The Drop Matthews Petition

[chammond]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
Agreed, doesn't even state what period they are covering. Does it include Goodes criple year?

They are career stats. For this year, Mathews error stats are even better compared to the others.

These stats are in the public domain . . . look them up yourself.

You might not like it that the stats don't support your opinions, but that doesn't stop them being facts.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
The facts are that the Swans are convinced that Mathews is an invaluable member of the squad, and the stats support that. Compared to that, your opinion is ridiculous.

Like thinking that Saddo was going to be a great CHB and 150+ game player with the Swans...

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by chammond
Funny how when the stats prove that you don't know what you're talking about it must mean that the stats are ridiculous.

The facts are that the Swans are convinced that Mathews is an invaluable member of the squad, and the stats support that. Compared to that, your opinion is ridiculous.

The stats are mis-leading. What is the definition of an error? I'm sure Mathews chipping backwards for no apparent reason, or creating yet another ball-up, don't count as an "error".

The other three that you compared him to, are a better chance of making an error because they're creative. Mathews is just a negative footballer, who plays the percentages.

He can negate, but he can't create. We have plenty of players who can be "stoppers" and be a lot more attacking on the rebound than Mathews.

The good things that Goodes, O'Keefe and Buchanan do, far outweigh the good things that Mathews does.

[sharp9]

benny's stat for Sunday was one clanger. Clearly this is ridiculous.

Letting a gently rolling ball through your legs or dropping a simple handball is not a clanger, see.

Neither is taking the ball in space, stopping turning around and then handballing it up in the air to a bloke who gets tackled immediately. In fact it scores you 1 point. See.

letting yur man get away from you when you should effect a tackle is not a clanger, see.

[satchmopugdog]

More stats please and remember to set them out using the Jackson Pollock technique so I can understand them.

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by chammond
They are career stats. For this year, Mathews error stats are even better compared to the others.

These stats are in the public domain . . . look them up yourself.

You might not like it that the stats don't support your opinions, but that doesn't stop them being facts.

So, if I question your stats I should go a try and find where you found them first?
There are hundreds of thousands of AFL stats out there and I just thought it would be good if you could elaborate on what the figures you produced are representing. I didn't doubt they are facts, it is just that selective use of stats can be misleading.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Plugger46
The stats are mis-leading. What is the definition of an error?

Of course . . . if the stats don't support your argument, the only explanation is that they must be misleading.

The other three that you compared him to, are a better chance of making an error because they're creative.

Rubbish. Where's your evidence to support such a ridiculous statement?

Mathews is just a negative footballer, who plays the percentages.

Yes, that's his role, and he does it very well.

He can negate, but he can't create. We have plenty of players who can be "stoppers" and be a lot more attacking on the rebound than Mathews.

This can't be true. At least, if it were true, then the only conclusion would be that Roos and the selection panel are morons and should be sacked.

The good things that Goodes, O'Keefe and Buchanan do, far outweigh the good things that Mathews does.

You're wrong . . . but thats okay. You've come to the right place.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Like thinking that Saddo was going to be a great CHB and 150+ game player with the Swans...

Isn't this trolling?

Where are the moderators??

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by chammond
You're wrong . . . but thats okay. You've come to the right place. [/B]

So Mathews is as influential and creative as Goodes, O'Keefe and Buchanan. Turn it up.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by chammond
You're wrong . . . but thats okay. You've come to the right place.

Having read this thread, now I know you are joking, to make a statement like that is just.....beyond belief. Mathews could never win a game like the other three you have quoted could.

[hammo]

Originally posted by chammond


This can't be true. At least, if it were true, then the only conclusion would be that Roos and the selection panel are morons and should be sacked.

I can't rule out that they are morons in respect of Mathews.

You only have to watch the games to see that Goodes, O'Keefe and Amon offer far more to the side than Mathews ever has, does or will.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Plugger46
So Mathews is as influential and creative as Goodes, O'Keefe and Buchanan. Turn it up.

Aah, I wondered how long it would be before you tried to mis-quote me to suit your weak argument.

That's what happens when you run with the sheep.

[chammond]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Having read this thread, now I know you are joking, to make a statement like that is just.....beyond belief. Mathews could never win a game like the other three you have quoted could.

I've been sitting here trying to think of a meaningful reply.

I can't.

Give me a clue what you're talking about, and what it's got to do with my post?

Originally posted by hammo
I can't rule out that they are morons in respect of Mathews.

You only have to watch the games to see that Goodes, O'Keefe and Amon offer far more to the side than Mathews ever has, does or will.

Your opinion doesn't change the facts.

[ScottH]

chammond has a point, if he wasn't performing the tasks set for him during the game, then the coaching staff have no idea. That is the same staff who got themselves a little silver cup last year.

I'm sure this same staff recognise his negatives and positives.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by chammond
...Yes, that's his role, and he does it very well.

I think this is the point. He's not there to do anything much - but he still manages to get in the way, or kick directly to the opposition, or create a stoppage when we need quick movement, or turn and kick blindly into the back of one of our players and cause yet another turnover that costs us a goal, or do pretty much sweet fa.

It's harsh, but he's just not up to the standard required & he should make way for someone else. He simply doesn't seem to have the foresight to make the correct decision in the time available & rarely fails to disappoint (I think ability to read the play & make the right call is one major reason why a lot of people who want to play senior footy don't make it - so he's not alone & it's nothing personal & he's probably a really nice bloke and all...). But enough is enough.

P.S. I DO like his tackling, but this ain't rugby league.