Carlton are the one to watch out for - They can win The Premiership

[Thrawn]

That's irrelevant to them all that matters is the most meaningless stat in the game which is free kick numbers.

It's essentially Daniel Hoyne-type analysis.

It's funny how some random poster with little posting history in Carlton threads suddenly bob up after a loss. If Curnow was so reliant on free kicks, where was this poster in all the other games?

They bleat on about how many free kicks he gets, but never actually go through them, never explain which ones are there and which ones are not, etc. Biggest fallacy around.

 

[Thrawn]

my take from the stats you are looking for are of the key forwards Charlie and Harry are #1 and #2 for free kicks for compared to every other key forward in the comp. Thats a pretty significant stat.

Defenders panicking and infringing is a more logical conclusion than "da umpires are in on it, it's a conspiracy".

Occam's razor here. The rest is just white noise.

 

[HirdyLannister]

The raging blues are just foxing the competition, they've played a solid month of football smashing North.

Anything less than Grand Final is failure.

 

[carlton_99]

If these posters are representative of the Carlton crowds, they honestly believe the following:
1. Charlie and Harry absolutely deserve every free kick they get, and more;
2. Carlton are extremely hard done by with the umpiring in every other position on the ground.

Ah yes because you are the "neutral" we should be listening to. Only mentions umpires in games Carlton win. Any comments on the umpiring yesterday? Brilliant wasn't it!

 

[Thrawn]

The umpiring was neutral... being that it was bad for both sides. That's par for the course though.

 

[Fadge]

It's funny how some random poster with little posting history in Carlton threads suddenly bob up after a loss. If Curnow was so reliant on free kicks, where was this poster in all the other games?

They bleat on about how many free kicks he gets, but never actually go through them, never explain which ones are there and which ones are not, etc. Biggest fallacy around.

Pick one term from the following - 'What type of run does Charlie get from the umpires compared to most other key forwards in the competition?':
1. Considerably better
2. Better
3. The same
4. Slightly worse
5. Considerably worse

 

[carlton_99]

That's par for the course though.

So the umpiring is just really bad in most games nowadays - colour me surprised

 

[Fadge]

Ah yes because you are the "neutral" we should be listening to. Only mentions umpires in games Carlton win. Any comments on the umpiring yesterday? Brilliant wasn't it!

Look at the commentary in the game day thread.

The only reason Carlton got to the 5 goal lead was courtesy of the umpiring.

Port should have won that game by 8 goals.

 

[carlton_99]

Look at the commentary in the game day thread.

The only reason Carlton got to the 5 goal lead was courtesy of the umpiring.

Port should have won that game by 8 goals.

The game-day thread where all the "neutrals" are I'm assuming? Thanks for the laugh mate.

 

[Thrawn]

Pick one term from the following - 'What type of run does Charlie get from the umpires compared to most other key forwards in the competition?':
1. Considerably better
2. Better
3. The same
4. Slightly worse
5. Considerably worse

I want you to go through every free kick Curnow gets that leads to a score, and let me know which ones were there, and which ones were not. An actual analysis rather than a survey.

But of course you won't. No one here will.

 

[Fadge]

The game-day thread where all the "neutrals" are I'm assuming? Thanks for the laugh mate.

If you honestly don't think Carlton had a good run from the umpires in the first half last night, I can't help you.

 

[carlton_99]

If you honestly don't think Carlton had a good run from the umpires in the first half last night, I can't help you.

What happened in the second half? I thought games have two of them...

 

[Thrawn]

If you honestly don't think Carlton had a good run from the umpires in the first half last night, I can't help you.

Coming from the team who got gifted the North game due to a missed 50m penalty, one where the umpires themselves admitted they got wrong.

Lol you're the biggest hypocrite on this site.

 

[Fadge]

I want you to go through every free kick Curnow gets that leads to a score, and let me know which ones were there, and which ones were not. An actual analysis rather than a survey.

But of course you won't. No one here will.

Why does it matter whether or not it leads to a score?

If he gets a dubious free kick 15 metres out from goal, but sprays it out of bounds on the full, it didn't really happen?

 

[carlton_99]

Why does it matter whether or not it leads to a score?

If he gets a dubious free kick 15 metres out from goal, but sprays it out of bounds on the full, it didn't really happen?

Where is the evidence or any sort of analysis that show the free kicks to be incorrect or "dubious"...? You are just quoting free kick numbers lol

 

[Fadge]

What happened in the second half? I thought games have two of them...

The second half was more balanced, and Port completely outplayed Carlton.

 

[Thrawn]

Why does it matter whether or not it leads to a score?

If he gets a dubious free kick 15 metres out from goal, but sprays it out of bounds on the full, it didn't really happen?

Because according to the people making that argument, Curnow isn't half the player he is without these free kicks apparently. Regardless if they were legitimately there or not.

 

[carlton_99]

The second half was more balanced, and Port completely outplayed Carlton.

"More balanced" haha - an umpire could shoot a Carlton player mid-game and you would call it balanced. What a farce.

 

[Fadge]

Where is the evidence or any sort of analysis that show the free kicks to be incorrect or "dubious"...? You are just quoting free kick numbers lol

Did I quote any free kick numbers?

One simply had to watch the game to see Carlton were getting heavily favoured in the first half.

 

[carlton_99]

Did I quote any free kick numbers?

One simply had to watch the game to see Carlton were getting heavily favoured in the first half.

Ah so your evidence is your own subjective opinion - fair enough!

 

[Do the Dew]

You can splurt out all the stats you want, but without context, they're meaningless. You are using it to downplay Curnow, quite deliberately too. That's why I called it acidic.

See another response for some context.

I'm not randomly targeting Curnow as if he's the #50 on the list. He's #1 for key forwards and McKay #2.

 

[Thrawn]

See another response for some context.

I'm not randomly targeting Curnow as if he's the #50 on the list. He's #1 for key forwards and McKay #2.

There isn't any context. You have not once actually dug into things and checked to see which free kicks were there, and which were not. If the majority of them are actually legitimate, then you have no argument.

 

[Do the Dew]

It's funny how some random poster with little posting history in Carlton threads suddenly bob up after a loss. If Curnow was so reliant on free kicks, where was this poster in all the other games?

They bleat on about how many free kicks he gets, but never actually go through them, never explain which ones are there and which ones are not, etc. Biggest fallacy around.

I watched the video of Curnows 2023 frees and there's a dozen or so that are dubious as all hell. I've also called out the Kings (more Max than Ben), and Larkey who are also very looked after. The difference is that Curnow's and McKay's free kick stats are so much more skewed than any of the other premier key forwards over the last few years (Riewoldt, Lynch, Cameron, Hawkins). So either they've both revolutionised forward craft, or they play for frees.

I've never said frees have to be equal. But when a team or player continually gets a positive differential, then clearly they're making sure that any contact is being noticed.

 

[Do the Dew]

There isn't any context. You have not once actually dug into things and checked to see which free kicks were there, and which were not. If the majority of them are actually legitimate, then you have no argument.

Sure, a dozen of those from 2023 were bs. There you go.

 

[carlton_99]

Sure, a dozen of those from 2023 were bs. There you go.

Which ones specifically? I have watched this video multiple times and there are genuinely maybe 2-3 that are questionable the rest are just clear cut.