Go Rob!

[NikkiNoo]

You have just thrown in a hypothetical and now claiming it as fact, that doesnt make sense.

Your impression of Judd must be different to nearly every other football observer there is. But hey you have seen every game thats played.

Ok, maybe I didn't word it well in the first instance but the fact is that Judd does burn the ball when he is running at full speed. That is fact from my observations watching him the past two seasons. So I ask again, do you think that a tagger has done a good job if he uses knowledge like that to make his disposals not be effective? Is it a case of possessions vs effectiveness and would you rather a player that has a small number of possessions but are all highly effective and goal assists or a large number of possessions that result in turnovers or non-effective possessions?

The reason I used that hypothetical is that you were quoting possession numbers as a way of saying that Shirley was not effective on Judd. I am pointing out that, in my opinion, basic numbers are fairly useless in judging a players effectiveness unless they are qualified by being goal assists, effective kicks etc and not just 'oh he got x amount of possessions so he must have had a good game' statements.

No I haven't seen every game that's played but I did watch the majority last year (loved my fox footy *sniff, sniff*). I also make a point of rewatching all of our games (even the Richmond one which I attended) as you get a little more information from each time you watch them.

 

[Crow Envy]

Ok, maybe I didn't word it well in the first instance but the fact is that Judd does burn the ball when he is running at full speed. That is fact from my observations watching him the past two seasons. So I ask again, do you think that a tagger has done a good job if he uses knowledge like that to make his disposals not be effective? Is it a case of possessions vs effectiveness and would you rather a player that has a small number of possessions but are all highly effective and goal assists or a large number of possessions that result in turnovers or non-effective possessions?

The reason I used that hypothetical is that you were quoting possession numbers as a way of saying that Shirley was not effective on Judd. I am pointing out that, in my opinion, basic numbers are fairly useless in judging a players effectiveness unless they are qualified by being goal assists, effective kicks etc and not just 'oh he got x amount of possessions so he must have had a good game' statements.

No I haven't seen every game that's played but I did watch the majority last year (loved my fox footy *sniff, sniff*). I also make a point of rewatching all of our games (even the Richmond one which I attended) as you get a little more information from each time you watch them.

I dont agree with your assessment on Judds disposal. I dont think many people would as hes rated the no 1 player in the AFL. Therefore the rest of your point becomes irrelevant.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

evidence?

otherwise your just trying to introduce fantasy hypotheticals to justify a marginal view.

Evidence to the contrary?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Again I ask, does Judd burn the ball or get cheap kicks? Most of his possesions are centre clearances.

Are they effective centre clearances? I don't like the label 'centre clearances', as it doesn't take into account if they kick it to the opposition straight away or it is kicked just out into space. This then starts another discussion on what is actually 'effective'....

Whats also annoying is not allowing critical assesment of our squad because they are Crows players. Just because we want to get better doesnt mean we dont support them.

I don't mind critical assessment of our squad at all, but the constant doom and gloom lately has been annoying me. You see, there are ways of wording the desire to get better/help our players improve, but mostly I have not seen any of this type of constructive critiscim from the majority of these negative type posts about our players. Generally the comments have been that is X player is crap, why didn't we delist such and such as we are not going to win a premiership with them... We got to two Prelims and lost them by 16 and 10 points respectively. I'll say we got pretty damn close to making a GF with those players. All this with a squad that most football experts tipped to finish on the bottom of the ladder in 2005. It basically comes down to an opinion of - is the glass half full or half empty? It's just my outlook for it to be half full.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Not least because she's on board the...

...Hungry Jack's Robert Shirley Birthday Train™ (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1 - The Engineer in action.

Damn straight, I'm all on board

Thanks for the smile again DT!

 

[NikkiNoo]

I dont agree with your assessment on Judds disposal. I dont think many people would as hes rated the no 1 player in the AFL. Therefore the rest of your point becomes irrelevant.

I agree that he is one of the best players in the AFL but he does have some negatives to his game, and no one is unbeatable all the time, least of all an AFL player. Can you please enlighten me why the thought that 'many people' thinking that he is the best player in the competition mean that his disposal at times can be not very effective/ as damaging as it could be?

That is their opinion and they are allowed it, just like you are allowed yours and I mine, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss a difference of opinion based on our observations of a particular player / team.

Do you not understand a hypothetical? Why has my point become irrelevant? Because you don't agree with my opinion/assesment therefore you don't want to consider a hypothetical that could point out that your statement/argument has some flaws and some of my points may be valid? Therefore, that your impression that Shirley hasn't played well on Judd may be incorrect?

 

[Crow Envy]

I agree that he is one of the best players in the AFL but he does have some negatives to his game, and no one is unbeatable all the time, least of all an AFL player. Can you please enlighten me why the thought that 'many people' thinking that he is the best player in the competition mean that his disposal at times can be not very effective/ as damaging as it could be?

That is their opinion and they are allowed it, just like you are allowed yours and I mine, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss a difference of opinion based on our observations of a particular player / team.

Do you not understand a hypothetical? Why has my point become irrelevant? Because you don't agree with my opinion/assesment therefore you don't want to consider a hypothetical that could point out that your statement/argument has some flaws and some of my points may be valid? Therefore, that your impression that Shirley hasn't played well on Judd may be incorrect?

The way you have written its as if Judds disposal on the run is poor. Yes players can have the odd poor disposal that, but your hypothetical relies on this being the case for Judd majority of the time and assuming Shirley should be getting the credit for this. The facts are Judds disposal is one of the best in the league or is that a hypothetical?

 

[Crow Envy]

Yes, I feel Shirley did a particularly poor job on Harvey in the first final against St Kilda in 2005.

as I said before, some people can try to cover up all sorts of deficiencies in their knowledge by just making stuff up. problem is, they are easily spotted and exposed.

Tolerating the intrinsically stupid just lowers the tone for everyone else.

Round 20 West 45 possessions! True Shirley wasnt on him the whole game but as our premier tagger why wasnt he? Maybe because when he was he couldnt do the job. The other player Shirley matched up on that day was Cross who had 31 possessions. Or is this all made up?

And anyone can carry on with the insults to make themselves appear intelligent. It generally shows they cant rely on the facts.

 

[Crow-mo]

So hes a tagger that doesnt match up on Judd, West, Harvey. Surpising from our premier tagger. Youve just validated what I have been saying and you are calling me the clown? Maybe you need to join my circus.

right, so you admit you didn't know this.

you don't know who he plays on, but you have an opinion on how goes against these imaginary matchups? with carefully considered views like this, it's amazing you haven't found more support!

you can see the flaw?

 

[Crow-mo]

Round 20 West 45 possessions! True Shirley wasnt on him the whole game but as our premier tagger why wasnt he? Maybe because when he was he couldnt do the job. The other player Shirley matched up on that day was Cross who had 31 possessions. Or is this all made up?

yes it's all made up. you know why? you don't know who he played on. or if he played on either. so how are you assessing his performance.

schoolboy analysis.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The way you have written its as if Judds disposal on the run is poor. Yes players can have the odd poor disposal that, but your hypothetical relies on this being the case for Judd majority of the time and assuming Shirley should be getting the credit for this. The facts are Judds disposal is one of the best in the league or is that a hypothetical?

When Judd is running flat out his disposal is shocking is what I am talking about. Not running at a slower speed than he is physcially capable of where his disposal is quite good. My hypothetical is that if a player has a negative and that negative is exploited by his opponent then shouldn't that count as a positive towards the opponent?
You were using Judd's disposal count as a reason for your opinion that he has played well and I am contending that a straight disposal count can be misleading unless other variables are taken into account. I then used my observations of features of Judd's game in the hypothetical that can be exploited to make his use of the ball less effective, thereby if you can't (as an opponent) restrict his ball winning ability, move to option two and try and restrict his effectiveness once he has the ball.

I really want to see stats on effective possessions by Judd but there doesn't seem to be any that I can find. Although interesting to note on prostats that Judd has an average of 2.4 errors per game whereas Shirley has an average of 1.5 (and yes Judd does well and truly cream good ol Rob in the rest of the stats department but one is the no 1 player and the AFL and the other is a good honest nose to the ground footballer). Lies, damn lies and statistics.....

 

[Crow Envy]

yes it's all made up. you know why? you don't know who he played on. or if he played on either. so how are you assessing his performance.

schoolboy analysis.

Okay I will type slowly for you!

Goodwin started on West. Shirley on Cross. West was running amok so they switched Shirley over but that didnt work. There was an article in the paper which actually showed who played on West and for how long and how many possessions conceded. Sorry I dont have a photographic memory and can sprout exact stats. But Shirleys performance as a tagger was no better that Goodwin who as we know is not a tagger.

Next.

 

[Crow Envy]

right, so you admit you didn't know this.

you don't know who he plays on, but you have an opinion on how goes against these imaginary matchups? with carefully considered views like this, it's amazing you haven't found more support!

you can see the flaw?

Amazing you cant identify scarcasm. Shirley as our premier tagger has matched up on West, Harvey and Judd. These players hurt the Crows 90% of the time they play us. Are you denying this? And are you denying Shirley is not matched up against them?

And you think Im worried I dont have support from your boys/girls club?

 

[Crow Envy]

When Judd is running flat out his disposal is shocking is what I am talking about. Not running at a slower speed than he is physcially capable of where his disposal is quite good. My hypothetical is that if a player has a negative and that negative is exploited by his opponent then shouldn't that count as a positive towards the opponent?
You were using Judd's disposal count as a reason for your opinion that he has played well and I am contending that a straight disposal count can be misleading unless other variables are taken into account. I then used my observations of features of Judd's game in the hypothetical that can be exploited to make his use of the ball less effective, thereby if you can't (as an opponent) restrict his ball winning ability, move to option two and try and restrict his effectiveness once he has the ball.

I really want to see stats on effective possessions by Judd but there doesn't seem to be any that I can find. Although interesting to note on prostats that Judd has an average of 2.4 errors per game whereas Shirley has an average of 1.5 (and yes Judd does well and truly cream good ol Rob in the rest of the stats department but one is the no 1 player and the AFL and the other is a good honest nose to the ground footballer). Lies, damn lies and statistics.....

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I dont think Judds disposal on the run at high speed is poor, you do. Based on your opinion I understand your point, but I dont agree with it.

At least with you it hasnt become a slinging of personal insults unlike your fan Crow Mo.

 

[-CG-]

Shirley as our premier tagger has matched up on West, Harvey and Judd. These players hurt the Crows 90% of the time they play us. Are you denying this? And are you denying Shirley is not matched up against them?

That's true..

 

[macca23]

Amazing you cant identify scarcasm. Shirley as our premier tagger has matched up on West, Harvey and Judd. These players hurt the Crows 90% of the time they play us. Are you denying this? And are you denying Shirley is not matched up against them?

And you think Im worried I dont have support from your boys/girls club?

The people that matter in the Adelaide Football Club, who actually know who Shirley played on each week and what his role in the team is, rated him 8th in our B & F over the course of the whole 2006 season.

That fits neatly with how the majority of supporters, myself included, saw Shirley's performances last year.

IMO you don't have support from any thinking Crows supporter - only the fringe element here that slag every player at some time or other.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

IMO you don't have support from any thinking Crows supporter - only the fringe element here that slag every player at some time or other.

 

[Crow-mo]

Okay I will type slowly for you!

Goodwin started on West. Shirley on Cross. West was running amok so they switched Shirley over but that didnt work. There was an article in the paper which actually showed who played on West and for how long and how many possessions conceded. Sorry I dont have a photographic memory and can sprout exact stats. But Shirleys performance as a tagger was no better that Goodwin who as we know is not a tagger.

Next.

type as quick as you want, when you've been caught making things up it doesn't really matter now does it?

and as for your memory, you've already shown a lack of knowledge and poor analytical abilities - can't say it matters if you were watching the game right now.

but keep digging, we're all enjoying it.

 

[Crow-mo]

Amazing you cant identify scarcasm. Shirley as our premier tagger has matched up on West, Harvey and Judd. These players hurt the Crows 90% of the time they play us. Are you denying this? And are you denying Shirley is not matched up against them?

And you think Im worried I dont have support from your boys/girls club?

ah, the "oh, erm, uh... yeah I was being sarcastic... heh heh, yes, erm, that was it..." excuse.

always funny to watch someone who knows they've been found out, scratch and claw trying to dig themselves out.

keep up the good work...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The people that matter in the Adelaide Football Club, who actually know who Shirley played on each week and what his role in the team is, rated him 8th in our B & F over the course of the whole 2006 season.

That fits neatly with how the majority of supporters, myself included, saw Shirley's performances last year.

IMO you don't have support from any thinking Crows supporter - only the fringe element here that slag every player at some time or other.

Matt Connell won our B&F.

No one's denying that Shirley had a career-best season in 2006 but if he finishes top 10 in our 2007 B&F we'll fall short of the best teams again.

 

[GoSarge]

The people that matter in the Adelaide Football Club, who actually know who Shirley played on each week and what his role in the team is, rated him 8th in our B & F over the course of the whole 2006 season.

That fits neatly with how the majority of supporters, myself included, saw Shirley's performances last year.

Which makes perfect f&*cken sense. How much of a dud can you be if you're rated 8th best in the b&f at a club who finished 3rd ?

BTW, off topic, in Texas Hold'em if you get dealt a pair of jacks should you go all in before the flop ? Im practising for tomorrow nights poker comp at my joint ? Im thinking its a good idea to try scare people off before the flop. What do ya reckon ?

 

[macca23]

Which makes perfect f&*cken sense. How much of a dud can you be if you're rated 8th best in the b&f at a club who finished 3rd ?

BTW, off topic, in Texas Hold'em if you get dealt a pair of jacks should you go all in before the flop ? Im practising for tomorrow nights poker comp at my joint ? Im thinking its a good idea to try scare people off before the flop. What do ya reckon ?

It's a bold move.

Depends on the number of players and how they play as well - if they have balls and they have an A, K, or Q and draw one and you draw fk-all then your night is stuffed.

But if they're a bit on the nervy side, I'd give it a crack.

I'd go all in on a pair of K's or better and never hesitate with a pair of A's.

 

[CrowMagnum]

While last season's performance by Shirley has started to convince me he is finally starting to earn his place, although I think he is in the team purely for his inside work and has to step up his outside game to AFL standard if he is to survive, the opposing view that he is not quite up to it now is debatable but hardly outrageous. One way of assessing a player or coach's worth is to imagine whether other AFL clubs would pick them up if they became available (eg no club was silly enough to appoint Ayres as senior coach, not even Hawthorn). Would Shirley be picked up if delisted? Maybe, maybe not.

When I see all the self righteous, patronising, abusive comments that are made all too often on this board it makes me cringe. Calling someone else an idiot because you don't agree with them about a footy issue and then unilaterally declaring you've therefore won the argument reflects more on the abuser than the abusee

 

[GoSarge]

It's a bold move.

Depends on the number of players and how they play as well - if they have balls and they have an A, K, or Q and draw one and you draw fk-all then your night is stuffed.

But if they're a bit on the nervy side, I'd give it a crack.

I'd go all in on a pair of K's or better and never hesitate with a pair of A's.

Im with ya all the way buddy. You're 1/8 to draw another jack on the flop which isnt great, but for those that stay in (they could possibly catch a AKQ) they may come over the top of you.

10 players, $20 buy in - winner takes all, I have to get this right !

Theory is, with that sort of bet, most of the players should fold their cards right ?

 

[Mad Dog]

please stay on topic and cut the personal crap.

Thanks very much.....