I think all this thread has produced, is that you fail to interpret things.
No mate, it's the other way round.
eg:
KK had polled double the votes of Robson, from less then half the games. Its as clear as daylight.
:lol:
What have you interpreted here? That KK is a better option than Robson based on garnering a few fan votes at the start of last year? Are you serious?
What's as clear as daylight is that the fans thought that KK was doing well enough to score some points - mainly off the bench - at the start of last season. I can happily agree to that.
BUT THAT DOESN"T MAKE HIM THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB NOW!!
Flaws of using a 3-2-1 system to value the best player (including the Dally Ms)
* It rewards inconsistent brilliance over consistent dependability
* It doesn't take into account the overall performance of the team
* It doesn't take into account the performance of the opposition
* It doesn't take into account the nature and importance of the game
* It is a relative system that discounts 14/17 (or 31/34) of the values that it needs to be relative towards. A more accurate system would be to score the player out of 10 for their performance, and total those scores - that is an absolute score and more readily judgeable against other player's performances across the scope of the season (or it would be if the system had performance measures for each score out of 10)
Extra flaws of using a
fan-voted 3-2-1 competition:
* Fans don't know what the coach asks for
* Fans don't see what the players bring to the team outside of tackles, assists, tries etc. ie the fans can't see the talk, or understand the influence on the team that a player has
* Fans vote on what they see, and therefore lean towards the player who is most visible
* Fans are emotional, and stupid
* Fans are ignorant of tactics
Extra flaws of using this method to compare KK and Robson:
* KK was scoring points at the start of the year - when his inconsistent brilliance was enough to score points because we were absolutely terrible.
* Robson was never going to get points at the end of the year, because Hayne, Fui and Hindy were hogging them. When they weren't scoring points the likes of Grothe, Burt etc were in career best form
* Robson is not the kind of player that fans are going to vote for anyway
* Robson was the perfect foil for the brilliant players on our team at the end of the year, regardless of votes - he did his job in a winning team. Anyone that thinks keating's skill set - no matter how many votes it may get him - is what we need at the moment is delirious
Robson probably deserves to start,
Finally, you're almost correct.
Replace "probably" with "definitely" and you've got it.
but once KK finds his feet in the top grade, he should get his chance.
Again, you're almost there. Your comment should read like this:
"but once KK finds his feet in the top grade, and shows that he can organise and lead a team round the park, and proves that he can play consistently week-in, week-out and give the team the platform that it needs for the likes of Hayne, Mateo and Tahu to fire, and given he can do these things and still produce the odd bit of brilliance that Robson can't, and that moving him to half from back-up hooker/utility won't unbalance the squad, and Robson has been playing badly enough to warrant someone else to take his place, then Keating should get his chance."
