Ball users vs ball winners

[lions2002]

A good debate around footy clubs. Which is more damaing an effective ball winner, or an effective ball user. A good example of this, is Swan vs Pendlebury from Collingwood. Swan wins more of the ball, but Pendles uses it better.

 

[mike123]

Pendlebury is both, Swan's point of difference over him was his explosiveness around the stoppage and line breaking ability.

I think a better example would be Fyfe v Hill.

 

[liz]

Surely a good team has a balance of both.

 

[Thrillho_]

Opposition coaches generally tag the users and let the winners do as they please.

 

[SilentHunter_]

Surely a good team has a balance of both.

Exactly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You can't use it if you 'ain't got it.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Opposition coaches generally tag the users and let the winners do as they please.

Because it tends to be easier to limit the impact they have

 

[Feerits Elf]

Swan wins more of the ball, but Pendles uses it better.

Did he win that much more though?

Swan 6664 disposals over 252 games at 26.44
Pendlebury 6926 disposals over 258 games at 26.85

Much of a muchness really on raw disposals really. Pendlebury far better in traffic which affords him more time for better disposal efficiency. Also brings others into the play through use of handball.

 

[tigertigertiger]

both required, its a balance of sorts, equals

 

[Macpotata]

Read the question. Which is more damaging, a ball winner or good ball user.


You bloody campaigners

 

[tigertigertiger]

Read the question. Which is more damaging, a ball winner or good ball user.


You bloody campaigners

and my opinion is they are equal

 

[Beutbrute]

A good ball winner > an average ball user
A good ball user > an average ball winner.

Need a combination to make a good team

 

[Schauermann]

Read the question. Which is more damaging, a ball winner or good ball user.

Both working together. A good user is useless when he isn't getting the ball and getting the ball is useless when you can't use it effectivly.

PS And obviously it is more difficult to use the ball from the inside.

 

[RUNVS]

Read the question. Which is more damaging, a ball winner or good ball user.

Can't really win without both. Still, it is not good if a player is exclusively one or the other.

 

[gbatman]

one isn't effective without the other.

 

[ManOfClay]

This is why being good inside and out is so important.


It’s why Jack Macrae and the Bont are much more valuable to the Bulldogs than say lachie hunter and Caleb Daniel

 

[QuietB]

The answer is Sammy Mitchell. Elite at both

 

[master bate]

I think you have to start from the contest out but also remember that so many of the games champions look more like one or another but in big moments do both.

James Hird was always thinly built and could coast through games without being crash and bash but in big moments he'd win a key contest. Bont is like that.

Then there's guys like Joel Selwood or Josh Kennedy who have awkward kicking actions and can crash and bash for most of the game but when it matters they'll often come through a pack and kick it straight to a chest.

The footy media love to compare styles and physiques (and particularly in the case of Indigenous players even compare based on race) and they'll often miscast players.

 

[Masqualero]

Both useless without each other.

Both equally important, feel like this is a flawed question.

 

[DapperJong]

Hey guys guess what

tiger time!

 

[Furn2]

Langford v suckling is a good
comparison.

As they are basically inept at the other disipline.

I think you'd take the user in a good side

 

[SizeMatters]

This is why being good inside and out is so important.


It’s why Jack Macrae and the Bont are much more valuable to the Bulldogs than say lachie hunter and Caleb Daniel

well obviously... daniel and hunter are both shit.

 

[And_ROOS]

You can't use it if you 'ain't got it.

No point getting it if you are Shanks McKenzie though. I still have nightmares over disposals kings like Kane Tenace.

 

[Donakebab]

Did he win that much more though?

Swan 6664 disposals over 252 games at 26.44
Pendlebury 6926 disposals over 258 games at 26.85

Much of a muchness really on raw disposals really. Pendlebury far better in traffic which affords him more time for better disposal efficiency. Also brings others into the play through use of handball.

Swan started slower but definitely got more of the ball and won it more himself across the bulk of his seasons. Just look at the year to year figures instead of career totals.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/D/Dane_Swan.html
https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/S/Scott_Pendlebury.html

 

[Feerits Elf]

Just look at the year to year figures instead of career totals.

Ain't nobody got time for that