Time for Hartigan to be dropped

[Bicks]

UNREFUTABLY?

futile
ˈfjuːtʌɪl/
adjective
adjective: futile
incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.

synonyms:fruitless, vain, pointless;
useless, worthless, ineffectual, ineffective, inefficacious, to no effect, of no use, in vain, to no avail, unavailing;
unsuccessful, failed, thwarted;
unproductive, barren, unprofitable, abortive;
impotent, hollow, empty, forlorn, idle, sterile, nugatory, valueless;
hopeless, doomed, lost;

 

[fabs33]

Lol. Like your my boss and I have to do it? You do it if you want. I did it last week. I will do it in a month or so from now and see where it sits maybe. No point doing it 1 week later. Unless you want to try and skew it because 1 match backs up your claims. Everyone dismissed the facts anyway as not being relevant, reliable or credible, so what does it matter. As I said, if you want to do it , do it and I will be happy to see what they look like as well. I just can’t be bothered atm. Got people here and trying to watch the footy , not top priority right now.

So you've got the time to post but you expect me to believe you don't have the time to add and divide nine simple numbers? Your excuses are as vacuous as your arguments against Hartigan.

People here tried to explain to you why you can't use a small sample to draw conclusions, something you ignored because it suited you, now that it doesn't you complain that it's skewed because of one game. Here's the thing, it wouldn't have been skewed so easily if you had a larger sample size to begin with, and large enough to have been meaningful. It's not because I want to know the result, we all know what it is, obviously I just wanted to highlight the underlying issue of picking numbers the way you did with no consideration for the myriad of factors that led to those numbers being what they are. They didn't go up and down just because of Hartigan.

What I've gathered from this thread is that you're a person who lacks the integrity to portray statistics with fairness. When the numbers suit your argument you call them irrefutable, when they don't you "can't be bothered" with them. Note how you use the conditions last night to suggest that the score we conceded is meaningless, but at the same time you ignore those same conditions when pointing towards Hartigan's disposal count.

Frankly, this thread has exposed more about you than it has about Hartigan.

 

[mick500]

So you've got the time to post but you expect me to believe you don't have the time to add and divide nine simple numbers? Your excuses are as vacuous as your arguments against Hartigan.

People here tried to explain to you why you can't use a small sample to draw conclusions, something you ignored because it suited you, now that it doesn't you complain that it's skewed because of one game. Here's the thing, it wouldn't have been skewed so easily if you had a larger sample size to begin with, and large enough to have been meaningful. It's not because I want to know the result, we all know what it is, obviously I just wanted to highlight the underlying issue of picking numbers the way you did with no consideration for the myriad of factors that led to those numbers being what they are. They didn't go up and down just because of Hartigan.

What I've gathered from this thread is that you're a person who lacks the integrity to portray statistics with fairness. When the numbers suit your argument you call them irrefutable, when they don't you "can't be bothered" with them. Note how you use the conditions last night to suggest that the score we conceded is meaningless, but at the same time you ignore those same conditions when pointing towards Hartigan's disposal count.

Frankly, this thread has exposed more about you than it has about Hartigan.

If you say so.

From my position, I have said Hartigan played fine last night. I truly can't be bothered right now working out the stats as far as Hartigan in vs Hartigan out, especially as you said they were considerd worthless last week. If you want to do it, do it. No one's stopping you. I will reply to whatever the stats are, I just can't be bothered doing it right bloody now.

9 disposals 1 mark and 1 tackle and you all go nuts like he's a superstar. Shows how low the bar is for Hartigan imo. Otten had a better night statistically but you would all drop him first.

 

[mick500]

futile
ˈfjuːtʌɪl/
adjective
adjective: futile
incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.

synonyms:fruitless, vain, pointless;
useless, worthless, ineffectual, ineffective, inefficacious, to no effect, of no use, in vain, to no avail, unavailing;
unsuccessful, failed, thwarted;
unproductive, barren, unprofitable, abortive;
impotent, hollow, empty, forlorn, idle, sterile, nugatory, valueless;
hopeless, doomed, lost;

Yeah, unrefutable futile thread.

 

[Doctor B]

If you say so.

From my position, I have said Hartigan played fine last night. I truly can't be bothered right now working out the stats as far as Hartigan in vs Hartigan out, especially as you said they were considerd worthless last week. If you want to do it, do it. No one's stopping you. I will reply to whatever the stats are, I just can't be bothered doing it right bloody now.

9 disposals 1 mark and 1 tackle and you all go nuts like he's a superstar. Shows how low the bar is for Hartigan imo. Otten had a better night statistically but you would all drop him first.

Check his real stats on the AFL website.

Every post you have made about his stats from last nights game have been wrong.

 

[70lethal]

That wasnt the argument you used before. It was about scores against with hartigan compared to without.
Now you want to change it because last night screw the argument.

You say ee played better because of the weather. We had more key players out so it should mean bulldogs wouldnt have kicked less with a full team making hartigan better.

We didnt have brown as a lock diwn small defender and Hartigan did the job.

Statistics dint show one out effort with bont or standing jj in the goal square.

They do show grays 6 goals when hartigan didnt play and i think you know the truth but just not smart enough to admit you were wrong in your argument and use of statistics then the next 2 weeks they bit you in the arse badly.

 

[mick500]

Check his real stats on the AFL website.

Every post you have made about his stats from last nights game have been wrong.

Sorry, they have changed since I checked the AFL app this morning. 10 disposals 3 marks and 1 tackle.

 

[mick500]

That wasnt the argument you used before. It was about scores against with hartigan compared to without.
Now you want to change it because last night screw the argument.

You say ee played better because of the weather. We had more key players out so it should mean bulldogs wouldnt have kicked less with a full team making hartigan better.

We didnt have brown as a lock diwn small defender and Hartigan did the job.

Statistics dint show one out effort with bont or standing jj in the goal square.

They do show grays 6 goals when hartigan didnt play and i think you know the truth but just not smart enough to admit you were wrong in your argument and use of statistics then the next 2 weeks they bit you in the arse badly.

I admitted Hartigan played OK last night. My initial argument has always been that he costs us under pressure. Go back and look before eh went out injured. I used the comparison of us with and without Hartigan to back that up. Those stats were dismissed, now you want to make them relevant again because of 1 game. Who's cherry picking now?. By all means do it, but don't try and tell me I have to do it.

 

[Golumless]

Interestingly enough that was the same period we galvernised as a group and started looking tougher, around round 13 I believe it was. Seriously. We improved out of sight the moment he was gone.

He's 27, we know his peak potential, we know his weaknesses, yet we still persist with him. Insanity.

Now that is a long bow to draw.

We improved round 14 which coincided with the return of McGovern (who structurally is the most important player on our list*, and will be until we move away from having 4 tall forwards) and Greenwood starting to step up as a big bodied midfielder.

Hartigan dropping out didn't even factor in, especially seeing Keath didn't exactly light the world on fire during the time Harto was gone.

*Backed up by us going 84% win rate with McGovern (11-1-1) and 50% without (6-6).

 

[FR0GGY]

Now that is a long bow to draw.

We improved round 14 which coincided with the return of McGovern (who structurally is the most important player on our list*, and will be until we move away from having 4 tall forwards) and Greenwood starting to step up as a big bodied midfielder.

Hartigan dropping out didn't even factor in, especially seeing Keath didn't exactly light the world on fire during the time Harto was gone.

*Backed up by us going 84% win rate with McGovern (11-1-1) and 50% without (6-6).

This, the most important player we have and the only one we don't have a replacement for, will hurt us in the coming 8+ weeks.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What about compared with otten.. for the 3rd time.

Hartigan can play full back on smaller more mobile types like JJ last night & enable us to keep our preferred structure as has pace... whereas Otten unfortunately is too slow for this role. Just go back to last week's last goal kicked by Motlop, that Gray got him the ball with Otten well behind his opponent.

We wouldn't have been vulnerable last week with Dixon dragging out Talia leaving Kelly at fullback if Hartigan was playing.

 

[FR0GGY]

Oh he mad, Hartigan playing Otten is out

 

[mick500]

So how's he going today boys?

Halfway through the 1st qtr and he's given away a free kick for a goal, let 1 over the back for a goal, kicked a ball under pressure 2 meters sideways and been out marked 1 on 1 against jetta on the 50.

Solid stuff under pressure /s

 

[1970crow]

So how's he going today boys?

Halfway through the 1st qtr and he's given away a free kick for a goal, let 1 over the back for a goal, kicked a ball under pressure 2 meters sideways and been out marked 1 on 1 against jetta on the 50.

Solid stuff under pressure /s

Having a shocker so far. Him and Dougie complete liabilities.

 

[mick500]

Having a shocker so far. Him and Dougie complete liabilities.

Finally. At least someone can acknowledge he's had a bad start.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

So how's he going today boys?

Halfway through the 1st qtr and he's given away a free kick for a goal, let 1 over the back for a goal, kicked a ball under pressure 2 meters sideways and been out marked 1 on 1 against jetta on the 50.

Solid stuff under pressure /s

I'm not completely sold on Hartigan, but to be fair, I think you could characterise nearly everbodies game in a similar vein. Most players have been pretty insipid and made multiple errors.

 

[mick500]

Nice direct turnover for a goal. He's having a shocker. He doesn't stand up under pressure. Talia is standing up.

 

[MRB37]

So how's he going today boys?

Halfway through the 1st qtr and he's given away a free kick for a goal, let 1 over the back for a goal, kicked a ball under pressure 2 meters sideways and been out marked 1 on 1 against jetta on the 50.

Solid stuff under pressure /s

Christ people like you annoy me. You actively root for the team and players to fail so you can come on here and feel like a big shot.

 

[mick500]

Brown and Hartigan doing quite a good impersonation of the keystone cops. Doedee not having a good day either.

 

[Firewalker]

Brown and Hartigan doing quite a good impersonation of the keystone cops. Doedee not having a good day either.

I know it doesn’t fit in with your petty vendetta but Hartigan’s direct opponent is Jeremy Cameron, who hasn’t got near it in the GWS forward line, our tall defenders are the least of a very long line of issues to even bother to raise right now. Pathetic.

 

[mick500]

I know it doesn’t fit in with your petty vendetta but Hartigan’s direct opponent is Jeremy Cameron, who hasn’t got near it in the GWS forward line, our tall defenders are the least of a very long line of issues to even bother to raise right now. Pathetic.

Terrible effort just then on Cameron resulting in a goal.

Followed up by another terrible defensive effort to allow Cameron to put gws in front with 10 mins to go.

He's a liability.

 

[mick500]

And Hartigan absolutely pantsed 1 on 1 to seal the loss for us.

GG Hartigan. GG.

 

[mick500]

Sorry guys. He has to go. Been bloody awful when it matters.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

I was just about to bump this, his kicking is barely Auskick standard is a constant liability. We can't keep carrying him.

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

spuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuud