Blake's stats

[Gogeelong]

M Blake stats - disposals 4 (1 kick, 3 handballs)
- clangers 4 (goal assists to opposition?)

Broke even on the day

 

[JUBJUB]

Re: Blakes stats

 

[rooie]

Re: Blakes stats

anyone else we should point out?

every is hating byrnes again this week. 20 touches 3 clangers. 1 goal and 2 goal assists. doesn't seem to bad to me. Especially compared to the boards love child Varcoe, 10 touches 2 clangers, 1 goal 1 goal assist....

poor form seems to be in the eye of the beholder if you ask me.

 

[PoidaCat]

Re: Blakes stats

Yep it doesn't need to be brought up again.

Everyone already knows Blake is a liability and could potentially cost us a flag.

 

[CF]

Re: Blakes stats

He had a shocker friday night, but he was hardly alone in that.

 

[alfy!]

Re: Blakes stats

breaking even is a decent result for blake

 

[True Blue Cat]

Tied for lowest amount of hit outs in a game for him this year with the round 3 clash with Freo. Was a bad game all round.

 

[catempire]

Re: Blakes stats

anyone else we should point out?

every is hating byrnes again this week. 20 touches 3 clangers. 1 goal and 2 goal assists. doesn't seem to bad to me. Especially compared to the boards love child Varcoe, 10 touches 2 clangers, 1 goal 1 goal assist....

poor form seems to be in the eye of the beholder if you ask me.

Did you watch the game or are you just going by stats?

A small forward that doesn't chase and put pressure on the opposition backline, only kicks goals against crap sides and is horribly one-sided, is a liability. At Byrnes' best, he is not that player (well, aside from the one-sided part). Right now, he is.

But yes, plenty were crap on Friday night. Singling out particular players isn't all that meaningful.

 

[rooie]

Re: Blakes stats

Did you watch the game or are you just going by stats?

A small forward that doesn't chase and put pressure on the opposition backline, only kicks goals against crap sides and is horribly one-sided, is a liability. At Byrnes' best, he is not that player (well, aside from the one-sided part). Right now, he is.

But yes, plenty were crap on Friday night. Singling out particular players isn't all that meaningful.

RE; Byrnes.

7th on the tackle count suggests he does do his fair share of pressuring.

3rd on the goal kicking suggests he is pretty valuable up forward.

3rd on the goal assists suggests he is good at setting them up too.

7th on the inside 50's shows he is getting it up the ground and delivering it.

4th on marks inside 50 shows he is presenting well and team mates are honouring his leads.

these tired lines about his uselessness are not based on fact, but supposed 'observation' with no evidence to support them apart from the frenzied mob mentallity of big footy. As for his one sidedness, yep. But then, these days so is half the bloody AFL.

If you go back far enough you will find i was a Byrnes hater. I didn't think he deserved his spot in the 07 GF. But he has proven himself. People saying he doesn't play well for a whole game are also being silly as he is a forward pocket/flank. There is only so much you can do from that position if the ball isn't coming down. What we expect from small forwards is that they lay a few tackles, slot a few goals, thats it. They largely go unnoticed. That is their role, and Shagga does it well, if he didn't Bomber wouldn't keep selecting him.

 

[catempire]

Re: Blakes stats

RE; Byrnes.

7th on the tackle count suggests he does do his fair share of pressuring.

3rd on the goal kicking suggests he is pretty valuable up forward.

3rd on the goal assists suggests he is good at setting them up too.

7th on the inside 50's shows he is getting it up the ground and delivering it.

4th on marks inside 50 shows he is presenting well and team mates are honouring his leads.

these tired lines about his uselessness are not based on fact, but supposed 'observation' with no evidence to support them apart from the frenzied mob mentallity of big footy. As for his one sidedness, yep. But then, these days so is half the bloody AFL.

If you go back far enough you will find i was a Byrnes hater. I didn't think he deserved his spot in the 07 GF. But he has proven himself. People saying he doesn't play well for a whole game are also being silly as he is a forward pocket/flank. There is only so much you can do from that position if the ball isn't coming down. What we expect from small forwards is that they lay a few tackles, slot a few goals, thats it. They largely go unnoticed. That is their role, and Shagga does it well, if he didn't Bomber wouldn't keep selecting him.

So I'll take it that you didn't watch the game. That makes your opinion easier to understand if you are just basing it on stats.

I'll give you a few stats:

Byrnes goals in 2010: 26
Goals against bottom five sides: 18
Goals against St Kilda: 0
Goals against Collingwood: 0
Goals against Carlton: 0
Goals against Fremantle: 0

He was very good in 2009 but he has been very poor lately and his good games this year have all come against weak teams. That is my observation, supported by facts.

 

[rooie]

i did watch the game actually.

people start claiming stats are irrelevant when they don't back up their bias, because they know they have no proof of their irrational opinion.

Yep, he didn't score much in the games we lost. Hardly alone there though is he? In fact, Ablett is about the only one to consistently score when the team is struggling.

Stats don't lie. The very reason every sport on the planet keeps stats is because they are the best indication of how teams and players are going. Byrnes is one of our top contributors according to the stats. I agree he isn't playing as consistently well as he did last year, but again, he isn't alone there.

 

[Casey Cat]

M Blake stats - disposals 4 (1 kick, 3 handballs)
- clangers 4 (goal assists to opposition?)

Broke even on the day

Where did you get this from? Some nuff-nuff posted this on Cats Claw so I checked with the Herald-Sun website and sure enough Blake only had 4 possessions (which is terrible and his worst effort for ages) but he had 100% efficiency. The "C" column further along indicates that all his possessions were CONTESTED not clangers.

 

[catempire]

i did watch the game actually.

What did you think of it? And what did you think of his game last week? What did you observe? Don't quote stats.

people start claiming stats are irrelevant when they don't back up their bias, because they know they have no proof of their irrational opinion.

Likewise, people selectively quote them when they believe them to back up their own bias.

Yep, he didn't score much in the games we lost. Hardly alone there though is he? In fact, Ablett is about the only one to consistently score when the team is struggling.

No other player has such a poor record against good sides. That's the point.

Stats don't lie. The very reason every sport on the planet keeps stats is because they are the best indication of how teams and players are going.

Not denying that. The stats show Byrnes goes missing against good sides.

Byrnes is one of our top contributors according to the stats.

No they don't. In fact, nowhere near it. And they show he's terrible against the good sides.

I agree he isn't playing as consistently well as he did last year, but again, he isn't alone there.

"He's not alone there" is not a defence, it's actually an acknowledgement of what I've said.

 

[Gogeelong]

Where did you get this from? Some nuff-nuff posted this on Cats Claw so I checked with the Herald-Sun website and sure enough Blake only had 4 possessions (which is terrible and his worst effort for ages) but he had 100% efficiency. The "C" column further along indicates that all his possessions were CONTESTED not clangers.

Blake had 4 free kicks paid against him
0 Clearances
1 Contested poss (this is my understanding).
0 tackles
only 50% game time

He was not the only poor player on the day however his Champion Data ranking in the Herald Sun was only 3 which was a long way behind the second worst which was Hogan with 23

With all of the players up and going we would be too top heavy.
Based on what we have seen this year Hawkins would add more grunt as a second ruck and resting forward however I do not see us droping him.

 

[rooie]

What did you think of it? And what did you think of his game last week? What did you observe? Don't quote stats.



Likewise, people selectively quote them when they believe them to back up their own bias.



No other player has such a poor record against good sides. That's the point.



Not denying that. The stats show Byrnes goes missing against good sides.



No they don't. In fact, nowhere near it. And they show he's terrible against the good sides.



"He's not alone there" is not a defence, it's actually an acknowledgement of what I've said.

ok, prove he is alone in being bad against other sides. Seems to me that Pods, Varcoe, Mooney, Hawkins, SJ...essentially our whole forward line go missing when we lose...

And that stats prove without a doubt his is a key contributor to our side. in the top ten for tackles, goals, inside 50's, marks inside 50, goal assists.... thats proof he is a key contributor.

I am not using the stats to backup a bias, i am simply quoting them. I didn't make them up. They are what they are. It shows how he ranks compared to his team mates, and he ranks well.

My whole point through all this mess is that it is stupid to pick people out for criticism after a loss like this when they are not alone in their poor performance. Blake was bad, as the OP said, but he wasn't alone. I mentioned Byrnes because in other threads he was copping a beating, yet he did better than Varcoe, yet Varcoe escaped critique. Pods was quiet. Mooney was quiet. Stokes appeared briefly to give us hope, but was missing most of the night. Ablett was quiet, Bartel went missing after the 1st, Corey was quiet, Enright was quiet, Scarlett was ordinary....

Do you get it yet? Don't go bashing someone like Byrnes for a crap year when in fact, statistically, he has been as good as if not better than Varcoe, Stokes or everyone's new lovechild Duncan.

These over reactions are foolish. Byrnes hasn't been as good as last year. If his form doesn't improve in coming weeks, and Duncan is ripping it up in the VFL, maybe he should be dropped. But the same holds true for Varcoe, Stokes, Pods, Mooney....

I am over people picking a whipping boy and going for it, credit where credit is due is all i am attempting to bring to this discussion.

Blake has had some great games this year too by the way, and should hardly be drawn and quartered, he has improved a heap this year i reckon.

 

[JUBJUB]

Blake had 4 free kicks paid against him

One of them was the fricking disgraceful free which gave the Crows their 1st goal.One of their dope players tripped over and the ump called in the back against Blake.Replays showed there was no contact in his back.The ump was WRONG !!!

Onya Blakey - premiership hero
Keeping pissing off the muppets who have NFI

 

[catempire]

ok, prove he is alone in being bad against other sides. Seems to me that Pods, Varcoe, Mooney, Hawkins, SJ...essentially our whole forward line go missing when we lose...

And that stats prove without a doubt his is a key contributor to our side. in the top ten for tackles, goals, inside 50's, marks inside 50, goal assists.... thats proof he is a key contributor.

I am not using the stats to backup a bias, i am simply quoting them. I didn't make them up. They are what they are. It shows how he ranks compared to his team mates, and he ranks well.

It's not up to me to prove about other players. I've made the claim about Byrnes which is there for all to see and with stats to back it up. You haven't actually disputed it which is great!

You are choosing which stats to quote and they are the ones which support your bias and which have zero to do with how poor a performer he is against good teams or when the chips are down.

My whole point through all this mess is that it is stupid to pick people out for criticism after a loss like this when they are not alone in their poor performance. Blake was bad, as the OP said, but he wasn't alone. I mentioned Byrnes because in other threads he was copping a beating, yet he did better than Varcoe, yet Varcoe escaped critique. Pods was quiet. Mooney was quiet. Stokes appeared briefly to give us hope, but was missing most of the night. Ablett was quiet, Bartel went missing after the 1st, Corey was quiet, Enright was quiet, Scarlett was ordinary....

Precisely why I said this earlier in the thread...

But yes, plenty were crap on Friday night. Singling out particular players isn't all that meaningful.

The point is, why try to defend the indefensible? Byrnes was bad. Just because others were too, it doesn't change that fact.

Do you get it yet? Don't go bashing someone like Byrnes for a crap year when in fact, statistically, he has been as good as if not better than Varcoe, Stokes or everyone's new lovechild Duncan.

See http://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2010&SelectedPlayers=1653,1410,1721,&Compare=Go

Stokes has been the best of them all, but again, irrelevant to how Byrnes performed this weekend and generally against quality opposition.

These over reactions are foolish. Byrnes hasn't been as good as last year. If his form doesn't improve in coming weeks, and Duncan is ripping it up in the VFL, maybe he should be dropped. But the same holds true for Varcoe, Stokes, Pods, Mooney....

It's not an overreaction, it's a rational critique. But agree, pressure for spots is intense and if anyone doesn't perform for a number of weeks in a row, they will be under the pump.

I am over people picking a whipping boy and going for it, credit where credit is due is all i am attempting to bring to this discussion.

Nothing to do with "whipping boy". Credit has and will be given by me when it has been and is due. By the same token though, I don't see the point of sugar coating everything. A player plays poorly, I'll call it like it is.

Blake has had some great games this year too by the way, and should hardly be drawn and quartered, he has improved a heap this year i reckon.

Agree. But did he play a poor game? Yep.

 

[rooie]

Nothing to do with "whipping boy". Credit has and will be given by me when it has been and is due. By the same token though, I don't see the point of sugar coating everything. A player plays poorly, I'll call it like it is.

As you keep telling me that my stats are chosen to prove me point...but those stats are simply stats relating to being a forward....you know, goals, goal assists, marks, i50's etc. it shows he is a good performing forward for us, so give some credit like you said you do.

Your stats are simply picking out games where he hasn't scored a goal and saying he is useless. Shall we do that about the rest of the team as well just to be fair and prove we aren't favoring a bias?

If we do we will assume that Byrnes should only be selected for bottom 8 sides, Pods should only play at home, Ottens should only play finals, lonners should only play against the saints....

 

[catempire]

As you keep telling me that my stats are chosen to prove me point...but those stats are simply stats relating to being a forward....you know, goals, goal assists, marks, i50's etc. it shows he is a good performing forward for us, so give some credit like you said you do.

Your stats are simply picking out games where he hasn't scored a goal and saying he is useless. Shall we do that about the rest of the team as well just to be fair and prove we aren't favoring a bias?

If we do we will assume that Byrnes should only be selected for bottom 8 sides, Pods should only play at home, Ottens should only play finals, lonners should only play against the saints....

In plain English: what matters most, is how players perform against the best, because that's what happens in finals. Byrnes has performed poorly against such sides this year.

If you want to take issue with that claim, go ahead. I won't be dragged into irrelevant side arguments any further.

 

[rooie]

In plain English: what matters most, is how players perform against the best, because that's what happens in finals. Byrnes has performed poorly against such sides this year.

If you want to take issue with that claim, go ahead. I won't be dragged into irrelevant side arguments any further.

your own link showed that in the games with played with stokes and with varcoe, he was the better player.....so again, why are you picking on byrnes?

 

[catempire]

your own link showed that in the games with played with stokes and with varcoe, he was the better player.....so again, why are you picking on byrnes?

This:

In plain English: what matters most, is how players perform against the best, because that's what happens in finals. Byrnes has performed poorly against such sides this year.

If you want to take issue with that claim, go ahead. I won't be dragged into irrelevant side arguments any further.

 

[rooie]

This:

erm, varcoe and stokes played in most of those games you mentioned byrnes was bad in, and byrnes rates higher overall.... So unless you are saying those two play crap normally, but play well in big games.....

 

[catempire]

erm, varcoe and stokes played in most of those games you mentioned byrnes was bad in, and byrnes rates higher overall.... So unless you are saying those two play crap normally, but play well in big games.....

This is a side argument.

If you want to cite any fact which brings into question my claim about Byrnes, go ahead. What other players have or haven't done is irrelevant.

 

[rooie]

This is a side argument.

If you want to cite any fact which brings into question my claim about Byrnes, go ahead. What other players have or haven't done is irrelevant.

how is it a side argument? my original point is that byrnes is being singled out for criticism that others should also be receiving. how others are playing is in fact, central to my point. ie; the whole 'whipping boy' thing. My use of that term refers to him being blamed for a poor performance when many others also are performing poorly, but escaping criticism.

Therefore, 'what other players have or haven't done' is central to my point.

 

[catempire]

how is it a side argument? my original point is that byrnes is being singled out for criticism that others should also be receiving. how others are playing is in fact, central to my point. ie; the whole 'whipping boy' thing. My use of that term refers to him being blamed for a poor performance when many others also are performing poorly, but escaping criticism.

Therefore, 'what other players have or haven't done' is central to my point.

It's a side argument because my first post in this thread was about how Byrnes had not performed against the best sides this season. You then implied that there was no substance to this claim:

not based on fact, but supposed 'observation' with no evidence to support them apart from the frenzied mob mentallity of big footy.

When I presented the facts, you went off on a tangent about how there were other players who also had not performed against the best sides - a claim that even if true, does not bring into question the point I was making.