Preview Changes vs GWS

[Vader]

@Southerntakeover there are a number of issues here.

I'll start with your most ludicrous comment - that the voting lacks validity because Craig is a discredited coach. Sorry, but that's below you. Craig had many flaws as a coach - his game plan was overly rigid & complicated and he clearly lacked flexibility to make changes on game day. You could even argue that he wasn't able to get the best out of the players, most notably Tex, who mysteriously developed a work ethic the day that Sando was appointed (after being a lazy sod for the previous 3 years). An inability to assess whether a player was performing well or badly was never one of the criticisms levelled at him. Indeed, suggesting that anyone would be appointed Senior Coach without the ability to judge whether a player is playing well or playing poorly is just plain ludicrous.

You also tried to argue that the club champion award is biased towards those who play more games. This is undeniably true. However, this argument is a double edged sword, because players who are performing badly get dropped and don't play enough games to gain the votes required for a high finish. Reilly didn't get dropped and polled votes in many of the games that he played. Voting in the club champion award is optional - there is no obligation to give votes to a player who hasn't performed well, they just give them a zero. The fact that Reilly polled sufficient votes to finish in the top-10 and played 23 of 24 games in this period is a strong indicator that the coaches were happy with his performance - ie he was playing well.

You also argued that the team's overall poor performance in those years diminishes the value of the award in those years. There is a degree of truth to this, but it's nowhere near as valid as you would have us believe. It would be interesting to compare the scores of the top-10 players in 2010 & 2011 to those in 2012 when the team performed well. My guess is that the optional nature of the voting would probably result in the bad years having lower voting totals than the good year. At the end of the day though, this is largely irrelevant. The argument is that Reilly's performance during that period was bad - his detractors would argue that it was so bad that he should not have been selected. The fact is that he was collecting votes regularly, indicating that the coaches were clearly happy with his performance (once again, noting the optional voting system). He was one of our ten best performers in those seasons and as such suggestions that he should have been dropped are plainly ludicrous.

At the end of the day, the optional voting system used by the AFC pretty much destroys your argument. If he was performing poorly, then they would have just given him zero votes for those games. They only give votes to players they think played well. The fact that he scored sufficient votes in those years to finish in the top-10 is a very strong indicator that he was playing well and you have failed to come up with a valid counter to this, despite several attempts.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

At the end of the day, the optional voting system used by the AFC pretty much destroys your argument. If he was performing poorly, then they would have just given him zero votes for those games. They only give votes to players they think played well. The fact that he scored sufficient votes in those years to finish in the top-10 is a very strong indicator that he was playing well and you have failed to come up with a valid counter to this, despite several attempts.

What's the minimum number of votes you need in order to finish top 10?

 

[Huntercrow]

I think if we are to be a threat this year this must be a percentage booster. No disrespect to GWS but with their injuries to key players our record against GWS should continue. But the question is which Crows team hits the oval on Sunday? Hopefully the same Crows that demolished the Saints in Melbourne.
This is the defining game of the season so the choice is easy......... Win and all is good with the world........loose well need I say?

 

[Slippery Pete]

This three-way shit-fight between Vader, Jack is Back and ST has made for some compelling viewing the last few pages.

I'd get involved but I'm afraid it might bring the three of them closer together.

 

[1970crow]

He was still quite clearly injured with a bad corkie the week before as well, no need to risk him regardless. The fact he didn't play SANFL either says he was definitely carrying some sort of niggle.

Or he was the travelling emergency. How often do we travel without one and if it wasn't Grigg, who was it.

 

[Elite Crow]

What's the minimum number of votes you need in order to finish top 10?

And he seems to conveniently ignore the number of injuries we had in 2011 and the lack of senior players. But the biggest telling sign that he is full of it is the fact Radar was our tagger in 2011 and was so bad at it he was moved.

 

[Bailey01]

Darth Vader is Reilly your son? haha

 

[BACCS]

I don't think he will play any more games unless our love affair with Petrenko and Reilly ends. Or we jettison Matt Crouch.

I don't think Reilly will be playing (unless there is a huge form reversal) once Otten (and Hendo) are fit. Reilly wouldn't be playing now if Hendo is fit, which is the thing that sucks most about his injury.

 

[radiojake]

I frequent the bigfooty boards because they are an excellent source of footy information that isn't freely available in other mediums - I put my two cents in every now and then because that's what people do.

What I don't understand, is how people manage to involve themselves in multiple page argument/discussions over certain players in a back and forth tennis ball against the wall kind of scenario.

It's hilarious

PLAY THE KIDS
SACK TRIGG
DROP PETRENKO AND REILLY
UPGRADE CAMERON
TRADE DANGER BEFORE HE LEAVES
$700K IS TOO MUCH FOR A GUTLESS SQUIBBGIBB

dont change

 

[BACCS]

Or he was the travelling emergency. How often do we travel without one and if it wasn't Grigg, who was it.

We always travel with one, where did you get the idea we don't from? Martin was the traveling emergency, I would have thought that's fairly obvious. Unlike what people on BF think, the selectors don't deliberately play games with all of you to piss you off. If Grigg was going to be dropped for Martin, it would have happened on the Friday, not as a late change on the Sunday. Grigg suffered a very severe corkie very late in the Sydney game, I'm surprised he wasn't ruled out earlier in the week.

 

[Southerntakeover]

@Southerntakeover there are a number of issues here.

I'll start with your most ludicrous comment - that the voting lacks validity because Craig is a discredited coach. Sorry, but that's below you. Craig had many flaws as a coach - his game plan was overly rigid & complicated and he clearly lacked flexibility to make changes on game day. You could even argue that he wasn't able to get the best out of the players, most notably Tex, who mysteriously developed a work ethic the day that Sando was appointed (after being a lazy sod for the previous 3 years). An inability to assess whether a player was performing well or badly was never one of the criticisms levelled at him. Indeed, suggesting that anyone would be appointed Senior Coach without the ability to judge whether a player is playing well or playing poorly is just plain ludicrous.

Oh spare the faux outrage, it doesn't strengthen your position. The concerns with Craig's coaching in those years ran deep, from his selection policy to the behaviours that he encouraged and rewarded. These concerns were played out endlessly. You don't get to selectively frame what the criticisms were.

Atleast some of these concerns were validated- our performances were substantially below par, and he didn't see the 2011 season out. A new set of coaches came in and made significant changes, including a change in how Reilly was treated. If Craig was, in your estimation, of the view that Reilly was a strong performer in his role, what would you take away from the fact that the new coach didn't maintain him in the roles he was playing? They're incompatible views, and yet, if we adopt the position that 'coach is always right', we can't deal with the inherent conflict between them.

I'm not acting like everything Craig did was wrong. I'm just suggesting that any subjective measure based upon his performance for these years should be viewed in it's appropriate context.

You

also tried to argue that the club champion award is biased towards those who play more games. This is undeniably true. However, this argument is a double edged sword, because players who are performing badly get dropped and don't play enough games to gain the votes required for a high finish. Reilly didn't get dropped and polled votes in many of the games that he played. Voting in the club champion award is optional - there is no obligation to give votes to a player who hasn't performed well, they just give them a zero. The fact that Reilly polled sufficient votes to finish in the top-10 and played 23 of 24 games in this period is a strong indicator that the coaches were happy with his performance - ie he was playing well.

See, we've gotten this many posts in and you really haven't progressed from the same circular argument. He deserved selection because he was selected.

I argued that the 'ranking' can distort towards players who played more games, masking the quality of performance. The measure that you're relying upon is flawed. I'm glad you admit it.

Where your argument spectacularly blows up is here:

You argue that best and fairest votes are the best indicator of a players performance. You then argue that a player who played more games must have performed better. Unfortunately, as you are well aware, there were players who finished below Reilly who polled more 'votes per game' than he did. This indicates that their performance was better, yet they played fewer games... the horror.

Ultimately, the problem isn't that there's an insurmountable obstacle in our way towards finding understanding, it's that you're showing a complete disinterest in presenting a genuine argument. You need to stop acting like blunt tools are the panacea of all football knowledge. There's some insight that can be gained by best and fairest rankings, but it's far more limited than your attempted use.

You also argued that the team's overall poor performance in those years diminishes the value of the award in those years. There is a degree of truth to this, but it's nowhere near as valid as you would have us believe. It would be interesting to compare the scores of the top-10 players in 2010 & 2011 to those in 2012 when the team performed well. My guess is that the optional nature of the voting would probably result in the bad years having lower voting totals than the good year. At the end of the day though, this is largely irrelevant. The argument is that Reilly's performance during that period was bad - his detractors would argue that it was so bad that he should not have been selected. The fact is that he was collecting votes regularly, indicating that the coaches were clearly happy with his performance (once again, noting the optional voting system). He was one of our ten best performers in those seasons and as such suggestions that he should have been dropped are plainly ludicrous.

At the end of the day, the optional voting system used by the AFC pretty much destroys your argument. If he was performing poorly, then they would have just given him zero votes for those games. They only give votes to players they think played well. The fact that he scored sufficient votes in those years to finish in the top-10 is a very strong indicator that he was playing well and you have failed to come up with a valid counter to this, despite several attempts.

The optional voting system doesn't really affect my argument at all. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the measure that you're using. You're relying upon a ranking.

You haven't presented an argument regarding the objective performance of Reilly in those years against all other players in the AFL. Happy to see you do so. What you have done is present an argument about his performance relative to those of this team mates. Of course this would then need to be assessed against the strength of his team mates performances in an objective sense to gain meaning.

Again, how would the Crows top 10 for 2011 compare to the Cats? Roughly equivalent in your estimation? How about 2011 to 2012 Crows? 2012 GWS? Do you really believe that the 10th best performance in these teams were all equivalents?

 

[Hank93]

Hmmmm.......

 

[SloaneysDanger]

Oh shit. That's not good at all.

 

[lunacy]

Have no idea who will go out for Tex.

Probably Pods I reckon. Tex, Jenkins & Lynch as the 3 talls.

 

[Bailey01]

Probably Pods I reckon. Tex, Jenkins & Lynch as the 3 talls.

Yes definitely, if JJ can have as many scoring shots as he has the past fortnight then he will be perfect foil for Tex

 

[hey shorty]

Normally we leave one but not two. We dont have any injury concerns but maybe Truck to miss for Sam Shaw ??

 

[Mong]

Or he was the travelling emergency. How often do we travel without one and if it wasn't Grigg, who was it.

Brodie Martin was the travelling emergency and was a late call up to replace the injured Grigg.

 

[Allefgib]

Um, Vader don't let the facts get in the way. Laird started on the bench last week and then came on in an early rotation into the forward line. This week, oh look, he's been training with the forward group and is starting on the bench again.

That's really unfair of you nikki.

You know Vader makes his calls based on repetive outcomes and not allowing for change.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Brodie Martin was the travelling emergency and was a late call up to replace the injured Grigg.

Correct

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Brodie Martin was the travelling emergency and was a late call up to replace the injured Grigg.

Noble was on the radio and specifically said that Martin was brought in for Grigg because they wanted the extra leg speed

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Hmmmm.......

View attachment 52190

Great news for my boy Shaw ......thought we'd need an extra tall today against the the GWS tall forward line

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Noble was on the radio and specifically said that Martin was brought in for Grigg because they wanted the extra leg speed

What leg speed ?

He's seriously lost that zip he got his chance on ......and you can forget about the sidestep

Really hard to fathom the lad .....he obviously too big to retain his pace ...FFS why didn't he trim down & give himself a chance

 

[Wood_Duck]

Noble was on the radio and specifically said that Martin was brought in for Grigg because they wanted the extra leg speed

I heard what Noble said and to be honest, I don't think he knew what the true story was. His comments were somewhat confused. Its feasible (but a bit odd) that he wasn't in the loop. Brodie Martin was the traveling emergency. Why all of the fitness testing on Grigg Saturday if he was dropped?

I think Noble tripped up.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I heard what Noble said and to be honest, I don't think he knew what the true story was. His comments were somewhat confused. Its feasible (but a bit odd) that he wasn't in the loop. Brodie Martin was the traveling emergency. Why all of the fitness testing on Grigg Saturday if he was dropped?

I think Noble tripped up.

If Brodie Martin is the travelling emergency .........what message is this sending Lyons?

Not that i think Lyons has banged the door down or played well enough at AFL level ........but FFS he's better than Martin ?

 

[The Karma Bus]

Noble was on the radio and specifically said that Martin was brought in for Grigg because they wanted the extra leg speed

Correct..
He said something like "umm, err yeah I'm not sure where that info came from, there seemed to be a bit of err conflicting accounts of what went on there err but he was left out as we hmm felt Brodie could offer us some more umerr speed"

I think someone didn't receive the info that we were treating it as Grigg was left out due to injury..