TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31736		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Bluey44 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:50 am ]
Post subject:  Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/contested-possession-not-critical-hopkins-20120612-2089o.html

Could be an argument that Gibbs' good disposal is more valuable than grunt ?
Author:  fraser murphy [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
Ted is a big fan of Ted.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
Bluey44 wrote:
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/contested-possession-not-critical-hopkins-20120612-2089o.html

Could be an argument that Gibbs' good disposal is more valuable than grunt ?


It would seem to make sense.

Consider the amount of effort and planning that goes into a stoppage and yet all that effort can be wasted by one dodgy kick or handball or , not kicking to the right option when it presents OR kicking 2.9 in a last quarter.
Author:  Big Kahuna Boot [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
..lookit, class finishing will always be a huge factor.. ..all the effort and grunt in the world warms the heart [see GWS], but ultimately all the hard work can be easily undone by poor skills.. ..very, very few players can continually use skill deep in congestion.. ..what you do after your clearance is as important as getting said clearance..
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
Big Kahuna Boot wrote:
..lookit, class finishing will always be a huge factor.. ..all the effort and grunt in the world warms the heart [see GWS], but ultimately all the hard work can be easily undone by poor skills.. ..very, very few players can continually use skill deep in congestion.. ..what you do after your clearance is as important as getting said clearance..


Which leads me to think that, if it's not already the case, that skills training must be the primary focus of in season training.

When a golfer changes his swing he has to hit a ridiculous amount of balls in practice before it works in a tournament.

Do players train anywhere near as intensely to overcome problems in kicking or handballing particularly in traffic.?
Author:  Bluey44 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
We are #3 in contested possessions, but we aint going so hot.

Would love a bit of mildfield class in disposals ala West Coast/Geelong.

I suppose Murphy really gives us that.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
David King reckons he's wrong.

The stats man v the analyst.

Who's right.?
Author:  j.scarponi [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
Skill & Class vs Contested football?

Interesting arguement for sure...
whats the point of skill and class if you cant get the hard ball, whats the point of getting the hard ball if the team are collective turn over merchants.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
j.scarponi wrote:
Skill & Class vs Contested football?

Interesting arguement for sure...
whats the point of skill and class if you cant get the hard ball, whats the point of getting the hard ball if the team are collective turn over merchants.


Teddy was just on SEN and said your work to get the contested possession is very important, but pointless if you don't use it.

So the message is, by all mean get it but ensure that you use it. He had some interesting thoughts on on-field leadership and where on the field "risky" disposals are used. He used the Cat's v Blues game as an example.
Author:  ThePsychologist [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
What is emphasised for me above all is the importance of a dominant midfield both inside and out.

Forget everything else without a dominant midfield you cannot win premierships.

Thats what really annoys me about missing out on Cotchin etc.
Author:  fraser murphy [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
cimm1979 wrote:
David King reckons he's wrong.

The stats man v the analyst.

Who's right.?


Who is which in your title fight? (cereal question)

Important things to note are that:

- Ted's more than a little bitter at being locked out of the CD Information vault since he sold up
- People invariably try to justify their own existence. Ted was an outside, FWD pocket-type. Of course he's going to rate KE over CP.

Clearly being good at both areas helps win games of footy. But Ted should know that not all contested footy leads to ineffective disposal. Kingy knows it. Chris Scott knows it.
Author:  BigBlueWave [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
ThePsychologist wrote:
What is emphasised for me above all is the importance of a dominant midfield both inside and out.

Forget everything else without a dominant midfield you cannot win premierships.

Thats what really annoys me about missing out on Cotchin etc.



I agree completely. I know it sounds like blasphemy ... but right at this moment ... I think Cotchin might have been a better selection than Kruez.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
fraser murphy wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
David King reckons he's wrong.

The stats man v the analyst.

Who's right.?


Who is which in your title fight? (cereal question)

Important things to note are that:

- Ted's more than a little bitter at being locked out of the CD Information vault since he sold up
- People invariably try to justify their own existence. Ted was an outside, FWD pocket-type. Of course he's going to rate KE over CP.

Clearly being good at both areas helps win games of footy. But Ted should know that not all contested footy leads to ineffective disposal. Kingy knows it. Chris Scott knows it.


I realise he may not be giving this opinion out of the goodness of his heart. I think it was mentioned he has started a new stats company, so there's a high likely hood its about Teddy. He did say that some of the terms used ATM have probably passed their used by date.

He didn't talk down contested possession as much as the headlines suggest just that it needs to be expanded to include what happens next.

Both your posts were pretty quick to take the shine off Teddy's statements, do you know him or work in a similar industry?
Author:  ThePsychologist [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
BigBlueWave wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
What is emphasised for me above all is the importance of a dominant midfield both inside and out.

Forget everything else without a dominant midfield you cannot win premierships.

Thats what really annoys me about missing out on Cotchin etc.



I agree completely. I know it sounds like blasphemy ... but right at this moment ... I think Cotchin might have been a better selection than Kruez.


Its a bit late for us know but its interesting (and I agree) that Roos, Malthouse and Matthews would not take a ruck man with early picks. They go for skilled midfielders. Their theory is that ruck man take longer to mature, are harder to judge as a junior (look how many rookies have become top ruck man) I still believe Jacobs was our best pure ruck man, and you go and recruit a top ruck man when they are ready to dominate. Jolly, Mumford, Ottens come to mind. Look at a lot of the sides now.

Collingwood (Jolly) Adelaide (Jacobs) Hawthorn (Hale) Richmond (Maric) Freo (Griffin) Port (Renouf) GWS (Giles) Lions (Hudson). Geelong have been struggling since losing Ottens.

Over the past three years we have developed Hampson, Kruezer, Jacobs (Gone) and still recruited for a lot of money and low draft pick Warnock.

Doenst make a lot of sense. :donk:
Author:  fraser murphy [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
cimm1979 wrote:
fraser murphy wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
David King reckons he's wrong.

The stats man v the analyst.

Who's right.?


Who is which in your title fight? (cereal question)

Important things to note are that:

- Ted's more than a little bitter at being locked out of the CD Information vault since he sold up
- People invariably try to justify their own existence. Ted was an outside, FWD pocket-type. Of course he's going to rate KE over CP.

Clearly being good at both areas helps win games of footy. But Ted should know that not all contested footy leads to ineffective disposal. Kingy knows it. Chris Scott knows it.


I realise he may not be giving this opinion out of the goodness of his heart. I think it was mentioned he has started a new stats company, so there's a high likely hood its about Teddy. He did say that some of the terms used ATM have probably passed their used by date.

He didn't talk down contested possession as much as the headlines suggest just that it needs to be expanded to include what happens next.



I read the whole article, not just the headline. Ted's been pushing this barrow for a while along with his stats company; by no means a new thing.

Football departments these days do get the expansion of "what happens next", and have been getting this for some time.

Regardless, Ted should know that while Geelong are down in hard ball numbers, they're still winning loose balls, where it's far easier/more likely to get an effective disposal away. Ted glosses over this distinction, because funnily enough it would invalidate his argument.

I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
fraser murphy wrote:
[
I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.


So, his self interest notwithstanding, whats you view on the validity of his new terms?

I, like most, gobble this stuff up, particularly when the sides doing badly.

When you are losing everything is wrong. Disposal, fitness, conditioning, tactics so when I hear something new its easy to automatically apply it to our team.
Author:  Synbad [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
cimm1979 wrote:
fraser murphy wrote:
[
I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.


So, his self interest notwithstanding, whats you view on the validity of his new terms?

I, like most, gobble this stuff up, particularly when the sides doing badly.

When you are losing everything is wrong. Disposal, fitness, conditioning, tactics so when I hear something new its easy to automatically apply it to our team.

you lose games because you are not doing enough things right!

simple!
Author:  The Rhino [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
Could also be that teams attempt to manufacture numbers in a lot of these areas. Don't think there are too many teams that don't have the whiteboard out at quarter time with the KPIs for contested footy or inside 50s and a whole range of other stuff.

No surprise that in recent weeks we've seen most inside 50s and most contested possessions in a losing side either..
Author:  fraser murphy [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
cimm1979 wrote:
fraser murphy wrote:
[
I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.


So, his self interest notwithstanding, whats you view on the validity of his new terms?

I, like most, gobble this stuff up, particularly when the sides doing badly.

When you are losing everything is wrong. Disposal, fitness, conditioning, tactics so when I hear something new its easy to automatically apply it to our team.


Well, that's the thing, he hasn't actually mentioned any new terms in the Baum article. He's just mentioned his confusion regarding the definitions of old terms. Which is a little mystifying at first glance as the definitions haven't changed radically since he was at CD. Which is why I'm more than a little cynical.

In answer to the broader question of whether DE is worth more than CP, it's rather difficult to say, as all three facets of the game (attack/defence/ball in dispute) are interdependent on one another.

As others have mentioned, if you don't win the ball, it doesn't matter how well you can effectively dispose of it.

Likewise, a team's defence affects how well you can dispose of it. A team's defence also dictates how well you can turn another teams attack into a contested situation.

As to what has been Carlton's problem over the last 2 months, Synbad's holistic appraisal ITT is what I'd lean to the most. The team isn't doing the little things consistently well enough as a team is the best short answer I'd give.

Except for David Ellard. Who's a champ.
Author:  cimm1979 [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Contested Possessions are Overrated - Ted Hopkins
fraser murphy wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
fraser murphy wrote:
[
I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.


So, his self interest notwithstanding, whats you view on the validity of his new terms?

I, like most, gobble this stuff up, particularly when the sides doing badly.

When you are losing everything is wrong. Disposal, fitness, conditioning, tactics so when I hear something new its easy to automatically apply it to our team.


Well, that's the thing, he hasn't actually mentioned any new terms in the Baum article. He's just mentioned his confusion regarding the definitions of old terms. Which is a little mystifying at first glance as the definitions haven't changed radically since he was at CD. Which is why I'm more than a little cynical.

.


I think he did mention some new stat formulas he had worked out but no detail. A bit of bait by the sound of it.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/