3 hours ago, stuie said:

Disposinl efficiency is the most useless stat in theisgamin have a look up of how it's determined and then you'll never bother quoting it again.

 

I know how Its determined thx Stu and agree In ISolation and without watching the game/s, knowing who played where, the style of player, the role being asked of them and keeping It all In context (after watching the match), as well as not comparing like with like (eg, Inside mids with Inside mids, Key tall defenders with KTDs with each playing the bulk of the game In those roles...did he play a lock down role, was he often double teamed etc) then any publicly available stat In Isolation Is fairly useless.

I dont use them like that and only after watching a game to confirm as a very rough guide where similar Ilk players are fairing playing In a similar position and roles (for most of the match). 

This post from BF expands on this also....

Sep 24, 2014

 

#38

 

The Old Dark Navy'sModerator

 

Iron said: ↑

 

I'd rather have a player go in and get the ball 30 times and **** up 10 of those, than only go in 15 times and **** up 3 of them.

 

Percentages are too neat a measure.

(Response To the above post).....

Again, depends on where these **** ups occur and the result. If they result in 10 turnover goals, then maybe not. If the guy getting it 15 times is playing a defensive role where he limits a gun opposition player, then maybe he is doing better. If one has better 1% stats where he is blocking for, or tapping the ball to a teammate, he's not getting the disposal stats but he is very much in the game.

 

It is nearly impossible to formulate opinions based on our stats. They are a guide but they are all flawed. If there was a measure of the scale of pressure on a kick, how far each went, whether you had to spot up a teammate between two opponents, that would be getting close.

 

I use efficiency stats combined with contested stats, and then look for workrate ... tackles, I50s v R50s for midfielders. They paint a credible picture but are not absolute.

 

We are so underserved by our AFL stats. The NFL and MLB stats are awesome and huge talking points. It would be nice if we had some real access to the deeper statistical analysis they do.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

I think 58 games is enough to show your potential. Pedo has fulfilled his.

Compare with Tyson who (to me) still has upside. And of course Petracca, Hunt, Oliver clearly show enormous potential, unfulfilled to date (naturally).

You have contradicted yourself beautifully

14 hours ago, Deespicable said:

With Wagner out, why we didn't bring in Garland for this game was amazing as it meant that we kept getting caught out by the wrong match up and they have the best seven-man forward line in the league which includes two monsters, two quality mobile talls, Eddie, a pressure king in Douglas and when not on a wing - one of the quickest players in the game in Cameron. Why Hunt wasn't on Cameron and Jetta on Betts is beyond me?

It shouldn't be beyond you. Garland has had it. He has turned into a shell of his former self.

3 hours ago, poita said:

Full credit to the team for their excellent fight back in the second quarter, after a poor first term. That said, we were really poor for three quarters (15 goals to 7) and the margin flattered us.

You are simply wrong on this. Take out the 4 minute start of the 3rd quarter and we win the game. Both teams were fumbly all day such was the pressure being applied. 

Generally they had more composure than us when it mattered but we played a pretty good game.

 

27 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

With Max getting his fair share in the ruck, more than fair share at times, IMO our midfield should be doing a lot better. Not ruthless enough ( like Hawthorn,Swans) in the engine room. We have to start smashing sides in this area , Max gives us an advantage  but I thought that both last week and this week the opposition were way harder  and cleaner than us in the midfield. Would kill for a Selwood , Kennedy, Fyfe  or Hodge. Maybe that's why Petracca  was moved there and I hope its persevered with.

Totally agree with this post.

Except that we actually do have a Selwood, Kennedy, Fyfe or Hodge. His name is Jack Viney but he's doing incredibly well just to play with a busted hand.

Yesterday would have been the sort of game where he would have loved to stamp himself as the dominant clearance player on the ground. I can't remember the last game Viney had where he didn't get a single centre clearance. He's certainly not playing badly at all, but his injury prevents him being able to dominate the stoppages like he has in some games this year.

We got something out of using the likes of Vandenberg & Petracca as a sort of "pseudo-Viney" at various times, but nothing's as good as the real thing.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I didn't think there was much wrong with the umps yesterday. A couple of howlers each way but otherwise pretty consistent.

Maybe I'm biased against his style of umpiring, but, I reckon you could put me infront of a broadcast blindfolded and I could tell you if he were umpiring. He impresses himself on the game and shapes them in a Solomenesque manner. Praise be to razor Ray for his benevolence and seemingly balanced umpiring on the weekend. But, agree Dr G it was not as poor as usual. 

42 minutes ago, old dee said:

IMO so far Petracca has shown he is a reasonable young player in his first season.

I actually think it is time he had a freshen up back at Casey, I did not think he was influence yesterday.

Did you seem him play the 4th quarter in the middle? People seem to have missed it.

He wasn't doing a lot elsewhere and I thought it was good of Roos to try something with him. Did a great tackle to earn a free in the fwd half but played on and we turned it over.

To my mind he is rushing things and hasn't quite got used to the pace. He's too good for Casey.

 

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Did you seem him play the 4th quarter in the middle? People seem to have missed it.

He wasn't doing a lot elsewhere and I thought it was good of Roos to try something with him. Did a great tackle to earn a free in the fwd half but played on and we turned it over.

To my mind he is rushing things and hasn't quite got used to the pace. He's too good for Casey.

 

But is he good enough at this point for AFL jnr?

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Did you seem him play the 4th quarter in the middle? People seem to have missed it.

He wasn't doing a lot elsewhere and I thought it was good of Roos to try something with him. Did a great tackle to earn a free in the fwd half but played on and we turned it over.

To my mind he is rushing things and hasn't quite got used to the pace. He's too good for Casey.

 

Agreed he just needs to take a breath, but at the same time i love his urgency, alot of our players just dont seem urgent enough with ball in hand. Tracc is a get it and run type player, he has the "ill sort that [censored] out when i get to that point" attiude to getting rid of the ball. Means occasionaly he is going to kick one like that to nobody but sometimes he is going to hit a forward when the defenders are all out of position which is far more valuable than going back and taking a slow free kick. 

38 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You have contradicted yourself beautifully

No he hasn't.

Pedersen is 29. Tyson 23.

 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

If my life depended on it and the choice was that two I would pick Dunn first, second, third and fourth.

 

So, how many times did you vote on Saturday?

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, how many times did you vote on Saturday?

Preferences LDC.

If a mark was going to save your life would you pick Dawes or Dunn?

2 hours ago, samcantstandya said:

Spencer is useless around the ground he is a very tall witch hat as is Dawes though not as tall

Play max king

9 minutes ago, old dee said:

But is he good enough at this point for inFL jnr?

If we had the depth/quality and batted a bit deeper like the Hawks/Swans etc OD I would say a few more of our freshmen would be at Casey earning and learning their stripes.

Unfortunately we dont at this point. Another reason we need to bring In some experienced quality for next season. Sometimes the young blokes need to catch their breath before returning but the experience needs to be there to do the job upstairs while they learn/earn/return.

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

Preferences LDC.

If a mark was going to save your life would you pick Dawes or Dunn?

Neither, I'd do it myself, the odds are far better

1 minute ago, old dee said:

Preferences LDC.

If a mark was going to save your life would you pick Dawes or Dunn?

Believe it or not, Dawes. Not because he's a better mark, but because if my life depended on it I expect Dawes to care more and try harder than Dunn. I may be completely wrong in this assessment, but I'm not convinced that Dunn appreciates as much as he should the importance of being a team player. So, if my life depended on it, I'm not sure Dunn would be trying as hard as he should. On the other hand, I think Dawes cannot be faulted in that regard. 

Just now, ArtificialWisdom said:

Neither, I'd do it myself, the odds are far better

Your Dead!

P.S. pretty sure the FD wouldnt be throwing a player back to Casey unless he is suffering poor form over a certain period rather than in isolation, depending on how poor the last performance was of course.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Believe it or not, Dawes. Not because he's a better mark, but because if my life depended on it I expect Dawes to care more and try harder than Dunn. I may be completely wrong in this assessment, but I'm not convinced that Dunn appreciates as much as he should the importance of being a team player. So, if my life depended on it, I'm not sure Dunn would be trying as hard as he should. On the other hand, I think Dawes cannot be faulted in that regard. 

Like AW LDC you would be stone cold in no time.

All the Dawes effort in the world would not keep you alive.

Ultimately, the game was lost after a disgraceful 12 minutes to start the second half. At the 9-minute mark of the third quarter they had five goals for the quarter. It totally undid everything we did the in the second quarter. We pretty much broke even beyond that and scored 5 goals to their 6. We led by 2 goals at half-time. 

I am absolutely filthy about the loss because our leaders let us down the most in that period.

There was plenty to love about it and we were never "terrible", but it's the way we're losing games that really pisses me off. Against Hawthorn and Sydney and Port and North it was "experience". We simply handed that game to Adelaide. If we played an extra 20 minutes and not let them score a fricken ton of goals in five minutes, we win the game.

We lose far too many games on the back of bad patches. It's been a case of, 'We didn't play 120 minutes of football' since 2014.

8 minutes ago, praha said:

We lose far too many games on the back of bad patches. It's been a case of, 'We didn't play 120 minutes of football' since 2014.

I'm hoping that basic errors come under the heading of, 'coming to play for 120 minutes' in Roos' mind.

Because they are what lost us the game. Basic errors that resulted in goals to Adelaide.

At was an error ridden game. But we easily had the most.

For example, the opening two goals to Adelaide were from Frost and O-Mac and their efforts. Not anything else. 

They had more tackles inside 50 also. Why? Because we lack composure and skill back there and we were constantly putting team-mates under pressure by missing targets or passing to players with heat on them. It's fairly obvious that their tackle count in that part of the ground was up. We have ourselves to blame for that.

Frost running around like a headless chook hitting about 1 in every 4 kicks or handballs. Tom McDonald marking and spoiling well but then undoing all of his good work by kicking atrociously. O-Mac by possessing sub-standard intensity around the contest, playing slow-motion football and just generally making really basic errors.

 

8 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm hoping that basic errors come under the heading of, 'coming to play for 120 minutes' in Roos' mind.

Because they are what lost us the game. Basic errors that resulted in goals to Adelaide.

At was an error ridden game. But we easily had the most.

For example, the opening two goals to Adelaide were from Frost and O-Mac and their efforts. Not anything else. 

They had more tackles inside 50 also. Why? Because we lack composure and skill back there and we were constantly putting team-mates under pressure by missing targets or passing to players with heat on them. It's fairly obvious that their tackle count in that part of the ground was up. We have ourselves to blame for that.

Frost running around like a headless chook hitting about 1 in every 4 kicks or handballs. Tom McDonald marking and spoiling well but then undoing all of his good work by kicking atrociously. O-Mac by possessing sub-standard intensity around the contest, playing slow-motion football and just generally making really basic errors.

 

I don't think we lost on the back of errors. The game was fast, and there was a lot of pressure. I think the scoring shots from errors was around the same. They also gave up some goals and made some shocking errors in the middle of the field. I think TMac, OMac and our defense in general held up well. Whenever the Crows got on top in the middle, they kicked goals. So did we. The game was won and lost in the middle, and on which team could get on top in there and score the most when they were on top. We did well...but they did better.

1 hour ago, Demi Dee said:

Maybe I'm biased against his style of umpiring, but, I reckon you could put me infront of a broadcast blindfolded and I could tell you if he were umpiring. He impresses himself on the game and shapes them in a Solomenesque manner. Praise be to razor Ray for his benevolence and seemingly balanced umpiring on the weekend. But, agree Dr G it was not as poor as usual. 

Really only a few things stood out to me in the umpiring. The Petracca mark that everyone knew was a mark, the Stretch? holding the ball decision, and how Hogan didn't get a free for holding with 4 or 5 minutes to go is beyond me. The player behind almost marked the ball his arms were that far around and he was holding that much!

44 minutes ago, praha said:

Ultimately, the game was lostinafter a disgraceisul 12 minutes to start the second half. At the 9-minute mark of the third quarter they had five goals for the quarter. It totally undid everything we did the in the second quarter. We pretty much broke even beyond that and scored 5 goals to their 6. We led by 2 goals at half-time. 

I am absolutely filthy about the loss because our leaders let us down the most in that period.

There was plenty to love about it and we were never "terrible", but it's the way we're losing games that really pisses me off. Against Hawthorn and Sydney and Port and North it was "experience". We simply handed that game to Adelaide. If we played an extra 20 minutes and not let them score a fricken ton of goals in five minutes, we win the game.

We lose far too many games on the back of bad patches. It's been a case of, 'We didn't play 120 minutes of football' since 2014.

Having double the amount of players with over 100+ games under their belt Is going to take Its toll at some point Praha.

Was keeping It to only 12 min or so not a bad effort given this? I wonder.

We also went one tall defender too many for the 2nd week In a row and paid the price. We also chose the wrong defender as that 3rd tall again... very poor form on behalf of the brains trust last 2 matches.

Can anyone give an indication of how much time Petracca played in the guts/on ball for? I only noticed a few occasions but I'm wondering if it was cause for his sub performance - playing a different role.

Cheers