2007 2nd Semi Central v North

[Grahaml]

Rod, if you disagree then feel free to present some sort of argument instead of the baseless mumblings of a dissatisfied man. Hope you're not comparing north to the All Australian side! My logic would suggest that since the centrals line up has done stuff all at AFL level then a comparison to any player who has enjoyed even a modicum of AFL success would not end in central favour. Against any team you like to name my analysis would end in perhaps the dogs breaking even in one or two match ups against the kids. Across 21/22 players that is a smashing.

BP I would not do any sort of line by line analysis because it doesn't even reflect the actual match ups. I will not compare Thomas on Gill as a match up. What I would do is a player by player match up of the forward/backline set ups and then compare the midfields as a group.

[rod_rooster]

Again, how do you assess which player is better? How do you come to the conclusion O'Hara, Howard and Younie are the equal of Griffin, Slattery and Callinan? If you think a line by line comparison is any good at all then you're already stuffed by the fact that the teams didn't line up like that. You have Gill and Alleway on the half forward line against Symes, Schell and Thomas. The "on paper" saying in footy refers to the teams overall and how they are expected to perform and not the way it's laid out in the advertiser. Your assessment also falls apart because it assumes the whole game is played with each player staying in the same spot. Symes and Thomas spend considerable amounts of time on the ball, so how does your analysis account for that?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's the facts and logic you can back it up with that determine which is the more valid.

Why are you so bothered? Are you so tired of winning year after year that the only thing you can amuse yourself with is debating your own supporters assertions that some players on another side may be better that some players on your side? Just enjoy your success and stop being such a knob.

[Grahaml]

Well there was my mistake. when you said the North TEAM looks better than the dogs TEAM I actually took you at your word rather than delving into whether you meant on a meaningless line by line analysis of something that doesn't really actually happen.

I'm still waiting to hear what you based you assessment of each player's standing against their opposite number was.

[Grahaml]

I love it when people join in an argument and then complain about being in an argument. If you don't like this discussion then feel free not to contribute.

And who says this bothers me? I just enjoy the challenge of pitting my argument and my ability to convey them against other people. It's the best way to get better at it and has held me in good stead many times.

[rod_rooster]

Rod, if you disagree then feel free to present some sort of argument instead of the baseless mumblings of a dissatisfied man. Hope you're not comparing north to the All Australian side! My logic would suggest that since the centrals line up has done stuff all at AFL level then a comparison to any player who has enjoyed even a modicum of AFL success would not end in central favour. Against any team you like to name my analysis would end in perhaps the dogs breaking even in one or two match ups against the kids. Across 21/22 players that is a smashing.

BP I would not do any sort of line by line analysis because it doesn't even reflect the actual match ups. I will not compare Thomas on Gill as a match up. What I would do is a player by player match up of the forward/backline set ups and then compare the midfields as a group.

Baseless mumblings of a dissatisfied man? How exactly? All i am saying is that you have enjoyed a great deal of success but still get your back up when, heaven forbid, someone suggests that another side might have a few players who one on one are better than players in your side.

[bulldogproud]

Graham, as you stated earlier, matchups change as the game goes on. We cannot be certain who will play on who for any single position. Even if we are right in our prediction, those players can still be moved during the game. I just tried to do a fair, unbiased analysis of two teams. If I am wrong, then I am wrong but I am only giving an opinion, which I believed I (as a human) was entitled to have. You have ridiculed me a number of times on this site and said that I know absolutely nothing about football. Is that fair of you? I love my football and I love Central Districts with a huge passion. Am I not entitled to?

[rod_rooster]

I love it when people join in an argument and then complain about being in an argument. If you don't like this discussion then feel free not to contribute.

And who says this bothers me? I just enjoy the challenge of pitting my argument and my ability to convey them against other people. It's the best way to get better at it and has held me in good stead many times.

Have to say all you are conveying at the moment is a stubborn fight to hang onto some credibility and it isn't succeeding.

[Grahaml]

Rod, you're clutching at straws that fell through your grasp back in the 80s. I wasn't debating that North have a few match up winners. They would have several if you had to find a winner for each match ups. I'm arguing that North doesn't have the better overall team on paper, based on the fact that North's lineup doesn't boast the amount of achievements the dogs line up does.

And as I have said you can have your opinion, but if you want to challenge someone else's opinion then either present your reasoning or be ridiculed. And every match up changes absolutely, but the two teams do not. I'm arguing the team the dogs present is better, on paper as I have defined it above, than the team North present.

[bulldogproud]

Graham, I have presented a line by line analysis. It is you that is arguing that the analysis is incorrect but have not given any indication of how you would rate the players against their opponents. It is up to you to present a critique of that analysis, with reasons why. Please present a player by player analysis of the two teams for us.
Cheers

[bulldogproud]

Rod, you're clutching at straws that fell through your grasp back in the 80s. I wasn't debating that North have a few match up winners. They would have several if you had to find a winner for each match ups. I'm arguing that North doesn't have the better overall team on paper, based on the fact that North's lineup doesn't boast the amount of achievements the dogs line up does.
And as I have said you can have your opinion, but if you want to challenge someone else's opinion then either present your reasoning or be ridiculed. And every match up changes absolutely, but the two teams do not. I'm arguing the team the dogs present is better, on paper as I have defined it above, than the team North present.

Graham, if you are basing your total argument on achievements, then are you not forgetting that the Central team that played on Sunday is not the same team that has played in the previous seven grand finals? Are you saying that our premiership wins had nothing to do with players like Guerra, Hopwood, Healy, Steinberner, Bello et al. If our twenty-one who went on the park on Sunday had all played in a premiership together, then I could accept that. However, it is a very different team.
Cheers

[rod_rooster]

Rod, you're clutching at straws that fell through your grasp back in the 80s. I wasn't debating that North have a few match up winners. They would have several if you had to find a winner for each match ups. I'm arguing that North doesn't have the better overall team on paper, based on the fact that North's lineup doesn't boast the amount of achievements the dogs line up does.

And as I have said you can have your opinion, but if you want to challenge someone else's opinion then either present your reasoning or be ridiculed. And every match up changes absolutely, but the two teams do not. I'm arguing the team the dogs present is better, on paper as I have defined it above, than the team North present.

Grahaml. I never said that North's side was better on paper. It was one of your fellow Central supporters. I don't necessarily agree with him but the way you have got so worked up about this just makes you look like a w*****.

Personally i think that there are several players in the North side that are better individually the several players in the Central side. Fact is though the Central side as a "TEAM" is way ahead of anything else the SANFL has to offer. Keep trying to win your petty debates if you must but i can't see how i am "clutching at straws that fell through my grasp back in the 80's". If that's the best you have at "ridiculing" me then gee i better watch out

[bulldogproud]

Graham, I am glad to see that you are now acknowledging that the current North team would win several matchups against us. Is it not those teams that are playing? Is it not the current North team that is playing the current Central team? Achievements that we have made in the past mean nothing. It is team against team on the day. Past history cannot dictate this.
Cheers

[Grahaml]

I will indeed then present an analysis (probably tomorrow though, given I'm about to log off) but I will do it in a way that I feel has more meaning.

I am indeed basing it on achievements. What else would you base this on? Brent Guerra et al didn't win 18 minor round games this season (and surely that is also an acheievement?). The 21 that ran out Sunday were responsible for this. The 21 that ran out also boast among their number players who have done more than just been the best team this year. If you are basing your idea that Centrals aren't as good a team because they don't have 21 premiership players then what case are you making for North? They have Ben Hart and... err... umm.... perhaps this year MM winner. I still have absolutely no idea how you rate North better and until you can even provide some indication of how you rated these players you're not going to get anywhere. You can't have based it on this year, because North finished 3 games behind the dogs. You can't have based it on past finals matches, because Central have won every single one. You can't have based it on past accomplishments at all because North having nothing compared to the dogs besides one player with half a hamstring.

[rod_rooster]

North actually finished 5 and a half games behind the Dogs. Anyway no-one has suggested that North are better than Central. Can you understand that??

[bulldogproud]

Graham, I know that these players won 18 games. However, are we not forgetting that North smashed us at Prospect the last time we played them before Sunday? Are we also not forgetting that our form towards the end of the season was nowhere near as good as it was earlier in the season? Are we not also forgetting that North missed several players throughout the season with injury? Are we not also forgetting that our side has changed somewhat from what it was earlier in the season?
Cheers
P.S. Should we rather be celebrating that we have a CHAMPION TEAM, well led by a wonderful coach? Why the arguments and your ridicule of everything I say on here.
Cheers

[bulldogproud]

As I obviously know nothing about football, I will refrain from making any other comment on this site ever. I will occasionally read comments but, sorry, I did not come here to be ridiculed. I had hoped that I had added something to this site, if even just by keeping people updated with scores of matches.
Bye and cheers

[Wedgie]

Christ guys, we all agree that a game is won on the field and not on paper. Discussing a side on paper is purely hypothetical and based on opinion, not something to get worked up about. Don't make me lock another thread.

[Wedgie]

PS Good to see the Dogs fans have come around to my way of thinking as to how important Griffen is. Turns out he's worth about 55 points difference.

[Dogwatcher]

Agreed Wedgie, Griffen's a very good player at SANFL level. A long way to go at AFL, but a great pick up for us late in the season.

[smac]

Exactly right. A proper preparation for a match counts for nothing at all.