2 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

The justification as to why Weid should not make way for Brown is almost laughable considering the modern history of our club. 

Do you think that this story changes if the club is one that has won a flag recently like, say, Hawthorn?

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

Do you mean in general, or based on recent form? Because I’m unsure how you could not “rate” a player who has come 2nd in the Coleman on two occasions, despite playing for an under-performing team. I found those two seasons of his very impressive, because it wasn’t like the Kangas were spending a heap of time in their forward 50, but he was making the absolute most of it when they did. Plus I have a lot of time for classical, full-forward straight-kicking in an age where it doesn’t seem high on a lot of players’ priority lists. 

I get what you are saying it’s my view largely based on his form over the last 2 seasons and

- he always seemed to get a lot of free kicks (and yes was good enough to convert)

- doesn’t seem strong when comes to contested marking

- doesn’t really add anything in terms of f50 pressure 

 

2 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Do you think that this story changes if the club is one that has won a flag recently like, say, Hawthorn?

No, you must play your best side whenever possible, you may never get another chance.

History is exactly that.

Geelong won 07, 09 & 2011. There was potential there for 5 in a row.

Tiger won 2017, 19 & 2020. In 2018 Collingwood beat them at their own game….manic pressure. They could have had 4 in a row.
 

Id happily take one flag, I could only dream of three. But imagine four or five straight. 
 

We can’t leave anything to chance, we can’t simply wait for someone to come good whilst we have better waiting in the wings. Another loss like that Adelaide one (and no I’m not suggesting that loss was Weideman’s fault, though would of been nice if could have touched the ball in the last qtr) could cost us a top 2 finish. 

3 hours ago, Macca said:

The minute Roos put Hogan on the ball many of us were holding our breath but it worked straight off

Weideman shouldn't be seen as a one trick pony ... not sure about having 3 permanent talls in the forward (along with LJ) but I like your thinking anyway

What I'd like to see is for 10-15 minute allotments,  2 or 3 times a game,  we see Weideman as a high half forward and a link to the forwards further afield.  LJ or T-Mac could play deep in that time whilst the other playing a roaming role (as they both do now)

Gets him into the game,  his hands on the ball with a few cheap uncontested marks and then go from there

As it stands,  whenever he goes for a mark in the role that he plays it's nearly always in a contested situation.  And all we hear are the supporters wanting him to 'clunk' marks.  Rinse & repeat

We want the bloke to develop we need to change things up ... or, leave him in that decoy sort of role for the rest of the season.  I wouldn't drop him unless he goes completely missing

As I recall in his 'breakout game' final v Geelong, it was up the field on the flank and wing where he excelled.  

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

The other thing that probably need to be said is that it's not just about this year. 

It's easy to say that Brown is better right now so we should play him. But what if Weid no longer sees opportunities here? Then we go into next year, the year after or even 4 years down the track without the riches we have now. Are we a better chance of winning the flag in 2023-25 with Weid at the club or with him at another club?

And the easy answer to that is "we're trying to win a flag this year, so who cares?".

Well the current chances of us winning a flag, according to the bookmakers, ($4.50) is about 25%. They are really good odds. And, say for example, that Brown playing increases those odds from 25% to 27%. That's still vastly more likely that we don't win the flag that we do. The difference between Brown and Weid is very small. 

But let's say that McDonald takes a big payday (hypothetical) at the end of the year, so our odds for next year are about the same with Weid and Brown (25%). But if Weid also leaves because he doesn't see a future here, then we've got Brown playing alone, and our odds drop to 15% and so on for the future years because now our structure is messed up. 

And this scenario would continue all the way through our premiership window without spending huge to pick up another mature key forward to pair with an ageing Brown. All of this for a possible (very minor) incremental benefit to this year when we are unlikely to win a flag anyway. 

The best way to win a flag is to be consistently good over a number of years, allowing the odds to work in your favour over time. If we are a 25% chance of winning the flag for 5 years, our chances of winning a flag are 76%. But if adding Brown increases our odds to even an unrealistic 40% this year, with drop offs in future years, we would only be a 69% chance of winning a flag overall.

Thoughtful statistical analysis - but are the stats real or wished for?

On 6/5/2021 at 10:07 AM, deanox said:

TMac turns 29 in September. Ben Brown turns 29 in November. Mitch Brown will be 31 in August. Add to that Max is 30 at the end of this year.

Other than Sam we don't have any KPFs coming through. At nearly 24, he is about to hit his best years. And even if his best is not super star, we are going to need key forwarded on the list over the next 3 years.

I think that unless we get massive offered massive overs for his value, and have a plan for accelerated development of other forward depth, it is pretty critical we keep Sam for the next few years. At worst as depth during what should be a successful period, and best because he will be needed to step up as others drop off.

 

Your point is well made deanox. Problem for us: the market is likely to offer a lot more for his services than us. Some mob will offer him 50 percent more and he'd be mad not to take it quite frankly. 

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

As I recall in his 'breakout game' final v Geelong, it was up the field on the flank and wing where he excelled. 

You've got a better memory than me as all I can remember is that he had a very good game ... disposals in the mid 20's in a low scoring games points to him playing further afield though

As previously stated, he looks more like an athlete than the traditional FF type.  Do what you do, do well?

1 hour ago, Pollyanna said:

Last Friday's outcome with Weid was

• 2 goals kicked directly by players that he handballed to after groundball gets under maximum pressure.  That's rare stuff from KPFs
• 2 goals kicked directly after marking contests that he got first hands to
• There were also 2 goals he would normally have kicked from marks but his kicking was a bit off - normally he is a beautiful kick and there is not a structural issue with his kicking.
• He also got his hands to a number of marks that just didn't stick - he did stick his last mark at full stretch but couldn't finish with the kick at goal
• Two Fwd 50 tackles that resulted in stoppages

That's decent output and, if he takes all his chances, it's dominant output.

The argument for the prosecution rests.

The defence, though, would argue:

1. He didn't kick the goals. This isn't a development year, so why are we interested in missed opportunities as opposed to actual production?
2. He didn't take the marks. Ditto.
3. The two goals kicked by those to whom he directly handballed are indeed great, but this season that's above his overall average goal assists figure of 0.5, which is half of many good forwards (Walker 1.1, Kennedy 1.0, Hawkins 1.0, TMac 1.0) and still below others (Riewoldt 0.8, Franklin 0.6) (albeit it is above Naughton and Mackay on 0.3 each)
4. The missed goals could, if kicked, make his stat line look better, but the AFL tracks shots on goal to account for this and his season average shots on goal is 2.5, which is nowhere compared to the best forwards (Mackay 5.5, Walker 5.9,  Naughton 5.3, Kennedy 4.1, Hawkins 4.8, Riewoldt 4.7, Franklin 4.5, Ben King 4.5)
5. Another statistical measure of involvement as a forward is score involvements - it's not perfect because it requires a disposal, knock-on, hit out to advantage or kick-in (i.e. not a marking contest), but on that metric Weideman averages 4 score involvements per game, which is again below his rivals (Walker 9.3, Hawkins 8.2, Naughton 7.7, TMac 6.6, Riewoldt 6.2, Kennedy 6.2, Mackay 6.3, Ben King 5.5, Franklin 6.0).

FWIW I am comfortable if Weideman keeps playing, but I'd be equally comfortable making the switch to Brown. 

On 6/5/2021 at 2:18 PM, Axis of Bob said:

Weid is going OK. He's jumping, competing and we're kicking goals because of it. 

People would still complain when Brayshaw didn't win enough footy until Daisy Pearce spelled out to everyone how well he played his role. Everyone hated on Spargo forever. Lever copped it. ANB too. Even Viney cops it.

There's a reason why footy clubs say that they don't listen to what supporters or the media say .... it's because they generally don't know what they're talking about.

Generally, the knowledgeable supporter has been spot on about Hawthorn's recruiting for the last five years. 

Yeah, I am with @titan_uranus , and this may not jive with The Deebrief Podcast Bros, but I don’t care if it’s Weed or BBB. Whoever is best for winning finals on the G. So I don’t care. 
 

On 6/5/2021 at 2:31 PM, Ham said:

You didn't address the point I made, at all.

Weideman hasn't had ANY decent development at all. He contacted J. Brown in the off-season for 'advice'. Whenever that's happening (like King going to Lloyd) it's a sign that SOMETHING IS WRONG (and clearly in the St. Kilda case, they didn't like it, so they put a line through it). Put the correct people at the club (like they have in every other facet it would seem) and we may see some improvement with the development of Weideman. 

Why do we have a ruckman as our forward/kicking coach?

The reason we're winning is our defence.

The reason we aren't putting teams away by 50-80+ is because we have a ruckman as our forward/kicking coach.

The greatest swimming coach of all time couldn't swim a stroke. Frank Tyson, the of the greatest bowlers in test cricket history was also recognised as one of the best batting coaches on the planet. Ask Dean Jones. 

20 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

If Brown or any other player for that matter makes us as little as 1% better they must come in.

....

The justification as to why Weid should not make way for Brown is almost laughable considering the modern history of our club. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

No, you must play your best side whenever possible, you may never get another chance.

....

Id happily take one flag, I could only dream of three. But imagine four or five straight. 

I'm not seeing the logic here. You say you'd be happy to win one flag but want to go all out for a flag this year even if it meant reducing the chances of a flag overall.

You're speaking like the supporter of a team that loses and sees this as our one shot of winning a flag. It isn't because we'll have chances in future years. The Bulldogs are the only team to really have a 'one-off' case in the last 20 years. Other than that, Richmond were top 4 from 2017-2020, West Coast were top 8 from 2014-2020 and 2002-2007, Hawthorn only missed twice from 2007-2018, Sydney only missed once from 2003-18, Geelong missed once since 2006, Port were minor premiers from 2002-2004, and Brisbane was top 4 from 1999- 2004.

Winning a flag isn't a one off. You need to consistently put yourself in a position to win it because they're hard to win. Adelaide's best chance was 2017, where they went all out and got Bryce Gibbs for several first round picks. That's actually the best counter-example to your argument because they went all out for a flag ..... but sacrificed their future to do so rather than just continually competing at the top end.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

This really isn't a case of Weid is no good/Weid is good. Or Weid 'haters' 

We all want him to be successful. He really should have shown more consistency by 5 1/2 years. He hasn't performed consistently at Casey even. Yes he is doing some team things. Well that surely is a minimum of what you'd expect. But ultimately he is there to kick goals and he isn't doing that.

The fact is we have a Coleman winning goal kicker in the wings. A proven goal kicker. Yes he's older and probably not the same as he was 3 or 4 years ago but its a valid opinion to say Weid needs to go back and get confidence at Casey and Play BB in the meantime.

 

I understand where everyone is coming from but you've left out the important unstated part. It should follow the bolded part in big capital letters - NOW.

In the underlined part you want Weid to go back to Casey to get confidence but if we did that at the moment he cannot play. You  want to play BB now simply on historic reasons but you have no idea how he is going at the moment. We haven't even got a training report to go on. Let's all just face it, the match committee will give us a better  indication in the coming weeks and my money is on Weid playing next week. How many goals does he need to kick to keep his spot?

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by dworship

46 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The argument for the prosecution rests.

The defence, though, would argue:

1. He didn't kick the goals. This isn't a development year, so why are we interested in missed opportunities as opposed to actual production?
2. He didn't take the marks. Ditto.
3. The two goals kicked by those to whom he directly handballed are indeed great, but this season that's above his overall average goal assists figure of 0.5, which is half of many good forwards (Walker 1.1, Kennedy 1.0, Hawkins 1.0, TMac 1.0) and still below others (Riewoldt 0.8, Franklin 0.6) (albeit it is above Naughton and Mackay on 0.3 each)
4. The missed goals could, if kicked, make his stat line look better, but the AFL tracks shots on goal to account for this and his season average shots on goal is 2.5, which is nowhere compared to the best forwards (Mackay 5.5, Walker 5.9,  Naughton 5.3, Kennedy 4.1, Hawkins 4.8, Riewoldt 4.7, Franklin 4.5, Ben King 4.5)
5. Another statistical measure of involvement as a forward is score involvements - it's not perfect because it requires a disposal, knock-on, hit out to advantage or kick-in (i.e. not a marking contest), but on that metric Weideman averages 4 score involvements per game, which is again below his rivals (Walker 9.3, Hawkins 8.2, Naughton 7.7, TMac 6.6, Riewoldt 6.2, Kennedy 6.2, Mackay 6.3, Ben King 5.5, Franklin 6.0).

FWIW I am comfortable if Weideman keeps playing, but I'd be equally comfortable making the switch to Brown. 

I really appreciate a reasonable well argued argument that doesn’t resort to insults, well played.

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Thoughtful statistical analysis - but are the stats real or wished for?

The only real one is that we're $4.50 premiership favourites at the moment (which is about a 1 in 4 chance (25% ish).

The rest are hypotheticals to illustrate a point, although the calculations done with them are real year 10 maths. ?

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

I'm not seeing the logic here. You say you'd be happy to win one flag but want to go all out for a flag this year even if it meant reducing the chances of a flag overall.

You're speaking like the supporter of a team that loses and sees this as our one shot of winning a flag. It isn't because we'll have chances in future years. The Bulldogs are the only team to really have a 'one-off' case in the last 20 years. Other than that, Richmond were top 4 from 2017-2020, West Coast were top 8 from 2014-2020 and 2002-2007, Hawthorn only missed twice from 2007-2018, Sydney only missed once from 2003-18, Geelong missed once since 2006, Port were minor premiers from 2002-2004, and Brisbane was top 4 from 1999- 2004.

Winning a flag isn't a one off. You need to consistently put yourself in a position to win it because they're hard to win. Adelaide's best chance was 2017, where they went all out and got Bryce Gibbs for several first round picks. That's actually the best counter-example to your argument because they went all out for a flag ..... but sacrificed their future to do so rather than just continually competing at the top end.

Port were a tough skilful side and as good and as dominant as they were during the home and away seasons they only managed the one flag. 

Saints were dominant for a period of time, when Goddard took that screamer in the goal square I thought they’d broken their drought. A week later when the GF was replayed they went missing. 

As for “Going all out for a flag this year even if reducing the chances of a flag overall “, We gave up picks 26, 33 and a future 4th rounder for Brown so we hardly sold the farm. You could argue we may lose Weideman for lack of opportunities, if he chooses to leave so be it, Hawthorn went on to win two more flags after Buddy walked to Sydney. We effectively beat the Bulldogs and Lions with minimal input from him. Your assuming that Weideman is going to become a consistently good player, he may well do that and we all hope that he does but right now it’s not happening for him for whatever reason.
 

I mentioned in an earlier post that Geelong’s and Richmond’s window is coming to an end and that ours is opening, I believe with the talent we’ve got we can be competitive for years. I always hear two things mentioned throughout the seasons, firstly “defence wins premierships” and secondly “he’s the type of forward you build a team around”. We have the best defensive set up in the competition, after our last two wins you could argue we have if not the best, the 2nd or 3rd best midfield. Now I’m not suggesting that Brown is a Franklin or Riewoldt, but he has managed to kick a truckload of goals three years in a row for side that continually struggled and barring injury has a couple of years left in him. Weid been given an opportunity this year and has been underwhelming, he’s still getting by on potential whilst I thought Brown showed some good form against North then Sydney. I would love to see Brown now get a run of games to see what he can produce when allowed to settle with the team.
 

As always the coaches know more than us so time will tell.

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

5 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

I know this is ridiculous, but could you tell me what Weideman's rationale would be for this? 

He's out of contract 

Think the club got a bit too cute dropping Brown. Brown can do very little yet still kick a couple (his game vs Norf a good example). When Weid does little, he does...nothing, and FWIW I rate Weid as a talent, but surely they'll flick the switch should he have a quiet game against the Pies.

Not too fussed about the 'superior forward pressure' you get from from him vs Brown, if he isn't kicking goals.

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by adonski

14 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

Last Friday's outcome with Weid was

• 2 goals kicked directly by players that he handballed to after groundball gets under maximum pressure.  That's rare stuff from KPFs
• 2 goals kicked directly after marking contests that he got first hands to
• There were also 2 goals he would normally have kicked from marks but his kicking was a bit off - normally he is a beautiful kick and there is not a structural issue with his kicking.
• He also got his hands to a number of marks that just didn't stick - he did stick his last mark at full stretch but couldn't finish with the kick at goal
• Two Fwd 50 tackles that resulted in stoppages

That's decent output and, if he takes all his chances, it's dominant output.

I agree with this take on it. He also has provided many more contests in the air than Ben Brown did. 
He was playing on Harris Andrews and often was trying to move him from the dangerous part of the ground, the last quarter was probably the only time Harris Andrews really got going. 
I think our forward half is functioning better with him in the side  

Also, just taking a purely logical point of view on the issue, Ben Browns last game he had 4 touches and he has then not played a match for 2 weeks. There is no reason to bring him in before the bye considering the time he’s had off from competitive football. 

It’s intriguing to think that pre-season had our forward line based around the tandem of Sam and BBB but now they are competing for that final forward spot in the team and neither seems able to demand it as their own. 

11 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

The only real one is that we're $4.50 premiership favourites at the moment (which is about a 1 in 4 chance (25% ish).

The rest are hypotheticals to illustrate a point, although the calculations done with them are real year 10 maths. ?

Bob you talk about odds as if they are based in fact. They are are simply the number of dollars that guess an outcome. They are not factual, logically over time due to their nature (losers run out of money and a side that normally wins normally wins)they are more accurate than a dart board. One chance in four does not mean you will win one in four. I know you know this, but your language suggests odds as fact. Yes I would rather be the favourite but as we know it is not a guarantee.

9 hours ago, jnrmac said:

He's out of contract 

But why would he not be trying to play as well as he can, just because he's out of contact?

Are you suggesting he'd rather miss out of playing finals? Or playing worse which would reduce the value of his next contract? Or .... ?

It simply doesn't make sense.

13 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

The argument for the prosecution rests.

The defence, though, would argue:

1. He didn't kick the goals. This isn't a development year, so why are we interested in missed opportunities as opposed to actual production?
2. He didn't take the marks. Ditto.
3. The two goals kicked by those to whom he directly handballed are indeed great, but this season that's above his overall average goal assists figure of 0.5, which is half of many good forwards (Walker 1.1, Kennedy 1.0, Hawkins 1.0, TMac 1.0) and still below others (Riewoldt 0.8, Franklin 0.6) (albeit it is above Naughton and Mackay on 0.3 each)
4. The missed goals could, if kicked, make his stat line look better, but the AFL tracks shots on goal to account for this and his season average shots on goal is 2.5, which is nowhere compared to the best forwards (Mackay 5.5, Walker 5.9,  Naughton 5.3, Kennedy 4.1, Hawkins 4.8, Riewoldt 4.7, Franklin 4.5, Ben King 4.5)
5. Another statistical measure of involvement as a forward is score involvements - it's not perfect because it requires a disposal, knock-on, hit out to advantage or kick-in (i.e. not a marking contest), but on that metric Weideman averages 4 score involvements per game, which is again below his rivals (Walker 9.3, Hawkins 8.2, Naughton 7.7, TMac 6.6, Riewoldt 6.2, Kennedy 6.2, Mackay 6.3, Ben King 5.5, Franklin 6.0).

FWIW I am comfortable if Weideman keeps playing, but I'd be equally comfortable making the switch to Brown. 

A thoughtful post, well researched as usual Titan.

But are you comparing apples?  Almost all those KPFs with the possible exception of Riewoldt (Lynch?) are the main targets in their teams. Currently that's TMac at MFC and Weid is playing the supporting role.  That was the plan going into the season except that it was meant to be B.Brown playing the key role with Weid supporting, and TMac working out his contract at Casey.

So the I think the question is whether Weid is adequately performing his complementary role to TMac and whether B.Brown would do this better because neither are unseating TMac any time soon who is absolutely on fire.

B.Brown and TMac worked effectively together against the Swans but it seems the FD prefers Weid's attributes to B.Brown's in this role overall, possibly because they value his greater ground ball capability and forward pressure.

I completely agree that Weid needs to start sticking his marks - but his attack on the contest is definitely there, and I agree that he definitely needs to kick those goals - but I know he's a great kick.  The forward line is functioning very well and we're rating high in forward 50 conversions.  I'm patient to see it play out - but I agree Weid needs to be on an improving curve to hold his spot.

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

Bob you talk about odds as if they are based in fact. They are are simply the number of dollars that guess an outcome. They are not factual, logically over time due to their nature (losers run out of money and a side that normally wins normally wins)they are more accurate than a dart board. One chance in four does not mean you will win one in four. I know you know this, but your language suggests odds as fact. Yes I would rather be the favourite but as we know it is not a guarantee.

I was simply using the least biased predictor of what our chances of winning a premiership this year were. Specifically I mostly wanted to demonstrate the point that, despite being top of the ladder, the significant likelihood is that we won't win the flag this year. This point was being made against the 'go all out for a flag' argument.

 

Going 'all out' for a flag is fine for a team that is on its last legs and only has one realistic shot left (like Adelaide in 2017 or Sydney in 2016) but is not the best way to win a flag for teams coming into their premiership window, like us. The best way to win a flag is to be consistently very good over a number of years because there are so many variables that are largely out of a team's control. I think that this is what we should be trying to maximise our ability to win a flag across multiple years rather than looking at 2021 in isolation.

14 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

The only real one is that we're $4.50 premiership favourites at the moment (which is about a 1 in 4 chance (25% ish).

The rest are hypotheticals to illustrate a point, although the calculations done with them are real year 10 maths. ?

Surely the betting odds are also hypotheticals,  (and based on what offers the betting behemoths greatest profit).

Weid I see the future, he's still only 24. Back to Casey to continue his development.

His best returns have been as a deep forward converting the upfield work of Brown and Mac in some cases. He can rove around and has been competitive in ruck. He is similar to LJ in stature, mobility and flexibility, but should be developed to replace BB orTMac

TMac and Brown is the now.  Both roving to the wing to create competition and entry points into the deeper forward position .

if one is out the other should be back. They should not be competing together, one takes an opponent out of the contest. Kossie Fritta etc feed off their contests .

If BB or TMac is injured or drops form for 3 games Weid straight in otherwise he stays at Casey. He can return for finals to give chop out or different structure if required. Weid gets told he is the future of a premiership winning decade and if he chooses to go to another club he will be replaced to ensure that success is continued. He will move to a club that will not beat a now substantial club. 

Just as Petty has been promoted from the future, Tomlinson will replace him when fit. May will be replaced Petty,   Hore and Casey players will eventually replace him.

Casey is the development base for the future to complement the stars recruited and drafted. This adds to the brilliant base we have assembled. There are many routes to success we  finally seem to have a greater ability to exploit them.