Jack Riewoldt - Triple Coleman medallist [merged]

[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

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.

Yeah you provide stats to back that up, but you deceptively left out the stats of 2013 and 2014, which were down on 2015, when Jack played considerably more time up the ground.

Your simplistic approach does not take into account scoring trends accross the comp, but you made it clear you dont think its important to take that into account, which shows a total lack of logical application.

And I have never changed anything, my original question was why do people think its more important that jack kicks the goals himself rather that  create goals for team mates. I've shown before that if you combine his goal assists and goal kicked, from 2011-2015 it is basically the same.

Whats the point of arguing what is best for the player rather than the team?
Do you prefer to see a player win a coleman than have team success? That argument is the red herring, one of which you have not backed up in a way that holds up to scrutiny anyway.

Amazing stuff.

[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.

Yeah you provide stats to back that up, but you deceptively left out the stats of 2013 and 2014, which were down on 2015, when Jack played considerably more time up the ground.

Your simplistic approach does not take into account scoring trends accross the comp, but you made it clear you dont think its important to take that into account, which shows a total lack of logical application.

And I have never changed anything, my original question was why do people think its more important that jack kicks the goals himself rather that  create goals for team mates. I've shown before that if you combine his goal assists and goal kicked, from 2011-2015 it is basically the same.

Whats the point of arguing what is best for the player rather than the team?
Do you prefer to see a player win a coleman than have team success? That argument is the red herring, one of which you have not backed up in a way that holds up to scrutiny anyway.

Amazing stuff.

It does not matter what the scoring trend was across the whole competition. What matters much more is the scoring trend of the top few sides. After all you want to emulate the top few sides, not the bottom 12 sides of the competition. When you look at those sides there has not been much of a change in their scoring ability. You will occasionally get a fantastic side scoring a lot (Hawthorn) or not (Freo) but all in all they are in the same ball park.

I actually believe that if you play players in positions that is best for them, their output is at its greatest and in that way the team benefits most which actually means that it ends up being best for the team.

Simplistically, do you think that if Riewoldt kicks 135 goals in 2017, we will have had a good year or a bad year as a team? I think the chances would be that our year would be outstanding. Alternatively, if Riewoldt kicks 35 goals I think there is a far higher chance of the team performing poorly overall.

[Chuck17]

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.

Yeah you provide stats to back that up, but you deceptively left out the stats of 2013 and 2014, which were down on 2015, when Jack played considerably more time up the ground.

Your simplistic approach does not take into account scoring trends accross the comp, but you made it clear you dont think its important to take that into account, which shows a total lack of logical application.

And I have never changed anything, my original question was why do people think its more important that jack kicks the goals himself rather that  create goals for team mates. I've shown before that if you combine his goal assists and goal kicked, from 2011-2015 it is basically the same.

Whats the point of arguing what is best for the player rather than the team?
Do you prefer to see a player win a coleman than have team success? That argument is the red herring, one of which you have not backed up in a way that holds up to scrutiny anyway.

Amazing stuff.

It does not matter what the scoring trend was across the whole competition. What matters much more is the scoring trend of the top few sides. After all you want to emulate the top few sides, not the bottom 12 sides of the competition. When you look at those sides there has not been much of a change in their scoring ability. You will occasionally get a fantastic side scoring a lot (Hawthorn) or not (Freo) but all in all they are in the same ball park.

I actually believe that if you play players in positions that is best for them, their output is at its greatest and in that way the team benefits most which actually means that it ends up being best for the team.

Simplistically, do you think that if Riewoldt kicks 135 goals in 2017, we will have had a good year or a bad year as a team? I think the chances would be that our year would be outstanding. Alternatively, if Riewoldt kicks 35 goals I think there is a far higher chance of the team performing poorly overall.

Why bring an unrealistic scenario into the equation?, I think you are grasping here for credibility

[Penelope]

of course it matters what the scoring trend accross the comp is.

if you score 2000 in a year when the highest is 2100 and only three teams score more than two thousand for the year, theres a good chance you have performed better than in a year when when you score 2100, the highest is 2500, 10 teams score more than 2000 and 7 of those teams scored more than you.

Following your simpleton line of thought, Richmond performed better in the 1972 grand final than any other grand final they played in except 1980.

Any one with half a brain understands that its not important how much you score, but how much you score relative to the competition, yet you obviously cant grasp that concept?

[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.

Yeah you provide stats to back that up, but you deceptively left out the stats of 2013 and 2014, which were down on 2015, when Jack played considerably more time up the ground.

Your simplistic approach does not take into account scoring trends accross the comp, but you made it clear you dont think its important to take that into account, which shows a total lack of logical application.

And I have never changed anything, my original question was why do people think its more important that jack kicks the goals himself rather that  create goals for team mates. I've shown before that if you combine his goal assists and goal kicked, from 2011-2015 it is basically the same.

Whats the point of arguing what is best for the player rather than the team?
Do you prefer to see a player win a coleman than have team success? That argument is the red herring, one of which you have not backed up in a way that holds up to scrutiny anyway.

Amazing stuff.

It does not matter what the scoring trend was across the whole competition. What matters much more is the scoring trend of the top few sides. After all you want to emulate the top few sides, not the bottom 12 sides of the competition. When you look at those sides there has not been much of a change in their scoring ability. You will occasionally get a fantastic side scoring a lot (Hawthorn) or not (Freo) but all in all they are in the same ball park.

I actually believe that if you play players in positions that is best for them, their output is at its greatest and in that way the team benefits most which actually means that it ends up being best for the team.

Simplistically, do you think that if Riewoldt kicks 135 goals in 2017, we will have had a good year or a bad year as a team? I think the chances would be that our year would be outstanding. Alternatively, if Riewoldt kicks 35 goals I think there is a far higher chance of the team performing poorly overall.

Why bring an unrealistic scenario into the equation?, I think you are grasping here for credibility

Why don't you actually add something to the conversation Rob?
All you seem to do is say that I lack credibility, put up facepalms and take cheap pot shots at me. Why don't you be a man and actually say something meaningful?
Buddy Franklin kicked 113 in a year that hawthorn won the flag. I just gave an extreme example which was more to illustrate clearly the difference between a high goal kicking season and a low one. A high goal kicking season by a key forward is now much more common in a successful team than an unsuccessful team. It was to show that my argument had validity. If you want to get picky and say that 135 goals in unlikely that is your prerogative, but it illustrates that you failed to understand the basic premise behind the comparison.

You have been taking pot shots at WAT, Jackstar and now me. Just grow up and start behaving like a 46 year old bloke should.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

of course it matters what the scoring trend accross the comp is.

if you score 2000 in a year when the highest is 2100 and only three teams score more than two thousand for the year, theres a good chance you have performed better than in a year when when you score 2100, the highest is 2500, 10 teams score more than 2000 and 7 of those teams scored more than you.

Following your simpleton line of thought, Richmond performed better in the 1972 grand final than any other grand final they played in except 1980.

Any one with half a brain understands that its not important how much you score, but how much you score relative to the competition, yet you obviously cant grasp that concept?

Firstly you didn't answer the question I posed. Why not?
Secondly, you pick the only game in VFL/AFL history when a side scored 150 points in a GF and lost. I hardly think that is the way you support your argument. You use common scenarios not a one in a million phenomenon. How about I say that in the history of footy scoring 150 points in a GF would statistically have won a premiership in any year other than 1972. That is a much better way of looking at it. Of course I understand it's how you defend as well. The problem is you cannot prove that playing Riewoldt further up field has been successful for the team. There is no statistic you can come up with that actually specifies that it was that move that improved us. So just give up because most on here agree that Richmond as a team play better when Riewoldt plays deeper forward than further up the ground. This year I believe this is the plan so let's just see if we score better. There is no way you can convince me that playing Riewoldt up the field allows us to defend better so I think that part of the argument is irrelevant.

[Hard Roar Tiger]

of course it matters what the scoring trend accross the comp is.

if you score 2000 in a year when the highest is 2100 and only three teams score more than two thousand for the year, theres a good chance you have performed better than in a year when when you score 2100, the highest is 2500, 10 teams score more than 2000 and 7 of those teams scored more than you.

Following your simpleton line of thought, Richmond performed better in the 1972 grand final than any other grand final they played in except 1980.

Any one with half a brain understands that its not important how much you score, but how much you score relative to the competition, yet you obviously cant grasp that concept?

Firstly you didn't answer the question I posed. Why not?
Secondly, you pick the only game in VFL/AFL history when a side scored 150 points in a GF and lost. I hardly think that is the way you support your argument. You use common scenarios not a one in a million phenomenon. How about I say that in the history of footy scoring 150 points in a GF would statistically have won a premiership in any year other than 1972. That is a much better way of looking at it. Of course I understand it's how you defend as well. The problem is you cannot prove that playing Riewoldt further up field has been successful for the team. There is no statistic you can come up with that actually specifies that it was that move that improved us. So just give up because most on here agree that Richmond as a team play better when Riewoldt plays deeper forward than further up the ground. This year I believe this is the plan so let's just see if we score better. There is no way you can convince me that playing Riewoldt up the field allows us to defend better so I think that part of the argument is irrelevant.

So why draw responses from people if your mind can't be changed? Seems like a waste of everyone's time.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

of course it matters what the scoring trend accross the comp is.

if you score 2000 in a year when the highest is 2100 and only three teams score more than two thousand for the year, theres a good chance you have performed better than in a year when when you score 2100, the highest is 2500, 10 teams score more than 2000 and 7 of those teams scored more than you.

Following your simpleton line of thought, Richmond performed better in the 1972 grand final than any other grand final they played in except 1980.

Any one with half a brain understands that its not important how much you score, but how much you score relative to the competition, yet you obviously cant grasp that concept?

Firstly you didn't answer the question I posed. Why not?
Secondly, you pick the only game in VFL/AFL history when a side scored 150 points in a GF and lost. I hardly think that is the way you support your argument. You use common scenarios not a one in a million phenomenon. How about I say that in the history of footy scoring 150 points in a GF would statistically have won a premiership in any year other than 1972. That is a much better way of looking at it. Of course I understand it's how you defend as well. The problem is you cannot prove that playing Riewoldt further up field has been successful for the team. There is no statistic you can come up with that actually specifies that it was that move that improved us. So just give up because most on here agree that Richmond as a team play better when Riewoldt plays deeper forward than further up the ground. This year I believe this is the plan so let's just see if we score better. There is no way you can convince me that playing Riewoldt up the field allows us to defend better so I think that part of the argument is irrelevant.

So why draw responses from people if your mind can't be changed? Seems like a waste of everyone's time.

Did you even read the post? Really? I said defend. The whole posting has been on scoring, not defending. I am willing to hear a convincing argument that it would be better for the team overall but I haven't yet heard one. I haven't been presented with any statistic that definitely shows that the team plays better with Riewoldt up the ground. Riewoldt's position away from deep forward has little to do with our defending and even if it did, do you really think that the negative impact it would have on our scoring would be offset by more of a positive impact in our defending? That is what you and Penelope/Alistair are trying to tell me.

[Hard Roar Tiger]

I think your last post is fair but I would equally say you haven't nailed it any better with your argument that states we are better off in the goal square. Perhaps cloning is the real solution 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I think your last post is fair but I would equally say you haven't nailed it any better with your argument that states we are better off in the goal square. Perhaps cloning is the real solution 

[Penelope]

of course it matters what the scoring trend accross the comp is.

if you score 2000 in a year when the highest is 2100 and only three teams score more than two thousand for the year, theres a good chance you have performed better than in a year when when you score 2100, the highest is 2500, 10 teams score more than 2000 and 7 of those teams scored more than you.

Following your simpleton line of thought, Richmond performed better in the 1972 grand final than any other grand final they played in except 1980.

Any one with half a brain understands that its not important how much you score, but how much you score relative to the competition, yet you obviously cant grasp that concept?

Firstly you didn't answer the question I posed. Why not?
Secondly, you pick the only game in VFL/AFL history when a side scored 150 points in a GF and lost. I hardly think that is the way you support your argument. You use common scenarios not a one in a million phenomenon. How about I say that in the history of footy scoring 150 points in a GF would statistically have won a premiership in any year other than 1972. That is a much better way of looking at it. Of course I understand it's how you defend as well. The problem is you cannot prove that playing Riewoldt further up field has been successful for the team. There is no statistic you can come up with that actually specifies that it was that move that improved us. So just give up because most on here agree that Richmond as a team play better when Riewoldt plays deeper forward than further up the ground. This year I believe this is the plan so let's just see if we score better. There is no way you can convince me that playing Riewoldt up the field allows us to defend better so I think that part of the argument is irrelevant.

Your question wasn't answered directly because it is unrealistic and extreme. Yet you pot me for using circumstances that have actually happened, and it highlights the folly of your line of reasoning that  how much you score in comparison to the opposition is not important, just how much you score is. That is seriously down there with watching the ball as you kick it makes you a bad kick.

Nor could I give a stuff what most people agree on, consensus doesnt make it right and I'm not about to change my thinking just because everyone else thinks that way. No-one has even gone close to showing that playing jack in the goal square is better for the team than playing him further up the ground, least of all you with your airy fairy, circular non logic, deceptively excluding stats that doesn't suit your argument and throwing red herring about.

Also, as I've said, there is another very important part to the equation, but given the discussion so far, I have no doubt you would not be able to grasp that concept either.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that playing Jack further up the ground makes us defend better. where did you draw that from?

it just gets more amazingly stupid and irrational.

Just to sum your thought patterns

....do you think that if Riewoldt kicks 135 goals in 2017.....

I hardly think that is the way you support your argument .You use common scenarios ......

[one-eyed]

Sore Jack Riewoldt a certain starter for round one

AFL.com.au
March 11, 2017

JACK Riewoldt is a certain starter for round one despite tweaking his ankle late in Richmond's seven-point loss to Collingwood in their JLT Community Series hit-out in Moe on Saturday.

Riewoldt limped from the field after falling awkwardly on his left ankle in a marking contest and hobbled around in pain for several minutes before retreating to the interchange bench.

The star forward was moving freely after the game, without a bandage on his ankle, and coach Damien Hardwick said there was nothing to worry about.

"He was fine and he was trying to get back on in the end," Hardwick said.

"It was just a conservative approach by us.

"He came down awkwardly but we're not too worried by it."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-11/sore-jack-riewoldt-a-certain-starter-for-round-one

[one-eyed]

Jack was interviewed by Ch 7 & 9 news outside Punt Rd Oval and he said his ankle is fine. He just reacted because it was the same ankle he had reconstructed over the offseason.

[Yeahright]

I actually believe that if you play players in positions that is best for them, their output is at its greatest and in that way the team benefits most which actually means that it ends up being best for the team.

That would be lovely but what about when you have Jack and Vickery (based on RFC coaches beliefs) who both are best played out of the square? Do you say stuff it and only play one of them despite them being our two best KPF

[one-eyed]

A Jack of all trades

On a slippery night not in now way suited to high-marking forwards, Jack Riewoldt's influence on the game was remarkable. As the rain teemed down at the MCG early in the game, Riewoldt's two goals in the first quarter were a sight to behold. The star forward's first, a snap off a step on his right boot, was quickly followed by a left-foot curler just as good as his first effort. Riewoldt finished with six goals on the night, including the match-winner in the final quarter, to almost singlehandedly win the match off his own boot. The star Tiger has elevated his own game to a new level this season and it is a more versatile Riewoldt that has become one of the AFL's very best.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-24/five-talking-points-richmond-v-melbourne

-----------------------------

Jack's 6 goals:

VIDEO: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/video/2017-04-24/round-5-riewoldt-kicks-six