Ian Perrie, support needed

[RoosterLad]

Agree fighter, stats can be overrated at times.. I prefer to rely on what I see when I form an opinion rather than a few numbers chucked together.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Agree fighter, stats can be overrated at times.. I prefer to rely on what I see when I form an opinion rather than a few numbers chucked together.

Indeed.

 

[tribey]

See, you fail to realise that stats don't always tell the story. It's not necessarily Perrie's overall conversion, it's the actual goals that he misses: gimme goals, goals that we need at crucial times in a game to stay in touch. When it matters he doesn't deliver and that's all there is to it.

But by that logic - if you were being a fair and impartial observer - you also have to acknowledge the positive intangibles of Perrie's play, such as unquestionable workrate and his unerring ability to fearlessly smash into packs with a blatant disregard for (life and) limb.

The "stuff your stats, I go on what I actually see" line is often wheeled out on BigFooty when people have their arguments and viewpoints destroyed by statistical evidence - the biggest problem with it is that people have selective memories.

If they're trying to talk a bloke up they'll conveniently or subconsciously forget or ignore the times when he's ****ed up or exaggerate good performances, if they're trying to talk a bloke down they'll conveniently or subconsciously ignore the times when he's done something terrific or exaggerate poor performances.

At the end of the day statistical evidence - when applied correctly in context - is irrefutable evidence of raw output and carries far more credibility than "Player X is sh#t/good because I say he is, nyeh!".

 

[fightingdreamer88]

But by that logic - if you were being a fair and impartial observer - you also have to acknowledge the positive intangibles of Perrie's play, such as unquestionable workrate and his unerring ability to fearlessly smash into packs with a blatant disregard for (life and) limb.

The "stuff your stats, I go on what I actually see" line is often wheeled out on BigFooty when people have their arguments and viewpoints destroyed by statistical evidence - the biggest problem with it is that people have selective memories.

If they're trying to talk a bloke up they'll conveniently or subconsciously forget or ignore the times when he's ****ed up or exaggerate good performances, if they're trying to talk a bloke down they'll conveniently or subconsciously ignore the times when he's done something terrific or exaggerate poor performances.

At the end of the day statistical evidence - when applied correctly in context - is irrefutable evidence of raw output and carries far more credibility than "Player X is sh#t/good because I say he is, nyeh!".

Think about this: if Perrie was a consistent performer we wouldn't have such "selective memories" because there would be very few poor performances to refer to. He and Welsh have run hot and cold for years, if you can't admit this you're kidding yourself and not thinking in terms of what's in the best interests of the club for the future. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather risk unproven youngsters (who could well rise to give us plenty) than persist with clearly inconsistent players!! We shouldn't be having to wait 4 or 5 games for players who aren't really that underdone to start giving us something (and even then it isn't consistent), and watch other players like Kerr and Judd slot straight in and perform for their side; of course you'll just react with "but Judd and Kerr are excellent players"....yeah? Why should we settle for less?

 

[fightingdreamer88]

But by that logic - if you were being a fair and impartial observer - you also have to acknowledge the positive intangibles of Perrie's play, such as unquestionable workrate and his unerring ability to fearlessly smash into packs with a blatant disregard for (life and) limb.

The "stuff your stats, I go on what I actually see" line is often wheeled out on BigFooty when people have their arguments and viewpoints destroyed by statistical evidence - the biggest problem with it is that people have selective memories.

If they're trying to talk a bloke up they'll conveniently or subconsciously forget or ignore the times when he's ****ed up or exaggerate good performances, if they're trying to talk a bloke down they'll conveniently or subconsciously ignore the times when he's done something terrific or exaggerate poor performances.

At the end of the day statistical evidence - when applied correctly in context - is irrefutable evidence of raw output and carries far more credibility than "Player X is sh#t/good because I say he is, nyeh!".

Pfft, I could hit you with 255 punches tomorrow, and you could hit me with one good one and knock me out. Clearly I would be the better boxer. Err, what? Exactly. It's funny, you talk about applying stats in context - that confirms my point does it not? "raw output" does not = in context of a game either. You're just throwing words around.

 

[birdmanptr]

But that's just the thing.

Saying he's 'failed miserably' with the chances he's been given is simply untrue.

His 2005 was fantastic given the role he was playing. After that his 2006 was destroyed by injury and on Sunday he clearly wasn't matchfit or in any semblance of form to compete at AFL level. If McGregor, Hentschel and Roo were on deck he wouldn't have played.

We're judging him on preconceived notions that are either untrue, or are being applied unfairly.

Spot on how can you get into a guy who only played Rnd 1 cause of our medical room situation

Clearly under done and after a knee injury his kicking confidence is bound to be down

Its like it all the time on here people get a mind set about players and thats the end of that M.Bode for example nothing but bagging for years now most people are saying he should be in the side and comming from people who bagged him no matter what.

 

[tribey]

You're just throwing words around.

Says he who needed two consecutive posts of hollow rhetoric and irrelevant analogies in order to make a point which doesn't make any sense.

 

[birdmanptr]

Agree fighter, stats can be overrated at times.. I prefer to rely on what I see when I form an opinion rather than a few numbers chucked together.

I would say all of the time no good getting 25 touches if you waste 20

 

[mb2326]

I would say all of the time no good getting 25 touches if you waste 20

We are not talking about Kane Cornes?

 

[birdmanptr]

We are not talking about Kane Cornes?

Only wasting 20 now wow he is improving

 

[Crow-mo]

Outrageous claims in your opinion maybe. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I prefer not to spend too much time arguing over opinion because truly it doesn't get anywhere.

what garbage.

you make stupid, unsubstantiated claims, and then decry it all off with "oh it's just opinions".

well I guess that's why not all opinions are equal.

 

[Crow-mo]

See, you fail to realise that stats don't always tell the story. It's not necessarily Perrie's overall conversion, it's the actual goals that he misses: gimme goals, goals that we need at crucial times in a game to stay in touch. When it matters he doesn't deliver and that's all there is to it.

and this is an excuse to not bother with the facts?

or

is it a nice way of saying the stats don't back you up?

 

[Crow-mo]

Think about this: if Perrie was a consistent performer we wouldn't have such "selective memories" because there would be very few poor performances to refer to. He and Welsh have run hot and cold for years, if you can't admit this you're kidding yourself and not thinking in terms of what's in the best interests of the club for the future. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather risk unproven youngsters (who could well rise to give us plenty) than persist with clearly inconsistent players!! We shouldn't be having to wait 4 or 5 games for players who aren't really that underdone to start giving us something (and even then it isn't consistent), and watch other players like Kerr and Judd slot straight in and perform for their side; of course you'll just react with "but Judd and Kerr are excellent players"....yeah? Why should we settle for less?

sometimes I can't believe the crap I read, and even more when it comes from one source.

we shouldn't settle for less than Kerr & Judd, where pray tell do you think we will get these type of guys from?

the magic faraway tree perhaps?

oh wait, that's right, we have a dozen of them already on our list.

 

[Crow-mo]

Pfft, I could hit you with 255 punches tomorrow, and you could hit me with one good one and knock me out.

could you? let start with one.

Clearly I would be the better boxer. It's funny, you talk about applying stats in context - that confirms my point does it not? "raw output" does not = in context of a game either. You're just throwing words around.

still no substance.

 

[Crow-mo]

Says he who needed two consecutive posts of hollow rhetoric and irrelevant analogies in order to make a point which doesn't make any sense.

precisely!

 

[Southerntakeover]

Outrageous claims in your opinion maybe. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I prefer not to spend too much time arguing over opinion because truly it doesn't get anywhere.

I have no problem with this provided...

A) You stop trying to present your opinion as facts

and

B) You stop trying to defend your opinions when others who have the ability to do research to test their theories disagree.

Remember, opinions can be wrong.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather risk unproven youngsters (who could well rise to give us plenty) than persist with clearly inconsistent players!!

Are you really that blinded by faith that you believe that rubbish?!

VERY few youngsters have come in and risen to give their clubs plenty while they are pretty green in football terms. Those that have are known as chamption players and I am talking about the likes of Judd, Kerr, Goodes et al. who have all had immidiate impact. I am sorry if we are not bat blind to believe that we have that sort of players on our hands.

Why should we settle for less?

Err...... because we don't have anyone better. You can't drive a BMW when all you have is an old Torana parked in the garage.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Spot on how can you get into a guy who only played Rnd 1 cause of our medical room situation

Unfortunately its the fickle nature of our "supporter" base. Nothing changes mate. Only maybe a name that gets the beagging fron year to year.

Its like it all the time on here people get a mind set about players and thats the end of that M.Bode for example nothing but bagging for years now most people are saying he should be in the side and comming from people who bagged him no matter what.

Isn't that funny though. A couple of years ago there were only a select few of us who were sticking up for Bodey and saying he doesn have a fair bit to offer. This year, you get you blinded few that say "Nah, he is ****" and the rest begging for his inclusion.

One word: FICKLE

 

[CrowMagnum]

In the end supporters don't bag their own players if they're any good, why would they. Why has Perrie been maligned for so many years? Is it because he's a really good player? Of course not, supporters aren't stupid. BF posters aren't stupid, with a few exceptions (you know who you are ).

He's been there for a long time and, sad as it is for him because no-one tries harder than he does, he just doesn't cut the mustard. He'll have a good game now and then, maybe a few in a row, but ultimately he's not the answer. At best he's a stop gap until we find someone better and I suspect that will be sooner rather than later.

 

[tribey]

In the end supporters don't bag their own players if they're any good, why would they.

I hope your tongue is currently planted firmly in cheek.

I've heard many an idiot on here and at games bag players who are first 18 stalwarts.

Simple fact of the matter is, the average supporter will always have preconceived notions as to an individual player's worth, ability or potential. More often than not, these notions will turn out to be wrong.

Even when they are in fact proven to be wrong by the player's subsequent performance or a factual recollection of the player's past deeds, these supporters will almost always stick to their guns, rather than be swayed by the evidence, reassess their claims and opinions or at least be prepared to wait and see in future.

There are people on this board who'd still dump Shirley tomorrow if it meant giving the likes of Douglas a free lunch in the guts.

I myself have been guilty of this in the past in regards to Ken McGregor, but when he acquitted himself extremely well first at CHB and then as a contested CHF/FF I changed my opinion.

Michael Doughty was another one. I was often infuriated by some of his football in 2003/4, considering him to a player who wouldn't put his head over the footy when he should. However he improved out of sight from 2005-onwards, to the point where he even changed his approach to an often fierce attack on the ball - and as such I consider him to be a valuable member of the lineup.

I get the feeling from some on here - the same ones who obviously didn't see any of our games in 2005 - that Perrie could win the Coleman and they'd still deem him a dud not worthy of an invitation to the Slowdown circa 2015.

Opinions on football should be dynamic. There's no point even discussing the game otherwise.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Opinions on football should be dynamic. There's no point even discussing the game otherwise.

I agree in relation to performance ......on the matter of talent I'd question that concept.

 

[tribey]

I agree in relation to performance ......on the matter of talent I'd question that concept.

Really?

So do you reckon that every recruiting manager/coach who passed on Danyle Pearce, Dean Cox, Russell Robertson, Ben Rutten, Trent Hentschel, Andrew Embley, Brett Kirk and Chad Fletcher in their respective drafts hasn't had their opinions of their talent swayed at all?

The market's opinion of Fraser Gehrig, Jade Rawlings, Justin Blumfield, Barry Young, Jonathan Hay, Shane Woewodin, Nathan Thompson and Michael Gardiner's talent changed pretty quickly too.

The average supporter is even worse off as they don't have access to professional scouting reports, inside information and the extensive data generated by the close testing and measured observation of players.

 

[CrowMagnum]

I hope your tongue is currently planted firmly in cheek.

I've heard many an idiot on here and at games bag players who are first 18 stalwarts.

Simple fact of the matter is, the average supporter will always have preconceived notions as to an individual player's worth, ability or potential. More often than not, these notions will turn out to be wrong.

Even when they are in fact proven to be wrong by the player's subsequent performance or a factual recollection of the player's past deeds, these supporters will almost always stick to their guns, rather than be swayed by the evidence, reassess their claims and opinions or at least be prepared to wait and see in future.

There are people on this board who'd still dump Shirley tomorrow if it meant giving the likes of Douglas a free lunch in the guts.

I myself have been guilty of this in the past in regards to Ken McGregor, but when he acquitted himself extremely well first at CHB and then as a contested CHF/FF I changed my opinion.

Michael Doughty was another one. I was often infuriated by some of his football in 2003/4, considering him to a player who wouldn't put his head over the footy when he should. However he improved out of sight from 2005-onwards, to the point where he even changed his approach to an often fierce attack on the ball - and as such I consider him to be a valuable member of the lineup.

I get the feeling from some on here - the same ones who obviously didn't see any of our games in 2005 - that Perrie could win the Coleman and they'd still deem him a dud not worthy of an invitation to the Slowdown circa 2015.

Opinions on football should be dynamic. There's no point even discussing the game otherwise.

All of the players you mentioned have been bagged form time to time but not as passionately as poor Ian. None of them have been booed which, disgraceful as it is, must tell us something. The reason is that they may not be champions but they don't regularly spill easy marks and miss gimme goals. I actually told the guy next to me at the game that Perrie would miss from 20, which you wouldn't have said of anyone else in the team.

Nathan Bock used to get a bagging for being rubber chested but he did something about it. Perhaps Perrie can too but we've been waiting a long time.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Lets play with stats...

Matthew Robran

93 0.8
94 0
95 0.3
96 1
97 1.3
98 1.2
99 0.9
00 0.4
01 0.6

Av (minus 94) - 0.8125

Perrie Av (minus 99 & 07) - 0.995

So from this sample Perrie is better than Robran??? Stats

I always said Robran was overrated. Thanks for the stats that confirm it.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Really?

So do you reckon that every recruiting manager/coach who passed on Danyle Pearce, Dean Cox, Russell Robertson, Ben Rutten, Trent Hentschel, Andrew Embley, Brett Kirk and Chad Fletcher in their respective drafts hasn't had their opinions of their talent swayed at all?

The market's opinion of Fraser Gehrig, Jade Rawlings, Justin Blumfield, Barry Young, Jonathan Hay, Shane Woewodin, Nathan Thompson and Michael Gardiner's talent changed pretty quickly too.

The average supporter is even worse off as they don't have access to professional scouting reports, inside information and the extensive data generated by the close testing and measured observation of players.

Don't get confused between talent and other issues like disposal, attitude, and of course team need.

How many scores of 17/18 year old champion kids have we seen go on to be complete flops ......it was rarely due to talent, generally most had the attitude of star players all their junior life and had lost the work effort required to continue developing and importantly learning.

Are you saying those players were overlooked on the basis of talent identification because I'd suggest your very wrong .......how or whether a kid will develop is what each club is trying to pick and that is bloody work generally apart from the bleeding obvious that even you and I could pick