Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #30: Reece Conca

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TigerImposter said:
What does he have to do with it as I was clearing up an error that you posted.

Something about no clangers.

Cunnington FYI was the second best player on the ground and his clangers were created bc he was genuinely in the firing line all day doing things beyond Conca’s dreams. He almost amassed double the touches of Reece . Conca and him were chalk and cheese in comparison and if Reece could play a game close to Cunnington’s yesterday we would have an A grader. Keep dreaming.
Click to expand...
It means inside players have more clangers because of the way they measure clangers, Conca plays inside. He kicked on shocking grubber, what were his other 'clangers'. Pressure applied can make you turn over the ball, to me that is not a clanger, especially these days when the game is played so tight. If Cunnington can have 12, when he played a great game, means the clanger measure is not an accurate measure of your worth.
I didn't even mentioned the rest of the quality of his game, said he played fairly safe in another post, but he was hardly a turnover merchant... and no way is he comparable to Cunnington who I've long regarded as one of the best inside mids in the game, especially this year.
 
Grrr said:
It means inside players have more clangers because of the way they measure clangers, Conca plays inside. He kicked on shocking grubber, what were his other 'clangers'. Pressure applied can make you turn over the ball, to me that is not a clanger, especially these days when the game is played so tight. If Cunnington can have 12, when he played a great game, means the clanger measure is not an accurate measure of your worth.
I didn't even mentioned the rest of the quality of his game, said he played fairly safe in another post, but he was hardly a turnover merchant... and no way is he comparable to Cunnington who I've long regarded as one of the best inside mids in the game, especially this year.
Click to expand...
This is what i responded to and nothing else as i already know this:

Grrr said: ↑
Turns to shit?? Was clean all day and his disposal although not that creative, it was pretty safe. i.e. no stupid turnovers or clangers.
 
TigerImposter said:
This is what i responded to and nothing else as i already know this:

Grrr said: ↑
Turns to shit?? Was clean all day and his disposal although not that creative, it was pretty safe. i.e. no stupid turnovers or clangers.
Click to expand...
Okay, he had one grubber kick, but didn't notice his other 4 clangers or turnover, like I didn't notice Cunninton's 12 or Cotchin's 7. Because they are part of today's high intensity game. But yes you got me on a technicality.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Grrr said:
It means inside players have more clangers because of the way they measure clangers, Conca plays inside. He kicked on shocking grubber, what were his other 'clangers'. Pressure applied can make you turn over the ball, to me that is not a clanger, especially these days when the game is played so tight. If Cunnington can have 12, when he played a great game, means the clanger measure is not an accurate measure of your worth.
I didn't even mentioned the rest of the quality of his game, said he played fairly safe in another post, but he was hardly a turnover merchant... and no way is he comparable to Cunnington who I've long regarded as one of the best inside mids in the game, especially this year.
Click to expand...

Champion Datas definition of a clanger is:
- any knock on or disposal which goes straight to an opposition player
- any free kick against
- dropped mark or fumble under no pressure
- a 50m penalty against a player

Champion Datas definition of a turnover is the loss of possession to the opposition. So a free kick for holding dropping the ball counts as a turnover but also as a clanger.

Yesterday Conca had 5 clangers and 4 turnovers. 2 of those clangers were for 2 frees against. Given he had 4 turnovers it's safe to presume one of those frees was for holding/dropping the ball, which is also a turnover. That leaves 4 clangers and 3 turnovers, now I don't recall him getting pinged for a 50m penalty, so a free kick for a high tackle is another clanger but not a turnover. That leaves 3 clangers/turnovers and given that a clanger is registered if you knock the ball on and the opposition picks up the ball it's possible that Concas 'turnover/clangers' might just be as simple as knocking the ball out of a pack and North players picking it up, although odds are more likely that it was a disposal error. Hardly a valid reason to call a player a turnover merchant.

Should be pointed out that he had 5 frees for and 6 intercept possessions. Which shows he won the ball back more than he gave it away.
 
tropicaltiger said:
Not sure where the 5 clangers came from either, with such a pressure cooker game i felt he stuffed around with it a couple of times and coulda done better, a couple of uneccessary U turns here and there and got caught but not penalised and that grubber, but otherwise fine. nothing could really be put down as serious stuff ups. 18 times cunningham and ziebell gave the ball back to us due to the insane pressure of conca and co.

ya gotta weigh it up sometimes.

would be easy in our top 10 B & F at the moment, and we are sitting 7/1, not bad if he can keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Kind of my point though. It’s 120 minutes of football, humans cannot possibly dissect a performance in a game from a single viewing. There are too many things happening at all times that only bits and pieces stand out at the end of a game, and natural bias comes into it when judging a players performance because you naturally recall the good things or bad things they do depending on your perception of that player.

I reckon Rance is the ultimate example of this, of course he is a better player now but he was still a good player in 2012 and 2013 but didn’t get anywhere near the recognition he does now and his kicking was unfairly maligned. Sure he shanked a few and he is a better kick now but he is still prone to bad kicks but now they are glossed over and forgotten, whereas 5 years ago the board would be going mental about them.
 
TigerImposter said:
I thought the golden rule on Tiger BF was :

Whilst a player is on our list there is still hope for him even if he's Hampsonesque and once they're delisted then you kick the shit out of them.

When did the rules change?
Click to expand...
You say that like it’s a bad thing?!
 
TigerImposter said:
I’m confused bro.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose that I’m not really in favour of kicking the shit out of our explayers.

But what you were describing with being generally supportive and positive about Richmond players while that are contracted and in season pretty well sums up my attitude.

When it comes to time for players to sign new contracts and / or trade time then I’m up for a hard headed analysis of players weakness.

At other times of the year I’d phrase things more as “player x would be better if he improved y”.

You say it like someone being positive about one of our struggling players is just being soft in the head.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cactus_ said:
Well I suppose that I’m not really in favour of kicking the shit out of our explayers.

But what you were describing with being generally supportive and positive about Richmond players while that are contracted and in season pretty well sums up my attitude.

When it comes to time for players to sign new contracts and / or trade time then I’m up for a hard headed analysis of players weakness.

At other times of the year I’d phrase things more as “player x would be better if he improved y”.

You say it like someone being positive about one of our struggling players is just being soft in the head.
Click to expand...
Go to sleep mate as it’s well passed your bedtime.
 
Last edited:
Been away a bit lately and didn't see the past few games until the weekend so was watching this thread with interest due to the varying opinions.

I didn't go on the weekend as I had to work but managed to watch it on TV. No one can question Reece's courage or commitment to the contest he certainly gives positives in that way, but I have to say his decision making, or sometimes lack thereof can be pretty costly with some momentum killing turnovers. At times it seems he's not sure what option he should be taking. Maybe this is understandable given how much footy he's missed, but he's been around long enough to know the game plan & at times with his use & decision making he looks more like a 2-3 year player.

I'm concerned the impact his turnovers & decision making could have in cut throat finals. I'm definitely not sold on him as best 22 yet
 
Fraser67 said:
Been away a bit lately and didn't see the past few games until the weekend so was watching this thread with interest due to the varying opinions.

I didn't go on the weekend as I had to work but managed to watch it on TV. No one can question Reece's courage or commitment to the contest he certainly gives positives in that way, but I have to say his decision making, or sometimes lack thereof can be pretty costly with some momentum killing turnovers. At times it seems he's not sure what option he should be taking. Maybe this is understandable given how much footy he's missed, but he's been around long enough to know the game plan & at times with his use & decision making he looks more like a 2-3 year player.

I'm concerned the impact his turnovers & decision making could have in cut throat finals. I'm definitely not sold on him as best 22 yet
Click to expand...
Not in best 22 for mine. Momentum killer for sure. Take a look at the 2015 elimination final, last quarter, close game and Conca commits appalling turnover on the wing, Norf capitalise and kick goal, game over. Courageous, absolutely but among the poorest decision makers in the team. Time and again he'll kick to a man less than 15 metres away when a handball would have been quicker and more accurate. Has been there for 7 or 8 seasons, haven't seen much development but to be fair has been injured through the journey.
 
Reece and Houli were both guilty of stuffing around with the ball too much forward of center, playing right into the strengths of Norths gameplan at times. We play a forward pressure game and both players had the chance to send it long and deep and play for territory but got held up and turned it over near the 50 and letting North rebound it largely unopposed. Considering the momentum was with the Kangas at the time they should of showed some game awareness and used the long option and allow us to arrest the flow of the game, instead of compounding it like they did.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

NZ_Tiger said:
Reece and Houli were both guilty of stuffing around with the ball too much forward of center, playing right into the strengths of Norths gameplan at times. We play a forward pressure game and both players had the chance to send it long and deep and play for territory but got held up and turned it over near the 50 and letting North rebound it largely unopposed. Considering the momentum was with the Kangas at the time they should of showed some game awareness and used the long option and allow us to arrest the flow of the game, instead of compounding it like they did.
Click to expand...
Without reference to Conca and Houli, as I need to watch the replay again to refresh, but bombing it long is normally playing right into North's hands. And we bomb it plenty, so maybe they are under coaches instructions to try and hit short passes inside 50. After all last season we were the no.1 side in the league for marks inside 50. Again, no reference to the above so I am not making excuses for them.
 
Grrr said:
Without reference to Conca and Houli, as I need to watch the replay again to refresh, but bombing it long is normally playing right into North's hands. And we bomb it plenty, so maybe they are under coaches instructions to try and hit short passes inside 50. After all last season we were the no.1 side in the league for marks inside 50. Again, no reference to the above so I am not making excuses for them.
Click to expand...
50 was packed with players, long and deep to a pocket and we would of spoiled it over and set our defense. Most of our entries at the time were slingshot and came back out far too quickly. It was a lack of game awareness from both of them, we needed to take some heat out of the game and instead they compounded our problems, and it's not the first game they've done it this season.
 
F197049B-B671-44F8-800C-149CE309A22F.jpeg Full page article on Reece in today's West Australian.

Haere Ra
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom