Jack Riewoldt - Triple Coleman medallist [merged]

[Chuck17]

Yes lets bring in the days of riewoldt standing in the square whilst three defenders climb all over him

Yes. 

This time we will plan to use two unmanned forwards left by the other two triple teaming Jack! Great idea Chucky!

Jack not only kicks goals but creates goals for others. Putting him deep forward is much better all round. We scored best when he was there. Our scoring dried up when he played way up the ground. Guys like Rioli, Bolton and even Lloyd will benefit from his smarts.

really? what do you base this on?

Richmond 2016 Points For:  1713   (finished 13th)
Richmond 2015 Points For:  2006   (finished 5th)
Richmond 2011 Points For:  2069   (finished 12th)
Richmond 2012 Points For:  2169   (finished 12th)

So EVEN when we had a much better year in 2015 we scored more points in our rebuilding years with Jack closer to goal. When we had a similar year results wise to the rebuilding years in 2016, we scored MUCH LESS with Jack further up the field.

So there are the FACTS laid squarely in front of the doubting Thomases!!!!!

So you are saying as a team we had our best year when Jack played further upfield.  Thanks for confirming our point.

We had a better year because we defended better. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
This discussion was about scoring, which we've had more trouble doing when our best forward hasn't been played forward.

I know it's hard to accept the facts because you argued otherwise, but they are there as proof without twisting them at all.

And further to the point we had our worst year when Jack played even further up the ground!!!!!

I like the selective use of stats that back up your argument and ignore those that don't. Ansell keays would be proud of you. Its also very clever the way you muddy the waters by using things like "we defended better" where it suits, but ignore that last we defended crap and our midfield was crap.

Bravo 

 

Is that all you can come back with?

I gave you stats. We are discussing scoring power too. That is what YOU challenged me to support with my statement that our scoring had decreased with Jack further up the ground. I did that but now you cowardly say that they were selective and that I ignored other stats.

I say that is BS.

What stats did I ignore? Remember what you challenged me to support too. We weren't talking about midfield output, defence or anything like that. The conversation was about Jack and how our scoring has gone down the further up the field he has gone.

I have supported my assertion with FACTS. You however, have just come out with a big fat donut of information to support your assertion. Why don't you argue your position with facts as well, instead of whingeing and whining about a non existent manipulation of stats?

You have supported your assertion with selective facts. You conveniently ignored the stats from 2010, which was Jacks highest goal tally, yet our worst performance in terms of wins, total score and percentage since then, as well neglecting to include 2013 and 2014.

You actually pointed out that other factors, such as backline and midfield performance can influence these things in an attempt to argue against someone elses point of view, yet failed to mention how these come into play with the stats you quoted, and the stats you ignored.

In 2015 Jack pushed up the ground more often than some people realise, as his career high I50s of 75 (26 more than his next best, or 44% more, and over 50% better than anything before 2015) indicates. In that year we won 15 games (equal best along with 2013, since 2010) with a percentage of 123, slightly higher but basically on par with 2013. Our total score was lower in 2015 than in 2013, but in 2013 12 teams scored more than 2000 for the year, while in 2015 only 7 did, so goal scoring across the comp dropped. (In 2012, another high scoring year, but relatively unsuccessful for us, 11 teams scored more than 2000)

Of course we have 2016, a poo year all round, but as you already know, other factors come into play. Still, Jack contributed 18.79% of  our score for the year, while in 2015 it was 18.34% and in 2013, along with 2015 our most successful years in terms of wins and percentage, it was 17.68%.

what about the less successful years? In 2014 jack contributed 21% of our score, 2012 20.19%, 2011 19.23% and 2010 29% of the teams score for the year.

No one is arguing that he doesn't kick more goals the closer he stays to goal, but the trend seems to indicate that the more goals he kicks, the higher the percentage of our score he kicks, and the less successful the team is.

How is pointing out that you selectively used stats cowardly, especially when that is exactly what you did? If you want to use stats to show a trend, use all the stats for a given period, and do so in a way that paints a bigger picture(ie that wins/loss, ladder position and percentage is a more valid measure of success than simply points scored, something that fluctuates across the comp as a whole. It takes a little more work, but may prevent others from pointing out the inadequacies of your argument and you having to resort to questioning their courage for doing so.

When discussing the best position for a player, the other factor to take into account is the type of players around him and the position that best suits the team for them, but that is a different discussion

Firstly I didn't ignore 2010. I just thought that it was unfair putting in stats about a team just cobbled together and that was described as the worst since Fitzroy. Hardwick had just started at Richmond and knowbody really could have adapted to his game style overnight. Heavy scoring was never going to happen.

However, lets include it and compare it to a much stronger team, the 2016 one.

Points for in 2010 was 1714.
Points for in 2016 was 1713.

In 2010, Jack had his best year and DESPITE being the worst team since Fitzroy we still beat the 2016 team in our ability to score (albeit by 1 point).

Quoting how much of the score Jack kicks is not a useful stat unless it shows that if he kicks less (being up the field) we kick more overall. That hasn't happened. Sure we improved as a team, but that may have happened because our champs were more experienced and heading into their prime. You can also say that overall, teams scored less or more in certain years but this was never the argument. Remember I said as Jack has headed up the ground our scoring has decreased. That is pretty much an undeniable fact. It may be due to multifactorial reasons, but it has happened. Whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two is almost impossible to prove or disprove. However as big tone put it, you play your best forward up forward. Simple.

The other way I look at it is if I was an opposition coach, I'd love to see Riewoldt on the wings nowhere near goal. I'd rather do what opposition coaches wouldn't want....

if you cant see how the percantage of the teams score a  bloke kicks when taken into context with overall performance, in a discussion about if he is more valuable to the team kicking the goals himself or creating them for others.........

and if you cant see if you are going to use only the points kicked for as an argument then it is imperative you understand that as game styles change some years the whole comp kicks less goals that other years.............

and if you want to bring into a discussion about whether a bloke should play high or deep forward, comments about playing on the wing.........

then id be better off discussing it with WAT

Oh my that is harsh

[Chuck17]

Yes lets bring in the days of riewoldt standing in the square whilst three defenders climb all over him

Yes. 

This time we will plan to use two unmanned forwards left by the other two triple teaming Jack! Great idea Chucky!

Jack not only kicks goals but creates goals for others. Putting him deep forward is much better all round. We scored best when he was there. Our scoring dried up when he played way up the ground. Guys like Rioli, Bolton and even Lloyd will benefit from his smarts.

really? what do you base this on?

Richmond 2016 Points For:  1713   (finished 13th)
Richmond 2015 Points For:  2006   (finished 5th)
Richmond 2011 Points For:  2069   (finished 12th)
Richmond 2012 Points For:  2169   (finished 12th)

So EVEN when we had a much better year in 2015 we scored more points in our rebuilding years with Jack closer to goal. When we had a similar year results wise to the rebuilding years in 2016, we scored MUCH LESS with Jack further up the field.

So there are the FACTS laid squarely in front of the doubting Thomases!!!!!

So you are saying as a team we had our best year when Jack played further upfield.  Thanks for confirming our point.

We had a better year because we defended better. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
This discussion was about scoring, which we've had more trouble doing when our best forward hasn't been played forward.

I know it's hard to accept the facts because you argued otherwise, but they are there as proof without twisting them at all.

And further to the point we had our worst year when Jack played even further up the ground!!!!!

I like the selective use of stats that back up your argument and ignore those that don't. Ansell keays would be proud of you. Its also very clever the way you muddy the waters by using things like "we defended better" where it suits, but ignore that last we defended crap and our midfield was crap.

Bravo 

 

Is that all you can come back with?

I gave you stats. We are discussing scoring power too. That is what YOU challenged me to support with my statement that our scoring had decreased with Jack further up the ground. I did that but now you cowardly say that they were selective and that I ignored other stats.

I say that is BS.

What stats did I ignore? Remember what you challenged me to support too. We weren't talking about midfield output, defence or anything like that. The conversation was about Jack and how our scoring has gone down the further up the field he has gone.

I have supported my assertion with FACTS. You however, have just come out with a big fat donut of information to support your assertion. Why don't you argue your position with facts as well, instead of whingeing and whining about a non existent manipulation of stats?

You have supported your assertion with selective facts. You conveniently ignored the stats from 2010, which was Jacks highest goal tally, yet our worst performance in terms of wins, total score and percentage since then, as well neglecting to include 2013 and 2014.

You actually pointed out that other factors, such as backline and midfield performance can influence these things in an attempt to argue against someone elses point of view, yet failed to mention how these come into play with the stats you quoted, and the stats you ignored.

In 2015 Jack pushed up the ground more often than some people realise, as his career high I50s of 75 (26 more than his next best, or 44% more, and over 50% better than anything before 2015) indicates. In that year we won 15 games (equal best along with 2013, since 2010) with a percentage of 123, slightly higher but basically on par with 2013. Our total score was lower in 2015 than in 2013, but in 2013 12 teams scored more than 2000 for the year, while in 2015 only 7 did, so goal scoring across the comp dropped. (In 2012, another high scoring year, but relatively unsuccessful for us, 11 teams scored more than 2000)

Of course we have 2016, a poo year all round, but as you already know, other factors come into play. Still, Jack contributed 18.79% of  our score for the year, while in 2015 it was 18.34% and in 2013, along with 2015 our most successful years in terms of wins and percentage, it was 17.68%.

what about the less successful years? In 2014 jack contributed 21% of our score, 2012 20.19%, 2011 19.23% and 2010 29% of the teams score for the year.

No one is arguing that he doesn't kick more goals the closer he stays to goal, but the trend seems to indicate that the more goals he kicks, the higher the percentage of our score he kicks, and the less successful the team is.

How is pointing out that you selectively used stats cowardly, especially when that is exactly what you did? If you want to use stats to show a trend, use all the stats for a given period, and do so in a way that paints a bigger picture(ie that wins/loss, ladder position and percentage is a more valid measure of success than simply points scored, something that fluctuates across the comp as a whole. It takes a little more work, but may prevent others from pointing out the inadequacies of your argument and you having to resort to questioning their courage for doing so.

When discussing the best position for a player, the other factor to take into account is the type of players around him and the position that best suits the team for them, but that is a different discussion

Firstly I didn't ignore 2010. I just thought that it was unfair putting in stats about a team just cobbled together and that was described as the worst since Fitzroy. Hardwick had just started at Richmond and knowbody really could have adapted to his game style overnight. Heavy scoring was never going to happen.

However, lets include it and compare it to a much stronger team, the 2016 one.

Points for in 2010 was 1714.
Points for in 2016 was 1713.

In 2010, Jack had his best year and DESPITE being the worst team since Fitzroy we still beat the 2016 team in our ability to score (albeit by 1 point).

Quoting how much of the score Jack kicks is not a useful stat unless it shows that if he kicks less (being up the field) we kick more overall. That hasn't happened. Sure we improved as a team, but that may have happened because our champs were more experienced and heading into their prime. You can also say that overall, teams scored less or more in certain years but this was never the argument. Remember I said as Jack has headed up the ground our scoring has decreased. That is pretty much an undeniable fact. It may be due to multifactorial reasons, but it has happened. Whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two is almost impossible to prove or disprove. However as big tone put it, you play your best forward up forward. Simple.

The other way I look at it is if I was an opposition coach, I'd love to see Riewoldt on the wings nowhere near goal. I'd rather do what opposition coaches wouldn't want....

if you cant see how the percantage of the teams score a  bloke kicks when taken into context with overall performance, in a discussion about if he is more valuable to the team kicking the goals himself or creating them for others.........

and if you cant see if you are going to use only the points kicked for as an argument then it is imperative you understand that as game styles change some years the whole comp kicks less goals that other years.............

and if you want to bring into a discussion about whether a bloke should play high or deep forward, comments about playing on the wing.........

then id be better off discussing it with WAT

Is it your gender confusion or something else clouding your mind?

How can you take one aspect like percentage of a teams goals and equate that to ANYTHING about a team's performance without taking into account ANY other aspect of how the team is playing when looking at overall performance? How about better defence, more experienced players, refined game plan that has been better practised, better clearances and team structure etc etc etc. For all we know, if we kept Jack forward and he kicked more goals others may have kicked more goals too because of all the other things I've mentioned. You can't tell me it wouldn't happen because we don't know.

You are trying to place a simplistic view on a complex situation.

I was not talking about overall performance which IS more complex. I was simply stating that with Jack playing more deeply forward we have scored more heavily. That is an undeniable fact supported by statistics that I have provided. That is what I stated originally and what I have argued. It is you that has had to take it to other levels like overall performance because you are trying to change the argument you have lost so badly.

And if you bothered actually going to the games yourself you would have noted how many times Jack was playing midfield and wing as well as playing in defence. That is what actually happened and why many of us have been frustrated that he hasn't been forward creating goals.

And you don't have to keep canning WAT. He has his own thoughts and you should respect them instead of being a gender confused cyberbully.

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

[tony_montana]

Gah my eyes!!

[YellowandBlackBlood]

 

[WilliamPowell]

Gah my eyes!!

 

Folks any chance of editing out some of the quotes and only highlighting what you are answering to

Believe it or not it is supposedly one (of a few) reason why a former long termer no longer posts here got sick of wading through this sort of stuff

Kid you not 

[Penelope]

a bit like quoting the post immediately before when you are replying to it?

Never been an issue when it has been brought up before, so why should i bother now?

[Penelope]

lmao

whats the point of scoring more heavily if it doesnt equate to a better win loss ratio and percentage?

and im the one trying to look at it simplisticly?

far out, when your late, you are very ardy

[yellowandback]

Yes lets bring in the days of riewoldt standing in the square whilst three defenders climb all over him

Yes. 

This time we will plan to use two unmanned forwards left by the other two triple teaming Jack! Great idea Chucky!

Jack not only kicks goals but creates goals for others. Putting him deep forward is much better all round. We scored best when he was there. Our scoring dried up when he played way up the ground. Guys like Rioli, Bolton and even Lloyd will benefit from his smarts.

really? what do you base this on?

Richmond 2016 Points For:  1713   (finished 13th)
Richmond 2015 Points For:  2006   (finished 5th)
Richmond 2011 Points For:  2069   (finished 12th)
Richmond 2012 Points For:  2169   (finished 12th)

So EVEN when we had a much better year in 2015 we scored more points in our rebuilding years with Jack closer to goal. When we had a similar year results wise to the rebuilding years in 2016, we scored MUCH LESS with Jack further up the field.

So there are the FACTS laid squarely in front of the doubting Thomases!!!!!

So you are saying as a team we had our best year when Jack played further upfield.  Thanks for confirming our point.

We had a better year because we defended better. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
This discussion was about scoring, which we've had more trouble doing when our best forward hasn't been played forward.

I know it's hard to accept the facts because you argued otherwise, but they are there as proof without twisting them at all.

And further to the point we had our worst year when Jack played even further up the ground!!!!!

I like the selective use of stats that back up your argument and ignore those that don't. Ansell keays would be proud of you. Its also very clever the way you muddy the waters by using things like "we defended better" where it suits, but ignore that last we defended crap and our midfield was crap.

Bravo 

 

Is that all you can come back with?

I gave you stats. We are discussing scoring power too. That is what YOU challenged me to support with my statement that our scoring had decreased with Jack further up the ground. I did that but now you cowardly say that they were selective and that I ignored other stats.

I say that is BS.

What stats did I ignore? Remember what you challenged me to support too. We weren't talking about midfield output, defence or anything like that. The conversation was about Jack and how our scoring has gone down the further up the field he has gone.

I have supported my assertion with FACTS. You however, have just come out with a big fat donut of information to support your assertion. Why don't you argue your position with facts as well, instead of whingeing and whining about a non existent manipulation of stats?

You have supported your assertion with selective facts. You conveniently ignored the stats from 2010, which was Jacks highest goal tally, yet our worst performance in terms of wins, total score and percentage since then, as well neglecting to include 2013 and 2014.

You actually pointed out that other factors, such as backline and midfield performance can influence these things in an attempt to argue against someone elses point of view, yet failed to mention how these come into play with the stats you quoted, and the stats you ignored.

In 2015 Jack pushed up the ground more often than some people realise, as his career high I50s of 75 (26 more than his next best, or 44% more, and over 50% better than anything before 2015) indicates. In that year we won 15 games (equal best along with 2013, since 2010) with a percentage of 123, slightly higher but basically on par with 2013. Our total score was lower in 2015 than in 2013, but in 2013 12 teams scored more than 2000 for the year, while in 2015 only 7 did, so goal scoring across the comp dropped. (In 2012, another high scoring year, but relatively unsuccessful for us, 11 teams scored more than 2000)

Of course we have 2016, a poo year all round, but as you already know, other factors come into play. Still, Jack contributed 18.79% of  our score for the year, while in 2015 it was 18.34% and in 2013, along with 2015 our most successful years in terms of wins and percentage, it was 17.68%.

what about the less successful years? In 2014 jack contributed 21% of our score, 2012 20.19%, 2011 19.23% and 2010 29% of the teams score for the year.

No one is arguing that he doesn't kick more goals the closer he stays to goal, but the trend seems to indicate that the more goals he kicks, the higher the percentage of our score he kicks, and the less successful the team is.

How is pointing out that you selectively used stats cowardly, especially when that is exactly what you did? If you want to use stats to show a trend, use all the stats for a given period, and do so in a way that paints a bigger picture(ie that wins/loss, ladder position and percentage is a more valid measure of success than simply points scored, something that fluctuates across the comp as a whole. It takes a little more work, but may prevent others from pointing out the inadequacies of your argument and you having to resort to questioning their courage for doing so.

When discussing the best position for a player, the other factor to take into account is the type of players around him and the position that best suits the team for them, but that is a different discussion

Firstly I didn't ignore 2010. I just thought that it was unfair putting in stats about a team just cobbled together and that was described as the worst since Fitzroy. Hardwick had just started at Richmond and knowbody really could have adapted to his game style overnight. Heavy scoring was never going to happen.

However, lets include it and compare it to a much stronger team, the 2016 one.

Points for in 2010 was 1714.
Points for in 2016 was 1713.

In 2010, Jack had his best year and DESPITE being the worst team since Fitzroy we still beat the 2016 team in our ability to score (albeit by 1 point).

Quoting how much of the score Jack kicks is not a useful stat unless it shows that if he kicks less (being up the field) we kick more overall. That hasn't happened. Sure we improved as a team, but that may have happened because our champs were more experienced and heading into their prime. You can also say that overall, teams scored less or more in certain years but this was never the argument. Remember I said as Jack has headed up the ground our scoring has decreased. That is pretty much an undeniable fact. It may be due to multifactorial reasons, but it has happened. Whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two is almost impossible to prove or disprove. However as big tone put it, you play your best forward up forward. Simple.

The other way I look at it is if I was an opposition coach, I'd love to see Riewoldt on the wings nowhere near goal. I'd rather do what opposition coaches wouldn't want....

if you cant see how the percantage of the teams score a  bloke kicks when taken into context with overall performance, in a discussion about if he is more valuable to the team kicking the goals himself or creating them for others.........

and if you cant see if you are going to use only the points kicked for as an argument then it is imperative you understand that as game styles change some years the whole comp kicks less goals that other years.............

and if you want to bring into a discussion about whether a bloke should play high or deep forward, comments about playing on the wing.........

then id be better off discussing it with WAT

Is it your gender confusion or something else clouding your mind?

How can you take one aspect like percentage of a teams goals and equate that to ANYTHING about a team's performance without taking into account ANY other aspect of how the team is playing when looking at overall performance? How about better defence, more experienced players, refined game plan that has been better practised, better clearances and team structure etc etc etc. For all we know, if we kept Jack forward and he kicked more goals others may have kicked more goals too because of all the other things I've mentioned. You can't tell me it wouldn't happen because we don't know.

You are trying to place a simplistic view on a complex situation.

I was not talking about overall performance which IS more complex. I was simply stating that with Jack playing more deeply forward we have scored more heavily. That is an undeniable fact supported by statistics that I have provided. That is what I stated originally and what I have argued. It is you that has had to take it to other levels like overall performance because you are trying to change the argument you have lost so badly.

And if you bothered actually going to the games yourself you would have noted how many times Jack was playing midfield and wing as well as playing in defence. That is what actually happened and why many of us have been frustrated that he hasn't been forward creating goals.

And you don't have to keep canning WAT. He has his own thoughts and you should respect them instead of being a gender confused cyberbully.

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

Wha d ya say WP?

[YellowandBlackBlood]

lmao

whats the point of scoring more heavily if it doesnt equate to a better win loss ratio and percentage?

and im the one trying to look at it simplisticly?

far out, when your late, you are very ardy

LMAO.

That is a completely different discussion. Why do you keep changing the discussion point? You asked about the evidence about our ability to score and Jack playing up forward. The best stat by a mile that shows our ability to score is points for. That is what I provided. I never stated anything else.

[🏅Dooks]

Gah my eyes!!

 

Folks any chance of editing out some of the quotes and only highlighting what you are answering to

Believe it or not it is supposedly one (of a few) reason why a former long termer no longer posts here got sick of wading through this sort of stuff

Kid you not 

Sounds quite precious. FMD

[YellowandBlackBlood]

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

You better think that through a bit more Rob.

Points for may be a general stat to you but it is the best stat to show a sides ability to hit the scoreboard over a year. That is what we are discussing and because of that it is a very specific stat in relation to the discussion.

Just like points against is a measure of the sides ability to defend and is often quoted to compare defences.

[Hard Roar Tiger]

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

You better think that through a bit more Rob.

Points for may be a general stat to you but it is the best stat to show a sides ability to hit the scoreboard over a year. That is what we are discussing and because of that it is a very specific stat in relation to the discussion.

Just like points against is a measure of the sides ability to defend and is often quoted to compare defences.

I'd say perhaps you should be the one thinking through things because that's the most basic piece analysis possible with an unecessarily condescending tone.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

You better think that through a bit more Rob.

Points for may be a general stat to you but it is the best stat to show a sides ability to hit the scoreboard over a year. That is what we are discussing and because of that it is a very specific stat in relation to the discussion.

Just like points against is a measure of the sides ability to defend and is often quoted to compare defences.

I'd say perhaps you should be the one thinking through things because that's the most basic piece analysis possible with an unecessarily condescending tone.

I disagree. I was responding to his post - without condescending face palms either. Or do you just choose to ignore things like that because they don't suit your agenda?

[Hard Roar Tiger]

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

You better think that through a bit more Rob.

Points for may be a general stat to you but it is the best stat to show a sides ability to hit the scoreboard over a year. That is what we are discussing and because of that it is a very specific stat in relation to the discussion.

Just like points against is a measure of the sides ability to defend and is often quoted to compare defences.

I'd say perhaps you should be the one thinking through things because that's the most basic piece analysis possible with an unecessarily condescending tone.

I disagree. I was responding to his post - without condescending face palms either. Or do you just choose to ignore things like that because they don't suit your agenda?

What agenda? You making assumptions too often that jump at shadows. Besides, since when did 2 wrongs make a right?

[YellowandBlackBlood]

This from the person who brought up a general stat to support a specific statement

 

You better think that through a bit more Rob.

Points for may be a general stat to you but it is the best stat to show a sides ability to hit the scoreboard over a year. That is what we are discussing and because of that it is a very specific stat in relation to the discussion.

Just like points against is a measure of the sides ability to defend and is often quoted to compare defences.

I'd say perhaps you should be the one thinking through things because that's the most basic piece analysis possible with an unecessarily condescending tone.

I disagree. I was responding to his post - without condescending face palms either. Or do you just choose to ignore things like that because they don't suit your agenda?

What agenda? You making assumptions too often that jump at shadows. Besides, since when did 2 wrongs make a right?

Firstly I wasn't condescending, so it's only one wrong. Secondly, the only wrong bit you make no comments on so you seem unbalanced in your criticism. And since when have you been the moral police around here anyway? Chuck is a big boy, he can look after himself. He doesn't need you stepping in to defend him. If he takes offence to it then it is up to him to take it up with me.