TalkingCarlton
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

I'm bored at work
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6272		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  JK [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  I'm bored at work
And I found some revealing statistics courtesy of footywire regarding Lance Whitnall.

Quote:
Games Kicks Handballs Disposals Marks Goals Behinds Tackles Hitouts Frees For Frees Ag.
Total 22 229 110 339 139 24 21 20 49 22 19
Average 22 10.4 5.0 15.4 6.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 2.2 1.0 0.9


Avergaing 15.4 disposals over the year is pretty amazing for a KPP. Especially one who, when he went forward, was often double teamed. He obviously picked up the majority of these playing loose man in defence, but they are still pretty solid numbers.

After taking a pay cut and after a very good 2005, we can expect even better things in 2006 if he keeps thee sorts of numbers up.

No wonder the club wanted to keep him.
Author:  molsey [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Josh, you should know better than to praise Whitnall.

It doesn't matter that his 2005 is far, far, far better than his 2002, 2003 or 2004. Apparenly you have to compare him to his glory days.

But you're spot on. Had a great year for the Blues, albeit in the positions we didn't expect. Perhaps with our cluttered forward line there is no space for him. Perhaps the form of Fevola means he more often than not gets whatever space allowed and everyone else has to make do.

I'm a huge supporter of Whitnall staying, after all, he's not ancient like the other 2 who appear to be going. Satisfied that he's been retained, especially whilst it takes Waite a while to truly take CHF.
Author:  GWS [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Josh wrote:
we can expect even better things in 2006 if he keeps thee sorts of numbers up



You've lost me there.

Surely we 'd be expecting the same things if he kept these numbers up :?
Author:  Blue Vain [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
molsey wrote:
Josh, you should know better than to praise Whitnall.

It doesn't matter that his 2005 is far, far, far better than his 2002, 2003 or 2004. Apparenly you have to compare him to his glory days.


Hell yeah, we can make that our new slogan Molsey.
"We dont expect our players to be their best at Carlton, we'll just expect them to be better than bad."
Author:  The Duke [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Totally agree, Josh.

What those stats don't show is the way he backs his big frame into the on-coming opposition forwards and packs. Usally results in the ball spilling to ground giving us half a chance to clear.

He is the ONLY man capable of doing this in our team and it saves many, many scores.

You'll hear a lot on this site saying he plays a lose sweeping backman role collecting easy kicks, I don't see it that way at all.
Author:  JK [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
You've lost me there.

Surely we 'd be expecting the same things if he kept these numbers up


Just a beautifully constructed call- permeating with side splittign humour. POW for sure.
Author:  BlueMark [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lance did a fantastic job this year and I was impressed by the number of times he put 'team' first. An improvement in his kicking for goal does however need to be worked on over summer.
Author:  molsey [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Blue Vain wrote:
molsey wrote:
Josh, you should know better than to praise Whitnall.

It doesn't matter that his 2005 is far, far, far better than his 2002, 2003 or 2004. Apparenly you have to compare him to his glory days.


Hell yeah, we can make that our new slogan Molsey.
"We dont expect our players to be their best at Carlton, we'll just expect them to be better than bad."


Whitnall 2002-2004 caused many problems, no doubt about it. Hardly fit, largely fat. But to write off a player for 2006 despite an improved performance is to look too far behind and is bascially holding a grudge.

Look at his 2005. #3 in the B&F. Key player in a number of games. Key player in the Swans game, where 1 out in the 50 he looked menacing and tore LRT a new pocket.

And in hindsight I'd take better than bad in future. We've been bad too long.
Author:  Blue Vain [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
molsey wrote:
Whitnall 2002-2004 caused many problems, no doubt about it. Hardly fit, largely fat. But to write off a player for 2006 despite an improved performance is to look too far behind and is bascially holding a grudge.


You're right.
The fact that he was "hardly fit" and "largely fat" for 3 of the past 4 years shouldnt come into calculations.
I must have a grudge. :(
Author:  TheBluesMuse [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
He was the victim of circumstance poor old Lance. He obviously has a really crappy metabolism making it extremely hard work for him to keep fit, he was told how much of a mesiah he was, payed a sh*tload so he became content. If we had've had a decent board/coach/culture we would never have let him get to the stage he was in in the first place and never have payed him that much anyway.

He has responded in the BEST way possible, he has worked his arse off, stayed fit, taken a paycut tried his absolute guts out every week and allthough he is not without some responsibility for his fat issues he is deserving of some credit now for responding the way he has. Lets look to the future now :-D
Author:  bax [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm also bored at work, however I would never waste my precious work time on Talking Carlton.... or would I :-D

Lance will win B&F next year.
Author:  verbs [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
I thought posting here was a job? :?
oops...my boss ain't gonna be happy!
Author:  dannyboy [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
precious work time? no such thing!
Author:  molsey [ Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Blue Vain wrote:
molsey wrote:
Whitnall 2002-2004 caused many problems, no doubt about it. Hardly fit, largely fat. But to write off a player for 2006 despite an improved performance is to look too far behind and is bascially holding a grudge.


You're right.
The fact that he was "hardly fit" and "largely fat" for 3 of the past 4 years shouldnt come into calculations.

I must have a grudge. :(


Why should it come into calculations for 2006? His 2005 was very positive and he was top 3... he turned it around. Punishing him for our over-contracting over those years isn't going to solve anything.

Lots of grudges held here, it doesn't make you special.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/