Bankers and Anchors- Round 7

[Greystache]

This is the round 7 edition of the Weekly Bankers and Anchors Thread.

Please post your nominations for:

The Bankers= 3 guys that we banked on to do the right thing during the game

The Anchors= 3 guys that weighed us down by their errors or poor play

Please limit it to no more than three of each, but feel free to make honourable/dishonourable mentions. As usual try to make it constructive criticism.

The thread is named in honour of a popular WOOF Contributor, The Banker, who passed away on 22/04/2012 after a six month battle with cancer.

[GVGjr]

Bumped

[Mantis]

B's

1/ Murf still has it... as his goal in the 3rd showed.

2/ Jones's work-rate is improving.. but stick the hands out every once in a while

3/ Lower found a suited match and did a good job

A's

1/ Austin & Markovic aren't the answer (in defence, but Marko will never kick 3 ever again).. exit stage left.. Now!!

2/ Wallis's skills need work.... Missing a target 20m away by 2m isn't accepatable.

3/ JJ's decision making was terrible.

[LostDoggy]

Bankers:

Minson worked his arse off.
Addison worked his arse off.
Griffen. Love.

Anchors:

The entire team's last quarter.
The umpiring. I know it's a shit thing to whinge about but they didn't make it any easier tonight.
Austin. Wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

[Mantis]

The umpiring. I know it's a shit thing to whinge about but they didn't make it any easier tonight.


I was thinking the same until I saw we were leading the free kick count 21-12 early in the last qtr.. What made you feel they gave us a raw deal?

[bornadog]

Bankers

1. Murphs Goal

2. Griffen is all class

3. Minson's work rate

Anchors

1. Wallis turnover king tonight, at least three goals from his kicking to the opposition.

2. Tutt - one disposal, woeful

3. Norf - the snipers - all comes from the coach right down. Hate them

[soupman]

I was thinking the same until I saw we were leading the free kick count 21-12 early in the last qtr.. What made you feel they gave us a raw deal?

The notion that an even free kick count means the umpires had a good game is incorrect. They missed a lot of frees tonight, mainly in the incorrect disposal/HTB area, something where the interpretation has clearly changed even though the AFL seems to think it hasn't.

[Remi Moses]

Bankers- Griffen , his work rate was exceptional tonight.
Dahlhaus best of the young batch
Murphy played better as the game went on.

Anchors- the hands in the back rule. 70% 80% the rule was scrapped tonight.
Markovic on Daw- like watching an old oak tree chasing Usain Bolt
Thought out youngsters looked stuffed tonight

[Greystache]

Bankers

Griffen- BOG in a losing team

Markovic- Showed something up forward and for stints in the ruck

We competed strongly in patches

Anchors

Our senior players only play the parts of the game that suit them.

Markovic- Not an afl defender

We competed poorly in patches

[GVGjr]

Bankers

Murphy was sensational and that running goal was a clear highlight

Young did some smart things tonight even though he was under the pump

Addison had some strong efforts especially in the 3rd quarter

Anchors

Liberatore giving up that free kick that cost us a goal really hurt us

Tutt had a poor game and had a costly error in the 3rd quarter

Our kick ins were woeful. Not sure if North employed something different but there was few easy clearances on the night

[westbulldog]

Bankers
Griffen - top display all game
Minson - where would we be without his efforts.
Dalhaus - consistent effort all game, gave us some spark.

Anchors
the backline - highly unimpressive and torched although JJ and Young tried hard.
JJ- should relinquish the kick ins to Brett Goodes next week.
the umpiring - they obviously graduated from the razor ray school with honours.

[Ghost Dog]

Bankers - Lower. Has a good short, long, inside, outside game. Fought really hard and showed how important he is to the team.

Markovic - Can he produce games like this on a consistent basis and find himself a home?

Murphy, Dahl, Griffen - effort, A+ , skills, pretty good. -

Anchors
JJ will learn a lot from tonight. Show him videos of Heath Shaw, who never lets the opposition the time to dig in. He "got it" a few times, and once showed the confidence to kick it to himself and run on with it. Made errors, but am very confident he will learn from them.

Skills turnover - Gia, easy dropped marks. Kicking to Dahlhaus when some giant is standing next to him...great idea!

Cross as Sub - does not have enough pace to impact a game, when the opposition have spent their gas tickets.
Tutt - Needs to find a way to be more involved. Perhaps it's his, perhaps the coaching staff's fault.

[Ghost Dog]

Bankers

Griffen- BOG in a losing team

Markovic- Showed something up forward and for stints in the ruck

We competed strongly in patches

Anchors

Our senior players only play the parts of the game that suit them.

Markovic- Not an afl defender

We competed poorly in patches

Score 100 points for including a player in Anchor and Banker.

Well, at least the Coach did something to change it up.

[boydogs]

Bankers
Minson - His tap work is the definition of something you can bank on. Played a lone hand again and beat an excellent tap ruck opponent
Griffen - Class above
Murphy - Ditto

Anchors
Austin - not up to it
Markovic - smashed in defense against a 4th gamer, we needed him to win that duel not be switched forward to avoid it
Tutt - worse than Vesz's game, disappointing

[SonofScray]

Bankers:
Will Minson - best leader at the Club in my eyes and have thought so for a few seasons now. Goes to work.
Bob Murphy - gave us a few moments to savour and enjoy.
Markovic - performed in an unfamiliar role, hit the scoreboard.

Anchors:
Austin - looks ordinary.
Boyd - laboured all game, unusually quiet.
Selection/coaching panel - Cross as the sub, Austin fwd, ins/outs

[ratsmac]

BANKERS
Griffen is a superstar. Can't wait for a game when Cooney and Griffen play a good game together though.

Minson tap work is top notch. Set up so many clearances with clever ruck work

Murphy still has plenty of pace. What a goal!

ANCHORS

Tutt. Say no more.

Boyd should hand over the captaincy to Griffen, Minson or even Lower.

Austin is getting a game just because he is tall.

[Remi Moses]

Forgot to put Nick Lower in the bankers
Actually thought Swallow wasn't playing.
Good performance

[Mantis]

Well, at least the Coach did something to change it up.

Was it good coaching or just good luck?.. After just 10 minutes of the 1st qtr Markovic had proven to be a liability in defence and had to be moved. Personally I think we got lucky that he was effective as a forward and won't be banking on him to be effective as a forward against decent opposition.

[Ghost Dog]

Was it good coaching or just good luck?.. After just 10 minutes of the 1st qtr Markovic had proven to be a liability in defence and had to be moved. Personally I think we got lucky that he was effective as a forward and won't be banking on him to be effective as a forward against decent opposition.

This is it. He had one good game, but will be out unless he can reproduce it. Too slow out of defence.

In terms of Anchors, our crowd has a right to feel disappointed but we just don't get enough from the fans during a home game. Could hear the Kangaroos fans loud and clear up in the stands, but barely a whimper from ours. On the train home, what a sorry looking, fatigued bunch of supporters we were.

[josie]

The notion that an even free kick count means the umpires had a good game is incorrect. They missed a lot of frees tonight, mainly in the incorrect disposal/HTB area, something where the interpretation has clearly changed even though the AFL seems to think it hasn't.

Soupaman,

Your observation same as mine. Whatever happended to dropping the ball rule? Our great game is looking more like basketball.

Also I'm so upset with rule interpretation of in the back frees for players who (appear to) intentionally fall to the ground after being tackled. Having not played the game would welcome comments about how this can be counteracted.

Bankers
Minson - thought he was good around ground today too - well done big man
Lower - doggies game record of 15 tackles & kept Swallow quiet
Griffen

Honorable mention Addison - never stopped trying & kept ball inside 50

Anchors
Austin
Wallis
Tutt

[Go_Dogs]

Personally I think we got lucky that he was effective as a forward and won't be banking on him to be effective as a forward against decent opposition.

You might be right (and having watched from TV hard for me to comment on much other than direct play) but he did well in the few marking contests he had deep as far as his positioning and ability to hold out an opponent. I don't think he's the answer, but as a stop gap until Tom Williams returns (and as security for when Williams is unavailable) he might be OK.

He's certainly no good as a defender at AFL level, that has been proven time and time again. Yes, he can do it at VFL level, but that's it.




Bankers:

1. Griffen - what a game, such a shame he has to do so much heavy lifting as well as be our best ball carrier/user.

2. Lower - great shut down job, this is the type of role he's best suited too. Medium paced players who prefer to work inside the contest.

Anchors:

1. Tutt - barely sighted. Needs to work harder to get into space to receive and just continually be involved or dangerous, or if not, run hard defensively and shut down space. Time for a rest and if he starts to dominate at Willy bring him back.

2. Austin - puzzling he was selected again this week, surely he doesn't get another run this coming weekend. A bit of a tweener for mine who offers us very little anywhere.

3. Pressure/fatigue/skill errors - when we put pressure on the opposition in a manic way, we look good - we just can't seem to maintain that pressure for long enough. Once we can't maintain it we're easy pickings and the fatigue causes skill errors to come to the fore which exaggerates the problem.

[LostDoggy]

Soupaman,

Your observation same as mine. Whatever happended to dropping the ball rule? Our great game is looking more like basketball.

Also I'm so upset with rule interpretation of in the back frees for players who (appear to) intentionally fall to the ground after being tackled. Having not played the game would welcome comments about how this can be counteracted.

Bankers
Minson - thought he was good around ground today too - well done big man
Lower - doggies game record of 15 tackles & kept Swallow quiet
Griffen

Honorable mention Addison - never stopped trying & kept ball inside 50

Anchors

Austin
Wallis
Tutt

It gets tiring to complain about the umpiring but I found this the most frustrating thing about last night. Incorrect disposal and chopping of the arms is not paid anymore despite it being all the rage 12 months ago (jones should have got 3-4 frees for this or defenders hanging on this arm - all inside 50s). In the back is a chook lotto we all know but that Goldstein mark against Wallis was a blatant push in the back.

Bankers

Addison and Markovic (up forward and in the ruck) - one for the underdogs, both played with great tempo and took the game on
Griffen - just keeps producing despite getting best tag. Minson in same boat. Has AA in his sights
Senior leadership - Morris and Murphy. Not so much how they played but sitting in forward / back pocket they were keeping up morale and instructing our less experienced players. In particular Morris was encouraging Roughy and Austin despite a torrid night. Footy clubs become successful because of characters like these

Anchors

Tutt - had a shocker, but let's not forget he's had a serviceable few weeks and young players are naturally inconsistent
Gia - opening pandoras box here, but just let himself and his teammates down with dropped marks at crucial times. His output was serviceable when you look at stats, but those errors were deflating for a senior player. Everyone seems to focus on Wallis' turnovers but he is at start of career and he isn't battle hardened yet.
North players and supporters. Top team ego, but in all reality are just plodders. Thomas for getting into Austin when game was over and staging for free kicks and Thompson for strutting around a foot taller now that Barry isn't around - bunch of pretenders. If I was a North supporter I'd be really worried about their rebuild which is about 4 years ahead of ours

[SlimPickens]

Banker
Griffen- class act.

Dahl- pressure and creativity was excellent.

Lower- outstanding team orientated game.

Anchors
Cooney- Gave us nothing yesterday. Particularly defensively, one pea heart effort on our defensive 50 late in the third was just terrible.

Boyd- plays the game on his own terms which unfortunately offered not a lot to his team.

Picken- Love the bloke clearly, but not sure what he is offering the side at the moment. Just got lost on way too many occasions.

[jeemak]

Bankers:

Griffen for his work rate and intent to get things going

Minson for his tireless work

Dahlhaus for continually trying to create

Anchors:

Tutt needs to stay involved

Senior players for costly skill errors and concentration lapses

Incorrect disposal rulings (or non-rulings). If you try and break a tackle first up, and don't dispose of it correctly it has to be a free kick. It's so very simple.


I didn't get to see the last quarter, though can imagine the Norf wankers being wankers. As a group of players they seem to be well ahead of themselves. Since being smashed by 300 points in the preliminary final in 2007 they've been rebuilding, and from what I can gather they've got a bit more rebuilding to do.

[LostDoggy]

Anyone got a replay of Jonesy's mark? Looked like a genuine mark of the year contender at the ground.

[Scorlibo]

Anyone got a replay of Jonesy's mark? Looked like a genuine mark of the year contender at the ground.

Pity his handball then caused a turnover.

Seems like Jonesy's role is to work up to centre-half WING, take hero marks and then give the ball to the opposition.

Anchors:

1. Jones - terrible.
2. Cooney - need more.
3. Smith - 6 possessions yet equal leader in the clanger count with 5 (equal with Jones).

Bankers:

1. Griffen. Elite.
2. Murphy. Class.
3. Addison - has become a reliable contributor. Needs to find more of the ball, though.

[The bulldog tragician]

Bankers
Murphy's goal
The end may be coming for Daniel Cross but his insane courage in running back into a pack for a mark is a reminder of how much he has put on the line for this club.
Griffen was worth admission alone.

Anchors
Where are our fans? C'mon, we know it's a tough time. Hang in.
Umpires were plain awful.
Getting another reality check of where we are at, and the holes in our list, is sobering.

[Hotdog60]

On Cooney, the knee may not be all it's cracked up to be.(pardon the pun) Limiting he's output and conserving it for offensive rather than defensive.
Just a thought.

[Greystache]

Pity his handball then caused a turnover.

Seems like Jonesy's role is to work up to centre-half WING, take hero marks and then give the ball to the opposition.

Did you watch the game?

Jones received a call from Murphy running past and gave it to him. Murphy was in no position to receive the ball and should never have called for it. Murphy was completely at fault. Your constant bagging of Jones is getting very repetitive, he's been one of our few shinning lights this season. I assume you constantly put him down as some way of proving your point that Grant should be named at full forward on the team sheet or whatever the hell you were trying to say, but it adds nothing.

[Scorlibo]

Did you watch the game?

How would I know that his handball caused a turnover if I hadn't have watched the game?

You seem to patronise posters you don't agree with a lot, Greystache. Maybe it goes unnoticed by some, not me.


Jones received a call from Murphy running past and gave it to him. Murphy was in no position to receive the ball and should never have called for it. Murphy was completely at fault. Your constant bagging of Jones is getting very repetitive, he's been one of our few shinning lights this season. I assume you constantly put him down as some way of proving your point that Grant should be named at full forward on the team sheet or whatever the hell you were trying to say, but it adds nothing.

Again, this is belittling. I don't need to be painted as someone who 'tries' to say something without effect. You know very well that I think Grant has been denied opportunity.

Of Jones, I'm evening out the love with some down to earth critique. It's unrelated to my views on Grant.

With regards to Jones' handball to Murphy, perhaps Murph was equally to blame, but not entirely. At any one time there are umpteen players calling for the ball, that Jones should handball to the one about to be mown down is his own fault. Commonly referred to as a 'hospital handball' (and not a 'hospital call for the ball'). Murph usually has more awareness than that, but you'd have to call it a 50/50 split in fault.

[bornadog]

With regards to Jones' handball to Murphy, perhaps Murph was equally to blame, but not entirely. At any one time there are umpteen players calling for the ball, that Jones should handball to the one about to be mown down is his own fault. Commonly referred to as a 'hospital handball' (and not a 'hospital call for the ball'). Murph usually has more awareness than that, but you'd have to call it a 50/50 split in fault.

Yes he didn't have to handball did he.

[w3design]

I can't let the opportunity go to agree with a number of the posters here.
Interpretation my ASS, where in the rules no matter how one interprets them, does it allow a player to throw, drop, or place the ball on the ground and simply pull their hands away ???

Despite the fact that none of these actions have ever been legal under our rules, in the last two games I have been to [ in Melb.] these actions have gone unpunished more times in two games than all the games I have watched over many decades.

We also seem to be being pushed by the Rules of the Game Committee, to the point of just another no physical contact sport.

For God's sake [ and the sake of our game] Andrew D. disband this blight on the game at the end of the season. They are making a farce of our great game.

Rescind all the rule changes they have introduced over their entire reign of terror. Then set up a group representing, active coaches, senior players, club doctors, and the umpires, and have them decide if there is any need to amend the original rules of the game or not.
If there is, do it. If not... leave the bl**dy things alone, and quite spoiling our unique sport.

I think some guys on here are not willing to give kids time to learn and develop before they want them de-listed.
Then some hold out hope for guys who have had more chances than anyone has a right to expect.

For mine, Grant, Vez and Austin fall into the latter category.
Gia for retirement voluntary or by push.

Campbell needs a couple of more years of development before any decision should be made. Talls take time, and though he is a long way from senior ready now, he has shown enough to deserve patience.

The only other potential first ruck I see on our list is Roughy, and I would rather see him persisted with as a key defender. Ayce is likely a forward pocket second ruck.
So if [ heaven forbid] Minnow were to go down, who else do we have now or coming through? And if we go on expecting him to ruck unaided the way we have recently, go down he certainly will. Then where are we left? Up the proverbial sh1t creek in a barbed wire canoe!

Although Marko is, and will likely remain, a VFL level player, he is not an expensive insurance policy, to fill in in the case of injuries I would have thought.

Although this years draft sounds pretty good in round one, it seems it is not expected to go as deep for quality as last year. If this is so, cutting too deep into our list at seasons end could prove a serious mistake.
What I have seen of the potential Free Agents at years end, and assuming most of the best of them will get resigned before hand anyway, does not look particularly fruitful either.

[LostDoggy]

How would I know that his handball caused a turnover if I hadn't have watched the game?

You seem to patronise posters you don't agree with a lot, Greystache. Maybe it goes unnoticed by some, not me.



Again, this is belittling. I don't need to be painted as someone who 'tries' to say something without effect. You know very well that I think Grant has been denied opportunity.

Of Jones, I'm evening out the love with some down to earth critique. It's unrelated to my views on Grant.

With regards to Jones' handball to Murphy, perhaps Murph was equally to blame, but not entirely. At any one time there are umpteen players calling for the ball, that Jones should handball to the one about to be mown down is his own fault. Commonly referred to as a 'hospital handball' (and not a 'hospital call for the ball'). Murph usually has more awareness than that, but you'd have to call it a 50/50 split in fault.

Agree with Greystache. Jones has been fantastic considering he's carrying the forward line at 22 with 40-odd games under his belt and is improving week by week. What you interpreted as belittling I'd interpret as somebody calling you out on a short-sighted and ill-thought-out comment.

[Scorlibo]

Agree with Greystache. Jones has been fantastic considering he's carrying the forward line at 22 with 40-odd games under his belt and is improving week by week. What you interpreted as belittling I'd interpret as somebody calling you out on a short-sighted and ill-thought-out comment.

That Greystache's comment was belittling isn't open to interpretation.

Why don't you keep your comments on the football, BAS? Explain to me why you think Jones has been fantastic in terms which don't involve his age and experience. My view is that as an AFL standard key forward, Jones is underwhelming.

If every adoring post on here of Jones was prefaced with, "considering how young and inexperienced Jones is", then I don't think I'd have a problem. But there is a stream of thought out there which identifies Jones as one of our best players. That's not true. The facts are he's had 3 good games - the one very good game against Geelong, one game where he grabbed his opportunities well against Richmond and an encouraging display against West Coast. He's then had 4 bad games - the two season openers where he was just very average, the Adelaide game (conditions didn't suit, but better players find ways to contribute), and this most recent game, and probably his worst, against North, where he racked up the clangers, had just the one shot on goal and didn't lay a tackle.

[Ghost Dog]

Alot of people expect massive things of tall players, as they are...er..big.
I seriously thought Tom Hawkins would never make it. Just looked clumsy every time he went for it. Took him maybe 3 years to start hitting his straps.

[soupman]

I find the views of posters on Grant rather interesting.

Grant is continually put in the will never make it pile. He's constantly described as a player that has yet to prove he can play at AFL level, is bagged out as not being a key forward and the line "he's had enough chances" is frequently brought out.

I disagree.

Of all the fringe players on our list Grant has the most runs on the board. He has had a 30 goal season, he has shown an ability to kick multiple goals in a match, he has shown he can be dangerous in the air and at ground level. We know he has talent, and we know that when he plays he can impact matches.

Just last season he played that match in Darwin against the Gold Coast where he performed well. Soon after that though from memory his season was pretty much over and spent in the VFL. His output is at least as good as Higgins has been these last few years, and while I agree that Higgins is by no means a measure of a good performer, he is also an automatic best 22 selection.

He is not going to be the superstar forward we all hoped and expecting when drafted, but he has shown that in the AFL he is not too far off being a good player, and he possesses some of the attributes we really need. I don''t understand how he is continually overlooked for players like Veszpremi, and I don''t understand how he has been written off by so many as a player that was never going to make it, when in fact he has genuinely earnt half his games while in a top four side.

[Mantis]

I find the views of posters on Grant rather interesting.

Grant is continually put in the will never make it pile. He's constantly described as a player that has yet to prove he can play at AFL level, is bagged out as not being a key forward and the line "he's had enough chances" is frequently brought out.

I disagree.

Of all the fringe players on our list Grant has the most runs on the board. He has had a 30 goal season, he has shown an ability to kick multiple goals in a match, he has shown he can be dangerous in the air and at ground level. We know he has talent, and we know that when he plays he can impact matches.

Just last season he played that match in Darwin against the Gold Coast where he performed well. Soon after that though from memory his season was pretty much over and spent in the VFL. His output is at least as good as Higgins has been these last few years, and while I agree that Higgins is by no means a measure of a good performer, he is also an automatic best 22 selection.

He is not going to be the superstar forward we all hoped and expecting when drafted, but he has shown that in the AFL he is not too far off being a good player, and he possesses some of the attributes we really need. I don''t understand how he is continually overlooked for players like Veszpremi, and I don''t understand how he has been written off by so many as a player that was never going to make it, when in fact he has genuinely earnt half his games while in a top four side.

I agree with all that... Grant should be in our team.

After missing 8 or 10 games after the game in Darwin he performed ok when he came back in for 6 games late is the season (ave 14 touches)... Reports I hear is that Grant is a bit unique with his demeanour, but is very coachable.. I get the feeling that our current coaching staff aren't able to push the right buttons with him and have placed him in the 'too hard basket'... Which is an indictment on their abilities if true because Grant has talent, which is something our team is severely lacking.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I still think Grant can play a part, just not as a Key position tall.

If Stringer and Jones continue to improve and do what we hope/think they can do, then Grant as a pocket or flanker could be very dangerous. Fast and elusive enough to play as an opportunist small forward and tall enough to outmark most small defenders when the opportunity arises.

I wouldn't discard him just yet. But he certainly needs to work harder.

[G-Mo77]

I still think Grant can play a part, just not as a Key position tall.

If Stringer and Jones continue to improve and do what we hope/think they can do, then Grant as a pocket or flanker could be very dangerous. Fast and elusive enough to play as an opportunist small forward and tall enough to outmark most small defenders when the opportunity arises.

I wouldn't discard him just yet. But he certainly needs to work harder.

He'll never turn into the KPF we all wanted him to be but as our third tall he could be very dangerous. It also does take some heat off Jones and Stringer. I'd like to try it at the very least. He'll get his opportunity and he's got to grab it with both hands. We can make excuses for players but it's up to them when they get out there.

[craigsahibee]

He'll never turn into the KPF we all wanted him to be but as our third tall he could be very dangerous. It also does take some heat off Jones and Stringer. I'd like to try it at the very least. He'll get his opportunity and he's got to grab it with both hands. We can make excuses for players but it's up to them when they get out there.

Agree totally. He has the body of a flanker at best. Grant has had enough pre-seasons by now to put weight on yet he looks no different to when he was drafted. Much the same physiology as Michael Tuck and Dustin Fletcher. Probaly the only time in history he will be mentioned in the same breath as Tuck and Fletcher.

I really can't see how we can not play him. We are not going to impact on the Final 8 and whilst wins would be nice, at the moment it's about player develpment.

Is playing Gia beneficial to the development of our list? Surely Grant could play this role. He has good hands, great speed and his field kicking is better than average. Admittedly his set shots are a worry, but with both Grant and Murphy playing the lead up role he is less likely to be kicking at goal from 40 - 50m.

I just think we need to give him the rest of the year in the seniors to show us what he can do or even show the rest of the competition what he can do. If he doesn't fit in with our plans he may attract some trade interest.

[wimberga]

I understand what you are all saying. Grant now needs to do one thing and one thing only: Demand selection via performance at VFL level. Play so well and do the things the coaches want that he just cannot be overlooked.

He needs to earn it now, and if he can, then he deserves his chance. I haven't seen anything from him in the VFL this year that shows me he should be in the seniors. At least I know Vezpremi played a few good games.

If Grant wasn't on our list and we were watching the our VFL side, would we be calling for him to be in our squad? I don't think so, but some others may.

[AndrewP6]

I agree with all that... Grant should be in our team.

.. I get the feeling that our current coaching staff aren't able to push the right buttons with him and have placed him in the 'too hard basket'... Which is an indictment on their abilities if true because Grant has talent, which is something our team is severely lacking.

Then that's two coaching groups who have failed him. I'd find that hard to believe.

[bornadog]

I understand what you are all saying. Grant now needs to do one thing and one thing only: Demand selection via performance at VFL level. Play so well and do the things the coaches want that he just cannot be overlooked.

He needs to earn it now, and if he can, then he deserves his chance. I haven't seen anything from him in the VFL this year that shows me he should be in the seniors. At least I know Vezpremi played a few good games.

If Grant wasn't on our list and we were watching the our VFL side, would we be calling for him to be in our squad? I don't think so, but some others may.

Did you see him in the game against Coburg? Between him and Stringer they accounted for at least 5 goals. I thought he played well that day with his tackling, goal assists etc. I don't believe he is the type to star in the VFL. He is an opportunist, and we just don't have players like that in the seniors. Austin has played forward two weeks in a row (and moved away), and didn't touch the ball in the forward 50. I know who I would rather have there.

[Murphy'sLore]

It gets tiring to complain about the umpiring but I found this the most frustrating thing about last night. Incorrect disposal and chopping of the arms is not paid anymore despite it being all the rage 12 months ago (jones should have got 3-4 frees for this or defenders hanging on this arm - all inside 50s). In the back is a chook lotto we all know but that Goldstein mark against Wallis was a blatant push in the back.

Even I can now pick the incorrect disposals that are not being paid. And that is really saying something.

[LostDoggy]

That Greystache's comment was belittling isn't open to interpretation.

It's not?


Why don't you keep your comments on the football, BAS?

I'm not talking about his rapping, else I'd agree with you.


Explain to me why you think Jones has been fantastic in terms which don't involve his age and experience. My view is that as an AFL standard key forward, Jones is underwhelming.

OK, explain to me how Cross has been fantastic in terms which don't involve his age and experience.

Age and experience are real factors, not excuses. I mention them because you'll struggle to find anybody who can hold a forward line on their shoulders at this level of their career.

I suspect you're merely defending your opinion, and a countering one isn't going to get through that wall, and that's fine with me. I'll just disagree and move on. We'll pick it up again in 2-3 years', at which time I'll be happy to agree with you if Jones hasn't made it.

[LostDoggy]

I also think that Jarrad Grant should be playing in the Seniors. He is fast, elusive and can perform magic tricks in front of goal. He has kicked quite a few flukey goals in the past. He also tackles well. I think we'll have to instigate a "Play Jarrad Grant" movement.

[Ghost Dog]

Are we getting better? It's hard to tell....

[w3design]

No way Grant has earned a recall to the senior squad as yet, and no way he should get one until he does.
Yes he has the talent, but until he produces second and third efforts, rather than one try, and if that fails standing as he regularly does, and just watching what happens next.

As for the suggestion that while he s not performing at the second level, he still deserves and would succeed at the top level... male cow droppings !!!

If he wants another try, he has to earn it on effort alone, not talent.

There are players in our squad even at the VFL level who are more deserving of a chance at an AFL call up right now than Grant. He needs to pass them at that level first before he is given his umpteenth chance in the seniors.

If this kid could get his sh1t together, I would love to see him in our 22. But if he isn't skating on very thin ice right now, we are in very serious trouble.

I would love to see him deliver on his potential, as much as his most ardent supporters, but until he does that first at VFL, then AFL, sad to say he is definitely scrap heap bound sooner rather than later.

[Greystache]

It's worth noting Grant didn't even play in Williamstown's last match.

[bornadog]

Yes he has the talent, but until he produces second and third efforts, rather than one try, and if that fails standing as he regularly does, and just watching what happens next.

Our of curiosity when is the last time you saw him play?


There are players in our squad even at the VFL level who are more deserving of a chance at an AFL call up right now than Grant. He needs to pass them at that level first before he is given his umpteenth chance in the seniors.
.

Which players?

[jeemak]

paulv, don't disagree with you in some ways, but in others I do.

We have senior players that have continually been given games over the years who don't put in second and third efforts. We've had players at Williamstown not produce these repetitions that have been given games time and time again.

Players have continually been played on potential, and players that have not produced nearly the same level as Grant (even in recent times) at the top level given multiple senior games to show what they can do.

Greystache has poignantly stated Grant didn't even play last week for Williamstown, and of course for this week's game that must be observed.

[Scorlibo]

It's not?

Is how I feel in response to slander open to interpretation? Greystache is repeatedly rude on these forums and repeatedly gets away with it. Another thread, another offended opinion, another play at ignorance, hey Greystache?


OK, explain to me how Cross has been fantastic in terms which don't involve his age and experience.

Putting the sub game aside, Cross hasn't slipped below 20 disposals in any of his 6 games, while his disposal efficiency remains very high. His output has dropped very marginally because he no longer receives extended stints in the midfield, but at his peak was one of the better players in the competition and he's not as far away from that title as people think.

Who says, 'oh yeah, Cross goes alright for an old bloke'?! He's just a good player.


Age and experience are real factors, not excuses. I mention them because you'll struggle to find anybody who can hold a forward line on their shoulders at this level of their career.

Age and experience are factors going forward, perhaps. They're not relevant to performance. How on earth can you say that Jones is holding the forward line on his shoulders? In the sense that he's the tallest player there? When I look at our best forward line-up,

F: Dickson - Jones - Dahlhaus
HF: Giansiracusa - Murphy - Higgins

Jones is the worst player there! And that line-up doesn't even include Addison or Williams who are also better players.


I suspect you're merely defending your opinion, and a countering one isn't going to get through that wall, and that's fine with me. I'll just disagree and move on. We'll pick it up again in 2-3 years', at which time I'll be happy to agree with you if Jones hasn't made it.

I've never said that Jones won't be a good player, won't be around in 2-3 years time etc. If I were saying this then I'd be more inclined to consider that he is 22 years of age and has his best football ahead of him. What Im saying is that right now - RIGHT NOW - he's getting so many plaudits he doesn't even come close to deserving! As of now, he's a mediocre player. As I said, I'd be interested to hear you try and make a case for Jones without referring to his age or experience. Until you do, taking digs at my integrity isn't going to cut the mustard!

[G-Mo77]

Putting the sub game aside, Cross hasn't slipped below 20 disposals in any of his 6 games, while his disposal efficiency remains very high. His output has dropped very marginally because he no longer receives extended stints in the midfield, but at his peak was one of the better players in the competition and he's not as far away from that title as people think.


I've got nothing against Cross he gives everything each week bit go easy on the stats. Easy to keep a high effiency when you stop running forwards and kick it to someone behind with no opponent. You're starting to lose me.




F: Dickson - Jones - Dahlhaus
HF: Giansiracusa - Murphy - Higgins

Jones is the worst player there! And that line-up doesn't even include Addison or Williams who are also better players.

Now you have lost me.

[Greystache]

Is how I feel in response to slander open to interpretation? Greystache is repeatedly rude on these forums and repeatedly gets away with it. Another thread, another offended opinion, another play at ignorance, hey Greystache?

Seriously get over yourself, you labour a point over and over and over again. You don't respond to people or discuss you talk over them saying the same thing time after time with nothing new or insightful, but rather by saying the same thing enough times it will eventually make you right, and then play the victim when people don't agree.

Slander? That's about as relevant as Supercoach points. Either discuss something footy related or don't post, these victim posts are beyond tiring.

[whythelongface]

Age and experience are factors going forward, perhaps. They're not relevant to performance. How on earth can you say that Jones is holding the forward line on his shoulders? In the sense that he's the tallest player there? When I look at our best forward line-up,

F: Dickson - Jones - Dahlhaus
HF: Giansiracusa - Murphy - Higgins

Jones is the worst player there! And that line-up doesn't even include Addison or Williams who are also better players.



Each of those players mentioned plays a completely different role within the structure of the forward line and you can't compare Jones with any of those players.

Jones currently is our only 'go to' man in the forward line. Week in, week out he is the only tall target and is lumbered with this responsibility. You say age and experience shouldn't matter, well at 22 and playing less than 50 games it actually does matter considering the responsibility that is bestowed upon him. There is no one else in our forward who plays his role. He is currently our only tall target.

Agree that there is much more improvement in Jones but to categorically come out and say he is our worst player and that he is mediocre is nonsense. I think Jones needs to be applauded the way he is currently playing.

[G-Mo77]

Can you guys take this to PM? It's circle work.

This reminds me of G-Mo77 vs Bornadog from 2012. :D

[Scorlibo]

I've got nothing against Cross he gives everything each week bit go easy on the stats. Easy to keep a high effiency when you stop running forwards and kick it to someone behind with no opponent. You're starting to lose me.

He's always played within his limitations. The point is that Crossy is a good player without need to reference his age. That's all.


Now you have lost me.

I'm disappointed with this. I've always respected your views on here. Would like to hear your defence of Jones.


Seriously get over yourself, you labour a point over and over and over again. You don't respond to people or discuss you talk over them saying the same thing time after time with nothing new or insightful, but rather by saying the same thing enough times it will eventually make you right, and then play the victim when people don't agree.

Alright Greystache, the gloves are off.

What you've just said here is the most ridiculous of all the untrue and unjustified things you've said previously. I am constantly, vigorously inviting discussion on this forum, and all I get is the same tripe out of you and others. If anyone is repeating themselves, it's you. When have you ever provided anything more than just your viewpoint? EXPLAIN YOURSELF. Being a moderator on these forums doesn't put your views beyond question.

It's people like you who turn online forums into:

"Hey guys what do we think of Jones? :)"
"I think he's great!"
"I think he's okay"
"I don't think he's that good"
"Agree to disagree! :)"

Stuff that. I'll admit there are times when I'll come to woof after a win to just bathe myself in Bulldogs love, but why should there be no discussion when people disagree with each other?

You made a post in response to my first post in this thread where you said that the Jones-Murphy handball was completely Murphy's fault. I gave you my breakdown of why I think that's not true, and I'm yet to hear your counter argument. Moreover, where in the hell have I said the same thing time after time in any thread? I am always giving some new justification of my views and all I hear from you is "have you even watched the game?". I am the one who responds to people and who makes reasonable discussion, you are the one who bleats a point because you have no means to discuss it.


Slander? That's about as relevant as Supercoach points. Either discuss something footy related or don't post, these victim posts are beyond tiring.

About as relevant as Supercoach points? That's super funny because I have an irrational liking for Supercoach points don't I?

Here's one for you Greystache: you and your opinions are about as important to this forum as Jones' speccy was to the Bulldogs' chances of winning.

Every post I've made to this point has been footy related.

I'm only the victim because I have to listen to you whine your way to a stalemate instead of actually progressing the discussion. Soon Gary will come and tell us all to get back on track with the thread and you'll again escape without having to say anything meaningful.

[Scorlibo]

Each of those players mentioned plays a completely different role within the structure of the forward line and you can't compare Jones with any of those players.

Jones currently is our only 'go to' man in the forward line. Week in, week out he is the only tall target and is lumbered with this responsibility. You say age and experience shouldn't matter, well at 22 and playing less than 50 games it actually does matter considering the responsibility that is bestowed upon him. There is no one else in our forward who plays his role. He is currently our only tall target.

Agree that there is much more improvement in Jones but to categorically come out and say he is our worst player and that he is mediocre is nonsense. I think Jones needs to be applauded the way he is currently playing.

I didn't say he was our worst player, I said he was our worst forward when we have our best side in. I realise that he may well currently be the most integral player to the forward line, but that's another matter. We managed to be a top four side without a key forward, remember.

A question for you:

Player A is 30 years old. They are a key forward, take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Player B is 22 years old. They are a key forward and also take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Each player's performance is true to the stats sheet, a good game for each. Who has played better?

[LostDoggy]

Age and experience are factors going forward, perhaps. They're not relevant to performance. How on earth can you say that Jones is holding the forward line on his shoulders? In the sense that he's the tallest player there? When I look at our best forward line-up,

F: Dickson - Jones - Dahlhaus
HF: Giansiracusa - Murphy - Higgins

Jones is the worst player there! And that line-up doesn't even include Addison or Williams who are also better players.

Age and experience are not relevant to performance. Damn. I guess McCartney does deserve the sack then, because he's been saying this for two years. Dude was wrong. Scorlibo for senior coach!


Each of those players mentioned plays a completely different role within the structure of the forward line and you can't compare Jones with any of those players.

Jones currently is our only 'go to' man in the forward line. Week in, week out he is the only tall target and is lumbered with this responsibility. You say age and experience shouldn't matter, well at 22 and playing less than 50 games it actually does matter considering the responsibility that is bestowed upon him. There is no one else in our forward who plays his role. He is currently our only tall target.

Agree that there is much more improvement in Jones but to categorically come out and say he is our worst player and that he is mediocre is nonsense. I think Jones needs to be applauded the way he is currently playing.

Thanks. Saved me the effort.


I didn't say he was our worst player, I said he was our worst forward when we have our best side in. I realise that he may well currently be the most integral player to the forward line, but that's another matter. We managed to be a top four side without a key forward, remember.

A question for you:

Player A is 30 years old. They are a key forward, take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Player B is 22 years old. They are a key forward and also take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Each player's performance is true to the stats sheet, a good game for each. Who has played better?

How on earth can he be our worst player AND the most integral player in our forward line? Are you just trolling or have you gone completely mad?

[Scorlibo]

Age and experience are not relevant to performance. Damn. I guess McCartney does deserve the sack then, because he's been saying this for two years. Dude was wrong. Scorlibo for senior coach!

Not sure what you're talking about here. But yes, you're correct, a player's performance doesn't suddenly become more important to winning the game because he's younger. This is a very basic concept.


How on earth can he be our worst player AND the most integral player in our forward line? Are you just trolling or have you gone completely mad?

Is it really that hard to understand? If Tom Campbell were playing as a key forward he'd be the most integral player to the forward line. Doesn't make him any good.

[whythelongface]

I didn't say he was our worst player, I said he was our worst forward when we have our best side in. I realise that he may well currently be the most integral player to the forward line, but that's another matter. We managed to be a top four side without a key forward, remember.

A question for you:

Player A is 30 years old. They are a key forward, take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Player B is 22 years old. They are a key forward and also take 9 marks and kick 3 goals.
Each player's performance is true to the stats sheet, a good game for each. Who has played better?

No you didn't say he was our worst player but our worst forward. Ok you got me on a technicality where I used player instead of forward. My bad.

Your last scenario just throws up statistics which are largely irrelevant. Why not add that Player A is part of a well established forward line that has two other key targets whilst Player B is the only Key Position Target in that team's structure. Now which looks better? You can't judge a player on statistics alone.

In Jones we are talking about a KPF who is shouldering most of the responsibility of leading the forward line. Simple as that. He is basically playing a lone hand. The kid deserves credit on that alone. What more does he need to do? He gets the best defensive player week in week out, he gets double teamed and is the most integral forward we have in our structure. A big ask for such a young inexperienced player.

[jeemak]

I'll be honest, I've read better threads than this.

[Scorlibo]

No you didn't say he was our worst player but our worst forward. Ok you got me on a technicality where I used player instead of forward. My bad.

It's not a technicality if 'worst player' and 'worst forward' are two completely different terms.


Your last scenario just throws up statistics which are largely irrelevant. Why not add that Player A is part of a well established forward line that has two other key targets whilst Player B is the only Key Position Target in that team's structure. Now which looks better?

Player A and Player B are part of the same forward line, their output is exactly the same, but they differ in age. Answer the question.


You can't judge a player on statistics alone.

Sheesh you can't even mention stats anymore without someone spouting this line. You're right, but only for now. One day every facet of the game will be able to be assessed with numbers.

In any case, I just used the stats to reinforce that these hypothetical players performed to the same level.


In Jones we are talking about a KPF who is shouldering most of the responsibility of leading the forward line. Simple as that. He is basically playing a lone hand. The kid deserves credit on that alone. What more does he need to do? He gets the best defensive player week in week out, he gets double teamed and is the most integral forward we have in our structure. A big ask for such a young inexperienced player.

A lone hand? It wasn't Jones who kicked 4 at the weekend, it was Gia. It wasn't Jones who laid 6 tackles, it was Dahlhaus. It wasn't Jones who amassed 7 inside 50s and 3 assists, it was Murphy!


The kid deserves credit on that alone. What more does he need to do? He gets the best defensive player week in week out, he gets double teamed and is the most integral forward we have in our structure. A big ask for such a young inexperienced player.

I agree, it is. For the average AFL kpf though, which he'll soon be, it's just part of the job.

[whythelongface]

It's not a technicality if 'worst player' and 'worst forward' are two completely different terms..

I said I used the wrong term. Get over it.




Player A and Player B are part of the same forward line, their output is exactly the same, but they differ in age. Answer the question...

It is a hypothetical and does not apply to our team. No need for me to have answer your question.



Sheesh you can't even mention stats anymore without someone spouting this line. You're right, but only for now. One day every facet of the game will be able to be assessed with numbers.

In any case, I just used the stats to reinforce that these hypothetical players performed to the same level....

You can use whatever stats you want. I am simply rebutting your argument by stating, in this instance, stats are irrelevant.




A lone hand? It wasn't Jones who kicked 4 at the weekend, it was Gia. It wasn't Jones who laid 6 tackles, it was Dahlhaus. It wasn't Jones who amassed 7 inside 50s and 3 assists, it was Murphy! ....

Ah so now you don't read what I stated. Jones has played a lone hand as our key 'go to' man in the forward line. I didn't say there weren't other contributors. Apart from Dahlhaus no other player in the forward line has played each and every game this year. Jones is the only player who is responsible for being our key target week in, week out.

Anyway that'll do me. I have stated my case you have stated yours.

[Bulldog Joe]

Sheesh you can't even mention stats anymore without someone spouting this line. You're right, but only for now. One day every facet of the game will be able to be assessed with numbers.



Not having a go at you Scorlibo, but there is and always will be more than stats.

Statistics throw up anomalies and when you make allowances for those there will be new anomalies.

Stats are limited by the ability of those recording them as well.

There is a great old quote

There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics which I believe comes from Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century.

[Scorlibo]

I said I used the wrong term. Get over it.

You were skeptical as to the significance in terms.


It is a hypothetical and does not apply to our team. No need for me to have answer your question.

It applies to the VERY basic point which I have been trying to get into your head:

Age and experience can't be used as parameters when judging performance.

Otherwise it's like saying GWS and the Gold Coast should get bonus points each match because they have younger players.


You can use whatever stats you want. I am simply rebutting your argument by stating, in this instance, stats are irrelevant.

No you're not. My hypothetical was purely to show you that the above ^^ is true. If two players in this hypothetical have EXACTLY the same game, then stats are important in showing that. You've missed the point.


Ah so now you don't read what I stated. Jones has played a lone hand as our key 'go to' man in the forward line. I didn't say there weren't other contributors. Apart from Dahlhaus no other player in the forward line has played each and every game this year. Jones is the only player who is responsible for being our key target week in, week out.

Most key forwards do play as the lone hand 'go-to' man, that's kind of the point.

Here I was thinking that you truly believed that he'd carried the forward line on his shoulders, but here's the confession: there are other contributors. And better contributors.


Anyway that'll do me. I have stated my case you have stated yours.

I think we agree on more than you realise. To clarify:

- I'm pleased with Jones' development
- I think he will make a good key forward
- He has been the main focal point for kicks into our forward line this year
- I think he's a valuable part of that forward line

[Scorlibo]

Not having a go at you Scorlibo, but there is and always will be more than stats.

Statistics throw up anomalies and when you make allowances for those there will be new anomalies.

Stats are limited by the ability of those recording them as well.

There is a great old quote

There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics which I believe comes from Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century.

BJ, I agree, there are more than stats, but I don't believe that any one in the football world can quite watch a game and summarise it like a stats sheet can.

I certainly believe that you can't discredit someone's argument solely because they've used stats as part of that argument, which is what happens far too often.

Re: recording - there will always be slight error. I read somewhere that Champion Data (the chief stats company in the AFL) run checks of the recorders' efficiency and that it is over 99% (ie. less than 1 in every 100 stats they will make an error). That's good enough for me.

[Bulldog4life]

Can you guys take this to PM? It's circle work.

This reminds me of G-Mo77 vs Bornadog from 2012. :D


I remember that. Good times.:D

[bornadog]

Can you guys take this to PM? It's circle work.

This reminds me of G-Mo77 vs Bornadog from 2012. :D

God help us:D

[LostDoggy]

Otherwise it's like saying GWS and the Gold Coast should get bonus points each match because they have younger players.

They do, after a fashion. Gold Coast beating Melbourne by 60 points on the weekend was significant, due to their average age and experience. Anybody else beating them is just inevitable. To get an accurate idea of how a team is progressing, you must judge each team's performance differently based on their situation. The same goes for a player. Yes, when it comes to flags and Brownlows, age and experience don't matter, but when comparing players you really need to compare apples for apples.

Find me a forward in Jones' current situation for comparison and maybe this wretched conversation may be worth persisting with. Otherwise, I've had my fill of trying to explain it.

[Sedat]

Find me a forward in Jones' current situation for comparison and maybe this wretched conversation may be worth persisting with. Otherwise, I've had my fill of trying to explain it.
Sam Reid is a terrific comparison and he has struggled big time this season - granted he was much better in 2012 than Jones, and they were both on a par in 2011.

Jones is developing well but he needed to improve significantly this season on his output last year. Big props to him this season for doing so, and I'm confident he will continue to improve and become a very dangerous key forward in the years to come.

[w3design]

BAD, I do get along to as many Willy games as my work permits, and usually including all or most of the Dev. [reserve ] level matches as well.
Since moving back Sth. of the Divide 6 years ago, I have watched a good deal of our matches at all 3 levels. So, yes I have seen plenty of Grant along with all of our other players while not playing in the senior 22, including when they were playing at W'bee.

So I have watched plenty of Grant's career, and even quite a number of training sessions as well.

While my observations remain a personal opinion, no they are not uninformed.

As for who has earned a call up ahead of him, in my opinion the three remaining draftees for starters.
Now I am not suggesting they are ready yet, but in my personal opinion, neither is Grant right now.

[Scorlibo]

They do, after a fashion. Gold Coast beating Melbourne by 60 points on the weekend was significant, due to their average age and experience. Anybody else beating them is just inevitable. To get an accurate idea of how a team is progressing, you must judge each team's performance differently based on their situation. The same goes for a player. Yes, when it comes to flags and Brownlows, age and experience don't matter, but when comparing players you really need to compare apples for apples.

Find me a forward in Jones' current situation for comparison and maybe this wretched conversation may be worth persisting with. Otherwise, I've had my fill of trying to explain it.

When voting in the WOOF player awards, every player is an 'apple'. Possibly 'Bankers and Anchors' is a different scenario, but Jones' most recent game was poor by anyone's standards so either way I stand by my critique of him in this and other threads.

Sedat has given a good example in Sam Reid. I think Sam Reid has really stagnated to be honest, he looked very good in his first or second year. Of the other key forwards taken in the 08 draft:

1. Jack Watts is probably ahead of Jones as a player, behind as a key target.
5. Michael Hurley is a long way in front.
8. Ty Vickery more a second ruck come forward but he's probably on par with Jones.
12. Lewis Johnston, not sure where he's at.
13. Tom Lynch just kicked 10 goals, albeit in a far stronger side, against a very weak side.
14. Big Ayce, a bit behind Jonesy.
15. Mitch Brown isn't getting a game.
28. Shaun McKernan is again more a second ruck.
57. Aaron Cornelius is a fair way behind Jones.

[bornadog]

BAD, I do get along to as many Willy games as my work permits, and usually including all or most of the Dev. [reserve ] level matches as well.
Since moving back Sth. of the Divide 6 years ago, I have watched a good deal of our matches at all 3 levels. So, yes I have seen plenty of Grant along with all of our other players while not playing in the senior 22, including when they were playing at W'bee.

So I have watched plenty of Grant's career, and even quite a number of training sessions as well.

While my observations remain a personal opinion, no they are not uninformed.

As for who has earned a call up ahead of him, in my opinion the three remaining draftees for starters.
Now I am not suggesting they are ready yet, but in my personal opinion, neither is Grant right now.

I just wanted to know if you have seen Grant play this year and tell me what your opinion is of his efforts, tackling and output?

All we need from a Grant type is to kick 2 goals per week, every week, and lay plenty of tackles. That is an out put of 44 goals. Our biggest goal kicker in the last two years has been Gia:eek: I think Grant given the opportunity, can do it.

[jeemak]

BJ, I agree, there are more than stats, but I don't believe that any one in the football world can quite watch a game and summarise it like a stats sheet can.

I certainly believe that you can't discredit someone's argument solely because they've used stats as part of that argument, which is what happens far too often.

Re: recording - there will always be slight error. I read somewhere that Champion Data (the chief stats company in the AFL) run checks of the recorders' efficiency and that it is over 99% (ie. less than 1 in every 100 stats they will make an error). That's good enough for me.

For the most part stats (or any other quantitative analysis) are fairly well useless without qualitative input to help interpret them. Not calling you out, though a lot of the time you seem to come across as not relying enough on the latter to reinforce your opinions.

I read earlier in this thread you used Daniel Cross as an example, and stated that because he gathers an average above 20 touches a game this season, at a high disposal efficiency as the bases of interpreting him as a strong performer. At no stage did you mention how he gathers them, or the method he chooses to ensure his touches are deemed effective.

Now I'm a well known critic of Cross's value to the side around these parts, so of course my opinion is going to be interpreted as subjective. However, anyone with a set of eyes can see that Cross is extremely limited in his ability to dispose of the ball with REAL efficiency that actually benefits the side, rather than helping it maintain a possession stalemate. How do stats measure this?

I'm not saying quantitative information should be discounted, though to interpret the game in an holistic sense you need to use it as a tool to help form a rounded opinion. To do otherwise is too limiting, or narrow minded for mine.

[always right]

For the most part stats (or any other quantitative analysis) are fairly well useless without qualitative input to help interpret them. Not calling you out, though a lot of the time you seem to come across as not relying enough on the latter to reinforce your opinions.

I read earlier in this thread you used Daniel Cross as an example, and stated that because he gathers an average above 20 touches a game this season, at a high disposal efficiency as the bases of interpreting him as a strong performer. At no stage did you mention how he gathers them, or the method he chooses to ensure his touches are deemed effective.

Now I'm a well known critic of Cross's value to the side around these parts, so of course my opinion is going to be interpreted as subjective. However, anyone with a set of eyes can see that Cross is extremely limited in his ability to dispose of the ball with REAL efficiency that actually benefits the side, rather than helping it maintain a possession stalemate. How do stats measure this?

I'm not saying quantitative information should be discounted, though to interpret the game in an holistic sense you need to use it as a tool to help form a rounded opinion. To do otherwise is too limiting, or narrow minded for mine.

Personally I think it should be acknowledged that Cross has improved this side of his game enormously int he last two years. Still not the most dangerous player but I think he is far more positive with the ball in hand than he used to be. Just saying.

[Scorlibo]

For the most part stats (or any other quantitative analysis) are fairly well useless without qualitative input to help interpret them. Not calling you out, though a lot of the time you seem to come across as not relying enough on the latter to reinforce your opinions.

I read earlier in this thread you used Daniel Cross as an example, and stated that because he gathers an average above 20 touches a game this season, at a high disposal efficiency as the bases of interpreting him as a strong performer. At no stage did you mention how he gathers them, or the method he chooses to ensure his touches are deemed effective.

Now I'm a well known critic of Cross's value to the side around these parts, so of course my opinion is going to be interpreted as subjective. However, anyone with a set of eyes can see that Cross is extremely limited in his ability to dispose of the ball with REAL efficiency that actually benefits the side, rather than helping it maintain a possession stalemate. How do stats measure this?

I'm not saying quantitative information should be discounted, though to interpret the game in an holistic sense you need to use it as a tool to help form a rounded opinion. To do otherwise is too limiting, or narrow minded for mine.

Hi Jeemak, I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said here, except that you seem to think that I rely on quantitative stats a lot. The largest portion of criticism that I cop on these forums is with my liking of supercoach scores - which are effectively the ideal summary of a stats sheet - qualitative data included. Now the new measure is out there (AFL Player Ratings) and this will eventually become the be all and end all of player discussion. If you haven't already, I'd invite you to have a read and see what you think. If I occasionally give a short hand account of a player's stats sheet it's simply because I know that the minute 90% of people see numbers on a football forum they will start spouting the same old: 'you can't tell anything from stats', 'stats will never be able to measure exactly what happens on a football field' etc.

The unfortunate truth is that people are scared of the numbers being better judges than they, scared that if this is the case, there is no longer any value in their opinion. People hate stats for the same reason that the canteen lady hates the vending machine and theatre hates film.

In regards to Cross - sure, I could have given a bit more qualitative data, but we all know how he plays, how he uses the ball, I don't think this has changed enough in the last couple of years to warrant a full statistical analysis.

Not many would argue that Cross over the last 5-10 years has been one of our best players.

His disposal average in 2010: 26
First 6 games of 2013: 23

Supercoach 2010: 114
Supercoach 2013: 92

Player score contribution 2010-2011 (AFL Player Rating): ~425 (5th at the club)
Player score contribution 2012-2013: 400 (6th at the club)

That's 3 measures, each better than the last, that suggest Crossy's declined in output, but not by that much. If this is true, and the collective opinion on woof is that he was one of our very best players a few years ago, then it has to hold true that he remains a very good player?

Of course you could hold the opinion, jeemak, that you think he's always been a poor player, in which case you could keep that opinion now, but I can't see how anyone could think him a good player 3 years ago and a bad player now.

[wimberga]

Hi Jeemak, I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said here, except that you seem to think that I rely on quantitative stats a lot. The largest portion of criticism that I cop on these forums is with my liking of supercoach scores - which are effectively the ideal summary of a stats sheet - qualitative data included. Now the new measure is out there (AFL Player Ratings) and this will eventually become the be all and end all of player discussion. If you haven't already, I'd invite you to have a read and see what you think. If I occasionally give a short hand account of a player's stats sheet it's simply because I know that the minute 90% of people see numbers on a football forum they will start spouting the same old: 'you can't tell anything from stats', 'stats will never be able to measure exactly what happens on a football field' etc.

The unfortunate truth is that people are scared of the numbers being better judges than they, scared that if this is the case, there is no longer any value in their opinion. People hate stats for the same reason that the canteen lady hates the vending machine and theatre hates film.

In regards to Cross - sure, I could have given a bit more qualitative data, but we all know how he plays, how he uses the ball, I don't think this has changed enough in the last couple of years to warrant a full statistical analysis.

Not many would argue that Cross over the last 5-10 years has been one of our best players.

His disposal average in 2010: 26
First 6 games of 2013: 23

Supercoach 2010: 114
Supercoach 2013: 92

Player score contribution 2010-2011 (AFL Player Rating): ~425 (5th at the club)
Player score contribution 2012-2013: 400 (6th at the club)

That's 3 measures, each better than the last, that suggest Crossy's declined in output, but not by that much. If this is true, and the collective opinion on woof is that he was one of our very best players a few years ago, then it has to hold true that he remains a very good player?

Of course you could hold the opinion, jeemak, that you think he's always been a poor player, in which case you could keep that opinion now, but I can't see how anyone could think him a good player 3 years ago and a bad player now.

It's interesting that you post this Scorlibo and provides some decent insight from a statistical standpoint.

However, you can't provide more stats and say that it is now qualitative. Some people like them, some don't, but providing a different kind of stat is still never going to tell the full picture.

[jeemak]

Scorlibo, thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

I'll check out the AFL Player ratings at the start of next month, once uni is finished!

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and you make a good argument for Cross' output being of high quality with the stats you've selected. Tell me, do the stats you review have a measurement for options ignored/opportunities missed?

[Scorlibo]

It's interesting that you post this Scorlibo and provides some decent insight from a statistical standpoint.

However, you can't provide more stats and say that it is now qualitative. Some people like them, some don't, but providing a different kind of stat is still never going to tell the full picture.

Wimberga, both Supercoach rankings and AFL rankings are inclusive of every stat in the business and weighted ideally. They're not just a different kind of stat, and they are inclusive of most qualitative data available.

Saying that some people like them and some don't isn't really giving fair gravity to the argument. Some people like taxes, some don't, but the country wouldn't function without them.

[wimberga]

Wimberga, both Supercoach rankings and AFL rankings are inclusive of every stat in the business and weighted ideally. They're not just a different kind of stat, and they are inclusive of most qualitative data available.

Saying that some people like them and some don't isn't really giving fair gravity to the argument. Some people like taxes, some don't, but the country wouldn't function without them.

I do enjoy looking at those stats and do find them valuable but, surely you can admit that a number is a stat? and a collection of stats put into a formula to produce another number is another stat?

To use your analogy, some people like taxes, some people don't, but looking at the tax rates and how the various different taxes interact, weighted ideally, tells you precisely & definitively how well a country is functioning.

Anyhow, if you haven't convinced me or others by now then that would seem unlikely to change, so for the benefit of all members of this forum, lets move on.

[Scorlibo]

Tell me, do the stats you review have a measurement for options ignored/opportunities missed?

The AFL Player ratings award points according to the change in game situation, working with the probability of what the next game score will be.

For instance, at a centre bounce, the probability of the next score is something like:

Team A goal - 30%
Team B goal - 30%
Team A behind - 20%
Team B behind - 20%

So the average outcome for each team is 0 (= 0.3*6 + 0.2*1 - 0.3*6 - 0.2*1)

When Player A from Team A wins the ball, the game situation changes from there being a contested ball in dispute in the centre circle to Team A with possession under a lot of pressure. The probabilities might change to:

Team A goal - 35%
Team B goal - 25%
Team A behind - 23%
Team B behind - 17%

Average outcome for Team A = 0.35*6 + 0.23*1 - 0.25*6 - 0.17*1 = 0.1*6 + 0.06 = 0.66.

Therefore, Player A from Team A, by winning the ball at the centre bounce, has changed the expected outcome of the next score to be 0.66 points in his team's favour. This is his real score contribution.

So in answer to your question, while the ratings don't account for opportunities missed, as such, they won't reward players for effective kicks backwards, or any similar action which does not improve the team's predicament. Griffen's 20 metre run and 50 metre effective kick inside 50 might earn him 3 points, while Crossy's contested ball win and handball sideways might earn him 0.5, and an uncontested mark followed by an effective kick sideways will invariably earn a player 0 points.

[Scorlibo]

I do enjoy looking at those stats and do find them valuable but, surely you can admit that a number is a stat? and a collection of stats put into a formula to produce another number is another stat?

Of course, but it's no longer just a recording, it's a processed number. Inclusive of quantitative and qualitative data.


To use your analogy, some people like taxes, some people don't, but looking at the tax rates and how the various different taxes interact, weighted ideally, tells you precisely & definitively how well a country is functioning.

Are you describing supercoach scores in this analogy? I'm slightly confused.


Anyhow, if you haven't convinced me or others by now then that would seem unlikely to change, so for the benefit of all members of this forum, lets move on.

I wouldn't be arguing if I didn't think that these sorts of conversations were beneficial or that I didn't have a hope of convincing others to believe what I believe. The thought that this conversation isn't being well received by forum members is slightly disheartening, I must admit. But you're probably right. This isn't the ideal platform for this kind of argument. :(

[boydogs]

I wouldn't be arguing if I didn't think that these sorts of conversations were beneficial or that I didn't have a hope of convincing others to believe what I believe. The thought that this conversation isn't being well received by forum members is slightly disheartening, I must admit. But you're probably right. This isn't the ideal platform for this kind of argument. :(

You're in the wrong thread and coming across as adversarial, rather than educational. I've been playing SC for years (top 100 ATM) and I bet there's a lot about the scoring some posters don't know, start a new thread and I'll join in.

[jeemak]

So in answer to your question, while the ratings don't account for opportunities missed, as such, they won't reward players for effective kicks backwards, or any similar action which does not improve the team's predicament. Griffen's 20 metre run and 50 metre effective kick inside 50 might earn him 3 points, while Crossy's contested ball win and handball sideways might earn him 0.5, and an uncontested mark followed by an effective kick sideways will invariably earn a player 0 points.

Essentially you've convinced me that subjective inputs determine values one way or another to form the basis of how these stats are constructed. I'd like to know who sets the value markers, and why the way they value certain aspects of the game are important (I suppose that sounds condescending, though I can assure you it wasn't meant to).

I guess the issue I have with the scenario you've presented, is that an individual players decision making isn't necessarily considered. For instance, Dylan Addison could decide to handball sideways to Lindsay Gilbee who's in space, or he could decide to run 20 metres and kick the football himself. The latter would produce a better statistical outcome for Addison, and diminish that of Gilbee, though would it necessarily produce a better team outcome or performance outcome for Addison?

I'm actually interested in what you have to say, and like gogriff I'd likely engage in a stats based thread if you started one as I do believe in the value of statistics to analyse the game.

[Scorlibo]

You're in the wrong thread and coming across as adversarial, rather than educational. I've been playing SC for years (top 100 ATM) and I bet there's a lot about the scoring some posters don't know, start a new thread and I'll join in.


Essentially you've convinced me that subjective inputs determine values one way or another to form the basis of how these stats are constructed. I'd like to know who sets the value markers, and why the way they value certain aspects of the game are important (I suppose that sounds condescending, though I can assure you it wasn't meant to).

I'm actually interested in what you have to say, and like gogriff I'd likely engage in a stats based thread if you started one as I do believe in the value of statistics to analyse the game.

Great, will do.

Re: value markers, if you're referring to the probabilities of a goal, behind for each team then it's simply going through past data of when the ball was at a particular point on the ground with a particular team in possession/no team in possession and under what sort of pressure. I'll explain fully in a new thread.

[Scorlibo]

I guess the issue I have with the scenario you've presented, is that an individual players decision making isn't necessarily considered. For instance, Dylan Addison could decide to handball sideways to Lindsay Gilbee who's in space, or he could decide to run 20 metres and kick the football himself. The latter would produce a better statistical outcome for Addison, and diminish that of Gilbee, though would it necessarily produce a better team outcome or performance outcome for Addison?

In this situation, if Gilbee is in space, then that is considered. If he's under less pressure than Addison, then Addison will get points for that.

If he were to run 20 metres and kick the ball, his reward/punishment would be entirely dependent on whether his kick was to a contest or not, how far he kicked the ball etc.

I'm guessing the reason you've used Gilbee as an example is because he's renowned as a great kick, and we'd all as Bulldogs supporters prefer for the football to be in his hands. Given that Addison isn't such a great kick, you would certainly say that it is the right decision for Addison to handball to Gilbee.

However, in the instance that he doesn't and still finds a target then, in retrospect, there's no net difference in team outcome. When he doesn't find a target, he is punished. In the instance that he does handball, and Gilbee finds a target, then you can't attribute the gain from Gilbee's kick to Addison's decision.

[jeemak]

Is there differentiation between targets found, if both scenarios result in either player finding a target? Apart from potential scoring involvement or opportunity? What if a bum umpiring decision affects the state of play?

[jeemak]

We're well and truly off topic mate. Perhaps another thread, another time would be best.

[Scorlibo]

We're well and truly off topic mate. Perhaps another thread, another time would be best.

Yep, agreed. I'll set up a thread in the next couple of days.