Review Geelong defeats Sydney by 12 points - Rd 16, 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

A bit of negativity here regarding Harry Taylors game Thursday night,in his defense the Dogs game was his first back in nearly 2 months and followed up against the Swans off a short break and was used as second key forward/second ruck while Aliir had the luxury of sitting back,we were asking a fair bit of Harry in my opinion off that preparation.He will be better for the run and important against the Crows this week.


Again, I don't think it's people being negative, more so, why have a superior defender to both Kolo and Henry sitting forward. The point I made early is that it seems as though we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The MC has made some really glaring poor calls on players recently, I guess I'm just unsure of keeping one of our better defenders in a forward post.

Our forward line issues have been about two factors IMO. Mainly the first having the addition of a second tall, as it is fairly obvious that Hawkins excels with another foil. I'd like to see Hawkins stat outputs with either Harry,
Sav, Menz or Buzz, then compare that to just Hawkins with no other real forward option (I'm throwing Danger into this pile as I think the second tall or someone with a higher level of forward craft being the determining factor).

Secondly, the MC has for some reason, whether it being injury or perceived lower level of form, has not selected the best rotation of small forwards. It is obvious to most of us, that JJ, Parfitt, Narkle and Kelly when resting, is a far
better forward rotation of smaller types to really lock that footy in giving repeat shots on goal and a higher amount of defensive pressure.

The first test if you will, would highlight which tall is best moving forward in comparison to their peer. Secondly, I think it is an absolute must that a portion of those four smalls (perhaps also including Cockatoo), must play for the rest of
the year in the forward structure, baring injury of course.

Guys like Parsons, Gregson and possibly even McCarthy will just need to wait for an injury to have any chance in playing for the rest of the year.
 
Guarding space works except when it doesnt.

Our disposal was superior, um we kicked 23 points.

Selwood has fallen away big time this year but he had a very good second half after a very average first. Danger the superior player this year and quite comfortably.

Sydney were missing a number of players and then lost two of their players that usually play well against us during the game. Even then we only won it in the last 5 mins.

McVeigh's injury was in the dying minutes of the match, after we already had it won with 5 minutes to go (as per your post) - so yes it was an injury to Sydney, but not one that impacted on their ability to run out the match.

And as for Selwood:
7EC958F2-0072-409A-9498-0AC93F36015A.png

I'll happily have players in the side who fall away as he has this year considering the impact he is actually having (thanks foxdog50 for originally posting this image yesterday) - the reality is that Selwood has been very good this year but whether it's preconceived perception or expectations, he isn't given the credit for just how good he has been
 
Selwood is having a strong year, I'm surprised there is any debate around that.

It was a good win. Hawkin's finishing was crap, but he played a great game otherwise and seems more confident around the ground. Sooner he is reunited with Menzel the better. I liked the look of Narkle - he's pressure is first rate and has nice touch. Happy to stick with him over Gregson and McCarthy ATM. Stewart is maybe our biggest asset in defence now, and Blitz did pretty well on Franklin who was really in 'the zone'. Duncan was the pick of the mids. We did get a bit lucky with Sydney's injuries, but that's football - we lost the game against WCE earlier in the season for the same reason.

Not a pretty game, but always nice to leave the scg a winner.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Guarding space works except when it doesnt.

Our disposal was superior, um we kicked 23 points.

Selwood has fallen away big time this year but he had a very good second half after a very average first. Danger the superior player this year and quite comfortably.

Sydney were missing a number of players and then lost two of their players that usually play well against us during the game. Even then we only won it in the last 5 mins.
Kieran jack is having an ordinary year and would have made no difference and McVeigh went off very late in game. We dominated this match.
Goal kicking isn’t about ‘disposal’. That’s about accuracy.
Danger and Selwood are both having pretty good years although not in their usual peerless form. Quite sure both have been battling injuries this year.
 
At least with soccer the rules are so simple and obvious, even non soccer people can watch the game easily. The referee hardly blows his whistle compared to the AFL. At least in soccer they have competant officials

Kidding me.....all my football heads mates talk about is the crap umpiring. Very amusing. Look at the controversial crap in A-league GF and World Cup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Guarding space works except when it doesnt.

Our disposal was superior, um we kicked 23 points.

Selwood has fallen away big time this year but he had a very good second half after a very average first. Danger the superior player this year and quite comfortably.

Sydney were missing a number of players and then lost two of their players that usually play well against us during the game. Even then we only won it in the last 5 mins.

Are you one of those posters who phone in the votes for Danger, no matter what? I have been amazed some weeks.

I note Selwood gets the No.1 tagger every week, not Paddy.

Our passing has improved by a big margin. Inaccurate kicking for goal is another thing.

We are missing a number of players. Every team is. Boo Hoo.
 
Are you one of those posters who phone in the votes for Danger, no matter what? I have been amazed some weeks.

I note Selwood gets the No.1 tagger every week, not Paddy.

Our passing has improved by a big margin. Inaccurate kicking for goal is another thing.

We are missing a number of players. Every team is. Boo Hoo.
Not the tigers
 
Selwood has fallen away big time this year but he had a very good second half after a very average first. Danger the superior player this year and quite comfortably.
What?

In one metric only. Clearances and even then it's not too much.
He's just as prolific or more so in many other areas.
 
I've been amazed this week. I saw votes for him. He wasn't close to our best 5.

Champion data (well respected) ranked Dangerfield our 4th best after Selwood, Duncan and Hawkins.

Most clearances in our side with 6, 10 contested possessions, 4 tackles, 1 goal, good effectiveness.

Here's the problem, Dangerfield sets the bar so high, the expectation of him is equally high. If a 'lesser' player managed to be as effective V Sydney, we'd all be singing their praises. When ranking players against each other it's unfair to discriminate if one player has more ability than another.

I'd be interested to know why he "wasn't close to our best 5". I'd suggest that's simply not true.
 
Champion data (well respected) ranked Dangerfield our 4th best after Selwood, Duncan and Hawkins.

Most clearances in our side with 6, 10 contested possessions, 4 tackles, 1 goal, good effectiveness.

Here's the problem, Dangerfield sets the bar so high, the expectation of him is equally high. If a 'lesser' player managed to be as effective V Sydney, we'd all be singing their praises. When ranking players against each other it's unfair to discriminate if one player has more ability than another.

I'd be interested to know why he "wasn't close to our best 5". I'd suggest that's simply not true.


I guess this herein lies the problem on this board. Mark-one-eyeball is seemingly better than champion data.

What is even more frustrating, is that some would rather believe their own bias than statistical analysis.

Parfitt was given votes by some, as highly as 4 in our votes; yet due to the lack of effectiveness of his game had a rating of 57, which matched efforts of Fog (who had a slightly higher rating), Ablett, and only slightly higher than Harry.

Champion data uses a significant amount of data sets to get to this, where the science is highly regarded by the industry.

Yet eyeballs are more important to some. Flat earthers perhaps?
 
I guess this herein lies the problem on this board. Mark-one-eyeball is seemingly better than champion data.

What is even more frustrating, is that some would rather believe their own bias than statistical analysis.

Parfitt was given votes by some, as highly as 4 in our votes; yet due to the lack of effectiveness of his game had a rating of 57, which matched efforts of Fog (who had a slightly higher rating), Ablett, and only slightly higher than Harry.

Champion data uses a significant amount of data sets to get to this, where the science is highly regarded by the industry.

Yet eyeballs are more important to some. Flat earthers perhaps?
To be fair you can twist any sort of data or stats to suit an agenda

I can see the argument for both cases
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I guess this herein lies the problem on this board. Mark-one-eyeball is seemingly better than champion data.

What is even more frustrating, is that some would rather believe their own bias than statistical analysis.

Parfitt was given votes by some, as highly as 4 in our votes; yet due to the lack of effectiveness of his game had a rating of 57, which matched efforts of Fog (who had a slightly higher rating), Ablett, and only slightly higher than Harry.

Champion data uses a significant amount of data sets to get to this, where the science is highly regarded by the industry.

Yet eyeballs are more important to some. Flat earthers perhaps?

I had Parfitt in my votes due to his great vision and ability to hit targets inside 50.
If you are going to use Champion data ranking points you need to realise a backman who only ever kicks to another backman sideways, but gets 40 touches and 25 marks will score a lot more points than a Dangerfield 25 touches 8 clearance game that actually impacted the result.
Parfitt impacted the result. Hence votes.
 
Not quite correct.

Houli, Prestia, Rioli, and Broad have all missed 4 games or more. Conca's out for a while (to be fair I'm not sure he's in their best team), and Broad and Graham are both going to be missing some footy now.
Other than Houli and Broad I don't think those losses really hurt them. Those guys are all pretty replaceable in their current system.
 
Other than Houli and Broad I don't think those losses really hurt them. Those guys are all pretty replaceable in their current system.

It's interesting. True to form the commentators were talking Rioli up, and although he did a couple of nice things, I'm not sure he's any better than Butler and Castagna. The one that has seemed to have an impact when they brought him back was Prestia.

You're right though, like all good teams it's an even contribution that matters. As long as each player coming in can perform their role, they're still very competitive. Probably a factor in how we fared against Sydney, aside from Selwood, Duncan, and Hawkins, I can't think of too many that starred, but everyone chipped in.
 
Is that true? The Gatorade shower came back at Sydney Rooms?

No! Narkle was in the middle for the victory song, but no Gatorade.

I was saying, they should have given Narkle the Gatorade Christening, because it was at the SCG, so no Geelong staff to clean up the mess!

:tonguewink::tonguewink::tonguewink:
 
I had Parfitt in my votes due to his great vision and ability to hit targets inside 50.
If you are going to use Champion data ranking points you need to realise a backman who only ever kicks to another backman sideways, but gets 40 touches and 25 marks will score a lot more points than a Dangerfield 25 touches 8 clearance game that actually impacted the result.
Parfitt impacted the result. Hence votes.

The backman might get a better dream team score where kicks and marks are absolute but champion data ranking points take into account a lot more than that.
 
I guess this herein lies the problem on this board. Mark-one-eyeball is seemingly better than champion data.

What is even more frustrating, is that some would rather believe their own bias than statistical analysis.

Parfitt was given votes by some, as highly as 4 in our votes; yet due to the lack of effectiveness of his game had a rating of 57, which matched efforts of Fog (who had a slightly higher rating), Ablett, and only slightly higher than Harry.

Champion data uses a significant amount of data sets to get to this, where the science is highly regarded by the industry.

Yet eyeballs are more important to some. Flat earthers perhaps?

You are 100% incorrect. I work in club land and the data is only ever used as a back up to what people see. It is not the other way around ever! On know that feeling when you realise it is in fact you who believes the earth is flat.
 
Parfitt was given votes by some, as highly as 4 in our votes; yet due to the lack of effectiveness of his game had a rating of 57, which matched efforts of Fog (who had a slightly higher rating), Ablett, and only slightly higher than Harry.

Where do you get CD ratings? All I can find is afl fantasy which had him on 57 points and our 16th best player. But I'm pretty sure that's just points for kicks, marks, handballs, etc with no measure of impact. But supercoach had him on 102pts and our 5th best player. That does take impact into account. Doesn't that suggest he didn't hit the stats sheet much but was super effective? That matches with my recollection of the game. Or have I misunderstood those ranking systems?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top