Stats, what a crock

[Grendel]

Was in an argument today with a couple of blokes (neither Pies fans) who said that on 'statistics' it proved Buckley deserved the Norm Smith.

??

Why?

Why because a bloke has a half dozen more possies is his game proved to be better than somebody who has had less of the ball but more of an impact on a game?

My own view is there was a wafer thin line to the B.O.G for the GF but I preferred Voss's game for the fact that (imo) he was the difference between the two sides. Now this isn't a shot at Voss but more and more everyone keeps referring to 'look at the stats'.

To hell with stats. Why not look at the actual game and see who and where is doing the damage on the ground. I'm using the Voss/Buckley comparison because it is fresh and semi-controversial from general discussion.

But are stats playing to much with the essence of what makes a good game from a player? Player X had 4 inside 50's, 7 clangers, 5 hard ball gets, 2 receives, etc etc etc.

Time was I could look at a bloke and sum up his game with 'he played a blinder' and that was more than enough.

Maybe I'm just getting old (was already bitter).

 

[saiak]

The Captain's job is to get the team over the line. As well as playing a blinder, Voss did this, so he deserved the Norm Smith!

 

[Hurricane75]

Bucks kicked Voss' ass in the third quater, therefore Bucks deserves the medal.

BTW Its not the job of a captain, its the job of the whole team to get over the line.

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by Hurricane75
Bucks kicked Voss' ass in the third quater, therefore Bucks deserves the medal.

BTW Its not the job of a captain, its the job of the whole team to get over the line.

Not according to the man himself!

 

[Hurricane75]

Originally posted by saiak


Not according to the man himself!

Bucks admits to be his harshest critic. Luckily Bucks isn't the one that votes for the Norm Smith Winner.

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by Hurricane75


Bucks admits to be his harshest critic. Luckily Bucks isn't the one that votes for the Norm Smith Winner.

I am glad he got it (even though he didn't deserve it), because he can look at it and remember how he felt when they lost the GF!

 

[Hurricane75]

Originally posted by saiak


I am glad he got it (even though he didn't deserve it), because he can look at it and remember how he felt when they lost the GF!

At least he was in the GF. And he will get another chance. BTW he did deserve it because Robert Walls said that even if the votes were taken after the game, Bucks still would have won. He just wouldn't have won by as much.

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by Hurricane75


At least he was in the GF. And he will get another chance. BTW he did deserve it because Robert Walls said that even if the votes were taken after the game, Bucks still would have won. He just wouldn't have won by as much.

You quote Walls when it suits you... As to him playing again, possibly, but it took him quite a while to play one in the first place!

 

[kretchy]

Originally posted by Hurricane75
Bucks kicked Voss' ass in the third quater, therefore Bucks deserves the medal.

You can't win the Norm Smith on the basis of one quarter.

 

[windyhill]

I`m with you on stats, just look at the way wayne campbell plays, he is the king of the cheap stat pick up. Rocca was my best on saturday, didn`t get a heap of it, but didn`t waste it when he got it, stats bore me to death

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by kretchy

You can't win the Norm Smith on the basis of one quarter.

In the minds of their biased supporter base, you can... Play a good minute maybe you deserve it!

 

[Macpie]

Originally posted by saiak


I am glad he got it (even though he didn't deserve it), because he can look at it and remember how he felt when they lost the GF!

Just as you can open your kitchen drawer and look at your wooden spoon and remember how you felt when you one the first of the back to back

 

[Hurricane75]

Originally posted by kretchy

You can't win the Norm Smith on the basis of one quarter.

Yeah and you can't win it based on just 10 minutes either. Thanks for proving my point.

The fact is that Buckley was good for 4 quaters and walked all over Voss in the 3rd. This put Voss' ranking down.

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by Macpie

remember how you felt when you one the first of the back to back

Ahhh, I remember the '81 GF, that was good, almost as good as '82 the next year!

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by kretchy

You can't win the Norm Smith on the basis of one quarter.

Thats why Voss didn't win it.

 

[M29]

"Stats, what a crock."

Are you leon davis?

 

[Portmanteau]

Anyone have the hard-ball gets statistics from the Grand Final? Just interested...

 

[Stocka]

Originally posted by Hurricane75


Yeah and you can't win it based on just 10 minutes either. Thanks for proving my point.

Idiot. After the half-way mark, one of the voters had Voss leading the count.

Originally posted by Hurricane75
The fact is that Buckley was good for 4 quaters and walked all over Voss in the 3rd. This put Voss' ranking down.

Would work in theory, although, B.Scott was on Buckley after the half. Twit. You have absolutely no clue at all.

 

[Stocka]

Originally posted by Hurricane75
Bucks kicked Voss' ass in the third quater, therefore Bucks deserves the medal.

B.Scott was on Buckley after the half.

Originally posted by Hurricane75
BTW Its not the job of a captain, its the job of the whole team to get over the line.

Yes, but the Norm Smith is an INDIVIDUAL award. Understand?

 

[Stocka]

Originally posted by hotpie


Thats why Voss didn't win it.

You're saying Voss wasn't good for the majority of the game? It's funny then, that a number of the voters for the NS had Voss leading the way at the half-way mark.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Stocka


You're saying Voss wasn't good for the majority of the game? It's funny then, that a number of the voters for the NS had Voss leading the way at the half-way mark.

Actually Voss IMO would have got the 3 votes (Rocca 2 Buckley 1), but its a close call.

But Voss did not play four consistent quarters like Buckley. His highs were higher than Buck's but he did go missing for a large part of the third quarter.

 

[BMD]

Originally posted by windyhill
I`m with you on stats, just look at the way wayne campbell plays, he is the king of the cheap stat pick up. Rocca was my best on saturday, didn`t get a heap of it, but didn`t waste it when he got it, stats bore me to death

Agree. The consensus in the group I was watching with thought A Rocca was the best player. Group of mostly Swans fans too so no real Rocca fans amongst them either.

 

[Stocka]

Originally posted by hotpie


Actually Voss IMO would have got the 3 votes (Rocca 2 Buckley 1), but its a close call.

But Voss did not play four consistent quarters like Buckley. His highs were higher than Buck's but he did go missing for a large part of the third quarter.

IMO, there was quite an even field of contenders. I would have rated Voss, Buckely and Rocca as the front-runners, although, from a 'team based' perspective, guys like S.Black, S.Wakelin (even though Lynch was also good, he did well to keep Lynch to 4 goals, with the amount of ball that was coming his way), J.Leppitsch, C.Keating and R.Lonie all had pretty good claims.

 

[the REAL dingo]

Originally posted by Grendel
Was in an argument today with a couple of blokes (neither Pies fans) who said that on 'statistics' it proved Buckley deserved the Norm Smith.

??

Why?

Why because a bloke has a half dozen more possies is his game proved to be better than somebody who has had less of the ball but more of an impact on a game?

My own view is there was a wafer thin line to the B.O.G for the GF but I preferred Voss's game for the fact that (imo) he was the difference between the two sides. Now this isn't a shot at Voss but more and more everyone keeps referring to 'look at the stats'.

To hell with stats. Why not look at the actual game and see who and where is doing the damage on the ground. I'm using the Voss/Buckley comparison because it is fresh and semi-controversial from general discussion.

But are stats playing to much with the essence of what makes a good game from a player? Player X had 4 inside 50's, 7 clangers, 5 hard ball gets, 2 receives, etc etc etc.

Time was I could look at a bloke and sum up his game with 'he played a blinder' and that was more than enough.

Maybe I'm just getting old (was already bitter).

Don't forget he's Nathan Buckley and most of the useless collingwood youngsters look for Buckley and unneccesarily pass the ball to him, only because he's Nathan Buckley. Most overrated footballer...

 

[Pornstar]

Originally posted by Grendel
To hell with stats. Why not look at the actual game and see who and where is doing the damage on the ground....are stats playing to much with the essence of what makes a good game from a player?

Exactly Grendel. Robert Klomp and i both agree with you wholeheartedly.