David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #526
Mark Twain....come on down....because when I read that Kolo was so great, for some reason you jumped into my mind.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The gymnastics is the fact that it requires ignoring the most obvious explanation: that in reasonable sample sizes the best one on one defenders will score highly on this measure. To tell a story otherwise requires a set of unlikely theories that magically happen to improve only Kolodjashnij’s performance and confirm the bias of those that don’t rate him.
Not sure this is the slam dunk you think it is.Okay, so how do Darcy Moore, Harris Andrew, Mitch McGovern and Hurley score?
Just looking at it from another angle
You still seem to be missing the point. Why would I want to pull out isolated examples when there’s a clear and compelling story from a large and comprehensive data set?Okay, so how do Darcy Moore, Harris Andrew, Mitch McGovern and Hurley score?
So your changing your story. There aren’t any 10-12 disposal games with poor defensive pressure.
he has only played four full games this year. And in all but one he has been given less then 63 percent game time. with more normal game time he would of reached 20 disposals in other games too.
You still seem to be missing the point. Why would I want to pull out isolated examples when there’s a clear and compelling story from a large and comprehensive data set?
It’s extremely compelling because it measures directly what we are interested in and filters out noise (such as how often they are put in the position of defending). If you started from first principles and asked: “how could we measure how good defenders are” you’d go straight to asking how often they get beaten and this stat does exactly that.Because one stat doesn’t provide compelling evidence, it’s just a stat and needs contexts and support.
s**t! Considering 50%+ of our defenders kicks are sideways and backwards that seems like a lot.so going by those stats here is the clangers per 1000 metres gained.
henderson 5.8
stewart 4.7
henry 4.8
kolo 17.0
and there you go. Kolo is by far the most error prone disposer of the four when you factor in variations in disposal per game and a measure of the degree of difficulty. Around 4 times worse then henry and Stewart and 3 times worse then henderson.
I don't understand how Menegola has more votes than Narkle. I thought he butchered the ball in the first half.Geelong v Gold Coast
10 Joel Selwood (GEEL)
7 Tom Stewart (GEEL)
4 Sam Menegola (GEEL)
3 Quinton Narkle (GEEL)
3 Touk Miller (GCFC)
3 Mark Blicavs (GEEL)
Joel putting in another fine performance
It’s extremely compelling because it measures directly what we are interested in and filters out noise (such as how often they are put in the position of defending). If you started from first principles and asked: “how could we measure how good defenders are” you’d go straight to asking how often they get beaten and this stat does exactly that.
Did you even read the previous few pages? Plenty implied he was and tried defending him as being one of, if not our best defender.Did anyone even slightly imply that?
I'm pretty sure the stats brought up were to support the opinion that he's an ok player... you know... which he is.
sh*t! Considering 50%+ of our defenders kicks are sideways and backwards that seems like a lot.
Do you have Blitz's one?
so going by those stats here is the clangers per 1000 metres gained.
henderson 5.8
stewart 4.7
henry 4.8
kolo 17.0
and there you go. Kolo is by far the most error prone disposer of the four when you factor in variations in disposal per game and a measure of the degree of difficulty. Around 4 times worse then henry and Stewart and 3 times worse then henderson.
Yeah. Good callIn fairness, if Stewart takes four kick ins and Henderson takes two that’s probably 300m and 100m respectively.
Interesting. But I’ll count it as yet another reason to drop him. We are old enough without having guys that look older than they are.
so going by those stats here is the clangers per 1000 metres gained.
henderson 5.8
stewart 4.7
henry 4.8
kolo 17.0
and there you go. Kolo is by far the most error prone disposer of the four when you factor in variations in disposal per game and a measure of the degree of difficulty. Around 4 times worse then henry and Stewart and 3 times worse then henderson.
What on earth is clangers per 1000 metres gained purporting to show? Might as well do clangers per millimetres of shoe size.so going by those stats here is the clangers per 1000 metres gained.
henderson 5.8
stewart 4.7
henry 4.8
kolo 17.0
and there you go. Kolo is by far the most error prone disposer of the four when you factor in variations in disposal per game and a measure of the degree of difficulty. Around 4 times worse then henry and Stewart and 3 times worse then henderson.
What on earth is clangers per 1000 metres gained purporting to show? Might as well do clangers per millimetres of shoe size.
That would be clangers per possession wouldn’t it?In theory, doesn't it show that his attempts to get the ball moving forward are more susceptible to errors than his peers? eg he's getting caught HTB more often, OOF (the Bews Special), turning over the ball more often etc?
That would be clangers per possession wouldn’t it?
What on earth is clangers per 1000 metres gained purporting to show? Might as well do clangers per millimetres of shoe size.