I've just about had enough of people banging on about Pedo on this site and that he should be in our team.  

I am struggling to think of 1 game where he played a great game.  He may have been serviceable in a couple but he goes missing within games and from week to week.  The way people talk on here is that he is the missing link.  What have I missed???

 

The old-fashioned journeyman footballer who doesn't impact games, has never kicked 20 goals in 6 completed seasons, never kicked 4 goals in a game, and doesn't consistently contest in the air.  He doesn't provide enough opportunities for a key forward, either for himself, or his teammates, and isn't part of the future.

He's insurance, but clearly (and rightly) not part of Goodwin's plans. 

Edited April 23, 20178 yr by ProDee

57 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I've just about had enough of people banging on about Pedo on this site and that he should be in our team.  

I am struggling to think of 1 game where he played a great game.  He may have been serviceable in a couple but he goes missing within games and from week to week.  The way people talk on here is that he is the missing link.  What have I missed???

 

If you can't see his value to the team well you must be blind.  For the last 2 years he has been our 2nd best big bodied forward after Hogan.

Whatever your views on him are if you are on the list & playing well you should be given an opportunity doesn't matter if you are Joel McDonald, James Magner, Phil Read, Chris Lamb or anyone else. 

When you have no back up ruckman, key defender or key forward like last week it is suicide to go into the game without some insurance.

 

 

How many games has he played in the last 2 years??? Let me answer that for you 9 games last year and 7 the year before.  He has kicked 12 goals in those 16 games and averaged 14 disposals per game.  

Roll out the red carpet, Wayne Carey is back. 

We also have a back up ruckman, his name is Jack Watts.  

Handy depth player but if pedo is in our best 22 it means we have injuries or horrible form issues 

32 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

If you can't see his value to the team well you must be blind.  For the last 2 years he has been our 2nd best big bodied forward after Hogan.

 

 

 

That's true. It's also true that Dawes, on one leg, still managed to get games ahead of him at times.

Pedo is useful as depth and has his moments, but that's the extent of it so far and given his age it'd be a surprise to see much more than the odd moment here and there.

Considering Max is down and out for 12 weeks i was expecting to see Pedo in the 22 as "depth"

he is a big lump and those 2-3 goals he kicks may be very useful....

He provides much better structure than Weideman currently does and he can help Watts and Spencer in the ruck.

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

He provides much better structure than Weideman currently does and he can help Watts and Spencer in the ruck.

Exactly. If he can't crack a game now he never will. 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

he is a big lump and those 2-3 goals he kicks may be very useful....

He's never averaged a goal per game at Melbourne.

As buck mentioned in another thread, Goodwin relies on who's best at implementing our systems.  Clearly he sees others ahead of Pedersen and in this case it's Tim Smith.

4 minutes ago, ProDee said:

He's never averaged a goal per game at Melbourne.

As buck mentioned in another thread, Goodwin relies on who's best at implementing our systems.  Clearly he sees others ahead of Pedersen and in this case it's Tim Smith.

I have seen him kick goals and i have seen him in the Ruck. 

Whilst Max is incapacitated it is now or never for Pedo. If Goodwin rates other fringe players ahead of him, he had better be right. 

Pedo isn't the most skillful, but he does always give 100%

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Whilst Max is incapacitated it is now or never for Pedo.

The answer has been provided.

We win a higher percentage of games when he is in the sides. Stats were provided in the age at the end of last year.

2 minutes ago, --coach-- said:

We win a higher percentage of games when he is in the sides. Stats were provided in the age at the end of last year.

Link?

30 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

He provides much better structure than Weideman currently does and he can help Watts and Spencer in the ruck.

He became redundant in the ruck as soon as Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Watts adds the same amount in the ruck (not much) and makes a much better midfielder.

I'd actually argue he became redundant full stop when Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Pedersen's career stats since Watts took over in the ruck in round 9 last year: 2 games for 3 hitouts.

17 minutes ago, Nasher said:

He became redundant in the ruck as soon as Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Watts adds the same amount in the ruck (not much) and makes a much better midfielder.

I'd actually argue he became redundant full stop when Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Pedersen's career stats since Watts took over in the ruck in round 9 last year: 2 games for 3 hitouts.

He adds structure, he's the kind of player that allows Hogan to play better as he is isn't the only key position player up forward. 

I'm not worried if he's not getting hit outs at all.

22 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Link?

Can't find the link but here are the raw stats from 2013 to 2016:

MFC 23 wins from 88 games = 26.1%

Cam played in 12 wins in 45 games = 26.6%

If you figure out the games he was not in, the stats work out for MFC as 11wins in 43games without Cam which is 25.5%.

Therefore we win 26.6% of our games when he plays and 25.5% when he does not ?

States were skewed higher towards him at the time as it wasn't at the very end of the season, at the time it was around 25% versus like 35%

Edited April 23, 20178 yr by --coach--

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

If you can't see his value to the team well you must be blind.  For the last 2 years he has been our 2nd best big bodied forward after Hogan.

Whatever your views on him are if you are on the list & playing well you should be given an opportunity doesn't matter if you are Joel McDonald, James Magner, Phil Read, Chris Lamb or anyone else. 

When you have no back up ruckman, key defender or key forward like last week it is suicide to go into the game without some insurance.

 

 

Weideman, Hannan, Melksham, JKH, Dawes, Garland, Michie, Frost, Bail, Riley, Fitzpatrick..... a few others you may want to add to the opportunity list out of those Cranky

Wow, ProDee doesn't rate Cam. Thank god he reminds us all of this thrilling fact in 85 different threads every day, otherwise we might have forgotten.

3 minutes ago, --coach-- said:

Can't find the link but here are the raw stats from 2013 to 2016:

MFC 23 wins from 88 games = 26.1%

Cam played in 12 wins in 45 games = 26.6%

If you figure out the games he was not in, the stats work out for MFC as 11wins in 43games without Cam which is 25.5%.

Therefore we win 26.6% of our games when he plays and 25.5% when he does not ?

States were skewed higher towards him at the time as it wasn't at the very end of the season, at the time it was around 25% versus like 35%

Interestingly in 2016 he played in 6 wins and 3 losses which is 66%.

Without MFC won 4 and lost 13 which is 30.7%.

Therefore in 2016 we won 66% of our games when he was in the side and 30.7% when not in the side, which is a pretty strong statsistic I reckon.

19 minutes ago, --coach-- said:

Interestingly in 2016 he played in 6 wins and 3 losses which is 66%.

Without MFC won 4 and lost 13 which is 30.7%.

Therefore in 2016 we won 66% of our games when he was in the side and 30.7% when not in the side, which is a pretty strong statsistic I reckon.

Except for the total lack of any relationship between the two facts.

44 minutes ago, Nasher said:

He became redundant in the ruck as soon as Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Watts adds the same amount in the ruck (not much) and makes a much better midfielder.

I'd actually argue he became redundant full stop when Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Pedersen's career stats since Watts took over in the ruck in round 9 last year: 2 games for 3 hitouts.

Watts also makes a much better forward.

But that's the issue for me - when Watts is out of the forward line, we rob our forward line just to have someone sit in the ruck.

Pedersen could play Smith/Weideman's role, not add much less than them (and no, for the record, he won't add much more either), but by rucking that prevents us from having to ruck Watts when we should be playing him as a permanent forward. And as you've said, it's not like Watts is so much of a better ruckman that it's noticeable.

Not best 22 by a long way, but needed now

Same as Spencer

Insurance cover

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

He became redundant in the ruck as soon as Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Watts adds the same amount in the ruck (not much) and makes a much better midfielder.

I'd actually argue he became redundant full stop when Watts lined up at a centre bounce.  Pedersen's career stats since Watts took over in the ruck in round 9 last year: 2 games for 3 hitouts.

The 'average' hit out stats for 2016 tell a very different story Nasher.

Here they are courtesy of Footywire for season 2016 in ranked order for MFC players.....

1. Big Maxy - 42.18 / 22 (Hit outs/Games played) ... No.1 in AFL also.

2. Pedersen - 3.67 / 9

3. Dawes - 2.17 / 6

4. Watts 1.91 / 22

Regardless his main role (as for Watts and most non-specialist ruckman 2nd stringers) is not to win many hit outs i wouldn't think. Neautralise if possible then contest off the ground. Any wins 'to advantage' a huge bonus of course. Watts obviously much better at the ground ball if it's in dispute and not hit to advantage by an opp's 2nd stringer. Pedders generally plays a role that sees him at both ends of the ground depending on match ups and in the ruck on occasions as 2nd stringer, at least before Watts started playing there. If you think your best ball user around the ground and up forward, including probably our most accurate in front of goals is better used in the ruck Nasher then we see football through very different eyes. Pedders offers Watts the advantage of avoiding unnecessary ruck duties and allowing him to impact the game on the outside and up forward where he is at his most damaging as our best ball user, decision maker and most accurate shot at goal most games.

That, plus a big ready made AFL body who often gets involved in scoring chains as a reasonable link man. Contests hard in the air, brings the ball to ground and not too bad with set shots when he gets the opportunity. He reminds me of Bull but a more well rounded experienced big bodied player who can effect a contest and will take a 2nd string defender, again allowing Watts the extra benefit of getting the 3rd stringer which should allow him to impact more and more often to the team's benefit.

 

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

He adds structure, he's the kind of player that allows Hogan to play better as he is isn't the only key position player up forward. 

I'm not worried if he's not getting hit outs at all.

Pedders is by no means a "must" inclusion every week Clint unless he performs to a certain standard but he should at least be given that opportunity over a 2 to 3 week period if we continue with spasmodic results, W/L/W/L/WW/LLL etc, and are not showing any obvious improvement with match results or consistency up forward.  This also assumes Pedders is in good form at Casey. Needs to earn it like anyone else.

Edited April 23, 20178 yr by Rusty Nails

He doesn't get a game because he's a spud, if Pederson were a regular in our team we wouldn't be considered potential finalists 

13 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Except for the total lack of any relationship between the two facts.

Watts also makes a much better forward.

But that's the issue for me - when Watts is out of the forward line, we rob our forward line just to have someone sit in the ruck.

Pedersen could play Smith/Weideman's role, not add much less than them (and no, for the record, he won't add much more either), but by rucking that prevents us from having to ruck Watts when we should be playing him as a permanent forward. And as you've said, it's not like Watts is so much of a better ruckman that it's noticeable.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning, however I don't see how you can suggest a total lack of relationship when we are 33% more likely to win when he is in the team than when he is not?