Shame he won’t get any finals awards though, what a dud.
I smell troll (a terrible one who laughs at their own posts)
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.
Shame he won’t get any finals awards though, what a dud.
Can't agree with Buddy over Curnow - he has been the best forward in the comp for the last 5-6 rounds. Docherty has been close to the best rebounding defender in the comp since his return. Weitering I'm not so sure on and he's vulnerable (would have Pearce in over him), and Mundy wouldn't even be close to the squad. Has come back pretty sub par compared to his elite season last year. Brayshaw, Acres and Serong are the main guys at Freo now.
The loss of Jones likely isn't helping but he's not moving as freely as he has in the past. Looks like he's carrying an injury.Whilst Weiters has been great this year, is it strange that I feel he was more deserving in both 2020 ang 2021?
Maybe cause we averaged 65+ opposition inside 50? We needed him more. I saw more of him?
Defenitely worthy of an AA, but I wouldn't argue a Dockers, Dees and Lions fans for pushing their full backs case. I think May, Pearce, Adams all as worthy.
I think Sicily can't be considered as he was easily defeated last week. None of the 4 players mentioned above have.
Similar why I'm not considering Andrews either.
I think Sicily can't be considered as he was easily defeated last week.
I don't think this assessment is completely fair.
Firstly, both coaches (rightly) gave Sicily votes last week - he was the 4th highest rated player on the ground (and the only Hawk to get votes). I don't think you can be considered your sides best player by both coaches and that one performance somehow eliminate you from contention for a season based award.
Yes, Tom Lynch kicked 4 goals but did you watch the game?
Richmond absolutely dominated the midfield. They had well over 20 more inside 50's and won an unprecedented 75% (23 out of 31) of the centre clearances. Lynch was targetted the vast majority of the time. He is in career best form and is comfortably leading the Coleman medal. He is also 12 cm taller than Sicily!, who is being asked to play a role as a full back when he is suited far more to the Tom Stewart style role as a mid sized defender.
Despite this, Sicily and Lynch had 11 one on one contests and Lynch won only 2 of them! (that loss percentage for Sicily is less than the average of all of your preferred FB candidates). Sicily had 12 spoils against Richmond (only 1 player in the comp averages that per game). Despite all the spoils, he also had 8 intercept possessions (again, a stat he comfortably leads all of your preferred candidates in). He also had 650 m gained (easily the most on ground) and had multiple score involvements from full back! He is also the #1 defender for coaches votes.
Regardless of his dominant stats (and the eye test), I don't think individuals should be eliminated from a season based award on the back of one game in general. But to eliminate someone on the back of a game where the coaches considered him his teams best player (and 4th best on ground) seems outlandish to me.
I don't think this assessment is completely fair.
Firstly, both coaches (rightly) gave Sicily votes last week - he was the 4th highest rated player on the ground (and the only Hawk to get votes). I don't think you can be considered your sides best player by both coaches and that one performance somehow eliminate you from contention for a season based award.
Yes, Tom Lynch kicked 4 goals but did you watch the game?
Richmond absolutely dominated the midfield. They had well over 20 more inside 50's and won an unprecedented 75% (23 out of 31) of the centre clearances. Lynch was targetted the vast majority of the time. He is in career best form and is comfortably leading the Coleman medal. He is also 12 cm taller than Sicily!, who is being asked to play a role as a full back when he is suited far more to the Tom Stewart style role as a mid sized defender.
Despite this, Sicily and Lynch had 11 one on one contests and Lynch won only 2 of them! (that loss percentage for Sicily is less than the average of all of your preferred FB candidates). Sicily had 12 spoils against Richmond (only 1 player in the comp averages that per game). Despite all the spoils, he also had 8 intercept possessions (again, a stat he comfortably leads all of your preferred candidates in). He also had 650 m gained (easily the most on ground) and had multiple score involvements from full back! He is also the #1 defender for coaches votes.
Regardless of his dominant stats (and the eye test), I don't think individuals should be eliminated from a season based award on the back of one game in general. But to eliminate someone on the back of a game where the coaches considered him his teams best player (and 4th best on ground) seems outlandish to me.
Player B has played 1/3 of the games so far.Ok guys let’s compare these 2 players stats:
Player A is averaging 30.3 disposals, 1 goal and 9.2 score involvements a game
Player B is averaging 21.3 disposals, 2 goals, 9 score involvements a game
Player A is a lock for AA and Player B apparently isn’t even in the discussion. Which player would you prefer?
Hint. Player A is from the Dees and Player B is from the Tigers. Let’s see if you guys can guess who they are and should Player B be considered for AA selection, if not why not?
Player B has played 1/3 of the games so far.
Doesn't matter. AA is about who the best performed players are across the year. He's missed 2/3 of the season so far.And is rusty af, but you didn’t answer my full question. What type of player in terms of those stats would you prefer in your team. I’d pick player B every day, more damaging with the ball.
Doesn't matter. AA is about who the best performed players are across the year. He's missed 2/3 of the season so far.
He might get into the AA side but the threshold for a 15/16 game season is basically Gary junior in 2015 or Toby Greene last year where they not only averaged more in the relevant stats but were neck and neck with the totals as well.
Hence the "so far". That's why he's not currently in AA consideration.Not 2/3 of the season that’s the first 9 rounds. 6 of 22 games missed. So 1/4 of the season he has missed. Will probably play for all of the rest so he has time imo.
Hence the "so far". That's why he's not currently in AA consideration.
And what happens if he does his hammy in the first quarter of the dreamtime game? Sure, he might play the next 13 games, but he might hit a bloke or get injured or anything.
As I said, he could get there. However as I said, the threshold for making it off 15 or 16 games is very high. He's certainly one of the few that can get there though.
Ok guys let’s compare these 2 players stats:
Player A is averaging 30.3 disposals, 1 goal and 9.2 score involvements a game
Player B is averaging 21.3 disposals, 2 goals, 9 score involvements a game
Player A is a lock for AA and Player B apparently isn’t even in the discussion. Which player would you prefer?
Hint. Player A is from the Dees and Player B is from the Tigers. Let’s see if you guys can guess who they are and should Player B be considered for AA selection, if not why not?
Hint:
Don’t compare two players who’s roles, judging by their statistics, are completely different, and expect people to make a decision based solely on statistics
It IS possible for you to let a thread go through to the keeper without trying to convert everyone to the cult of Richmond
Also, can someone with a better vocabulary than me, explain that someone being more damaging per possession, doesn’t make them more damaging as a player
Someone who has a score involvement every two touches, but only gets 4 touches a game, is not more damaging than a player who has a score involvement every 5 touches, but gets 30 touches a game.
What's rich about this is that Petracca is leading the comp in score involvements per game. He's obviously deserving of an AA spot. Dusty may well be too, but it's a small sample size.Ok guys let’s compare these 2 players stats:
Player A is averaging 30.3 disposals, 1 goal and 9.2 score involvements a game
Player B is averaging 21.3 disposals, 2 goals, 9 score involvements a game
Player A is a lock for AA and Player B apparently isn’t even in the discussion. Which player would you prefer?
Hint. Player A is from the Dees and Player B is from the Tigers. Let’s see if you guys can guess who they are and should Player B be considered for AA selection, if not why not?
Do people think Dale didn't deserve AA last year? Trying to reconcile how he's even better this year yet not even in the conversation.
I think it’s pretty obvious somebody averaging double the amount of goals than the other guy is a more damaging player when you consider that the score involvements are the same as well. What metric do you use then?
FOX FOOTY’S EARLY-SEASON ALL-AUSTRALIAN TEAM
B: Sam Docherty (Carl), Steven May (Melb), James Sicily (Haw)
HB: Jayden Short (Rich), Jacob Weitering (Carl), Tom Stewart (Geel)
C: Ed Langdon (Melb), Patrick Cripps (C) (Carl), Blake Acres (Frem)
HF: Isaac Heeney, (Syd) Tom Hawkins (Geel), Charlie Curnow (Carl)
F: Charlie Cameron (Bris), Tom Lynch (Rich), Shai Bolton (Rich)
R: Max Gawn (VC) (Melb), Lachie Neale (Bris), Christian Petracca (Melb)
INT: Andrew Brayshaw (Frem), Clayton Oliver (Melb), Zac Bailey (Bris), Jack Sinclair (STK)
I think it’s pretty obvious that they’re not.
All that is obvious is that one kicks more goals than the other.
The first player may pick up half his touches intercepting attacking plays from the other team, winning clearances off a half back line, winning the ball out of the centre, extracting contested ball.
Using your logic Tom Hawkins and Josh Kennedy have been the two most damaging players in the entire competition for a decade considering they have kicked more goals than anyone and have done it from less touches.