Williamstown funded rookie 2011

[azabob]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

That might not be long enough!

I must be out of the loop, what was the injury he's been carrying?

Apparently an ankle injury which caused pain for most of the second half of the season and will need an operation.

Considering he also got smashed up and landed very very heavily in round one against Collingwood he had a pretty tough run at it.

[Bornadog]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Yep, good point but he looked alright when moving in space.

Shaggy has always been a bombs-away-type but he had it under control in 09 in particular. With a good pre-season and full fitness, he should be able to get back to that level.

He wasn't that bad with the bombing this year. Its just that supporters notice it more because its Shaggy. His worst game for bombing was against Collingwood, but he played a pretty good game versus Swans and Saints. Against the Saints he did turn it over a couple of times, but overall, with 20 plus disposals, he was ok.

[Greystache]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

He wasn't that bad with the bombing this year. Its just that supporters notice it more because its Shaggy. His worst game for bombing was against Collingwood, but he played a pretty good game versus Swans and Saints. Against the Saints he did turn it over a couple of times, but overall, with 20 plus disposals, he was ok.

It's not a matter of how much he does it during a season, the issue is he does it everytime we play against good sides. He doesn't deal well with the pressure of a good team and he's even worse under the pressure of a big game's spotlight. He must hold an AFL record for out of bounds on the full's in finals against top 4 teams.

[Bornadog]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

It's not a matter of how much he does it during a season, the issue is he does it everytime we play against good sides. He doesn't deal well with the pressure of a good team and he's even worse under the pressure of a big game's spotlight. He must hold an AFL record for out of bounds on the full's in finals against top 4 teams.

Sorry don't agree, please back this up with stats.

Hargraves average disposal efficiency for 2010 sits at 76.07%. He had a poor game against Collingwood, but then who didn't, but was still over 70% against the Saints.

During the season:

Geelong: 75%
Saints: 91.3%

Didn't play against Collingwood in round 11 and was injured early in round 1.

[Greystache]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Sorry don't agree, please back this up with stats.

Hargraves average disposal efficiency for 2010 sits at 76.07%. He had a poor game against Collingwood, but then who didn't, but was still over 70% against the Saints.

During the season:

Geelong: 75%
Saints: 91.3%

Didn't play against Collingwood in round 11 and was injured early in round 1.

If you know somewhere I can find the stats for out on the full please direct me to them. Against Collingwood he kicked out on the full twice right in front of me under almost no pressure.

Those effeciency stats are useless numbers, they show disposal % not kicking %. A player could have 11 handballs to team mates a metre away and then have 11 kicks that are all direct turnovers for goals and you could still point to their efficiency as being only slightly down being at 50%.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

If you know somewhere I can find the stats for out on the full please direct me to them. Against Collingwood he kicked out on the full twice right in front of me under almost no pressure.

Those effeciency stats are useless numbers, they show disposal % not kicking %. A player could have 11 handballs to team mates a metre away and then have 11 kicks that are all direct turnovers for goals and you could still point to their efficiency as being only slightly down being at 50%.

Out on the full would be included in the critical error stats along with other clanger kicks. Things like dropped marks and Matt Boyd's handball to Adam Schnieder would also be included as a critical error.

[Greystache]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Out on the full would be included in the critical error stats along with other clanger kicks. Things like dropped marks and Matt Boyd's handball to Adam Schnieder would also be included as a critical error.

Can we never mention that handball again? I'm still having nightmares about it!

[Bornadog]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

If you know somewhere I can find the stats for out on the full please direct me to them. Against Collingwood he kicked out on the full twice right in front of me under almost no pressure.

Those effeciency stats are useless numbers, they show disposal % not kicking %. A player could have 11 handballs to team mates a metre away and then have 11 kicks that are all direct turnovers for goals and you could still point to their efficiency as being only slightly down being at 50%.

Hargrave kicks more than he handballs. I dont have his kicking efficiency, but the disposal efficiency is still a fair indicator.

My point is Hargrave along with Gia are always picked on by bulldogs suporters. Most supporters see one or two mistakes and base their whole opinion of the way they play on those mistakes. Yes I agree he had a shocker against Collingwood, but overall he has had a pretty good year.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Can we never mention that handball again? I'm still having nightmares about it!

Ditto. At that moment I wanted Boyd traded. I have since cooled down, so please don't jump down my throat.

[Greystache]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Hargrave kicks more than he handballs. I dont have his kicking efficiency, but the disposal efficiency is still a fair indicator.

My point is Hargrave along with Gia are always picked on by bulldogs suporters. Most supporters see one or two mistakes and base their whole opinion of the way they play on those mistakes. Yes I agree he had a shocker against Collingwood, but overall he has had a pretty good year.

The reason those two in particular get targeted by (at least by the more learned) supporters is they have consistent H&A seasons then turn in their worst performances for the year when it matters most. Griffen is often inconsistent during the season but lifts for the big finals everytime. I will have a H&A specialist in the gun everytime because if you can't win us a final you're dead weight in my eyes. Those two, along with a couple of other senior players are perfect examples of it.

[Mantis]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

Hargrave kicks more than he handballs. I dont have his kicking efficiency, but the disposal efficiency is still a fair indicator.

My point is Hargrave along with Gia are always picked on by bulldogs suporters. Most supporters see one or two mistakes and base their whole opinion of the way they play on those mistakes. Yes I agree he had a shocker against Collingwood, but overall he has had a pretty good year.

I don't agree. Using their (the statisticans) theory any kick over 40m that doesn't result in a direct turnover is judged to be an 'efficient' kick.

Therefore each of Hargrave's 'bombs' that travels over 40m directly to a 1 on 3 would be classified as an efficient kick in a pure statistical sense.

[Bornadog]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

The reason those two in particular get targeted by (at least by the more learned) supporters is they have consistent H&A seasons then turn in their worst performances for the year when it matters most. Griffen is often inconsistent during the season but lifts for the big finals everytime. I will have a H&A specialist in the gun everytime because if you can't win us a final you're dead weight in my eyes. Those two, along with a couple of other senior players are perfect examples of it.

Well I still don't agree Hargrave has performed badly in finals. In 2010, the whole team performed badly against Collingwood (Except Griffen, but that is debateable as Colingwood only tag players when they are getting beaten. eg Ablett was allowed to run wild but made no impact last friday). Hargrave played well against the Saints and Swans.

In 2009, again against the Saints picked up 25 diposals, and beat his opponent, 29 disposals against Brisbane and an average game against Geelong.

I think a few people should take their blinkers off and assess players for the whole game not one or two clangers. Yes those long bombs highlights him but we are talking about a few kicks not every kick.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

I think Hargrave was disappointing in 2010, certainly a fair bit behind his 2009.

I thought he was OK against the Saints, and he was good against Brisbane in 2009 final and alright against the Saints that year too. He's not been great in the other finals, but overall I think his record is OK.

I agree with the above posters who have said at his best, he's still a valuable player. Hopefully he can get back to that form.

[Topdog]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

He was terrible against the Saints last year. Did about 6 bombs to a 4 on 1 situation in the 2nd half. But overall I like him.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Williamstown funded rookie 2011

I don't agree. Using their (the statisticans) theory any kick over 40m that doesn't result in a direct turnover is judged to be an 'efficient' kick.

Therefore each of Hargrave's 'bombs' that travels over 40m directly to a 1 on 3 would be classified as an efficient kick in a pure statistical sense.

Was going to post the same thing. Spot on.