Big Max

[leucopogon 1,468]

5 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Will be interesting to see the 3, 2, 1 of the Brownlow voting for the game last weekend. 3 Goldy, 2 Gawn, 1 Boomer?

Come and join in the fun Moonshadow over in the Brownlow Competition thread where we're having a contest to predict the 321 votes for each of the Dees games. There's a demonland shirt for the winner with the most votes at the end of the season.

[Willmoy1947 3,758]

12 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Will be interesting to see the 3, 2, 1 of the Brownlow voting for the game last weekend. 3 Goldy, 2 Gawn, 1 Boomer?

Ring the AFL....

[Scipio 5,868]

20 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

 

I was pointing out a fact. Two facts actually.

One of them being that Gawn most certainly didn't 'kill' Goldstein on the weekend and if you chat to any sane, non-biased supporter, you'd find that none of them would be an agreeance with that exaggerated comment.

And the second fact is that the 63 hitouts were also against Brown and Petrie, who aren't ruckmen and more importantly, aren't Goldstein..

Facts. 

Am I not happy? Un-cheered? Or underestimating Gawn's hitouts? 

Of course not. But you lot seem to find it difficult to hear someone who might also praise the efforts of an opposition player who in the eyes of most non-biased supporters would say was equally as influential for their side. So difficult in fact that you chose to think I'm negative, un-happy and underestimating Gawn's hit-outs.

Gawn had an amazing game. Goldy had an amazing game. 

See if you can repeat that without feeling sick. 

 

You haven't presented facts to back up your initial argument, which was that most of Max's effective hit outs were against Brown and Petrie. Where are the facts?

And at no stage did I minimise Goldstein's performance. He kicked five goals and arguably had more influence on the game than Gawn. My sentiment is that Max won the ruck battle.

Facts state that he won more hitouts than Goldstein, by a long way. 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

23 minutes ago, Django said:

You haven't presented facts to back up your initial argument, which was that most of Max's effective hit outs were against Brown and Petrie. Where are the facts?

And at no stage did I minimise Goldstein's performance. He kicked five goals and arguably had more influence on the game than Gawn. My sentiment is that Max won the ruck battle.

Facts state that he won more hitouts than Goldstein, by a long way. 

'Whilst Max was on top in the hitouts vs Goldstein, I think you'll find that many of the hitouts he 'won' were also against Petrie and Brown whilst Goldy was resting.

People seem to think those 63 hitouts were all against Goldy.'

That was my initial post. That was the fact and is the fact.

I didn't argue that he had more or less 'effective' hit-outs. Nor did I argue that he won more or less hit-outs than Goldstein. You've confused yourself.

My post was plain and simply that out of the 63 hitouts he won, not all of them were against Goldstein. That is a fact. And I posted it because some on here were implying that he won those 63 against Goldstein and Goldstein only.

They both had really influential games. 

I have nothing left to argue.

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

 

I was pointing out a fact. Two facts actually.

One of them being that Gawn most certainly didn't 'kill' Goldstein on the weekend and if you chat to any sane, non-biased supporter, you'd find that none of them would be an agreeance with that exaggerated comment.

And the second fact is that the 63 hitouts were also against Brown and Petrie, who aren't ruckmen and more importantly, aren't Goldstein..

Facts. 

Am I not happy? Un-cheered? Or underestimating Gawn's hitouts? 

Of course not. But you lot seem to find it difficult to hear someone who might also praise the efforts of an opposition player who in the eyes of most non-biased supporters would say was equally as influential for their side. So difficult in fact that you chose to think I'm negative, un-happy and underestimating Gawn's hit-outs.

Gawn had an amazing game. Goldy had an amazing game. 

See if you can repeat that without feeling sick. 

 

I would have thought that such a perceptive poster as yourself could get the distinction here.

Nobody is saying that Goldie wasn't the most influential player on Sunday, and as such deservedly BOG.

But when he and Gawn were directly opposed, as they were for at least 80% of the game, Max "killed" him, measured by both number and effectiveness of hitouts. Goldie holds the record in both - 65 hitouts, 27 to advantage - playing against GWS in a game in which Mumford either didn't play or was injured early, and he was against nobodies the whole game. Gawn got his stats against the reigning AA & No.1 ruckman in top form. Goldie was effective mainly when he managed to get away from Max, and all credit to him for that.

And they were directly opposed for a huge slice of the game. Max had 89% TOG, and Goldie 93%, so Goldie was only off the ground for 7% of the game, and Gawn would have been off for just about all of that too. My impression watching the game was that Goldie was opposed to Frost etc far more often that Gawn was opposed to Brown or Petrie (tho' ICBF to check it). But there's no doubt that when Goldie was opposed to Frost, Norf won a lot more clearances and got on top. And it's obvious that Brown & Petrie are far better opposition than Frost and whoever else.

The number one ruck in the comp got BOG but was smashed in ruck contests by his direct opponent who nearly broke the relevant records. And Gawn put on one of the best individual performances ever, but his direct opponent still got BOG. It could well be argued, without hyperbole, that this was the greatest ruck contest in the history of the game, though it's gone by largely unrecognised as yet.

But back to the distinction between winning the one-on-one contests, which Max won hands down, and having the most influence on the game, which Goldie won and was unanimously BOG. Most posters seem to have had no trouble getting this.

Steve, most of your posts are right off the top shelf. But some of us are struggling to work out why you, of all posters, seem so keen to undersell Gawn's performance by pushing a fiction that it was done against lesser opponents.

 

[Gorgoroth 12,305]

I want max to win a brownlow...

Imagine his speech 3/4 cut. It would be hilarious. 

[Devil is in the Detail 880]

4 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

I want max to win a brownlow...

Imagine his speech 3/4 cut. It would be hilarious. 

With a cigarette hanging out the side of his mouth.

[Ricky P 757]

12 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Lol. I haven't read it yet, but the headline sounds like a Demonland thread topic.  Hyperbole much, Newscorp? Never!

Articles in 'The Crowd' are actually written by fans (as opposed to journos). So yeah, it could well be a demonland topic. 

[Akum 2,660]

More "facts", from AFL website:

Goldie only spent 1% of his time on the ground in the forward line on Sunday. So he spent just about all of his 93% TOG in Sunday's game on the ball.

Max is on the ball for 98% of the time that he's on the ground this season. So his 89% TOG on Sunday was also just about all on the ball.

You'd expect that for just about all of that time they would have been opposed to each other. Both coaches would have wanted to limit the amount of the time that the other ruck was on the ground unopposed.

Neither Brown nor Petrie got a single hitout. But Max was double-teamed a few times too, because the likes of Wells, dal Santo and Cunnington did get hitouts.

Sorry Steve.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

49 minutes ago, Akum said:

 

I regret nitpicking and apologise for causing a ruckus.

There is a word I wish I hadn't used in that first post which was 'many'. Perhaps he didn't win 'many' taps against ruckmen other than Goldy, but he certainly didn't win all 63 against the big guy. And that, and only that was the simple point I was trying to make.

There is nothing left to argue because I agree with your observations concerning everything else. Again, I was nitpicking.

Gawn had a monster of a game and kept us in it in more ways than one. I don't mean to undersell him in anyway and appreciate his efforts.

Peace and love.

[Binmans PA 25,886]

 

16 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I'm convinced Max wrote it.

That's what I said on one of his friend's Facebook walls. I presume the big fella will see it.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I love Max.

 

[In Harmes Way 7,477]

7 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I love Max.

 

Have another scotch Ron and watch the replay again for old times sake.

i love him too.

[PaulRB 5,897]

If Max can back it up against the Pies, we'll be well on the way to having a good day. 

Go Max! 

[Moonshadow 16,099]

Big Max against Big Cox. That's a lot of length.

[Devil is in the Detail 880]

18 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Big Max against Big Cox. That's a lot of length.

4m + of homosapien.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,844]

 

45 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Big Max against Big Cox. That's a lot of length.

 

26 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

4m + of homosapien.

Like to see the 2 of them stand either side of Caleb Daniels

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

4 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

 

Like to see the 2 of them stand either side of Caleb Daniels

I would love the commentators to start measuring other players' heights in Caleb Daniels.

New standard unit of measurement for footballers.

[Demon Dynasty 15,162]

Great effort by the Big M last week but....

1st quarter

He failed to follow Goldy into the forward line and paid the price on a few occasions.

Didn't work hard enough to get front position around the ground.

Corrected the above in the 2nd/3rd

Last Quarter

Centre bounce....hit a few too many balls forward straight into North's defensive sweeper (may have been Zeibal). Gave North a couple of cheap quick entries late for a few cheap goals. Needs to be more aware of opposition set up. Either that or we should have manned sweeper up if that was Maxy's plan.

Other than that he had a pretty amazing game with only a few slip ups. Made Goldy look second rate in the 2nd and some of the 3rd.