Conca Vs Heppell

[Slattery_20]

Conca dominated the midfield on the weekend...something Heppell is yet to do.

It's fun to make things up, isn't it???

Hepp got 2 brownlow votes, out of the middle against Geelong last year (10CP, 3 CL, 30D & a goal)... that "didn't happen".... the vote he got against Richmond (15CP, 4CL, 29D)... that "didn't happen" either.

There's a reason Heppell averages more contested possessions than Conca, and more clearances... even this year.

 

[entourage]

Surprised at the poll as well though, thought Heppell would be dominating.

I'd take Conca quite easily.

 

[Morro]

I didnt bother voting as these Polls are often ruined by own team votes.

I will say though Heppell is rated by most and is deserving of that praise. Conca is severely underrated and has had a much tougher initiation which will hold him in good stead.

If I am honest, I cant split the 2. I think both players fill a massive need at their respective club and both teams supporters would be stoked.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

If my memory serves me correctly at the time this poll was created Heppell was so far in front that it was taken as a joke and Conca got a lot of votes from people being silly.

As for now it is close but I thing Heppell's ability through traffic makes him the better player.

Incorrect. It was created during Conca's run of good form from about round 4-8. At that stage he was looking just as good.

It's fun to make things up, isn't it???

Hepp got 2 brownlow votes, out of the middle against Geelong last year (10CP, 3 CL, 30D & a goal)... that "didn't happen".... the vote he got against Richmond (15CP, 4CL, 29D)... that "didn't happen" either.

There's a reason Heppell averages more contested possessions than Conca, and more clearances... even this year.

Conca has won more contested possesions than Heppell every round this year, including round 1 when he was the sub.

 

[W. Smithers]

Would richmond fans take a straight swap if we offered Heppell for Conca?
I don't think I would do it tbh.

No thanks, you can keep Heppell.

 

[Slattery_20]

Incorrect. It was created during Conca's run of good form from about round 4-8. At that stage he was looking just as good.



Conca has won more contested possesions than Heppell every round this year, including round 1 when he was the sub.

"except".
4/5/10 to 4/4/9. So a huge gap there.

Over their careers thus far, it's still a comfortable gap, in both contested possessions and clearances, Heppell's way.
ie, over the stretch, he wins more ball in close.
And when you go back and look at their best performances, again Heppell tops Conca, against better oppositino to boot.
That is what those stats actually say.

Trying to tell anyone otherwise is very, very easy to shoot down.

 

[Greggy]

I don't think you can rate these guys on their 'careers' as they're both going to develop at different rates, so they should be judged from game to game, and Conca's clearly ahead from last weeks performance.

 

[Slattery_20]

It's the "one plays midfield, one plays halfback" that really irks me. They've both played midfield, they've both played half-back, but more outside/wing than anything

As I said before Greggy... based on this year so far, Conca's made up a fair bit of the gap. I think he'll be a really, really good player; and was a pretty good pick.

And if we're not basing it on their careers... what should we base it on? Haircuts?

 

[Johnny619]

I don't think you can rate these guys on their 'careers' as they're both going to develop at different rates, so they should be judged from game to game, and Conca's clearly ahead from last weeks performance.

Thats really bad logic Greggory

 

[Heisenberg_]

Lets not forget that leading into his debut season Conca had next to no pre season and the gap between the 2 was greatly exaggerated last year, this season has so far shown how close the are as players.

Anybody saying one will clearly be better then the other is a one eyed fool or just a complete moron.

 

[Jesse Custer]

No thanks, you can keep Heppell.

We will thankyou...

 

[Groupie_]

Heppel is a good player but Conca is just what the RFC needs.

I wouldn't swap him for Heppel now and I wouldn't have swapped him last year either.

 

[The Bomb]

When richmond supporters are saying I will not swap , because Conca is just what Richmond need ect, clearly they know Heppell is the better player, so for me I will just vote for the best player of the 2, clearly being Heppell.

Heppell is a class above Conca.

 

[DVD Player]

This could turn out like the Griffen - Deledio polls, neck and neck 5 years later.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

"except".
4/5/10 to 4/4/9. So a huge gap there.

Over their careers thus far, it's still a comfortable gap, in both contested possessions and clearances, Heppell's way.
ie, over the stretch, he wins more ball in close.
And when you go back and look at their best performances, again Heppell tops Conca, against better oppositino to boot.
That is what those stats actually say.

Trying to tell anyone otherwise is very, very easy to shoot down.

What source are you using? Prostats is the only one that keeps detailed stats from previous years and I don't want to pay for it.

And after his effort on the weekend Conca's next best game was against Collingwood in round 4 2011.

 

[Greggy]

Thats really bad logic Greggory

If you have 2 kids learning to the alphabet and 20 weeks in kid A can write from a-g and kid B can write from a-f, which kid is going better? In developing and educating its about where you are currently, that is logical and shows that kid A is trending at a faster rate ATM.

 

[juss]

When richmond supporters are saying I will not swap , because Conca is just what Richmond need ect, clearly they know Heppell is the better player, so for me I will just vote for the best player of the 2, clearly being Heppell.

Heppell is a class above Conca.

Can you really make the "class above" call so early on though? We're not comparing Heppell and Brad Helbig here. Two guys, both talented, one had the better first year, though had a better first preseason, and the other guy has had the better start to his second year.

I'm not going to argue in either ones favor, I rate them both pretty highly and am fully aware that in a year or two anything could happen. Too early to be making big calls.

 

[_Wang_]

Heppel better thus far IMO but Jesus they are both kids and we will have a better picture in a couple of years.
I am very happy with Conca at Richmond as he brings to the table what we needed..

 

[Slattery_20]

What source are you using? Prostats is the only one that keeps detailed stats from previous years and I don't want to pay for it.

And after his effort on the weekend Conca's next best game was against Collingwood in round 4 2011.

That'd explain the difference.

The official stats -
afl.com.au/statistics/tabid/73/default.aspx#page=player
Keeps contested possessions & clearances over careers.
There are questions over the accuracy of pro-stats but it does provide some stats the AFL doesn't (1st possession, centre clearances etc).

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

That'd explain the difference.

The official stats -
afl.com.au/statistics/tabid/73/default.aspx#page=player
Keeps contested possessions & clearances over careers.
There are questions over the accuracy of pro-stats but it does provide some stats the AFL doesn't (1st possession, centre clearances etc).

The link you provided doesn't show those things though

 

[Slattery_20]

The link you provided doesn't show those things though

Click on the players name, then go "More stats", get rid of a couple, add "CP" and "CL".

 

[Lance Uppercut]

2 guys getting compared just because of their draft rating. Like, I get it, but it's just pretty much bullshit.

I love Heppell, but I also think Conca is an awesome, grunty, hard-nosed player.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

"except".
4/5/10 to 4/4/9. So a huge gap there.

Over their careers thus far, it's still a comfortable gap, in both contested possessions and clearances, Heppell's way.
ie, over the stretch, he wins more ball in close.
And when you go back and look at their best performances, again Heppell tops Conca, against better oppositino to boot.
That is what those stats actually say.

Looking at the stats you provided that's not true. Conca averages 1.7 clearances to Heppell's 1.6. Heppell averages 6.5 contested possesions to Conca's 5.2. 30% of Heppells possesions are contested compared to 33%.

Fairly similar numbers. Hardly comfortable.

 

[Jesse Custer]

2 guys getting compared just because of their draft rating. Like, I get it, but it's just pretty much bullshit.

I love Heppell, but I also think Conca is an awesome, grunty, hard-nosed player.

Some people get a tad carried away. What most of them fail to understand is that they're just kids and are prone to inconsistency at times. Both will be good for their respective clubs.

 

[carn tigez]

No, He plays for Richmond.
Heppell and Gaff easily.

Can't argue with this logic