2018 Rolling All Australian Team

[Damon_3388]

I think we've official reached the point where the basic act of winning the ball has become the most overrated and overhyped stat/action in the game.

 

[Sprout]

An Oliver-led midfield? Clarry played his worst game for the year, while Cripps was in the top 3-5 players on the ground.

That’s in a team that hit belted by a ton.

I’m assuming you realise Oliver had surgery on his hand in the week leading up to the game. Hence the glove. He was far from his best. With good reason.

 

[La Dispute]

I think we've official reached the point where the basic act of winning the ball has become the most overrated stat/action in the game.

Or you’ve got no meaningful rebuttal to all counter-arguments to those meta, minute objections, basically nitpicking Cripps’ game which is easily explained by the context he’s operating within.

 

[WCE_phil]

Combined comfortably, and individually against Nic Nat also comfortably.
This is the all Australian team not all Australian combinations.

Im speaking about it as a probability system. The problem with teams like AA is that Gawn and Grundy will play 90% gametime in the ruck. Yet they will come up againt Nicnat+Lycett and both Melbourne and Collingwood will get beaten in the ruck.

 

[La Dispute]

I’m assuming you realise Oliver had surgery on his hand in the week leading up to the game. Hence the glove. He was far from his best. With good reason.

Completely aware of it.

The implication was that Oliver was one of the main drivers of the team in that game: he wasn’t.

 

[Sando22]

Clearly that margin was all down to Oliver > Cripps. The other players had nothing to do with it.

Did I say that?
Cripps can't be having much impact if his side has won 1 game so with two players having neck and neck seasons, I give the nod to the player in the side who is winning.
Good point though legend

 

[Sando22]

An Oliver-led midfield? Clarry played his worst game for the year, while Cripps was in the top 3-5 players on the ground.

That’s in a team that hit belted by a ton.

If that's his worst then we are not worthy and I'm sorry - no Carlton player is in the best 3-5 players on the ground in a 109 point loss.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did I say that?

Yeah pretty much.

You maligned Cripps because "an Oliver-led midfield beat Carlton by over 100 points". As though Oliver was the reason for that margin?

If that's not your view, then don't over-egg the pudding by suggesting Melbourne flogging Carlton proves Oliver > Cripps. It doesn't.

WC pumped Richmond. Does that prove McGovern > Rance? No, it doesn't.

Cripps can't be having much impact if his side has won 1 game so with two players having neck and neck seasons, I give the nod to the player in the side who is winning.

Well, that's irrational. Cripps has had huge impact on games but the rest of the team are a rabble.

 

[Sando22]

Yeah pretty much.

You maligned Cripps because "an Oliver-led midfield beat Carlton by over 100 points". As though Oliver was the reason for that margin?

If that's not your view, then don't over-egg the pudding by suggesting Melbourne flogging Carlton proves Oliver > Cripps. It doesn't.

WC pumped Richmond. Does that prove McGovern > Rance? No, it doesn't.

Well, that's irrational. Cripps has had huge impact on games but the rest of the team are a rabble.

BS

I suggested Cripps had almost zero impact on the game and that no player ina 109 point thumping is anywhere near the best 3-5.
McGovern and Rance play nowhere near each other so that's a sh*t argument.

Cripps impact on games for his side may be big but in the scheme of the match, pale into insignificance when you're side is getting thumped

 

[Sweet Jesus]

BS

I suggested Cripps had almost zero impact on the game and that no player ina 109 point thumping is anywhere near the best 3-5.

So how have I misrepresented you?

Melbourne flogged Carlton so Oliver > Cripps. Is that not your view?

McGovern and Rance play nowhere near each other so that's a sh*t argument.

I agree. It's a shit argument.

You can't use the result of a match to claim one player is better than another.

Cripps impact on games for his side may be big but in the scheme of the match, pale into insignificance when you're side is getting thumped

But we are not assessing Carlton's win-loss record. We are assessing the performances of individual players.

 

[Sprout]

Completely aware of it.

The implication was that Oliver was one of the main drivers of the team in that game: he wasn’t.

I mean even at his worst he’s still influential. His 15 contested possessions and 5 clearances was only bettered by Jones.

In truth that game was for the forwards to have a day out. The midfield was not made to work hard given the ease in which the ball was being turned over between the arcs. Neal-Bullen is a good player but when he is looking like a superstar there’s something amiss.

 

[Sando22]

So how have I misrepresented you?

Melbourne flogged Carlton so Oliver > Cripps. Is that not your view?

I agree. It's a shit argument.

But we are not assessing Carlton's win-loss record. We are assessing the performances of individual players.

The argument was that Oliver should not be on the ground in the AA team at the moment and Cripps on the bench based on the fact Cripps has more impact.
I argue he doesn't and statistically they are very even in most categories.
Oliver gets the nod as he's playing in and having the same impact on a winning side.
Simple.
Spin it how you like ballbag

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The argument was that Oliver should not be on the ground in the AA team at the moment and Cripps on the bench based on the fact Cripps has more impact.
I argue he doesn't and statistically they are very even in most categories.
Oliver gets the nod as he's playing in and having the same impact on a winning side.
Simple.

You're right - it is simple. But that doesn't make it sensible.

Oliver being part of a winning side makes no case whatsoever.

Spin it how you like ballbag

Sandy22.

 

[Sando22]

You're right - it is simple. But that doesn't make it sensible.

Oliver being part of a winning side makes no case whatsoever.

When compared to the other bloke in the argument it most certainly does. One is the contested possession leader in a side with 7 wins whilst the other with similar numbers, plays for a side with 1 win. If you can't get your head around that then you really are a knob.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

When compared to the other bloke in the argument it most certainly does. One is the contested possession leader in a side with 7 wins whilst the other with similar numbers, plays for a side with 1 win.

That's irrelevant. The win-loss records of Carlton and Melbourne are not a factor.

If you can't get your head around that then you really are a knob.

I understand your argument, Sandy. I'm just saying it's rubbish.

 

[Sando22]

That's irrelevant. The win-loss records of Carlton and Melbourne are not a factor.

I understand your argument, Sandy. I'm just saying it's rubbish.

When you're losing by over 100 points, the win-loss record is relevant mate. That's not just a loss, that is a downright drubbing.
Tough to split the two but the win goes to the blokes having the same impact in a winning side.

 

[La Dispute]

The argument was that Oliver should not be on the ground in the AA team at the moment and Cripps on the bench based on the fact Cripps has more impact.
I argue he doesn't and statistically they are very even in most categories.
Oliver gets the nod as he's playing in and having the same impact on a winning side.
Simple.
Spin it how you like ballbag

Interesting you say that because Tom Mitchell got the rover spot last year while Joel Selwood got a spot on the bench.

Which team made finals?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

When you're losing by over 100 points, the win-loss record is relevant mate. That's not just a loss, that is a downright drubbing.

That is still irrelevant if the conversation at hand is about Cripps' individual performance.

Tough to split the two but the win goes to the blokes having the same impact in a winning side.

Yeah, you keep saying that but simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more sensible.

 

[Sando22]

Interesting you say that because Tom Mitchell got the rover spot last year while Joel Selwood got a spot on the bench.

Which team made finals?

Tom Mitchell had a far better year than Joel Selwood so that's completely different.
Cripps and Oliver are basically neck and neck.
I love Cripps and he's 100% in the side at the moment but for me, Oliver is ahead

 

[Sando22]

That is still irrelevant if the conversation at hand is about Cripps' individual performance.

Yeah, you keep saying that but simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more sensible.

It's not. If you're comparing two equals, how do you split them then?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I love Cripps and he's 100% in the side at the moment but for me, Oliver is ahead

Because Melbourne have won more games?

Just think about how irrational an argument that is.

It's not. If you're comparing two equals, how do you split them then?

By doing a more in-depth analysis to demonstrate they're not perfectly equal.

You certainly don't pivot to something that's totally irrelevant and claim that as the tiebreaker.

 

[La Dispute]

Tom Mitchell had a far better year than Joel Selwood so that's completely different.
Cripps and Oliver are basically neck and neck.
I love Cripps and he's 100% in the side at the moment but for me, Oliver is ahead

It’s not different at all - the crux is that because Oliver is playing in a more successful team he is having a better season.

On an individual level Cripps has been the better player.

 

[Trav 20]

One area where Oliver beats Cripps is ball use. Oliver's decision making and ball use is as good as I've seen at Melbourne.

I'll watch Cripps' ball use tonight with interest. Against Melbourne he made silly decisions and turned it over a bit by foot.

 

[Sando22]

It’s not different at all - the crux is that because Oliver is playing in a more successful team he is having a better season.

On an individual level Cripps has been the better player.

Hahaha no way.
One had a blinder, the other an average year.
Both Oliver and Cripps are equal statistically and because of this, the one having an impact on his side winning games of footy gets the nod

 

[HairyO]

Hahaha no way.
One had a blinder, the other an average year.
Both Oliver and Cripps are equal statistically and because of this, the one having an impact on his side winning games of footy gets the nod

Id take Cripps any day. Way more up side to his game.