Lynden Dunn

[autocol 448]

By the way a lot of great scientific discoveries have had absolutely nothing to do with research.

No, a lot of observations have nothing to do with research, but I think you'll find that Alexander Fleming had done quite a lot of research to test his hypothesis before making any declarative statements to the world about the anti-bacterial qualities of the substance he named penicillin.

Edited August 26, 2013 by autocol

[Webber 10,538]

No, a lot of observations have nothing to do with research, but I think you'll find that Alexander Fleming had done quite a lot of research to test his hypothesis before making any declarative statements to the world about the anti-bacterial qualities of the substance he named penicillin.

Autocol, everything you have said on this thread makes absolute sense, but you're never going to get satisfaction by arguing objectivity, fact, and impartiality in analysis with a lot on here. They just dont want to know. The very nature of people's frustration means they will attribute blame. It's effectively the 'he just gives me the sh**s' mode of argument. In relative terms Lynden Dunn has been good this year, and the absolutely relevant stats you provide reinforce why he has been. A more than effective role player in a horrible team.

Keep trying though, I enjoy your efforts!

[beelzebub 23,383]

I feel the biggest mistake anyone can make in adjudging a player is to only provide the context of the team he's in. Whilst I perfectly appreciate that is his only working environment it often does nothing to really qualify their relative ability to the game itself.

Dunn does some good workmanlike work and has some pretty obvious brain fades all the whiles he only doing so in an abysmal lineup. Some probably quite rightly feel hes currently starting 22 at the Dees but thats surely an indication of just how rank we are as to how good he might be.

Can't think of too may other teams he'd get a game at let alone start with. Whilst he is looked upon as fair in our list we wont get too far. Its not meant as a slight just an observation. We have very few real AFL grade players. Damning isn't it.

Edited August 26, 2013 by belzebub59

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

It's obvious to everyone that Dunn has poor judgement. Evidence his persistence with that horrible moustache.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Haha. Good argument. I notice you've instead brought a well researched reply which demonstrates Dunn's ineptitude with plenty of supporting evidence.

Oh. No you didn't.

I don't need to, you're running my arguments for me.

By comparing Dunn to Gibson you demonstrated a lack of understanding of both players.

You're also focusing on statistics which anyone who watches MFC games can tell you don't mean as much as the paper they're written on. Yes, Dunn takes marks. He does this because he consistently is placed against smaller players. Yes, he rebounds from 50 more than someone like Gibson. That's partly due to his role being totally different and partly due to Melbourne conceding more inside 50s than Hawthorn, and thus giving Dunn more opportunities to rebound.

Focusing on nothing but numbers is one way of making an argument. You're not doing it well though.

[autocol 448]

If you're going to accuse me of arguing poorly, I'd appreciate you actually reading my posts.

Yes, Dunn takes marks.

Err, no he doesn't. One of the points I made above is that Dunn doesn't take marks, and the statistics bear that out. Even when you're trying to give him credit, you're still wrong! I know you think you're an expert observer of football, free from the cognitive biases and afflict everyone with a human brain, but you're not.

By comparing Dunn to Gibson you demonstrated a lack of understanding of both players.

Well, I subsequently compared him to all of Hawthorn's defenders, and surely one of them is his 'equivalent' if Gibson is not, and Dunn compares very favourably with all of them with the exception of Grant Birchall, who is unarguably a tier above him as a player (and also, arguably, given less accountability as a defender than Dunn, which might help explain his superior disposal count).

You might think I focus on nothing but numbers, but I think you focus on nothing but your own (highly suspect) view of reality.

The main difference between Lynden Dunn and all the members of Hawthorn's back six is that their team usually wins, and his team usually loses, and you want someone to blame in the latter case.

Edited August 27, 2013 by autocol

[Little Goffy 14,645]

Lynden Dunn, playing substantially across half back and amassing a large number of disposals, still didn't get anyone marking him.

Kind of sums up the situation there; he is no threat to the opposition when he has the ball, and honestly doesn't obstruct much of the opposition's attacks in turn.

To me, Lynden Dunn is in the same group as Joel MacDonald - deserves respect for their career and efforts, but can't stay on the list.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Err, no he doesn't. One of the points I made above is that Dunn doesn't take marks, and the statistics bear that out. Even when you're trying to give him credit, you're still wrong! I know you think you're an expert observer of football, free from the cognitive biases and afflict everyone with a human brain, but you're not.

Well, I subsequently compared him to all of Hawthorn's defenders, and surely one of them is his 'equivalent' if Gibson is not, and Dunn compares very favourably with all of them with the exception of Grant Birchall, who is unarguably a tier above him as a player (and also, arguably, given less accountability as a defender than Dunn, which might help explain his superior disposal count).

You might think I focus on nothing but numbers, but I think you focus on nothing but your own (highly suspect) view of reality.

The main difference between Lynden Dunn and all the members of Hawthorn's back six is that their team usually wins, and his team usually loses, and you want someone to blame in the latter case.

I apologise for attributing the bad argument about marks to you. I figured it would fit in with the rest of your banter. Someone had earlier raised the argument that Dunn's proficiency in marking contests was some sort of glory for him, which truly isn't the case.

Yes, you did compare him to all of them, and you ruled out a comparison with Birchall. Dunn, if anything, is as close to Birchall as he is to Gibson. We don't rely on Dunn to take one of the opposition's best forwards, that's what McDonald, Frawley and Garland are for. We use Dunn more like Hawthorn uses Birchall, on a less dangerous forward, with the freedom to push off that man and move up the ground. Birchall does that far better than Dunn does. But you don't like comparing Dunn to good players, so you're ignoring that.

In a different debate, I'd also question your statement that one of Hawthorn's defenders must be an 'equivalent' - each team's defence is different, and Hawthorn's is more based on midfield pressure than ours is (clearly, given we don't have any midfield pressure). I don't think any two teams are identical. However, if we are going to compare players, I maintain that Birchall is a closer comparison than Gibson.

I do think you focus too heavily on numbers. I also think that everyone bases their views on their own perceptions of 'reality'. I'd be happy to critique and open my mind to new ideas when they're floated, but you haven't provided me with anything other than numbers, the value of which is questionable in both the way you've used them (comparing to Gibson) and given the holistic output Dunn provides on game day (those numbers say nothing of his positioning, his failure to lead, his poor kicking style, his bad decision making or his softness, many of which aren't able to be borne out directly in numbers).

As for your final sentence, I disagree entirely. The main difference between Lynden Dunn and Hawthorn's defenders is that Hawthorn's defenders are courageous and talented.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Just out of interest......Who is going to replace him if he gets traded/delisted that so many people want?????

a young draftee?.....A trade??...who would want to trade anything for him??

He has played 116 games and kicked 91 goals.....he has played that last 4 years in an absolute crap side and still tries his guts out every week......Sure he has some brain fades but when don't MFC players in the past four years...

A young draftee will take 3 to 4 years to gain the experience and know how to play AFL.

I don't understand the hate on here for him or any of our players....So easy to sit and watch and criticise.....

Gee I worry for Jessie Hogan if he doesn't come up to standards in his first year....He will be labelled a spud and another wasted pick in his first year....Just like the Jimmy Toumpas thread......Mind blowing really.....

[Webber 10,538]

I apologise for attributing the bad argument about marks to you. I figured it would fit in with the rest of your banter. Someone had earlier raised the argument that Dunn's proficiency in marking contests was some sort of glory for him, which truly isn't the case. Yes, you did compare him to all of them, and you ruled out a comparison with Birchall. Dunn, if anything, is as close to Birchall as he is to Gibson. We don't rely on Dunn to take one of the opposition's best forwards, that's what McDonald, Frawley and Garland are for. We use Dunn more like Hawthorn uses Birchall, on a less dangerous forward, with the freedom to push off that man and move up the ground. Birchall does that far better than Dunn does. But you don't like comparing Dunn to good players, so you're ignoring that. In a different debate, I'd also question your statement that one of Hawthorn's defenders must be an 'equivalent' - each team's defence is different, and Hawthorn's is more based on midfield pressure than ours is (clearly, given we don't have any midfield pressure). I don't think any two teams are identical. However, if we are going to compare players, I maintain that Birchall is a closer comparison than Gibson. I do think you focus too heavily on numbers. I also think that everyone bases their views on their own perceptions of 'reality'. I'd be happy to critique and open my mind to new ideas when they're floated, but you haven't provided me with anything other than numbers, the value of which is questionable in both the way you've used them (comparing to Gibson) and given the holistic output Dunn provides on game day (those numbers say nothing of his positioning, his failure to lead, his poor kicking style, his bad decision making or his softness, many of which aren't able to be borne out directly in numbers). As for your final sentence, I disagree entirely. The main difference between Lynden Dunn and Hawthorn's defenders is that Hawthorn's defenders are courageous and talented.

Actually he DIDN'T compare Dunn favourably to Birchall. He said Birchall was a different tier. You read what you want to t-u, and belittle the conversation by not paying attention. Frustrating.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Actually he DIDN'T compare Dunn favourably to Birchall. He said Birchall was a different tier. You read what you want to t-u, and belittle the conversation by not paying attention. Frustrating.

What are you talking about? Where did I try to say he did that?

The irony of you critiquing me about not reading closely whilst you fail to do the same is enjoyable.

[autocol 448]

Dunn compares very favourably with all of them with the exception of Grant Birchall, who is unarguably a tier above him as a player.

Seriously mate. Read what i actually write.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I don't understand the hate on here for him or any of our players....So easy to sit and watch and criticise.....

It's not really hate, more apathy. Most players are pretty interchangeable and meaningless to me unless their really good. I'll acknowledge decent efforts and careers, but I want to see wins on the board. I want to watch successful teams. So if I spend my life watching crud I'll call it crud for the crud it is. If I spent my life watching my team play like Geelong I'd revel in the success and crow accordingly. And you wouldn't have a problem, would you ? It seems you want to be a fan boy and denounce opinions that aren't as glowing.

I haven't worn a duffle coat since I was 14. And I'm, not going to start now.

[Bossdog 2,002]

It's not really hate, more apathy. Most players are pretty interchangeable and meaningless to me unless their really good. I'll acknowledge decent efforts and careers, but I want to see wins on the board. I want to watch successful teams. So if I spend my life watching crud I'll call it crud for the crud it is. If I spent my life watching my team play like Geelong I'd revel in the success and crow accordingly. And you wouldn't have a problem, would you ? It seems you want to be a fan boy and denounce opinions that aren't as glowing.

I haven't worn a duffle coat since I was 14. And I'm, not going to start now.

Pity.....You might have learned some humility.......And if players are meaningless.....Why the hell do you have an opinion on them......and you actually wore a duffle coat......My Lord.....How then can you claim to be an elitist?......

[deeko 952]

Just out of interest......Who is going to replace him if he gets traded/delisted that so many people want?????

a young draftee?.....A trade??...who would want to trade anything for him??

He has played 116 games and kicked 91 goals.....he has played that last 4 years in an absolute crap side and still tries his guts out every week......Sure he has some brain fades but when don't MFC players in the past four years...

A young draftee will take 3 to 4 years to gain the experience and know how to play AFL.

I don't understand the hate on here for him or any of our players....So easy to sit and watch and criticise.....

Gee I worry for Jessie Hogan if he doesn't come up to standards in his first year....He will be labelled a spud and another wasted pick in his first year....Just like the Jimmy Toumpas thread......Mind blowing really.....

I don't hate him at all and I will cheer for him everytime he runs out in the red and blue don't get me wrong.

It's just that the positives that people speak of here I struggle to see in Dunny. He is not damaging enough to play loose across half back and he isn't a solid enough defender in my eyes to take a key player.

He doesn't play as that big man floating across taking intercept marks/spoils like how Tom Harley used to play or does he play a lock down role. Maybe my problem with Lynden is I have no idea his role in the team and really struggle to see what value he adds.

In my own analysis of players of who we should retain / move on, 'adding value' is all I look at.

If he is moved on I would not worry at all, I'm tired of him playing some 'reasonable' games at the junk end of the year getting people excited. If he is retained though I will continue cheering him every game and hoping for the best from him.

Oh and on Jimmy, being an Echuca boy and watching Olly play all his junior footy, I would still have Jimmy every day of the week. He's going to be a ripper!!

Edited August 27, 2013 by deeko

[Hannibal 5,814]

Pity.....You might have learned some humility.......And if players are meaningless.....Why the hell do you have an opinion on them......and you actually wore a duffle coat......My Lord.....How then can you claim to be an elitist?......

I've never claimed to be an elitist, that's merely your perception.

A 14 year old can't wear a duffle coat ? Wow, what a [censored] you are.

Fanboy.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

I've never claimed to be an elitist, that's merely your perception.

A 14 year old can't wear a duffle coat ? Wow, what a [censored] you are.

Fanboy.

Bit hypocritical coming from a Kate Upton fanboy

Edited August 27, 2013 by PJ_12345

[Hannibal 5,814]

Bit hypocritical coming from a Kate Upton fanboy

Hahaha

I'd rather be a fanboy of young Kate than the sorry sods that run around for this mob.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Hahaha

I'd rather be a fanboy of young Kate than the sorry sods that run around for this mob.

No one stopping you BH......And if Fan boy is supposed to be an insult...Hey...I would rather be a fan boy than a constant bagger of a club that you supposedly support......Have fun with your pin up girl....

[Webber 10,538]

What are you talking about? Where did I try to say he did that?

The irony of you critiquing me about not reading closely whilst you fail to do the same is enjoyable.

Really?

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Really?

Really.

[dpositive 1,698]

So here I remain, a card carrying member of the Lynden-Dunn-goes-half-alright club.

Ask me what I think about Jake Spencer, future superstar.

Ok Im game I would like to see your story on Spencer

I do recognise that stats dont tell the whole story and may even be manipulated

But I do support the Chaos theory that states there is order in Chaos.

Given enough data you can indeed discover trends and pattern that are replicated.

And I have appreciated your patient and thorough exposure of your opinion supported by some factual references.

I reckon Dunn probably goes half right too and its a pity we cant see how he would go with some different coaching influences. ie different structure and tactics to exploit his strengths. but I think thats called modelling and is subject to the same manipulation as your statistics

[BrisbaneDemon 1,572]

He may have great endeavour, he may try his guts out each week, my biggest issue with Dunn is that he makes a mistake at the worst possible time, week in week out. All players make mistakes and i except that, but Dunn turns the ball over that always shifts the momentum to another team. I find him the must frustrating player we currently have on the list.

[beelzebub 23,383]

He may have great endeavour, he may try his guts out each week, my biggest issue with Dunn is that he makes a mistake at the worst possible time, week in week out. All players make mistakes and i except that, but Dunn turns the ball over that always shifts the momentum to another team. I find him the must frustrating player we currently have on the list.

Maybe not the 'most' , but he's definitely up there !!

[autocol 448]

I do recognise that stats dont tell the whole story and may even be manipulated

<trim>

I think thats called modelling and is subject to the same manipulation as your statistics

It's true that data can be manipulated. As the saying goes, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, it's become a tediously easy way for people to deny whatever facts are being shown to them to simply cry that "the data doesn't support my intuitive claim, therefore the data has been manipulated!"

The easiest form of this is cherry picking, that is, only presenting data which supports your claim.

You could accuse me of doing that, except the truth is that I haven't. I didn't pick Josh Gibson, someone else named him first, and as a regularly lauded player in a top team I expected an interesting comparison. I expected Dunny's stats to be far behind his, but reasonable enough to justify a claim that he might be able to perform a similar role in a similar team. I was surprised to find him pretty much on level pegging. Howled down by the "Gibson has to take a better opponent" brigade, I simply expanded the comparison to all of the players around Gibson. Note that I didn't choose Hawthorn or Gibson after checking that the stats would support my claim. I simply linked to the stats and read out the results.

Everybody has access to the same statistics that I do, so anyone could easily search the 16 other teams to search for one which statistically proves that Dunn is a poor player. My hypothesis is that you won't find one, but I won't claim that to be fact until someone does the research. If my statistics had been manipulated, as you're suggesting they could have been, then you could easily disprove my claims by accessing the publicly available data and making an analysis of your own. You're likely to reach a similar conclusion to the one I've detailed here, because there's been no manipulation of figures.

I really wish I could teach people that it's okay to have a hypothesis or prediction (GO YOU GOOD THING SPENCER!) that turns out to be wrong. It's okay to refer to the evidence and realise that your initial intuitive reaction needn't be the same as your reasoned critical analysis. Subjectively, I think the main reason people think Dunn sucks as a footballer is his persona, and the fact that when he gives away a free kick, the opposition typically score a goal. The rest of it is an irrational attempt to justify their opinion, because the evidence is that Dunn is not a sucky footballer.

It's interesting (and/or frightening) to note that the majority of the votes cast on September the 7th will be made with equal disregard for evidence and facts.

I have appreciated your patient and thorough exposure of your opinion supported by some factual references.

Thanks. I just wish people would actually read them before making claims about my lack of credibility.