Past #43: Sam Gibson - #63 '12 RD - 130 consec. NM games (club record) - NM --> ADL for pk91 '17 ND

[astrovic]

That.

But possibly it's just other coaches not really worrying about the hurt associated with those possessions.

Talk of him ever being reported is laughable too, unless of course it's for time wasting.

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

Whilst this goes over my head, Spock seems to agree so I like it!!

 

[kangaspurs]

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

This is as good an analysis as I've read. It perfectly explains why Gibbo is a good footballer and an integral part of the team. if you can't recognise what he offers and how important it is in modern footy then you have an incredibly poor understanding of modern footy.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

I always have a poor understanding. : shifty look :

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

Sensational analysis.

 

[Kimbo]

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

tl;dr?

He burns off opponents to get the outlet kick from the back half which is really, really valuable.
He burns off opponents to get safe, useful kicks in space that find a team mate who - more often than him - kick I50.
Opposition coaches don't 'let him' get lots of unpressured disposals.

 

[astrovic]

tl;dr?

He burns off opponents to get the outlet kick from the back half which is really, really valuable.
He burns off opponents to get safe, useful kicks in space that find a team mate who - more often than him - kick I50.
Opposition coaches don't 'let him' get lots of unpressured disposals.

Bullseye.

My tl;dr version ought to say - the off season makes me write really really ridiculously long posts.

 

[Kimbo]

Bullseye.

My tl;dr version ought to say - the off season makes me write really really ridiculously long posts.

Nothing wrong with it astrovic. The off season makes me read really really ridiculously long posts (Tas excepted).

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

tl;dr?

He burns off opponents to get the outlet kick from the back half which is really, really valuable.
He burns off opponents to get safe, useful kicks in space that find a team mate who - more often than him - kick I50.
Opposition coaches don't 'let him' get lots of unpressured disposals.

If this was at all true, I would never post here.

It is garbage.

Brad Hill has Gibbo's tank + speed + skill.

My entire ******* lack of respect for his game is I think we can have someone who not only does what he does, but makes good decisions and executes to an acceptable level. I disagree entirely with the notion that his disposal is acceptable. It isn't.

I agree with the running to be an option, it's awesome, but then more often them not he will give the ball away under no pressure or put his teammate under pressure through panicking.

He plays on his own on a wing. To think we have Harvey, Wells, Higgins & Dal Santo capable of pushing back and delivering better, I don't see the need for him.

 

[niko11]

Nah.

As an opposition coach you don't want any opponent getting free and easy footy and having the time to deliver it without any pressure. Allow that and you're basically hoping that the opponent will torch the footy for no reason, and even the worst ball users at AFL level don't do that very often. Even blokes with dodgy kicks have disposal efficiency ratings around 70% for a reason, namely unpressured disposal. Coaches would have their players getting 100% unpressured disposal if they could.

What you want as the opposition is to permanently deprive the best ball users (like Wells or Harvey) the footy as much as possible, which forces the footy in the hands of weaker ball users (and I accept Gibson falls into this category) and then pressure them into turning the ball over or torching it. Pressure, and the inability to execute skills under pressure, is what causes bad use of the footy. Gibbo is a repeat offender in this regard - when they can catch him.

So no coach is going out there planning to have Gibson being unaccounted for and getting the ball wherever he likes. They're not deliberately trying to squeeze the hell out of our backline, only to allow a defender an easy possession to Gibson at HBF 30 metres in the clear, relieving that pressure and moving us out of the danger zone. The aim wasn't to pressure the defenders into giving it to Gibson all on his own cos he's gonna torch it, cos that's just dumb. And Gibbo burning his man to get into space to receive the pressure relieving kick out of defence - that has just as much hurt factor as a centre clearance or a decent inside 50. The holy grail of defensive footy is a turnover inside forward 50 (and an immediate shot on goal), and having a player continually get into space to receive the outlet kick ruins that.

And Gibbo's next possession doesn't need to hurt, it needs to find a teammate. 9 times out of 10 that possession is safe and predictable (last thing you want is kicking to a one on one at half back - you need to find an open man) and Gibbo executes perfectly well when doing this.

So that ability to get 30m in the clear has nothing to do with opposition coaches allowing him space - that's the last thing they want. It means someone hasn't been able to go with him.

Where Gibson falls down is his ability to execute the difficult stuff, the stuff that Harvey and Wells are brilliant at. In particular hitting a forward inside 50 under pressure (both Gibbo and the forward). It hurts when he scrubs or bombs one in rather than hitting someone lace out. He's not Robinson Crusoe here - hell, there's a reason the big names in the league earn the big bucks and that's cos not many players can pull off that stuff. But again we set up pretty well to ensure that the good ball users are the ones delivering the ball inside 50 wherever possible, so we play pretty well to those strengths and weaknesses.

Great Analysis Spot On...

 

[Kimbo]

If this was at all true, I would never post here.

It is garbage.

Brad Hill has Gibbo's tank + speed + skill.

My entire ******* lack of respect for his game is I think we can have someone who not only does what he does, but makes good decisions and executes to an acceptable level. I disagree entirely with the notion that his disposal is acceptable. It isn't.

I agree with the running to be an option, it's awesome, but then more often them not he will give the ball away under no pressure or put his teammate under pressure through panicking.

He plays on his own on a wing. To think we have Harvey, Wells, Higgins & Dal Santo capable of pushing back and delivering better, I don't see the need for him.

Sorry, I don't follow all your posts (on Gibbo) Arjen. Who is the someone we have?

So, Gibson just hangs around on the wing, playing on his own? Seriously?

"More often them [sic] not he will give the ball away"?! Really? Come on.

 

[Jay-Z]

Sorry, I don't follow all your posts (on Gibbo) Arjen. Who is the someone we have?

Harper, probably. Unless we've somehow snuck Brad Hill onto our list without Hawthorn knowing

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Hand ready to palm face.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

Harper 2012 version obviously.
Wood, Garner, Mckenzie too.

By delivery I'm talking about forward 50 entries under no pressure. And by more oft. Than not I literally mean more often than not his kicks result in a 50/50 at best in this scenario.

His clanger/ineffective kicks stats are skewed by all the short nothing kicks he does in te back half.

I acknowledge the running and yes I know he isn't on his own at all times - it just appears that way as he does little to nothing inside.

It's nothing personal, I'm sure he is really good guy and I wish him no personal ill will, but I want my outside players to be worth tagging.

I also concede that I understand less and less the value of the individual "role player" as each year rolls on, but I genuinely feel we are "out talented" rather than "out played" so I try to fix this by inserting player x who has more talent (in my eyes).

That's it.

But with a straight face, I reckon Wood would be ******* awesome in his role.

 

[kangaspurs]

Harper 2012 version obviously.
Wood, Garner, Mckenzie too.

By delivery I'm talking about forward 50 entries under no pressure. And by more oft. Than not I literally mean more often than not his kicks result in a 50/50 at best in this scenario.

His clanger/ineffective kicks stats are skewed by all the short nothing kicks he does in te back half.

I acknowledge the running and yes I know he isn't on his own at all times - it just appears that way as he does little to nothing inside.

It's nothing personal, I'm sure he is really good guy and I wish him no personal ill will, but I want my outside players to be worth tagging.

I also concede that I understand less and less the value of the individual "role player" as each year rolls on, but I genuinely feel we are "out talented" rather than "out played" so I try to fix this by inserting player x who has more talent (in my eyes).

That's it.

But with a straight face, I reckon Wood would be ******* awesome in his role.

I completely agree with you on Wood. I'd love to see him in a role up the ground, he has fantastic running ability for a reasonably big bloke and is quite a quite a good kick. His strong marking ability also means hed be a good option for that under pressure outlet kick. I really hope we see him playing across the wing and midfield in the NAB Cup and early parts of the year in the VFL and that he takes that chance and plays really well in that position/role.

 

[astrovic]

Harper 2012 version obviously.
Wood, Garner, Mckenzie too.

By delivery I'm talking about forward 50 entries under no pressure. And by more oft. Than not I literally mean more often than not his kicks result in a 50/50 at best in this scenario.

His clanger/ineffective kicks stats are skewed by all the short nothing kicks he does in te back half.

I acknowledge the running and yes I know he isn't on his own at all times - it just appears that way as he does little to nothing inside.

It's nothing personal, I'm sure he is really good guy and I wish him no personal ill will, but I want my outside players to be worth tagging.

I also concede that I understand less and less the value of the individual "role player" as each year rolls on, but I genuinely feel we are "out talented" rather than "out played" so I try to fix this by inserting player x who has more talent (in my eyes).

That's it.

But with a straight face, I reckon Wood would be ******* awesome in his role.

Sure, whoever is best at playing a particular role gets the gig. That's a pretty trite observation though. It applies to everyone all the time.

And I am probably as keen as you to see what Wood and Garner can do, and while Wood in particular has one hell of a tank, it seems he's not being developed for the outside mid role, rather more the hit up forward role. Garner's a long way off being up to midfield duties due to that damn hamstring (he'll be sizing up Patch's role for now) and McKenzie lacks the running ability (I see him as a Dal Santo replacement, hovering around packs to get the outlet ball to dispose of neatly. He seemed to me to be doing a lot of that at NB this year).

But back to Gibson - if you're looking for an upgrade, then you're looking to upgrade on a bloke who has only played 3 seasons of AFL footy. He might be 28, but he's still young in footy terms and still developing and improving. Statistically his 2014 was significantly better in all categories (including clangers, which dropped quite a bit). He's got at least 5 more seasons in him. And this is a guy who, in only his third final, produced a 35 possession (15 contested), 8 mark, 6 clearance and 5 tackle game.

I'll say this with a straight face - Gibbo is damn good. I would be more than happy to upgrade him though, because whoever that is would have to be a flat out superstar.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Gibson is an 70-100m player. He will run defensively or to provide an outlet or pressure or move the ball in a possession chain.

His workrate actually improves the other players in the back half as he burns opponents to provide an uncontested option.

Dal Santo iced the goal against Geelong through Gibsons sheer workrate

He was also opposed to the dangerous Motlop for a time and won the possession count 9-1.

31 possessions and 2 goals in Freo.

He was an inside mid on the VFL scrapheap now getting 30+ outside in big games.

When you get the ball 600+ times, chances are you have not only provided the easy outlet for your team mates but you have taken the safe option of getting the ball into the hands of Harvey, Wells, Dal Santo and I guess in 2015 Higgins.

His possessions aren't damaging???

What a load of crap!! Pretty sure the coaches and Sam are aware that he ain't Darren Jarman and this is a team game.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Here's to two more seasons of a perfect attendance record.

 

[B4Bear]

The sad thing is that no matter how well Gibson performs from both a personal and team perspective people here are just not going to rate him.

He improved all his numbers across the board last year and still people are not satisfied.

Every team has its whipping boy, and I guess Sam is the Man for Big Footy.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

The sad thing is that no matter how well Gibson performs from both a personal and team perspective people here are just not going to rate him.

He improved all his numbers across the board last year and still people are not satisfied.

Every team has its whipping boy, and I guess Sam is the Man for Big Footy.

Not a board wide whipping boy though.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

The sad thing is that no matter how well Gibson performs from both a personal and team perspective people here are just not going to rate him.

He improved all his numbers across the board last year and still people are not satisfied.

Every team has its whipping boy, and I guess Sam is the Man for Big Footy.

But no whipping boy in the history of whipping boys has so many supporters willing to give up their time to defend him.

History of whipping boys since the mid 90's....(probably deserves it's own thread)


Robert Scott
Shane Clayton/Corey McKernan
Shannon Watt
Dean Laidley
Brad Scott
Liam Anthony
Sam Gibson/JamWow/Adams

 

[GarnerSmash]

If I was to compare his game style to anyone I think a close fit is Andrew Gaff from West Coast. Both are predominantly outside link-up types who get on their bikes to stretch opposition. One is a number 4 draft pick, the other a mature aged rookie. Both produce very similar output. I think Gibbo is holding his own.

 

[astrovic]

But no whipping boy in the history of whipping boys has so many supporters willing to give up their time to defend him.

History of whipping boys since the mid 90's....(probably deserves it's own thread)


Robert Scott
Shane Clayton/Corey McKernan
Shannon Watt
Dean Laidley
Brad Scott
Liam Anthony
Sam Gibson/JamWow/Adams

I'd defend anyone on that list.

Well, maybe not Shane Clayton - now if you're looking to nominate a player who the opposition coach says "make sure you force the ball into his hands" - Shane's your guy. That bloke always kicked the pill so high in the air for no particular reason (it was his awkward ball drop, I think) it came down with snow on it. Even with the roof closed.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

Gibson is harder and probably better than Gaff.

There, I said it.

In saying that, Gaff is an imposter/fraud who sleeps with multiple lights on.

I'd defend anyone on that list.

Well, maybe not Shane Clayton - now if you're looking to nominate a player who the opposition coach says "make sure you force the ball into his hands" - Shane's your guy. That bloke always kicked the pill so high in the air for no particular reason (it was his awkward ball drop, I think) it came down with snow on it. Even with the roof closed.

Agree.

McKernan was/is criminally underrated in terms of his big game performances.

Watt was the ultimate whipping boy, especially after St Kilda games in 04-06.

Shane Clayton and Sam Gibson aren't polar opposites by any stretch. Both play wide of te contest and take a 9iron when a 7iron would be more appropriate.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

You would push him into incoming traffic instead of away from it. Enough said.