Tom Boyd

[Cookie]

For a guy on his sort of money that was recruited mostly as a KPF you would expect him to kick at least one goal in 3 finals, especially when the Dogs have had a dominant midfield.

If you're satisfied with his output in the last 3 finals you're very easily pleased.

"Easily pleased"! That, coming from a Saint follower. What a goose.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He just turned 21. So much petty bitterness and delusional analysis. Combined with cherry picking

 

[The Unforgiven]

Bulldogs' recruiting has been very good. Boyd was more than serviceable yesterday. He certainly played his role and without him, Footscray wouldn't have made it to a GF.

The issue for mine is that while he's playing well, he's not playing like a million dollar player. In time, you'd expect him to reach that level, but some are expecting he be at that level now.

Boyd has a long way to go yet, but all the signs seem to be good. He's developing and consistently improving. I wouldn't call it a break out game, but his game against the Cats certainty made a statement and he hasn't looked back since.

With Crameri and Redpath to come back in the side next year to play along side Boyd (who'll pinch hit in the ruck), Dickson, Clay, Hunter as well as Bontempelli and Daniel also rotaing through - Footscray will have one hell of a forward line.

 

[andrewb]

Boyd didn't look out of place last night. Certainly had a better game than Cameron

 

[JeffDunne]

Yeah I was wondering why they were going third man up, when their gun ruckman was up against a clearly fatigued kid. One less at the fall of the ball where they were getting beaten.

Yeah it made no sense at all.

The Bulldogs are exceptionally good at flicking the ball around at stoppages. Once the get it outside they hurt the opposition.

All the Giants achieved using a third man up was to get it to those outside players faster.

It pains me to criticise the Giants midfield coach but their work at stoppages was what cost them.

 

[JeffDunne]

Boyd didn't look out of place last night. Certainly had a better game than Cameron

Who didn't?

 

[Bulldog1954]

Yet Mumford scored 40 more Supercoach points than Boyd and the Supercoach scores are supposed to reflect a player's influence on a game.

Personally I noticed Mumford's influence on the game much more than Boyd's who for the most part seems invisible in games I watch him play.

If supercoach scores reflect a players influence does that make Boyd better then Paddy McCartin? Paddy has scored above Boyd's 67 last night once this year and averages less. Or are supercoach scores only relevant when they suit your argument?

 

[Plugger35]

I don't even know how to begin replying to a post that suggests Supercoach points are a valid metric for measuring a players output...

I'm just using those SC scores to debunk your theory that somehow Boyd was more influential than Mumford, anyone that watched the game yesterday would see that wasn't the case.

You don't watch games.

Yes I do, just because I don't rate Tom Boyd as a player doesn't mean I don't watch games.

You were trying to argue that Liam Jones was a better player than Rhys Stanley which says a lot about your football knowledge or lack thereof.

"Easily pleased"! That, coming from a Saint follower. What a goose.

What does it matter what team I follow? If Tom Boyd was a St Kilda player I certainly wouldn't be happy with his output this year, I'd want him dropped.

 

[Plugger35]

If supercoach scores reflect a players influence does that make Boyd better then Paddy McCartin? Paddy has scored above Boyd's 67 last night once this year and averages less. Or are supercoach scores only relevant when they suit your argument?

McCartin has come off early in games with concussion issues several times which has affected his SC scores.

You might realise that if you watched our games.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I don't think people have written him off. He's clearly got talent.

What people question is his willingness to contest. Last night GWS players got into him after some pretty piss-weak attempts to spoil. One at least cost his team a goal when Lobb marked it. Boyd was more worried about self preservation. Lobb is taller and has far better skills than Boyd. Has more courage too.

I don't remember the pickups you describe as your description tells me nothing. When & context would be important.

But my biggest criticism of him in all situations is he plays small for a big guy. Doesn't crash packs, doesn't block for his midfielders and usually becomes a spectator when the ball is on the deck.

His biggest influence on the game last night was one of subtraction. The moment he was forced into the ruck and out of their forward line, their F50 efficiency improved dramatically. Sure that's not all on him but it's become a trend in recent weeks. He's a liability as a forward (which is what he was recruited for).

I don't know what to tell you man... I think they were both in the 2nd quarter, but one of them might've been early in the 3rd?

I really strongly disagree that he usually becomes a spectator when the ball is on the deck. It was probably a fair criticism a year ago, but it's not now - he's become quite good on the ground for a 200cm ruckman, as evidenced by his contested possession stats and his handball stats.

I also think he's become much better in contesting for marks. It's all they expect from him as a forward at the moment, and he wouldn't be in the team if he wasn't doing it - so the issue for me isn't that he doesn't crash packs, it's that he doesn't hold onto marks. I doubt there's a player in the AFL that cops more balls in the face/head in marking contests more than Boyd. (One day he's going to take a mark with his face, and it will be amazing!)

And sorry JD, but I think your last paragraph is crazy. His biggest influence on the game was that he beat Mumford in the most important stats for ruckmen, who as I said earlier is the Giants most important player, and has probably been in the top 3 ruckmen in the comp this year.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I'm just using those SC scores to debunk your theory that somehow Boyd was more influential than Mumford, anyone that watched the game yesterday would see that wasn't the case.

Are you 12?

You've had multiple people - Dogs fans and other fans - disagreeing with you.

But "anyone that watched the game" would agree with you based on a metric, and not on how they actually played?

You're not even basing your "analysis" on what you watched yesterday, you're basing it on a stupid game in a shit newspaper.

D!ckhead

 

[Plugger35]

Are you 12?

You've had multiple people - Dogs fans and other fans - disagreeing with you.

But "anyone that watched the game" would agree with you based on a metric, and not on how they actually played?

You're not even basing your "analysis" on what you watched yesterday, you're basing it on a stupid game in a shit newspaper.

D!ckhead

Accusing me of being 12 and then resorting to schoolyard insults, good one.

You've quoted a heap of stats that are no more meaningful than me quoting SC scores to back up your argument and regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence on the game than Boyd.

Just because I don't agree with you or one eyed Dogs supporters it doesn't make me a dickhead either.

 

[TiAn_]

Accusing me of being 12 and then resorting to schoolyard insults, good one.

You've quoted a heap of stats than are no more meaningful than me quoting SC scores to back up your argument and regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence on the game than Boyd.

Just because I don't agree with you or one eyed Dogs supporters it doesn't make me a dickhead either.

No, but you are a dickhead.

 

[nobbyiscool]

You've quoted a heap of stats than are no more meaningful than me quoting SC scores to back up your argument and regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence on the game than Boyd.

This post is embarrassing.

You really think a random metric that someone dreamed up is equivalent to stats that actually tell us about the game? That's an oxymoron right there - an attempt at a summary metric can't possibly be as pure as raw stats are.

The raw stats don't suffer from the bias of the metric's developer and what they value in footy, and they don't suffer from changes to how the game is played (eg. handballs are much more important now than 5 years ago).

Tell me, when Luke Beveridge was looking at his match review last night, do you reckon he went to the stats? Or do you reckon he garnered all the information he needed from supercoach points?

Edit: suggesting I threw "meaningless" stats at you suggests that you need to watch more footy and figure out what qualities are important in a ruckman.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Great result for a part time ruckman to restrict Mumfords dominance that was predicted even against Roughead

It was.

Has grown over the finals series. Thought was a presence too in the elimination final v eagles.

Good luck to him

 

[bullish23]

i get all the focus on Boyd is due to the pay packet. You put your hand out for that much money then be prepared for the scrutiny.

But what about Griffen??? Is on 800+ and let's be honest, done bugger all for two seasons. Was very ordinary last night and was the one who coughed up the handball to matty Boyd which sent JJ off. His man Macrae also kicked the winner.

The Giants have given up Boyd for Griffen and a player headed for Carlton. Not really difficult to see who got rammed in that trade.

 

[Plugger35]

This post is embarrassing.

You really think a random metric that someone dreamed up is equivalent to stats that actually tell us about the game? That's an oxymoron right there - an attempt at a summary metric can't possibly be as pure as raw stats are.

The raw stats don't suffer from the bias of the metric's developer and what they value in footy, and they don't suffer from changes to how the game is played (eg. handballs are much more important now than 5 years ago).

Tell me, when Luke Beveridge was looking at his match review last night, do you reckon he went to the stats? Or do you reckon he garnered all the information he needed from supercoach points?

Edit: suggesting I threw "meaningless" stats at you suggests that you need to watch more footy and figure out what qualities are important in a ruckman.

Did you miss the part where I said regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence than Boyd which I concluded from watching the game?

I'm not saying Boyd had no influence, he clearly restricted Mumford's influence and by his standards he had a decent game so I don't know what your problem is.

 

[Mattdougie]

Did you miss the part where I said regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence than Boyd which I concluded from watching the game?

I'm not saying Boyd had no influence, he clearly restricted Mumford's influence and by his standards he had a decent game so I don't know what your problem is.

A 20 year old part time ruckman went toe to toe with Mummy for 3/4 of a game and your bagging him?

Lol get over yourself your being pathetic.

By any standards he had a decent game and has been good for a while now. Would walk into the saints team so move on.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Did you miss the part where I said regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence than Boyd which I concluded from watching the game?

I'm not saying Boyd had no influence, he clearly restricted Mumford's influence and by his standards he had a decent game so I don't know what your problem is.

And if you'd started with that, I wouldn't have had a problem.

But you didn't. You've been arguing that a summary metric - designed to summarise a players output for people too stupid to understand raw stats and what they mean - is equal to those raw stats in measuring that players output.

The day coaches and commentators forget about stats and only cite supercoach scores is the day you might be onto something.

But until then it is a wildly idiotic argument to suggest that supercoach points mean a friggen thing outside of the context of a shitty newspapers game.

 

[Seedsfan]

We wouldn't be in the grand final without him Worked his ass off against the Giants most influential player, whilst Griffen had no impact

That is a very long bow, if you never recruited him Campbell would have played last night and probably would have performed better in the ruck. For mine the best you can hope for with Boyd is that he develops some hardness and plays in the mold of Leroy Brown as the second ruck forward. Before all you Bulldog fans pot me for bagging him Brown was no star but he managed 250 games and was an crucial part in a premiership side

 

[PaddleFoot]

A 20 year old part time ruckman went toe to toe with Mummy for 3/4 of a game and your bagging him?

Lol get over yourself your being pathetic.

By any standards he had a decent game and has been good for a while now. Would walk into the saints team so move on.

Look what Mummy did to Tippett .. he should have murdered Boyd but .. didn't. Well done that man. Could be a wild card if .. and its a big if .. he could nail a big goal from 50m after a contested mark. All of a sudden - a problem the Swans would struggle with. He seems to have no confidence when confronted by those pesky white posts. Time to shine ?

 

[Moldova]

That is a very long bow, if you never recruited him Campbell would have played last night and probably would have performed better in the ruck. For mine the best you can hope for with Boyd is that he develops some hardness and plays in the mold of Leroy Brown as the second ruck forward. Before all you Bulldog fans pot me for bagging him Brown was no star but he managed 250 games and was an crucial part in a premiership side

Good thing he's likely to be a far better player than Leigh Brown.

 

[PaddleFoot]

Did you miss the part where I said regardless of SC scores I thought Mumford had a bigger influence than Boyd which I concluded from watching the game?

I'm not saying Boyd had no influence, he clearly restricted Mumford's influence and by his standards he had a decent game so I don't know what your problem is.

But Mummy SHOULD have had a bigger influence - he should have totally dominated - and the Dogs coaches now know a little more about Boyd's capacity.

 

[Tyler Hodges]

That's true we might have a couple seasons that elevate us into top 4 contention, especially if we get pick #1 right.

Although are all irrelevant when there is a player like Marcus Bontempelli walking around. Is the most talented player in the comp by a mile. Also in my top 5 players purely on this year. I guarantee he will win a norm smith medal one day (winning side, I cannot guarantee).

Good call on the Bont, you should load up on him for NS this week.

 

[Seedsfan]

Good thing he's likely to be a far better player than Leigh Brown.

Hang on a minute just because Freo can't develop players. Brown was one of the most important players in our last premiership year