Axis of Bob

Picket, are you one of those posters who screams about 'accepting mediocrity'? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.

Please oh please oh please can we change the name of this thread to 'The Andrew Raines Mega-thread'?

You'd think so. But we all know deep, deep down inside that we aren't really trying to convince him to think, but rather to remind others that he can't.

I bet Freo are regretting taking the skinny Stephen Hill inside the top 20. It isn't easy to get a high running capacity, speed and good skills in the same package. Plus each of those attributes are sorely lacking in our side.

And Bail is one of the few who is able to get the footy in dangerous positions, which means he often needs to go for more high risk kicks.

Actually the problem is that we don't cover the ground well enough in open space. We struggle to get into attacking positions due to our lack of line breaking run. The disposal efficiency reflects that we are rarely in a position to take risks with our disposal, and instead are choosing low risk options due to them occurring in defensive positions. It's also why we bemoan our poor disposal, because when we do stuff it up it happens in a bad position. Stats tell a number of potential stories, but you just have to look a bit harder to find the right one.

I don't remember Roos saying anything about who we will or won't be taking.

Welcome back James Hird: Essendon are still a mess

We win the footy, but West Coast are consistently able to get outside us and we struggle to get outside them. It means that they move it too easily while we struggle to move it at all. Frustrating, but it has been a theme.

I have only seen stats, the televised games and highlights of these players. So my opinion should be taken with a mine's worth of salt. Based on what we need, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a surprise (or two) of the Bontempelli/S Hill variety. I think the players that are most interesting to me are Laverde and Ahern. Laverde is a tall midfielder that covers the ground really well and has great skills. Ahern is another with pace that has a flash of raw ability and awareness that is unteachable. We have a developing midfield chock full of young inside midfielders. But good teams have a mix of ball winners and ball carriers. We lack players that can carry the footy. Last year we drafted players that can damage outside the contest (Salem, JKH and Hunt) and I suspect (and hope) that we will do so again.

I can't agree with any argument that says that we have excessively valued outside skill and pace over inside grunt. If you look at our team now, we are competitive in one area (inside ball winning) and woefully uncompetitive in the other (carrying and using the footy). I know that it is more popular to drip your testosterone around yelling about how we are too soft, but the reality is that we are losing because we lack running power and skill, not grunt. I hope that we look at drafting some runners who can use the footy and get into space, rather than getting more inside grunt.

How about the loser has to buy themselves a bottle of Pinot and store it in the same place as their real wines. That way it can be a constant reminder of failure for the many decades that it remains unopened and undrunk. Actually, I don't want to take that risk. The deal is off!

We don't know yet. Barry's 2 possessions as a sub against the Bulldogs were pretty influential.

Really? They are both about 5'11 and indigenous, but as far as footy goes I don't see a whole lot of similarities. What are these similarities?

It is in the rules. You are allowed to do that.

I come on to this board fully accepting that my comments are for the consumption of everyone and, in turn, they can comment on what I say. In fact that is why I make them. I look forward to people disagreeing with me as much as agreeing with me. If everyone agreed with me then I'd get bored. Also, I don't see how I was being insulting. I said that you were making things simpler than they should be. I deliberately didn't insult you because timD had already done so. If you want more detail, I can give it. I will address the point specifically without making it personal. You can choose whether or not you take it personally. I believe that your problem is that you don't understand the statistics or the concept that the statistics are being used in. You complain about the 20m sprint scores at draft camp and then make the erroneous judgement that players are drafted based on their performance in this test rather than as one piece of the puzzle, in conjunction with football ability and psychological testing. It's your misunderstanding of the use of data that leaves you confused and therefore wanting to condemn this incomprehensible data as simple 'overcomplication'. There are basic athletic standards that players need to be able to reach in order to function at AFL level. Generally speed is one. Slow footballers (aside from specific roles) are very rarely successful. But recruiters already know most of these things prior to draft camp, and often mention that draft camp is simply confirmation. They also often mention that the most important part of draft camp is the interviewing. Did you see Jack Watts play under 18s? Are you saying that we just picked him because he ran a fast 20m sprint time? That is, as Einstein said, simpler than it should be. I think this also applies to your understanding of the modern game. Because it is now more complicated (due to the full time nature and increased coaching emphasis), you struggle to see that the game has changed since the time (or standard) where you are most familiar with it. Teams of the 90s would be smashed today. Even teams of the early 2000s would be beaten easily. Why? Because the increased scrutiny has resulted in different tactics, which then need to be overcome. Plus the players are faster, fitter and more professional, which allows them to cover more territory and implement more complicated tactics. That's the modern game. Your biggest gripe is not that the game is too complicated to work, it's that it's now too complicated for you to understand. Statistics are useful, if combined with the knowledge of what the statistics mean in a game sense. They help to confirm, or deny, key observations made or to alert you to something that you should be looking out for. timD's point is that you have two ways to approach this problem of a lack of understanding. You can either: a- take the time and effort to learn about the new situation and change, or b- not change and then blame everybody else for your problems, leading to unnecessary hatred in the world. timD is bemoaning that more people are now taking the second option which is the easy, yet destructive, way. This can be seen in the number of shock jocks/columnists that pander to these types.

Agreed. Albert Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible .... but not simpler" There is a lot of 'simpler' happening here. Yes there is. Massively, massively yes. You can post your opinions. But your opinions are available for all to see, and comment on. If your opinions are stupid then people will call your opinions stupid. If you don't want your opinions criticised, start a blog and disable the comments.

Irony. Also, when has Garland been beaten in one on ones? He nullifies a vast majority of dangerous situations he is involved in. He's a very good defender. Throwing out hyperbolic claims to support your point just makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about.

You're worried that Barry may not be able to win as much of the ball as Blease? Here are Blease's disposal stats for the last 2 years in the AFL: 8, 7, 7, 14, 12, 8, 5, 8, 4, 2, 10, 11 That's an average of 8 disposals per game. "But he's often the sub", you say? If you equate a full game as being 80% game time, he would average 10.4 disposals per game.

I love that the same posters that complain about our list of battlers that can't kick, then would like to pick up Taylor Hunt.

You've clearly never played football, or competed in any sport involving fatigue. I'd also challenge the assumption that Garland has been playing badly. He isn't being asked to do the same job as last year, generally, so his possession and intercept mark numbers are lower than they were. But he's a flexible mid-sized defender who doesn't get beaten. I think Roos would be pretty happy with that.

The irony that you bemoan that nobody went to remonstrate, and then immediately complain that we keep one of the blokes who would be first to remonstrate!

So I'm an apologist because I said that our effort was OK but our skills are crap? If that makes you feel better about yourself....

We're still at ranting and not yet analysis? OK, I'll come back later.

Kennedy, Richards and McGlynn have really struggled at Sydney.