My 3 word player analysis v North Melbourne

[ManDee 7,162]

4 minutes ago, H_T said:

Deuce.

Your ad.

[H_T 3,049]

6 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Your ad.

No it's not. It's deuce.

I'm not arguing.

[Phadraig 760]

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

agree with tyson.....and he only had 69% game time

Not sure about the average game times of people but... that seems fairly low doesn't it?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

It was a bloody impressive performance despite lacking the requisite polish and experience at crucial moments.

Hence, I can't agree with several of the player assessments here. Tres ordinaire stuff.

 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

On 4/10/2016 at 5:59 AM, Radar Detector said:

Yep, my three word summary for Watts would be TAKE THE SHOT. I suspect he will be told that. But the mark was a ripper, he actually looked pretty good streaming out of the goal square and kicked 3. Is on track for a 40 odd goal season.

And for Hogan in that instance DON'T FKEN LEAD, or POINT AT GOALS, or LET HIM SHOOT.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

And for Hogan in that instance DON'T FKEN LEAD, or POINT AT GOALS, or LET HIM SHOOT.

Yeah very much so. I would like to think they were both sat down and told that it isnt on. If there wasnt a lead there wouldnt have been a problem. if you have to kick over the man on the mark its always going to be a slow loopy kick so why bother. I mean surely if you can hit a kick that precise you can kick the goal.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Yeah very much so. I would like to think they were both sat down and told that it isnt on. If there wasnt a lead there wouldnt have been a problem. if you have to kick over the man on the mark its always going to be a slow loopy kick so why bother. I mean surely if you can hit a kick that precise you can kick the goal.

Especially when everyone was kicking the goals from the location all day.

[dazzledavey36 55,001]

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 7:15 AM, watchtheeyes said:

Frost: Gives forward pressure

And that is exactly why he's in the team, Pedersen doesn't. I prefer frost.

What part of his 0 tackles did you enjoy the most?

To say he gives forward pressure is laughable because i am yet to see and i have watched both his games fully.

Edited April 12, 2016 by dazzledavey36

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

On 10/04/2016 at 8:10 AM, jackaub said:

Tyson  plays like he doesnt give a damn and maybe he doesnt. Casey For me until he is hungry.

Tyson lacks intensity, that's his greatest weakness.

[nutbean 8,838]

19 hours ago, H_T said:

No it's not. It's deuce.

I'm not arguing.

deuce ? deuce ?

You can’t be serious, man. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! That ball was on the line! Chalk flew up! It was clearly in! You guys are the absolute pits of the world…”

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

Melbournre:  Lost at selection.

 

The selection of Wagner, and I hold nothing against him, lost us the game in my opinion.  Grimes would have been a far better selection.

We were told at the beginning of the year that players wouldn't be gifted games and that consistent performances would be the only thing that would get you selected.

Wagner is a rookie.  He joined preseason training late because of the timing of the rookie draft and he played in all three of the NAB Cup game, as did Grimes.

In the first two games he played 32% and 39% game time compared to Grimes 77% and 75%.  He had 10 disposals combined in those games compared to Grimes 29.  In the game against Saints Wagner played 68% for 14 disposals at 50% disposal efficiency.  Grimes played 59% for 13 disposals at 92%.  The stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  Wagner hardly banged the door down and at best knocked very quietly.  

Grimes is fitter, bigger, stronger and much more AFL ready than Wagner and he performed better in preseason. The only attribute that Wagner is better than Grimes at the moment is his kicking skills but if you don't get it that doesn't matter.  Wagner kicked it 3 times on Sunday.  Grimes is not without his faults and I know many here use him as a whipping boy but whichever way you cut it he's a better player at the moment.  If Grimes had been selected and played the game Wagner did on Sunday this site would be in meltdown over his performance. 

I like Wagner, he's tough but he's not AFL ready.  On Saturday he came up against a forward line of Waite, Petrie, Brown, Thomas and Harvey.  He didn't have the tools to play that game, he doesn't have the experience and for all he may end up being a good player he is not there yet.  Wagner had 8 possessions on Sunday, 62% efficiency.  He "did some nice things" but was far from AFL ready.  It was a terrible selection.  Grimes papers may be marked, he may not have a future but he is at this stage a significant upgrade on Wagner.  Where is the "earning games" ethos?  This kid hadn't earned them.  The FD said one thing and did another.  Just dumb.

After all this time we should not be gifting players game to develop them, we should be putting our best team on the field to win the game.  We didn't do that on Sunday and it's bitterly disappointing.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Baghdad Bob

[old dee 23,801]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Melbournre:  Lost at selection.

 

The selection of Wagner, and I hold nothing against him, lost us the game in my opinion.  Grimes would have been a far better selection.

We were told at the beginning of the year that players wouldn't be gifted games and that consistent performances would be the only thing that would get you selected.

Wagner is a rookie.  He joined preseason training late because of the timing of the rookie draft and he played in all three of the NAB Cup game, as did Grimes.

In the first two games he played 32% and 39% game time compared to Grimes 77% and 75%.  He had 10 disposals combined in those games compared to Grimes 29.  In the game against Saints Wagner played 68% for 14 disposals at 50% disposal efficiency.  Grimes played 59% for 13 disposals at 92%.  The stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  Wagner hardly banged the door down and at best knocked very quietly.  

Grimes is fitter, bigger, stronger and much more AFL ready than Wagner and he performed better in preseason. The only attribute that Wagner is better than Grimes at the moment is his kicking skills but if you don't get it that doesn't matter.  Wagner kicked it 3 times on Sunday.  Grimes is not without his faults and I know many here use him as a whipping boy but whichever way you cut it he's a better player at the moment.  If Grimes had been selected and played the game Wagner did on Sunday this site would be in meltdown over his performance. 

I like Wagner, he's tough but he's not AFL ready.  On Saturday he came up against a forward line of Waite, Petrie, Brown, Thomas and Harvey.  He didn't have the tools to play that game, he doesn't have the experience and for all he may end up being a good player he is not there yet.  Wagner had 8 possessions on Sunday, 62% efficiency.  He "did some nice things" but was far from AFL ready.  It was a terrible selection.  Grimes papers may be marked, he may not have a future but he is at this stage a significant upgrade on Wagner.  Where is the "earning games" ethos?  This kid hadn't earned them.  The FD said one thing and did another.  Just dumb.

After all this time we should not be gifting players game to develop them, we should be putting our best team on the field to win the game.  We didn't do that on Sunday and it's bitterly disappointing.

 

 

Spot on BB

[H_T 3,049]

Yes, definitely agree.

Good stats to back it up too. 

Grimes is one I'd forgotten about for selections v Collingwood. Emergency last weekend. An option to replace Wagner or Bugg this week.

The cases for lack of accountability at selection given their stated philosophy on playing 100% fit players and only select players once they've earned them are mounting.

Picking the best possible sides each week is a must. Let's favour winning games over development. When the wins come, development can be fast tracked. Winning environment.

[mo64 5,875]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

 

I like Wagner, he's tough but he's not AFL ready.  On Saturday he came up against a forward line of Waite, Petrie, Brown, Thomas and Harvey.  He didn't have the tools to play that game, he doesn't have the experience and for all he may end up being a good player he is not there yet.  Wagner had 8 possessions on Sunday, 62% efficiency.  He "did some nice things" but was far from AFL ready.  It was a terrible selection.  Grimes papers may be marked, he may not have a future but he is at this stage a significant upgrade on Wagner.  Where is the "earning games" ethos?  This kid hadn't earned them.  The FD said one thing and did another.  Just dumb.

 

 

 

Whilst I agree that Wagner's selection was bewildering to say the least, his selection and Grimes' non-selection hardly cost us the game. For starters, Grimes isn't a good matchup for any of the North forwards. 

The message that the FD are sending with the non-selection of Grimes and Garland is that being a "vanilla" footballer as a defender doesn't cut it. You either have to be a really good defender, or you need to provide some offensive drive. Garland and Grimes are both stat fillers with ball in hand. Both will look for a sideways 20m pass which makes their DE look impressive, but actually hinders the team's offense.

[Tim 3,426]

2 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I like Wagner, he's tough but he's not AFL ready.  

Grimes is fitter, bigger, stronger and much more AFL ready than Wagner and he performed better in preseason.

Perfect summation. Wagner shows something, but not enough at the moment to hold out Frankie.

[daisycutter 29,622]

23 hours ago, Rafiki said:

Not sure about the average game times of people but... that seems fairly low doesn't it?

yep, it's low, specially for a mature player and actually tyson was 68% (not 69%). most players get over 80%

75% stretch, frost

71% harmes

68% tyson

65% oliver

63% wagner

[Little Richard 6,265]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yep, it's low, specially for a mature player and actually tyson was 68% (not 69%). most players get over 80%

75% stretch, frost

71% harmes

68% tyson

65% oliver

63% wagner

Attribute some of that to the interchange caps. Some more 'important' players are pulling higher percentages than they used to, instead of being rotated off the ground like the last couple of seasons.

[Bang Na Demon 167]

Hmmm. I was quite impressed with Wagner's game and he certainly didn't lose it for us.

Not a lot of it but I love him with ball in hand. He's calm, makes good decisions and hits targets by hand and foot. His tackle on one of the North speedsters (Harvey/Wells..?) in a one on one was a thing of beauty particularly given one the knocks on him is a lack of pace.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by xiss

[rolling fog 1,207]

Surprised the Dom Tyson thread hasn't been resurrected yet... 

[binman 43,138]

6 hours ago, xiss said:

Hmmm. I was quite impressed with Wagner's game and he certainly didn't lose it for us.

Not a lot of it but I love him with ball in hand. He's calm, makes good decisions and hits targets by hand and foot. His tackle on one of the North speedsters (Harvey/Wells..?) in a one on one was a thing of beauty particularly given one the knocks on him is a lack of pace.

 

This is why he is in the side, pure and simple.

With the style of footy we're playing quality kicks off half back are absolutely critical.

On On the Couch last night they were saying how big a blow to doggies premiership chance murphy injury will be for precisely this reason.

Rohan Connoly wrote an article today saying how critical quality kicks are circa 2016. Call it the Hawthorn effect.  RC argued a key reason the tigers, freo and pies are struggling is they have few, if any elite users of the ball. Well as dees fans know we struggle mightily in that department as well. 

I love Grimes but he just can't be trusted to hit those 4O metre diagonal kicks to the corridor that create attacking moves, let alone the 50 metre cross to the fat side that opens up  play. Jetts is ok but can't kick long, Dunn ok and Salem a ripper. But TMac, Lumumba, Garland (when in) and M Jones are sketchy. If we had better kicks in the back half then yes Grimes ahead of Wagner, but we don't. Wagner is also taller which is handy. 

I agree he wasn't brilliant but to suggest his selection cost us the game is silly. How would have Grime gone in that wind? 

I predict he'll stay in the team. its a selection that has one eye on the future but is also about the now. I also reckon he has something about him that suggests once he picks up the pace of AFL he'll improve sharply and become a very reliable defender. 

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

10 hours ago, binman said:

This is why he is in the side, pure and simple.

 

Your argument is based around Wagner's kicking ability but I'd make two points.

• Wagner's DE was less than 40% in his two games that were "outdoor" - PA and WB.  Grimes was > 75% on both those days with conditions against the Dogs very similar to Tassi.
• For kicking to be an issue you've got to get it.  Wagner did 3 times on Sunday going at 62.5% DE.  Let's assume that all his kicks were good.  That's three good kicks in a match. I can't imagine you're happy with that.  And to suggest "can you imagine what Grimes would have done in those conditions - yes I can - exactly what he did against the Dogs in the NAB Cup, 75% disposal efficiency.  I'd seen it a few weeks before.

As I've said stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  I'd suggest that Grimes offered significantly more AFL IP than Wagner.  He'd understand the tricks of Harvey better, he's proven to be a very good third man up.  If we'd lost by 2 or 3 goals I wouldn't have been so concerned but we lost by one kick.  I think it's far from silly to suggest Grimes would make us a one goal better team when 21 goals were kicked against us compared to a rookie who has never proven himself in any serious footy.

MFC were one and one going into the game.  It was a pivotal game.  Wagner was a big gamble that didn't come off, Grimes the value bet that could well have got us across the line. Like Brayshaw against Essendon it was a baffling selection.  It's two fails for the selection committee and it might have a profound effect on our season.

[H_T 3,049]

28 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Your argument is based around Wagner's kicking ability but I'd make two points.

• Wagner's DE was less than 40% in his two games that were "outdoor" - PA and WB.  Grimes was > 75% on both those days with conditions against the Dogs very similar to Tassi.
• For kicking to be an issue you've got to get it.  Wagner did 3 times on Sunday going at 62.5% DE.  Let's assume that all his kicks were good.  That's three good kicks in a match. I can't imagine you're happy with that.  And to suggest "can you imagine what Grimes would have done in those conditions - yes I can - exactly what he did against the Dogs in the NAB Cup, 75% disposal efficiency.  I'd seen it a few weeks before.

As I've said stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  I'd suggest that Grimes offered significantly more AFL IP than Wagner.  He'd understand the tricks of Harvey better, he's proven to be a very good third man up.  If we'd lost by 2 or 3 goals I wouldn't have been so concerned but we lost by one kick.  I think it's far from silly to suggest Grimes would make us a one goal better team when 21 goals were kicked against us compared to a rookie who has never proven himself in any serious footy.

MFC were one and one going into the game.  It was a pivotal game.  Wagner was a big gamble that didn't come off, Grimes the value bet that could well have got us across the line. Like Brayshaw against Essendon it was a baffling selection.  It's two fails for the selection committee and it might have a profound effect on our season.

Indeed. For mine the stakes are raised again v Collingwood. 

There's a few cracks that need addressing which you've rightly highlighted. It might not mean much to many here, but they could get bigger. Accountability is needed. 

They need to get the selections right. Follow the philosophy they highlighted they would follow and implement it. Not go back on their word.

It's been overlooked by many including the over zealous media.

 

[mo64 5,875]

42 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Your argument is based around Wagner's kicking ability but I'd make two points.

• Wagner's DE was less than 40% in his two games that were "outdoor" - PA and WB.  Grimes was > 75% on both those days with conditions against the Dogs very similar to Tassi.
• For kicking to be an issue you've got to get it.  Wagner did 3 times on Sunday going at 62.5% DE.  Let's assume that all his kicks were good.  That's three good kicks in a match. I can't imagine you're happy with that.  And to suggest "can you imagine what Grimes would have done in those conditions - yes I can - exactly what he did against the Dogs in the NAB Cup, 75% disposal efficiency.  I'd seen it a few weeks before.

As I've said stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  I'd suggest that Grimes offered significantly more AFL IP than Wagner.  He'd understand the tricks of Harvey better, he's proven to be a very good third man up.  If we'd lost by 2 or 3 goals I wouldn't have been so concerned but we lost by one kick.  I think it's far from silly to suggest Grimes would make us a one goal better team when 21 goals were kicked against us compared to a rookie who has never proven himself in any serious footy.

MFC were one and one going into the game.  It was a pivotal game.  Wagner was a big gamble that didn't come off, Grimes the value bet that could well have got us across the line. Like Brayshaw against Essendon it was a baffling selection.  It's two fails for the selection committee and it might have a profound effect on our season.

I can't believe that any serious football watcher can suggest that a player who isn't considered in the best 25 at a lowly club would be the difference between a win and loss. The reason why Grimes isn't in the team is that he's been incapable over the past 3 years of doing the things you suggest he would have done as Wagner's replacement.

Grimes played in the NAB Challenge as a wingman, so your stats comparison is irrelevant. And using his DE% against that Dogs reserves team is pointless.

I'm not a Wagner fan, but your post is silly going on absurd. I'm surprised you didn't throw up Garland as well.

Edited April 13, 2016 by mo64

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Your argument is based around Wagner's kicking ability but I'd make two points.

• Wagner's DE was less than 40% in his two games that were "outdoor" - PA and WB.  Grimes was > 75% on both those days with conditions against the Dogs very similar to Tassi.
• For kicking to be an issue you've got to get it.  Wagner did 3 times on Sunday going at 62.5% DE.  Let's assume that all his kicks were good.  That's three good kicks in a match. I can't imagine you're happy with that.  And to suggest "can you imagine what Grimes would have done in those conditions - yes I can - exactly what he did against the Dogs in the NAB Cup, 75% disposal efficiency.  I'd seen it a few weeks before.

As I've said stats are not definitive but they are indicative.  I'd suggest that Grimes offered significantly more AFL IP than Wagner.  He'd understand the tricks of Harvey better, he's proven to be a very good third man up.  If we'd lost by 2 or 3 goals I wouldn't have been so concerned but we lost by one kick.  I think it's far from silly to suggest Grimes would make us a one goal better team when 21 goals were kicked against us compared to a rookie who has never proven himself in any serious footy.

MFC were one and one going into the game.  It was a pivotal game.  Wagner was a big gamble that didn't come off, Grimes the value bet that could well have got us across the line. Like Brayshaw against Essendon it was a baffling selection.  It's two fails for the selection committee and it might have a profound effect on our season.

Come on your being a bit harsh arnt you? 8 disposals (6 contested), a clearance, 4 tackles (including 1 brilliant chase down), 3 1%s and didnt give away a free in a game where the whistle was blowing non stop. And he spend quite alot of time swaping with jetta on Thomas who didnt kick a goal in a 21 goal game. All in his first game off the rookie list... what more do you want from the kid? Grimes has played many a worse game than that in the last 2 years

Edited April 13, 2016 by ArtificialWisdom

[daisycutter 29,622]

46 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Come on your being a bit harsh arnt you? 8 disposals (6 contested), a clearance, 4 tackles (including 1 brilliant chase down), 3 1%s and didnt give away a free in a game where the whistle was blowing non stop. And he spend quite alot of time swaping with jetta on Thomas who didnt kick a goal in a 21 goal game. All in his first game off the rookie list... what more do you want from the kid? Grimes has played many a worse game than that in the last 2 years

and not forgetting his low tog%