Brett Ebert

[Malibu#27]

Law of averages says that if you have one of the best two win/loss record of any coach over the last five years you must be doing something right over that time. You say its because we had the second best list for 3 of those five years - thats probanbly debatable.

Regardless the list a club has is a reflection of the club - hence the fact Port does have what you have classed as a good list is some credit to the coach.

But before you fire back with some typical OBJ response along the lines of Cahill setting up the list and williams taking the spoils - spare a thought for your own club most recently departed coach who only 18 months ago hence its fair to say he has as much influence on your current list as Cahill did on our 1999 and 200 lists.

With the showdowns success outcoaching gary ayres by loading up our forward 50, is not any great accomplishment. Since NC has taken over its been L, W, W, W, a impressive record that cant just be dismissed. No real need to wait to the end of NC’s contract to see the trend.

I think its actually W, L, W, W, W .... interestingly the first and 3rd W in that list were when we fielded sides just shells of our usual full list - so using your logic from below I feel that "football wise with Port decimated through injury it was a poor game".
You say NC's record cant be dismissed because hes had a few wins yet dismiss the record of Mark who has a better winning percentage over a longer period. In fact he also has a better finals winning percentage than NC ... but 5 showdowns is enough for you to annoint NC the chosen one.

You were pointing out what would be remembered and i think history will remember that bitter outburst over anything else that happened that day, because it was extraordinary. Oh maybe the wakelin/lynch punch up would be remembered too. Football wise with brisbane decimated through injury it was a poor game.

 

[spice18]

OBJ I think Malibu#27 has basically addressed the flaws in your response. Come back with a more water-tight argument. If you take off your rose-coloured glasses, you will admit that NC is still a baby in terms of full-time AFL coaching. He did a great job last season, but then, anyone can fluke. Which is why it is more appropriate to consider/rate him after say 3 years in the job. I guess you understand where I'm coming from with regards to the upper hand he holds in Showdowns. Mark has been at it for longer, delivered consistently for longer and has the record to prove it. And by the way NC was part of the regime that got belted so often in the showdowns (..oh but he didn't make the decisions, he wasn't in charge - cry me a river...).

There has never been an argument from me that in a couple of finals matches (2002 & 2003) Port choked in a way probably reflecting badly on Mark's record but again, over time, he has showed his ability to improve tactically on match-day and has a premiership to prove it.

If you remove your rose-coloured glasses OBJ you would easily be able to label NC as a pretty avarage matchday coach as well on the big occasion. Need i remind you of that 'terrible' (not for me though lol) night when NC had no strategy to combat a 34-year old Harvey while he had so-called aces like Scott Thomson up his sleeve!? Or maybe that old saying: never take injured players into finals as one NC did by taking one GJ into the game vs WC, then getting very angry with him when he hobbled off before the first quarter was up. It cuts both ways mate. Think outside the square OBJ and be objective in these assessments. Facts and stats are always there if you want to use them... I appreciate your arguments sometimes, but in some way, i see why a lot of Port supporters don't have much time for your sweeping generalisations.

 

[outback jack]

Law of averages says that if you have one of the best two win/loss record of any coach over the last five years you must be doing something right over that time. You say its because we had the second best list for 3 of those five years - thats probanbly debatable.

Yes maybe, but the point initially was that mark is very ruthless with the list (which he is good at) and the goldcards simply arent there. So you are taking it out of context. And wouldnt you agree that mark is as much, if not more responsible for your chokes to re-occur on a consistent basis, because of the flawed gameplan that he persisted with? When the pressure is applied mark appears very reactive when it comes to matchday coaching. Season 05 with his talent reduced showed this, his plan B is to turn warren into a wingman.

In regards to your list not being top2 material for a period, it was your depth that allowed you to produce such consistent performances and this was your strength, although i did overlook the lack of a genuine CHF marking option so you might be correct.

I think its actually W, L, W, W, W .... interestingly the first and 3rd W in that list were when we fielded sides just shells of our usual full list - so using your logic from below I feel that "football wise with Port decimated through injury it was a poor game".
You say NC's record cant be dismissed because hes had a few wins yet dismiss the record of Mark who has a better winning percentage over a longer period. In fact he also has a better finals winning percentage than NC ... but 5 showdowns is enough for you to annoint NC the chosen one.

malibu thats good sense of humor you display there. Luckily for those games you werent missing your leading CHF and FF or you would have been in alot of trouble! But anyway, the first win you refer to was with gary ayres in charge, so that cant really count. And all i was saying is theres no need to wait for three yrs with NC's matchday coaching over mark, as there is a pattern emerging that shows he has mark's measure. From our point of view it will be interesting to see how NC handles our squad in 3 yrs, but from a matchday coaching point of view its not that important.

 

[Malibu#27]

Yes maybe, but the point initially was that mark is very ruthless with the list (which he is good at) and the goldcards simply arent there. So you are taking it out of context. And wouldnt you agree that mark is as much, if not more responsible for your chokes to re-occur on a consistent basis, because of the flawed gameplan that he persisted with? When the pressure is applied mark appears very reactive when it comes to matchday coaching. Season 05 with his talent reduced showed this, his plan B is to turn warren into a wingman.

In actual fact one of the major criticisms on Ports board generally is his abundance of Gold Cards (my personal thoughts is he is a coach that backs his players in and takes the wrap for his coaching staff when things go pear-shaped) ....... OBJ perhaps if you feel inclined see if you can hunt down a Norwood junior coach from NC's reign at Norwood and ask how good NC was at deflecting criticism.

As for the gameplan ... basically plan A is a good one andwhen we are moving the ball freely is effective. However we definitely struggle against sides that flood (perhaps part of the reason for Crows recent good run against us as they have flooded and shut us down early before running over us) because we seem to be overly concerned with maintaining posession instead of gaining ground.

In regards to your list not being top2 material for a period, it was your depth that allowed you to produce such consistent performances and this was your strength, although i did overlook the lack of a genuine CHF marking option so you might be correct.

Yep - we did struggle to find a CHF or forward who could kick goals for us over that period. Certainly we never had a star 23 year old forward such as Trent Hentschel who has the potential to be a star. Unfortunately the last time we has a 23 year old KPP forward all we could get out of him was a B&F leading goal kicker and All Australain selection ... but no potential in sight.

malibu thats good sense of humor you display there. Luckily for those games you werent missing your leading CHF and FF or you would have been in alot of trouble! But anyway, the first win you refer to was with gary ayres in charge, so that cant really count. And all i was saying is theres no need to wait for three yrs with NC's matchday coaching over mark, as there is a pattern emerging that shows he has mark's measure. From our point of view it will be interesting to see how NC handles our squad in 3 yrs, but from a matchday coaching point of view its not that important.

Firstly - thankyou for your kind words up front.

No the first win I referred to we only missing our captain and high Brownlow vote earning centremen - both out for the year with knee injuries.
As for the NC matches, look at our sides for the two minor round losses and using your logic from a post or two ago it could be argued your wins were not memorable because we were impacted by injury. Our finals loss was an absolute discraceful effort.

Neil to date has overcome Mark in the same way as Roos does: smothers us early - waits for us to stagnate across half back and then starts running us. Hes done well to copy other coaches but nothing revolutionary.

 

[tribey]

Yes maybe, but the point initially was that mark is very ruthless with the list (which he is good at) and the goldcards simply arent there.

Initially he was - hence my prior reference to the 2003 delistings of CCC, Paxman and Kingsley - but he's used a velvet glove in the past two years.

Case inpoint, Toby Thurstans. Hack of the highest order, literally does nothing for four years, then plays two serviceable games in a Premiership year and gets rewarded with a 3 or 4 year contract.

 

[Mr Magoo]

I would be interested to see a comparision of 'other so called gun players stats' that have only played 33 games in comparision to Brett. Remember he has rarely been played in the position (on the ball) that he basically played through his junior years, give the lad a go!

For example do a comparison/stats of Ebert's 33 games to Ricciuto or even McLeod's first 33 games & you will more than likely be surprised at the results.

I've been to a few AFC games* & i quite clearly remember the calls of drop McLeod when he first started out playing coming from your faithfull in the members.

* = free tickets to AFC games

 

[outback jack]

Initially he was - hence my prior reference to the 2003 delistings of CCC, Paxman and Kingsley - but he's used a velvet glove in the past two years.

Case inpoint, Toby Thurstans. Hack of the highest order, literally does nothing for four years, then plays two serviceable games in a Premiership year and gets rewarded with a 3 or 4 year contract.

Toby thurstans might be a average player but that doesnt mean hes had a gold card, you're grasping at anything now. In 2004 thurstans was serviceable as the third tall, and deserved his place regardless of his GF performance. Damon White certainly hasnt done anything better than him at AFL level yet with the whole yr of opportunities hes had since. So no gold card there in 2004, for 2005 he started strongly got a ankle injury and was in and out for the rest of the season as mark mucked around with his forward setup. So was no gold card there either.

From your point of view, ie bretts eberts exclusion from the midfield at the expense of 'gold card' recipients, toby thurstans, primus and francou are all poor examples. With regards to toby gaining a 3 yr contract for reportedly a low figure, not sure whats wrong with it. He isnt a player you would delist and receive nothing for.

 

[tribey]

Toby thurstans might be a average player but that doesnt mean hes had a gold card,

You mentioned that Choco was still ruthless with his list management. I raised Thurstans as a prime example as to why he's mellowed since the flag was won.

you're grasping at anything now.

What, as opposed to you blaming the end of Primus' career on Choco and not his third anterior cruciate ligament rupture?

From your point of view, ie bretts eberts exclusion from the midfield at the expense of 'gold card' recipients, toby thurstans, primus and francou are all poor examples.

If we're talking about midfield and midfield only I mentioned the likes of Francou, Cochrane and Shattock.

You countered by bringing up 2-gamer Thomson and 4-gamer Eckermann like that proves that Choco was prepared to freshen his rotation and that the gold cards didn't exist.

Come on Jack.

 

[macca23]

Toby thurstans might be a average player.

Gott question the words "might be", jackie boy.

He's a dead set dud who played one reasonable game which happened to be the GF. Port fans insist there was a 2nd good game somewhere in his not too illustrious career - and that's about it, I'm afraid.

He would NOT get a game in the Crows. He shouldn't for Port.

He represents everything that a gold pass stands for IMO.

 

[outback jack]

OBJ I think Malibu#27 has basically addressed the flaws in your response. Come back with a more water-tight argument. If you take off your rose-coloured glasses, you will admit that NC is still a baby in terms of full-time AFL coaching. He did a great job last season, but then, anyone can fluke. Which is why it is more appropriate to consider/rate him after say 3 years in the job. I guess you understand where I'm coming from with regards to the upper hand he holds in Showdowns. Mark has been at it for longer, delivered consistently for longer and has the record to prove it. And by the way NC was part of the regime that got belted so often in the showdowns (..oh but he didn't make the decisions, he wasn't in charge - cry me a river...).

There has never been an argument from me that in a couple of finals matches (2002 & 2003) Port choked in a way probably reflecting badly on Mark's record but again, over time, he has showed his ability to improve tactically on match-day and has a premiership to prove it.

If you remove your rose-coloured glasses OBJ you would easily be able to label NC as a pretty avarage matchday coach as well on the big occasion. Need i remind you of that 'terrible' (not for me though lol) night when NC had no strategy to combat a 34-year old Harvey while he had so-called aces like Scott Thomson up his sleeve!? Or maybe that old saying: never take injured players into finals as one NC did by taking one GJ into the game vs WC, then getting very angry with him when he hobbled off before the first quarter was up. It cuts both ways mate. Think outside the square OBJ and be objective in these assessments. Facts and stats are always there if you want to use them... I appreciate your arguments sometimes, but in some way, i see why a lot of Port supporters don't have much time for your sweeping generalisations.

A very poor piece of writing there spice18. Somewhat unexpected but nethertheless very poor. Your original point was that the brisbane lions would disagree with mark being a average matchday coach and that the day would go down as being remembered as when mark masterfully brought the brisbane lions to their knees. I pointed out that there was an article on your own board not too long ago pointing to voss' thoughts and they were in direct conflict to your points. And the day would more likely be remembered as the day mark bagged the major sponsor. Since being presented with this factual information you've gone off on several angles, finally settling on NC's season as being a fluke, just like i suppose the 04 flag was a fluke? And that we have to wait to the end of NC's three yr contract to see if he has the wood over Mark on matchday. We might have to wait to see when roo and co arent there to see how good NC will be as a longterm coach, but the trend so far on matchday is against mark is showing itself.

 

[outback jack]

Gott question the words "might be", jackie boy.

He's a dead set dud who played one reasonable game which happened to be the GF. Port fans insist there was a 2nd good game somewhere in his not too illustrious career - and that's about it, I'm afraid.

He would NOT get a game in the Crows. He shouldn't for Port.

He represents everything that a gold pass stands for IMO.

Well we disagree, maybe you are missing the point of a gold card. I am not saying that he is a good player, dyertribe is wrongly saying that toby received a 'gold card' ie special treatment over other players, with his example of a player hurt by these is brett ebert.

If you look actually look at 2004 its hard to argue that port had anyone who should of got a game ahead of toby, damon white was the only player who could of taken his spot and he has done nothing since to suggest he is able to perform consistently at AFL standard. So the team was winning and thurstans was doing his job so he kept his spot.

In 05 he was in and out all the time, so hardly a gold card situation there either. Unless you can show players who should have been infront of him in 04 or a long streak of him getting games in 05 he isn’t in a gold card situation. If say he got games over motlop who will most likely play the 3rd forward role this season you might have a point.

 

[tribey]

dyertribe is wrongly saying that toby received a 'gold card' ie special treatment over other players, with his example of a player hurt by these is brett ebert.

Did you miss the point deliberately or are you purposefully ignorant?

I've explained where Thurstans fits in regards to this debate - in response to a point you yourself made - either have a re-read and be serious or have a lie down.

 

[outback jack]

ok dyertribe i will respond to you, but i do so with hesitation as you are left with bitterness from our past discussions. Also, you seem to show in inability to concede on any point which makes discussion almost pointless.

You mentioned that Choco was still ruthless with his list management. I raised Thurstans as a prime example as to why he's mellowed since the flag was won.

Yes its a poor example. Refer to response to macca23.

What, as opposed to you blaming the end of Primus' career on Choco and not his third anterior cruciate ligament rupture?

At the start of 05 mark told everyone that matty would play in a FP and for 05 atleast his rucking days were over. All this changed when mark got put under the pump. Considering it takes even midfielders a yr before they come good after a reco, he put both francou and primus under alot of unnecessary pressure. Not sure what you know about knees but a yr in a FP would of done him a lot of good, with the graft it is a continual strengthening process.

If we're talking about midfield and midfield only I mentioned the likes of Francou, Cochrane and Shattock.

You belatedly mentioned cochrane and shattock, both of which would play different roles to ebert and were in and out themselves. Although shattock does appear very hackish, but considering they traded for him i suppose they had to see what he could do. Francou is a poor example, as i already said and even you mentioned the low expectations from a guy coming back from a knee reco.

You countered by bringing up 2-gamer Thomson and 4-gamer Eckermann like that proves that Choco was prepared to freshen his rotation and that the gold cards didn't exist.

Come on Jack.

I said while you'd of thought that ebert could get atleast some game time maybe 5 mins a quarter in the middle the opportunity was obviously there for those that wanted it. These two were good examples that directly conflict you theory, pearce and chaplin while not in the midfield took their chance too. Ebert spent half his time falling over.

If you want to go on ruthless decisions, in 05 we had monty getting the flick before he wanted to go, would of been easy to give him another contract. R james they said goodbye to, even cochrane the gold carder got the flick. Your argument that the velvet gloves have been on for two yrs is very weak. Mark has once again cleverly taken the pressure off himself by culling the more experience players. The only thing you could say is in 04 mark could of moved some players on whose value was high at the time, but thats easy to say in hindsight.

 

[tribey]

ok dyertribe i will respond to you, but i do so with hesitation as you are left with bitterness from our past discussions. Also, you seem to show in inability to concede on any point which makes discussion almost pointless.

You tend to put so much effort into amateur psychoanalysis you leave yourself wide open to accusations of hypocrisy and don't tend to put much thought into the arguments you're building.

Bitterness? Explain.

While you ponder that, keep grinding your axe.

Yes its a poor example.

No, I say that it isn't. Refer to any one of my previous posts you didn't address. Deuce.

At the start of 05 mark told everyone that matty would play in a FP and for 05 atleast his rucking days were over. All this changed when mark got put under the pump. Considering it takes even midfielders a yr before they come good after a reco, he put both francou and primus under alot of unnecessary pressure. Not sure what you know about knees but a yr in a FP would of done him a lot of good, with the graft it is a continual strengthening process.

Francou I agree with. As I previously said - he was put into the gun far too early given he'd spent two years on the sideline. Especially as his signature move is weaving in traffic, which he was highly reluctant to do last year and with good cause.

As with Primus, he could've done his knee at any time. Either in the ruck, in the goalsquare or on the training track. He's clearly got a weakness there as did Rehn, Neitz and Walker before him.

He should've been brought back slowly - especially as Brogan was the other option - but the position both Choco and Primus were in was a tough one. Your captain is fit but is ineffectual as a forward as you'd planned. Do you drop him or try to get the most out of him in the limited time he has left?

Bottom line, at Primus' age and with his injury history it was a risk playing him anywhere. They got 18 ordinary games out of him and he broke down. Bad luck - hardly Choco's fault though and on form Primus probably would've retired anyway.

You belatedly mentioned cochrane and shattock, both of which would play different roles to ebert and were in and out themselves. Although shattock does appear very hackish, but considering they traded for him i suppose they had to see what he could do. Francou is a poor example, as i already said and even you mentioned the low expectations from a guy coming back from a knee reco.

I mentioned Shattock and Cochrane with my first and second post in this thread - but why entertain facts now Jack?

Regardless of set role, pound for pound Ebert deserved a run in the middle just as much as the midfielders we're talking about - especially given that Port were being smashed there every other week.

I don't see how you keep mentioning Francou as a poor example either. Not only was he underdone but he was performing poorly for long periods from the get-go. (Back to the original point for half a second) If you rotate him out you look for another option. Why not Ebert?

I said while you'd of thought that ebert could get atleast some game time maybe 5 mins a quarter in the middle the opportunity was obviously there for those that wanted it.

Exactly. In your haste to contradict or dispute every point I make you'll find you're agreeing with me here. As I said previously in this thread, Choco was willing to play Ebert so question marks over Brett's attitude are moot - problem was he persisted with him in the wrong position (small forward), which you yourself said he was ill-suited to play given his bad shoulder, in preference to giving others repeated opportunities.

These two were good examples that directly conflict you theory, pearce and chaplin while not in the midfield took their chance too. Ebert spent half his time falling over.

Where did I say that Choco wasn't willing to inject fresh blood at all? If that was the case Port would've run out in round one with the same side that won the flag.

Again, in your haste to argue semantics and claim victory you've oversimplified your case horribly.

If you want to go on ruthless decisions, in 05 we had monty getting the flick before he wanted to go, would of been easy to give him another contract. R james they said goodbye to, even cochrane the gold carder got the flick.

Monty was a surprise exit, especially given the average performances Bishop served up in 2005.

As for James, doctors advised him to stop playing his knee was that bad - you and I both know that. Hardly a hard decision.

It's also no surprise that Cochrane was axed. That was coming for some time. Which begs the question, if he was to be delisted, why did Choco deem him good enough for 13 games last year? Understand?

Your argument that the velvet gloves have been on for two yrs is very weak.

Again, you say so, but with precious little to make your case - an essay full of nothing in fact.

Perhaps if you spent some time analysing the facts at hand and formed some opinions with an open mind rather than resorting to your usual preconceived notions about those you're arguing with or about you might actually get somewhere.

Otherwise, why do you even bother posting here?

 

[outback jack]

No, I say that it isn't. Refer to any one of my previous posts you didn't address. Deuce.

wow thats clever.

Francou I agree with. As I previously said - he was put into the gun far too early given he'd spent two years on the sideline. Especially as his signature move is weaving in traffic, which he was highly reluctant to do last year and with good cause.

so why did you say he had a gold card?

If we're talking about midfield and midfield only I mentioned the likes of Francou, Cochrane and Shattock.

thats odd. Change of heart maybe.

As with Primus, he could've done his knee at any time. Either in the ruck, in the goalsquare or on the training track. He's clearly got a weakness there as did Rehn, Neitz and Walker before him.

Yes obviously its a weakness, but the graft took otherwise it would of gone almost immediately when he came back. It was how he was treated for such a tall and big man by mark when he said he would be a FP all yr that was the problem.

Bottom line, at Primus' age and with his injury history it was a risk playing him anywhere. They got 18 ordinary games out of him and he broke down. Bad luck - hardly Choco's fault though and on form Primus probably would've retired anyway.

Doubt retirement was on the cards. He always said the opposite. He would of been far better for last yr's run though thats the point.

I mentioned Shattock and Cochrane with my first and second post in this thread - but why entertain facts now Jack?

They werent amongst the names you mentioned originally. It was the francou, primus, wilson that were mentioned from memory.

Regardless of set role, pound for pound Ebert deserved a run in the middle just as much as the midfielders we're talking about - especially given that Port were being smashed there every other week.

Pound for pound? Anyway you will notice i agree with you here that it was an option. An option mark rightly or wrongly chose not to use. Gold cards werent the reason though.

I don't see how you keep mentioning Francou as a poor example either. Not only was he underdone but he was performing poorly for long periods from the get-go. (Back to the original point for half a second) If you rotate him out you look for another option. Why not Ebert?

THE POINT WAS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A GOLD CARD! You drag so far away from the point trying to find something you think is right, not actual fact, its ridiculous.

Exactly. In your haste to contradict or dispute every point I make you'll find you're agreeing with me here. As I said previously in this thread, Choco was willing to play Ebert so question marks over Brett's attitude are moot - problem was he persisted with him in the wrong position (small forward), which you yourself said he was ill-suited to play given his bad shoulder, in preference to giving others repeated opportunities.

yep i agreed, talk about haste.

Where did I say that Choco wasn't willing to inject fresh blood at all? If that was the case Port would've run out in round one with the same side that won the flag.

Gold cards...?

Again, in your haste to argue semantics and claim victory you've oversimplified your case horribly.

and you've done the opposite. Making something into a jumbled mess doesnt make you right or your theory sound correct.

Monty was a surprise exit, especially given the average performances Bishop served up in 2005.

Ok you're right, jack monty got the chop and he actually doesnt have the velvet gloves on. Oh and the average performances an injured bishop served up too.

As for James, doctors advised him to stop playing his knee was that bad - you and I both know that. Hardly a hard decision.

Do you have any idea how many players are advised to stop playing? Obviously not. I had a very very minor knee operation and was advised that if i pound it too much in sport i risk problems later in life. Which players dont have a knee/shoulder problem.

It's also no surprise that Cochrane was axed. That was coming for some time. Which begs the question, if he was to be delisted, why did Choco deem him good enough for 13 games last year? Understand?

Which begs the question what happened to his gold card to save him? No mark did the old slash and burn, brings in the youngsters and lowers expectations for 06. While his own coaching goes un-scrutinised.

The simple and it was very simple theory was in your opinion and some of BF's port gangs opinion, was that mark had famous gold cards for certain players. Now when two of them included primus and francou you can see how ridiculous the idea is. After you had run on through every ruck and key position player there you settled on francou? cochrane, thurstans and shattock, which are woeful examples. Despite being presented with the lack of options for toby's replacement in 04 and his lack of games in 05 you decide to dismiss it out of hand. Then you maybe decide that francou is no longer a gold carder. The answer is it was simply marks opinion that he hadn’t worked hard enough or wasn’t up to it, with brett not exactly in sparkling form anyway.

You tend to put so much effort into amateur psychoanalysis you leave yourself wide open to accusations of hypocrisy and don't tend to put much thought into the arguments you're building.

Bitterness? Explain.

While you ponder that, keep grinding your axe.

....Again, you say so, but with precious little to make your case - an essay full of nothing in fact.

Perhaps if you spent some time analysing the facts at hand and formed some opinions with an open mind rather than resorting to your usual preconceived notions about those you're arguing with or about you might actually get somewhere.

Otherwise, why do you even bother posting here?

well ok you prove my point here dont you. You really do need to lighten up. This is why i expressed earlier my hesitation in responding to you. 1. You hold a grudge 2. You are always right, even when presented with facts. Or even when i agree with you somehow manage to disagree with it 3. It all ends with you going running to Fred or kane and i get a warning. Pretty simple.

We can finish our disagreement with regards to gold cards too, you obviously do not want to see it anything but your way which is fine, i don’t have a problem with it.

 

[- PC -]

I would be interested to see a comparision of 'other so called gun players stats' that have only played 33 games in comparision to Brett. Remember he has rarely been played in the position (on the ball) that he basically played through his junior years, give the lad a go!

For example do a comparison/stats of Ebert's 33 games to Ricciuto or even McLeod's first 33 games & you will more than likely be surprised at the results.

Lets see if I can jig this right

A McLeod first 46 games ( couldnt narrow it down to 33)

nah couldnt tidy the stats so go to the link

Basically Macca averaged 10.5 disposals a game in his first 2 years with 38 goals

M Riciutto first 40 games

All class

Mark averaged 20.25 disposals a game with 24 goals ( mainly played HBF/Wing)

B Ebert first 33 games

compares well to Mcleod but suffers behind Roo

Brett averages 10.2 disposals and has kicked 35 goals

 

[- PC -]

One of the more maligned players on the Adelaide board is Brent Reilly...

44 games and averages 12.1 disposals a game yet has only kicked 16 goals( maybe like Roo playing behind centre has hampered this bit so far.)

BreNt V BreTt

 

[tribey]

This is why i expressed earlier my hesitation in responding to you.

1. You hold a grudge

Remember what I said about your penchant for amateur psychoanalysis leaving you wide open to accusations of hypocrisy?

Here's a perfect example.

You accuse me of a grudge and claim that you're hesitant to respond to me, yet you quote me at every opportunity - look no further than this thread and the three times without reply(!) in that discussion about university if you want recent examples.

Why not just admit you're cut that I got you suspended a couple of times and move on?

2. You are always right, even when presented with facts.

Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black.

How's your CV coming along for that statistician's job? How long until you can right the heinous wrongs of the current definition of the contested mark and put your Tredrea obsession to bed?

It all ends with you going running to Fred or kane and i get a warning. Pretty simple.

You get warnings and suspensions because you repeatedly break Big Footy rules. But create another alias, you'll be right.

You really do need to lighten up.

Ah, your coup de grace for anyone who calls you out.

The problem with this defence mechanism of yours is that you'll find that most people who converse with you on these boards are light enough - and are still quite happy to discuss football with you in a sane and rational manner - but funnily enough they take aversion to your usual habit of either insulting them or their argument with nothing to back it up if you disagree with them or they question your motives.

Example:

Jack: "You're bitter. You hold a grudge. Your argument is weak. You don't make sense."

DT: "You always say that but don't prove it. Why do you bother?"

Jack: "Lighten up. You're bitter. You hold a grudge. Your argument is..."

So, doing much over the weekend?

 

[tribey]

Basically Macca averaged 10.5 disposals a game in his first 2 years with 38 goals

Brett averages 10.2 disposals and has kicked 35 goals

That is actually a very good (and surprising) comparison given Macca started his AFL career as a forward pocket, before becoming a bits and pieces flanker, then champion on-baller.

 

[outback jack]

Remember what I said about your penchant for amateur psychoanalysis leaving you wide open to accusations of hypocrisy?

Here's a perfect example.

You accuse me of a grudge and claim that you're hesitant to respond to me, yet you quote me at every opportunity - look no further than this thread and the three times without reply(!) in that discussion about university if you want recent examples.

Why not just admit you're cut that I got you suspended a couple of times and move on?



Wow. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black.

How's your CV coming along for that statistician's job? How long until you can right the heinous wrongs of the current definition of the contested mark and put your Tredrea obsession to bed?



You get warnings and suspensions because you repeatedly break Big Footy rules. But create another alias, you'll be right.



Ah, your coup de grace for anyone who calls you out.

The problem with this defence mechanism of yours is that you'll find that most people who converse with you on these boards are light enough - and are still quite happy to discuss football with you in a sane and rational manner - but funnily enough they take aversion to your usual habit of either insulting them or their argument with nothing to back it up if you disagree with them or they question your motives.

Example:

Jack: "You're bitter. You hold a grudge. Your argument is weak. You don't make sense."

DT: "You always say that but don't prove it. Why do you bother?"

Jack: "Lighten up. You're bitter. You hold a grudge. Your argument is..."

So, doing much over the weekend?

clearly you have some trouble putting your wrongs of the past to rest. As i have already said multiple times i forgive you for those actions, so dont be so bitter now.

With regards to the discussion, all it demonstrated to me was your surprising inability to acknowledge fact when presented with it. All that happened was you diverted from what was a very simple theory because it was flawed, with your essay like answers. Take a look at it.

Also, you dont really think warrens contested marks are an issue do you? I hope not. Its simply using the correct bait to catch the right fish. I thought you maybe had a better ability to read a situation that. Hopefully it was just a slip of the tongue or maybe clutching at the old straws so to speak from you. Anyway thats all i have to say. Forgive and forget

 

[*PAF]

That is actually a very good (and surprising) comparison given Macca started his AFL career as a forward pocket, before becoming a bits and pieces flanker, then champion on-baller.

That actually reaffirms the way I view Ebert so far.

That is:
He has shown enough to want to see some more but in a different position.
Hopefully last year was only "second season blues" as in each and every one of his previous years with Port he improved immensely.

EDIT: Even last year he started off well, but then he went slowly but surely backwards. The fact that he was playing HFF when our midfield was getting beaten more often than not probably didn't help though.

 

[outback jack]

Interesting that mark is apparently drastically changing his gameplan this yr dyertribe. Perhaps an admission on his part that hes got it wrong last yr and maybe even previous yrs. Perfect way to take the pressure off himself too. Hes done it perfectly actually, cut the more experienced players, lower expectations and remove all scrutiny from his own performance.

 

[Crow-mo]

Interesting that mark is apparently drastically changing his gameplan this yr dyertribe. Perhaps an admission on his part that hes got it wrong last yr and maybe even previous yrs. Perfect way to take the pressure off himself too. Hes done it perfectly actually, cut the more experienced players, lower expectations and remove all scrutiny from his own performance.

Jack, you sure do pay a lot of attention to Port these days

 

[outback jack]

Jack, you sure do pay a lot of attention to Port these days

Hi crow-mo, if you are wanting more attention next time just ask. Its no problem at all! But no not particularly or anymore than usual atleast, it was a major headline today here news wise you see.

 

[spice18]

Interesting that mark is apparently drastically changing his gameplan this yr dyertribe. Perhaps an admission on his part that hes got it wrong last yr and maybe even previous yrs. Perfect way to take the pressure off himself too. Hes done it perfectly actually, cut the more experienced players, lower expectations and remove all scrutiny from his own performance.

Almost every season, diligent coaches make changes to their game plan based on eliminating their shortcomings from the previous season(s) as well as incorporating useful aspects from sides that would have succeeded that year (in this case Swans, Eagles, Crows...). There is no shame in doing that and admitting it. Instead, it is shameful for any coach to stick to a game plan that has not delivered results. In Mark's case I think he is modifying his playing script from a poor season (by Port's standards, I think 10 other sides would have loved to finish 6th) so that we improve this season. What's wrong with that?