It doesn't mean an opinion cannot be wrong.
You might say "the sky is pink" it's your opinion but if it's the middle of the night the sky is black, your opinion is WRONG. 
Anyway my opinion is he played well in the first quarter, let's see what a few others think.
Also to start questioning the way the stats are taken to try and suit what you think you saw is a touch arrogant. Everyone gets judged on the same system and people with more football knowledge and experience than you work out the best way to do it.
Stick to your guns though, it's your opinion. 
You are correct, opinions can be wrong, you don't agree with mine so you say I am wrong. I don't agree with yours but I wont say you are wrong just that I don't agree.
But each to their own 
Regarding stats being taken, I am not being arrogant. I know that everyone is graded the same way I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
I have asked a question; which by the way no one has even attempted to answer. I want to know how a "clanger" is determined and how a efficiency is determined. What's wrong with that? It might give me a better understanding with how the stats come out the way they do. Because week after week I look at the stats and scratch my head thinking how can that be?
CD guard their methodology as far as Im aware and don't release it to the public. From what I hear some of the interpretation is questionable to say the least.
For example kicking a floater to a contest is deemed an efficient kick.
If petterd kicks to jack reiwoldt and Carlisle marks it even in a contested situation, that is deemed an uncontested mark and uncontested possession to Carlisle.
If Lids puts it on a plate to Vickery and he drops it and the ball subsequently gets swept away, that is an ineffective kick.
I swear years ago I was watching Bryce Gibbs closely and I deadest saw him turn it over 5 times that night yet clanger count was 3...
So I hear ya Willy
Interested to know where you got your info from about those examples? Because the second two don't sound right.
The first one sound ok to me- if you kick the ball towards your goal and gain ground (Ellis would be in trouble) to a 50/50 I think that is effective. You have gain ground for your team and given your team a 50/50 chance of getting the footy. Otherwise only short passes would be deemed effective.
The other two examples I don't think you are right.
A contested mark is a contested mark whoever kicks it.
Heard it around the traps over time bt. Troy Luff does a segment on sen talking about dreamteam regularly and in the past on occasions he has clarified some of the Champion data interpretations. Whether its right or wrong I'm happy to be corrected. But Im very confident that the 3rd example I used is correct also, which is just ridiculous. One day I saw Lids had clangers listed for a game and I couldn't recall one single errant kick at the game, so watched the replay and saw some good kicks that were dropped by a team mate and subsequently turned over = clangers. For mine clangers should simply be unforced errors, not if you turn it over under pressure or bc the teammate dropped a sitter.
Regarding effective kicking - if a player bombs it to a 2 on 1 contest or to a pack where we are outnumbered, should that be an effective kick? especially if there was a player free elsewhere? I saw petterd float about 6 or 7 kicks into a pack situation one day and each time we had a bloke in a better position. To then hear he had an 87% disposal efficiency that day makes a bit of a mockery of the stat.
Years ago clearances were the big thing. I think for years if you won clearances you statistically had an 80-90% chance of winning the game Listening to what some coaches say in recent times regarding clearances is interesting. dimma in the past and Chris Scott have mentioned something along the lines of not being too concerned of raw numbers bc they interpret it slightly differently at their respective club.
I cant recall it all now, but if it comes back to me Ill add more, suffice to say there are definitely questionable elements.
