Past Kurt Tippett - retired 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

Mick Oxlong said:
Are you having a meltdown because your statement is false? You’re not turning into Clarko are you?

Fact is fact...Tippett was better than Sinclair in an all round sense as a player. Oh and actually, ave goals for Tippett has remained consistent regardless of what position he played. Deny it all you want, but you’d be wrong!
Click to expand...


Why if someone disagrees is it a meltdown? You must be a joy to live with
I also said Sinclair was a better ruckman for half the price. Didn’t mention forward play.


Tippett was a bust you can disagree, but it’s just your view, as a ruck Sinclair is better and Tippett goal average dropped the more he rucked so his goal kicking was not constant

2013 2.9
2014 2.4
2015 2
2016 1
2017 0.8


Only one of us is wrong, now stop melting down, because we disagree so I presume you are in tears....
 
The King! said:
Why if someone disagrees is it a meltdown? You must be a joy to live with
I also said Sinclair was a better ruckman for half the price. Didn’t mention forward play.


Tippett was a bust you can disagree, but it’s just your view, as a ruck Sinclair is better and Tippett goal average dropped the more he rucked so his goal kicking was not constant

2013 2.9
2014 2.4
2015 2
2016 1
2017 0.8


Only one of us is wrong, now stop melting down, because we disagree so I presume you are in tears....
Click to expand...

Oh I’m in tears alright...from laughing at this bullshit!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Statisctially their ruckwork is identical in terms of hitouts won and hitouts to advantage, both are around 45% for winning the hitout and around 11-12% for hitouts to advantage.

Sinclair in 8 games in Cox-era Swans has averaged 15.5 disposals, 4.1 marks, 3.6 clearances, 3.9 score involvements, 8.4 pressure acts, and 0.5 goals
Tippett in 21 games as ruck pre-injuries averaged 15.0 disposals, 4.3 marks, 2.9 clearances, 7.1 score involvements, 9.1 pressure acts, and 1.8 goals.

Tippett is regarded as a spud while Sinclair is now a champion.
They are practically the same player statistically, except Tippett was far and away more accomplished on the scoreboard which is where true value comes for from ruckman in my opinion. Sinclair has a few more games to grow a bigger small sample size though.
 
Different sorts of players. One a journeyman forward ruck with lots of athleticism; the other a journeyman ruck/forward with lots of application. Sinkers is doing the work as a one out ruck. Tippett worked in tandem with another ruck.

Neither were/are champs. The major difference is Sinkers would be on well under half the coin Tippett got and still gets.

Sinkers provides value for money and whole hearted effort. Tippett did not. His last game in the 2's GF typified his lack of interest.
 
scaryness said:
Statisctially their ruckwork is identical in terms of hitouts won and hitouts to advantage, both are around 45% for winning the hitout and around 11-12% for hitouts to advantage.

Sinclair in 8 games in Cox-era Swans has averaged 15.5 disposals, 4.1 marks, 3.6 clearances, 3.9 score involvements, 8.4 pressure acts, and 0.5 goals
Tippett in 21 games as ruck pre-injuries averaged 15.0 disposals, 4.3 marks, 2.9 clearances, 7.1 score involvements, 9.1 pressure acts, and 1.8 goals.

Tippett is regarded as a spud while Sinclair is now a champion.
They are practically the same player statistically, except Tippett was far and away more accomplished on the scoreboard which is where true value comes for from ruckman in my opinion. Sinclair has a few more games to grow a bigger small sample size though.
Click to expand...


I agree with Deadly, its not tippetts fault we overpaid

but if they are identical then point proven, sinclair is better value for money, roughly the same output for half or even more the cost.
 
Punts said:
Defending the Tippett recruitment is laughable

Guy was a complete bust and put a lot of pressure on our cap then ended up in the 2s lol

If that was any other club this board would be bagging the s**t

Dud
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between defending the clubs decision to recruit him at the time and defending the clubs decision to recruit him 6 years on with the benefit of hindsight.

Obviously in hindsight it was a terrible move, but don't pretend you all thought so at the time.
 
caesar88 said:
This basically sums up 115 pages of back and forth.
Click to expand...

I get why people say Sinclair is the better value, he obviously is, but when the criticism actually stretches to blaming Tippett I can’t make sense of that.

Tippett showed that when injury free he could ld be a weapon as a forward or in the ruck. Unfortunately he had rotten luck with his body and that’s really all she wrote.
 
DeadlyAkkuret said:
I get why people say Sinclair is the better value, he obviously is, but when the criticism actually stretches to blaming Tippett I can’t make sense of that.

Tippett showed that when injury free he could ld be a weapon as a forward or in the ruck. Unfortunately he had rotten luck with his body and that’s really all she wrote.
Click to expand...

I wanted him off the list but only because I didn't rate him highly enough to justify the amount of patience required given his constant injuries. On the flip side I understand recruiting decisions can work out, others don't and it always felt silly to complain constantly about the Tippett move as one failure in a decade-plus of pretty solid moves when compared with the rest of the competition.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

momentbymoment said:
Sinclair has done a reverse Tippet.
Everyone hated the original trade and labelled him a spud. Now it is a genius move.
Click to expand...

Given Sinkers had a few games with Port Melbourne, he was never going to be a spud.

The major issue with Tippett is the Moneyball factor. No, he was not a Spud, but there is little doubt he was a Tinman (Reg says hello).

I question Tinman. Did he intend to retire ahead of the ankle op? Did he bother to advise the Club of his intentions ahead of the contract extension?
 
swansfan51 said:
There goes the argument that we aren't paying Tippett in 2019
Click to expand...


A few owe me an apology :p cant remember who it was got shitty with me for saying we are paying him in 2019

what a failure by this club
 
Article from the time of retirement confirms this is nothing new.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...s/news-story/ceb3544f8ec28210f86bb8645486bd81


A handicapped Sydney could be forced to go one player short on their primary list in consecutive years because of the late retirement of Kurt Tippett.

The highly-paid Tippett had three years of his contract to run when he surprisingly retired last month, citing fitness concerns after an ankle reconstruction late last year.

The Swans will have to play one short this year and almost certainly again next year because of strict AFL salary cap rules.

Sydney could have limited Tippett’s retirement damage to this year alone but his financial settlement is understood to be way beyond their 2018 total player payments limit, meaning his exit figure will probably have to be extended into the club’s 2019 salary cap, which could lead to him becoming automatically retained on Sydney’s list.

The Swans will not publicly reveal Tippett’s negotiated payout — believed to be a confidential $1 million-plus settlement, but much less than his contract was worth — however it is understood he will not have to remain a listed player for a third straight year, in 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grand Uncle Horace
Coach Horse: Retain, Retire, Reinvent?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
6K
Kiama Chris
Kiama Chris

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top