Gator

One thing about Petracca is the quality of his disposals. He really impacts games with his ball use, which I suspect is why he's previously been classified by CD as elite.

CD are not evaluating "teams" they've ranking "lists" of players who have played at least 5 games over the past two years. It doesn't take into account game-plans, etc. A team is quite different to a list.

I would have delisted him after that GF performance, which was probably the worst performance I've ever seen from a senior player at that level. It was doubly worse because it happened in the biggest game of the year.

The Eagles stats were elite when it mattered - finals. The competition is so close with no standout teams. If you make finals and perform at the right time you can walk away with the chocolates Footscray-style-2016.

That's a sub editor's headline. It's a journo's interpretation. It's not a comment from CD.

Did I read that Goodwin's status rose on "6 good games" ? Sometimes I wish I could say what I really think. I'm with you. I would never give any coach longer than three years. It's completely unnecessary.

Where did you read that this was a flag prediction ranking ?

It's not an "analysis", it's stats. For example, West Coast ranked 18th for ground-ball gets. Stats where they weren't great during the H&A they excelled at in finals. They weren't a great contested ball winning team whereas Melbourne were no.1 in the competition, but who won the contested stats in the prelim ? Sheed had been in and out of the side during the year, but was great in the finals. Redden had a great last 6 weeks. West Coast were 18th for ground-ball stats, 11th for contested possessions, 11th for clearances, and 15th for tackles. It is what it is. It's just stats.

The topic doesn't overly interest me, but having heard a CD rep on SEN this morning it was clear that none of this is subjective opinion. It's 100% raw stats. As to the poignancy of the stats or how they rate each stat I wouldn't know. But they've been doing stats for over 20 years, so I suspect their models would be reasonably relevant.

I don't think this is correct. CD said today on SEN that it is entirely stats based. They may give more weight to some stats over others, but none of their assessments are linked to "opinion".

This isn't correct. It's a full two seasons finishing at the Grand Final. It's also weighted with more recent games having a heavier loading than round 1, 2017. Even the second half of 2018 has more weight than the first half of 2018. Every player in the competition who has played at least 5 games is measured individually and then the algorithms spit out the values attributed to each player and then determine the list rankings. The above can be attributed to a spokesperson from CD who was just interviewed on SEN.

You should have been far more astute with your judgement. It was plainly obvious he had immense talent and would break through the plateau he was experiencing, which is why some of us regularly called out your comments at the time.

It's based on a rolling 40 games I believe and Gawn was rubbish when he came back from his bad hamstring in 2017. Note: the above isn't quite true. See a few posts down.

You were the same with Brayshaw as I was with Watts. Just one difference. I was right. You should at least admit it.

No mate. You rivalled Old Dee with his comments on Weideman. It was relentless and pathetic.

Trust me, if you ever find yourself at odds with Picket sleep well at night.

You would think it strange. You don't think Brayshaw can play.

He averaged 20 disposals per game and kicked 19 goals from his 24 games. Player rating 79. At the same age Martin averaged 24 disposals and kicked 23 goals from his 23 games. Player rating 95. Petracca is tracking well. He did about what I thought in 2018. I reckon he'll elevate his game next year. That said, the incremental improvement has been slower than I expected. I thought he'd be at de Goey's level by 2018. But I'm a big fan and think he's only at about 60% of what he'll become.

Yes. He might complain that you've brought it up, but it was the frequency in which he derided him as a player. If he'd made the odd observation and got it wrong, like we all have, you wouldn't be tagging him in a post. He must have said it 50 times. When you're that incessant about a player's supposed failings you've got to wear it when they prove you wrong. And if he's not yet convinced about Weideman he ought give up watching football. I don't like to bandy the word "star" around too often, but I think he'll become a bona fide star of the competition.

At times in 2017 he looked pedestrian in the VFL, but I'm certain it was his lingering ankle injury that curbed his last year in the TAC. He had another operation on his ankle at the end of 2017 and it seems to have done the trick. He showed last year that he still has the athletic traits that excited when he was a junior. A bigger stronger Weideman is something to salivate over.

I agree with the sentiments of your post and have stated the same, however, de Goey and Stephenson at times both played out of the goal square as pseudo full-forwards. I think some people are surprised that de Goey is 191cm.

Weideman is a very exciting prospect. He could really surprise the competition over the next few years. He's been in the club doing weights since early October.

Bye

You really are disingenuous. I ALREADY had made that point with the poster in question, which you would have read.

68.8%