big mac and the pelican...

[elvis lives]

Stinger - you raise an interesting point.
Pelican was fixated with his plan to get 3 picks inside 20 but would Macca and Nds got us Boyd ?
It's possible. Which would have left us with Boyd, Billings + pick 23 - pretty interesting proposition .

All speculative I guess.

On another note - the title to this thread sounds like a great Children's Book.

Or an 80s US cop show staring Scott Bao

[The Redeemer]

I think that McEvoy will do very well at the Hawks. That is exactly what makes it win/win.

Me too Satch.

Much more suited to a 50/50 ruck forward role with Hale.

Mac never kicked goals up forward for us anyway?

Even back in the day of King/Gardiner (only one) and Mac playing.

From my perspective, thanks but no thanks and I don't rate him.

[Johnny Member]

Wasn't a big wrap for McEvoy personally.

I'd always felt that he'd be a star when he grew up, and that he was a second string ruckman playing the role of a number 1 ruck.

I felt that if he was able to play the second ruck role, he'd be great and develop nicely into a star no. 1 ruckman.

But.....

In his last year with us I started to doubt he'd ever come good. Why? Because he was nowhere near as agile as he needed to be to be one of these mobile ruck men - yet nowhere near strong, big nor good enough to play the role of the big lumbering tap ruckman.

He still fumbled marks against smaller guys, and was rag dolled by the big guys.


So he was sort of stuck in limbo as to what type of ruckman he'd be, and I did start to wonder whether he ever be able to compete physically with the big boys.

[stinger]

Wasn't a big wrap for McEvoy personally.

I'd always felt that he'd be a star when he grew up, and that he was a second string ruckman playing the role of a number 1 ruck.

I felt that if he was able to play the second ruck role, he'd be great and develop nicely into a star no. 1 ruckman.

But.....

In his last year with us I started to doubt he'd ever come good. Why? Because he was nowhere near as agile as he needed to be to be one of these mobile ruck men - yet nowhere near strong, big nor good enough to play the role of the big lumbering tap ruckman.

He still fumbled marks against smaller guys, and was rag dolled by the big guys.


So he was sort of stuck in limbo as to what type of ruckman he'd be, and I did start to wonder whether he ever be able to compete physically with the big boys.

the writing may have been on the wall in the closing games of 2013......hickey was being preferred....

[Obs]

I still don't rate mcevoy, nor do I rate his game on Friday. Remember he was versing Carlisle and Daniher in the ruck for basically the last half. He should of absolutely smashed the last half of that game.

Let's be honest he wasn't a ruck that fit into our side being such a poor tap ruckman. Our midfield is fairly young and not having a ruck that can tap to advantage just amplifies it's weaknesses. Hawthorn on the other hand don't need it too much with such a quality midfield. I think the trade was such a win for both sides when we ended up with Dunstan and Longer anyway. I don't rate immobile ruckman and if you've been watching longer's matches he's an absolute star in the making.

Not even bringing up Hickeys domination against GWS.

[plugger66]

I still don't rate mcevoy, nor do I rate his game on Friday. Remember he was versing Carlisle and Daniher in the ruck for basically the last half. He should of absolutely smashed the last half of that game.

Let's be honest he wasn't a ruck that fit into our side being such a poor tap ruckman. Our midfield is fairly young and not having a ruck that can tap to advantage just amplifies it's weaknesses. Hawthorn on the other hand don't need it too much with such a quality midfield. I think the trade was such a win for both sides when we ended up with Dunstan and Longer anyway. I don't rate immobile ruckman and if you've been watching longer's matches he's an absolute star in the making.

Not even bringing up Hickeys domination against GWS.

Hickey as lost the tap outs in both games. he has had good games because of his around the ground work. Can we please forget about tap outs.

[james rose]

I still don't rate mcevoy, nor do I rate his game on Friday. Remember he was versing Carlisle and Daniher in the ruck for basically the last half. He should of absolutely smashed the last half of that game.

Let's be honest he wasn't a ruck that fit into our side being such a poor tap ruckman. Our midfield is fairly young and not having a ruck that can tap to advantage just amplifies it's weaknesses. Hawthorn on the other hand don't need it too much with such a quality midfield. I think the trade was such a win for both sides when we ended up with Dunstan and Longer anyway. I don't rate immobile ruckman and if you've been watching longer's matches he's an absolute star in the making.

Not even bringing up Hickeys domination against GWS.

Hickey as lost the tap outs in both games. he has had good games because of his around the ground work. Can we please forget about tap outs.

When you say he lost the tap outs in both games do you mean hit outs or hit outs to advantage?

I suspect a higher than normal percentage of Hickeys hitouts are to advantage. I haven't seen the stats though.

[Old Mate]

I read somewhere that Hickey had 10 hitouts to advantage, the same amount as Mummy but obviously at a much higher percentage.

[plugger66]

I still don't rate mcevoy, nor do I rate his game on Friday. Remember he was versing Carlisle and Daniher in the ruck for basically the last half. He should of absolutely smashed the last half of that game.

Let's be honest he wasn't a ruck that fit into our side being such a poor tap ruckman. Our midfield is fairly young and not having a ruck that can tap to advantage just amplifies it's weaknesses. Hawthorn on the other hand don't need it too much with such a quality midfield. I think the trade was such a win for both sides when we ended up with Dunstan and Longer anyway. I don't rate immobile ruckman and if you've been watching longer's matches he's an absolute star in the making.

Not even bringing up Hickeys domination against GWS.

Hickey as lost the tap outs in both games. he has had good games because of his around the ground work. Can we please forget about tap outs.

When you say he lost the tap outs in both games do you mean hit outs or hit outs to advantage?

I suspect a higher than normal percentage of Hickeys hitouts are to advantage. I haven't seen the stats though.

No idea but that could be the second most overated stat. Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

[Old Mate]

When you say he lost the tap outs in both games do you mean hit outs or hit outs to advantage?

I suspect a higher than normal percentage of Hickeys hitouts are to advantage. I haven't seen the stats though.

No idea but that could be the second most overated stat. Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

Have you every played footy, specifically a bit of midfield? Serious question.

[kosifantutti]

No idea but that could be the second most overated stat. Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

You quote this endlessly. Where does it come from?

[plugger66]

No idea but that could be the second most overated stat. Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

You quote this endlessly. Where does it come from?

From something i looked up last year when discussing this with 2 other posters. buggered if i know where it was from so you could have me if you actually want the site. I know it isnt the AFL site because they only have hit outs but not to advantage. And it wasnt a percentage figure, it was just numbers. percentage sort of means bugger all IMO. There are either 10 hit outs to advantage or there are 3. One might be 10% and other could be 12%. Id rather the 10 hits outs.

[kosifantutti]

No idea but that could be the second most overated stat. Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

You quote this endlessly. Where does it come from?

From something i looked up last year when discussing this with 2 other posters. buggered if i know where it was from so you could have me if you actually want the site. I know it isnt the AFL site because they only have hit outs but not to advantage. And it wasnt a percentage figure, it was just numbers. percentage sort of means bugger all IMO. There are either 10 hit outs to advantage or there are 3. One might be 10% and other could be 12%. Id rather the 10 hits outs.

As long as it came from somewhere on the internet, we know it must be true.

[plugger66]

You quote this endlessly. Where does it come from?

From something i looked up last year when discussing this with 2 other posters. buggered if i know where it was from so you could have me if you actually want the site. I know it isnt the AFL site because they only have hit outs but not to advantage. And it wasnt a percentage figure, it was just numbers. percentage sort of means bugger all IMO. There are either 10 hit outs to advantage or there are 3. One might be 10% and other could be 12%. Id rather the 10 hits outs.

As long as it came from somewhere on the internet, we know it must be true.

I know it was a stats site. got to trust something in this world. Maybe we won both GF in 09 and 10. I only read about that result on the internet.

[kosifantutti]

I know it was a stats site. got to trust something in this world. Maybe we won both GF in 09 and 10. I only read about that result on the internet.

Yes, but I can also google the 09 and 10 grand finals. I can't find these hitout to advantage stats you talk about.

[plugger66]

I know it was a stats site. got to trust something in this world. Maybe we won both GF in 09 and 10. I only read about that result on the internet.

Yes, but I can also google the 09 and 10 grand finals. I can't find these hitout to advantage stats you talk about.

Well I made it up then. Maybe I dreamt it.

[plugger66]

I know it was a stats site. got to trust something in this world. Maybe we won both GF in 09 and 10. I only read about that result on the internet.

Yes, but I can also google the 09 and 10 grand finals. I can't find these hitout to advantage stats you talk about.

Well I made it up then. Maybe I dreamt it.

Going to be a slow process but sam Jacobs was number one last year in hta. I think Minson was number 2 but not 100% sure. I will keep going. And I know these are only players and not a side.

[vacuous space]

Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

What's the statistical significance of the top-six? Is it that seven and eight both made the eight and excluding them is more dramatic? Four of the top-8 hitouts per game teams missed the 8 and Carlton got in through non winning means. Same with clearances - Carlton plus four non-finalists.

Given than a HOA is a free clearance, I'd still prefer one to not, even if they don't directly correlate to wins. Raw hitouts don't count for much. For all Mumford's dominance in that area GWS still lost both the centre and stoppage clearances. You can equate it to midfield work rate, but GWS beat us at ground level over the course of the game. I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Hickey's taps were pretty good and Mumford's were not.

[plugger66]

Last year out of the top 6 hit outs to advantage only one side made the finals.

What's the statistical significance of the top-six? Is it that seven and eight both made the eight and excluding them is more dramatic? Four of the top-8 hitouts per game teams missed the 8 and Carlton got in through non winning means. Same with clearances - Carlton plus four non-finalists.

Given than a HOA is a free clearance, I'd still prefer one to not, even if they don't directly correlate to wins. Raw hitouts don't count for much. For all Mumford's dominance in that area GWS still lost both the centre and stoppage clearances. You can equate it to midfield work rate, but GWS beat us at ground level over the course of the game. I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Hickey's taps were pretty good and Mumford's were not.

Well even based on hit outs to advantage someone said it was 10 all so clearly they were both level. Percentages doesnt matter. Hickey beat him clearly around the ground. Just about the only thing that matters with ruckmen. And yes of course I picked the first since because 7th and 8th made the finals. if you are going to argue a point you obviously use stats that help your case. And of course people would want to win hit out to advantage but thats my point, they dont correlate to wins.

[vacuous space]

if you are going to argue a point you obviously use stats that help your case.

Usually an argument is based on evidence rather than tailoring evidence to suit an argument. Misrepresenting data is intellectually dishonest. You gave the impression that the correlation between winning and HOA was less than it actually is.

[plugger66]

if you are going to argue a point you obviously use stats that help your case.

Usually an argument is based on evidence rather than tailoring evidence to suit an argument. Misrepresenting data is intellectually dishonest. You gave the impression that the correlation between winning and HOA was less than it actually is.

What are you talking about? I just stopped the stats after the top 6 sides in HTA. Should I say out of the top 18 sides in HTA only 8 made the finals? You have to stop somewhere and I stopped at the top 6 sides in HTA. There is no misrepresenting data there at all. Every single person who uses stats to prove some sort of point uses them in a way to help what they are discussing. I would have thought in an 18 team comp 6 was a fair sample. if you want 8 then 3 made the finals. Still proves that HTA doesnt really help sides.

[Con Gorozidis]

Stinger - you raise an interesting point.
Pelican was fixated with his plan to get 3 picks inside 20 but would Macca and Nds got us Boyd ?
It's possible. Which would have left us with Boyd, Billings + pick 23 - pretty interesting proposition .

All speculative I guess.

On another note - the title to this thread sounds like a great Children's Book.

Or an 80s US cop show staring Scott Bao

Love your work Elvis.
Scott Baio as a happy go lucky bachelor and Florida detective whose best friend and chief 'wingman' with the ladies is a pelican.

Could also be a truck movie starring Burt Reynolds.

Or a childrens book set in some windswept down and out fishing village somewhere either in Sth Australia or Western Australia about a kid seeks an escape from the harsh realities of life with a drunkard (but well meaning) father who is often away on luckless fishing trips .

[desertsaint]

HTA obviously help sides - the whole point of rucking. Next time try to find the raw data - total HTAs, not %s. % mean diddly without the data behind them. I.e. 100% of all people I have met today were saints supporters - had the day off sick with my son.
As you say plug, total HTAs are far more important - think it was 11 to 10 Mumford's way. Decent effort by Hickey against a very good ruckman - swan's will regret letting him go.

[Jacks Back]

What would you rather have, a ruckman that can tap the ball to one of our player's advantage or one that just wins the tap but just hits it onto the ground? Correlating it back to not winning games is pointless as the mid fielders or the forward lines may be crap.

[plugger66]

What would you rather have, a ruckman that can tap the ball to one of our player's advantage or one that just wins the tap but just hits it onto the ground? Correlating it back to not winning games is pointless as the mid fielders or the forward lines may be crap.

And thats why i used the stats about teams makinjg the finals. I would think their midfields is ok. And Id rather have a ruckmen kick 3 goals or take 5 or so contested marks than either of the things you mentioned.