39 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not saying it's only Viney of course, but:

“Their retention for kicks inside 50 went from second in the competition, now it sits at 16th. Last year when they charged through to the finals kicking the ball inside 50, no other team in the competition marked the ball more – they were No.1 in the comp … they’re 16th."

The horror numbers that epitomise Melbourne’s demise

 

I'm struggling a bit to understand what is being presented here. On the one hand, "Every time they go in, their ability to score from those entries is the worst that Champion Data have ever recorded". But elsewhere in the article, it says "Their retention for kicks inside 50 went from second in the competition, now it sits at 16th." That latter comments suggests there are two teams that must be worse than us at retention. How does that match up with the first comment that says our ability to score is the worst in the competition? Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm struggling a bit to understand what is being presented here. On the one hand, "Every time they go in, their ability to score from those entries is the worst that Champion Data have ever recorded". But elsewhere in the article, it says "Their retention for kicks inside 50 went from second in the competition, now it sits at 16th." That latter comments suggests there are two teams that must be worse than us at retention. How does that match up with the first comment that says our ability to score is the worst in the competition? Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

I think they're talking about two different stats. The first one ('worst ever recorded') would be scores per inside 50, and the second one is retention per inside 50, meaning how often we get the ball to one of our own players inside 50.

I think that's what it means anyway.

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I think they're talking about two different stats. The first one ('worst ever recorded') would be scores per inside 50, and the second one is retention per inside 50, meaning how often we get the ball to one of our own players inside 50.

I think that's what it means anyway.

That makes sense. I was assuming there were only two options - either we score or the ball is not retained, but I guess one could be talking about the first thing that happens after the ball ends up inside 50 ('retention') whereas the other refers to the eventual outcome ('score', or not).

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That makes sense. I was assuming there were only two options - either we score or the ball is not retained, but I guess one could be talking about the first thing that happens after the ball ends up inside 50 ('retention') whereas the other refers to the eventual outcome ('score', or not).

Yeah, except it could get tricky ie - We retain the ball inside 50, but don't score (missed goal, turnover etc)

55 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah, except it could get tricky ie - We retain the ball inside 50, but don't score (missed goal, turnover etc)

Or we score points, that are then turned into opposition goals. 

It all started in Perth last September. 

I believe our players are still shell shocked from that day. They won’t admit it. But the damage is still lingering. 

41 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Or we score points, that are then turned into opposition goals. 

It all started in Perth last September. 

I believe our players are still shell shocked from that day. They won’t admit it. But the damage is still lingering. 

I reckon the whole club is still somewhat in denial about our PF last year (Goody in particular).

59 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

I reckon the whole club is still somewhat in denial about our PF last year (Goody in particular).

Quite possibly. I am not close enough to tell. But i wouldn’t be suprised at all. 

We will find out soon enough

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Or we score points, that are then turned into opposition goals. 

It all started in Perth last September. 

I believe our players are still shell shocked from that day. They won’t admit it. But the damage is still lingering. 

Yeah possibly mate.

The Lions have overtaken us in the 'rebuild' stakes, here's the difference in Fagan's philosophy as opposed to Goodwin's "that wasn't us":

"Teach everybody in the organisation about what the growth mindset is, and that failure is actually a good thing if you learn from it"

Source

44 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah possibly mate.

The Lions have overtaken us in the 'rebuild' stakes, here's the difference in Fagan's philosophy as opposed to Goodwin's "that wasn't us":

"Teach everybody in the organisation about what the growth mindset is, and that failure is actually a good thing if you learn from it"

Source

I was shocked when Goodwin downplayed the Preliminary Final result, back over summer. Because of that i am not suprised where we are right now...

It simply must be a long summer this year for Goodwin, i hope he can grow a hard edge  he needs it badly

 

On 7/16/2019 at 1:35 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Viney was a 'captains call' by Goodwin and if ircc he didn't consult the players, advise the existing captain and don't think he consulted the CEO or the Board. 

Viney will be a capt/co-capt for as long as his father and Goodwin are at the club.  Todd and Simon are very good mates.  Afterall, Todd recommended Simon for coach.  And they are good mates with Mahoney. 

Your first paragraph suggests he didn’t really get the job on merit, and the second that he only retains it because of his old man. 

I don't think that's accurate or fair, on any of the people named. 

And why would the board be consulted on the captaincy? 

Edited July 17, 20196 yr by Grapeviney

27 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

You're basically saying that he's only in the job because of his dad and a cosy little clique. 

I don't think that's accurate or fair, on any of the people named. 

And why would the board be consulted on the captaincy? 

I'm not sure LH is saying he's in the job because of that, but maybe he won't be outed from the job because of that? Just my guess though, LH might clarify.

And from what I can tell, boards are generally involved in captaincy/leadership decisions:

"After an extensive process involving players, the football department, senior administrators and the Board, I am happy to announce that Ben Stratton has been selected as captain of the Hawthorn Football Club for season 2019 and beyond."

Source

"From there, they presented to the Board and they came back and appointed David Swallow and I as co-captains for season 2019."

Source

“The club’s Board had no hesitation in ratifying the recommendation from all our key internal stakeholders,” Koch said.

Source

"Fagan added that the decision had to be ratified by the club board, which had full confidence in the voting process."

Source

Edited July 17, 20196 yr by Lord Nev

On 7/16/2019 at 11:05 AM, Dee Zephyr said:

Interesting to see his efficiency over the last month. To me his kicking has been a lot better in that period.

DE% is a very poor/loose indicator vs kick rating and would take the kick rating anytime but the average team DE% sits around 73% over recent seasons (last time i looked).  Maybe his handballs are a fair way above average as they are included in that stat but yes....would also like to see the last month's kick ratings vs his average 2019 rating.

This is his average DE% in the 3 matches to Rnd 16 vs his entire 2019 average anyway.  Is 5% a reasonable improvement on this?  He is close to the AFL average in this period but again that might contain a significant improvement in handball (bias) vs kicking or maybe it is kicking.  Who knows!?  One of the big (many) weaknesses of using / looking at DE% i guess but there it is.

11 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

 

 Cheers Rusty, sorry my bad, it’s kick rating I meant over the last month. He has lowered the eyes over the last few games and managed to hit a few targets,  I’m also curious to see if the rating has trended upward lately.

4 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

 Cheers Rusty, sorry my bad, it’s kick rating I meant over the last month. He has lowered the eyes over the last few games and managed to hit a few targets,  I’m also curious to see if the rating has trended upward lately.

All good DZ.  Wish the kick rating was publicly available.  One of very few reasonable stats going around IMO.

14 hours ago, Grapeviney said:

Your first paragraph suggests he didn’t really get the job on merit, and the second that he only retains it because of his old man. 

I don't think that's accurate or fair, on any of the people named. 

And why would the board be consulted on the captaincy? 

@Lord Nevcorrectly read my comments on Viney's tenure as co-captain in the context of prior posts musing on how long we have to have him in the role rather than suggesting that nepotism was at play.

Jack was 22 and barely starting his career.  We had just had the aftershock of young co-captains (Grimes and Trengove) appointed 'too early'.  So yeh, there was some skepticism around the 'captain's call' as too whether JV had earnt it at that stage and that it was delivered as a 'fait acompli' to Jones by Goodwin.  The 'fait accompli' suggests that unlike past practice and other club practices Jack wasn't voted in by his peers ie players. 

As to why it should go the Board: 

• Due process.   Again as Lord Nev noted it is standard practice in AFL clubs. 
• A captain is a key face of the club.  A Board needs to be certain the person is articulate and has good communication skills as they will front up before sponsors, media, front sponsor marketing campaings etc. 
• This is unique to us - we had just had our fingers burnt with young captains a few years early so it would be appropriate for Board involvement.

Its not as if we didn't have other candidates or have Jones as sole captain for a few more years.  Instead here we are with people questioning whether he has the footy IQ, the on-field leadership skills and his public performances.

Edited July 18, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

On 7/16/2019 at 8:50 AM, chook fowler said:

i think the club needs to point an optometrist - the whole team seems to have problems picking out the right option. 

I suspect that the club has somehow lured Simon Godfrey back as our kicking coach.

Jack has never been the type of player that hurts the opposition by foot. He rarely finds a target downfield and certainly doesn't hit the scoreboard enough. Nobody doubts his toughness or determination but until he improves his disposal or scoring ability he won't be judged as an elite player. 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

As to why it should go the Board: 

• Due process.   Again as Lord Nev noted it is standard practice in AFL clubs. 
• A captain is a key face of the club.  A Board needs to be certain the person is articulate and has good communication skills as they will front up before sponsors, media etc. 
• This is unique to us - we had just had our fingers burnt with young captains a few years early so it would be appropriate for Board involvement.

Of course they rubber stamp it, but do you really think the Board has a say in choosing captains, or should?  

What board would ever over-rule the recommendation of a coach or FD? None. 

There's a difference between being involved in a decision, and ratifying it, which is the language used in the examples provided by Lord Nev. 

The 2 x Jacks may have been poor choices as captains, but that's hardly an argument to involve Board members in the selection process. Rather, Grimes and Trengove are proof that consulting doesn't automatically produce a good outcome:  "The Demons asked the players and staff to assess the playing group on a series of criteria – team-orientation, work ethic and so on. On this basis – of assessing everyone's mettle and ticking the most boxes – the two boys were made joint monarchs."

 

Jack Viney kicked a great goal with his right foot against Adelaide  2020