The Drop Matthews Petition

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chammond
    • Jan 2003
    • 1368

    #76
    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.

    Comment

    • NMWBloods
      Taking Refuge!!
      • Jan 2003
      • 15819

      #77
      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...
      Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

      "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

      Comment

      • Plugger46
        Senior Player
        • Apr 2003
        • 3674

        #78
        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.
        Bloods

        "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

        Comment

        • sharp9
          Senior Player
          • Jan 2003
          • 2508

          #79
          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.
          "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

          Comment

          • satchmopugdog
            Bandicoots ears
            • Apr 2004
            • 3691

            #80
            More stats please and remember to set them out using the Jackson Pollock technique so I can understand them.
            "The Dog days are over, The Dog days are gone" Florence and the Machine

            Comment

            • RogueSwan
              McVeigh for Brownlow
              • Apr 2003
              • 4602

              #81
              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.
              "Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017

              Comment

              • chammond
                • Jan 2003
                • 1368

                #82
                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.

                Comment

                • chammond
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 1368

                  #83
                  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??

                  Comment

                  • Plugger46
                    Senior Player
                    • Apr 2003
                    • 3674

                    #84
                    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.
                    Bloods

                    "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

                    Comment

                    • goswannie14
                      Leadership Group
                      • Sep 2005
                      • 11166

                      #85
                      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.
                      Does God believe in Atheists?

                      Comment

                      • hammo
                        Veterans List
                        • Jul 2003
                        • 5554

                        #86
                        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.
                        "As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk

                        Comment

                        • chammond
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 1368

                          #87
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • chammond
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 1368

                            #88
                            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.

                            Comment

                            • ScottH
                              It's Goodes to cheer!!
                              • Sep 2003
                              • 23665

                              #89
                              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.

                              Comment

                              • Agent 86
                                Senior Player
                                • Aug 2004
                                • 1689

                                #90
                                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.
                                Last edited by Agent 86; 8 June 2006, 07:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...