Then he is not a good player dee-luded.

Stop making excuses to yourself.

He's a good talent Old, but has to work his but off to make it at the highest level. Is that written in a way you understand OD?

He has to build his engine. Work like he's never worked, & I can't help but feel that our past culture issues of soft at the ball & soft around the inner club, & soft around the club socially, has a Major bearing on the lack of workrate at training & onfield.

Thats why Neeld is a must to break this down, & maybe a sore point amongst some players this year. Neelds maybe not soft enough for some.

He's a good talent Old, but has to work his but off to make it at the highest level. Is that written in a way you understand OD?

He has to build his engine. Work like he's never worked, & I can't help but feel that our past culture issues of soft at the ball & soft around the inner club, & soft around the club socially, has a Major bearing on the lack of workrate at training & onfield.

Thats why Neeld is a must to break this down, & maybe a sore point amongst some players this year. Neelds maybe not soft enough for some.

A couple of good points Dee-luded

I am sorry to be so cynical but I have seen so many new brooms at the MFC I will believe it when I see it.

I just don't see the same things you do when we both look at him.

Very Good RR I had not heard that before.

I will steal it if you don't mind.

By all means OD. I miss those old Coodabeens days. Guru Bob used to come out with some absolute pearls.

As Abner said to Saul after David had smote Goliath on debut against the Philistines at Shochoh:

"This bloke only needs one or two possesions and he can really hurt the opposition."

More here ... http://www.coodabeens.com.au/guru.html

By all means OD. I miss those old Coodabeens days. Guru Bob used to come out with some absolute pearls.

As Abner said to Saul after David had smote Goliath on debut against the Philistines at Shochoh:

"This bloke only needs one or two possesions and he can really hurt the opposition."

More here ... http://www.coodabeens.com.au/guru.html

That really was a very funny radio show. Was it Peter from Peterborough that was the "typical "Melbourne supporter.

"You know what the problem is Tony?" "Tell me Peter" "Discipline Tony, Discipline".

That really was a very funny radio show. Was it Peter from Peterborough that was the "typical "Melbourne supporter.

"You know what the problem is Tony?" "Tell me Peter" "Discipline Tony, Discipline".

That was him. "I support the Melbourne club, Tony. Mmm, mmm, mmm".

and the kid that loved Craig Starcevich. Loved that show.

Compare Gys to Watts at the same time (game wise) and Gys has it all over Watts. Gys averages just over 20 possessions per game and he has only played 15 to 20 games. I think he has been the most impressive high draft pick player we have. He has gone missing this year due to poor fitness. I would think that Mission and Neeld would be pumping fitness into him to unleash him when he has the fitness to compete at AFL level. Gys is the example when Neeld talks about 'pumping games into players who do not deserve it'. Its his fitness that hiolds him back only

If Bailey was at the helm Gys would be competing at AFL level without the fitness to play/compete. Neeld refuses to do this as it could ruin his confidence and hinder his overall development. I like that he has been playing in the midfield for Casey. He is still learning to play against men and building a motor for AFL level. Couch and Magner have moved in front of Gys as they have better fitness and the strength to compete against the better teams. They have massive less upside than Gys and the club wont waste his talenbts by trading him. Unless the offer is on the table that will net us an experienced moneyball player.

Compare Gys to Watts at the same time (game wise) and Gys has it all over Watts. Gys averages just over 20 possessions per game and he has only played 15 to 20 games. I think he has been the most impressive high draft pick player we have. He has gone missing this year due to poor fitness. I would think that Mission and Neeld would be pumping fitness into him to unleash him when he has the fitness to compete at AFL level. Gys is the example when Neeld talks about 'pumping games into players who do not deserve it'. Its his fitness that hiolds him back only

If Bailey was at the helm Gys would be competing at AFL level without the fitness to play/compete. Neeld refuses to do this as it could ruin his confidence and hinder his overall development. I like that he has been playing in the midfield for Casey. He is still learning to play against men and building a motor for AFL level. Couch and Magner have moved in front of Gys as they have better fitness and the strength to compete against the better teams. They have massive less upside than Gys and the club wont waste his talenbts by trading him. Unless the offer is on the table that will net us an experienced moneyball player.

This might be closer than you think

If this is the case OD, I hope we get some one good, not a B garder. We are full of B and C grade Midfielders, whilst Gys could gives us A grade performances.

I have the feeling the current coaches recognise his talents and will un leash him next year when his fitness gets better. This year is all about seeing who is up to the task from our 24 year old and overs.

If this is the case OD, I hope we get some one good, not a B garder. We are full of B and C grade Midfielders, whilst Gys could gives us A grade performances.

I have the feeling the current coaches recognise his talents and will un leash him next year when his fitness gets better. This year is all about seeing who is up to the task from our 24 year old and overs.

I have no idea mate

I just follow that old rule that says you have to give up something worth while to get some one you want.

He maybe on that list.

I think the current FD wants good experienced players, they have enough projects.

He may be an offering to achieve that end.

By the way I am far from convinced of his worth.

While I have not seen everyone of his games there are not many above average in my view

The warning signs were there when Gysberts came back in to PS training with no tank whatsoever.

I don't need anyone from The Roar to tell me where our issues lie.

We have to just move on from the disappointments and use this next draft as a launching pad. We do have some talent on the list right now, we just need to get some quality into the midfield and some bodies to help the young talent thrive.

And before anyone whinges about the 'draft being the saviour again' - it is the saviour, we have just had a more crucifixions than resurrections.

I find it ironic that those who talk about "moneyballers" and "moneyball players" the most, seem to also be the ones who have the least understanding of anyone how the moneyball strategy works...

Not necessarily in regards to this thread, just a casual observation since the term was used.

Tackling is fine. Good on him. But his first priority must be to get the ball, not tackle the man with it. Same goes for Trengove who seems to have similar issues.

Time to raise the heat on these high draft picks. Quit being second to the footy. Lift.

Looking at limited game time at Casey this year he gets a lot of ball in close and distributes to players in good position. We don't have this type of player in the senior side, we have some big bodies around the ball but not smart at getting and using like Gys. The jury is still out but lets see if he can get a clear injury free run, he has the footy smarts to be a good player, I hope he wants it enough.

I find it ironic that those who talk about "moneyballers" and "moneyball players" the most, seem to also be the ones who have the least understanding of anyone how the moneyball strategy works...

Not necessarily in regards to this thread, just a casual observation since the term was used.

If I see it again I am going to start a thread and learn some people...

If I see it again I am going to start a thread and learn some people...

Please do, I haven't seen moneyball but I've heard a lot of comments about it.

Please do, I haven't seen moneyball but I've heard a lot of comments about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

At essence it's about finding advantages in sport through advanced statistical analysis, and recruiting players on the basis of these advantages.

I was at that draft at the convention centre and happened to be sitting 10 ft away from Eddie.

He had a [censored]-eating grin from ear-to-ear when Melbourne's turn came and we didn't call out Ball's name. He knew he'd put one over us and had Ball in the bag (pardon the pun) as soon as that happened.

I agree. It was pi$$weak by the club ... a true reflection of the Bailey ethos.

You can never know what may have been. $500k a year for a player that didn't want to be there...and that has now broken down..

He might have been a gun for us. He might have played 2 yrs then [censored] off to the pies. He might have sat back and collected he cash. We will never know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

At essence it's about finding advantages in sport through advanced statistical analysis, and recruiting players on the basis of these advantages.

The essence of Moneyball is that the stats were saying one thing (ie" ie this guy gets to 1st base 65% of the time) but the 'traditional' recruiters didn't like his swing or he was slow etc - "we know baseball talent".

The facts were though that they got to first base a lot. Hence the players didn't get recruited or were very inexpensive to recruit.

In AFL parlance it would be a Shane Tuck type of player. Not pretty or skillful but keeps getting the ball. Would be overlooked by a lot of recruiters.

Shane Valenti might be another.

There would be some overiding factor in AFL players: getting the ball is one thing but delivering it is another. Rioli doesn't get the ball a lot but what he does with it is outstanding (he wouldn't be considered a moneyball player as he is too skilled). If Rohan Bail could hit targets he would be considered a classic Moneyball player. Sam Mitchell would certainly have been one of the archetypal moneyball players. Even Aaron Davey is up there.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by jnrmac

You can never know what may have been. $500k a year for a player that didn't want to be there...and that has now broken down..

He might have been a gun for us. He might have played 2 yrs then [censored] off to the pies. He might have sat back and collected he cash. We will never know.

History's proved he was a very good pick up for the Pies. Helped them win a flag and played a great 2011.

But this isn't the point. The point is we got the frights and baulked when the big boys stared us down.

It was the act of a weak club.

History's proved he was a very good pick up for the Pies. Helped them win a flag and played a great 2011.

But this isn't the point. The point is we got the frights and baulked when the big boys stared us down.

It was the act of a weak club.

You can't take a player without knowing whether his body is up to it, especially when the club he was at had significant question marks over it. We could've taken him but it would've been a huge gamble, it wasn't a gamble for Collingwood because he underwent a medical for them. You reckon not taking him was weak, I reckon taking him would have been negligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

At essence it's about finding advantages in sport through advanced statistical analysis, and recruiting players on the basis of these advantages.

Essentially, but it is more than that. It's also about tapping avenues to find talent that few others tap.

Jarka - in a nutshell it was a way for the Oakland Athletics to compete by using stats to get extreme value out of the money they spent, a great number of teams were recruiting from other MLB teams or prodigies straight from high school. The A's looked at proven players at College level using their performances as a guide, rather than listen to what the equivalent of a Prendergast/Cameron/whoever thought about the prospects of the player. Same goes for MLB listed players in the minors, and minor league players themselves.

But it has evolved as the use of stats has gone across the league - essentially the A's were pushed out of that market too. Now they try to get value but will make wise and more extravagant moves like a bloke from Cuba and try to assess high school kids now that the best teams are essentially getting out of that game (save for the ridiculous prodigies).

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7328539/the-economics-moneyball

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8080945/now-hollywood-dust-settled-oakland-trying-win-unfair-game

Grantland is a great site and goes through the changing nature of Moneyball, even questioning its worth, but the philosphy of the A's is the same it was (their GM is still in charge from the years Moneyball was based from).

In the context of the AFL - it doesn't preclude giving someone a huge contract for a long time (ie. Cloke) - only that you get value out of that contract. And, if you have limited funds, that there is extreme value in other players. And the state leagues can be considered a good place to find talent as there is perfomances to look at that is similar to the AFL; there is less guessing about the prospects of a player compared to the teenage TAC Cup.

Since the Scott Thompson selection we've had 17 top 21 draft picks and not one has cemented themselves as an A grader. That's a pretty spectacular effort.

Now either we haven't recruited overly well, can't develop a player to save ourselves, or are one of the unluckiest clubs in the world. I suspect it's a combination of all three.

In the mean time some clubs have had access to half the top 20 draft picks we have and have ended up with bona fide A graders. I'm not sure whether to laugh, or cry. Even Richmond, who have been the laughing stock of the AFL for 30 years and stuffed up by getting Tambling over Franklin, and had another top 10 pick in Oakley-Nicholls (snigger), have managed to end up with at least two A graders in Cotchin and Deledio.

It beggars belief.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by Ben-Hur

You can't take a player without knowing whether his body is up to it, especially when the club he was at had significant question marks over it. We could've taken him but it would've been a huge gamble, it wasn't a gamble for Collingwood because he underwent a medical for them. You reckon not taking him was weak, I reckon taking him would have been negligent.

Had 24 touches in the '09 grand final and was among the Saints best.

What's more of a gamble ... taking an untried 18yo or a proven 25yo talent who performs in a grand final?

Since the Scott Thompson selection we've had 17 top 21 draft picks and not one has cemented themselves as an A grader. That's a pretty spectacular effort.

Now either we haven't recruited overly well, can't develop a player to save ourselves, or are one of the unluckiest clubs in the world. I suspect it's a combination of all three.

In the mean time some clubs have had access to half the top 20 draft picks we have and have ended up with bona fide A graders. I'm not sure whether to laugh, or cry. Even Richmond, who have been the laughing stock of the AFL for 30 years and stuffed up by getting Tambling over Franklin, and had another top 10 pick in Oakley-Nicholls (snigger), have manged to end up with at least two A graders in Cotchin and Deledio.

It beggars belief.

Stop it. You're making me emotional.

Such a shame we did not stand up to The Filth & draft Luke Ball.

I think the clun underestimated the benefit he would have had on teh playing group, it may be out there but would have considered Ball & Junior as being a similar pairing to Jude & Kirky setting up the bloods culture