Ziebell

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

PLayed a very good game, but we had bigger issues imo. I would ratehr try stopping Wells and Harvey who can have as much impact on the game wth 10 touches as Ziebell can with 30
 
I just posted on the Nth board in regard to Ziebell, Wells, Harvey, Swallow & Petrie.
They were clearly the best 5 on the ground before our best player who i thought was Ward, who never stopped trying.
Our kicking from defence was putrid today, floaters, fingerbreakers, mongrel punts, targets missed. The whole spectrum of putridness.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
smashh said:
PLayed a very good game, but we had bigger issues imo. I would ratehr try stopping Wells and Harvey who can have as much impact on the game wth 10 touches as Ziebell can with 30
Click to expand...

Dont really agree with that, Ziebell is all class, and has good as disposal too!
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Ohhh Errol said:
Kudos to the OP. Imagine the odds after round 5 on Z having a 40+ game...ever.


In return, I'll give dues to the dalhous. Very good pick up, can now understand the hype. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

ahh dahlhaus :heart:, the only reason I'm not on my way to the west gate!
 
Tore us a new one today. Kudos to the entire Roos midfield. Absolutely tore us apart.

Felt like we had too many grunts. We'd get the ball but only have a team mate 1mtr away to pass it to, who would get tackled, ball spills, Roos get it, and they have a free man (usually Wells or Harvey) 5mtrs off the pack. Their set up was better and they had a better balance in the midfield.
 
stefoid said:
Swallow did all the damage.

Ziebell won the ball but makes Boyd look like the master of precision by comparison.
Click to expand...

Dunno what his efficiency was on paper, but his open field kicking was excellent. Not precise from traffic, but they were clearances and valueable metres gained if occasionally cut-off.
He's a fantastic kick.
 
NorthBhoy said:
Dunno what his efficiency was on paper, but his open field kicking was excellent. Not precise from traffic, but they were clearances and valueable metres gained if occasionally cut-off.
He's a fantastic kick.
Click to expand...

It was 51%
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dazb86 said:
Had more influence on the game than the 51% suggests though.
Click to expand...

We were discussing this over on the North board last night, someone brought up the point that the definition of 'effective' might of been what caused his % to be so low.

For instance he did a lot of clearing out of congestion with handballs and chip kicks that didnt hit team mates on the chest but still allowed them to gather and run (which by some quirk of definition may not be counted as effective due to being in heavy traffic).

Another possible reason that I can think of was alot of his kicks were to space in front of a team mate allowing them to run onto it in the clear, whether or not this is counted as effective or ineffective couldnt be confirmed.

General consensus was his efficiency was much higher than stats let on.

41 possessions, 20 contested in 67% game time... great numbers for a young kid.
 
DarkPhoenix said:
We were discussing this over on the North board last night, someone brought up the point that the definition of 'effective' might of been what caused his % to be so low.

For instance he did a lot of clearing out of congestion with handballs and chip kicks that didnt hit team mates on the chest but still allowed them to gather and run (which by some quirk of definition may not be counted as effective due to being in heavy traffic).

Another possible reason that I can think of was alot of his kicks were to space in front of a team mate allowing them to run onto it in the clear, whether or not this is counted as effective or ineffective couldnt be confirmed.

General consensus was his efficiency was much higher than stats let on.

41 possessions, 20 contested in 67% game time... great numbers for a young kid.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be surprised if he gets labelled a s**t kick after a 51% DE game.
Griffen is now labelled as crap at hitting his target by foot, after his 34 disposal game vs Collingwood in the finals last year, where he pretty much had to do all the midfield work by himself. When in actual reality, he is usually a very good kick hitting a target.

Jack played a very good game, deserves his kudos for it. Lets hope some morons dont get carried away with his DE.
 
Igloo said:
Wouldn't be surprised if he gets labelled a s**t kick after a 51% DE game.
Griffen is now labelled as crap at hitting his target by foot, after his 34 disposal game vs Collingwood in the finals last year, where he pretty much had to do all the midfield work by himself. When in actual reality, he is usually a very good kick hitting a target.

Jack played a very good game, deserves his kudos for it. Lets hope some morons dont get carried away with his DE.
Click to expand...

Yep thats pretty much spot on mate.

I did the hardest stats courses my uni offered (not by choice), and the main thing I learned from it is statistics are a curse, they can be made to say anything and often lie completely.

I dont think anyone (not even a doggies supporter [I know how hard it is to give an opposition player props when they play a good game, have been thoroughly impressed with the Dogs supporters comments re: Jack :thumbsu:]) would claim Jack was as bad as his 50% DE suggests. Since doing the course its a major annoyance of mine when people base their opinions of a player based solely upon their stats.

I remember a former North player (Sam Power) who used to rack up 30 disposals consistently, however he rarely ever did anything with these 30 touches and turned into more of a liability than anything. However based upon his 30 disposals a game he earned himself a lot of defenders who argued that he was decent because he racked up alot of touches.

It may also point to problems with how AFL stats are recorded? Who knows.
 
DarkPhoenix said:
Yep thats pretty much spot on mate.

I did the hardest stats courses my uni offered (not by choice), and the main thing I learned from it is statistics are a curse, they can be made to say anything and often lie completely.

I dont think anyone (not even a doggies supporter [I know how hard it is to give an opposition player props when they play a good game, have been thoroughly impressed with the Dogs supporters comments re: Jack :thumbsu:]) would claim Jack was as bad as his 50% DE suggests. Since doing the course its a major annoyance of mine when people base their opinions of a player based solely upon their stats.

I remember a former North player (Sam Power) who used to rack up 30 disposals consistently, however he rarely ever did anything with these 30 touches and turned into more of a liability than anything. However based upon his 30 disposals a game he earned himself a lot of defenders who argued that he was decent because he racked up alot of touches.

It may also point to problems with how AFL stats are recorded? Who knows.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It was clear Ziebell played a very good game. You can tell just by watching it. People look back at the stats, and if a DE is poor, they just assume they turned it over all the time, and played s**t.

You dont need to remind us about Sam Power, we are the ones who gave him to you :p. He was a mega hack.
 
Igloo said:
You dont need to remind us about Sam Power, we are the ones who gave him to you :p. He was a mega hack.
Click to expand...

Forgot all about that! We'll get you back... just you wait
 
The fact that he turned over half his possessions is not in question. He did.

For the record, a long kick to a contest does not count as a turnover, only short kicks to losing contests , kicks that end up with an opponent uncontested, and errant handballs, in other words crap disposals.

I reckon number of possessions is highly overrated. Its what you do with them that counts. If this makes me a moron, then so be it. I didnt say he had a bad game, I said swallow did all the damage.

Ziebell had 40 possies, 2 scores, 2 assists, 5 scoring involvements. And around half of his possessions were turnovers.

Swallow had 34 possies, 1 score, 4 assists, and 9 scoring involvements. And around 1/4 of his possessions were turnovers.

Swallow did a lot more damage than Ziebell and gave the ball to the opposition half as much.
 
stefoid said:
The fact that he turned over half his possessions is not in question. He did.

For the record, a long kick to a contest does not count as a turnover, only short kicks to losing contests , kicks that end up with an opponent uncontested, and errant handballs, in other words crap disposals.

I reckon number of possessions is highly overrated. Its what you do with them that counts. If this makes me a moron, then so be it. I didnt say he had a bad game, I said swallow did all the damage.

Ziebell had 40 possies, 2 scores, 2 assists, 5 scoring involvements. And around half of his possessions were turnovers.Swallow had 34 possies, 1 score, 4 assists, and 9 scoring involvements. And around 1/4 of his possessions were turnovers.

Swallow did a lot more damage than Ziebell and gave the ball to the opposition half as much.
Click to expand...

Meh. He's a great kick.
 
stefoid said:
The fact that he turned over half his possessions is not in question. He did.

For the record, a long kick to a contest does not count as a turnover, only short kicks to losing contests , kicks that end up with an opponent uncontested, and errant handballs, in other words crap disposals.

I reckon number of possessions is highly overrated. Its what you do with them that counts. If this makes me a moron, then so be it. I didnt say he had a bad game, I said swallow did all the damage.

Ziebell had 40 possies, 2 scores, 2 assists, 5 scoring involvements. And around half of his possessions were turnovers.

Swallow had 34 possies, 1 score, 4 assists, and 9 scoring involvements. And around 1/4 of his possessions were turnovers.

Swallow did a lot more damage than Ziebell and gave the ball to the opposition half as much.
Click to expand...

A turnover is when the possession results in the opponent getting the next clear possession as a result, not them winning a contest and running away with the ball.

If that is the case then Ziebell has a total of 7 turnovers for the match, not 20 as you claim.
 
He got a lot of the ball in traffic and he hasn't developed the skills to move it cleanly in traffic yet. Not all ineffective disposals are turnovers, a lot of them just went to contests or not directly to a team mate but was out in front of them, if the receiving player is deemed to be under pressure the disposal is classified as ineffective, even if the target ends up with the ball.

He only had 4 kicks go straight to the opposition, which was a lot less than Selwood or Judd or the like who also kick the ball a fair bit from traffic.
 
Can kick, mark, has great hands, is as tough as boot leather, and is gifted in both length and girth.

Will finish his career as a great of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top