Banter Geelong V Richmond - GO!

[Wosh]

In the interests of keeping your back and forth shite fights out of match threads so normal people can talk.

Keep it clean and above the shorts
Off topic rubbish clogging up match threads will be moved here, knock yourselves out.

 

[Mr Meow]

Ok I understand your points.

So using your reasoning in your comment is your answer

A) Dusty

B) Neale

C) I don’t know due to various factors

I am asking your opinion. It is a simple question

If Neale was poor in the prelim I'd go with Martin on account of 3 consecutive outstanding knockout finals performances resulting in a flag. He had a great final and a not so great one, to follow an outstanding 17 game H&A season. The one he wasn't great in didn't matter anyway as his side won easily.

But Neale wasn't poor. He was the second best player on the ground in a losing prelim. His team mates were severely outplayed so he didn't get to play in a 3rd final (let alone a 4th like Martin) or have a shot at premiership success.

Martin's finals series still made it closer than it was at the end of H&A. But marking down Neale from what happened in finals is basically just acknowledging Richmond were better in the finals that counted.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ok I understand your points.

So using your reasoning in your comment is your answer

A) Dusty

B) Neale

C) I don’t know due to various factors

I am asking your opinion. It is a simple question

Mate he’s literally just told you not only in virtually scientific terms why one player was better than another across the duration of a season and why the only possible argument you could use to suggest otherwise is rendered almost moot anyway because his extra opportunities to do so were provided by being in a slightly stronger team.

Being deliberately obtuse for the sake of banter or antagonism or whatever won’t change that and by any measure it’s tiresome and even I’m over reading through the same shit being regurgitated over and over again either because you’re bored or you just struggle to deal with people holding a majority opinion that’s contrary to yours.

 

[Cleansweep17]

If Neale was poor in the prelim I'd go with Martin on account of 3 consecutive outstanding knockout finals performances resulting in a flag. He had a great final and a not so great one, to follow an outstanding 17 game H&A season.

But Neale wasn't poor. He was the second best player on the ground in a losing prelim. His team mates were severely outplayed so he didn't get to play in a 3rd final (let alone a 4th like Martin) or have a shot at premiership success.

Martin's finals series still made it closer than it was at the end of H&A. But marking down Neale from what happened in finals is basically just acknowledging Richmond were better in the finals that counted.

Ok, I like that reasoning.

Now what is your answer. A, B or C ?

 

[Cleansweep17]

Mate he’s literally just told you not only in virtually scientific terms why one player was better than another across the duration of a season and why the only possible argument you could use to suggest otherwise is rendered almost moot anyway because his extra opportunities to do so were provided by being in a slightly stronger team.

Being deliberately obtuse for the sake of banter or antagonism or whatever won’t change that and by any measure it’s tiresome and even I’m over reading through the same s**t being regurgitated over and over again either because you’re bored or you just struggle to deal with people holding a majority opinion that’s contrary to yours.

Oh he did, did he?

What was his answer? Dusty, Neale or “I don’t know”

I’d like to know your answer too.

 

[Mr Meow]

Ok, I like that reasoning.

Now what is your answer. A, B or C ?

Neale.

If I surmised that Neale choked rather than his side choked through that finals series to cost Brisbane a flag (you can argue this happened last year in the GF), I would go with Martin.

He didn't choke. His side made a home prelim, he starred (2nd BOG in a prelim your team is thrashed in is a fair effort) but his team mates he didn't and BAM, there goes his opportunity to go on and win a Norm Smith or be an Ayres medallist (if his side wins he gets an automatic 10 votes in the prelim) potentially.

It can be true that Martin's finals series carried his season up from good to superstar status while still thinking Neale was the best performing player of the year. Different if he stunk it up in a close prelim and cost his team the game. But he didn't.

 

[Mr Meow]

This is the same dilemma as ranking let's say Daicos' 2023 above Bontempelli's because he was influential in a prelim and grand final on the way to a premiership.

It was no fault of Bont that his side wasn't good enough to even make finals. So why would we mark him down because Daicos had the opportunity to make a difference in two close finals? You can say it added to Daicos' seasons. But it stops it being an apples for apples comparison if you somehow hold this against Bontempelli.

Players in the premiership winning team essentially always have a) the most opportunities to play in meaningful/crucial matches and b) are in the dominant side where it is both easier to receive votes and star. It's hard if your side is getting swarmed start to finish. And you can be outstanding but people will always look to the winning sides players.

 

[PhatBoy]

Oh he did, did he?

What was his answer? Dusty, Neale or “I don’t know”

I’d like to know your answer too.

Yes he did. He literally pointed out to you that Neale played virtually an entire sequence of outstanding home and away games while Martin played a good home and away sequence before Martin did what he did in a couple of finals which is ultimately what prompts you and some others to determine that he had this supercharged 2020 season. I’m not speaking for his opinion I’m speaking for what actually happened hence the ‘scientific’ aspect of my comment.

I gave you my answer if you read the thread.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Neale.

If I surmised that Neale choked rather than his side choked through that finals series to cost Brisbane a flag (you can argue this happened last year in the GF), I would go with Martin.

He didn't choke. His side made a home prelim, he starred (2nd BOG in a prelim your team is thrashed in is a fair effort) but his team mates he didn't and BAM, there goes his opportunity to go on and win a Norm Smith or be an Ayres medallist (if his side wins he gets an automatic 10 votes in the prelim) potentially.

It can be true that Martin's finals series carried his season up from good to superstar status while still thinking Neale was the best performing player of the year. Different if he stunk it up in a close prelim and cost his team the game. But he didn't.

Right and this is the problem and why we clash. At a fundamental level you believe H&A is the “Main Event” in football rather than finals which is a little side thing. When in fact H&A is literally just a qualifier.

You’d rather not have the AA team, Finals MVP and NS in a flag year guy because Neale was better in H&A and was good in a final where his team got thumped. Keeping in mind Dusty then smashed that same team in GF a week later.

That’s f’ed logic and quite disturbing.

 

[Mr Meow]

Right and this is the problem and why we clash. At a fundamental level you believe H&A is the “Main Event” in football rather than finals which is a little side thing. When in fact H&A is literally just a qualifier.

You’d rather not have the AA team, Finals MVP and NS in a flag year guy because Neale was better in H&A and was good in a final where his team got thumped. Keeping in mind Dusty then smashed that same team in GF a week later.

That’s f’ed logic and quite disturbing.

Wrong. I believe if a player's side is poor in a knockout final and he is outstanding, you cannot hold it against him that he gets to play 2 less finals than player X. I believe in fair comparisons, so a 4 match finals series cannot be used against a player who only got to play in 1 or 2.

Players who are poor in their finals series and culpable for them losing close knockout finals? Absolutely they get marked down and vice versa for ones who stand up. The closer the final the more they made a crucial difference e.g Martin's 2020 prelim. And I do respect players who are outstanding in losing finals where their team mates are beaten, but individually that player could not do any more. That is standing up in adversity. But you are relying on 21 other players to actually win.

The emotional language and swearing at the end makes you appear like an angry 13 year old. It adds nothing to the debate and is no different to going the man. Everything I have said is logical, but you are now throwing a tantrum.

If Neale and Martin's H&A seasons were remotely close then Martin's finals could edge him ahead. But they weren't. Neale had 51 more coaches votes then was at no fault for his side being knocked out of a prelim.

The last point I want to finish on is that if there WAS a season where finals carried more weight in modern times it was 2020. Martin had 20% of his games that year as finals, which is unheard of without injuries. A usual premiership player in a normal length season has around 10% of their season as finals. THAT is what makes Martin get close to Neale. The fact that finals made up a (relatively) huge portion of his season. But Neale was still outstanding through the whole year and in 50% of his finals, so that was enough to hold on.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Wrong. I believe if a player's side is poor in a knockout final and he is outstanding, you cannot hold it against him that he gets to play 2 less finals than player X. I believe in fair comparisons, so a 4 match finals series cannot be used against a player who only got to play in 1 or 2.

Players who are poor in their finals series and culpable for them losing close knockout finals? Absolutely they get marked down and vice versa for ones who stand up. The closer the final the more they made a crucial difference e.g Martin's 2020 prelim. And I do respect players who are outstanding in losing finals where their team mates are beaten, but individually that player could not do any more. That is standing up in adversity. But you are relying on 21 other players to actually win.

The emotional language and swearing at the end makes you appear like an angry 13 year old. It adds nothing to the debate and is no different to going the man. Everything I have said is logical, but you are now throwing a tantrum.

If Neale and Martin's H&A seasons were remotely close then Martin's finals could edge him ahead. But they weren't. Neale had 51 more coaches votes then was at no fault for his side being knocked out of a prelim.

The last point I want to finish on is that if there WAS a season where finals carried more weight in modern times it was 2020. Martin had 20% of his games that year as finals, which is unheard of without injuries. A usual premiership player in a normal length season has around 10% of their season as finals. THAT is what makes Martin get close to Neale. The fact that finals made up a (relatively) huge portion of his season. But Neale was still outstanding through the whole year and in 50% of his finals, so that was enough to hold on.

Yes I know, and coincidently GAS got a NS in a losing GF.

I know most people think players are better when they actually win the game for their team.

It’s 180 logic in Geelong, which is why I say you guys have a losers mentality.

I guess Dusty should not have tried to win the games for Richmond. Finals MVP and NS, clearly wasn’t good enough as Richmond won those games.

Like I said your logic is f’ed

 

[Mr Meow]

Yes I know, and coincidently GAS got a NS in a losing GF.

I know most people think players are better when they actually win the game for their team.

It’s 180 logic in Geelong, which is why I say you guys have a losers mentality.

I guess Dusty should not tried to win the games for Richmond. Finals MVP and NS, clearly wasn’t good enough as Richmond won the games.

Like I said your logic is f’ed

Especially in the modern era, systems and structures are so refined that you need your 21 team mates to perform when it's crunch time in finals. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Sure you can have a great cameo and be your side's best player but it matters little if your team perform as Neale's did in the 2020 prelim. Neale you can argue dragged Brisbane to top 4 when they shouldn't have, as evidenced by how they performed in a knockout final.

Let me guess, you marked down Bont's 2023 because he couldn't singlehandedly take them to finals let alone a flag? Whereas Jack Crisp had a good finals series in a premiership season so he automatically must've been better than Bont?

Again I'm highlighting the emotional language, lame abbreviated swearing and personal attacks, just to show where you can do better in the future. That is how a derelict speaks. I'm not going to make fun of you for it anymore, but rather hold a mirror up and not sink to that level.

 

[Mr Meow]

Cleansweep17 an analogy is a 100m freestyle race. But athlete A gets a 20m head start whereas athlete B has to swim the full 100m. Are their completed times a fair comparison? No, because one had the opportunity to get a better time through advantageous circumstances. Or a long jump where one athlete gets to jump from half a metre in front. Of course his jump should be "bigger".

Martin and Neale 2020 this is how it played out. Neale was by far the better player when they had both completed 19/18 games (where Neale's season ends, i.e he has completed the 2020 PF and Martin has completed the SF). Martin got the two extra finals because his team was good enough, and won the two BOGs on the way to a flag. Neale never had the opportunity. His "race" was cut short. If HE caused it to be cut short, fair enough (by playing poorly). But he didn't.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes I know, and coincidently GAS got a NS in a losing GF.

I know most people think players are better when they actually win the game for their team.

It’s 180 logic in Geelong, which is why I say you guys have a losers mentality.

I guess Dusty should not have tried to win the games for Richmond. Finals MVP and NS, clearly wasn’t good enough as Richmond won those games.

Like I said your logic is f’ed

Yet we have won more grand finals than you guys have any time recently, have been more competitive than you guys have, refuse to rebuild, don’t keep going back to the draft, don’t keep having to get top picks, don’t spend decades away from the top of the heap, don’t get knocked out at the first sign of a final outside of our one brief shining period of dominance.

Oh yes it’s not Richmond with a losers mentality.

You realise Tom Hawkins has played with 4 norm smith winners from winning grand final teams to Jack Riewoldt’s 1 right? What losers mentality are you talking about exactly? We’ve won more flags than you have in recent times so wtf are you in about exactly? Your team settles for being dogshit and you want to criticise other teams for trying not to be.

Sounds like a loser’s argument to me.


You would have had a lot of time to make them I guess

 

[Wojcinski]

Richmond and North should be demoted to the VFL, watching games involving these clubs is an absoloute eyesore. At least North has some young talent on the way through, the Tigers on the other hand are nearing the worst level of football seen since Geelong 186'd Melbourne in 2011

 

[Cleansweep17]

Especially in the modern era, systems and structures are so refined that you need your 21 team mates to perform when it's crunch time in finals. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Sure you can have a great cameo and be your side's best player but it matters little if your team perform as Neale's did in the 2020 prelim. Neale you can argue dragged Brisbane to top 4 when they shouldn't have, as evidenced by how they performed in a knockout final.

Let me guess, you marked down Bont's 2023 because he couldn't singlehandedly take them to finals let alone a flag? Whereas Jack Crisp had a good finals series in a premiership season so he automatically must've been better than Bont?

Again I'm highlighting the emotional language, lame abbreviated swearing and personal attacks, just to show where you can do better in the future. That is how a derelict speaks. I'm not going to make fun of you for it anymore, but rather hold a mirror up and not sink to that level.

Yes, finals MVP and NS for all 3 finals campaigns resulting in a dynasty is a cameo and is less impressive than a BOG in a thumping. Do you actually hear yourself speak?

 

[Cleansweep17]

Cleansweep17 an analogy is a 100m freestyle race. But athlete A gets a 20m head start whereas athlete B has to swim the full 100m. Are their completed times a fair comparison? No, because one had the opportunity to get a better time through advantageous circumstances. Or a long jump where one athlete gets to jump from half a metre in front. Of course his jump should be "bigger".

Martin and Neale 2020 this is how it played out. Neale was by far the better player when they had both completed 19/18 games (where Neale's season ends, i.e he has completed the 2020 PF and Martin has completed the SF). Martin got the two extra finals because his team was good enough, and won the two BOGs on the way to a flag. Neale never had the opportunity. His "race" was cut short. If HE caused it to be cut short, fair enough (by playing poorly). But he didn't.

This is what you do, you separate Martin from his team and say he was only good because of them when it was the other way around. As per the awards he contributed the most in Richmond’s finals wins and earned that dynasty.

That’s why he’ll be remembered as the best finals player ever, not Lachie Neale (who had the advantage of playing on his home deck) with some hypothetical matches.

 

[PhatBoy]

This is what you do, you separate Martin from his team and say he was only good because of them when it was the other way around. As per the awards he contributed the most in Richmond’s finals wins and earned that dynasty.

That’s why he’ll be remembered as the best finals player ever, not Lachie Neale (who had the advantage of playing on his home deck) with some hypothetical matches.

Just before you were slagging off a club who’s been more successful in recent times than you have as losers and now you’re saying that your own team of ‘winners’ were only winners because 21 of them were otherwise not good enough to achieve anything

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Geelong should be embarrassed that Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

wanted to recruit Tarryn Thomas

26

Tarryn Thomas

Age

24

Ht

190cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

5.3

2star

HB

5.7

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

3.3

5star

CL

0.9

3star

D

7.8

2star

K

4.0

1star

HB

3.8

3star

M

1.3

1star

T

3.2

4star

CL

0.2

2star

D

12.8

4star

K

6.2

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

0.4

3star

, it says a lot about Scott's character, or lack there of.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Just before you were slagging off a club who’s been more successful in recent times than you have as losers and now you’re saying that your own team of ‘winners’ were only winners because 21 of them were otherwise not good enough to achieve anything

Huh?

What did I say?

And yes we wouldn’t have won any flags without Dusty. No Dusty = No Richmond was a saying for a reason. Mr. Meow wants it the other way around to diminish his achievements.

 

[STPer18]

 

[PhatBoy]

Geelong should be embarrassed that Chris Scott wanted to recruit Tarryn Thomas , it says a lot about Scott's character or lack thereof

hardwick’s character is phenomenal

 

[Wojcinski]

Geelong should be embarrassed that Chris Scott wanted to recruit Tarryn Thomas , it says a lot about Scott's character or lack thereof.

I'd be more embarrassed about lacking critical thinking and comprehension skills if I were you

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

He was just being Robin Hood, those places had insurance as well. He never threatens women either.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Why is Geelong paying Hawkins half a million dollars a year to eat hamburgers?

 

[STPer18]

He was just being Robin Hood, those places had insurance as well. He never threatens women either.

We can cross that bridge if Thomas ever pulls on a Geelong jumper. But here in reality Pickett has represented Richmond FC 87 times which for a moral crusader must be hard to stomach.