I guess it has the fact that we have disappointed for so long that makes me fill with trepidation. However, I will be there. There will be people who deserve votes.
OK, guys. I'm all ready for tomorrow. Right down to the Angst flowing through my body. Car'n the Blues!
Remember:
[1] At least 3 players need to get a mention.
[2] No more than 10 votes for any one player.
[3] Give a rating of team performance. It can be anywhere from A+ to F.
[4] Votes must add up to 15.
Team F
9 Charlie Curnow
2 Murphy
2 Ed Curnow
1 Wright
1 Zach fisher
5 Ed Curnow
4 Cripps
3 Murphy
2 SPS
1 C Curnow
Staggers me how you give Murphy votes. His specialty has become soft sub 20m up and unders.
Sad fact is until we find a better Captain, we wont be much chop.
Staggers me how you give Murphy votes. His specialty has become soft sub 20m up and unders.
Sad fact is until we find a better Captain, we wont be much chop.
Sorry, flyboy, but I cannot agree with you. Murphy has his issues as a Captain, but he put his body in today. To get 30 possessions without having a ruckman to feed him was an effort worth votes.
I would like to see Murphy play up forward, but our midfield is not yet of quality to allow us to do that.
Anyway, back to the votes. Keep them coming, even if the rating is poor. God knows we were poor!
Team F
5 Cripps
4 Fisher
3 Ed Curnow
2 Chalrie Curnow
1 SPS
Team: E-
I was tempted to give us an “F”, but we did get the ball more than a bit and we had more inside 50’s. I admit being embarrassed at the ground. It was really a poor effort.
Votes:
[4] Ed Curnow
[2.5] Patrick Cripps
[2] Marc Murphy
[2] Charlie Curnow
[1.5] Sam Petrevski-Seton
[1] Zac Fisher
[1] Kade Simpson
[0.5] Aaron Mullett
[0.5] Daisy Thomas
Explanations:
[4] Ed Curnow: 38 possessions is probably his best ever. He worked very hard and didn’t make a lot of mistakes by foot, his usual problem.
[2.5] Patrick Cripps: Considering the free kicks he didn’t get (he did get 5, but could have 13) and the man handling he experienced, he had a great game. Considering also that he basically had to rove to Witts; that makes his effort even more creditable. It is a pity his kicking for goal still needs so much work.
[2] Marc Murphy: A really gutsy effort from the Captain this week. But his turnovers were not what we needed.
[2] Charlie Curnow: Charlie continues to show why he is one of the AFL’s more impressive youngsters. His marking was good.
[1.5] Sam Petrevski-Seton: SPS ran out of gas a bit, but he showed skills so many of our players lack. He almost had mark of the year …
[1] Zac Fisher: Zac also ran out of gas a bit, but he was brilliant when we were at our most ordinary.
[1] Kade Simpson: Simmo got so much ball that it was brilliant, but his disposal and decision making today were the exact opposite of last week: ordinary at best to terrible at worst.
[0.5] Aaron Mullett: Mullett showed his strengths and his weaknesses today. He got the ball quite well and his kicking was usually better than most of our players, but he was soft and did not do the negative things we required.
[0.5] Daisy Thomas: Only 14 possessions, but he showed the heart and desire that his team mates needed more of.
Honourable Mentions:
Matthew Wright: Ordinary for much of the game, he had a great last quarter and tried all day.
Liam Jones: He lost only 1 contest on the day as a defender, but was caught out a number of times with his willingness to take risks. He still did some of the more inspirational things of any of our players.
Lachie Plowman: Another who was solid if relatively unspectacular. He did his job, but appears to be not at his best at the moment.
Well said, agree with almost all of that, except I wouldn't have given Thomas votes, most of his possessions went straight to GCS players (although to be fair he had a lot of mates in that regard), and the almost mark of the year was Garlett - highest i have seen a player jump since Walker used Carlisle as a stepladder that night....
Sorry, flyboy, but I cannot agree with you. Murphy has his issues as a Captain, but he put his body in today. To get 30 possessions without having a ruckman to feed him was an effort worth votes.
I would like to see Murphy play up forward, but our midfield is not yet of quality to allow us to do that.
Anyway, back to the votes. Keep them coming, even if the rating is poor. God knows we were poor!
X 2
Team: E-
5 - Curnow, E
4 - Murphy
3 - Petrevski-Seton
2 - Curnow, C
1 - Fisher
Team: E
Cripps 5
Curnow (E) 4
Curnow (C) 3
Murphy 2
Samo 1
Really struggled to come up with that lot
i couldn't give any votes today.
Yep, Ed and Cripps tried hard but both didn't excute basic skills when needed - on several occasions...
Charlie - a few cameos.
The rest - more bad than good.
Team E:
4: Fisher, not great but ok and when he gets the ball he does something with it.
3: E. Curnow(Lot of the ball, tackled well but as we all know he doesnt hurt teams when he gets the footy, but he did play 4 quarters)
3: SPS, worked hard, missed a few targets but did try all game.
2: C. Curnow, terrible supply but ran hard vs a big bad dude in May and kept on keeping on,
1: Murphy( Agree with Fly, disposal was horrific, kicks high as they were long and easily picked off but I gave him a vote for effort)
1: Garlett( worked hard in last part of the game and didnt give up so I gave him a vote for encouragement)
1: Cripps..heavily tagged, not great by his high standards but he gave effort...
Team E
3 Ed
2 Crippa
2 Charlie
2 Garlett
2 Samo
1 Murphy
1 Zac
1 Daisy
1 Jones
Murphy is such a polarizing player even Supercoach and Fantasy points disagree about his impact.
Fantasy Points: 114
Supercoach: 73
Team. E
6. Ed Curnow
2. Cripps
2. Murphy
2. C. Curnow
2. Fisher
1. Petrevski-Seaton
Team = E
[4] Patrick Cripps
[3] Marc Murphy
[2] Charlie Curnow
[2] Sam Petrevski-Seton
[2] Ed Curnow
[2] Zac Fisher
F
8 Cripps
5 Charlie Curnow
2 Fisher
Team F
Ed 5
Fisher 4
Charlie 3
Cripps 3
Team F
2 - Cripps
2 - Curnow C
2 - Curnow E
2 - SPS
1 - Fisher
1 - Jones
1 - Mullett
1 - Murphy
1 - Simpson
1 - Thomas
1 - Wright
HM: Garlett
Staggers me how you give Murphy votes. His specialty has become soft sub 20m up and unders.
Sad fact is until we find a better Captain, we wont be much chop.
Staggers me how much you bag out our captain and one of our better players this season, yet think we are finals bound as a side and attack me (and others) for even suggesting a bottom 4 finish.
Well said
5 - E Curnow
4 - Simpson
3 - Cripps
2 - C Curnow
1 - Murphy
Team; E
Hard to know how to vote this week, hard to give anyone 5 votes, none of our guys played that well, hard to find 5 players worth giving any votes to! I had to go 1 way, I went with option A.
6 - Ed Curnow
5 - Marchbank
4 - Mullet
It would have been a good week for a 3,2,1 system and even then....
Team E
E Curnow 4
Mullet 2
Murphy 2
Petrovski-Seton 1
Fisher 1
Cripps 1
Cunningham 1
Jones 1
Thomas 1
C Curnow 1
Staggers me how much you bag out our captain and one of our better players this season, yet think we are finals bound as a side and attack me (and others) for even suggesting a bottom 4 finish.
Staggers me how much you bag out certain players - far more than I ever do - yet when someone else dares to question the merits, or otherwise, of a player's performance or effort...it's not on... ???
Pure hypocrisy, but nothing if not expected.
The problem is that you let your personal bias obscure your view of actual performance
The problem is that you let your personal bias obscure your view of actual performance
i gather that's directed at kRUDDLER? :P
The problem is that you let your personal bias obscure your view of actual performance
Did Supercoach have a personal bias against Murphy on the weekend? :))
I couldn't care less about Supercoach, and stats sheets are seriously overrated, I go to every game and rely on what my eyes see, and they tell me that Murphy is one of our best and most consistent players (as is reflected in B&F finishes, seems the coaches and MC think like I do with respect to him), there are many other problems that need our attention before him
Did Supercoach have a personal bias against Murphy on the weekend? :))
Do we rate The Hun's Jock Reynolds Supercoach community version stats higher than the AFL's own Champion Data system?
Is that Cherry Picking data to suit an argument?
I couldn't care less about Supercoach, and stats sheets are seriously overrated, I go to every game and rely on what my eyes see, and they tell me that Murphy is one of our best and most consistent players (as is reflected in B&F finishes, seems the coaches and MC think like I do with respect to him), there are many other problems that need our attention before him
The coaches and MC went in on Saturday with no ruck so f%^& what they think.
I watch Murphy every week too and he's a soft cOck and won't put his body on the line.
Do we rate The Hun's Jock Reynolds Supercoach community version stats higher than the AFL's own Champion Data system?
Is that Cherry Picking data to suit an argument?
I already posted that they had different scores that's why I asked are supercoach bias against him too?
I already posted that they had different scores that's why I asked are supercoach bias against him too?
Are they based on the same numbers, where do the numbers come from?
The AFL's Fantasy Football uses Champion Data, it's the official AFL service and the same service the clubs use.
I'm not sure where the Jock Reynolds data come from, I thought it uses a sort of crowd based cloud sourced system. The important thing is that it must be consistent.
The two systems allocate points quite differently, they don't value the same acts equally and they penalize some mistakes quite differently.
The points and how they are allocated are selection / decisions made by a person or panel. So we should not really select one system over the other because the act of selecting is a bias, the bias is not the way the systems work themselves as long as they are consistent.
There is some irony in those stats as well, because Murphy is the only Carlton player over the last decade to regularly make The Hun's own Top 50, yet The Hun's stat engine apparently doesn't rate him! Does that tell us anything about the true value of the Jock Reynolds system, or what The Hun think of it?
Most of the time their rankings are similar but sometimes there can be discrepancies.
Murphy had a much lower supercoach score on the weekend. Tom Lynch had a much higher one.
Murphy had a much lower supercoach score on the weekend. Tom Lynch had a much higher one.
I realise that, why the discrepancy, and what makes you choose one over the other?
Do you think one is more accurate than the other.
What if the scores were reversed, would you always assume the higher one was wrong?
Am I being unreasonable asking these questions?
I realise that, why the discrepancy, and what makes you chose one over the other?
I didn't choose any.
Flyboy said Murphy was ineffective and was accused of being bias against Murphy so I just asked are Supercoach bias as their stats indicate they thought he was average too.
I didn't choose any.
Flyboy said Murphy was ineffective and was accused of being bias against Murphy so I just asked are Supercoach bias as their stats indicate they thought he was average too.
Forum posters issue opinions, the points allocated to various stats are the opinion of an analyst, the stats that are collected are a numerical analysis which contains no bias. Once you add points ranking the importance of certain stats you inject a bias.
There used to be websites comparing the various ranking systems, based on the same stat set. They seem to have disappeared because they often create more anomalies than they resolve. The weakness in the systems seems to be human part, who decides what a various stat is worth.
Interestingly, CD do not apply points to stats, they do not rank the stats in any particular order because that would be a subjective bias. CD just build analytical relationships between stats and winning.
How about some more votes?
Team E-
5: E Curnow
2: Fisher
2: Cripps
2: SPS
2: Murphy
1: Thomas
1: Mullet
I'll close this off this evening and update the voting.
How about some more votes?
I cracked it 15 minutes into the 1st qtr and changed the channel.... then again halfway thru the 2nd qtr... and again late in the 3rd and didn't bother watching the last qtr. I also deleted the recording without watching the replay.
sorry Not voting this game :(
I cracked it 15 minutes into the 1st qtr and changed the channel.... then again halfway thru the 2nd qtr... and again late in the 3rd and didn't bother watching the last qtr. I also deleted the recording without watching the replay.
sorry Not voting this game :(
Don't worry, mate. I understand what you felt. It was such a come-down after the effort against Richmond.
OK. I'm closing this one off. Get ready for Rd 3!