Why is it that we get labelled as "flooders"????

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ummm... irrational would be the rants you have come out with.

My comments have been quite straightforward. I presented data to suggest that it is not clear that Eade was a more defensive coach than Roos.

You have failed spectacularly to counter that in any way and have resorted to ad hominem as usual.

You're like a dog with a bone, you just can't let it go. You've become hysterical and it's quite hilarious. Please continue.....

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Dr Diabolical
Hahahaha - you are the biggest PKB ever!

Ohhh shucks, have I dethroned you?

[Industrial Fan]

This might be an obvious question - but what does it prove removing lockett and hall from their teams and analysing(!?!) their performance, particularly in attack where they are the key points, and more to the point, they play different roles???

Roos is a fairly defensive coach - but when his teams attack, they really attack. I dont think that is sustainable for a full game especially not with our list, and solid key positions.

Eade was a bit more interested in the individual mismatches and just playing the game than a team process or system.

Anyhow, I think the flood was just a logical progression from Pagans paddock.

[Layby]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
This might be an obvious question - but what does it prove removing lockett and hall from their teams and analysing(!?!) their performance, particularly in attack where they are the key points, and more to the point, they play different roles???

Roos is a fairly defensive coach - but when his teams attack, they really attack. I dont think that is sustainable for a full game especially not with our list, and solid key positions.

Eade was a bit more interested in the individual mismatches and just playing the game than a team process or system.

Anyhow, I think the flood was just a logical progression from Pagans paddock.

Pfft, not a single stat in there !

Plus you did not get all indignant and start abusing anyone.

I am 97.234567% sure you will be thrown out of the 'Brown cardigan, rather interesting, stats society' for that lame effort.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Layby
Pfft, not a single stat in there !

Plus you did not get all indignant and start abusing anyone.

I am 97.234567% sure you will be thrown out of the 'Brown cardigan, rather interesting, stats society' for that lame effort.

@@@@ off!

P.S. I started that society!

Membership is currently one, (with, I admit, a few applications pending) so the society will be a bit sad without me....!!

[Layby]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
@@@@ off!

83.6548% better, well done keep it up

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
Membership is currently one, (with, I admit, a few applications pending) so the society will be a bit sad without me....!!

I hate to break it to you, but it will be very very sad regardless of your attendance !

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Layby
83.6548% better, well done keep it up

Dont talk to me like that you @@@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@!!!!


I hate to break it to you, but it will be very very sad regardless of your attendance !

My mum said she thought it was really good, and that she was proud of me for starting it up, and she wanted to know if all her sandwiches were being eaten. I didnt tell her it was just me eating them!! Haha!! I love fairy bread.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
This might be an obvious question - but what does it prove removing lockett and hall from their teams and analysing(!?!) their performance, particularly in attack where they are the key points, and more to the point, they play different roles???

Roos is a fairly defensive coach - but when his teams attack, they really attack. I dont think that is sustainable for a full game especially not with our list, and solid key positions.

Eade was a bit more interested in the individual mismatches and just playing the game than a team process or system.

Anyhow, I think the flood was just a logical progression from Pagans paddock.

Totally agree. Very well said, and it's the most sensible thing said in here for a while.

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
the most sensible thing said in here for a while.

Cut it out - I dont want to associate myself with that kind of talk....you'll all get the idea that I quietly tuck into cucumber sandwiches at the footy! Never!

(Having said that, cucumber and lettuce is reasonably tasty)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Marry me Goodes
This might be an obvious question - but what does it prove removing lockett and hall from their teams and analysing(!?!) their performance, particularly in attack where they are the key points, and more to the point, they play different roles???

The initial analysis didn't remove either Hall or Lockett. It was simply a comparison of the Swans under Eade with the Swans under Roos. Then people said that Eade's team only scored more goals because of Lockett, so I took out Lockett and Hall to show that was not the case.

Roos is a fairly defensive coach - but when his teams attack, they really attack. I dont think that is sustainable for a full game especially not with our list, and solid key positions.

Yes, they can score goals in a hurry. That's actually been a trait of the Swans in periods over many years.

Eade was a bit more interested in the individual mismatches and just playing the game than a team process or system.

Yes, Eade spent more time on individual matchups.

Anyhow, I think the flood was just a logical progression from Pagans paddock.

Maybe against the 'Roos but I can't recall other teams used it to the same extent. I think the flood was a logical extension of a bigger interchange bench.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Layby
Pfft, not a single stat in there !

Amazing how much % and decimal points scare people...

[Industrial Fan]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Then people said that Eade's team only scored more goals because of Lockett, so I took out Lockett and Hall to show that was not the case.

Just because one player scores most of the goals, doesnt necessarily mean the output will be significantly different without that player. A similar suggestion would be that if you remove Fevola from Carlton they would have kicked 80odd goals less for the year, which in practice is not the case - Waite, Fisher, etc would have been targetted more often.

Plugga was the main target, but for his position was still on the receiving end of the teams work. Baz creates more through his run around the ground - when it comes to the crunch they play different positions.

Maybe more significant to look at forward 50 entries?

I think the flood was a logical extension of a bigger interchange bench.

Surely if it was an extension of the interchange, then it would work both ways, and not just to help rest players that could in theory go to the bench?

Pagan was not the only one to use the paddock - we use it to some extent now (see vs Weagles QF 2006) but flooding(aka loose men in defence) is a simple way to curb that tactic (see vs Weagles GF 2006)

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Layby
Pfft, not a single stat in there !

Plus you did not get all indignant and start abusing anyone.

I am 97.234567% sure you will be thrown out of the 'Brown cardigan, rather interesting, stats society' for that lame effort.

Did you use a calculator to come up with that stat???

[Layby]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Amazing how much % and decimal points scare people...

I always wear Tanalady pads when i open your threads !

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Layby
I always wear Tanalady pads when i open your threads !

ROFLMAO
Hilarious Layby, hilarious.