Scott Pendlebury (Silk)

killer · Post by **killer** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:39 pm

give him time to build his body up,
today all the players who wern't playing in the game today walked by in thier suits, and as pendlebury walked past me i noticed him reach back at his hamstring and limp for a step or too, as he climbed the steps,
Must have pulled up sore from yesterdays game.

its taxing game on young bodies,

Cheers

Zakal · Post by **Zakal** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:09 am

dalyc wrote:
Zakal wrote:Oh wait...here we go. Found out you can click the link thats in the history.
Turns out i wasnt quite right, he was 2nd overall (by the end anyway) but was still top for Collingwood.

And i was right about the 15 effective too. Im not sure how the 8 clanger stat arose, cos i thought that was only for kicks.

BJ was also equal top in rebounds from 50.

Good to see Swan and Breesy right up there in Contested possessions and rebounds too. (and uncontested possessions, but thats a given when you get over 30).

So, Dalyc, is that good enough to get my beer or not? hehe
Good try, no cigar.

In hindsight we are comparing apples and oranges. You are right in terms of effective kicks, but what I am critical of is his ineffective kicks which is not contained in the stats you provide. If the eight clangers ( reported elsewhere in the thread) are all kicks, we should consider is kicking effectiveness as 15/(15+8) = 65%.

I don't think that's good enough.

goddamnit! hehe

But back to the discussion...im not sure i understand.

If the 8 clangers are all kicks, he would have had 23 kicks, but he only had 20?

According to Champion Data, this is the definition of a Clanger:

Clangers consist of turnovers (via kicks, handballs, kickins or 'fumbles'),
errors (stepping out of the goal square when kicking in, falling over when
trying to gain possession) and frees and 50m penalties against. i.e. free kicks against and 50m penalties against. Frees against are included in the clanger count however do also have their own stat column in the newspapers. It is the newspapers discretion as to whether they display both columns, as some of our clients display one and not the other.

Therefore their clanger stat is completely misleading when talking about someones kicking as it includes things totally unrelated to skills, such as frees and 50's.

While ive got no idea what afl.com.au deems an "Effective Kick", it certainly doesnt seem fair to lambast a players kicking based soley on the "Clanger" stat...cos in light of that definition, in my opinion the stat is a load of crap that really tells you nothing concrete.

HAL · Post by **HAL** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:11 am

This is fun isn't it?

Magpiefan3 · Post by **Magpiefan3** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:15 am

I am just saying J26.

dalyc · Post by **dalyc** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:24 am

Zakal wrote:
dalyc wrote:
Zakal wrote:Oh wait...here we go. Found out you can click the link thats in the history.
Turns out i wasnt quite right, he was 2nd overall (by the end anyway) but was still top for Collingwood.

And i was right about the 15 effective too. Im not sure how the 8 clanger stat arose, cos i thought that was only for kicks.

BJ was also equal top in rebounds from 50.

Good to see Swan and Breesy right up there in Contested possessions and rebounds too. (and uncontested possessions, but thats a given when you get over 30).

So, Dalyc, is that good enough to get my beer or not? hehe
Good try, no cigar.

In hindsight we are comparing apples and oranges. You are right in terms of effective kicks, but what I am critical of is his ineffective kicks which is not contained in the stats you provide. If the eight clangers ( reported elsewhere in the thread) are all kicks, we should consider is kicking effectiveness as 15/(15+8) = 65%.

I don't think that's good enough.
goddamnit! hehe

But back to the discussion...im not sure i understand.

If the 8 clangers are all kicks, he would have had 23 kicks, but he only had 20?

According to Champion Data, this is the definition of a Clanger:

Clangers consist of turnovers (via kicks, handballs, kickins or 'fumbles'),
errors (stepping out of the goal square when kicking in, falling over when
trying to gain possession) and frees and 50m penalties against. i.e. free kicks against and 50m penalties against. Frees against are included in the clanger count however do also have their own stat column in the newspapers. It is the newspapers discretion as to whether they display both columns, as some of our clients display one and not the other.
Therefore their clanger stat is completely misleading when talking about someones kicking as it includes things totally unrelated to skills, such as frees and 50's.

While ive got no idea what afl.com.au deems an "Effective Kick", it certainly doesnt seem fair to lambast a players kicking based soley on the "Clanger" stat...cos in light of that definition, in my opinion the stat is a load of crap that really tells you nothing concrete.

Fair enough ... he played heaps better yesterday anyway.

Cuthbert Collingwood · Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:27 am

an "effective kick" is a kick to at least a 50-50 contest. A "clanger kick" is different to a plain "clanger", and refers to kicking the ball to the opposition who gather or mark the ball uncontested.

Cuthbert Collingwood · Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:28 am

or i guess kicking he ball out on the full

ad4eva · Post by **ad4eva** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:33 am

despite winning on the weekend i think we still need the injection of class into the mifield

bring in pendles!

loki04 · Post by **loki04** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:40 am

ad4eva wrote:despite winning on the weekend i think we still need the injection of class into the mifield

bring in pendles!

true 1st half had worrying signs.

Zakal · Post by **Zakal** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:48 am

loki04 wrote:
ad4eva wrote:despite winning on the weekend i think we still need the injection of class into the mifield

bring in pendles!
true 1st half had worrying signs.

Yeah, this doesnt make all our problems go away just that we did well in the 2nd half. I think our disposal through the middle is still generally poor, and it will NOT get us over the line against quality opposition.

Lonie in the middle or along the centreline somewhere (inc wing) definitely is an injection of class, especially his kicking. So that gives us Buckley, Burns and Lonie in the middle with quality foot disposal. Holland is pretty good also.
If we use these guys to kick it, and adjust our usage of guys like OBree and Swan to be more like Black or West and just handball our to our receivers like Lonie, after theyve dived into the pack to get the ball; that should allow us to play to our strengths in the middle.

HAL · Post by **HAL** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:51 am

What's your favorite part of Holland?

favourites 2008 · Post by **favourites 2008** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:49 pm

Licca took over the clangers this week, by memory he had i think 7.

Post by **RudeBoy** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:06 pm

I haven't seen him play yet, but by all accounts Pendles has the skill to add a lot to our mid-field, which does lack a bit of class. However, it's one thing to play a kid on a forward flank (like Daisy), and quite another to throw a kid into the midfield. We wouldn't want to see the kid's body get smashed around because he was played prematurely, on the other hand, if our coaches judge that the boy is strong enough, then he'll no doubt get his chance quite soon. For this week, I'd rather see a hard man like Burns come in to the side.

favourites 2008 · Post by **favourites 2008** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:07 pm

bout 3rd best on by reports coming from williamstown, did n e one see that match, did box hill seriously kick 5 goals 20. wow and we thought we had the yips.

Cakewalk · Post by **Cakewalk** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:37 pm

Williamstown was a bigger wind bowl than usual which accounted for the poor kicking.
Pendlebury is still not fit enough to be playing AFL at this stage...

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Scott Pendlebury (Silk)