Adelaide's midfield v Richmond's midfield

[pyronerd]

You think that all you want, I don't have to conform to any particular type of communication steriotypes, I don't care how big a nerd you are, I don't care how much you think study is important to ones future. Saying I look like an idiot when you don't even know why I might have said what I said is , well, kind of idiotic :o

There's different forms of inteligence and Academic is just one of them ;)

they are stereotypes for a reason, because they actually make sense.

then why did you say it? or is giving evidence to support one's argument against your method of communication....

here

Nonetheless, now that I've explained to you how to actually argue/debate/prove something wrong or right, I'll attempt to explain why I think you're wrong.

This is why

My point is how can you tell someone how to actually argue :o like there is a right and wrong way of arguing, i'll argue that there isn't, did someone one day decide to say "this is how you argue and anything else is wrong" :o  I'll argue that person is a moron

Don't try to tell people how to communicate that's just lame

well if the communication was better then we could all have discussions and everyone would benefit from it, but instead, we end up with this.

it doesn't matter whether you are right or not, if you can't back up what you are saying with some explaining and some evidence, then you can't expect to convince anyone of your side to the argument.


btw, back on topic, richmond midfield > Adelaide midfield, the crows just don't have the starpower at present to compete with them

[Ziplock]

You think that all you want, I don't have to conform to any particular type of communication steriotypes, I don't care how big a nerd you are, I don't care how much you think study is important to ones future. Saying I look like an idiot when you don't even know why I might have said what I said is , well, kind of idiotic :o

There's different forms of inteligence and Academic is just one of them ;)

they are stereotypes for a reason, because they actually make sense.

then why did you say it? or is giving evidence to support one's argument against your method of communication....

here

Nonetheless, now that I've explained to you how to actually argue/debate/prove something wrong or right, I'll attempt to explain why I think you're wrong.

This is why

My point is how can you tell someone how to actually argue :o like there is a right and wrong way of argueing, i'll argue that there isn't, did someone one day decide to say "this is how you argue and anything else is wrong" :o  I'll argue that person is a moron

Don't try to tell people how to communicate that's just lame

you can argue anyway you want, but if you argue in certain ways people are going to think you're either ignorant, or an idiot.

The best way to argue is to use hard facts and evidence, not just having groundless statements and assuming you're right and everyone should just believe you.

[tbagrocks]

Evidence smeh!

Steve Waugh played more test cricket than Don Bradman so he must be better, to back this claim Waugh also scored more runs so he is without doubt a better test cricketer than Don Bradman

Don averaged higher per innings but Steve's longevity in the game outweighs that as he did it for far longer

Sorry to disappoint all you believers but facts can be misleading, evidence does not always mean the truth

[stew42]

Evidence smeh!

Steve Waugh played more test cricket than Don Bradman so he must be better, to back this claim Waugh also scored more runs so he is without doubt a better test cricketer than Don Bradman

Don averaged higher per innings but Steve's longevity in the game outweighs that as he did it for far longer

Sorry to disappoint all you believers but facts can be misleading, evidence does not always mean the truth

Well, in that you are implying (sarcastically) that number of runs outweighs average. Kind of similar to DT overall points vs average. But that statement in itself is based on opinion.

If one is clever, they might realise that this leads to infinite regress (ie. eventually needing opinion on all value statements). But some sensible justification is needed. Not everyone's opinion is equal (a reason I don't really like democracy - but that's another story)

Signing out,

The "History and Philosophy of Science" student.

[CrowsFan]

Steve Waugh played more test cricket than Don Bradman so he must be better, to back this claim Waugh also scored more runs so he is without doubt a better test cricketer than Don Bradman

Don averaged higher per innings but Steve's longevity in the game outweighs that as he did it for far longer

Bradman actually played over a 20 year span for Australia, Waugh only 19 years so Bradman did it for longer :P

[Ziplock]

Evidence smeh!

Steve Waugh played more test cricket than Don Bradman so he must be better, to back this claim Waugh also scored more runs so he is without doubt a better test cricketer than Don Bradman

Don averaged higher per innings but Steve's longevity in the game outweighs that as he did it for far longer

Sorry to disappoint all you believers but facts can be misleading, evidence does not always mean the truth

Facts aren't misleading, so long as you provide the whole facts, rather than purposely selecting parts of it to make a point. Secondly, in this case, you could argue that Waugh was playing in a time where professional sportsmen were significantly superior due to only needing/ having one career, having better training facilities/ better training methods, a wider participation in the sports etc. that being said, that's technically all subjective

thirdly, as CF pointed out, you didn't actually get your initial facts right.

If you'd read this part of the wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

you would have seen 6 points listed as main parts of an argument
1. Claim: Waugh was a better test cricketer than Bradman
2. Data: Waugh scored more test runs than bradman, despite having a year shorter career
3. Warrant: A person scoring more test runs in their career is a better test cricketer.
4. Credentials: ?

5. Rebuttal:
1. Donald Bradman was a better test cricketer than Steve Waugh
2. Data: waugh  had a test batting average (51.06) nearly half of bradmans (99.94), on top of that, you also haven't considered bowling averages, in which Waugh was also inferior (37.44) to bradman (36.00). In catchings/stumpings waugh averaged 0.66 per game, while bradman averaged 0.62.
Bradman played for longer, but played in less tests, since his career spanned from 1928-1948, in times when travel was significantly more difficult, and without television being available to mass public, along with the impact of the 2nd world war halting many sporting competitions, less test games were played, subsequently, this doesn't indicate that he was an inferior batsman.
3. A 196% better batting average and a 104% better bowling average is greater in determining a better test cricketer than a 106% better catching/ stumping average, that being said, low catch rates and average bowling averages by both player
4. Credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batsman
'The main statistic for batting is a player's batting average.'

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/records/283548.html
(demonstrates that the most influential catchers average over 1 catch per game)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/records/283256.html
(demonstrates that good bowling averages are significantly lower than 36/37)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#1930_tour_of_England
'The outbreak of World War Two led to the indefinite postponement of all cricket tour'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane#Powered_flight
'The first commercial flights took place between the United States and Canada in 1919'.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-082.pdf
'price index for 1930 was 17.3 and the index for 2002 was 695.1.  In
2002 the average price level was some 40.2 times (695.1/17.3) the 1930 level'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route
'1935. Imperial Airways and Qantas Empire Airways opened the 12,754 mile London to Brisbane route for passengers for a single fare £195'
therefore it costed the equivalent of $12 000 per person for a one way flight to england
'The route opened for passengers from Brisbane to London on 17 April; flights were weekly and the journey time was 12½ days including the rail trip between Paris and Brindisi'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television#Television_sets
'9,000 electronic television sets were manufactured in Britain, and about 1,600 in Germany, before World War II. About 7,000â€"8,000 electronic sets were made in the U.S'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television
'Commercially available since the late 1920s'


that's technically how you should structure a reasonable argument. Basically, your opinion isn't the only one that matters, especially considering you have no credentials or expertise to lay more weight to it.

I hope you get something out of that, because it was a dog to do all that, considering I'm not a devout cricket follower, and a lot of that information on bradmans era (cost of flights, length of flights, postponing of cricket matches wasn't super easy to find)

[CrowsFan]

UniSyd represent! :P

[Ziplock]

UniSyd represent! :P

actually, shouldn't use wikipedia as a source...

I should instead use the same information, but credit it elsewhere :P

[tbagrocks]

great effort Zip i'll look properly another time, bit to busy tonight

[Sapientia]

Love the conversation over the last few pages. I don't mean to be a 'nerd' tbag but I genuinely believe that arguing or debating in a certain way allows one to stay on topic, avoid it being personal and allow the argument/debate to achieve more depth. All I want is to discuss footy and unfortunately it's pretty hard to do so when one states their opinion as the evidence for their stance and refuses to listen.

I've made over 60,000 posts on forums in my time and I believe I've learnt how to best engage others in an argument and achieve the best and most amicable result - hence my (pretentious, I'll agree) post earlier. And I'll say that while I may not be right about 'the best way to debate' - I'm certainly right in saying that getting butthurt when someone disagrees with you and acting as if your opinion is greater than anyone elses, and also greater than facts is not only demeaning to everyone in the room, but incredibly frustrating and reflects poorly on yourself.

Rant over laddy, peace.

[meow meow]

I'll chime in with some unwanted comparisons with a team that is flying under the radar and may sneak up the ladder sooner than most people expect.

Only listing players who are good enough to play in 2013.


Thompson
Tuck
Boyd

Dangerfield
Cotchin
Griffen

Sloane
Deledio
Cooney

Vince
Foley
Cross

Van Berlo
Grigg
Picken

Mackay
Jackson
Wallis

Douglas (fwd)
Conca
Liberatore

Wright (fwd)
D. Martin (fwd)
Lower

Porplyzia (fwd)
Edwards (fwd)
Higgins (fwd)

Crouch
Lonergan
Clay Smith

Kerridge
Knights (fwd)
Dahlhaus (fwd)

B. Martin
Ellis
Howard

Joyce
Vlaustin
Koby

-
-
Macrae (Compo pick for Callan Ward. Imagine if he wasn't poached) , Hrovat, Stringer (fwd), Hunter (fwd)



I'm not including Brodie Smith, Reilly, Otten or any of the other Crows since they are backmen only, except for Petrenko who is a forward only. Same deal for Houli and Newman, and Easton Wood. Christian Howard is likely to play on a wing this year but he would be classed with these blokes.

Once we start getting to the 6th-12th mids, the Dogs have the others covered and they're only going to get better. How long will it take? Bennell from GC is a star in just 2 seasons, and Wallis, Libba and Dahlhaus could all become guns in 2013.

[meow meow]

Here's a fact for you. Champion data rates Adelaide's midfield/rucks as 4th best in the competition. Richmond's is ranked 6th!

Scientific proof (or the closest you can get for sport) that Adelaide's midfield is better :)

The teams ahead of the Crows and Tigers are:

1st - Collingwood
2nd - Sydney
3rd - Carlton
4th - Adelaide
5th - Fremantle
6th - Richmond

The CD rankings are total bullshower. They said the Bulldogs have a better forward line than Geelong, so there goes all the credibility of those rankings.

[tbagrocks]

Pitty science has little to do with how well a team will do in 2013, and some current pb's are proving it, how's Adelaide going since the sports sciemce left the club? How's Essendon been going recentelly? Give me an old fasioned Coach any day

The Crows have a better contested ball and depth, stop being silly about the Richmond line up

[meow meow]

I forgot about the rucks:

Ivan (31.0 hitouts average)
Jacobs (31.0)
Minson (31.8 )

Griffen and Cooney are both South Australians so they are obviously better than those they are grouped with, isn't that right Tbag?
Minno is another South Australian so that just has to confirm that the Bulldogs have better mids than both of these teams. Let's not forget about Christian Howard either!

[meow meow]

Disposals per game:
1. Boyd 32.8
2. Thompson 29.5
3. Cotchin 27.6
4. Deledio 27.5
5. Griffen 27
6. Dangerfield 26.7
7. Tuck 26.2
8. Grigg 25.5
9. Cross 23.8
10. Lower 23.3


Contested possessions per game:
1. Dangerfield 16.1
2. Boyd 14
2. Thompson 14
4. Tuck 13.6
5. Cotchin 12.4
6. Griffen 11.6
7. Lower 11.3
8. Cooney 11.1
9. Foley 10.6
10. Liberatore 10.6



Efffective Disposals per game
1. Boyd 21.7
2. Cross 19.8
3. Deledio 19.6
4. Grigg 19.5
5. Tuck 19.4
5. Thompson 19.4
7. Griffen 18.2
8. Cotchin 18
9. Wallis 17.1
10. Dangerfield 16.8


Clearances
1. Thompson 6.8
2. Dangerfield 6.5
3. Boyd 6.3
4. Liberatore 5.9
5. Tuck 5.6
6. Cotchin 5.1
7. Wallis 5
7. Griffen 5
9. Foley 4.4
10. Deledio 3.6


Inside 50's
1. Deledio 5.9
2. Dangerfield 5.5
3. Griffen 5.3
4. Foley 5
5. Tuck 4.7
6. Boyd 4.4
7. Douglas 4.3
8. Martin 4.2
8. Dahlhaus 4.2
10. Grigg 4.1


Goals
1. Porplyzia 30 (from 22 games)
2. Edwards 29 (20)
3. Dangerfield 23 (25)
3. Martin 23 (20)
5. Higgins 22 (19)
6. Cotchin 21 (22)
7. Sloane 19 (24)
8. Grigg 18 (22)
8. Vince 18 (20)
10. Deledio 17 (22)


Adelaide had no injuries.
Dangerfield, Mackay, Sloane, Wright are young enough to improve again.

Richmond missed Foley for half the season.
Cotchin, Martin and Edwards are the right age to improve again.

The Dogs get their goalkicking mid back with his fixed knee (not kidding) who managed to average 22 possessions on one leg last year, Cross and Liberatore who missed a chunk of games and Lower as a new player.
Wallis, Liberatore, Dahlhaus and even Higgins are set to keep improving.