Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Was Buckley really a good kick?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AN_Inkling 



Joined: 06 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

masoncox wrote:
AN_Inkling wrote:

Your goal stats are incomplete as they don't separate set shots. He wasn't a great shot on goal, but far from bad. A bit like Pendles. His field kicking was excellent. Efficiency stats, even if they were available, would mean nothing just as they don't mean much for Langdon or Frost.

Not quite right.
Disposal efficiency overall includes handballs and kicks that travel a small distance. So if you handball 5 m and kick 20m then your stats are going to be high. It is why Frost and Langdon have good stats. Buckley kicked long and hard which was a rare feat. But did he hit the target on a regular basis. This is the unanswered question. Proper stats if recorded right would answer this question.

Not quite right that overall efficiency stats, like we have for Langdon and you used in your OP, would mean nothing? No, they definitely would mean nothing. They are far too broad and do nothing to take context into account. The eye test is far stronger than any general efficiency stat.

As an example, Dustin Martin's efficiency was at 64.9% this year, though most regard him as a very good kick, one of the best, and certainly better than Frost who's efficiency was often in the high 80s. It's one of the most useless stats in the game without context.

Even more specific efficiency stats (separated for kick and handball, under pressure, not under pressure, rated for difficulty, long or short, rushed or studied, wet or dry conditions) etc. wouldn't have overriding value, as they then go from objective to subjective and move into the realm of opinion rather than statistical fact. The eye test would still rule, though some of these stats could provide supporting evidence.

_________________
Well done boys!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Piesnchess 



Joined: 09 Jun 2008


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:51 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

WE all have our opinions of Bucks the COACH, but its pretty hard to try and sully his playing record, and how he played the game, by amateurs who have never played at the top level, is a bit rough, to say the very least.!
_________________
Chess is the touchstone of the intellect-Goethe.

Some people see things and say why, I see things, and say, why not. ! - Robert Kennedy
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Piesnchess wrote:
WE all have our opinions of Bucks the COACH, but its pretty hard to try and sully his playing record, and how he played the game, by amateurs who have never played at the top level, is a bit rough, to say the very least.!


What has playing a game at the highest level got to do with analysing the game?

AFL has always been a slow to change, inbred, backwards environment, but that is slowly staring to change. We are still light years away from the big sports though, for reasons including the traditional thought process behind your comment.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
droversdog65 



Joined: 27 Nov 2014


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:13 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Those that bought the FIGJAM candy are addicted to it and won't miss any opportunity to belittle him - regardless of facts.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mortimore 39ers 



Joined: 15 Oct 2017


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:24 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm 48. My old man took me to my first game when I was about 10. I was hooked. Since that day I've either attended, listened to or watched (tv live or replay) just about every Collingwood game played. I've followed my heroes; Kink (The Incredible Hulk!), Picken, Moore, Barham, Shaw, BT, Daics, McGuane, Rocca, Davis, Dids, Swanny over the years but one stands out above all others. Pies or opposition I have never seen a player live that played like Bucks. I passionately believe, even with all the kudos and accolades, he is still the most underrated player of the modern era. And as far as kicking? The guy was a surgeon.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Piesnchess 



Joined: 09 Jun 2008


PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:19 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
Piesnchess wrote:
WE all have our opinions of Bucks the COACH, but its pretty hard to try and sully his playing record, and how he played the game, by amateurs who have never played at the top level, is a bit rough, to say the very least.!


What has playing a game at the highest level got to do with analysing the game?

AFL has always been a slow to change, inbred, backwards environment, but that is slowly staring to change. We are still light years away from the big sports though, for reasons including the traditional thought process behind your comment.


ONLY that IF one has played, say, 200 games of AFL, at the peak level, then one might be qualified to pass judgements on Bucks playing abilities, one way, or the other. Surprised

_________________
Chess is the touchstone of the intellect-Goethe.

Some people see things and say why, I see things, and say, why not. ! - Robert Kennedy
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the Pope a Catholic? Rolling Eyes
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Luigitheunbelievable 



Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Location: Ringwood. Victoria. Australia

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Folks.
And he was regularly booed by the opposition fans.
(Not the Pope), Bucks.
Regards.

_________________
Side by side we stick together.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

AN_Inkling wrote:
masoncox wrote:

Not quite right.
Disposal efficiency overall includes handballs and kicks that travel a small distance. So if you handball 5 m and kick 20m then your stats are going to be high. It is why Frost and Langdon have good stats. <snip>. Proper stats if recorded right would answer this question.

Not quite right that overall efficiency stats, like we have for Langdon and you used in your OP, would mean nothing? No, they definitely would mean nothing. They are far too broad and do nothing to take context into account. The eye test is far stronger than any general efficiency stat.

As an example, Dustin Martin's efficiency was at 64.9% this year, though most regard him as a very good kick, one of the best
, and certainly better than Frost who's efficiency was often in the high 80s. It's one of the most useless stats in the game without context.

Even more specific efficiency stats (separated for kick and handball, under pressure, not under pressure, rated for difficulty, long or short, rushed or studied, wet or dry conditions) etc. wouldn't have overriding value, as they then go from objective to subjective and move into the realm of opinion rather than statistical fact. The eye test would still rule, though some of these stats could provide supporting evidence.


I'm really surprised by this claim about Martin. I myself think he's a very mediocre kick, and I haven't come across anything to suggest (m)any observers think he's very good. Given the endless comparisons of him and Dangerfield this year, I'd think this would have been mentioned if it were believed to be a major difference. (Dangerfield's disposal efficiency is known to be poor.)

My impression of Dusty's kicking is based on seeing things like the following:
https://twitter.com/AFL/status/906125261019553793/video/1 .
I think people watching are perhaps so distracted by the classic dont-argue, the run, and the resulting end-to-end goal that they don't dwell much on the horrible kick (landing between two Geelong players, not spinning properly, although executed under no physical pressure).

I actually think this is an example of "the eye test" and stats being in agreement. e.g. Dusty led the AFL in turnovers (>120, I think) and turnovers per disposal, and his kick rating was average.

Even something like disposal efficiency, which we agree is very crude, can tell something. One wouldn't want to compare his numbers to a backman, but if you compared them to those of similar types, e.g. Dangerfield and Cotchin, it might be revealing.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
droversdog65 



Joined: 27 Nov 2014


PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:20 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
AN_Inkling wrote:
masoncox wrote:

Not quite right.
Disposal efficiency overall includes handballs and kicks that travel a small distance. So if you handball 5 m and kick 20m then your stats are going to be high. It is why Frost and Langdon have good stats. <snip>. Proper stats if recorded right would answer this question.

Not quite right that overall efficiency stats, like we have for Langdon and you used in your OP, would mean nothing? No, they definitely would mean nothing. They are far too broad and do nothing to take context into account. The eye test is far stronger than any general efficiency stat.

As an example, Dustin Martin's efficiency was at 64.9% this year, though most regard him as a very good kick, one of the best
, and certainly better than Frost who's efficiency was often in the high 80s. It's one of the most useless stats in the game without context.

Even more specific efficiency stats (separated for kick and handball, under pressure, not under pressure, rated for difficulty, long or short, rushed or studied, wet or dry conditions) etc. wouldn't have overriding value, as they then go from objective to subjective and move into the realm of opinion rather than statistical fact. The eye test would still rule, though some of these stats could provide supporting evidence.


I'm really surprised by this claim about Martin. I myself think he's a very mediocre kick, and I haven't come across anything to suggest (m)any observers think he's very good. Given the endless comparisons of him and Dangerfield this year, I'd think this would have been mentioned if it were believed to be a major difference. (Dangerfield's disposal efficiency is known to be poor.)

My impression of Dusty's kicking is based on seeing things like the following:
https://twitter.com/AFL/status/906125261019553793/video/1 .
I think people watching are perhaps so distracted by the classic dont-argue, the run, and the resulting end-to-end goal that they don't dwell much on the horrible kick (landing between two Geelong players, not spinning properly, although executed under no physical pressure).

I actually think this is an example of "the eye test" and stats being in agreement. e.g. Dusty led the AFL in turnovers (>120, I think) and turnovers per disposal, and his kick rating was average.

Even something like disposal efficiency, which we agree is very crude, can tell something. One wouldn't want to compare his numbers to a backman, but if you compared them to those of similar types, e.g. Dangerfield and Cotchin, it might be revealing.

Don't know about the kicking but I'd cop that for the physical and emotional intimidation Martin forces oppositions to deal with.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:20 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

droversdog65 wrote:
K wrote:
AN_Inkling wrote:
masoncox wrote:

... Proper stats if recorded right would answer this question.

... Even more specific efficiency stats (separated for kick and handball, under pressure, not under pressure, rated for difficulty, long or short, rushed or studied, wet or dry conditions) etc. wouldn't have overriding value, as they then go from objective to subjective and move into the realm of opinion rather than statistical fact. The eye test would still rule, though some of these stats could provide supporting evidence.


I'm really surprised by this claim about Martin. I myself think he's a very mediocre kick, and I haven't come across anything to suggest (m)any observers think he's very good. ...

Even something like disposal efficiency, which we agree is very crude, can tell something. One wouldn't want to compare his numbers to a backman, but if you compared them to those of similar types, e.g. Dangerfield and Cotchin, it might be revealing.

Don't know about the kicking but I'd cop that for the physical and emotional intimidation Martin forces oppositions to deal with.


Yes, a great player, as is Dangerfield, which goes to show that there are many ways one can be a dominant footballer.

The stats compiled nowadays do reveal a lot, I think. This year, Dusty was average and Paddy was worse than average in kicking. The interesting thing is that one can see patterns in the kicking of different types of players. This year, Michael Johnson, Adam Tomlinson, Heater, Christian Salem, Howie, and Crisp typically had what I'll call "easy" kicks, i.e. expected success around 60%. (Crisp did worse than the expected rate Rolling Eyes , and the others better.) This suggests to me that the playmaker defenders tend to have easy kicks.
Pendlebury, Ablett, and Josh Kelly seem to have had medium-difficulty kicks, i.e. with expected hit rate a little under 50%. (The first two did better than the expected rate.)
Dangerfield and Josh Kennedy had hard kicks --- the expected success rate for Paddy's kicks was under 40% (and he did even worse than this). This matches what we know about Paddy's style of play.

The stats guys didn't produce this sort of data in the 90s and 00s, but we can estimate what sort of kicking efficiency should be regarded as good based on the modern data for similar types of players. And I'm sure they had kicking efficiency data then, although we don't seem to have free access to it.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
i hate carlton 



Joined: 05 May 2014


PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:38 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Buckley was an excellent kick, and stats cannot capture his pivotal influence on so many games. Scooping a ball and kicking it to the forward 50, bursting through a crowded paddock, kicking on the run. Match winning goals. Influence on a game.

My favourite player since Daicos.

_________________
___________________

He's kicking pineapples!

My favourite nicks thread (Laugh at Carlscum): http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=66021&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
E 



Joined: 05 May 2010


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:36 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course he was a brilliant kick. one of the best ever kicks the game has ever seen. He is by any measure one of the best 10 players to have played in his generation (many argue that he was one of 4 greats in his generation - Carey, Bucks, Voss and Hird). And if you asked what was the best thing about his game, the bulk of people would put right up there as his best quality - his kicking! so if one of the best was one of the best due mainly to his kicking, i think you get the point.

back in thew dark days, the collingwood kick in game plan was as follows -

1. Bucks would take the kick in and kick a perfect 60 meter pass onto the chest of a player.

2. that player then held the ball for long enough so Bucks vcould get in position to get it back and then deliver the ball to the forwards.

It really was our only avenue to goals given how ABSOLUTELY SHITHOUSE we were back then.

******************

Finally, an observation about those who are crapping on about Dustin Martin's efficiency stats. i dont have a view on Martin's kicking, since i dont pay much attention to the opposition. However, even blind freddy knows that due to his ball winning ability, he is likely to get the ball in situations where disposal is not the point. Situations where lesser players wouldn't even get the ball. I suspect kid danger is exactly the same. You know, those plays where he busts a pack, gets the ball and moves it forward by any means.

To then criticize the accuracy of that type of possession is nonsense and the reason why stats are a largely useless exercise.

An efficiency stat is only of any value if you find a way to compare how many of those kicks are contested possessions vs uncontested possessions. So many variables. This is the reason why stats in the hands of the wrong person, are largely useless. The idea that you would compare the efficiency stats of the best hard ball and high traffic footballer in the league to a deep in defense back-man is too preposterous even for words.

_________________
The above reflects the opinions of the author and should not be considered a direct attack against you. It just means that in my opinion, you are wrong!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:56 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

RudeBoy wrote:
Is the Pope a Catholic? Rolling Eyes


No idea but damn sure Bucks was a brilliant kick! As someone else said, a surgeon.

_________________
You never look good trying to make someone else look bad. Disrespecting & insulting other to prove your point just shows how shaky your own position is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies2016 



Joined: 12 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:46 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I would take a RELEVANT statistic derived from a large sample base over an ill informed agenda driven opinion any day.
...... but that's just my opinion.

Power based explosive mid fielders are becoming the new flavour in the AFL.
Their focus is on winning the ball against the odds and just banging the ball forward without the necessarily the need for pin point precision.
If you are a club that has created a modified forward line that revolves it's whole ethic around ball retention, then it doesn't matter how the ball gets there. It just has to get down there somehow.
And if you think that's opinion, then look at the RELEVANT stats of the last two premiers relating to the time the ball was spent in their forward line compared to the opposition. Both teams rewrote the record books.
It's also why we invested in Mayne but it just didn't work out for us.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group