-
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
Bullarto Tiger said:
Cutting it short, after a rather long and arduous session between the sheets, Thor stood up, Hammer putting to the sky and bellowed "I'm Thor !!!!".
Ita just looked at him and said "You're thor? How do you think I feel ?"
Did what I thought was an interesting analysis on where Hampson sits as a ruckman. I looked at the top 12 ruckmen defined by average hitouts in 2016 (those who played 10 games or more). The players were in order, Gawn, Goldtein, Mumford, Naitanui, Hampson, Jacobs, Hickey, Leunberger, Martin, Grundy, Tippett, Naismith.
I calculated averages for certain stats and compared to Hampson and results are as follows:
Stat,Average,Hampson Avg,Hampson Position in list
Hitout,30.8,32,5th - above avg
Disposal,13.1,7.9,Last - below
Marks 3,2.5,8th - below
Marks Inside 15,0.5,0.2,2nd Last - below
Contested Mark, 1.1,1.4,3rd - above
Contested Possession, 7.6, 5.0, Last - below
Tackles,3.1,1.8,Last - below
Clanger,2.8,2.7, 5th lowest - above
Clearance,2.9,1.4,Last - below
1%,2.9,2.8,6th - avg
Goals,0.4,0.2,7th -avg
Supercoach,85.6,72,2nd Last - below
To me these stats clearly show that he when it comes to playing his role as the extra midfielder he comes up as the worst ruckmen of these listed. Last (by a long way) for disposals, contested possessions, clearances. This is where we get killed. You can't afford in today's game to be one short in the midfield, particularly with your opposition ruckman doing damage in that area. I always like to look at Supercoach as I think over a season it gives a good indication of the hurt factor. And that is where Hampson lacks in the hurt factor.
I was surprised by his position for contested marks but I concede his marking was much improved at times this year over last year. I am really hoping Nankervis is our man to at least have the ruck duties as we can't continue with the lack of tall manpower around the packs once the ruck contest is finished.
I calculated averages for certain stats and compared to Hampson and results are as follows:
Stat,Average,Hampson Avg,Hampson Position in list
Hitout,30.8,32,5th - above avg
Disposal,13.1,7.9,Last - below
Marks 3,2.5,8th - below
Marks Inside 15,0.5,0.2,2nd Last - below
Contested Mark, 1.1,1.4,3rd - above
Contested Possession, 7.6, 5.0, Last - below
Tackles,3.1,1.8,Last - below
Clanger,2.8,2.7, 5th lowest - above
Clearance,2.9,1.4,Last - below
1%,2.9,2.8,6th - avg
Goals,0.4,0.2,7th -avg
Supercoach,85.6,72,2nd Last - below
To me these stats clearly show that he when it comes to playing his role as the extra midfielder he comes up as the worst ruckmen of these listed. Last (by a long way) for disposals, contested possessions, clearances. This is where we get killed. You can't afford in today's game to be one short in the midfield, particularly with your opposition ruckman doing damage in that area. I always like to look at Supercoach as I think over a season it gives a good indication of the hurt factor. And that is where Hampson lacks in the hurt factor.
I was surprised by his position for contested marks but I concede his marking was much improved at times this year over last year. I am really hoping Nankervis is our man to at least have the ruck duties as we can't continue with the lack of tall manpower around the packs once the ruck contest is finished.
Good analysis TL.
When you factor in team clearances where we lost 8 out of the last 10 clearance counts and we would have been one of the poorest teams in that category your points strike home.
The ruckman's primary job is to help his side win clearances. His total lack of ability in the areas you mention above together with a rather haphazard hit out strategy means we get reamed week in week out.
A primary reason we lose games and hopefully one that is remedied next season.
When you factor in team clearances where we lost 8 out of the last 10 clearance counts and we would have been one of the poorest teams in that category your points strike home.
The ruckman's primary job is to help his side win clearances. His total lack of ability in the areas you mention above together with a rather haphazard hit out strategy means we get reamed week in week out.
A primary reason we lose games and hopefully one that is remedied next season.
tigerlove said:
Interesting stats, and interpretations, which are your subjective additions e.g. how he was 8th for marking which is above the 50% point in the competition but YOU classify it as 'below'. On 1% he is, you say, 6th but call 'average'. Is that compared to all the rucks in the AFL (must be about 50+)? What crap!
Heard the old saying about 'damned lies and stats...'? There is no source given nor detail. In fact, looking closer, I'm almost ready to dismiss as a mere jumble of messy numbers with little specific detail or identity, and highly subjective interpretation. Only good enough for Lamby to hop on board with his deluded expectations of rucks as mids.
But why don't you now cite Nankervis' too out of interest/comparison? And probably Griffiths' as the next best performing ruck at the club in 2016? No chance of selective editing, surely? Although Griff is needed to spend a lot of time forward, and I want him to amap.
Grist for the glibly gullible? So who was a better option over 2016, BTW? So much deluded fantasy on Hampson. Here's another one you can provide insightful statistical analysis on. How would our rucking have gone this year with TV or McBean as the main man too?
lamb22 said:
Just facile as usual. Read your own words: "one of the poorest teams in that category ..." But only Hampson is to blame, Lambchops? [All recruiting/drafting of mids - Prestia/Caddy/Bolton/Graham - unrelated?]
As I have stated repeatedly, I argued for the targeting of Nank from a long way back (or Naismith but his form when Tippett was out injured rocketed him to 'ungettable' status) and am rapt we have him for the immediate future. But why so 'hopeful' only Lamby. I'd like to hear your more definite predictions of Nanks' likely performance and impact in more confident and specific form. Surely he will immediately and rapidly render Hammer obsolete and give the likes of Gawn a thrashing?
Don't hold back, should be a cinch for you to tell us with your expert knowledge of H's ineptitude, relative to Nankervis' attributes. Give us his likely numbers relative to Hampson's paltry returns.
Gee you get so wound up Leon. I can hear the elastic on your knickers fraying as we speak.
As usual you've got the wrong end of the stick. If Hampson is replaced by a hamster we are better off.
When I referred to 'hopefully', I was referring to Hardwick actually moving him out of the side. So hopefully in that respect is pretty damn optimistic considering Hardwick's woeful judgement.
As usual you've got the wrong end of the stick. If Hampson is replaced by a hamster we are better off.
When I referred to 'hopefully', I was referring to Hardwick actually moving him out of the side. So hopefully in that respect is pretty damn optimistic considering Hardwick's woeful judgement.
This is analysis does nothing more than reinforce what the vast majority of us already know by watching games I.e Hammer can perform ok in the ruck and in all other aspects of the game he does a very good impression of Trent Knobel.
If Nankervis is any good at all he is going to take over as first ruck very early in the season.
If Nankervis is any good at all he is going to take over as first ruck very early in the season.
The sooner Hampson is off our list the better, Unfortunately we still have 2 years to go
I dont rate him as an AFL Player
I dont rate him as an AFL Player
lamb22 said:
My theory is ........... different quality opposition.
For this to be proven requires a high degree of statistical compilation and analysis, as compared to ... none provided, just another person who sees a few events, ascribes a belief system, and thinks this must therefore be a law of nature. Like all those fools at casinos who believe there to be patterns in numbers, rather than sheer randomness. Given the opposition is different each game and even at different levels and played at different grounds in different conditions and with different team-mates, virtually impossible to prove as a cause and effect relationship.
