player, boot studder etc. that would not pick Murphy.
That statement right there is rediculous. Murphy was easily the best from the draft at draft time but Pendles has some exceptional qualities that lots of coaches, captains, boot studder's would like. No doubt the majority of them would pick Murph but 'doubt there is a single' is ludicrous considering there are 34 'single' supporters who have voted for Pendles.
IMO the Pendles of the comp will be the future of the game. Tall athletic midfielders is the way the game is going.
Magpie Mick
23 Apr 2007, 22:01
I think every pies supporter is wrapped in both Thomas and pendles and wouldn't give either up for any other player in that draft or last years draft, Murphy and gibbs included!
I am from Sale and seeing both these guys play i believe Craig Flint,an elevated rookie from last year by carlton is a better FOOTBALLER than Scott Pendlebury is. However Scott is a far supreme ATHLETE and has huge amount of potential to be an better overall footballer because of this.
Magpie Mick
23 Apr 2007, 22:05
Craig Flint.
Who the f$#@^& is FLINT? What planet you on bro?
a better FOOTBALLER than pendlebury
Magpie Mick
23 Apr 2007, 22:13
a better FOOTBALLER than pendlebury
Oh that's why pendlebury got picked up at number 5 in the national draft and your guy got overlooked by every club in about 80 selections!
i think you'll find a lot of people in sale, where they are both from, would agree. Magpie mick you might not understand but lots of players get picked on potential
Magpie Mick
23 Apr 2007, 22:28
i think you'll find a lot of people in sale, where they are both from, would agree. Magpie mick you might not understand but lots of players get picked on potential
You may be right but saying that Flint is better than Pendlebury is taking your argument a little too far don't you think?
I am from Sale and seeing both these guys play i believe Craig Flint,an elevated rookie from last year by carlton is a better FOOTBALLER than Scott Pendlebury is. However Scott is a far supreme ATHLETE and has huge amount of potential to be an better overall footballer because of this.
Who would you consider the best of the two atm? I definitely believe there are footballers and then there are athletes at draft time but the gap gets smaller in the AFL as skills and footy smarts are worked on (for the athletes) and athleticism becomes more of a necessity.
You may be right but saying that Flint is better than Pendlebury is taking your argument a little too far don't you think?
Theres a good chance he was Mick. Scott is a basketball convert after all.
stui magpie
24 Apr 2007, 20:43
Pendles is on the way to going 1 up on Murphy already having been nominated for the rising star award which he's a shoe in to win.
Murphy will turn out to be a good player, just because he was taken No 1 doesn't mean he'll be a star. There's plenty of form to the contrary.
It must be hard for a kid playing midfield in a crap team with little support but if that doesn't grind him down he'll be OK. On the other hand, I'm very happy with Pendlebury. 190 cm's of pure class.:thumbsu:
Cassius_Clay
24 Apr 2007, 21:56
i think you'll find a lot of people in sale, where they are both from, would agree. Magpie mick you might not understand but lots of players get picked on potential
Sale is one ****ed up place.
Ben Cousins down there much?
Pendlebury_#10
24 Apr 2007, 22:02
Vote #2 Pendlebury
james Dean
24 Apr 2007, 22:06
Pendles is on the way to going 1 up on Murphy already having been nominated for the rising star award which he's a shoe in to win.
Murphy will turn out to be a good player, just because he was taken No 1 doesn't mean he'll be a star. There's plenty of form to the contrary.
It must be hard for a kid playing midfield in a crap team with little support but if that doesn't grind him down he'll be OK. On the other hand, I'm very happy with Pendlebury. 190 cm's of pure class.:thumbsu:
Ahh Murphy was a shoo-in last year before he got injured, It's round 5 there's no chance that anyone is a shoo-in now when we don't even know who will get nominated or which young guns such as Flint or Grigg will debut
Le Maestro
25 Apr 2007, 12:52
Both incredible players:
Loads of talent.
Loads of potential.
Loads of hype.
Future stars of the game. :thumbsu:
BlueDevil
25 Apr 2007, 13:00
biased here but murphs. young master pendlebury has some talent agreed. but as has been posted, theres a reason murphs went number one.
TheGeneral
25 Apr 2007, 14:02
Pendles is on the way to going 1 up on Murphy already having been nominated for the rising star award which he's a shoe in to win.
Murphy will turn out to be a good player, just because he was taken No 1 doesn't mean he'll be a star. There's plenty of form to the contrary.
It must be hard for a kid playing midfield in a crap team with little support but if that doesn't grind him down he'll be OK. On the other hand, I'm very happy with Pendlebury. 190 cm's of pure class.:thumbsu:
Stay off the ice!
A shame Cooney and Judd have struggled since they didn't winning the Rising star award when they had the chance and they're hacks. ;)
Carlton will just have to be content with a future midfield consisting of Hampson, Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Stevens, Russell, Bentick and Grigg plus another gun onballer and ruckman in this draft. Rising star awards are good for publicity but they wouldn't get you $2 dollars on Ebay and plenty of nominated players have been cut.
You would have picked Murphy with pick one and he's hard as nails when compared to the likes or Pendlebury and Thomas.
He's the next Kerr or Cousins but without the off field problems. :thumbsu:
FlamingDon
25 Apr 2007, 15:02
You Bluebaggers are the most ****ing arrogant pricks in the AFL you think your team has all the future players when they haven't done anything apart from Murphy perhaps.
stui magpie
26 Apr 2007, 11:27
biased here but murphs. young master pendlebury has some talent agreed. but as has been posted, theres a reason murphs went number one.
yeah there is and it's a really simple reason. Carlton had first pick and they picked him. ergo, he went at number 1.:rolleyes:
Check out the list of number 1 picks in the past. Being picked at 1, doesn't mean he is a star it just means he was picked first. I bet a number of clubs would like their number one pick back with 20-20 hindsight.
stui magpie
26 Apr 2007, 11:29
Stay off the ice!
A shame Cooney and Judd have struggled since they didn't winning the Rising star award when they had the chance and they're hacks. ;)
Carlton will just have to be content with a future midfield consisting of Hampson, Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Stevens, Russell, Bentick and Grigg plus another gun onballer and ruckman in this draft. Rising star awards are good for publicity but they wouldn't get you $2 dollars on Ebay and plenty of nominated players have been cut.
You would have picked Murphy with pick one and he's hard as nails when compared to the likes or Pendlebury and Thomas.
He's the next Kerr or Cousins but without the off field problems. :thumbsu:
And you tell me to stay off the ice?? :rolleyes: been borrowing Parrot's eyes??:D
M-Train
26 Apr 2007, 11:58
I know the discussion at hand is regarding Murphy v Pendlebury, both are very good players and you cant say Murphy has done that much more than Pendlebury in the game at the moment.
However, what I would like to bring up is lets rewind the clock bact to the 2005 AFL draft. At pick 4, the Blues had the chance to pick Pendlebury but instead missed out and selected a young KP player in Josh Kennedy. Carlton fans, imagine your midfield with Murphy and Pendlebury.... NOT
Lets be realistic guys, especially you 'Carlton' Supporters, you guys cant be happy with the way Josh Kennedy is playing. I know hes young, but all the good key position players show something at an early stage. (eg. Riewoldt, Pavlich, Franklin, etc). Kennedy has shown pretty much nothing. My mates who are Carlton supporters say he drops way too many easy marks and leads to the wrong places.
You can pick a good player from an early stage and alot of Carlton supporters I know, are dredding the fact that they had the chance to choose Pendles and passed on him for Josh Kennedy.
TOPBLUE_25
26 Apr 2007, 12:21
Pendlebury is awesome, but to say we should be dissapointed in picking Kennedy is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!
His stats are fine, he plays in a team of lesser quality than most, has had a bad run with injuries and his stats more than hold up for the position he plays at this stage.
All im saying is in a year or two Kennedy baggers are going to be eating there words!
GO BLUES!
TheGeneral
26 Apr 2007, 15:43
If Pendlebury is so good, why didn't the Pies or the Hawks pick him at two and three?
Does he lack legspeed? :)
I guess Pies' fans are upset they didn't draft Birchall since he's been more impressive than Thomas and Pendlebury to date.
Oh well! :)
Carlton have Gibbs and Grigg coming through rapidly and we have no need for a Pendlebury in the long run since they're a similar size.
But better.
Pies fan should take their delusions about Pendlebury being a miss and start a thread about Chris Egan v Cam Wood/Sherman/Monfries or Sean Rusling v Fabian Deluca.
Or we can revisit trading down from pick 7 to pick ten and missing out on Jordan Lewis. :o
Foot Tickler
26 Apr 2007, 15:45
Grigg?
You put him alongside Gibbs, but what is he like? Haven't seen much of him, what's his potential rating in comparison to other highly rated draft picks?
makethat2
26 Apr 2007, 17:39
If Pendlebury is so good, why didn't the Pies or the Hawks pick him at two and three?
Does he lack legspeed? :)
I guess Pies' fans are upset they didn't draft Birchall since he's been more impressive than Thomas and Pendlebury to date.
Oh well! :)
Carlton have Gibbs and Grigg coming through rapidly and we have no need for a Pendlebury in the long run since they're a similar size.
But better.
Pies fan should take their delusions about Pendlebury being a miss and start a thread about Chris Egan v Cam Wood/Sherman/Monfries or Sean Rusling v Fabian Deluca.
Or we can revisit trading down from pick 7 to pick ten and missing out on Jordan Lewis. :o
Stop trying to be like Parrot tosser.
vinnie_vegas69
26 Apr 2007, 19:43
Stop trying to be like Parrot tosser.
Seconded.
We didn't take him at #2 because we were the only team who knew how good he was - We didn't HAVE to take him at #2.
DonMania#5
26 Apr 2007, 20:04
Murphy by a mile
The Royal Sampler
26 Apr 2007, 21:50
Murphy's struggling at the moment, and his job's going to get tougher because teams won't have to tag Stevens for the rest of the year. He's a good kid though and should turn it around.
At the moment, Murphy is the better player, but that could change rapidly.
Kennedy absolutely drops too many marks, and for no apparent reason. Again, given his much-vaunted work ethic, he should come good.
Bourky23
26 Apr 2007, 21:52
scotty for me!
murph#3
15 Aug 2008, 23:50
bump.
what do people think now?
and i know it was just one bad game in an otherwise agood year but pendlefairy had a shocker tonight. against pretty poor opposition, he could only manage 18 disposals at 61% efficiency and only 5 of them contested while his direct opponent dom cassisi had 24 disposals, a goal and 18 uncontested possessions (which exposes how little defensive effort pendlefairy put in).
but apart from a few bad games, both players have had pretty good seasons and i'd just about have them on a par.
PendlePie
16 Aug 2008, 00:20
Thanks for the bump :thumbsu:
Scotty thanks, every day of the week. And if we're going to go into efficiency, it might be wise to look at the season stats, not just one week.
smiddaz123
16 Aug 2008, 00:22
I bet you were hunched over your keyboard with this thread already up just praying thgat Pendlebury would have an average game so you could bump this thead like you've been hoping to do all week. :)
Pie in the Sky
16 Aug 2008, 00:27
bump.
what do people think now?
and i know it was just one bad game in an otherwise agood year but pendlefairy had a shocker tonight. against pretty poor opposition, he could only manage 18 disposals at 61% efficiency and only 5 of them contested while his direct opponent dom cassisi had 24 disposals, a goal and 18 uncontested possessions (which exposes how little defensive effort pendlefairy put in).
but apart from a few bad games, both players have had pretty good seasons and i'd just about have them on a par.
Bit harsh to say Pendles had a shocker I think, he was ok tonight, not great but serviceable. He did turn it over a couple of times though, which is unusual. And his defensive efforts are fine, he layed some good strong tackes as well.
Hard to split the two, to me Pendles has better disposal and poise, but I'm sure both will be great players for their clubs.
murph#3
16 Aug 2008, 00:47
I bet you were hunched over your keyboard with this thread already up just praying thgat Pendlebury would have an average game so you could bump this thead like you've been hoping to do all week. :)
from about the 20 minute mark of the final quarter, you're spot on.
celtic_pride
16 Aug 2008, 00:59
Thanks for the bump :thumbsu:
Scotty thanks, every day of the week. And if we're going to go into efficiency, it might be wise to look at the season stats, not just one week.
LOL Poll results say otherwise - Murhpy is ahead by 30 votes :D :D
TheGeneral
16 Aug 2008, 01:06
Pendlebury had a look before kicking and shanked his kick on the run when he missed the target.
He also hit a Power player laces out on the run when he wasn't under any pressure.
Better disposal and poise my &^%@.
Brent24
16 Aug 2008, 01:14
Pendlebury has been copping a tag all year, and still averaging 22 disposals a game, at around 80% efficiency. More contested possesions and tackles than Murphy too.
Murphy has had an easier ride this season with Judd getting the attention, he's averaged 1.5 more disposals per game, but isn't as polished in his disposal.
Both great players, but i'll take Pendles, still more developement in him, personally feel Murphy won't get much better (still a very good player).
mediumsizered
16 Aug 2008, 01:32
Pendlebury has been copping a tag all year, and still averaging 22 disposals a game, at around 80% efficiency. More contested possesions and tackles than Murphy too.
Murphy has had an easier ride this season with Judd getting the attention, he's averaged 1.5 more disposals per game, but isn't as polished in his disposal.
Both great players, but i'll take Pendles, still more developement in him, personally feel Murphy won't get much better (still a very good player).
A 21 year old not going to get much better? If we start subscribing to this theory, players will be forced out of the game by the time they are 25. The majority of players don't reach their best years until 24+ years of age. You do realise that at the same age as Murphy, Gary Ablett senior had only played 6 games & kicked 9 goals & had already departed the VFL to play with Myrtleford & his son was a HFF, who had the occasional run in the midfield averaging 18 disposals per game & 1.2 goals per game.
Murphy has heaps of scope for development yet & it certainly will help being able to watch & learn from one of the best midfielders in the game. Murphy's apprenticeship to Judd is much like Ratten's apprenticeship to Greg Williams & we all know how well Ratten developed after playing second fiddle to Williams in his early years.
murph#3
16 Aug 2008, 02:07
i wouldn't be using stats if i were a collingwood supporter. both murphy and pendlefairy have played the same amount of games this year and here's how they compare in some key stats:
contested possessions: murphy: 145, pendlefairy: 137
clearances: murphy: 66, pendlefairy: 57
goal assists: murphy: 12, pendlefairy: 10
disposals: murphy: 450, pendlefairy: 419
running bounces: murphy: 48, pendlefairy: 10
inside 50s: murphy: 109, pendlefairy: 43
rebound 50s: murphy: 36, pendlefairy: 23
marks: murphy: 118, pendlefairy: 91
uncontested possessions: murphy: 309, pendlefairy: 279
I'd take Pendlebury.
How about using your arguments Blue baggers?
Imagine if Pendlebury was the fourth midfielder in the Carlton team? He'd be waaay better!
hellfire
16 Aug 2008, 02:32
Pendlebury had a look before kicking and shanked his kick on the run when he missed the target.
He also hit a Power player laces out on the run when he wasn't under any pressure.
Better disposal and poise my &^%@.
Murphy is the turnover king. Don't even compare the two in terms of disposal.
hellfire
16 Aug 2008, 02:41
i wouldn't be using stats if i were a collingwood supporter. both murphy and pendlefairy have played the same amount of games this year and here's how they compare in some key stats:
contested possessions: murphy: 145, pendlefairy: 137
clearances: murphy: 66, pendlefairy: 57
goal assists: murphy: 12, pendlefairy: 10
disposals: murphy: 450, pendlefairy: 419
running bounces: murphy: 48, pendlefairy: 10
inside 50s: murphy: 109, pendlefairy: 43
rebound 50s: murphy: 36, pendlefairy: 23
marks: murphy: 118, pendlefairy: 91
uncontested possessions: murphy: 309, pendlefairy: 279
Cool man. :thumbsu:
You forgot tackles: Murphy - 54, Pendlebury - 66.
And disposal efficiency: Murphy - 69%, Pendlebury - 81%.
And the magic Pendlebury creates in traffic with his evasiveness, though it's obviously intangible.
Oh well, don't really care. I'd prefer Pendlebury, and no amount of bickering from little girls on bigfooty will change my mind.
celtic_pride
16 Aug 2008, 02:53
Cool man. :thumbsu:
You forgot tackles: Murphy - 54, Pendlebury - 66.
And disposal efficiency: Murphy - 69%, Pendlebury - 81%.
And the magic Pendlebury creates in traffic with his evasiveness, though it's obviously intangible.
Oh well, don't really care. I'd prefer Pendlebury, and no amount of bickering from little girls on bigfooty will change my mind.
Gee where has that Pendles magic gone ???
I've had a gutful of all these arrogant Collingwood spanners thinking all their young hacks are better then the Carlton Young guns ...
All I do is point to the scoreboard of the H and A clashes this year and say ' WINNERS ARE COLLINGWOOD' ...
OH FWIW Murphy has progressed this season (although I admit his kicking needs improving) and Pendlebury has argubably gone backwards (certainly he had a better 07 then 08)
And CrazyQ your opinion is irrelevant .. Your bunch of Homeless St roos will be out of the AFL within 10 years :D :D
Pie in the Sky
16 Aug 2008, 10:20
Pendlebury had a look before kicking and shanked his kick on the run when he missed the target.
He also hit a Power player laces out on the run when he wasn't under any pressure.
Better disposal and poise my &^%@.
Yeah I said he turned it over a few times last night, but generally speaking he is a good kick, I'd say Murphy turns it over a lot more than Pendlebury.
smiddaz123
16 Aug 2008, 10:27
i wouldn't be using stats if i were a collingwood supporter. both murphy and pendlefairy have played the same amount of games this year and here's how they compare in some key stats:
contested possessions: murphy: 145, pendlefairy: 137
clearances: murphy: 66, pendlefairy: 57
goal assists: murphy: 12, pendlefairy: 10
disposals: murphy: 450, pendlefairy: 419
running bounces: murphy: 48, pendlefairy: 10
inside 50s: murphy: 109, pendlefairy: 43
rebound 50s: murphy: 36, pendlefairy: 23
marks: murphy: 118, pendlefairy: 91
uncontested possessions: murphy: 309, pendlefairy: 279
a) If you're going to post stats, post EVERY stat, not just the ones Murphy wins in. It proves nothing.
b) Find me average time on ground stats.
smiddaz123
16 Aug 2008, 10:35
CLangers
Murphy - 66
Pendlebury - 57
Seems that Murphy accidently ommitted that stat
Stenchiss
16 Aug 2008, 11:47
Pendlebury, he's cleaner and is captaincy material.
hellfire
16 Aug 2008, 12:19
I've had a gutful of all these arrogant Collingwood spanners thinking all their young hacks are better then the Carlton Young guns ...
Oh the irony.
I've had a gutful of all these arrogant Carlton spanners thinking all their young hacks are better then the Collingwood Young guns ...
hellfire
16 Aug 2008, 12:21
CLangers
Murphy - 66
Pendlebury - 57
Seems that Murphy accidently ommitted that stat
Clangers aren't a great stat, they don't take into account the lollypop kicks that Murphy specialises in, which results in a contest that should never have happened.
murph#3
16 Aug 2008, 17:31
CLangers
Murphy - 66
Pendlebury - 57
Seems that Murphy accidently ommitted that stat
nice way to dodge all the other stats that murphy is leading in. as for clangers, well murphy makes less clangers than pendlefairy going on the amount of disposals they both get.
pieman123
16 Aug 2008, 19:43
lol murphy has more uncontested possesions than pendlebury so he "should" have less clangers but dosen't:D
smiddaz123
17 Aug 2008, 11:26
nice way to dodge all the other stats that murphy is leading in. as for clangers, well murphy makes less clangers than pendlefairy going on the amount of disposals they both get.
I didn't dodge them. It was plainly obvious that you handpicked everything Murphy was leading in and omitted everything Pendlebury was leading in, hence why I pointed it out.
If we're taking that into account, then why aren't you taking into account time on ground and amount of disposals?
I can tell you now, Pendlebury has spent more time on the bench/resting up forward than Murphy. Spose you wont bother considering this though, hey.
Also, take into account Collingwood's style of player. Far more likely to make a clanger with our crappy plays down the wings.
Pancakes
17 Aug 2008, 17:46
Did anyone see Murphy a few minutes ago in the Blues forward line. He was terrified of picking up the ball, he shat himself. Roos take the ball away because Murphy was a squib.
smiddaz123
17 Aug 2008, 19:09
Did anyone see Murphy a few minutes ago in the Blues forward line. He was terrified of picking up the ball, he shat himself. Roos take the ball away because Murphy was a squib.
Didn't catch that bit, I only partially watched the game.
I did see Murphy's delivery into the 50 was poor though.
Brent24
17 Aug 2008, 19:37
I just seen he had 29 disposals, yet he had as much impact on the game as Dennis Armfield.
murph#3
17 Aug 2008, 20:19
I didn't dodge them. It was plainly obvious that you handpicked everything Murphy was leading in and omitted everything Pendlebury was leading in, hence why I pointed it out.
If we're taking that into account, then why aren't you taking into account time on ground and amount of disposals?
I can tell you now, Pendlebury has spent more time on the bench/resting up forward than Murphy. Spose you wont bother considering this though, hey.
Also, take into account Collingwood's style of player. Far more likely to make a clanger with our crappy plays down the wings.
that is the most pathertic excuse ever. ohh pendlebury spends less time on ground, well hooray you've found one statistic that may go in his favour. let me tell you know that is only an indication of his lack of fitness if it's true as it is much harder to break into carlton's midfield than the snail club down at victoria park.
and i did take into account the amount of disposals, murphy was smashing pendlebury.
as for his kicking, murphy did a couple of wonderful passes today, the only two times i saw him turn it over were when he kicked to fev and players who were filling the hole dropped back to take the mark. overall, murph's ball use was really good today and he further widened the gap between himself and pendlefairy.
smiddaz123
17 Aug 2008, 20:58
that is the most pathertic excuse ever. ohh pendlebury spends less time on ground, well hooray you've found one statistic that may go in his favour. let me tell you know that is only an indication of his lack of fitness if it's true as it is much harder to break into carlton's midfield than the snail club down at victoria park.
and i did take into account the amount of disposals, murphy was smashing pendlebury.
He would logically get less disposals with less time on ground. See how that works out?
It's more an indication of the fact he has OP earlier in the year, actually. But I guess you didn't consider that either.
as for his kicking, murphy did a couple of wonderful passes today, the only two times i saw him turn it over were when he kicked to fev and players who were filling the hole dropped back to take the mark. overall, murph's ball use was really good today and he further widened the gap between himself and pendlefairy.
Of course he did.
Go blues :cool:
murph#3
17 Aug 2008, 21:12
go on then, find me the time on ground stats. i bet there isn't as big a difference as you make out to be.
smiddaz123
17 Aug 2008, 23:11
go on then, find me the time on ground stats. i bet there isn't as big a difference as you make out to be.
No idea where to find those stats.
Also, as i mentioned, Pendlebury spends time up forward as well, which effects the amount of disposals accumulated.
murph#3
17 Aug 2008, 23:12
No idea where to find those stats.
Also, as i mentioned, Pendlebury spends time up forward as well, which effects the amount of disposals accumulated.
lol, and murphy still has more goals than him.
mediumsizered
17 Aug 2008, 23:40
I just seen he had 29 disposals, yet he had as much impact on the game as Dennis Armfield.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24194957-19742,00.html
It would seem there are some who saw it differently. Murphy was clearly Carlton's best player today. Unfortunately he did not get enough support in the midfield, other than from Judd, with Stevens & Scotland being particularly quiet today.
mediumsizered
17 Aug 2008, 23:43
Didn't catch that bit, I only partially watched the game.
I did see Murphy's delivery into the 50 was poor though.
3 clangers from 29 disposals, points to a good day's work in anyone's language. Murphy did some fantastic stuff today, but did not have enough support from his teammates.
smiddaz123
18 Aug 2008, 08:15
3 clangers from 29 disposals, points to a good day's work in anyone's language. Murphy did some fantastic stuff today, but did not have enough support from his teammates.
A clanger is basically a turnover.
His kicks weren't 'turnovers' as such, but when he kicked to a lead forward, they had to take it on the bounce a few times etc.