The rise.... and RISE of Marc Pittonet

[kruddler]

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/...sonTab=h2h

Before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I'm not expecting MP to be like Grundy. just comparing him to the current gold standard.

Select "season avg" and "advanced stats" to get a better picture.

....and what do i see?

Hitouts to advantage
Marc Pittonet - 36.6% - ELITE
Brodie Gundy - 27.1% - Below average

....and thats all i'm talking about. Hitouts, ruck craft, the ability to influence the game at ruck contests!

.....and my stat would show an ever more flattering view when you take into account total ruck contests, not just the ones where you get your hand on the ball first!

Nowhere have i said anything about his around the ground stuff.

FWIW, he's still only played 12 games.
Brody grundy has played 139 games. 1100+% more games!

[PaulP]

Yes, but unless we're kicking 30 goals per game, or unless we become a stoppage obsessed team, most of the time he's on the ground he's not actually practicing the part of his craft that allows him to tap. So the other aspects of his game must also be taken into consideration.

I wasn't expecting anywhere near what he has delivered, but I wouldn't be going the early crow just yet.

[kruddler]

Yes, but unless we're kicking 30 goals per game, or unless we become a stoppage obsessed team, most of the time he's on the ground he's not actually practicing the part of his craft that allows him to tap. So the other aspects of his game must also be taken into consideration.

I wasn't expecting anywhere near what he has delivered, but I wouldn't be going the early crow just yet.

15 times a quarter (on average) is when he is able to stamp his influence on the game purely as a ruckman.

Thats probably more chances than most.....and whatever else he gets around the ground is on top of that.

I think its been so long since we have had a dominant ruck that we've forgotten what type of influence they can provide in the stoppages.

[DJC]

So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did.  Perhaps we should have kept Flip  :-\

Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option.  However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.

[ElwoodBlues1]

So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did.  Perhaps we should have kept Flip  :-\

Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option.  However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.

English was BOG, Philips had a slight advantage in the hit out count but was slaughtered around the ground.
Scribes all said it was the best game English has played....

[Gointocarlton]

English was BOG, Philips had a slight advantage in the hit out count but was slaughtered around the ground.
Scribes all said it was the best game English has played....

Thats what I though, I watched the game for a very short amount of time but I recall hearing the commentators saying he was dominating Phillips. Phillips is a VFL standard ruckman at best, he was no great loss. Pitto hasnt put a foot wrong so far which is more than I can say for Phillips about his time with us.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Thats what I though, I watched the game for a very short amount of time but I recall hearing the commentators saying he was dominating Phillips. Phillips is a VFL standard ruckman at best, he was no great loss. Pitto hasnt put a foot wrong so far which is more than I can say for Phillips about his time with us.

Even Worsfold said Philips was beaten and English was dominant... Pittonet is a big upgrade on Flipper.

[kruddler]

So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did.  Perhaps we should have kept Flip  :-\

Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option.  However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.

One mans opinion....and not shared by others it seems. I didn't see the game so i cannot comment.

I was curious to lookup the ruck stats.
Phillips - 50 contests, 28 hitouts, 4 to advantage - CA% = 8%
English - 53 contests, 16 hitouts, 7 to advantage - CA% = 13%

This highlights what i've been saying about hitouts meaning nothing. It crapouts to advantage, and specifically, contests to advantage.
In the traditional sense, English got 'smashed' in hitouts.
In reality, he was more effective in the ruck contests than Phillips was.
Phillips may have got his hand to the ball more, but if its just dropped into a pile of players, what good does it do?

[jeza]

Only 4 of 33 hitouts went to advantage... what is the point?

English was just about BOG too.

[LP]

Now personally i never said he was the best ruckman of all time, but LP just said it, so there we have it.

Marc Pittonet - The greatest ruckman of all time at any club than ever existed!

Pfffttt a debate based on the complex number.

You've spent several pages defending stats you made up, which I suspect might in the eyes of many consign your opinion to the dungeons of irrelevance given the seemingly plastic nature of the definitions.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I sued the numbers you delivered presuming them to be true, and I found them to be false, which you seem to have confirmed from your own keyboard!

How does anyone debate your "numerical facts", if we take what you post as legitimate and find a flaw in your conclusions you debunk those criticism effectively using a spirited defence of "That can't be true because I made the stats up, nah, nah nah nah!"

I suspect if we debunk your conclusions from your made up stats using real statistics, you'll probably defend your claims with a call of "That's not what I meant by the definition!"

Further rather than defend your claims with some hard evidence, you resort to petty verbal, which I'm sure you'll defend using reflection.

The irony for me is that I credited Pittonet with 3.5 hits to advantage a game, which you basically lauded as some sort of fraud or derision of Pittonet, then you offer a new/revised imaginary definition under what effectively is a defence of "I made it up, so that is not what I meant". In the wash up even the revised definition probably rates Pittonet for grand total of about +1/2 of a hit out to advantage more. Stats presented by yourself as a percentage to make it look like a bigger difference, but when +/- 1 hitout changes the percentage by +/- 4% or 5% do you expect readers to take you seriously?