Brilliant! Got the details on the games in 2003 and 2004? Who did we play and did we win or lose?Originally posted by ScottH
Goodes has had 20 possies 3 times this year, for 1 win (Carl) and 2 losses (Mel, StK) and very rarely takes 10+ marks, 3 times in the past 3 seasons. 1 (2003) 2 (2004) 0 (2005).
03 Coll - Won (10 marks/16 Pos)Originally posted by TheHood
Brilliant! Got the details on the games in 2003 and 2004? Who did we play and did we win or lose?
04 Bri - Lost by 2 (12/24)
04 Kan - Won (10/19)
Attention all STATSoids!
What inference can you draw from these numbers about Goodes' importance to the team?
Funny you should ask as I was just going to comment that Goodes is one of those players where stats are not overly meaningful. Of course, if he gets some extreme number its significant, but anything inbetween doesn't mean a lot. He's one of those players who can produce a matchwinning performance with 15 disposals or do nothing with 20. It all depends on what he's doing on the day (or often quarter by quarter).
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
The other thing with Goodes is that he might have a game where he has taken say 4 or 5 marks, but 2 or 3 of those have been running back into space in our defensive 50 and stopping the forward movement.
It really is a case not just of how many, but where and when as well.
I'm on the Chandwagon!!!
If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.
I could be wrong but I wouldnt think too many ruckmen take 10+ marks these days? And that's essentially the role he's still playing. The days of kicking long to the ruckmen have probably passed.
That was the point of the initial stats, to prove that goodes doesn't have a high pos/marks game. I showed that he only has had the amount of pos/marks mentioned by Hood, a few times but still won a Brownlow for his trouble.
You may be right, and I don't care how clever the rules committee think themselves to be, but I do not regard the reduction in the number or the type of marks as an improvement in the game.Originally posted by giant
I could be wrong but I wouldnt think too many ruckmen take 10+ marks these days? And that's essentially the role he's still playing. The days of kicking long to the ruckmen have probably passed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks