Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Pies4shaw wrote:The question of when a player started a decline is an entirely subjective one. The question whether he had a "poor" 2.5 years is capable of direct rejection based on the available statistics. As jackcass says, the start of 2015 saw Cloke in hot goal-kicking form. Neither of us has a "kick the Club" or "blame the coach" agenda. For my part, I'd just prefer that history not be rewritten.

I don't have that agenda either. I cannot dispute your point about subjectivity either, as my opinion is based upon what I have seen. I tend not to blindly follow what is presented by others as fact, or indeed, as history.

I have seen you engage in this argument, and rely on statistics, for the last few months. I cannot argue with the statistics that you refer to. But, football cannot be judged on such a simplistic basis. On such an analysis Bachar Houli would be a very good player, when in reality he is far from it. If we just relied on statistics Brad Hodge would have played test cricket for a lot longer than he did, when there was a good reason why he was dropped.

Can you provide me with Clokes' statistics for the last 5 years in terms of running as a percentage of VO2 max, both defensively and offensively? Can you provide those statistics for his first and second efforts as well? If you can do that and it supports your argument then I will concede the point. If not, I will continue to challenge opinions dressed up as fact.

jackcass wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:Are you sure about that? What are you basing that opinion on? The ball moves two ways, both into, and out of, the forward line. You are probably only considering what happens when the ball comes in and not his non existent defensive assistance.

I assume your talking about my best performed KPF comment. Yep, I'm comfortable on my opinion. Did a lot of comparisons around that time due to the Cloke frenzy on Nicks and BF and Cloke easily ahead of Moore, White, Gault and Cox who were the alternatives. Happy for you to make the case that we had another performing better.

I'm certainly not discounting the issues he had during that time or that he was coming off a really poor preseason, but even they don't diminish his performances relative to the other candidates.

EDIT: For the record, rounds 1-4:

Cloke: 38K, 9HB, 19M, 5T, 5 goals 4
White: 6K, 6HB, 3M, 2T, - goals - (only played round 4)
Moore: 19K, 14HB, 14M, 12T, 3 goals 2
Cox: didn't play till round 5
Gault: 6K, 4HB, 2M, 6T, - goals - (only played rounds 1 & 2)

The modern game is all about the team structure. Rather than relying on individual performances, players have to play their role, so that the team functions the best. That's partly why the Roos sacked Boomer - despite his terrific 2016 stats - because his lack of defensive forward pressure, was seen as damaging to the team's overall performance. The year after Buddy Franklin left the Hawks, they won the flag. Arguably the Hawks forward set up was better without Buddy - despite Buddy being a freak of a footballer. So all I'm saying is that a player's individual stats don't always reveal their impact on the team's overall performances. FWIW, I thought we looked our best this year when we had Moore and White (and a couple of times with Cox as well) as our tall forwards.

RudeBoy wrote:

jackcass wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:Are you sure about that? What are you basing that opinion on? The ball moves two ways, both into, and out of, the forward line. You are probably only considering what happens when the ball comes in and not his non existent defensive assistance.

I assume your talking about my best performed KPF comment. Yep, I'm comfortable on my opinion. Did a lot of comparisons around that time due to the Cloke frenzy on Nicks and BF and Cloke easily ahead of Moore, White, Gault and Cox who were the alternatives. Happy for you to make the case that we had another performing better.

I'm certainly not discounting the issues he had during that time or that he was coming off a really poor preseason, but even they don't diminish his performances relative to the other candidates.

EDIT: For the record, rounds 1-4:

Cloke: 38K, 9HB, 19M, 5T, 5 goals 4
White: 6K, 6HB, 3M, 2T, - goals - (only played round 4)
Moore: 19K, 14HB, 14M, 12T, 3 goals 2
Cox: didn't play till round 5
Gault: 6K, 4HB, 2M, 6T, - goals - (only played rounds 1 & 2)

The modern game is all about the team structure. Rather than relying on individual performances, players have to play their role, so that the team functions the best. That's partly why the Roos sacked Boomer - despite his terrific 2016 stats - because his lack of defensive forward pressure, was seen as damaging to the team's overall performance. The year after Buddy Franklin left the Hawks, they won the flag. Arguably the Hawks forward set up was better without Buddy - despite Buddy being a freak of a footballer. So all I'm saying is that a player's individual stats don't always reveal their impact on the team's overall performances. FWIW, I thought we looked our best this year when we had Moore and White (and a couple of times with Cox as well) as our tall forwards.

A statistic that is used in basketball is the +/- score whilst each player is on the court. Whilst that figure for each player is obviously influenced by what the other 4 are doing, over a period of time it can show that a team is better off without a certain player on the court even though that player may be a high scorer. I have never seen that sort of analysis done for an AFL team (l may be ignorant of its existence) but it would be interesting.

When the swannies tear the dogs a new one this Sat, the dishlickers will be begging for Cloike, then we can bleed the pricks for Jong and a pick.

RudeBoy wrote:

jackcass wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:Are you sure about that? What are you basing that opinion on? The ball moves two ways, both into, and out of, the forward line. You are probably only considering what happens when the ball comes in and not his non existent defensive assistance.

I assume your talking about my best performed KPF comment. Yep, I'm comfortable on my opinion. Did a lot of comparisons around that time due to the Cloke frenzy on Nicks and BF and Cloke easily ahead of Moore, White, Gault and Cox who were the alternatives. Happy for you to make the case that we had another performing better.

I'm certainly not discounting the issues he had during that time or that he was coming off a really poor preseason, but even they don't diminish his performances relative to the other candidates.

EDIT: For the record, rounds 1-4:

Cloke: 38K, 9HB, 19M, 5T, 5 goals 4
White: 6K, 6HB, 3M, 2T, - goals - (only played round 4)
Moore: 19K, 14HB, 14M, 12T, 3 goals 2
Cox: didn't play till round 5
Gault: 6K, 4HB, 2M, 6T, - goals - (only played rounds 1 & 2)

The modern game is all about the team structure. Rather than relying on individual performances, players have to play their role, so that the team functions the best. That's partly why the Roos sacked Boomer - despite his terrific 2016 stats - because his lack of defensive forward pressure, was seen as damaging to the team's overall performance. The year after Buddy Franklin left the Hawks, they won the flag. Arguably the Hawks forward set up was better without Buddy - despite Buddy being a freak of a footballer. So all I'm saying is that a player's individual stats don't always reveal their impact on the team's overall performances. FWIW, I thought we looked our best this year when we had Moore and White (and a couple of times with Cox as well) as our tall forwards.

I appreciate all that Rudey, just responding to the suggestion that Cloke Has been in decline since 2014. 2014 was incidentally the year there were rumors of Cloke struggling with knee tendinitis.

I think there was enormous variation in how our F50 performed irrespective of who played. Our best forward this year was Fasolo.

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:The question of when a player started a decline is an entirely subjective one. The question whether he had a "poor" 2.5 years is capable of direct rejection based on the available statistics. As jackcass says, the start of 2015 saw Cloke in hot goal-kicking form. Neither of us has a "kick the Club" or "blame the coach" agenda. For my part, I'd just prefer that history not be rewritten.

I don't have that agenda either. I cannot dispute your point about subjectivity either, as my opinion is based upon what I have seen. I tend not to blindly follow what is presented by others as fact, or indeed, as history.

I have seen you engage in this argument, and rely on statistics, for the last few months. I cannot argue with the statistics that you refer to. But, football cannot be judged on such a simplistic basis. On such an analysis Bachar Houli would be a very good player, when in reality he is far from it. If we just relied on statistics Brad Hodge would have played test cricket for a lot longer than he did, when there was a good reason why he was dropped.

Can you provide me with Clokes' statistics for the last 5 years in terms of running as a percentage of VO2 max, both defensively and offensively? Can you provide those statistics for his first and second efforts as well? If you can do that and it supports your argument then I will concede the point. If not, I will continue to challenge opinions dressed up as fact.

I'm not "relying on statistics" - I'm merely making the perfectly obvious point that a key forward kicking 3 goals per game for the first half of a season (when his career average is about half that) wasn't having a "poor" period. The "2.5 poor years" claim is just a slightly less over-reaching version of the "no good since 2010" and "no good for 5 years" claims that first drew me on the subject.

I think we both know that Cloke would never have been in his present position if he was still performing in 2016 the way he performed in the first half of 2015 (or, for that matter, if he could have produced the form he displayed in the most recent game against GWS on a more consistent basis). Based on what's been said in the media, Cloke's decline this year seems to have come to the surprise of the Club, the coach and the football department. In those circumstances, I'm inclined to doubt the authenticity of the opinions expressed by people who want to assert that this is the eventual outcome of some long downward spiral that they (in fact, only they) were able to discern.

Pies4shaw wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:The question of when a player started a decline is an entirely subjective one. The question whether he had a "poor" 2.5 years is capable of direct rejection based on the available statistics. As jackcass says, the start of 2015 saw Cloke in hot goal-kicking form. Neither of us has a "kick the Club" or "blame the coach" agenda. For my part, I'd just prefer that history not be rewritten.

I don't have that agenda either. I cannot dispute your point about subjectivity either, as my opinion is based upon what I have seen. I tend not to blindly follow what is presented by others as fact, or indeed, as history.

I have seen you engage in this argument, and rely on statistics, for the last few months. I cannot argue with the statistics that you refer to. But, football cannot be judged on such a simplistic basis. On such an analysis Bachar Houli would be a very good player, when in reality he is far from it. If we just relied on statistics Brad Hodge would have played test cricket for a lot longer than he did, when there was a good reason why he was dropped.

Can you provide me with Clokes' statistics for the last 5 years in terms of running as a percentage of VO2 max, both defensively and offensively? Can you provide those statistics for his first and second efforts as well? If you can do that and it supports your argument then I will concede the point. If not, I will continue to challenge opinions dressed up as fact.

I'm not "relying on statistics" - I'm merely making the perfectly obvious point that a key forward kicking 3 goals per game for the first half of a season (when his career average is about half that) wasn't having a "poor" period. The "2.5 poor years" claim is just a slightly less over-reaching version of the "no good since 2010" and "no good for 5 years" claims that first drew me on the subject.

I think we both know that Cloke would never have been in his present position if he was still performing in 2016 the way he performed in the first half of 2015 (or, for that matter, if he could have produced the form he displayed in the most recent game against GWS on a more consistent basis). Based on what's been said in the media, Cloke's decline this year seems to have come to the surprise of the Club, the coach and the football department. In those circumstances, I'm inclined to doubt the authenticity of the opinions expressed by people who want to assert that this is the eventual outcome of some long downward spiral that they (in fact, only they) were able to discern.

This is not correct Pies4Shaw. Buckley said multiple times on 360 in early 2016 that his form slump is not a new thing and that he had been struggling for at least 18 months.

I was talking about Cloke's form slump. I agree Buckley's has been longer.

Pies4shaw wrote:I was talking about Cloke's form slump. I agree Buckley's has been longer.

Lets face it Buckley has been giving Collingwood declining value since 2003.

CarringbushCigar wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:I was talking about Cloke's form slump. I agree Buckley's has been longer.

Lets face it Buckley has been giving Collingwood declining value since 2003.

Comedians. I was indicating that Buckley on 360 stated that Cloke's form slump had been evident for the previous 18 months. Just quietly he is spot on.

jackcass wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:

jackcass wrote: I assume your talking about my best performed KPF comment. Yep, I'm comfortable on my opinion. Did a lot of comparisons around that time due to the Cloke frenzy on Nicks and BF and Cloke easily ahead of Moore, White, Gault and Cox who were the alternatives. Happy for you to make the case that we had another performing better.

I'm certainly not discounting the issues he had during that time or that he was coming off a really poor preseason, but even they don't diminish his performances relative to the other candidates.

EDIT: For the record, rounds 1-4:

Cloke: 38K, 9HB, 19M, 5T, 5 goals 4
White: 6K, 6HB, 3M, 2T, - goals - (only played round 4)
Moore: 19K, 14HB, 14M, 12T, 3 goals 2
Cox: didn't play till round 5
Gault: 6K, 4HB, 2M, 6T, - goals - (only played rounds 1 & 2)

The modern game is all about the team structure. Rather than relying on individual performances, players have to play their role, so that the team functions the best. That's partly why the Roos sacked Boomer - despite his terrific 2016 stats - because his lack of defensive forward pressure, was seen as damaging to the team's overall performance. The year after Buddy Franklin left the Hawks, they won the flag. Arguably the Hawks forward set up was better without Buddy - despite Buddy being a freak of a footballer. So all I'm saying is that a player's individual stats don't always reveal their impact on the team's overall performances. FWIW, I thought we looked our best this year when we had Moore and White (and a couple of times with Cox as well) as our tall forwards.

I appreciate all that Rudey, just responding to the suggestion that Cloke Has been in decline since 2014. 2014 was incidentally the year there were rumors of Cloke struggling with knee tendinitis.

I think there was enormous variation in how our F50 performed irrespective of who played. Our best forward this year was Fasolo.

Fair enough JC. Actually I reckon he had injury problems in both 2014 and 2015. This year he seemed to be injury free, but had lost the level of intensity required of his role.

Pies4shaw wrote:

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:The question of when a player started a decline is an entirely subjective one. The question whether he had a "poor" 2.5 years is capable of direct rejection based on the available statistics. As jackcass says, the start of 2015 saw Cloke in hot goal-kicking form. Neither of us has a "kick the Club" or "blame the coach" agenda. For my part, I'd just prefer that history not be rewritten.

I don't have that agenda either. I cannot dispute your point about subjectivity either, as my opinion is based upon what I have seen. I tend not to blindly follow what is presented by others as fact, or indeed, as history.

I have seen you engage in this argument, and rely on statistics, for the last few months. I cannot argue with the statistics that you refer to. But, football cannot be judged on such a simplistic basis. On such an analysis Bachar Houli would be a very good player, when in reality he is far from it. If we just relied on statistics Brad Hodge would have played test cricket for a lot longer than he did, when there was a good reason why he was dropped.

Can you provide me with Clokes' statistics for the last 5 years in terms of running as a percentage of VO2 max, both defensively and offensively? Can you provide those statistics for his first and second efforts as well? If you can do that and it supports your argument then I will concede the point. If not, I will continue to challenge opinions dressed up as fact.

I'm not "relying on statistics" - I'm merely making the perfectly obvious point that a key forward kicking 3 goals per game for the first half of a season (when his career average is about half that) wasn't having a "poor" period. The "2.5 poor years" claim is just a slightly less over-reaching version of the "no good since 2010" and "no good for 5 years" claims that first drew me on the subject.

I think we both know that Cloke would never have been in his present position if he was still performing in 2016 the way he performed in the first half of 2015 (or, for that matter, if he could have produced the form he displayed in the most recent game against GWS on a more consistent basis). Based on what's been said in the media, Cloke's decline this year seems to have come to the surprise of the Club, the coach and the football department. In those circumstances, I'm inclined to doubt the authenticity of the opinions expressed by people who want to assert that this is the eventual outcome of some long downward spiral that they (in fact, only they) were able to discern.

So your opinion is the only true opinion and anything contrary to that is not authentic? Who is writing your lines? George Orwell?

The fact that you were unable to see something is not evidence that it did not exist. It was drawn to my attention when my parents, both in their late 70's, discussed it. Perhaps I should have told them that in a couple of years time a poster on an internet board will doubt the authenticity of their opinions.

mooretreloar wrote:

CarringbushCigar wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:I was talking about Cloke's form slump. I agree Buckley's has been longer.

Lets face it Buckley has been giving Collingwood declining value since 2003.

Comedians.

Well I laughed!

think positive wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

CarringbushCigar wrote: Lets face it Buckley has been giving Collingwood declining value since 2003.

Comedians.

Well I laughed!

Not surprised thinkpositive.

mooretreloar wrote:

think positive wrote:

mooretreloar wrote: Comedians.

Well I laughed!

Not surprised thinkpositive.

You should try it sometime! No really! It sure helps when your watching other teams play finals!

Right now my prickle arsed footy hating bandwagon bulldog 'supporter' hubby is slowly decorating my black and white fortress with red white and bloody blue! If I don't laugh, I'll kill him