Tigers of Old said:
That's *smile*. Another list:
Hampson 3 marks
Griffiths 4 marks
Vickery 5 marks
We need our big guys taking strong contested grabs. These numbers are no where near good enough and letting the team down
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
shaun hampson threads [merged]
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
That's *smile*. Another list:
Hampson 3 marks
Griffiths 4 marks
Vickery 5 marks
We need our big guys taking strong contested grabs. These numbers are no where near good enough and letting the team down
BrisTiger24 said:
And I'd argue that in terms of who actually worked the hardest and did the most to actually help the team would be in reverse order.
So hitouts mean nothing to you guys? That's the main reason Hampson is in the team.
If so, should bring back Ivan, or play Soldo or McBean as first ruck. Enjoy the pushing 60-100 point losses against the top teams we have still to play.
Of course marks matter. Want them to take far more, but without scrolling through every game, would suggest often solid ruckman don't always take a lot of marks.
OK, just looked at last night's great game for an example. Campbell and Roughead credited 5 m. Jacobs 3.
By logical extension they are all crap too!!! So many DEEP analysts on PRE.
Crows and Dogs play a totally different game style to us. Big men with big marks are much less important. We move the ball slower and often we need our big guys to take a grab as a pressure release valve. But never happens.
BrisTiger24 said:
You've been exposed and now you're rationalising. What's that different game called they play? Who recruited Boyd? At least Hampson is getting a game. You don't think the Dogs are dying to find 'a big man who can take big marks'? Fact is they are desperate for this type of player, and Boyd will probably be that before much longer IMHO (within next 12m). So they're 'much less important' are they?
Who recruited Jacobs? That's the guy rated a top 4 ruckman that Hampson well and truly beat the other week.
So "Big men with big marks are much less important." Really, was there a guy named Jenkins playing? Think he's big. Think he kicked about 8 or so.
REBOOT.
lamb22 said:
So the ruckman is the whole team? Because they won the clearances Jacobs must have beaten Hampson? I'm really over trying to get the clearance issue through to you. By which obtuse thinking, today whoever rucked for PA must have beaten SMartin because they won the clearances, even though said Martin won 51 HOs. I really have better things to do than waste time with someone who simply cannot admit when they're wrong, but wants to hide behind semantics.
Hampson 34 HOs; Jacobs 28. That's man-on-man ruck-work - nobody else included. Then to save any more futility, let's just go with AFL Fantasy points as a generally accepted summative assessment - Hampson 95; Jacobs 78.
And you are so fixated on having to be right that you reply for BrisTiger who has quit apparently?!
Decisive victory to the Hammer. I win, you lose (again). Goodnight.
Leon the bit about Hinkley being a good coach was his new tactic of not actually playing a recognised ruck.
He did it last week and apparently took it a step further today. I din't see the game but it appears that Trengove and Westhoff rucked.
They effectively played a higher quality tall as a ruck and conceded the tap but had an extra quality player at stoppages and around the ground.
I'll be interested to see how Port set up at stoppages in the near future. If I was playing to a losing ruck I'd just man up each player goals side and try to push the ball our way. If that mean the contest ends up relying on the dinosaur ruck or the skilled ruck rover that's a win. Kenny might be doing something extra with his wingers and half forwards.
Must say that although Ken is good, he has trailled in my wake on that suggestion.
Anyway Trengove picked up 25 touches and Westhoff 19. Port smashed Brisbane in clearances and inside 50s.
And Martin had 51 hitouts!
He did it last week and apparently took it a step further today. I din't see the game but it appears that Trengove and Westhoff rucked.
They effectively played a higher quality tall as a ruck and conceded the tap but had an extra quality player at stoppages and around the ground.
I'll be interested to see how Port set up at stoppages in the near future. If I was playing to a losing ruck I'd just man up each player goals side and try to push the ball our way. If that mean the contest ends up relying on the dinosaur ruck or the skilled ruck rover that's a win. Kenny might be doing something extra with his wingers and half forwards.
Must say that although Ken is good, he has trailled in my wake on that suggestion.
Anyway Trengove picked up 25 touches and Westhoff 19. Port smashed Brisbane in clearances and inside 50s.
And Martin had 51 hitouts!
I agree, it is really interesting and the overall issue is, as we have both discussed, the link between HOs and clearances is a total variable. I absolutely agree that it's about how good your midfielders are that determines victory and success. That's why NM, PA and Hawks beat us and Geelong will probably do so by 10 goals or more.
Teams that have lost their No.1 ruck, as PA have lost Lobbe, have often compensated really well with much smaller, mobile, skilled talls. Many great examples over the years. Although Westhoff is actually bigger than Martin who is barely taller than Trengove. But Martin is a better athlete, good leap, very strong and aggressive so dominated the HOs.
It would be great to see how NM would deal with this if they were playing PA soon, but not until July 16. Will their mids be able to counteract PA's and utilise the ruck advantage Goldstein should decisively give. Actually Port play Bloos next; that will be a similar match of interest. I think I would rate Blues midfield as better than Lions, but not up to PA at all, and Kruez is a similar, mobile but skilled ruck around the ground.
But I still believe that in a big game, a top ruckman can make all the difference by giving a strong midfield first use of the ball. But the best of them do far more around the ground and up forward. I've mainly argued that Hampson is our best option for a centre bounce ruckman and hoping he could find an upside in the ATG stuff through some continuity, injury-free football after surgeries etc. And I think there have been some signs as I have mentioned, but he is still a long way from being a complete player.
But, I'd be happy to try this approach with Griff and Vickery against teams without a quality ruck giant. Have grave doubts about TV at centre bounce but he can use his smarts at stoppages. Let's see, Swans next with Tippett and Sinclair. Yes, might be worth a try. I think these two could compete although Sinclair might jump over TV; Griff best on him. But predict their midfield will shred ours anyway, even with Cotchin back. Even if we matched them for HOs, they will win the clearances decisively because their mids are twice as good as ours.
And the longer the game goes, the more they will out-run us.
Teams that have lost their No.1 ruck, as PA have lost Lobbe, have often compensated really well with much smaller, mobile, skilled talls. Many great examples over the years. Although Westhoff is actually bigger than Martin who is barely taller than Trengove. But Martin is a better athlete, good leap, very strong and aggressive so dominated the HOs.
It would be great to see how NM would deal with this if they were playing PA soon, but not until July 16. Will their mids be able to counteract PA's and utilise the ruck advantage Goldstein should decisively give. Actually Port play Bloos next; that will be a similar match of interest. I think I would rate Blues midfield as better than Lions, but not up to PA at all, and Kruez is a similar, mobile but skilled ruck around the ground.
But I still believe that in a big game, a top ruckman can make all the difference by giving a strong midfield first use of the ball. But the best of them do far more around the ground and up forward. I've mainly argued that Hampson is our best option for a centre bounce ruckman and hoping he could find an upside in the ATG stuff through some continuity, injury-free football after surgeries etc. And I think there have been some signs as I have mentioned, but he is still a long way from being a complete player.
But, I'd be happy to try this approach with Griff and Vickery against teams without a quality ruck giant. Have grave doubts about TV at centre bounce but he can use his smarts at stoppages. Let's see, Swans next with Tippett and Sinclair. Yes, might be worth a try. I think these two could compete although Sinclair might jump over TV; Griff best on him. But predict their midfield will shred ours anyway, even with Cotchin back. Even if we matched them for HOs, they will win the clearances decisively because their mids are twice as good as ours.
And the longer the game goes, the more they will out-run us.
se7en said:
No disputing Dawks big men much better, but Gunston especially makes the difference because he had a much higher kick to Hb ratio - 11/4 - and he is such an effective kick with 86.7 DE%.
Ceglar probably best big man for overall effectiveness (ruckmen); has more kicks but only 60% DE.
McEvoy mostly HBs but gives them service.
However, Hampson had close to double the hit-outs of both these opposition rucks [please don't try to tell me he is responsible for all lost clearances!]. These are not classed as possessions, of course, but shows his game to be of some higher value. TV and Griff need to get far more of the ball.
But I know you are going to love this one: Hampo went at 100 DE% !
My two bobs worth.
I think hit out's is the most over rated stat, especially if they're not to advantage.
A ruckman who wins his fair share of clearances and contested possssions is invaluable, this is why Ivan has it all over Hampson.
This is why, when fit, I prefer Ivan as our ruckman even if he is now as slow as treacle.
I think hit out's is the most over rated stat, especially if they're not to advantage.
A ruckman who wins his fair share of clearances and contested possssions is invaluable, this is why Ivan has it all over Hampson.
This is why, when fit, I prefer Ivan as our ruckman even if he is now as slow as treacle.
tigerman said:
Wasn't Hampson directly responsible for our first four scoring shots? I drank myself to oblivion in the 4th quarter so it is a blur, but we were so click early on.
Hampson is either unfit or unable to concentrate for 4 quarters, which may explain the last 30 minutes of carnage.
Some basic stats for Ruckmen for rd 7:
T. Hickey: 14 disposals (6k & 8h) @ 79% DE, 178mtrs gained, 7 marks, 22 HO with ( HOTA 23%) in 91% GT.
T. Goldstein: 17 disposals (9 & 8) @ 59% DE, 320mtrs gained, 5 marks in 91% GT. 35 HO with (HOTA 28%) in 89% GT.
J. Trengove: 25 disposals (10k & 15h) @ 79% DE, 404 metres gained, 6 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 21%) in 89% GT.
S. Martin: 22 disposals (12k & 10h) @ 64% DE, 302 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 51 HO (23%) in 89% GT.
T. Campbell: 14 disposals (8k & 6h) @ 57% DE, 252 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 23 HO (HOTA 26%) in 88% GT.
S. Jacobs: 14 disposals (6k & 8h) @ 79% DE, 209 mtrs gained, 3 marks, 27 HO (HOTA 22%) in 89% GT.
J. Griffin: 17 disposals (9k & 8h) @ 71% DE, 276 mtr gained, 2 marks, 41 HO (HOTA 14%) IN 88% GT.
S.Mumford: 8 disposals (3k & 5h) @ 62% DE, 28mtrs gained, 1 mark, 41 HO (HOTA 41%) in 88% GT.
B. Grundy: 6 disposals (2k & 4h) @ 100% DE, 106mtrs gained, 1 mark, 24 HO (HOTA 33%) in 85% GT
M.Kruezer: 13 disposals (6k & 7h) @ 85% DE, 93mtrs gained, 1 mark, 20 HO (HOTA 30%) in 83% GT.
Z.Smith: 9 disposals (3k & 6h) @ 78% DE, 81mtrs gained, 0 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 35%) in 72% GT.
N.Natanui: 16 disposals: (7k & 9h) @ 56% DE, 235 mtrs gained, 2 marks, 23 HO (HOTA 35%) in 64% GT.
D.Currie: 14 disposals (7k & 7h) @ 64% GT, 169 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 32 HO (HOTA 25%) in 96% GT.
M.Gawn: 17 disposals (11k & 6h) @ 41% DE, 280 mtrs gained, 4 marks, 46 HO (HOTA 45%) in 86% GT.
K.Tippett: 14 disposals (9k & 5h) @ 64% DE, metres gained not recorded, 2 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 57%) in 92% GT.
M. Leunberger: 12 disposals (3k & 9h) @ 58% DE, metres gained not recorded, 1 mark, 21 HO (HOTA 28%) in 89% GT.
S. Hampson: 6 disposals (1k & 5h) @ 100% DE, 27 mtrs gained, 3 marks, 37HO (HOTA 32%) in 82% GT.
J.Ceglar: 15 disposals (9k & 6h) @ 60% DE, 318 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 20 HO (HOTA 25%) in 78% GT.
T. Hickey: 14 disposals (6k & 8h) @ 79% DE, 178mtrs gained, 7 marks, 22 HO with ( HOTA 23%) in 91% GT.
T. Goldstein: 17 disposals (9 & 8) @ 59% DE, 320mtrs gained, 5 marks in 91% GT. 35 HO with (HOTA 28%) in 89% GT.
J. Trengove: 25 disposals (10k & 15h) @ 79% DE, 404 metres gained, 6 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 21%) in 89% GT.
S. Martin: 22 disposals (12k & 10h) @ 64% DE, 302 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 51 HO (23%) in 89% GT.
T. Campbell: 14 disposals (8k & 6h) @ 57% DE, 252 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 23 HO (HOTA 26%) in 88% GT.
S. Jacobs: 14 disposals (6k & 8h) @ 79% DE, 209 mtrs gained, 3 marks, 27 HO (HOTA 22%) in 89% GT.
J. Griffin: 17 disposals (9k & 8h) @ 71% DE, 276 mtr gained, 2 marks, 41 HO (HOTA 14%) IN 88% GT.
S.Mumford: 8 disposals (3k & 5h) @ 62% DE, 28mtrs gained, 1 mark, 41 HO (HOTA 41%) in 88% GT.
B. Grundy: 6 disposals (2k & 4h) @ 100% DE, 106mtrs gained, 1 mark, 24 HO (HOTA 33%) in 85% GT
M.Kruezer: 13 disposals (6k & 7h) @ 85% DE, 93mtrs gained, 1 mark, 20 HO (HOTA 30%) in 83% GT.
Z.Smith: 9 disposals (3k & 6h) @ 78% DE, 81mtrs gained, 0 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 35%) in 72% GT.
N.Natanui: 16 disposals: (7k & 9h) @ 56% DE, 235 mtrs gained, 2 marks, 23 HO (HOTA 35%) in 64% GT.
D.Currie: 14 disposals (7k & 7h) @ 64% GT, 169 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 32 HO (HOTA 25%) in 96% GT.
M.Gawn: 17 disposals (11k & 6h) @ 41% DE, 280 mtrs gained, 4 marks, 46 HO (HOTA 45%) in 86% GT.
K.Tippett: 14 disposals (9k & 5h) @ 64% DE, metres gained not recorded, 2 marks, 14 HO (HOTA 57%) in 92% GT.
M. Leunberger: 12 disposals (3k & 9h) @ 58% DE, metres gained not recorded, 1 mark, 21 HO (HOTA 28%) in 89% GT.
S. Hampson: 6 disposals (1k & 5h) @ 100% DE, 27 mtrs gained, 3 marks, 37HO (HOTA 32%) in 82% GT.
J.Ceglar: 15 disposals (9k & 6h) @ 60% DE, 318 mtrs gained, 5 marks, 20 HO (HOTA 25%) in 78% GT.
Thanks, TT. Interesting stuff. Trengove, actually about the shortest of them and usually played at CHB, is close to the most effective player overall as I read it.
And Hampson is kind of comparable to Grundy and Mumford. So much for we should have grabbed one of these two instead.
Perhaps goals scored matters too (not meant as a criticism), Ceglar got two critically against us.
And Hampson is kind of comparable to Grundy and Mumford. So much for we should have grabbed one of these two instead.
Perhaps goals scored matters too (not meant as a criticism), Ceglar got two critically against us.
lukeanddad said:
His rucking in the first quarter was nothing short of astounding for him. Some of his deft touches to our players were too good to be flukes (I think in the past he has been fluky). The angle of his hand to get the ball where it went was stunning at times. But he went downhill through the game. I'm no fan, but his skills for a short while astonished me.
