Errors, Positive Risks, Recklessness, Poor and Good Decision Making

[Engorged Onion 9,255]

For those who are really vigilant about errors that individuals make  (be it 'decision making, or execution (help me pick the two apart please)) What is the benchmark for a player in your eyes - error per game. All teams make errors, all coaches make errors, all players make errors. All Australians make errors. 

Personally, I'd rather an athlete take a positive risk and it not come off -then play safe. The other thing for me is - for that individual athlete - I don't know what a positive risk looks like for them personally. Viewing it on tv doesn't give me the insight. 

Again regarding errors - if you want your players to take positive risks - then they'll [censored] a few up. Is that ok?  Is the only way you can assess that effectiveness via the outcome of said risk?  That is if it comes off fantastic and if it doesn't - error. For me - there is a massive difference between positive risk taking behaviour and reckless unhelpful behaviour and it isn't about the outcome of a particular kick/handball/decision.

I'd rather the players keep pursuing positive risks, irrespective of outcome, to learn that a) they can execute it, and most importantly execute it under stress an pressure...so they don't go into safety behaviours when the heat is on...ie: finals.

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

48 minutes ago, Danelska said:

I'd rather the players keep pursuing positive risks, irrespective of outcome, to learn that a) they can execute it, and most importantly execute it under stress an pressure...so they don't go into safety behaviours when the heat is on...ie: finals.

Agreed.

 

As an aside, would you consider a new moniker avatar?  I know its disrespectful to ask that of a poster but it is upsetting to see Daisy's face smashed in like that.  She is such a delightful, intelligent person, player and our captain so not sure why someone would choose that pic.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Lucifer's Hero

[xarronn 380]

6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Agreed.

 

As an aside, would you consider a new moniker?  I know its disrespectful to ask that of a poster but it is upsetting to see Daisy's face smashed in like that.  She is such a delightful, intelligent person, player and our captain so not sure why someone would choose that pic.

Moniker = name

Avatar = representation

[Engorged Onion 9,255]

Perceptions eh. I can see why you'd feel as though I'm being disrespectful. I picked it as it's an acknowledgment of how physical and brutal the AFLW is.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Danelska

[mo64 5,209]

The point you make about positive risks is a good one. Last week it was identified that the better players in the comp had the most turnovers. One reason is because they get the ball in pressure situations more often, but they also make the most risk/reward decisions. So people who bring up stat lines such as turnovers / DE% and 1%s, are either lazy or don't understand the game. 

When I look at individual errors, my starting point is what I expect of an AFL player as opposed to a park footballer. If an AFL player hasn't got the football smarts or skill level to execute something that a park footballer could, that stands out for me.

Some of us get accused of being naysayers, and I'm one, but that's because we see the same players making park football errors. We then get accused of having whipping boys. A case in point for me was Garland. For ages myself and STMJ kept banging on about what him being a liability. My biggest criticism of him was the he prevented quick ball movement with his penchant to slowly go back after taking a mark from short kick. These things don't show up in the stats sheet.

My current "whipping boy" is O Mac because he continues to make park football errors. A recent example was against the Crows when he couldn't man the mark properly, and allowed Tex Walker to stroll past him and have a ping for goal. Again, it doesn't show up on any stats sheet, but it was cringeworthy. And if Jack Watts continues to try and take chest marks and get intercepted as a result, he'll become a "whipping boy" once again.

[Deestroy All 14,261]

Time, place, know your limitations and risk v reward. 

I think we need to take more risks having no marking forward at the moment. Hitting a small leading forward from the corridor is much easier as seen yesterday. 

But dumb risks drive me crazy. 

Any time Bugg looks into the corridor I look away. 

That idiotic kick from Lewis to Jones in the back 50, the reward for the risk was going to be minimal anyway, had Jones marked it he had 2 blokes marking him so he'd have to go back and slow down anyway. Instead it was way worse, Jones got crunched and they kicked a goal. 

Watts kick into the corridor against the wind, just far too risky in the conditions. 

 

It's the more exciting way to play, I just wish we had a better set up behind play as insurance for when the risks don't pay off, because we get burnt way too easily.