Opinion Mark Blicavs

[David the Cat]

Don't forget that McIntosh was our No 1 ruckman, your analysis is clouded by your thinking on Blicavs in general
Trengove had 6 hit outs and 12 possessions is a more suitable comparison

Absolutely…………Personally I thought he was far from the worst last week…..

 

[cats_09]

There is an article in The Age today about rucks and their value/worth to a team, and I found this passage most interesting and something that we maybe should try to remember when judging the performance of players, especially those who are doing some ruck duties. While it says 'one clubs ruck coach', I wouldn't be surprised to see the similar theme across all clubs:

One club's ruck coach said it was difficult to assess the value of ruckmen because people tried to distil their game to statistics that were inadequate and misleading, because the intangibles of a good ruck were unquantifiable.
"What value do you put on a big bloke having presence? What value do you put on a bloke who knocks midfielders over, blocks and puts the wind up them? None of those are stats.
"The ruck stats are basically bulls--t anyway. Hitouts are the most useless statistic ever. You can only look at hitouts to advantage and even then you have to look at clearances and scores from stoppages. You can be putting it down your midfield's throat but if they fumble, get tackled or don't clear it then that is not your fault.
"We never used hitout figures, they are a complete waste of time, they are nonsense. Hitting the ball first means nothing if your team doesn't clear it.
"Hitout to advantage figures are what we look at. If the ruck can hit to your advantage it is then up to the midfielder to clear the ball. We review the games and rank the ruck hitouts for every game and I am sure all clubs do the same.
"You have to look at every one and give it a grade and then you can get an idea of whether they were any good."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ed-position-20140501-zr2f7.html#ixzz30VZuqHvO

 

[Partridge]

You're so blinded by your hatred for him that you'll say complete crap like that to "prove" your point. You're comparing a guy who played about 20-30% game time in the ruck with Lobbe who rucked virtually the entire game unassisted. When you consider how many contests they were involved in the hitout stats look very reasonable. It was McIntosh who Lobbe "walloped" (not really but he beat McIntosh) when they were both in the ruck while Blicavs was very solid in his time in there. I mean Bobby even went to the effort of putting in every contest he was in so you've got no excuse for using completely biased stats rather than actually watching the game. But then that wouldn't fit into your preconceived notions would it.

I was too busy watching running patterns. Stop ball watching. I mean really.

 

[catempire]

I was wrong. I didn't read your post properly.

Fixed that for you mate.

 

[Partridge]

Fixed that for you mate.

I can edit my own posts, don't need you or anyone else to attempt it.

 

[sarah.13]

Partridge does this ring a bell???
I suspect some not only think they know better, they're absolutely certain and confident they do. And as Darwin said only too accurately - "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

 

[catempire]

I can edit my own posts, don't need you or anyone else to attempt it.

Go for it then. They still seem intact to me.

 

[Partridge]

Partridge does this ring a bell???
I suspect some not only think they know better, they're absolutely certain and confident they do. And as Darwin said only too accurately - "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Wrong person to quote that to. I've got nothing but doubt. And doubt doesn't engender confidence in anything.

I'm happy to say I don't know. Don't know what the right team structure is, don't know what the correct or optimum makeup of players are, and I certainly don't know which players will or will not make it. But I'm absolutely entitled to state an opinion on it - as are you.

If you don't like that viewpoint tough shit. Unlike others I don't attack posters or become personally abusive.

 

[Pivo]

Partridge does this ring a bell???
I suspect some not only think they know better, they're absolutely certain and confident they do. And as Darwin said only too accurately - "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Darwin also threw up a little idea called "survival of the fittest'.

I think Blicavs is the "fittest" at the club but an 8 page (and going) thread suggests his "survivial" in the team (at the moment) is still up for debate.

Like a lot of discussion on this board, this is starting to go round and round. I do fall into the "Blicavs isn't a 100% guarenteed fixture in the 1s right now".

However, that doesn't mean I hate Blicavs or think he has no future (a conclusion some seem to jump to when a player is criticised).

I like Blicavs (I do think, in time, he'll be a good player for us and will prove an inspired choice - well done Cam Guthrie's Dad) and can see the benefit of getting games into him (just like a number of a our other young guys would benefit from game time).

Can anyone take his spot this week? Probably not but the squeeze will get tighter and tighter as more players return from injury.

 

[vealesy]

Wrong person to quote that to. I've got nothing but doubt. And doubt doesn't engender confidence in anything.

I'm happy to say I don't know. Don't know what the right team structure is, don't know what the correct or optimum makeup of players are, and I certainly don't know which players will or will not make it. But I'm absolutely entitled to state an opinion on it - as are you.

If you don't like that viewpoint tough shit. Unlike others I don't attack posters or become personally abusive.

Bullshit.

Snide remarks are just a weak mans abuse.

 

[Partridge]

Darwin also threw up a little idea called "survival of the fittest'.

I think Blicavs is the "fittest" at the club but an 8 page (and going) thread suggests his "survival" in the team (at the moment) is still up for debate.

Like a lot of discussion on this board, this is starting to go round and round. I do fall into the "Blicavs isn't a 100% guarenteed fixture in the 1s right now".

However, that doesn't mean I hate Blicavs or think he has no future (a conclusion some seem to jump to when a player is criticised).

I like Blicavs (I do think, in time, he'll be a good player for us and will prove an inspired choice - well done Cam Guthrie's Dad) and can see the benefit of getting games into him (just like a number of a our other young guys would benefit from game time).

Can anyone take his spot this week? Probably not but the squeeze will get tighter and tighter as more players return from injury.

I'd say the real crunch for spots will hit later in the year, when Smedts and Christensen and Caddy - you would think certain best 22 selections - are all available. The blood will definitely start flowing around here then.

 

[vealesy]

I'd say the real crunch for spots will hit later in the year, when Smedts and Christensen and Caddy - you would think certain best 22 selections - are all available. The blood will definitely start flowing around here then.

Why?

Id rather our best 22 playing than any developmental players.

 

[Pivo]

I'd say the real crunch for spots will hit later in the year, when Smedts and Christensen and Caddy - you would think certain best 22 selections - are all available. The blood will definitely start flowing around here then.

I think this is a good point.

Not too sure if I'd completely agree on Smedts though. I'd have him as fringe Best 22.

But that is a personal bias thing on my behalf.

He is one player I do really want to see work hard in the VFL for a few weeks before he gets called up.

But that's for another thread.

 

[Partridge]

I think this is a good point.

Not too sure if I'd completely agree on Smedts though. I'd have him as fringe Best 22.

But that is a personal bias thing on my behalf.

He is one player I do really want to see work hard in the VFL for a few weeks before he gets called up.

But that's for another thread.

That's the really hard thing to gauge, because they seem to really want to pump games into him. Which is fine, but leads to the almost amusing list of "best 22" players that Scott has. There's a lot of them.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

In my opinion he appears to have stagnated a bit in development, he's not bad, he's not great - he's just going.

I think it's just a case of second year blues, many players go through it. The other thing, as is often said, "Big men take longer to develop" which seems funny when you think how far the Blitz has come on in the last 18 months. He needs some time to consolidate what he's learnt. Whether that's in the VFL or AFL is up to the MC. He's one I'm really hoping will become a solid B grade player, but after only 28 games of AFL he still has a long way to go, and a lot of bagging ahead of him it seems (going by this thread).

 

[Pollywaffle]

That's the really hard thing to gauge, because they seem to really want to pump games into him. Which is fine, but leads to the almost amusing list of "best 22" players that Scott has. There's a lot of them.

isn't Scott's 21st birthday soon

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Biggest problem with Blicavs -is what position he plays -and the continuity of a position he plays during the game

I think it was the game when he came on as a sub- might have been against Hawthorn - came on to replace Brown in the 3rd qtr- within the 1st 5 minutes - he came charging out at top pace right at CHF - took an overhead mark confidently - i thought to myself - how impressive is that - but he doesnt do it enough - or isnt given enough opportunity during a game to do that

When Geelong next play an easy beat - Melb - StKILDA - come to mind - id like Blicavs given a full game at CHF - and see how he goes

All this bullshiit that hes going to become a wingman - thats nonsense - hes too big - and not explosive enough off the mark to play that position

 

[sarah.13]

Biggest problem with Blicavs -is what position he plays -and the continuity of a position he plays during the game

I think it was the game when he came on as a sub- might have been against Hawthorn - came on to replace Brown in the 3rd qtr- within the 1st 5 minutes - he came charging out at top pace right at CHF - took an overhead mark confidently - i thought to myself - how impressive is that - but he doesnt do it enough - or isnt given enough opportunity during a game to do that

When Geelong next play an easy beat - Melb - StKILDA - come to mind - id like Blicavs given a full game at CHF - and see how he goes

All this bullshiit that hes going to become a wingman - thats nonsense - hes too big - and not explosive enough off the mark to play that position

I think he will eventually become the old fashion Ruck/Rover.
Can go third man up,play as an inside mid and has the running ability to run up and back to support the forwards/backs during general play.

 

[rooie]

I think he will eventually become the old fashion Ruck/Rover.
Can go third man up,play as an inside mid and has the running ability to run up and back to support the forwards/backs during general play.

dont agree with the bolded part, but agree about support forwards/backs. for me that makes him a 2nd ruckman, not rover.

 

[sarah.13]

dont agree with the bolded part, but agree about support forwards/backs. for me that makes him a 2nd ruckman, not rover.

Wasn't saying he was a Ruck or a Rover but the old fashioned R/R or follower as per the 60"s and 70"s.

 

[rooie]

Wasn't saying he was a Ruck or a Rover but the old fashioned R/R or follower as per the 60"s and 70"s.

ah, before my time.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Wrong person to quote that to. I've got nothing but doubt. And doubt doesn't engender confidence in anything.

I'm happy to say I don't know. Don't know what the right team structure is, don't know what the correct or optimum makeup of players are, and I certainly don't know which players will or will not make it. But I'm absolutely entitled to state an opinion on it - as are you.

If you don't like that viewpoint tough shit. Unlike others I don't attack posters or become personally abusive.

But that isn't what you did. In response to my opinion on his play in the ruck you:

a) Misrepresented my statement by missing that I specified I was only referring to his time in the ruck,
b) Presented statistics as evidence for your opinion which moves your opinion from pure speculation to something claiming to be based on reality,
and
c) Made a very categorical statement of his failings in the ruck, claiming that he 'got walloped'.

You made a statement and skewed evidence to give your opinion more weight. It's pretty poor form when called out on your misrepresenting of evidence, to claim that it is your opinion being criticised when it's not. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But using statistics in a completely misleading manner to try and back up that opinion is illogical. When you then use those statistics to strongly criticise a player, an act you've been very critical of others for doing in the past (see the Mitch Brown thread), then it's very hypocritical.

We get that you don't really rate Blicavs and question why he continues to be selected. Fine. But any reasonable person would see that it's completely unfair to compare the number of hitouts by a player with ~30% time in the ruck compared to a player with ~90% of time in the ruck. Yet this is what you did. It's also a tactic you repeatedly implement when it comes to Blicavs. Keep your opinion, that's fine. But when you misrepresent stats to back up this opinion expect to be called out on it.

 

[vealesy]

Pwnd.

 

[Partridge]

But that isn't what you did. In response to my opinion on his play in the ruck you:

a) Misrepresented my statement by missing that I specified I was only referring to his time in the ruck,
b) Presented statistics as evidence for your opinion which moves your opinion from pure speculation to something claiming to be based on reality,
and
c) Made a very categorical statement of his failings in the ruck, claiming that he 'got walloped'.

You made a statement and skewed evidence to give your opinion more weight. It's pretty poor form when called out on your misrepresenting of evidence, to claim that it is your opinion being criticised when it's not. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But using statistics in a completely misleading manner to try and back up that opinion is illogical. When you then use those statistics to strongly criticise a player, an act you've been very critical of others for doing in the past (see the Mitch Brown thread), then it's very hypocritical.

We get that you don't really rate Blicavs and question why he continues to be selected. Fine. But any reasonable person would see that it's completely unfair to compare the number of hitouts by a player with ~30% time in the ruck compared to a player with ~90% of time in the ruck. Yet this is what you did. It's also a tactic you repeatedly implement when it comes to Blicavs. Keep your opinion, that's fine. But when you misrepresent stats to back up this opinion expect to be called out on it.

I fully expect to be called out on for most things on here now to be honest. Anything other than unblinking and unquestioning adoration.

By the way, skewing evidence would be including stats for a half v a full game, or similar editing. I didn't do that. I put up the full game. That's not misrepresentation. It might be more critical, but no figures were massaged. You think he was good. I thought he was extremely valiant, but we're in a no win situation with our list right now. His lack of body size compared to a normal ruckman means he can - and will - get pushed aside easily at times. Doesn't explain the "infringement" paid against him though (only the umpire and Port fans could find a free there).

 

[vealesy]

I fully expect to be called out on for most things on here now to be honest. Anything other than unblinking and unquestioning adoration.

Who does that and where?