Ben Roberts

[Ratchy]

He couldn't get a start at the Dogs for the majority of this season mate and their halves are on a par with yours.

Ben Roberts is better than any five eight we have or you guys have

 

[Spot On]

Sure.

 

[CrazyEel]

Well, why arent we offering him a contract extension then?

If that's all you need to be convinced then easily fixed. I'll make another anonymous call to the DT/SMH and have that rumour published as well.

 

[TheParraboy]

If that's all you need to be convinced then easily fixed. I'll make another anonymous call to the DT/SMH and have that rumour published as well.

:lol:

 

[forward pass]

His role will be to complement Sandow & Hayne plus prolly to a lesser extent Matuia. More than a handy player to fit that role.

Who's prolly ???

 

[parra pete]

Mark Horo's sister who is putting the kettle on...

 

[True EEL]

'Almost linear'?

Roberts: 32.6 metres/kick
Keating: 28.25
Hodkinson: 23.83

Now, metres per kick doesn't tell the whole story (short attacking kicks will drop your average, and there's no indication of where the kick landed) but at the moment it's all we've got unless we look at the video.

Roberts made over 4 m/k more than the next guy, which is an extra 14% of Keating's metres per kick.

The fact he made more kicks for longer clearly shows he was the team's number 1 long kicking option. This in a team with a noted long kicker.

Perhaps round 15 is a better indicator:

Roberts 7 kicks (225m)
Keating 5 kicks (137m)



He's not; he's a good kicker. Why do you have to resort to ad absurdum bullshit to try and prove your point? I never said he's a great kicker, and he doesn't have to be to add something to our team.

Pou Pou,

its only 4 m difference per kick, if you ran an one-way or two-way Analysis of Variance (AOV) or a linear regression model over the numbers, or maybe even a Generalised Linear Model (GLM) and i would be very surprised if the 4 m difference per kick was a statistically significant difference, in terms of p-value differences of course.........so what i'm saying is, there is very little in it....

now, the example from Round 15, now that may be a statistically significant difference between the distance in kicks between the two, in fact amlost certainly i'd say....

 

[True EEL]

mate, Humble isn't going that great in the reggies to warrant a call up but then again Etu made the most of his chance after a mediocre display for wenty.

Stagger i'm pretty sure it was you that said Humble wasn't going that well the other day in Wenty, but mate, i watched that game v Windsor and i actually thought that Humble was best on field....he's got time when he has the ball

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Pou Pou,

its only 4 m difference per kick, if you ran an one-way or two-way Analysis of Variance (AOV) or a linear regression model over the numbers, or maybe even a Generalised Linear Model (GLM) and i would be very surprised if the 4 m difference per kick was a statistically significant difference, in terms of p-value differences of course.........so what i'm saying is, there is very little in it....

now, the example from Round 15, now that may be a statistically significant difference between the distance in kicks between the two, in fact amlost certainly i'd say....

Honestly mate, the most telling factor is the number of kicks.

The metres per kick is just to show Roberts didn't clock up all his kicks with wasteful chips and grubbers for himself. Try and read between the lines eh?

 

[Tony Bongo]

Stagger i'm pretty sure it was you that said Humble wasn't going that well the other day in Wenty, but mate, i watched that game v Windsor and i actually thought that Humble was best on field....he's got time when he has the ball

x2

 

[True EEL]

Honestly mate, the most telling factor is the number of kicks.

The metres per kick is just to show Roberts didn't clock up all his kicks with wasteful chips and grubbers for himself. Try and read between the lines eh?

Pou Pou, i proved the point i was making, if you want to go off on a tangent about another point thats fine, but to my way of thinking the actual number of kicks are irrelevant unless you can look at each kick in context, position on the field etc for every kicker....we started out looking at the m gained. so your read between the lines comment just seems a bit silly and definitely condescending...

anyway, really don't want to get into another thing, but can you try not to be so condescending eh?

 

[spartan2153]

If Roberts doesn't get the first grade spot, at least we have good depth.

I'm all for Humble being given a shot, after his past couple of games for Wenty (and thank f**k for Wednesday afternoon NSW Cup on Fox). I'd like to see him come into our side next weekend (i.e. not 2 days after playing for NSW Residents).

But since we've signed Roberts out of reserve grade he won't be on much ($100k-$150k I reckon) and if we lock Humble up for a few more years I don't expect it would be any more than that.

And if we let Humble go at the end of the year it's because the coach didn't rate him. I reckon he knows more about the players than any of us.

Either way, with our halves options after Sandow being on less than regular starter's money (with the exception of Mortimer who is on a first grade half's pay), we're free to experiment with next year's 6 jersey.

Ben Roberts at his best is one of the most damaging halves in the game. At his worst he's a solid kicker and defender who makes a few errors. He's an excellent addition to the squad.

he would be on more than that

 

[True EEL]

to me, sadly too many errors is probably one of the biggest knocks on Roberts....?

 

[Tony Bongo]

If Roberts doesn't get the first grade spot, at least we have good depth.

I'm all for Humble being given a shot, after his past couple of games for Wenty (and thank f**k for Wednesday afternoon NSW Cup on Fox). I'd like to see him come into our side next weekend (i.e. not 2 days after playing for NSW Residents).

But since we've signed Roberts out of reserve grade he won't be on much ($100k-$150k I reckon) and if we lock Humble up for a few more years I don't expect it would be any more than that.

And if we let Humble go at the end of the year it's because the coach didn't rate him. I reckon he knows more about the players than any of us.

Either way, with our halves options after Sandow being on less than regular starter's money (with the exception of Mortimer who is on a first grade half's pay), we're free to experiment with next year's 6 jersey.

Ben Roberts at his best is one of the most damaging halves in the game. At his worst he's a solid kicker and defender who makes a few errors. He's an excellent addition to the squad.

It remains to be seen as to whether Roberts is an excellent addition or not and until he plays for us I won't be convinced.
I agree that SK knows more about the players than I do but I want to see Humble get an
opportunity to play in his preferred position for a number of reasons.
I think we owe him something and at least a chance to prove himself.
We as a sporting organisation through our affiliated organisation in Wenty have put this guys career on hold for 8 months and also through a lot of uncertainty I'm sure, for a start.
Also at the time he came to the club he had the opportunity of playing first grade for the Cowboys but knocked it back as enticed by the promise of a chance of playing in the halves somewhere down the track and that has not happened. For the last 2 years he has been playing fullback even though our halves were at best ordinary. Last week we overlook the guy, who I have since found out could have played and put a guy at 5/8 who hasn't played for 2 years and doesn't want to even be in the halves.
I think it's a bad look for our club to bring a player here and not deliver on our promises. If he was playing terribly or had major disciplinary problems then I could accept it, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't.
I think we run the risk of not only losing a young potential talent to another club but also turning away potential players similar to him in the future. When it comes to Humble I am more concerned with the lack of integrity shown to the guy and I'm embarrassed by our club for it.
If he is overlooked altogether for the remainder of the year and simply goes elsewhere without being even given 1/20th of the opportunities that Morts, Keating and Robbo have been afforded in the last 2 years I will be disgusted.

 

[Stagger eel]

Stagger i'm pretty sure it was you that said Humble wasn't going that well the other day in Wenty, but mate, i watched that game v Windsor and i actually thought that Humble was best on field....he's got time when he has the ball

yes, he played reasonably well that game but whether he was best on ground is a matter of conjecture, I'm pretty sure Morts got players player at the presso..

 

[Stagger eel]

It remains to be seen as to whether Roberts is an excellent addition or not and until he plays for us I won't be convinced.
I agree that SK knows more about the players than I do but I want to see Humble get an
opportunity to play in his preferred position for a number of reasons.
I think we owe him something and at least a chance to prove himself.
We as a sporting organisation through our affiliated organisation in Wenty have put this guys career on hold for 8 months and also through a lot of uncertainty I'm sure, for a start.
Also at the time he came to the club he had the opportunity of playing first grade for the Cowboys but knocked it back as enticed by the promise of a chance of playing in the halves somewhere down the track and that has not happened. For the last 2 years he has been playing fullback even though our halves were at best ordinary. Last week we overlook the guy, who I have since found out could have played and put a guy at 5/8 who hasn't played for 2 years and doesn't want to even be in the halves.
I think it's a bad look for our club to bring a player here and not deliver on our promises. If he was playing terribly or had major disciplinary problems then I could accept it, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't.
I think we run the risk of not only losing a young potential talent to another club but also turning away potential players similar to him in the future. When it comes to Humble I am more concerned with the lack of integrity shown to the guy and I'm embarrassed by our club for it.
If he is overlooked altogether for the remainder of the year and simply goes elsewhere without being even given 1/20th of the opportunities that Morts, Keating and Robbo have been afforded in the last 2 years I will be disgusted.

it certainly not the reason why we should give him a run in first grade, the club did stick by him, they're the ones who appealed the decision and won, they don't owe Humble anything other to continue earning his contract money.

I'd like to see him do well and get a go as much as the next bloke but the next cab off the rank should be Morts as he's simply playing better than him at the moment.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Pou Pou, i proved the point i was making

I didn't really care about your alleged point. I posted a stat I found interesting and you tried to say it's irrelevant.

I proved that it wasn't.

if you want to go off on a tangent about another point thats fine, but to my way of thinking the actual number of kicks are irrelevant unless you can look at each kick in context, position on the field etc for every kicker....

No. The difference in number of kicks is relevant.

we started out looking at the m gained.

You might've, because you're incapable of thinking about two things at once.

In the original post I gave both pieces of information (number of kicks plus total metres). I still don't know why you zeroed in solely on the number of metres. Maybe you were looking too hard for a pattern?

so your read between the lines comment just seems a bit silly and definitely condescending...

It was definitely condescending but there was nothing silly about it. Silly is calling any variance in data 'irrelevant'.

anyway, really don't want to get into another thing, but can you try not to be so condescending eh?

I dunno dude. Maybe don't be so quick to pass judgement on the relevance or otherwise of facts. Just because you don't see the relevance doesn't mean it's not there.

Often, turning data into an assessment starts with an ability to think outside the box. Don't be so quick to dismiss the things you don't immediately understand.

 

[True EEL]

seriously f**k you Pou Pou....

i really couldn't be bothered with anymore of your self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-serving, condescending, make-yourself-feel-better-about-yourself dribble any longer.....

like your rubbish about me judging any variance in data as being irrelevant. well all i was trying to say - Mr Statistics (and yes i'm referring to you as you seem to have self-appointed yourself to that role on this forum) - is that based on my formal statistical training, a minor change (as you pointed to) was effectively irrelevant and not worth debating to any large extent in the world of statistics, unless its proven to be statistically significant found by testing the data....f**k me Pou Pou, tallying LBA's and finding an average from a tiny data set is a fair way from actual statistical analysis.....and you didn't prove anything, and possibly there are some things you don't understand

you talk about people not understanding things the way you do, or the way you meant it, or not looking outside the box, or not looking at things the right way......HA!!! all that represents is you providing yourself with an easy out when you feel threatened by someone else's opinion or arguement and to make yourself appear superior, and ultimately make yourself feel better about yourself.....and yet, you ironically call other people on here weak as p!ss

i'm just soooooo sick of being informed by your apparent infinite wisdom that i don't understand things just because i have a different opinion to you, its so draining to listen to over and over and far too uch for my puny mind to cope with, so i'll make us both happy and just not waste anymore of my time on you...

 

[Eels Dude]

It remains to be seen as to whether Roberts is an excellent addition or not and until he plays for us I won't be convinced.
I agree that SK knows more about the players than I do but I want to see Humble get an
opportunity to play in his preferred position for a number of reasons.
I think we owe him something and at least a chance to prove himself.
We as a sporting organisation through our affiliated organisation in Wenty have put this guys career on hold for 8 months and also through a lot of uncertainty I'm sure, for a start.
Also at the time he came to the club he had the opportunity of playing first grade for the Cowboys but knocked it back as enticed by the promise of a chance of playing in the halves somewhere down the track and that has not happened. For the last 2 years he has been playing fullback even though our halves were at best ordinary. Last week we overlook the guy, who I have since found out could have played and put a guy at 5/8 who hasn't played for 2 years and doesn't want to even be in the halves.
I think it's a bad look for our club to bring a player here and not deliver on our promises. If he was playing terribly or had major disciplinary problems then I could accept it, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't.
I think we run the risk of not only losing a young potential talent to another club but also turning away potential players similar to him in the future. When it comes to Humble I am more concerned with the lack of integrity shown to the guy and I'm embarrassed by our club for it.
If he is overlooked altogether for the remainder of the year and simply goes elsewhere without being even given 1/20th of the opportunities that Morts, Keating and Robbo have been afforded in the last 2 years I will be disgusted.

I agree with Humble getting a run in first grade but that certainly shouldn't be the reasons for it. While you can look at it and say the club owe him, well the club also handed him a top grade contract which is every young inexperienced player's dream. He has to take some responsiblity for the reason why he missed 8 months of footy. Not the majority, but definately some.

We didn't sign him from the Cowboys... they let him go after he was too old for U20's and joined a QLD cup side. It was only AFTER we were in deep talks with him that Cowboys tried to sign him up again, and that was because Matt Bowen suffered an injury which initially looked like it would put him out of action for over 12 months.

 

[Tony Bongo]

it certainly not the reason why we should give him a run in first grade, the club did stick by him, they're the ones who appealed the decision and won, they don't owe Humble anything other to continue earning his contract money.

I'd like to see him do well and get a go as much as the next bloke but the next cab off the rank should be Morts as he's simply playing better than him at the moment.

I wasn't solely saying Stagger that we owe him because of the ban etc. My main point is we lured him here 2 years ago (IMO) by assuring him that he would get an opportunity as a half. For 2 years he hasn't been given what was promised and Morts has been given 1000 chances.

I actually agree that Morts is now doing well and I would put him at best on par with Humble but he is certainly not way ahead of him. I believe personally that Humble was more creative and he certainly had more try assists but that is subjective. What isn't subjective is the weight of opportunities that one has compared to the other. I think on some level we are doing our club harm by sending out that message to prospective recruits that if they sign they may never really get as fair and as balanced a go as the next bloke.