Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
BigMart wrote:Perhaps by your 4th season... You might have got some more of the ball
For instance on Sat night at Home interstate against a weaker opponent on a younger player?
Btw
Armo (90 odd out of 160odd) the Dud had 20 in his 4th game?... Then again 5 or so times before his 30thgame with some Brownlow votes?
Cripps was not drafted as a small fwd,... Was made into one because he is not good enough for the midfield. Hopefully Billings Markworth and Eli do better?
So he is getting a game because he wasnt good enough in the midfield. Still getting a game and all 4 coaches he has had have given him games. By the way Fisher was drafted as a forward. Have no idea what it means but just thought I would mention it. Anyway im glad you mentioned midfielders when comparing stats with a small forward. Again I have no idea what it means. Ben averages 11 possessions a game. he rucks.
McEvoy is / was a good bloke, good leader, great endurance runner and good mark around the ground. He will provide hawks with good service.
If we didn't trade him, we would not have Acres and Dunstan at the club plus steak knives Savage. At the moment Dunstan alone looks like we ripped Hawks off. Couldn't have done this deal if we didn't have Hickey, and can't help thinking Hickey has risen to the challenge of being the no 1 ruck. Can pontificate all you like but this looks like a win simply because Dunstan has made the most impressive 18 year old 3 game debut I can remember and Hickey has lifted. We rolled the dice, but well done Saints!
Cripps could have been an impritant player for us, as he is exactly the type if player we have lacked - a midfielder who pops up and kicks clutch goals. Colour it any way you like, but he is a handy player and would have been great for us.
samuraisaint wrote:Cripps could have been an impritant player for us, as he is exactly the type if player we have lacked - a midfielder who pops up and kicks clutch goals. Colour it any way you like, but he is a handy player and would have been great for us.
blame the club...and two coaches who refused to put any time or games into him...it was obvious he could kick a goal....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
FQF wrote:The criticism of McEvoy was far from restricted to his tap work.
In fact, most people would easily forgive poor tap work for effectiveness around the ground.
That was what McEvoy was perceived to be lacking. He is both slow and not agile yet also easily monstered by the bigger ruckman. If you are not either of agile or monster then you are not going to be very effective.
Tap outs were just a further criticism.
Are you saying McEvoy is not mobile? He is as mobile as any other ruckman out there except for probably Natanui or mabye Ryder.bably as mobile
He seemed slow, but was only in comparision to others on the ground. Hickey is no quicker and would suggest he is probably as mobile.
Maybe Ryder? You are uncertain whether McEvoy is less mobile than Ryder?
FQF wrote:The criticism of McEvoy was far from restricted to his tap work.
In fact, most people would easily forgive poor tap work for effectiveness around the ground.
That was what McEvoy was perceived to be lacking. He is both slow and not agile yet also easily monstered by the bigger ruckman. If you are not either of agile or monster then you are not going to be very effective.
Tap outs were just a further criticism.
Are you saying McEvoy is not mobile? He is as mobile as any other ruckman out there except for probably Natanui or mabye Ryder.bably as mobile
He seemed slow, but was only in comparision to others on the ground. Hickey is no quicker and would suggest he is probably as mobile.
Maybe Ryder? You are uncertain whether McEvoy is less mobile than Ryder?
So thats what you pick out odf the post.
Nice concentration on irrelevance
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
joffaboy wrote:
Are you saying McEvoy is not mobile? He is as mobile as any other ruckman out there except for probably Natanui or mabye Ryder.bably as mobile
He seemed slow, but was only in comparision to others on the ground. Hickey is no quicker and would suggest he is probably as mobile.
Maybe Ryder? You are uncertain whether McEvoy is less mobile than Ryder?
So thats what you pick out odf the post.
Nice concentration on irrelevance
I was simply baffled by that comparison.
As to McEvoy's mobility - obviously it is unfair to compare him to a midfielder, but I would suggest that he slow even by ruckmen standards. In terms of pure speed and also changing direction. From my observations, I think Hickey is also more competent below his knees, and in second efforts after a throw in/ball up. Perhaps the stats will contradict me, but that's the impressions I got.
My original point was that there are slow ruckmen who can be successful and effective. Look at Sandi, Mumford et al. But those guys are in the "monster" mould and what they lack in speed they make up for in pure aggression and strength. McEvoy doesn't have this either.
I don't think he's a dud. I think he's a mediocre AFL standard ruck - that is nothing to be ashamed of.
FQF wrote:
I was simply baffled by that comparison.
As to McEvoy's mobility - obviously it is unfair to compare him to a midfielder, but I would suggest that he slow even by ruckmen standards. In terms of pure speed and also changing direction. From my observations, I think Hickey is also more competent below his knees, and in second efforts after a throw in/ball up. Perhaps the stats will contradict me, but that's the impressions I got.
My original point was that there are slow ruckmen who can be successful and effective. Look at Sandi, Mumford et al. But those guys are in the "monster" mould and what they lack in speed they make up for in pure aggression and strength. McEvoy doesn't have this either.
I don't think he's a dud. I think he's a mediocre AFL standard ruck - that is nothing to be ashamed of.
i would even probably have him in the GOP category - better than some but no where near an elite player. Hopefully we have two elite players out of the trade and respect Ben for allowing the trade to progress. He was so slow and lumbering last year it was painful at times. Watters had him trying to play as an oversized mid at times and he wasn't physically capable of catching his opponent. If he changed direction it was like watching a B double turn around in a one way street.
FQF wrote:I think he's a mediocre AFL standard ruck - that is nothing to be ashamed of.
i would even probably have him in the GOP category.
Marto is going to absolutely do his nana…
I think i might subconsciously be trying to rile him. I remember the first time I started wondering if Big Mac was overrated was when Bellchambers came out and dominated the ruck and went forward and put on a clinic. Mac is still young and i never saw Minson becoming a good player so there is time. His best for us was standing across the back 50 chopping off the incoming ball. I always thought that worked better because we had Fisher and Goddard with him who could clean up the rest of the scraps. He probably lost his effectiveness in that role once they weren't along side him. I thought he struggled a bit last year and probably didn't have as defined role to work in.
He has done us a favour by agreeing to a move and will help the team long term so respect to the guy.
As to McEvoy's mobility - obviously it is unfair to compare him to a midfielder, but I would suggest that he slow even by ruckmen standards. In terms of pure speed and also changing direction. From my observations, I think Hickey is also more competent below his knees, and in second efforts after a throw in/ball up. Perhaps the stats will contradict me, but that's the impressions I got.
My original point was that there are slow ruckmen who can be successful and effective. Look at Sandi, Mumford et al. But those guys are in the "monster" mould and what they lack in speed they make up for in pure aggression and strength. McEvoy doesn't have this either.
I don't think he's a dud. I think he's a mediocre AFL standard ruck - that is nothing to be ashamed of.
Apologies FQF and thanks for your thoughts.
I tend to think that mobility has a lot more to do with just speed. Maybe I am too wide in my definition.
I do agree I feel Hickey is more competent below his knees. You are spot on wirh second efforts, his second efforts completely nullified Natinui at stoppages. A very good effort.
The whole discussion is because BM initially called Hickey a gumby and not an AFL footballer, and also said the Mac trade made us a laughing stock. he is tryingf to justify both of these statements.
Both Hickey and Mac are still developing. Really the comparision should be in 3-4 years not now.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
samuraisaint wrote:Cripps could have been an impritant player for us, as he is exactly the type if player we have lacked - a midfielder who pops up and kicks clutch goals. Colour it any way you like, but he is a handy player and would have been great for us.
blame the club...and two coaches who refused to put any time or games into him...it was obvious he could kick a goal....
No idea what that means regarding RL. He nearly played every game that he was fot to play and even SW gave him a fair chance. And he had plenty of time put into him. Why do people make things up to try and prove points.
Why not ask some Hawthorn supporters if they are happy with the trade? Or any NEUTRAL supporter that is...
In there mind, they traded a second round pick for a 100 game Ruckman who was a top 10 pick? They lost 5 places on another pick and still got the player they were going to select in Billy Hartung... Who they see as a successor to Mitchell who is 31yo
And sweetened the deal by getting rid of a player not in their best 22
They were certainties to get Longer, but baulked on him... Believing he is not ready to take the #1 mantle at 20 and they wanted a Ruckman ready to go straight away. They are rapt with McEvoy.
It WAS also a win for us.... As soon as we got LONGER. there was a gap between both trades.
Basically we lost a high FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net loss
But then gained a FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net Gain
We drafted extremely well in getting Dunstan.... But we did not know we were going to get him at trade time. We knew we got pick 18 which bears no guarantees, only potential
There is always TWO sides to every draft story.
On Tom... Is tracking OK. At the end of the year... We'll reassess his performance.
If he is better performed than Ben, I'd be surprised, if he's better performed than Billy, again I'll be surprised
That's my opinion... I'm entitled to it? A couple of goals and good games doesn't make a player. Cain Ackland was excellent early 2005.
Round 1 Spencer statistically out performed him
2 Mumford did the same and was listed GWS best
3 Cox was named WCE best player
Why not ask some Hawthorn supporters if they are happy with the trade? Or any NEUTRAL supporter that is...
In there mind, they traded a second round pick for a 100 game Ruckman who was a top 10 pick? They lost 5 places on another pick and still got the player they were going to select in Billy Hartung... Who they see as a successor to Mitchell who is 31yo
And sweetened the deal by getting rid of a player not in their best 22
They were certainties to get Longer, but baulked on him... Believing he is not ready to take the #1 mantle at 20 and they wanted a Ruckman ready to go straight away. They are rapt with McEvoy.
It WAS also a win for us.... As soon as we got LONGER. there was a gap between both trades.
Basically we lost a high FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net loss
But then gained a FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net Gain
We drafted extremely well in getting Dunstan.... But we did not know we were going to get him at trade time. We knew we got pick 18 which bears no guarantees, only potential
There is always TWO sides to every draft story.
On Tom... Is tracking OK. At the end of the year... We'll reassess his performance.
If he is better performed than Ben, I'd be surprised, if he's better performed than Billy, again I'll be surprised
That's my opinion... I'm entitled to it? A couple of goals and good games doesn't make a player. Cain Ackland was excellent early 2005.
Round 1 Spencer statistically out performed him
2 Mumford did the same and was listed GWS best
3 Cox was named WCE best player
Go figure
I get it. The Ben tade was no good until we got Longer because even now you are refusing to accept Hickey is playing well. Longer may hopefully end up a star but as yet hasnt played so its complete guess work that the longer deal makes losing Ben not so important. Unlike you I can say at the moment losing Ben hasnt mattered and it has nothing to do with the Longer deal. Its because Hickey as been very good. By the way its amzing what people can do with words and stats. Mumford was in the best for GWS in round 2 but Hickey was regarded as our second best player and we won. In round one Hickey got more possesions and less hit outs. I thought you dont rate hit outs but obviously you do when you refuse to submit. Luckily your not wrestler. The bout would never finish. And i dont think anyone has suggested Hickey beat Cox last week but 2 out of 3 aint bad. Do you know that song?
i don't know if sandilands is overrated or not...but i will tell you who is overrated.......richmond, adelaide, carlton and the filth......not sure about north or port at this stage.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Why not ask some Hawthorn supporters if they are happy with the trade? Or any NEUTRAL supporter that is...
In there mind, they traded a second round pick for a 100 game Ruckman who was a top 10 pick? They lost 5 places on another pick and still got the player they were going to select in Billy Hartung... Who they see as a successor to Mitchell who is 31yo
And sweetened the deal by getting rid of a player not in their best 22
They were certainties to get Longer, but baulked on him... Believing he is not ready to take the #1 mantle at 20 and they wanted a Ruckman ready to go straight away. They are rapt with McEvoy.
It WAS also a win for us.... As soon as we got LONGER. there was a gap between both trades.
Basically we lost a high FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net loss
But then gained a FRP in the draft for a second rounder.... A net Gain
We drafted extremely well in getting Dunstan.... But we did not know we were going to get him at trade time. We knew we got pick 18 which bears no guarantees, only potential
There is always TWO sides to every draft story.
On Tom... Is tracking OK. At the end of the year... We'll reassess his performance.
If he is better performed than Ben, I'd be surprised, if he's better performed than Billy, again I'll be surprised
That's my opinion... I'm entitled to it? A couple of goals and good games doesn't make a player. Cain Ackland was excellent early 2005.
Round 1 Spencer statistically out performed him
2 Mumford did the same and was listed GWS best
3 Cox was named WCE best player
Go figure
I get it. The Ben tade was no good until we got Longer because even now you are refusing to accept Hickey is playing well. Longer may hopefully end up a star but as yet hasnt played so its complete guess work that the longer deal makes losing Ben not so important. Unlike you I can say at the moment losing Ben hasnt mattered and it has nothing to do with the Longer deal. Its because Hickey as been very good. By the way its amzing what people can do with words and stats. Mumford was in the best for GWS in round 2 but Hickey was regarded as our second best player and we won. In round one Hickey got more possesions and less hit outs. I thought you dont rate hit outs but obviously you do when you refuse to submit. Luckily your not wrestler. The bout would never finish. And i dont think anyone has suggested Hickey beat Cox last week but 2 out of 3 aint bad. Do you know that song?
Now i get it. Adelaide have won the trade game because they swapped a late pick for Tambling who is a top 5 pick. Yay for the crows being clever. They screwed Richmond good...suck that Tiges.
BigMart wrote:The article on Warnock was very interesting
Bomber targeted him as the weakness... He knew he was going to win heaps of taps.... He used Carlisle to carve him up around the ground.
Reinforces what Matthew was trying to say... Hit Outs unless they are to clear advantage are nothing
And the stat doesn't even remotely correlate to wins
To measure a Ruckmans efficiency would be this IMO
Possessions (let's say 15) + Hitouts to adv (let's say 20% of 32 = 8) Tackles (Lets say 4)
Bonus Points for Goals (1) and Contested Marks (2)
That would be an excellent Ruckman Game
30 points
Hickey Round 2
36 points
Mumford
38 Points
Both played great games
I take it you use that point system so Mumford would just get over the line. Will it ever stop. Its a strange system especially goals. A ruckman kicking 3 goals only get 3 points. Guess how many goals Hickey kicked.
samuraisaint wrote:Cripps could have been an impritant player for us, as he is exactly the type if player we have lacked - a midfielder who pops up and kicks clutch goals. Colour it any way you like, but he is a handy player and would have been great for us.
blame the club...and two coaches who refused to put any time or games into him...it was obvious he could kick a goal....
No idea what that means regarding RL. He nearly played every game that he was fot to play and even SW gave him a fair chance. And he had plenty of time put into him. Why do people make things up to try and prove points.
BigMart wrote:The article on Warnock was very interesting
Bomber targeted him as the weakness... He knew he was going to win heaps of taps.... He used Carlisle to carve him up around the ground.
Reinforces what Matthew was trying to say... Hit Outs unless they are to clear advantage are nothing
And the stat doesn't even remotely correlate to wins
To measure a Ruckmans efficiency would be this IMO
Possessions (let's say 15) + Hitouts to adv (let's say 20% of 32 = 8) Tackles (Lets say 4)
Bonus Points for Goals (1) and Contested Marks (2)
That would be an excellent Ruckman Game
30 points
Hickey Round 2
36 points
Mumford
38 Points
Both played great games
I take it you use that point system so Mumford would just get over the line. Will it ever stop. Its a strange system especially goals. A ruckman kicking 3 goals only get 3 points. Guess how many goals Hickey kicked.
BigMart wrote:The article on Warnock was very interesting
Bomber targeted him as the weakness... He knew he was going to win heaps of taps.... He used Carlisle to carve him up around the ground.
Reinforces what Matthew was trying to say... Hit Outs unless they are to clear advantage are nothing
And the stat doesn't even remotely correlate to wins
To measure a Ruckmans efficiency would be this IMO
Possessions (let's say 15) + Hitouts to adv (let's say 20% of 32 = 8) Tackles (Lets say 4)
Bonus Points for Goals (1) and Contested Marks (2)
That would be an excellent Ruckman Game
30 points
Hickey Round 2
36 points
Mumford
38 Points
Both played great games
I take it you use that point system so Mumford would just get over the line. Will it ever stop. Its a strange system especially goals. A ruckman kicking 3 goals only get 3 points. Guess how many goals Hickey kicked.
I actually think he has conceded that Hickey was good now, there is no need to rub his nose in it. Performance is subjective and both did play good games in different ways. Mumford is an ox Hickey had to use his smarts. I rated Hickeys game higher because he was like a rat outsmarting the fox. One on one Mumford would push him out of the way. Hickey made Mumford have to account for him. A brilliant effort and I concede Jolly who I detested has probably worked his magic on Hickey. That system seems reasonably fair.
BigMart wrote:The article on Warnock was very interesting
Bomber targeted him as the weakness... He knew he was going to win heaps of taps.... He used Carlisle to carve him up around the ground.
Reinforces what Matthew was trying to say... Hit Outs unless they are to clear advantage are nothing
And the stat doesn't even remotely correlate to wins
To measure a Ruckmans efficiency would be this IMO
Possessions (let's say 15) + Hitouts to adv (let's say 20% of 32 = 8) Tackles (Lets say 4)
Bonus Points for Goals (1) and Contested Marks (2)
That would be an excellent Ruckman Game
30 points
Hickey Round 2
36 points
Mumford
38 Points
Both played great games
I take it you use that point system so Mumford would just get over the line. Will it ever stop. Its a strange system especially goals. A ruckman kicking 3 goals only get 3 points. Guess how many goals Hickey kicked.
I actually think he has conceded that Hickey was good now, there is no need to rub his nose in it. Performance is subjective and both did play good games in different ways. Mumford is an ox Hickey had to use his smarts. I rated Hickeys game higher because he was like a rat outsmarting the fox. One on one Mumford would push him out of the way. Hickey made Mumford have to account for him. A brilliant effort and I concede Jolly who I detested has probably worked his magic on Hickey. That system seems reasonably fair.
Fred Fanning had 18 goals one day from 18 kicks. His game was only rated as good as Hickey. Plugger similar when he kicked 16 against Fitzroy. You can think he designed it to be fair. I reckon he designed it so hickey was below Mumford.
