-
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
B
Bill James
Guest
tigerlove said:
Hampsons hitout to team clearance ratio sucks. I suspect Hampsons does very poorly in the hitouts to advantage department.
Coburgtiger said:
But actually disproven by all 'logical and observable fact(s)'. Name the ruckman on our list in 2016 who did better, CT, then cite the ' logical and observable fact(s)' in support.
Your razor has got very old and rusty, it's giving you a rash (of claims).
Tigers of Old said:
Hello. The fact is Hampson had probably his best season so did show much improvement, on nearly all attributes, even without a P/S due to ops on each ankle. Thus your post is already irrelevant. May be able to do better though with a good P/S.
tigerlove said:
Ahhh. You come back from a lovely Xmas break and you have to deal with all the grinches!
I comprehended your post and its intended effects, and detected its obvious bias, all too easily, TL. Why would you limit it to only the top 12? Are there only 12 teams in the comp; do we only have to play against 12? Only 12 rucks to contend with? Oh. I get it! You're thinking it's the VFL of old. You might wish, but those days are long gone. Pity, TL.
Or maybe we should be entitled to a top-12 ruckman just because we are RFC. It hasn't ever worked that way, TL.
But you ' ... purposely used raw stats and compared on that basis. I then gave my opinion but I leave it to others to make their own conclusions.' Hilarious! Maybe you need to read that back to yourself. You cited selected stats, then gave your own opinion on what we should interpret. Classic. Do you work for a politician, TL? No, I think even propaganda operates at a much more sophisticated level today.
Pomsta has also seen through your loaded stats and you have struggled to respond credibly to his post. He makes a very good case for Hampson coming close to Mumford statistically in 2016. BTW, Mummy is No.5 ruckman on AFL Player Ratings. Well, that might debunk your opinion even more, TL. But, maybe you could have limited it to the top 10 only?
PS- the rest of AFL Player Ratings seem to have been taken down at present so can no longer check on H.
Pomsta said:
Quality response; discerning post. Mumford shades him in a couple of key areas but overall, they're not that far apart. The gap is not as wide as many want to think and Mummy is rated No. 5 in the AFL. So what happened when they played, TL? Sure you'd love to tell us. Despite our side getting an absolute shellacking#, Mumford = 0 Ks, 16 HBs, 3 Ms, 28 HOs, 4 Ts, AF - 76. Hampson = 5 Ks, 5 HBs, 5 Ms, 37 HOs, 3 Ts, AF - 83. [AFL match report]
Could you give us your considered opinion on the outcome based on these stats, TL. I cannot figure them out.
Edit: # but came back to add that, without a shadow of a doubt, it was still entirely Hampson's fault for this hiding; our only under-performing 'mid' on the day.
tigerlove said:
You'll find it's actually Footywire. I guessed it might have been because it's what I use myself mostly but there are other sources. If you ever seriously want to win a case via quoting stats, it's best to provide the source and clearer detail. People have been known to make things up, you know.
I didn't accuse you of anything. You also provided your subjective conclusions based on very selectively quoted stats, as you tell us yourself! (Self-accusation?)
tigerlove said:
Oh, diddums! You sound upset, TL. So sensitive! I think your intention was to prove Hampson "the worst ruckmen of these listed. Last (by a long way) ..."
But you get all delicate if called out on this, challenged. And I am not playing nice, being nasty to you? But challenged back, you dodge and hide. Despite your wizardry with stats, you refuse to cite those other players' for comparison. Evasive, and quickly conceding after being so definitive prior?
My contention with Hampson has only ever been that in 2016 he became the best option we had with Maric's sad decline; and he put in, competed hard and improved noticeably. But so many slaggers just want to big note themselves by saying how hopeless he is. Except when challenged on their dubious selective and biased 'evidence', they go soft. Please provide your analysis on how we would have had a better 2016 without Hampson.
Where do I use 'spite and personal attacks' on you? So you can assert your dubious opinions, but I am 'aggressive'! And can you please define 'post in a normal way.' Is email abnormal then? Should I incline in a missionary position at my desktop?
