Why do you rate Treloar higher than Adams?

[BallaratBulldog]

Haven't really rated either for awhile now

 

[PieLebo87]

Haven't really rated either for awhile now

Both no good huh?

 

[Madblue]

Dont rate either much to be honest....both get alot of the ball but then butcher it with very poor foot skills. I think there is a reason why GWS let them go and kept their elite midfielders.

 

[PieLebo87]

I think they are both over rated tbh, but i would say Treloar as he kicks goals

Refer below 00Stinger

To the OP, I rate Treloar slightly higher because he can kick goals but dont really rate either. Bet Pendles wishes he could kick it to himself.

Haven't really rated either for awhile now

Dont rate either much to be honest....both get alot of the ball but then butcher it with very poor foot skills. I think there is a reason why GWS let them go and kept their elite midfielders.

Lol thus I say they're underrated.

 

[StillAtLarge]

 

[The 747]

Thats harsh. Neither would be in Geelong's 22?

What does that have to do with it? Geelong has plenty of players I dont rate either

 

[00Stinger]

Refer below 00Stinger




Lol thus I say they're underrated.

Or possibly over rated by Collingwood supporters?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[PieLebo87]

Or possibly over rated by Collingwood supporters?

You didn't specify that. You made it sound like they are overrated in general.

Clearly they're underrated on BF.

 

[PieLebo87]

What does that have to do with it? Geelong has plenty of players I dont rate either

Getting your perspective of what you do rate.

 

[schmuttt]

Polls board.

 

[Hawkas1988]

I actually rate Treloar quite high. He can hurt you. I wouldn't say his kicking is any worse than Dangerfield or Fyfe who are both very average by foot. So bit harsh by some on here.

Adams hurt factor is very low though and I appreciate he is a solid player but not a very dangerous player

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[PieLebo87]

I actually rate Treloar quite high. He can hurt you. I wouldn't say his kicking is any worse than Dangerfield or Fyfe who are both very average by foot. So bit harsh by some on here.

Adams hurt factor is very low though and I appreciate he is a solid player but not a very dangerous player

Shhhhh logic isn't allowed on here. I started this thread to compare two players only for opposition supporters to continually share who is less s**t of the two.

 

[Damon_3388]

Adams can't kick, treloar is pretty average by foot as well but Adams is on another level.

They're both absolutely awful kicks, but I guess Treloar is slightly less of an awful kick.

I actually rate Treloar quite high. He can hurt you. I wouldn't say his kicking is any worse than Dangerfield or Fyfe who are both very average by foot. So bit harsh by some on here.

Adams hurt factor is very low though and I appreciate he is a solid player but not a very dangerous player

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Actual stats quite bear out these ideas (that Adams is a "poorer" user of the footy, and is "less damaging"), especially when you factor in how much more often Adams kicks the ball than Treloar does.

When you look at their respective outputs, Adams isn't "worse" than Treloar in any way, and it kills off the outdated perception that Adams is a "non-damaging sideways accumulator" in comparison to Treloar and others, too:

Disposals Per Game
Adams - 29.68
Treloar - 30.50

Contested Possession Percentage
Adams - 39.54% of total disposals
Treloar - 37.16% of total disposals

Kick-to-Handball Ratio
Adams - 1.0509
Treloar - 0.7883

Clearances Per Game
Adams - 5.68
Treloar - 5.22

Disposal Efficiency
Adams - 69.50%
Treloar - 69.03%

Turnover Percentage
Adams - 16.13% of total disposals
Treloar - 15.30% of total disposals

Metres Gained Per Disposal
Adams - 12.21
Treloar - 11.71

Inside 50s Per Game
Adams - 4.42
Treloar - 4.56

Score Involvements Per game
Adams - 7.58
Treloar - 7.33

Tackles Per Game
Adams - 6.05
Treloar - 6.22

One Percenters Per Game
Adams - 1.32
Treloar - 0.78

People get harder over Treloar because he runs with the ball and appears more "explosive" and "dynamic", but they're really both as effective as each other as players.
They're both comfortably among the top 30 midfielders in the league, which when you consider that there are 18 teams, puts them as "worthy" of being a top 2 mid at pretty much any club (if you were simply dividing the league's talent evenly throughout). Given that they're both really just entering their prime as footballers, I'm very happy to have both as staples of our midfield for (assumedly) the next 5+ years.

 

[00Stinger]

You didn't specify that. You made it sound like they are overrated in general.

Clearly they're underrated on BF.

You could find threads were all time greats like Judd & Swan are bagged on BF, so hardly suprising.

Like i said though disposal is horrible by both of them and that is what lets them down. I know even the superstars have defeciencies but theirs is glaringly obvious and in turn hurts your forwards.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[WCEbrody]

Treloar has more to his game and a higher ceiling.

 

[Supercoach Bargain]

If Treloar had a left foot, he'd be even better. They are both good kids with upside. Hope Treloar get a bit more size on him, for his own durability. Adams already has it and uses it pretty well. If you get quick kicks out of packs, the stats won't love you, but are better than dinky little 1-2 handball that supercoach players love.

 

[Footy Smarts]

He may not be a top 5 midfielder at present, but he's in the top 15-20 at the moment whilst having poor kicking skills, and poor decision making.

No midfielder with poor decision making and poor disposal is in the top 20 in the league. You could name 50 mids in the league before getting to one Treloar is clearly better than. He's somewhere 30-50.

 

[adammania9]

"Adams butchers the ball"

- hasn't watched Adams since 2015

 

[PieLebo87]

No midfielder with poor decision making and poor disposal is in the top 20 in the league. You could name 50 mids in the league before getting to one Treloar is clearly better than. He's somewhere 30-50.

What an absolutely stupid comment.

Both Treloar and Adams are going at a better DE and avg the same amount of clangers as both Martin and Dangerfield yet you're stating they aren't in the top 50 because of it?!

Pass me whatever you're smoking.

 

[RobbyRoy]

Both guns and both would make all 18 teams' best 22. Both, especially Adams, can absolutely butcher the ball on occasion, but I would say it is overstated and by and large a non-issue.

As for the actual thread question- possibly just because of Treloar's speed and the perception he is more damaging forward of 50. Adams has quietly put together a terrific season and is certainly hitting the scoreboard of late.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I rate Treloar higher, purely as he breaks the lines. Both butcher the footy, but treloar provides a lot more run, better link man, stronger in the air too.
Adams is a better in and under player, but treloar hurts teams more

 

[teknodeejay]

Treloar as Adams has the personality of a door stop yet is constantly appearing in every tv show about footy. Surely they have a less flogworthy person to put up for television.

 

[ess7]

Both overrated because of fantasy stats.

 

[Russian Demon]

I enjoyed watching adams run out of gas trying to chase jack watts as he kicked the sealer this year?

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NathanMX]

Adams is better cause if he had a choice he would have picked Richmond