My 3 word player analysis v North Melbourne

[Akum 2,660]

23 hours 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

The average TOG% per player needs to be just under 82% across the team. There are 18 positions (you could think about it as 18 EFT) to be shared among 22 players. (18 x 100)/22 = 81.8181 ...

So these are significantly below that, requiring others to play more to compensate. This will become a more important stat with the interchange changes.

[nutbean 8,838]

24 minutes ago, Akum said:

The average TOG% per player needs to be just under 82% across the team. There are 18 positions (you could think about it as 18 EFT) to be shared among 22 players. (18 x 100)/22 = 81.8181 ...

So these are significantly below that, requiring others to play more to compensate. This will become a more important stat with the interchange changes.

No it won't - Whilst you do in theory you want an even spread of TOG there are certain players who are aerobically better than others  - it is no surprise that Tom McDonald played 97% game time. He will continue to do so.

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

No it won't - Whilst you do in theory you want an even spread of TOG there are certain players who are aerobically better than others  - it is no surprise that Tom McDonald played 97% game time. He will continue to do so.

OK, fair enough. I didn't explain it well.

What I meant was that TOG% will now have to be taken into consideration in selection decisions, because it's going to be harder for sides to carry too many players who can only manage 70% TOG or less. If, with a similar team to Sunday, we get an early injury, we could collectively really struggle to run out the game, if a number of senior players are having to play more TOG% than they can comfortably manage. Perhaps Roos was referring to this when he named "tiredness" as a factor in our poor performance against the Druggies, and dropped Brayshaw to emphasize the point.

Whoever replaces Vince, who often gets close to 90% TOG, must be able to comfortably do the same. So that counts out Brayshaw, and if Jeffy isn't fully fit, it won't be him either. Or if we don't actually have anyone to bring in who can come close to Vince's TOG (and the only one I can think of who could is Grimes), the only solution is to drop (say) Wagner too, to make up for Vince's-87%-plus-Wagner's-63% by bringing in 2 players who can both play 75%.

And if this week we keep all of Harmes, Tyson, Oliver & Wagner, we probably can't afford bring in Petracca. It also makes the likes of Harmes & Wagner much more vulnerable to being dropped, compared to say Bugg or Matt Jones, who can manage more TOG and not place extra burden on their teammates.

[jnrmac 20,188]

On 4/12/2016 at 0:45 PM, 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.

 

 

We know Grimes' upside. He has serious flaws with kicking and awareness.

Wagner had a job to do and by and  large he did it I thought. I think that's why he was brought in.

 

[nutbean 8,838]

On 4/13/2016 at 5:43 PM, Akum said:

OK, fair enough. I didn't explain it well.

What I meant was that TOG% will now have to be taken into consideration in selection decisions, because it's going to be harder for sides to carry too many players who can only manage 70% TOG or less. If, with a similar team to Sunday, we get an early injury, we could collectively really struggle to run out the game, if a number of senior players are having to play more TOG% than they can comfortably manage. Perhaps Roos was referring to this when he named "tiredness" as a factor in our poor performance against the Druggies, and dropped Brayshaw to emphasize the point.

Whoever replaces Vince, who often gets close to 90% TOG, must be able to comfortably do the same. So that counts out Brayshaw, and if Jeffy isn't fully fit, it won't be him either. Or if we don't actually have anyone to bring in who can come close to Vince's TOG (and the only one I can think of who could is Grimes), the only solution is to drop (say) Wagner too, to make up for Vince's-87%-plus-Wagner's-63% by bringing in 2 players who can both play 75%.

And if this week we keep all of Harmes, Tyson, Oliver & Wagner, we probably can't afford bring in Petracca. It also makes the likes of Harmes & Wagner much more vulnerable to being dropped, compared to say Bugg or Matt Jones, who can manage more TOG and not place extra burden on their teammates.

better explained and absolutely spot on..

That's why I am with you on Petracca. With limited rotations you need players who can run out games and whilst older mature players have the smarts to run up bigger TOG %'s the fear with a Petracca is he could blow out before half time. I am not sure why Tysons time on ground was down but certainly we are carrying one player who can only play limited minutes and that's Oliver ( pretty delicious limited minutes though !) so calls to put Petracca and the Weed in are folly. 

 

[binman 43,806]

On 4/13/2016 at 10:34 AM, H_T said:

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.

 

They got their selections spot on.

As i have said the Wagner selection was both about the now and the future. The same goes for Hunt, whose speed addresses one of our biggest issues (lack of leg speed) and is critical in being able to cover the scenario where the ball get over our high press and players have to really push back to cover free forwards.

They picked the side that they believed gave us the best chance of beating Collingwood (and North for that matter).  The coaches are imploring their players to be brave and they are doing much the same with their selections. More power to them.

[jnrmac 20,188]

On 4/12/2016 at 0:45 PM, 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.

 

 

Bump...I think you can see why they chose Wagner now after the Coll game....

 

[H_T 3,049]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

They got their selections spot on.

As i have said the Wagner selection was both about the now and the future. The same goes for Hunt, whose speed addresses one of our biggest issues (lack of leg speed) and is critical in being able to cover the scenario where the ball get over our high press and players have to really push back to cover free forwards.

They picked the side that they believed gave us the best chance of beating Collingwood (and North for that matter).  The coaches are imploring their players to be brave and they are doing much the same with their selections. More power to them.

Not before the Essendon game they didn't.

My point was that the Essendon game was a pivotal game and the selection of Brayshaw then was against their philosophy. 

[mo64 5,881]

8 minutes ago, H_T said:

Not before the Essendon game they didn't.

My point was that the Essendon game was a pivotal game and the selection of Brayshaw then was against their philosophy. 

Your comment was in realtion to BB's assertion that Wagner's selection cost us the game. What made the assertion absurd was that he thought that Grimes would have been the difference between defeat and victory. Wagner wasn't bad against North, and played at a level against Collingwood that unfortunately we haven't seen from Grimes and Garland in years.

Also Brayshaw's selection wasn't the reason we lost against the Bombers. It was lack of effort across the board.

 

[H_T 3,049]

6 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Your comment was in realtion to BB's assertion that Wagner's selection cost us the game. What made the assertion absurd was that he thought that Grimes would have been the difference between defeat and victory. Wagner wasn't bad against North, and played at a level against Collingwood that unfortunately we haven't seen from Grimes and Garland in years.

Also Brayshaw's selection wasn't the reason we lost against the Bombers. It was lack of effort across the board.

 

 

I didn't say Brayshaw's selection was the reason we lost against the Bombers.And we know it was a lack of effort across the board. I said his selection was against the philosophy they had set and informed their members. Dropping him back to Casey to get improved game time and fitness v Frankston would suggest they've recognised that. 

 

[binman 43,806]

26 minutes ago, H_T said:

Not before the Essendon game they didn't.

My point was that the Essendon game was a pivotal game and the selection of Brayshaw then was against their philosophy. 

I agree on Brayshaw in the EFC game but with respect your comments were in relation to the selection of Wagner in the North game in terms him not having earned a call up (and were made in support of Bagdad Bobs post making this point)

Edited April 18, 2016 by binman

[H_T 3,049]

1 minute ago, binman said:

I agree on Brayshaw in the EFC game but with respect your comment were in relation to the selection of Wagner in the NFC in terms him not having earned a call up (and were made in support of Bagdad Bobs post making this point)

I agreed with BB's stats and the inclusion of Grimes at that time. I'll stick by that, given their philosophy. And there may have well been a different outcome.

From yesterday's game I couldn't be happier with the likes of Wagner and debutant Hunt and they should both look forward to the Anzac Eve game given their performances.

 

[jnrmac 20,188]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

I agree on Brayshaw in the EFC game but with respect your comment were in relation to the selection of Wagner in the NFC in terms him not having earned a call up (and were made in support of Bagdad Bobs post making this point)

BB was making this point but I guess we don't know what the coaches are telling various players and how they are performing against those instructions. Clearly they saw Wagner as having attributes they wanted even if to us it appeared he hadn't 'earned' selection. I was surprised they played him on Waites as he has been very damaging in the past and his game on the weekend against the pies was a revelation. Didn't look out of place, was creative and played defensively when he had to.

[mo64 5,881]

1 minute ago, H_T said:

I agreed with BB's stats and the inclusion of Grimes at that time. I'll stick by that, given their philosophy. And there may have well been a different outcome.

From yesterday's game I couldn't be happier with the likes of Wagner and debutant Hunt and they should both look forward to the Anzac Eve game given their performances.

 

The use of stats from NAB challenge games is what made BB's assertion absurd. The day that FD's use stats as a guide to selection is the day they deserve to be sacked.

As Binman said, Wagner and Hunt offer something that the likes of Garland and Grimes can't. That was the basis of their selection, not the stats sheet.

[Slartibartfast 17,631]

42 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Bump...I think you can see why they chose Wagner now after the Coll game....

 

Wagner was terrific yesterday but he was marginal to poor against NM in my opinion.  You've got to play your first game some time and you're unlikely to play that well in it.

I just don't think early in the season is the time to play those players when you are building your season.  I'm still a Grimes fan, you're probably not.  I saw Grimes play yesterday and he was a class above but I know that over the years playing in terrible sides and being a part of a disfunctional club has taken it's toll and many have deserted him. The FD seem to be part of that desertion.

But having said that Wagner was very very good and much better than I thought he could be. Interestingly it was his competitiveness that stood out not his kicking.  When he gets more used to the pace of the game and he can use his kicking skills we could have a good player.  But it's early days and one swallow doesn't make a summer.

[H_T 3,049]

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

The use of stats from NAB challenge games is what made BB's assertion absurd. The day that FD's use stats as a guide to selection is the day they deserve to be sacked.

As Binman said, Wagner and Hunt offer something that the likes of Garland and Grimes can't. That was the basis of their selection, not the stats sheet.

You don't think the FD use stats from pre-season games? 

If that was the basis of their selection, perhaps they needed to be a bit clearer with their selection philosophy then..

[mo64 5,881]

7 minutes ago, H_T said:

You don't think the FD use stats from pre-season games? 

If that was the basis of their selection, perhaps they needed to be a bit clearer with their selection philosophy then..

No.

[binman 43,806]

11 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Wagner was terrific yesterday but he was marginal to poor against NM in my opinion.  You've got to play your first game some time and you're unlikely to play that well in it.

I just don't think early in the season is the time to play those players when you are building your season.  I'm still a Grimes fan, you're probably not.  I saw Grimes play yesterday and he was a class above but I know that over the years playing in terrible sides and being a part of a disfunctional club has taken it's toll and many have deserted him. The FD seem to be part of that desertion.

But having said that Wagner was very very good and much better than I thought he could be. Interestingly it was his competitiveness that stood out not his kicking.  When he gets more used to the pace of the game and he can use his kicking skills we could have a good player.  But it's early days and one swallow doesn't make a summer.

I am Grimes fan and i think he is often unfairly maligned on DL. I watched the last quarter of the Casey game and as you say his class showed out. He can definitely get back in the seniors but as i have said i think whilst kicking skills are not as bad as some suggest (and as you point out his DE is usually pretty good, though i'd contend that's at least partly because he favors little dinky passes) he isn't damaging enough with his kicks.

As someone noted i see Grimes in Jett's role of the lock down small defender, so he may struggle to get back whilst Jetts is fit - unless there is a game where two such players are needed. I think this why they trialed him on the wing ie because he is going tot struggle to get picked at HB.

In any case not a bad dilemma having such a good player struggling to force his way into the team. 

[Slartibartfast 17,631]

12 minutes ago, binman said:

I am Grimes fan and i think he is often unfairly maligned on DL. I watched the last quarter of the Casey game and as you say his class showed out. He can definitely get back in the seniors but as i have said i think whilst kicking skills are not as bad as some suggest (and as you point out his DE is usually pretty good, though i'd contend that's at least partly because he favors little dinky passes) he isn't damaging enough with his kicks.

I think he's toast.  The FD seem to have him behind Wagner and Hunt in defence and I think he'd also be behind White who I really like.  As a winger (if that role exists) or high half forward he'd be behind AVB, Vince, Garlett and Petracca (when fit) and most probably Trengove.

Your point about damaging kicks is very good.  For all Matt Jones has played well this year he doesn't hurt the opposition.  I think he'll be a casualty if we get fitter than we are now.

[binman 43,806]

8 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I think he's toast.  The FD seem to have him behind Wagner and Hunt in defence and I think he'd also be behind White who I really like.  As a winger (if that role exists) or high half forward he'd be behind AVB, Vince, Garlett and Petracca (when fit) and most probably Trengove.

Your point about damaging kicks is very good.  For all Matt Jones has played well this year he doesn't hurt the opposition.  I think he'll be a casualty if we get fitter than we are now.

You might be right.  There are a few ahead of him for a defensive position and believe it or not i would not be shocked if Terlich gets a game first (strong pre-season, lost 8kgs, kudos from the coach and has been playing well at Casey - eg 40 touches yesterday). It would be a real shame to not see Grimes gain. He has been a brilliant club man who was thron to the wolves when made captain.

I agree that M Jones vulnerability is his kicking. What he does bring is his relentlessness running which as i said about Hunt is crucial in the 2016 high press game. He will always be on the cusp but clearly the coaches like him. It was curious to see Cheney play for the rampant Crows. A similar player i would suggest in that whilst he has limitations he runs hard, plays his role and extract the maximum from his talent through hard work. 

 

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

No.

So on what basis would you suggest that they select the team for round one ?

[daisycutter 29,740]

1 hour ago, H_T said:

You don't think the FD use stats from pre-season games? 

If that was the basis of their selection, perhaps they needed to be a bit clearer with their selection philosophy then..

just a couple of things re nab stats being understated and unreliable (there are other reasons too)

   game quarters are shorter time

   extra interchange players and more interchanges allowed  

   players and game tactics are experimented with

they can still be useful as long as the exceptions are understood, but should not be compared/averaged with normal games

[H_T 3,049]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

just a couple of things re nab stats being understated and unreliable (there are other reasons too)

   game quarters are shorter time

   extra interchange players and more interchanges allowed  

   players and game tactics are experimented with

they can still be useful as long as the exceptions are understood, but should not be compared/averaged with normal games

That's fair enough. And would make sense. 

I'd imagine game time stats would also be used, for various reasons - gps, etc. They all fall under the umbrella of "stats".