TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Campo's Game - An analysis
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2740		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  BlueMark [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Campo's Game - An analysis
Over the past few months we have had many accusations levelled at Campo. Everything from being a stager, going after cheap stats, unaccountable, soft and not to mention the infamous ‘Downhill Skier’ tag. So yesterday I decided to watch Campo closely and see what type of game he actually played.

Campo started the game on the half back flank picking up Ben Matthews. What I saw over the next two quarters was a classic textbook lesson in how to play the half back flank position. Campo fulfilled all the must dos in this position. At no time was he more than 5 metres from his opponent and always ball side of him. When the ball was in the Swans possession downfield, Campo checked to see where Matthews was and went to him. Campo only left his vicinity on two occasions. One was to cover a Fev error and the other time was to sprint to a loose ball and set up Waite’s first goal. Campo was so effective in cutting Matthews out of the game that he did not get a kick in the second quarter and was reduced to trying to scrag Campo by holding his jumper and pushing him in the stoppages. Halftime stats Matthews, 4 kicks, 4 handballs. Campo 5 kicks 2 handballs and an assist. A good return for a player whose job was as a plainly defensive player.
The theory that Campo is unaccountable and does not have a defensive side is in the words of the Myth Busters “Bustedâ€
Author:  Jarusa [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Great stuff BM. :)

Very interesting, maybe they will start giving Campo more defensive roles like the most of 2004.
Author:  drsilvagni [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Great post BM

Great game Campo

I hung my head in shame on Saturday when a Carlton 'supporter' yelled out that Campo should be dropped to give young stars of the future like Eddie Betts more of a chance?????
Author:  Deano Supremo [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yesterday was the first time this year that Campo has paid more attention to the ball and his opponent than to staging for frees and arguing with the umps.

That's all I ask.
Author:  Blue Vain [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
You're not serious are you Mark?
Ben Matthews is a tagger.
His job was to shut down Camporeale no matter where he played.
Its the same concept as teams manning up Chris Johnson.
Thats the game the Swans play. Kirk, Matthews, Crouch and Ablett play defensive roles.

What an achievement.
Our 500k player broke even with their 150k player.
And guess who won.
Author:  Kaptain Kouta [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Deano Supremo wrote:
Yesterday was the first time this year that Campo has paid more attention to the ball and his opponent than to staging for frees and arguing with the umps.

That's all I ask.


Spot on, Deano, and look at what happens when he does ignore the umps and the taggers.

He plays.

Well.

Very well.
Author:  therubbernub [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well done BM.
At last some positive analysis! You put some of the other big "name" posters to shame.
This is the sort of post that footy forums should be all about- not the pedantic reactive bullshit that ends in slanging matches that seems to be the norm these days.
Author:  jbee [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bluemark,

I hope you are not handling his contract negotiations on Carltons behalf.
I thought it was just an average game by Campo with Corey McGrath being much better on the other flank for the game.
You might want to so this on behalf of Campo for the rest of the year and prove everyone wrong.
Author:  bennyvtown [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Blue Vain wrote:
What an achievement.
Our 500k player broke even with their 150k player.
And guess who won.


I thought they broke even?
Author:  Bluebernz [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
bennyvtown wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
What an achievement.
Our 500k player broke even with their 150k player.
And guess who won.


I thought they broke even?


Campo only breaking even with a Ben Matthews means a WIN to the opposition. :wink:
Author:  sandramd [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gots to love paying a player 23000 a game to break even for 22 matches.

The whole debates revolves around his worth compared to what he is earning. His initial contract was too long and he was overcompensated for his abilities the end of the yr will put an end to that situation. damn big nose and his contracting: :lol:

He should be retained but on a greatly reduced salary somewheres in the region of 250 000 we would only have half of that in our TSC due to veterens list. Then he is worth it...but contract should include team orientated goals ie 1 on 1 mentoring of other onballers etc
Author:  verbs [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
His last contract was for only three years. :D
Author:  sandramd [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
okay poor wording verbs the technical expert:? but how long has backloading extensions whatever ya wanna call em extended his contract???? verbs?? :?
Author:  verbs [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
The extension was one year added on to reduce the financial burden on the club after it was fined for salary cap breaches.
Author:  Synbad [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
verbs wrote:
The extension was one year added on to reduce the financial burden on the club after it was fined for salary cap breaches.


So in effect its not a 3 year contract???

:roll:
Author:  verbs [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Synbad wrote:
verbs wrote:
The extension was one year added on to reduce the financial burden on the club after it was fined for salary cap breaches.


So in effect its not a 3 year contract???

:roll:


:shock: I have a stalker!!

It was a three year contract which got a year added onto it by Collins.

:roll:
Author:  CarltonClem [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
verbs, that's almost trying to say that Campo played the year for nothing but got paid because of backloading.

It's like if i have a contract for 400K over 3 years = 1.2M total.

But the club decides we're having a cap problem so we'll pay you the 1.2M over 4 years.

So you get 300K/year when you signed for 400K/year.

And basically play year 4 for free.

Umm...no-one is that stupid.

The most likely scenario is that you say "ok, pay me 1.2M + what i'm worth in year 4" which might be another 300K, i.e. 1.5M total.

So instead of
year 1 - 400K
year 2 - 400K
year 3 - 400K
year 4 - 300K
TOTAL - 1.5M

you have:
year 1 - 300K
year 2 - 300K
year 3 - 450K
year 4 - 450K
TOTAL - 1.5M

Do you think a player will want to be worse off? No, of course not. Camporeale spread his original 500K/year contract so that it would backload up to 600K+ in year 3 and 4 so that he would equivalent money for year 4 that wouldn't have been gained under the original contract.
Author:  Synbad [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
verbs wrote:
Synbad wrote:
verbs wrote:
The extension was one year added on to reduce the financial burden on the club after it was fined for salary cap breaches.


So in effect its not a 3 year contract???

:roll:


:shock: I have a stalker!!

It was a three year contract which got a year added onto it by Collins.

:roll:

who cares????

hes an overpaid underachieving hack!!!.... sheeeeeeeesh... the rest is just hairsplitting.... :roll: :lol:
Author:  verbs [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Um.... :? what's all this got to do with the fact that his last contract was for three years?

I'd be more than happy if every player only got given 1 or 2 year contracts, though I'd hardly call three excessive.
Author:  sandramd [ Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Verbs is one week a long time in football?? Cuz geesh 4 yrs must be the death sentence.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/