Simpson?

[Ricochet]

Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.

[Bully]

Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.

Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.

[Ricochet]

Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.

Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.

Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done

Breaking it down with the stats we have available.

12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4

Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense

[WizzFizz]

gibbs had 12 touches at 50% de also 2 clangers and he got 69

[Bully]

Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.

Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.

Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done

Breaking it down with the stats we have available.

12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4

Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense

I understand the scoring break down but I don't believe he deserved to be scaled down, quite the opposite. He had 4 clangers but I don't recall him butchering the ball, it was more a case of the opposition positioning themselves to cause unlikely turnovers. If he finished on 63 then he probably deserved to be scaled up to 70+, that's just my take on the situation. Like I mentioned earlier, I watched the game and had no idea he would wind up with such a miserable score. 

[Ricochet]

Which obviously means he hardly got any of them, IF any at all.
Like I'm pissed he scored so badly as well but its not like VS are out there to flower us. His points are his points, there's noone to blame but him.

Disagree, having watched the game I thought Simpson was one of Carlton's best and at least deserved to be scaled up by 10 points. Given Warnock received 17 freebie points and made some match losing howlers in the last quarter Simpson's paltry return is unjustifiable. There were others like Gibbs & Daisy who got a free ride from CD and scored more, the points simply didn't reflect the onfield contributions.

Bully his stats reflect his scoring. Whether or not he looked like he played well is a different story. They can only award points for what he has done

Breaking it down with the stats we have available.

12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4

Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense

I understand the scoring break down but I don't believe he deserved to be scaled down, quite the opposite. He had 4 clangers but I don't recall him butchering the ball, it was more a case of the opposition positioning themselves to cause unlikely turnovers. If he finished on 63 then he probably deserved to be scaled up to 70+, that's just my take on the situation. Like I mentioned earlier, I watched the game and had no idea he would wind up with such a miserable score.

Neither did I man, and its disappointing as hell. Just can't see the point of others on here whinging about VS and the scoring when its pretty justified (apart from maybe the scaling).

[Ricochet]

gibbs had 12 touches at 50% de also 2 clangers and he got 69

Yeh but a majority of Gibbs possessions were contested and he had 6 tackles. Like he got 39 points just from his Tackles, Goal, Hitout and Free For. Then he had 6 effective possies which could have been 3 kicks and 3 handballs. So up to 55.5. Then 7 of his disposals were contested and he had 3 clearances. He only needs these 3 of these Contested Disposals and Clearances to be considered Hardball Gets or Looseball Gets to make up the rest.

[Jroo]

That's an absolute joke, I thought he played well watching the game live at the G, without seeing any stats.
Was expecting him to get 90 points + and was shocked to see he only got 60 points or so.

[RaisyDaisy]

Funny how when you read the match report on AFL.com it has Simpson listed as one the best players for Carlton

Now it might all come down to efficiency etc, but that's where I call BS because Warnock was comical with his errors yet still got scaled up ridiculously

[Rusty00]

Simpson actually got scaled up at the end of the game. At the completion of the game he was on 59 points :o

[sammy123]

Thanks rico for showing the scoring system. It makes sense how he scored crap. Im still annoyed about. Oh well happens to the best of them

[Jroo]

Here's Fantasy Freako's response to why Simpson only score 61.
@FantasyFreako: @ImpromptuSC Simpson had 3 contested possessions, 3 clanger kicks and 6 ineffective

[eaglesman]

This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...

The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it

next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky

just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week

[Bully]

This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...

The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it

next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky

just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week

he's normally an excellent user of the ball, only twice last year was his AF score larger than his SC score. I've got no doubt he'll bounce back strongly.

[nopies4u]

This happens every year people wanting to blame CD for the supercoach scoring ...

The bloke was inefficient and that is all there is to it get over it

next week when he kicks blindly they might land in the arms of his team mates and u will get lucky

just be happy he showed he has an appetite to wanna go get the ball at least and hope he can sharpen up his disposal next week

This happens every year when the game is close. If the game was a blowout Simpson would have scored 80-90 because most of the points from the first half would have counted. I don't like that a player has earn't points yet loses them because the game is close and the players are not in the right place at the right time to score points. This was the case with Simpson yesterday and its why Warnock scored so many. If a player can score 30 points for a "supergoal" he should also lose 30 points for a "superclanger"