Footy Myths

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Name the player, stop puss footing around it

No. He's a friend of mine. Others will have heard it and can probably say, but he's my mate.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Myth: Membership tallies mean something

Reality: They don't mean s**t

 

[craffles]

No. He's a friend of mine. Others will have heard it and can probably say, but he's my mate.

PM? Won't post it

 

[captain cotch 9]

Myth: Membership tallies mean something

Reality: They don't mean s**t

Especially since they have bought in pet and 3 game "memberships".

 

[the_interloper]

Be my guest.

But the only statistic I can really give is his disposal efficiency which is below par in comparison to Pendlebury, Watson, Mitchell etc...
Pendlebury and Watson get tagged my the best tagger every week also, and no he isn't under more pressure than them because he has worse mids around him, infact he has better mids around him than at Collingwood.

And his disposal efficiency doesn't even tell the whole story, any kick that goes 40+ metres to a contest is considered effective and he bangs it long to 50/50s in clearance situations alot, which makes his efficiency look better.

But stats don't tell the story properly, just watch him play, I do every week because I love the way he plays. But it is evident that he has a flaw in his game and that is his disposal, it's not shocking but it is definitely not elite.

I really need to stop having BigFooty arguments, way too time consuming.

Well don't have arguments with *******s like me then cause I'm really just stirring the pot!

But are you really saying that the Collingwood midfield isn't as good as the Gold Coast midfield?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

PM? Won't post it

Nope.

 

[ThisIsJake]

Well don't have arguments with *******s like me then cause I'm really just stirring the pot!

But are you really saying that the Collingwood midfield isn't as good as the Gold Coast midfield?

hahaha fair call, can't help it.

Yeah without a doubt at the moment.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

what a crock - Sydney culture something different

FFS

Thanks for your nuanced contribution to this discussion.

Always stimulating and challenging to read an intelligently-argued counter to one's own opinion. Real food for thought.

Keep up the good work!

 

[dipper86]

So I just need confirmation of the last 3 pages.

Every team has dickheads except Sydney......
Ablett has a sh*t kick.....delist.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So I just need confirmation of the last 3 pages.

Every team has dickheads except Sydney......

If you're suggesting I said that, you're wrong.

 

[dipper86]

If you're suggesting I said that, you're wrong.

Its exactly what you're suggesting.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Myth: One club players make more money post-retirement via the 'club network'. So much it makes up for not accepting the higher contract at another club!

Reality: Unless you're a 200 game great nobody gives a s**t

 

[Halloween Jack]

Myth: this thead is about footy myths
Fact: it's a bunch of people being tough over the internet arguing over who's opinion is correct.

 

[worthy]

Myth: this thead is about footy myths
Fact: it's a bunch of people being tough over the internet arguing over who's opinion is correct.

Myth: You can be "tough" over the internet.
Fact: people can have strong opinions.

 

[joop]

Seriously? Since the introduction of the McIntyre Final Eight system in 1994, Richmond have finished 9th six times, or once every 3.33 years. The Ninthmond moniker exists because 9th is the position that one has to place to just miss finals. Since the introduction of the final 8 system, Richmond has held that position more than any other club if I am correct.

Yep, because im bored... Since 1994 teams that have finished 9th.

NINTHMOND - 6
Hawthorn - 3
North - 2
St.kilda - 2
Melbourne, Port, Coliolllilsafjwpoehewhovwgewood, geelong, fremantle, tom boyd, essendon, west coast - 1

suck it ninthmond.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Its exactly what you're suggesting.

Nuance is beyond you, clearly.

Here's a brief recap:

One person posted that the Swans "no dickheads" policy ("NDP" for short) is a myth. Another posted that the Swan's "bloods culture" is a myth.

Neither provided anything to support their case. I respectfully pointed out that fact.

Echols opened his reply with "what an arrogant post". Apparently my crime was assuming the term "no dickheads policy" only referred to the Swans. (Apologies Echols, I've certainly yet to see a single example of it being used as a mainstream footy media term before it was applied to the Swans; feel free to cite one.)

Further into the discussion, I stated that the NDP was not necessarily an official policy, but easy journalistic shorthand for a club culture increasingly the norm at the Swans; that the Swans indeed have a special culture, (also adding, for clarity, that this doesn't mean I'm saying no other club has a special culture), and I cited articles to that effect in the press by highly-regarded former players such as Alister Lynch, Michael Voss, and Garry Lyon, none of whom, to my knowledge, have any sentimental attachment to the Swans.

In the course of the repartee, Echols memorably told me to "pull my head out of my arse", and said "you go girl" (I am not a girl but he seems to think it an insult), Gavin Excell chipped in with "FFS" and "What a crock"; Echols said I'd simply "fallen for the hype".

Both failed to make a case for why the unsupported opinion of an anonymous schmoe on the internet is automatically worth more than the reasoned argument of acclaimed former players of the game, nor did either provide any countering opinions from acclaimed former players.

Worthy has addressed the topic in a respectful, intelligent way (thank you, Worthy), though his first response was to enquire about Spida Everitt, and I'm still waiting for his reply on what exactly he did during his time at the Swans that would classify him as a "dickhead"; in fact this goes to what I think is my central issue here, namely that on BF it is apparently sufficient to provide merely the name of a player as evidence that that player is a dickhead.

Worthy provided a vaguely-worded article by Caroline Wilson, but for everyone else, saying Buddy's a dickhead, Hannebery's a dickhead, Spida's a dickhead is an argument clincher apparently. And I'm presumably also an even bigger dickhead for insisting on actual verification.

That's where we're at.

At no time did I say there are no dickheads at the Swans. Barry Hall, take a bow. I've racked my brains but your coward punch on Staker is as dickheaded as anything I can think of.

So on top of all the other reasons for loving my club, one more is the fact that apparently a simple assertion on BF of referenced opinion that it is indeed a great club, is enough to provoke abuse and simplistic non-argument.

 

[Modified Dog]

Myth: You can be "tough" over the internet.
Fact: people can have strong opinions.

Myth: that people give their opinions on the internet
Fact: we are all just spambots

 

[Gavin Excell]

Thanks for your nuanced contribution to this discussion.

Always stimulating and challenging to read an intelligently-argued counter to one's own opinion. Real food for thought.

Keep up the good work!

its more bewilderment you think your clubs culture is somehow set apart from any other club. Actually beyond bewilderment just ridiculous. Sure Swans good club to play for but really so are 10 others. There's nothing special at Sydney

 

[Lethality]

Especially since they have bought in pet and 3 game "memberships".

Neither are counted towards official membership tallies.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Nuance is beyond you, clearly.

Here's a brief recap:

One person posted that the Swans "no dickheads" policy ("NDP" for short) is a myth. Another posted that the Swan's "bloods culture" is a myth.

Neither provided anything to support their case. I respectfully pointed out that fact.

Echols opened his reply with "what an arrogant post". Apparently my crime was assuming the term "no dickheads policy" only referred to the Swans. (Apologies Echols, I've certainly yet to see a single example of it being used as a mainstream footy media term before it was applied to the Swans; feel free to cite one.)

Further into the discussion, I stated that the NDP was not necessarily an official policy, but easy journalistic shorthand for a club culture increasingly the norm at the Swans; that the Swans indeed have a special culture, (also adding, for clarity, that this doesn't mean I'm saying no other club has a special culture), and I cited articles to that effect in the press by highly-regarded former players such as Alister Lynch, Michael Voss, and Garry Lyon, none of whom, to my knowledge, have any sentimental attachment to the Swans.

In the course of the repartee, Echols memorably told me to "pull my head out of my arse", and said "you go girl" (I am not a girl but he seems to think it an insult), Gavin Excell chipped in with "FFS" and "What a crock"; Echols said I'd simply "fallen for the hype".

Both failed to make a case for why the unsupported opinion of an anonymous schmoe on the internet is automatically worth more than the reasoned argument of acclaimed former players of the game, nor did either provide any countering opinions from acclaimed former players.

Worthy has addressed the topic in a respectful, intelligent way (thank you, Worthy), though his first response was to enquire about Spida Everitt, and I'm still waiting for his reply on what exactly he did during his time at the Swans that would classify him as a "dickhead"; in fact this goes to what I think is my central issue here, namely that on BF it is apparently sufficient to provide merely the name of a player as evidence that that player is a dickhead.

Worthy provided a vaguely-worded article by Caroline Wilson, but for everyone else, saying Buddy's a dickhead, Hannebery's a dickhead, Spida's a dickhead is an argument clincher apparently. And I'm presumably also an even bigger dickhead for insisting on actual verification.

That's where we're at.

At no time did I say there are no dickheads at the Swans. Barry Hall, take a bow. I've racked my brains but your coward punch on Staker is as dickheaded as anything I can think of.

So on top of all the other reasons for loving my club, one more is the fact that apparently a simple assertion on BF of referenced opinion that it is indeed a great club, is enough to provoke abuse and simplistic non-argument.

I think the onus is on you to establish why exactly Sydney's culture is leaps ahead of any other club.

 

[PowerForGood]

Truth: Hawthorn had more scoring shots.

So did Port Adelaide v Hawthorn in the 2014 PF, but that doesn't stop Hawks fans saying that they outplayed us all day.
Even after our dominant first quarter, it was still 17 scoring shots each from then on (Hawthorn 13.4 to Port Adelaide 10.7).

Myth: Port Adelaide deserved to win over Hawthorn in the 2014 PF. Reality: Port got what they deserved, in the end we just weren't good enough. If games were decided on scoring shots, we would have been in the GF on the back of a 20-5 record. But we didn't kick straight enough all year.

 

[PowerForGood]

Myth: that people give their opinions on the internet
Fact: we are all just spambots

 

[dipper86]

Nuance is beyond you, clearly.

Here's a brief recap:

One person posted that the Swans "no dickheads" policy ("NDP" for short) is a myth. Another posted that the Swan's "bloods culture" is a myth.

Neither provided anything to support their case. I respectfully pointed out that fact.

Echols opened his reply with "what an arrogant post". Apparently my crime was assuming the term "no dickheads policy" only referred to the Swans. (Apologies Echols, I've certainly yet to see a single example of it being used as a mainstream footy media term before it was applied to the Swans; feel free to cite one.)

Further into the discussion, I stated that the NDP was not necessarily an official policy, but easy journalistic shorthand for a club culture increasingly the norm at the Swans; that the Swans indeed have a special culture, (also adding, for clarity, that this doesn't mean I'm saying no other club has a special culture), and I cited articles to that effect in the press by highly-regarded former players such as Alister Lynch, Michael Voss, and Garry Lyon, none of whom, to my knowledge, have any sentimental attachment to the Swans.

In the course of the repartee, Echols memorably told me to "pull my head out of my arse", and said "you go girl" (I am not a girl but he seems to think it an insult), Gavin Excell chipped in with "FFS" and "What a crock"; Echols said I'd simply "fallen for the hype".

Both failed to make a case for why the unsupported opinion of an anonymous schmoe on the internet is automatically worth more than the reasoned argument of acclaimed former players of the game, nor did either provide any countering opinions from acclaimed former players.

Worthy has addressed the topic in a respectful, intelligent way (thank you, Worthy), though his first response was to enquire about Spida Everitt, and I'm still waiting for his reply on what exactly he did during his time at the Swans that would classify him as a "dickhead"; in fact this goes to what I think is my central issue here, namely that on BF it is apparently sufficient to provide merely the name of a player as evidence that that player is a dickhead.

Worthy provided a vaguely-worded article by Caroline Wilson, but for everyone else, saying Buddy's a dickhead, Hannebery's a dickhead, Spida's a dickhead is an argument clincher apparently. And I'm presumably also an even bigger dickhead for insisting on actual verification.

That's where we're at.

At no time did I say there are no dickheads at the Swans. Barry Hall, take a bow. I've racked my brains but your coward punch on Staker is as dickheaded as anything I can think of.

So on top of all the other reasons for loving my club, one more is the fact that apparently a simple assertion on BF of referenced opinion that it is indeed a great club, is enough to provoke abuse and simplistic non-argument.

Thank you for your embarrassing essay

The "no dickhead" policy.

When you have clubs full of 20 yr olds, it's simply impossible.

Every club has dickheads and they are tolerated as long as they can play football.

No mention of Sydney....in fact he mentions every club.

Then we have your defensive paranoid response.

To actually bust a myth, you need to table facts, not just opinion. Precisely what form does your inside knowledge of the Sydney Swans take?

Buddy Franklin taking out 4 parked cars......dick head.

Your club has dick heads like every other club, its not immune to it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Nuance is beyond you, clearly.

Here's a brief recap:

One person posted that the Swans "no dickheads" policy ("NDP" for short) is a myth. Another posted that the Swan's "bloods culture" is a myth.

So from the very start you're wrong. Read my post again. Then read it again. If that doesn't sink in, then read dipper86's post above.

Your entire self righteous spiel was spewed forth for no apparent reason other than you chose to view a comment about "all clubs" as relating strictly to Sydney.

Swans were never mentioned in my post, and although you clearly are incapable of seeing this, not everything relates to Sydney.

If you visited other boards you would see that quite a few posters suggest and believe that their team has a "no dickhead policy".

Again, this would rely on you coming to terms with Sydney not being the centre of the universe. Difficult, I know.

 

[Green Eggs]

Myth: AFL players hang out at Tramp on weekends getting loose
Fact: AFL players hang out at Eve on weekends getting loose