 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
perthmagpie 
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Location: Yarrawonga
|
| Post subject: Judd ineffective |  |
|
| jack_spain wrote: |
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd. |
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast.
_________________
Magpies love pies(Lol) |
|
|
|
 |
WITTY 35 DAICOS MAGIC
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Location: GEELONG
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Rumour is Brett ratten had some birthday thing on,
Ex players were in attendance and where attending this party after the game,
So even sweeter that we won, made there night a little less good,if so true.
_________________
THEY JUST HATE US
COS THEY AINT US
DAICOS MAGIC 35
VINTAGE DARREN MILLANE 42 |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
40th birthday apparently.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
MJ23
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: Re: Judd ineffective | |
|
| perthmagpie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: |
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd. |
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast. |
Funny, my first impression was the same as this, and then looked at the stats and pendles eff matched what we saw.
watched the game again closely last night and it was more obvious.
3votesjudd though will get looked after though.
_________________
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Pendles is better than Chud. We're in the minority though. Most people just write off my opinion as Pie fan bias. Mind you, the real best player in the AFL is young Gazza. Remember when he played a bad game or two at the start of the year and some idiots started to write him off and use this as "proof" that he was "carried and protected" at the Cattery. Idiots. He's just getting better.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: Re: Judd ineffective | |
|
| perthmagpie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: |
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd. |
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast. |
Very intersting - so NET effectiveness is -1.
Is this type of stat measured?
If not its quite revealing.
Really puts the JUDD influence into perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Caught up with Alan Richardson last night at a function. Had an intersting conversation about the game. They set themselves to win and are pissed off at walking away without the four points. |
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC 
Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
WTF is he saying. Haven't read the article and I won't. But the coulda, shoulda, woulda, applies equally to carlton as us, no? These guys have to put something to paper but if you analyse it, just that quote you have there, if I was marking it would be FAIL for a basis of an argument. Cam you're the teacher here what's your mark?
_________________
Go Pies! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Yep, he's talking about Carlton woulda, coulda (no real shoulda there), but don't talk to him about Collingwood woulda, coulda, shoulda - even though we did still win Robbo and are in no need of it. Bizarre.
There's no point looking at missed opportunities to goal - we had more than they did. Look at the way the game was played. We were dominant all day, which is why we always had the answers - never headed. They had players out? Boo hoo, we had more. Our defensive and forward line are miles ahead of theirs, and we have more class, depth and pace through the middle (compare Judd's disposal to Pendlebury's).
And since when has Jarred Waite ever destroyed us anyway? He's no Cloke and more of a flanker than a true KPP. First Kruezer would make all the difference, now it's Waite? Time to realise the Blues are just not good enough. One or two players will not bridge the gulf.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: Re: Judd ineffective | |
|
| perthmagpie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: |
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd. |
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast. |
Geez, you're firing on all cylinders today mate.  Even if a little obsessed counting Judd's possessions. 
Great post again. You are absolutely right about Pendlebury. He kicked two sensational goals as well - in fact he's just about our most reliable kick for goal.
And as for Judd and his throwing.  If feelings could kill there'd be one dead Judd and three dead umpires during the game yesterday. How does he get away with it?  |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I have made not of this game for Brownlow night. C Judd 3 Votes |
|
|
|
|
matrightyeh
Joined: 12 May 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
blues are just pretenders again 
  |
|
|
|
|
didick
didick
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Heard on MMM this morning someone from Carlton being interviewed saying "the boys were shocked" not to have won. Better get used to it. I can understand disappointed, but shocked?
_________________
"The night is a very dark time for me" Chaz Michael Michaels |
|
|
|
|
MJ23
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | ^^Yep, he's talking about Carlton woulda, coulda (no real shoulda there), but don't talk to him about Collingwood woulda, coulda, shoulda - even though we did still win Robbo and are in no need of it. Bizarre.
There's no point looking at missed opportunities to goal - we had more than they did. Look at the way the game was played. We were dominant all day, which is why we always had the answers - never headed. They had players out? Boo hoo, we had more. Our defensive and forward line are miles ahead of theirs, and we have more class, depth and pace through the middle (compare Judd's disposal to Pendlebury's).
And since when has Jarred Waite ever destroyed us anyway? He's no Cloke and more of a flanker than a true KPP. First Kruezer would make all the difference, now it's Waite? Time to realise the Blues are just not good enough. One or two players will not bridge the gulf. |
read his article. He actually thinks carlton goal kicking cost them the game. Not that our goal kicking cost us a 10goal win.
Read the article by Glen Mcfarlands. almost the opposite view point. Actually understood how good pendles game was and why.
Robinson has the blikers on. I reckon he had the article half written yesterday when the shaw info came up expecting us to loose.
_________________
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| didick wrote: | | Heard on MMM this morning someone from Carlton being interviewed saying "the boys were shocked" not to have won. Better get used to it. I can understand disappointed, but shocked? |
Just goes to show they still think we are their bunnies. Must say, I wasn't sure they were wrong, until yesterday. What a fantastic group of footballers we have playing for us!
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
