PDA

View Full Version : Sneaky 16 Premiership


ratsmac
10-03-2016, 08:15 PM
A nice read. http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/09/footscray-sneaky-16-premiership/
LostDoggy
10-03-2016, 08:27 PM
Interesting article. Some bits a bit dubious (no Dickson or Libba in best 22?) but great to see a pundit focus on the upside of our many youngers players rather than the potential decline of our 3 or 4 older players.
westdog54
10-03-2016, 10:47 PM
Interesting article. Some bits a bit dubious (no Dickson or Libba in best 22?) but great to see a pundit focus on the upside of our many youngers players rather than the potential decline of our 3 or 4 older players.

This is a lift from the article:


There is at least one notable exclusion to the best 22, and a couple of curious ins.

Tom Liberatore is clearly in the best 22 when fit, and on 2014 form would rate near enough to the best player in the midfield. His exclusion is only a result of my criteria for selection, which was based on assessing and weighting for 2015 data. His potential return to form poses a positive dilemma for the Bulldogs – who to leave out?

Big call here:


The Bulldogs have the fourth-best list in the competition this year. I’m nervous saying it, because I have the memory of Port Adelaide 2015 warning me against getting too excited about teams that have had one good recent season, but this team could win as many as 18 games. I would predict between 15 and 18 wins.

Fourth best list in the competition. Massive call.
Twodogs
10-03-2016, 11:37 PM
This is a lift from the article:



Big call here:



Fourth best list in the competition. Massive call.

Is the author a bulldog supporter?
Happy Days
11-03-2016, 01:37 AM
He's rated everyone using analytical scales to generate his best 22, which is fine in theory, but incredibly dumb when the end result leaves out a guy who kicked 50 goals (5 in a final) and Dale Morris.

The continuous nature of football will never render it fully capable of total analytical analysis the way that the US sports do, especially an analytic that doesn't use goals as part of its determination on who makes a good forward.
LostDoggy
11-03-2016, 01:43 AM
He's rated everyone using analytical scales to generate his best 22, which is fine in theory, but incredibly dumb when the end result leaves out a guy who kicked 50 goals (5 in a final) and Dale Morris.

The continuous nature of football will never render it fully capable of total analytical analysis the way that the US sports do, especially an analytic that doesn't use goals as part of its determination on who makes a good forward.
Reading the article, he seems a bit obsessed with players with upside and really marks down mature, experienced players. Even Bob is last named on the bench. Suspect his methods relate more to Supercoach/Fantasy teams than the real game.
LostDoggy
11-03-2016, 07:15 PM
Fourth best list in the competition. Massive call.

Absolutely agree. That's three places away from where I'd rate us. :D
Bulldog4life
11-03-2016, 08:07 PM
No mention of Tommy Boyd at all. Did I miss it?
ratsmac
11-03-2016, 09:31 PM
No mention of Tommy Boyd at all. Did I miss it?

I thought that too. I guess the way he rated the players with pure numbers and stats, maybe Tom Boyd's numbers didn't stack up. Potential doesn't have a number!
Twodogs
11-03-2016, 09:54 PM
I thought that too. I guess the way he rated the players with pure numbers and stats, maybe Tom Boyd's numbers didn't stack up. Potential doesn't have a number!

A million per year is the number I heard.