Mitch Robinson anyone?

[Kappa]

That makes one of you. One person with an opinion. Then there is me, another person with an opinion. BOTH of us don't make a lick of difference. If the Pies decide to get him, then you get him too. If they don't, then I will have him in my Supercoach side, and you will get your way.

I've hated a lot of footballers in my time. Most of them were great footballers. Judd, Franklin, Carey and others. Brereton I hated too until he came to Collingwood, and then I changed my opinion. I support the club, and the players they bring into it. I can continue to disagree with them, but it makes no difference.

I would love to see them get Robinson, because he is a good player, and a seasoned one that could work for us, to see more success. I am gaining another reason to want Robinson, and that is to see all those that don't, whinge and whine that they don't want him. As if any of them make a difference to the bigger picture.

How is Robinson a good player when a bottom 8 club de-lists him and no one wants to pick him up? Ridiculous

 

[Schraderbrau]

To me this seems like an argument against the effectiveness stat rather than one for Robinson's skill. I've watched Robinson, he isn't a good kick. I think he takes a lot of easy options and handballs a lot because he knows his strength isn't disposing it by foot. That would ensure he is technically an effective player, but it's a tad misleading, which I see a lot with this stat.

Yeah this is my view as well. He is definitely way below average in the kicking department for a medium sized AFL player. Whilst you may have gotten away with it even four of 5 years ago you can't these days. It's not just his kicking though, his decision making is poor under pressure and fumbles a lot. Whilst he might be good enough to get a game for some teams outside the 8, his age and lack of skill make him unsuitable for any club with any kind of aspirations to move up the ladder.

 

[DNine]

I agree our opinions are worthless. i don't agree that Mitch Robinson is a good footballer.

Statistically he is a good footballer. That is fact, not opinion.

 

[DNine]

How is Robinson a good player when a bottom 8 club de-lists him and no one wants to pick him up? Ridiculous

Because of his off field misdemeanors. I thought that was obvious. Brendan Fevola was an excellent footballer, didn't stop him from losing his spot.

 

[DNine]

Yeah this is my view as well. He is definitely way below average in the kicking department for a medium sized AFL player. Whilst you may have gotten away with it even four of 5 years ago you can't these days. It's not just his kicking though, his decision making is poor under pressure and fumbles a lot. Whilst he might be good enough to get a game for some teams outside the 8, his age and lack of skill make him unsuitable for any club with any kind of aspirations to move up the ladder.

He ISN'T below average in the kicking department for a medium sized player at all. Do you not read what his stats say. Only 37 players IN THE AFL, that get over 20 possessions, have a possession effectiveness of 72.8% or more. Short kicks under 40 meters, do not get you Supercoach points, yet he gets 82.8sc a game, so he would have to kick quite a few over 40 meters. These are all the facts. Your view through the bottom of a beer glass while hating Carlton, and hating his attitude in regards to being an idiot, doesn't hold as much weight.

YES he has been an idiot, YES he is poor off field with that stupidity. NO he is not a poor disposer of the ball. FACT

 

[smiddaz123]

He ISN'T below average in the kicking department for a medium sized player at all. Do you not read what his stats say. Only 37 players IN THE AFL, that get over 20 possessions, have a possession effectiveness of 72.8% or more. Short kicks under 40 meters, do not get you Supercoach points, yet he gets 82.8sc a game, so he would have to kick quite a few over 40 meters. These are all the facts. Your view through the bottom of a beer glass while hating Carlton, and hating his attitude in regards to being an idiot, doesn't hold as much weight.

YES he has been an idiot, YES he is poor off field with that stupidity. NO he is not a poor disposer of the ball. FACT

These statistics are not a reflection of quality. Daniel Cross falls into this category. Rhyce Shaw does as well. So does Andrew Carrazzo. Give me your honest thoughts on the footskills of those players if you would. Even good old Lumumba fits the bolded category.

Robinson is a long kick. He is not a good kick, and he makes poor decisions. You get this from watching him play, not reading his stats.

 

[Kappa]

Because of his off field misdemeanors. I thought that was obvious. Brendan Fevola was an excellent footballer, didn't stop him from losing his spot.

Except Fevola was over 30 at the time of being delisted and had injury problems, the end was nigh anyway.

Robinson is 25 and in the prime of his career and fit.

If players are good enough then their misdemeanour's off field tend to get overlooked, EG Swan Martin Franklin.

Robinson is a hack, anyone who has seen him play will agree with that. Didn't even finish top 10 in the Carlton BnF, which makes you're "good" call look foolish

 

[DNine]

I would be much more interested in Ash Smith from West Coast. Has pace and skills just has lacked a bit of consistency! Any takers?

Oh, so 5.5 kicks and 3 Handballs average a game, 41.5sc per game is better. O.K, He also has been delisted by team not to make the 8. Only advantage he has, is that he isn't a bad boy.

 

[Robroy22]

But don't STATS mean everything?
I mean don't we all play "mickey mouse" list management games based on stats? pfffffffffttttt!

According to stats, GAJ is better than his old man (shudders at the thought) and Johnny Greening or Leigh Matthews wouldn't rate in the top ten of ball getters today. There are some important stats: Who did he play for? How many games did he play? How did he play in big games (e.g.: finals)?

Show me those three stats and I'll show you a footballer....or not.

 

[DNine]

Except Fevola was over 30 at the time of being delisted and had injury problems, the end was nigh anyway.

Robinson is 25 and in the prime of his career and fit.

If players are good enough then their misdemeanour's off field tend to get overlooked, EG Swan Martin Franklin.

Robinson is a hack, anyone who has seen him play will agree with that. Didn't even finish top 10 in the Carlton BnF, which makes you're "good" call look foolish

He only played 12 games. I have seen him play, as has quite a few people that have commented that they rate Robinson, but that doesn't fit into that the world revolves around you and your opinion. You constantly dismissing stats that refute what your saying is foolish. I find it amusing when people rate there ability to judge a player without the useful tool of stats.

 

[mike123]

I would be much more interested in Ash Smith from West Coast. Has pace and skills just has lacked a bit of consistency! Any takers?

Skills? From what I heard at the West Coast board he's another Ben Sinclair.

 

[DNine]

But don't STATS mean everything?
I mean don't we all play "mickey mouse" list management games based on stats? pfffffffffttttt!

According to stats, GAJ is better than his old man (shudders at the thought) and Johnny Greening or Leigh Matthews wouldn't rate in the top ten of ball getters today. There are some important stats: Who did he play for? How many games did he play? How did he play in big games (e.g.: finals)?

Show me those three stats and I'll show you a footballer....or not.

Don't we all just rate our own opinions so much that despite any stat, you can't concede a thing? I know people who are like that. You can prove their claims wrong without a shadow of a doubt, and they will still fight.

Some people think Gary Ablett Junior is better than Gary Ablett senior. SO WHAT. Just because you believe the opposite, that is fact in your world. I am not saying that all player types get good stats. We are talking about a midfielder. Comparing midfielders against another midfielder. Apples with apples. But if bringing Leigh Matthews up, does well in your head when talking about Robinson, well good for you mate. So these players that were stars that never played in successful sides are not as good as players that played in premiership sides, but are not considered great players? Is that right. Good on ya.

 

[smiddaz123]

He only played 12 games. I have seen him play, as has quite a few people that have commented that they rate Robinson, but that doesn't fit into that the world revolves around you and your opinion. You constantly dismissing stats that refute what your saying is foolish. I find it amusing when people rate there ability to judge a player without the useful tool of stats.

Stats are useful if used in the correct context. Using disposal efficiency to prove skill is stupid. Stats are good at measuring volume, not efficiency in AFL. It's a vague indicator at the very best.

Unless you're happy to concede that Daniel Cross is a better ball user than Scott Pendlebury due to his higher disposal efficiency, that is.

 

[Robroy22]

Don't we all just rate our own opinions so much that despite any stat, you can't concede a thing? I know people who are like that. You can prove their claims wrong without a shadow of a doubt, and they will still fight.

Some people think Gary Ablett Junior is better than Gary Ablett senior. SO WHAT. Just because you believe the opposite, that is fact in your world. I am not saying that all player types get good stats. We are talking about a midfielder. Comparing midfielders against another midfielder. Apples with apples. But if bringing Leigh Matthews up, does well in your head when talking about Robinson, well good for you mate. So these players that were stars that never played in successful sides are not as good as players that played in premiership sides, but are not considered great players? Is that right. Good on ya.

Mate, I don't know if you've read any of my previous posts here on the site but if you had, you'd know that players like Kevin Murray, Ted Whitten and Bobby Skilton were all heroes of mine (all from non successful sides) and despite being non Collingwood players they were just too good as sportsmen to not love. So I don't bring up greats from successful sides, I bring up greats from all clubs.
The fact that GAJ is a premiership player and his dad isn't wouldn't worry me in the least also cos an old coach (Alan Killegrew don't know if you've heard of him) used to say "Doesn't matter where they come from or how pretty they can look in the team photo, the only way I judge a player is when it's him and his opponent going for the ball"....having seen a lot of both GAJ and his dad, if the ball had've been placed between them and they both had an even chance of getting to it first....I know who the winner would have been.

I'm glad science has been applied to footy. But even I know that stats can be misleading. The day they come up with a stat for courage and selfless (team orientated) acts is the day I might take them seriously.

and "one percenters" don't cover things like:

running to cover a team mates player, getting up when you can't, running back with the flight of the ball, communicating and leading other team mates through difficult situations, playing out of position, negating an opposition star, unrewarded running, playing injured.....

these are the stats that make great sides.

 

[Kappa]

He only played 12 games. I have seen him play, as has quite a few people that have commented that they rate Robinson, but that doesn't fit into that the world revolves around you and your opinion. You constantly dismissing stats that refute what your saying is foolish. I find it amusing when people rate there ability to judge a player without the useful tool of stats.

The only stat I need is the fact he was delisted and no club wants him

Yet you want him at Collingwood

That makes you wrong

 

[ZerokooL]

It's simple for me, and regardless of what I really think of the guy...... I try and put myself in Buckley's shoes.... and what he would think?

And my guess is that Mitch doesn't fit Buckley's player profile. Nuff said!

 

[Good_Old]

The only stat I need is the fact he was delisted and no club wants him

Yet you want him at Collingwood

That makes you wrong

Watch out how you talk to DNine mate, he'll put you on his ignore list and then grandstand about it later.

He's a bit precious like that.

I'm surprised he hasn't already done it tbh.

 

[DNine]

Stats are useful if used in the correct context. Using disposal efficiency to prove skill is stupid. Stats are good at measuring volume, not efficiency in AFL. It's a vague indicator at the very best.

Unless you're happy to concede that Daniel Cross is a better ball user than Scott Pendlebury due to his higher disposal efficiency, that is.

Well if Pendlebury's effective disposal is 75% and Daniel Cross's effective disposal is 78.2% that is exactly what I will concede. So what? Means 75% of the time Pendlebury got the ball it was effective, but Daniel Cross was 3.2% better. Not the end of the world, it happened.

 

[DNine]

Mate, I don't know if you've read any of my previous posts here on the site but if you had, you'd know that players like Kevin Murray, Ted Whitten and Bobby Skilton were all heroes of mine (all from non successful sides) and despite being non Collingwood players they were just too good as sportsmen to not love. So I don't bring up greats from successful sides, I bring up greats from all clubs.
The fact that GAJ is a premiership player and his dad isn't wouldn't worry me in the least also cos an old coach (Alan Killegrew don't know if you've heard of him) used to say "Doesn't matter where they come from or how pretty they can look in the team photo, the only way I judge a player is when it's him and his opponent going for the ball"....having seen a lot of both GAJ and his dad, if the ball had've been placed between them and they both had an even chance of getting to it first....I know who the winner would have been.

I'm glad science has been applied to footy. But even I know that stats can be misleading. The day they come up with a stat for courage and selfless (team orientated) acts is the day I might take them seriously.

and "one percenters" don't cover things like:

running to cover a team mates player, getting up when you can't, running back with the flight of the ball, communicating and leading other team mates through difficult situations, playing out of position, negating an opposition star, unrewarded running, playing injured.....

these are the stats that make great sides.

We are talking about disposal effectiveness in isolation. I am not getting into the technicality's of where else Stats fail to tell the picture. I get they are not a flawless way of comparring two players over all. But we aren't. We have people saying he has terrible disposal, and I have not heard anything to tell me why this if fact, would not show up on the effective stats %. It would, as sure as shit it would. As a player, this stat in isolation is simple. Grab the ball, and miss your target, and your effective disposal WILL Suffer. Hit your target and it will rise. Don't know what the grey area here is.

 

[smiddaz123]

Well if Pendlebury's effective disposal is 75% and Daniel Cross's effective disposal is 78.2% that is exactly what I will concede. So what? Means 75% of the time Pendlebury got the ball it was effective, but Daniel Cross was 3.2% better. Not the end of the world, it happened.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. You can make a poor decision and have it counted as an effective disposal. You can make a correct decision and have it counted as an ineffective disposal.

For example "An effective long kick is one that is 40 metres to a 50/50 or better for the team."

This means if a player blindly bombs the ball to a contest (funnily enough a Mitch Robinson special, the bloke has no composure and does not look for options), it will be counted as an effective disposal.

On the flip side, "An effective short kick is one that results in a teammate's possession who was the intended target of the kicker."

This counts a player chipping the ball backwards when a tougher, but better option is available up the field. And this is the exact reason you find guys with poor disposal who play within their limits (Daniel Cross) with a high disposal efficient compared to more skilled guys (Pendlebury). It doesn't mean they have better disposal, it means they prefer to take certain options as much as other players because they do not possess the skills to execute.

Having a higher disposal efficiency is a stupid indicator of raw skill. Hilariously stupid in fact.

 

[smiddaz123]

Grab the ball, and miss your target, and your effective disposal WILL Suffer. Hit your target and it will rise. Don't know what the grey area here is.

Grab the ball, ignore a free man in acres of space to kick long to a pack, balls gets spoiled and goes over the line for a throw.

That is counted as an effective disposal.

 

[DNine]

The only stat I need is the fact he was delisted and no club wants him

Yet you want him at Collingwood

That makes you wrong

Oh really, Gary Ablett Senior was delisted by Hawthorn, and retreated back to Myrtleford for a year, and Geelong picked him up. More recently, John McCarthy was delisted, and picked up by Port, and prior to his death was doing well for Port. John Ceglar delisted by Collingwood, was very close to playing in Hawthorns winning premiership. Jeremy Laidler delisted by Carlton, played 19 games for the Runners up team in Sydney, Bachar Houli was delisted by the Bombers, picked up by Richmond, and played 23 games this year. Anthony Miles was delisted by GWS and is now not only playing for Richmond, he is starring, and Matthew Spangher, delisted by the West Coast Eagle, now a premiership Hawthorn player.

No club wanted any of these players, until of course they were picked up in the draft. But you know.

 

[DNine]

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. You can make a poor decision and have it counted as an effective disposal. You can make a correct decision and have it counted as an ineffective disposal.

For example "An effective long kick is one that is 40 metres to a 50/50 or better for the team."

This means if a player blindly bombs the ball to a contest (funnily enough a Mitch Robinson special, the bloke has no composure and does not look for options), it will be counted as an effective disposal.

You're over thinking it. If he bombs it long, and it is effective, it is effective. Says you that he does it blindly. How could you possibly know that prior to going into the pack Robinson doesn't know the numbers advantage his side. I could not care less what you believe to be good or not good. We need players kicking our way, and it not be turned over END OF STORY.

On the flip side, "An effective short kick is one that results in a teammate's possession who was the intended target of the kicker."

This counts a player chipping the ball backwards when a tougher, but better option is available up the field. And this is the exact reason you find guys with poor disposal who play within their limits (Daniel Cross) with a high disposal efficient compared to more skilled guys (Pendlebury). It doesn't mean they have better disposal, it means they prefer to take certain options as much as other players because they do not possess the skills to execute.

Having a higher disposal efficiency is a stupid indicator of raw skill. Hilariously stupid in fact.

So you say. The AFL put a high regard to stats and figures. You hear nearly all coaches saying we had so many contested possession, so many uncontested possession, we had so many less effective disposal than our opposition, we were +12 in this stat, and -8 in this stat. Buckley actually uses stats more than any other coach I have seen. There boards are full with analysing stats on the game. It makes up the KPI's that clubs concentrate A LOT of energy on. They can't shut up about stats. YOU don't like stats, good luck to YOU. But they are indicative of the picture of what happened out there. But we will just all believe you and your opinions. That will get us to the true story. lol Most probably half tanked every time you are having these opinions. Solid indications there. Why employ statisticians, why don't we just get the arrogant opinions of Big Footy people. Could save clubs a fortune.

Fact is stats are indicators. Opinions back these stats up, not the other way around. Stats are not flawless, and there are downfalls to stats in certain area's, midfielders getting possessions and either hitting or missing a target is not one of those downfalls.

Example with how stats tell a better picture of popular opinion, Dangerfield is terrible with his effective disposal, and because he is flashy, and does other things well, his poor disposal is over looked. If Dangerfield was a bit of a dickhead, and went out to a few clubs, run a mock, and was a bit of a sniper on the field, and in the popularity stakes, he was thought of like Robinson, everyone would look at his stats, and say he is a terrible user of the ball, and the stats would be there to back that up, but he isn't, he is a liked player. Robinson is a hated player, and I get the hate in so many area's, but he is NOT a poor user of the ball, and nothing you say will convince me he is. Statistics prove this theory to be correct.

I still have my own opinion on what I have seen as well too though, which is equal to your opinion. I just have stats AS WELL. For you to rate stats, you would have to admit that this part of his game is not bad, and that would go against your every instinct. I get that.

 

[DNine]

Grab the ball, ignore a free man in acres of space to kick long to a pack, balls gets spoiled and goes over the line for a throw.

That is counted as an effective disposal.

Now you get a bloke that thinks a player is a dickhead, and fill him with beer amongst his mates, watching the enemy of your side, and you will get pearls of wisdom. Can't fault that way of telling whether Robinson is good or not. Robinson is not ignoring players in space, to kick to someone else over on the boundary. This is getting really stupid.

 

[DNine]

It's simple for me, and regardless of what I really think of the guy...... I try and put myself in Buckley's shoes.... and what he would think?

And my guess is that Mitch doesn't fit Buckley's player profile. Nuff said!

All well and good. If everyone just looked at the things that were true like this, we would get somewhere. There is a good chance, Buckley will not give someone like Robinson a chance. ALL because of off field and undisciplined acts. But Buckley is an analyst of the game, he would know too well that Robinson is a good player if he lost all the other rubbish he goes on with.