Coaches award R3

[magnifisaint]

Coaches' votes | Round 3
9 - Andrew McGrath (ESS)
5 - Zach Merrett (ESS)
4 - Nick Martin (ESS)
4 - Seb Ross (STK)
3 - Jack Steele (STK)
2 - Dyson Heppell (ESS)
2 - Bradley Hill (STK)
1 - Xavier Duursma (ESS)

Geez Andrew McGrath. Was he that good. I didn't notice him at all and Duursma! What did he do??
I didn't think Hill played well at all.

[Scollop]

Hill was one of our very best players. Worked his butt off all day. Kept running and racked up a fair few possessions in the last quarter.

Brad Scott (?)

Merrett 5
McGrath 4
Martin 3
Heppell 2
Duursma 1

Ross Lyon (?)

McGrath 5
Ross 4
Steele 3
Hill 2
Martin 1

How do other people reckon the coaches voted

[magnifisaint]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

[saynta]

Hill was one of our very best players. Worked his butt off all day. Kept running and racked up a fair few possessions in the last quarter.

Brad Scott (?)

Merrett 5
McGrath 4
Martin 3
Heppell 2
Duursma 1

Ross Lyon (?)

McGrath 5
Ross 4
Steele 3
Hill 2
Martin 1

How do other people reckon the coaches voted

It's effing obvious that the Kray brother only gave votes to his druggie players

[magnifisaint]

Apparently the Krays were incestuous!

[Scollop]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

You're funny

Hill had 25 touches and 7 of those were contested (that means if there's a loose ground ball and he was first to the footy he gets that counted as contested - it means you usually have heat and an opponent on your tail).

Hill's disposal effeciency for the day was 84%.
That's amongst the best for the team.

NWM had 80 %DE, Cal Wilkie also around 80% DE

Sinclair had 77% DE....let's not forget Bonner - 66%.

As for your comment on McGrath. Maybe watch the match a bit more closely than a cheer squad nuffie...and maybe check the stats before you post

[magnifisaint]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

You're funny

Hill had 25 touches and 7 of those were contested (that means if there's a loose ground ball and he was first to the footy he gets that counted as contested - it means you usually have heat and an opponent on your tail).

Hill's disposal effeciency for the day was 84%.
That's amongst the best for the team.

NWM had 80 %DE, Cal Wilkie also around 80% DE

Sinclair had 77% DE....let's not forget Bonner - 66%.

As for your comment on McGrath. Maybe watch the match a bit more closely than a cheer squad nuffie...and maybe check the stats before you post

I did but he doesn't impress me.

[Scollop]

Hmmmmmmmm...

Seems that maybe you got it wrong because he definitely impressed both coaches.

[takeaway]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

You're funny

Hill had 25 touches and 7 of those were contested (that means if there's a loose ground ball and he was first to the footy he gets that counted as contested - it means you usually have heat and an opponent on your tail).

Hill's disposal effeciency for the day was 84%.
That's amongst the best for the team.

NWM had 80 %DE, Cal Wilkie also around 80% DE

Sinclair had 77% DE....let's not forget Bonner - 66%.

As for your comment on McGrath. Maybe watch the match a bit more closely than a cheer squad nuffie...and maybe check the stats before you post

Why would you want to check the stats before posting? Stats are of very limited value, often misleading. For instance you quote %DE, but the best player, as voted by by the coaches, (or one of their assistants who actually submit the votes), was McGrath, whose %DE was 63%!

Most supporters would be able to assess best players, simply by watching the match, however if you are not confident and need to check the stats in detail, go for it I guess.

[Scollop]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

You're funny

Hill had 25 touches and 7 of those were contested (that means if there's a loose ground ball and he was first to the footy he gets that counted as contested - it means you usually have heat and an opponent on your tail).

Hill's disposal effeciency for the day was 84%.
That's amongst the best for the team.

NWM had 80 %DE, Cal Wilkie also around 80% DE

Sinclair had 77% DE....let's not forget Bonner - 66%.

As for your comment on McGrath. Maybe watch the match a bit more closely than a cheer squad nuffie...and maybe check the stats before you post

Why would you want to check the stats before posting? Stats are of very limited value, often misleading. For instance you quote %DE, but the best player, as voted by by the coaches, (or one of their assistants who actually submit the votes), was McGrath, whose %DE was 63%!

Most supporters would be able to assess best players, simply by watching the match, however if you are not confident and need to check the stats in detail, go for it I guess.

Read the post criticising Hill's passing

Context

[B.M]

I’m still trying to figure out how Bonner is 66%

He had 32
17 were Turnovers

My math suggests his DE should be under 50%

[Scollop]

An effective long kick is one that is 40 metres or longer and is to a 50/50 contest or to your team mate.

An effective short kick needs to be your team mates advantage I believe

Therefore you can have an effective disposal if it's over 40 metres to a contest and ...it can result in a turnover

[Sainter_Dad]

I’m still trying to figure out how Bonner is 66%

He had 32
17 were Turnovers

My math suggests his DE should be under 50%

Effective disposals are made up of effective long kicks, effective short kicks and effective handballs. An effective long kick is one that is 40 metres to a 50/50 or better for the team. An effective short kick is one that results in a teammate's possession who was the intended target of the kicker. A handball to a teammate that hits the intended target to the team's advantage is recorded as an effective handball.

So - 40+ metres to a spot where two people CAN contest - even if it goes to the opposition (turnover) is considered an effective long kick.

[takeaway]

Hill turned it over. His passing to teammates is not great. Very iffy.

I don't think McGrath is very good.

You're funny

Hill had 25 touches and 7 of those were contested (that means if there's a loose ground ball and he was first to the footy he gets that counted as contested - it means you usually have heat and an opponent on your tail).

Hill's disposal effeciency for the day was 84%.
That's amongst the best for the team.

NWM had 80 %DE, Cal Wilkie also around 80% DE

Sinclair had 77% DE....let's not forget Bonner - 66%.

As for your comment on McGrath. Maybe watch the match a bit more closely than a cheer squad nuffie...and maybe check the stats before you post

Why would you want to check the stats before posting? Stats are of very limited value, often misleading. For instance you quote %DE, but the best player, as voted by by the coaches, (or one of their assistants who actually submit the votes), was McGrath, whose %DE was 63%!

Most supporters would be able to assess best players, simply by watching the match, however if you are not confident and need to check the stats in detail, go for it I guess.

Read the post criticising Hill's passing

Context

What's NVM, Wilkie, Sinclair etc got to do with it then? Stats enough. Enough stats.

[Scollop]

What's NVM, Wilkie, Sinclair etc got to do with it then?

I didn't see your votes in the voting thread.

Why did you enter the convo? No really...why...are you interested in voting opinions?

Did you want to discuss your opinions on who played well, who deserves votes and whose disposal efficiency needs work?....Or....

Are you just trying to get a bite?

And...btw..I don't need to look at stats to give my best on ground votes. I like to add some stats sometimes in the voting thread... what's wrong with that? Have you ever heard any coaches saying they don't look at stats?

[takeaway]

What's NVM, Wilkie, Sinclair etc got to do with it then?

I didn't see your votes in the voting thread.

Why did you enter the convo? No really...why...are you interested in voting opinions?

Did you want to discuss your opinions on who played well, who deserves votes and whose disposal efficiency needs work?....Or....

Are you just trying to get a bite?

And...btw..I don't need to look at stats to give my best on ground votes. I like to add some stats sometimes in the voting thread... what's wrong with that? Have you ever heard any coaches saying they don't look at stats?

That's good news - you think you don't need to look at and quote innumerable "stats" when considering best players. Give it a go. Just watch the game.
Coaches and stats? Can you imagine RTB poring through masses of stats each week? Coaches have interest in team stats, and are advised accordingly by coaching staff, but in regard to player stats, not so much interest, more so trends, ie if Bonner has a dozen or so of those so called "turnovers" in the next match or 2, that would be looked at. Although I think the main concern re Bonner is his defensive skills.

The only stats that give a totally definitive result is the scoreboard.

[Scollop]

I didn't see your votes in the voting thread.

Why did you enter the convo? No really...why...are you interested in voting opinions?

Did you want to discuss your opinions on who played well, who deserves votes and whose disposal efficiency needs work?....Or....

Are you just trying to get a bite?

...
you think you don't need to look at and quote innumerable "stats" when considering best players. Give it a go. Just watch the game.

Thanks for the advice ...but...I have some for you too

Stick your advice up a part of your anatomy where the sun don't ...i.e. worry about yourself instead of giving 2 fks about what I do

If you want to join a convo next time you might need to provide an opinion on who you think deserved votes...or who you think didn't deserve votes

[takeaway]

I didn't see your votes in the voting thread.

Why did you enter the convo? No really...why...are you interested in voting opinions?

Did you want to discuss your opinions on who played well, who deserves votes and whose disposal efficiency needs work?....Or....

Are you just trying to get a bite?

...
you think you don't need to look at and quote innumerable "stats" when considering best players. Give it a go. Just watch the game.

Thanks for the advice ...but...I have some for you too

Stick your advice up a part of your anatomy where the sun don't ...i.e. worry about yourself instead of giving 2 fks about what I do

If you want to join a convo next time you might need to provide an opinion on who you think deserved votes...or who you think didn't deserve votes

Public forum isn't it? Posters can "join a convo" anytime and for any reason they want, no? Thought my comments were quite relevant. Tell you what, in the future, if I agree with all you have posted, I won't join your "convo", but give you a nice thank you.

[Scollop]

[Yorkeys]

I'd like to see coaches votes for the three players that absolutely stunk it up. Euphemistically the ones that needed a hug and assurance they were not the reason for the loss.