Preview Changes vs GWS

[Elite Crow]

I'm not retreating. Your assertion is that 2012 was the only good year of Reilly's career. The facts are that he finished in the top-10 of our Club Champion voting in 2010 & 2011, which proves your assertion to be false. So far you've made two feeble attempts to get around this evidence, by attempting (and failing) to discredit the award itself, then by attempting (and failing) to discredit those who voted for Reilly.

You can't get around the fact that he finished in the top-10 in those years, which is very strong evidence that he played well in those years, which runs counter to your original assertion. Your assertion was wrong and it's time you accepted it and admitted the truth - Reilly may not have ever been an A-grade player, but he has played far better than you give him credit for over the duration of his career.

Why are you ignoring the number of games played as a reason he polled 9th in the top 10 besides being only one of 6 players to play more than 19 games.

 

[1970crow]

This board is seriously weird

Where's all the indignation about Grigg not playing ......why isn't he being given games to groom him & fast track him ?

Nope ....silence ....crickets .....where's the next new toy?

So, no-one demanding he be played ? ....anyone?

Given up. He should play ahead of Reilly, but what's the point in getting worked up over it. Experienced and mediocre wins out every time at our club.

 

[craig crowing]

Doesnt matter how you put it ,you will never convince me that Petrenko is half the footballer that Grigg is.
I thought games were won by kicking more goals than opposition or actually someone that got the ball and knew what to do with it. and actually know how to kick it.
Why running around like headless chook gets you games over players like Grigg and Lyon etc who can actually play the game and will improve.
Sando loses me with rating Lairds game as a defensive forward last week, yet he already has one in Petrenko . Sounds like we had more defensive work going on up fwd than down back. That would mean that Pods,JJ AND eddie have to get 4 goals or more each week to get near a winning score .
Guess thats why Bickley is our forward coach because he was a good tackler as well.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Size of posts is usually inversely proportional to quality.

If nothing else they increase my scrolling speed when 1 after another between 2 posters repeating the same crap...

 

[Southerntakeover]

I'm not retreating. Your assertion is that 2012 was the only good year of Reilly's career. The facts are that he finished in the top-10 of our Club Champion voting in 2010 & 2011, which proves your assertion to be false. So far you've made two feeble attempts to get around this evidence, by attempting (and failing) to discredit the award itself, then by attempting (and failing) to discredit those who voted for Reilly.

In what dimension of hell does what you've written make any sense at all?

You've asserted that the best and fairest ranking demonstrate that his performance was good.

I've raised a number of concerns regarding using this as a measure. Those are directly relevant to the validity of using the measure that you introduced. These concerns include, but are not limited to, that the award relies upon the opinion of 'voters' who have been discredited by subsequent events, that such a ranking can be skewed by 'games played', and that a ranking only provides information comparative to the rest of the team, a team that was poor, therefore not providing an objective measure of performance.

Rather than addressing any of these points, you've simply repeated your initial claim. Whilst I wish I had thought of this Machiavellian masterstroke, it doesn't advance the discussion at all. You're still relying upon a flawed measure. Either address why you say that the measure is not flawed, or concede.

You can't get around the fact that he finished in the top-10 in those years, which is very strong evidence that he played well in those years, which runs counter to your original assertion. Your assertion was wrong and it's time you accepted it and admitted the truth - Reilly may not have ever been an A-grade player, but he has played far better than you give him credit for over the duration of his career.

Again, you're just repeating yourself without purpose. My contention is not that Reilly did not finish top 10 in the best and fairest, it's that this does not tell us whether his performance was 'good' or not. For example, it tells us nothing about how Reilly's performance in those years would be assessed on a league wide basis.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How much spam can we get on 1 thread...

 

[Southerntakeover]

Why are you ignoring the number of games played as a reason he polled 9th in the top 10 besides being only one of 6 players to play more than 19 games.

It's only important to understand where he finished in the rankings, not what this actually means as a measure.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Size of posts is usually inversely proportional to quality.

If nothing else they increase my scrolling speed when 1 after another between 2 posters repeating the same crap...

STFU.

 

[Southerntakeover]

STFU.

Only joking Kane. Four letters. Post of the year, right?

 

[1970crow]

I'm not retreating. Your assertion is that 2012 was the only good year of Reilly's career. The facts are that he finished in the top-10 of our Club Champion voting in 2010 & 2011, which proves your assertion to be false. So far you've made two feeble attempts to get around this evidence, by attempting (and failing) to discredit the award itself, then by attempting (and failing) to discredit those who voted for Reilly.

You can't get around the fact that he finished in the top-10 in those years, which is very strong evidence that he played well in those years, which runs counter to your original assertion. Your assertion was wrong and it's time you accepted it and admitted the truth - Reilly may not have ever been an A-grade player, but he has played far better than you give him credit for over the duration of his career.

Pretty simplistic saying that top 10 at an underperforming club is strong evidence of playing well. If he played all games and finished 9th or 10th, then that's mediocre at best. Mid range of the starting 18 if playing near all games is most certainly sub mediocre. He had an outstanding first half of 2012 but was found out in the second half. Aside from that, he's deserved his spot in the 22 over the years in a poor to middling team, despite a couple of prelims.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If nothing else Reilly has confirmed the winner of the whipping boy thread

 

[dude316]

Only joking Kane. Four letters. Post of the year, right?

K.

 

[1970crow]

If nothing else Reilly has confirmed the winner of the whipping boy thread

You're right, he was great last week. Thoroughly deserves his spot and should be exempt from any discussion on the merit of his selection. Was enormous during the 1st half of 2012 and that's enough for me and should shield him from any criticism for a couple more years.

 

[Mattrox]

Crouch could be sub.

Managing a 1st year player so the general doesn't set in and force him out prematurely.

Slowly bring up the match fitness. He was exhausted in the last quarter. He never stopped because of it and fought through but he was spent.

More likely to be subbed off when being managed though.




Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[simmo97]

In what dimension of hell does what you've written make any sense at all?

You've asserted that the best and fairest ranking demonstrate that his performance was good.

I've raised a number of concerns regarding using this as a measure. Those are directly relevant to the validity of using the measure that you introduced. These concerns include, but are not limited to, that the award relies upon the opinion of 'voters' who have been discredited by subsequent events, that such a ranking can be skewed by 'games played', and that a ranking only provides information comparative to the rest of the team, a team that was poor, therefore not providing an objective measure of performance.

Rather than addressing any of these points, you've simply repeated your initial claim. Whilst I wish I had thought of this Machiavellian masterstroke, it doesn't advance the discussion at all. You're still relying upon a flawed measure. Either address why you say that the measure is not flawed, or concedee
.

I am not bother whether Reilly plays or not at afl or sanfl level.

When you say the voters have been discredited by recent years what do you mean? Because only the coaches award best and fairest votes for each game on a ranking
system which varies from coach to coach slighty

you claim his peformance is not able to be measured because the team was peforming poorly well that is crap because it is alot easier to peform well and stand up when the team is going well. The young players in the top teams would struggle and not look as good if their did not have the senior players helping them peform their roles.

of course the votes are screwed by games played it is the same for the bronolow medal and other medals.

 

[Wright Away]

Brent Reilly for sub and then don't sub him on. He can just sit on the bench for the whole game. It'll be good because he will have exactly the same amount of positive influence on the game as he would if he was on the ground.

 

[MRB37]

Brent Reilly for sub and then don't sub him on. He can just sit on the bench for the whole game. It'll be good because he will have exactly the same amount of positive influence on the game as he would if he was on the ground.

At least is Reilly is sub it'll be a sign he's potentially on his way out of the side.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I am not bother whether Reilly plays or not at afl or sanfl level.

When you say the voters have been discredited by recent years what do you mean? Because only the coaches award best and fairest votes for each game on a ranking
system which varies from coach to coach slighty

The coach didn't see out 2011. It may give us some reason to question whether his football judgement was spot on at the time.

you claim his peformance is not able to be measured because the team was peforming poorly well that is crap because it is alot easier to peform well and stand up when the team is going well. The young players in the top teams would struggle and not look as good if their did not have the senior players helping them peform their roles.

of course the votes are screwed by games played it is the same for the bronolow medal and other medals.

No, that's not what I claimed at all.

If you beat a collection of the worlds slowest people in a race, would you claim to be one of the fastest?

 

[simmo97]

The coach didn't see out 2011. It may give us some reason to question whether his football judgement was spot on at the time.
No, that's not what I claimed at all.
If you beat a collection of the worlds slowest people in a race, would you claim to be one of the fastest?

so we should question every b andF were a coach gets sacked during the season?

 

[Paladin]

Brent Reilly for sub and then don't sub him on. He can just sit on the bench for the whole game. It'll be good because he will have exactly the same amount of positive influence on the game as he would if he was on the ground.

Lucas Herbert says hi. I like it.

 

[Sanders]

so we should question every b andF were a coach gets sacked during the season?

How is this even difficult?

Coaches don't get sacked in successful years. When its all going wrong, being left standing in some form of attrition does not mean you are the absolute best

David Teague (who you might well ask) won Carlton's B&F in 2004 under Pagan, Tyson Edwards never won one for us. What does this tell us? Anything?

 

[Southerntakeover]

so we should question every b andF were a coach gets sacked during the season?

You should consider the circumstances of every measure that you use.

Look, I'll elaborate a bit, since quite a few seem to be missing where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that best and fairests are rubbish. They can be quite useful for assessing players performances, given that they allow for role.

What I'm arguing is that you need to have a bit of nous in terms of how you apply it as a measure. The same as any measure. I've used best and fairest 'rankings' before in defending vB, and I expect that some would have long enough memories to remember this. The key is the context in which it is used. What does a best and fairest tell us?

It tells us how the coaches believe the players performed, as compared to each other. When is it appropriate to use this measure? In discussions regarding whether a player is 'top 10', or 'best 22'. Those are both discussions regarding the players relative merits against other players on our list. It becomes appropriate then to only compare him to the people on our list. (Although in context this was still being misapplied, as you need to allow for games played to some degree).

But you also need to be aware of the limitations of any measure. What does a best and fairest NOT tell you? Objectively (i.e. a standard that can be applied to all players in the league) how did the player perform? You can't get an accurate measure of this in a vacuum. There are too many other elements to consider. How did the performance of your team compare to the performance of other teams?

 

[1970crow]

How is this even difficult?

Coaches don't get sacked in successful years. When its all going wrong, being left standing in some form of attrition does not mean you are the absolute best

David Teague (who you might well ask) won Carlton's B&F in 2004 under Pagan, Tyson Edwards never won one for us. What does this tell us? Anything?

Duh! Pretty obvious. David Teague>>>>>>>>daylight>>>>>>>>Tyson Edwards.

Geez, Teague is a b&f winner, what more needs to be said.

 

[Sanders]

Duh! Pretty obvious. David Teague>>>>>>>>daylight>>>>>>>>Tyson Edwards.

Geez, Teague is a b&f winner, what more needs to be said.

Matt Connell >>>>>>Patrick Dangerfield

 

[1970crow]

Matt Connell >>>>>>Patrick Dangerfield

And by some margin!