View Full Version : "Injury Ladder" - Our Development In The Face Of Adversity
bOmBeR_BoY1
7 Jul 2009, 11:04
I have been alerted to this staggering statistic in The Age this morning that demonstrates the games missed by injury in 2009 to each clubs' top 10 players, based upon last year's B&F counts. It makes for interesting reading and again highlights how well we've performed in 2009, so far, given the setbacks we've had to endure, injury wise. In the top 5 clubs on the list, we are the only one sitting in the top 8 currently, while the others are all in the bottom four. Every club has periods of injuries, some more than others, but it's been a credit to how we've developed as a side in 2009 that our seriously good players have been covered.
INJURY LADDER
Games missed by injury in 2009 for clubs' top-10 players, based on last year's club best-and-fairest.
(AFL ladder position in brackets).
1. Essendon 36 (8th)
2. Melbourne 36 (16th)
3. Fremantle 31 (15th)
4. Richmond 28 (14th)
5. North Melb 21 (13th)
6. Collingwood 20 (4th)
7. Port Adelaide 20 (9th)
8. Hawthorn 16 (11th)
9. Carlton 15 (7th)
10. Geelong 15 (2nd)
11. W Bulldogs 13 (3rd)
12. St Kilda 12 (1st)
13. Brisbane Lions 10 (6th)
14. Adelaide 9 (5th)
15. West Coast 9 (12th)
16. Sydney 3 (10th)
These statistics just highlight how ordinary the Swans and Eagles have been this year, considering both played in consecutive Grand Finals only three years ago. Interesting to see Hawthorn's position as well given their well-documented poor form that is attributed mostly to the apparent injury crisis at Glenferrie Oval.
mark1881
7 Jul 2009, 11:25
Very nice statistics. Quite promising really!
Phat Toni
7 Jul 2009, 11:59
Looks great, because we are at the top :D
However it is another example where stats can be twisted to mean what ever you want them too. For example Hille adds 9 games to our total which is about 25% of the number however nobody would claim that he was in B&F form even prior to going down.
kelvin_sheedy
7 Jul 2009, 12:04
Very interesting... might post it on the main board, get ready for a fight!
Looks great, because we are at the top :D
However it is another example where stats can be twisted to mean what ever you want them too. For example Hille adds 9 games to our total which is about 25% of the number however nobody would claim that he was in B&F form even prior to going down.
Hille not in our top 10? Do you have a clue?
Phat Toni
7 Jul 2009, 13:07
Hille not in our top 10? Do you have a clue?
Think you missed the point Lammoron.
But just for the record in Hille's 4 completed games he had no influence on three contests and only broke even in the Carlton game. Does that mean if he played the season out he wouldn't have ended up in our top ten players? No, but based on early season form he was not influencing results like he did last year.
Does that mean if he played the season out he wouldn't have ended up in our top ten players? No, but
You see, that there is the point. Because an injury ladder talks about the games they missed, not the games they played.
No need for anything further. The prosecution rests.
(Idiot!)
Skeeta Olly
7 Jul 2009, 14:04
You see, that there is the point. Because an injury ladder talks about the games they missed, not the games they played.
No need for anything further. The prosecution rests.
(Idiot!)
I don't think you understand what Phat Toni is trying to say.
You see, that there is the point. Because an injury ladder talks about the games they missed, not the games they played.
No need for anything further. The prosecution rests.
(Idiot!)Leave the childish taunts out of it for ****s sake.
I don't think you understand what Phat Toni is trying to say.
He is presenting a hypothetical.
I don't think you understand what hypothetical means. Or what this thread is about. But keep trying eh? :thumbsu:
Skeeta Olly
7 Jul 2009, 14:26
I don't think you understand what hypothetical means. Or what this thread is about. But keep trying eh? :thumbsu:
You tell me if Hille would have the same effect on this season as he did on last season.
Would he have?
Yes or No.
Phat Toni
7 Jul 2009, 14:37
You see, that there is the point. Because an injury ladder talks about the games they missed, not the games they played.
No need for anything further. The prosecution rests.
(Idiot!)
I take it you would be a court appointed attorney?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L4os47uTftk/RgFz7v4nfCI/AAAAAAAAACw/uRIpQQh8DDw/s320/hutz_pointing.gif
Skeeta Olly
7 Jul 2009, 14:48
"Injury Ladder" - Our Development In The Face Of Adversity
Looks great, because we are at the top :D
However it is another example where stats can be twisted to mean what ever you want them too. For example Hille adds 9 games to our total which is about 25% of the number however nobody would claim that he was in B&F form even prior to going down.
Hille not in our top 10? Do you have a clue?
Think you missed the point Lammoron.
But just for the record in Hille's 4 completed games he had no influence on three contests and only broke even in the Carlton game. Does that mean if he played the season out he wouldn't have ended up in our top ten players? No, but based on early season form he was not influencing results like he did last year.
I think YOU have completely missed the point of
1. The Thread
2. The point Phat Toni is making.
Trying again before you start throwing around insults.
I don't think you understand what hypothetical means. Or what this thread is about. But keep trying eh? :thumbsu:
Sorry Lam old chap but yes, you are indeed the one missing the point here.
Phat Tony, you're correct in that it can be used to accentuate what may in fact, have not been there. I'd say though, what it does reveal, is the development of our next generation.
It's through the injuries to Hille, Laycock, Fletcher, Lucas, etc that we've gotten to really see Ryder, Hooker, Pears and co really start to stand up. And I think this stat really emphasizes how well they've done.
1: "Nobody would claim that he was in B&F form even prior to going down"
+
1: "Does that mean if he played the season out he wouldn't have ended up in our top ten players? No."
=
2: That Hille, even though he wasn't in his best form in the first few rounds, is still a top 10 player in the side and we have missed that level of quality in the games that he did not play.
The injury ladder shows how many games we have missed from top 10 players and how well we have dealt with those absences. Therefore Hille's absence is not made less relevant unless you think that he would not have been in the top 10 at the end of this year, not if he would have been in the top ten in the first four weeks.
The only way anyone has any point is to suggest that Hille wasn't going to finish in the top 10 of our B&F this season even if he hadn't been injured.
You tell me if Hille would have the same effect on this season as he did on last season.
Would he have?
Yes or No.
I'm not making any claims myself, I'm merely pointing out the conflict in the coments of other. You cannot say that Hille would have been a top 10 player and still question the point of the ladder as presented. And Toni did not question Hille would return to top 10 form by years end, as I have quoted above.
Do you get it now? Are you now going to pretend that he was saying Hille wasn't going to be a top 10 player this year (note: this would be the hypothetical comment), because this is what he explicitly didn't say.
I can't believe there are so many people on this board who cannot follow simple logic like this. Is it because it's school holidays?
(Whomb, he called me a moron. Please dole out the moderation in a evenhanded fashion or let me insult him in return. :))
Actually Lamaros, what he was saying really has absolutely nothing to do with Hille's top 10 status at all.
He's saying that at the time, switching from Hille to Ryder, improved our performance in the ruck based purely on results from games prior to Anzac Day. Therefore, using Hille as an example he pointed out how the injury stat itself implies that going from a top 10 player to a lesser player is an automatic downgrade in performance, and was being used as such by the journos in the Age. That's the misleading bit in the stat, and the point he was making.
In terms of would Hille have improved over time after that game.. probably, but no-one is saying anything about how he may or may not have played from that point on, as its silly to do since he hasn't.
Hope that clears it up for ya :)
Phat Toni
7 Jul 2009, 15:39
Phat Tony, you're correct in that it can be used to accentuate what may in fact, have not been there. I'd say though, what it does reveal, is the development of our next generation.
It's through the injuries to Hille, Laycock, Fletcher, Lucas, etc that we've gotten to really see Ryder, Hooker, Pears and co really start to stand up. And I think this stat really emphasizes how well they've done.
Absolutely agree. It does show the development of not necessarily the youth but more the development of the 3 to 6 yr players eg Winder, Lovett, Watson etc.
I would be more interested to see a comparison at years end to how many change of names are in each teams top 10 in the B&F year on year for '08 and '09, i think that would give a great indication of exactly where a team is heading.
Skeeta Olly
7 Jul 2009, 15:39
1: "Nobody would claim that he was in B&F form even prior to going down"
+
1: "Does that mean if he played the season out he wouldn't have ended up in our top ten players? No."
=
2: That Hille, even though he wasn't in his best form in the first few rounds, is still a top 10 player in the side and we have missed that level of quality in the games that he did not play.
The injury ladder shows how many games we have missed from top 10 players and how well we have dealt with those absences. Therefore Hille's absence is not made less relevant unless you think that he would not have been in the top 10 at the end of this year, not if he would have been in the top ten in the first four weeks.
The top 10 players of last year. What i said, was could Hille have become our top 10? That you cannot answer.
The only way anyone has any point is to suggest that Hille wasn't going to finish in the top 10 of our B&F this season even if he hadn't been injured.
What are you talking about?
I'm not making any claims myself, I'm merely pointing out the conflict in the coments of other. You cannot say that Hille would have been a top 10 player and still question the point of the ladder as presented. And Toni did not question Hille would return to top 10 form by years end, as I have quoted above.
I didn't say Hille is a top 10 player. I questioned if at the end of they year he would still have been one like last year. That ladder shows our top 10 players last year missing through injury. Frankly, the loss of McVeigh brought about the coming of Dyson. The loss of Hille brought about the coming of Ryder.
Do you get it now? Are you now going to pretend that he was saying Hille wasn't going to be a top 10 player this year (note: this would be the hypothetical comment), because this is what he explicitly didn't say.
I am finding it hard to see your point.
I can't believe there are so many people on this board who cannot follow simple logic like this. Is it because it's school holidays?
Your logic if fraud.
(Whomb, he called me a moron. Please dole out the moderation in a evenhanded fashion or let me insult him in return. :))
Enjoy your infraction for calling him an idiot.
Responses above.
They are not good response, as I don't understand what you are saying or the point you are trying to make, but it seems that everyone disagrees with you and its time to say you were wrong or you missunderstood.
He's saying that at the time, switching from Hille to Ryder, improved our performance in the ruck based purely on results from games prior to Anzac Day. Therefore, using Hille as an example he pointed out how the injury stat itself implies that going from a top 10 player to a lesser player is an automatic downgrade in performance, and was being used as such by the journos in the Age. That's the misleading bit in the stat, and the point he was making.
In terms of would Hille have improved over time after that game.. probably, but no-one is saying anything about how he may or may not have played from that point on, as its silly to do since he hasn't.
Minor point: Toni actually explicitly said that Hille likely would have returned to top 10 form, and I have quoted this twice, in bold. So you're either deliberatly avioding the issue or cant read.
Anyway. The whole point of the injury ladder (if it has any point at all, which I question) is to suggest how many games from important players you have lost.
The assumption that our ruck performance has been better this year with Hille out is patently absurd. If you want to suggest that and other want to go along with it then I'm quite happy to give up on the conversation, there's no reasoning with some people, but if what you want to suggest is that Hille being absent in the ruck has allowed Ryder to improve more than he otherwise might have then go for it.
But this is just as hypothetical as anything else, and going with your last line, is making assumptions about how Ryder "may or may not have played from that point on" if Hille were still about, which you say is "silly to do since he [wasn't]".
If you want to suggest that our ruck performance has been improved you don't get to ignore that Hille could have played forward and done a better job than Neagle or Lucas, while helping out in the ruck, doign a better job than Hooker or Bellchambers, and allowing Hooker to focus more down back and play even better there.
The error you are all making is talking about players in a 1 to 1 basis, such as Hille - Ryder, and not on a whole team basis. Because you compared the missed player, in this case Hille, not onnly with the one that steps into his place, but with the one that steps into that persons place, and the one that then steps into theirs, and so on untill you have a best 22.
It is largely irrelevent that Ryder might have played as well or slightly better or worse than Hille. What is relevent is how Hille being in the team, which he was not, would have contributed to it.
You make these observations on the team as a whole. You don't get to ignore Hille as a player completely, and anyone suggesting that a team without Hille in it has not lost something of significant value is absolutly absurd.
Hille, Fletcher, and McVeigh in our team is a better team. Not because they are slightly better than Winderlich, or Hocking, or the like but because a team with these players would then push Bellchambers, Dyson, and Hooker out. You don't compare to the best player that fills in, you compare to the worst.
The value of an injury table like this is the extent that it shows our depth players, who would otherwise not be in the team, were able to perform at a higher level than expected. This does not diminish players like Hille in any way and instead suggests that were Hille in the team we still would have had that improvement.
In an effort to be more productive and less pedantic I'm going to suggest this new topic, in which we name our best 22, given what we have seen up to this point, and then identify how many games we have missed from that best so far this year. I think this will give a better indication of how much trouble we have had from injuries this year, even if we wont be able to compare it to other clubs.
My Best 22:
B: Pears Hurley Slattery
HB: Dempsey Fletcher McPhee
C: Stanton McVeigh Lovett
HF: Monfries Gumbleton Winderlich
F: Davey Lloyd Hille
R: Ryder Watson Prismall
Int: Dyson Welsh Laycock Hocking
From this we have missed Hurley(~10), Fletcher (5), Slattery (2), McPhee (1), Dempsey (1), McVeigh (9), Gumbleton (14), Winderlich (1), Hille (10), Watson (1), Prismall (10), Welsh (11), and Laycock (14) at one time or another.
That's 89 games missed through injury from what I consider our best side. That's an average of 6.35 of our best team missing every match so far, nearly a third of the whole team.
What we probably would have missed if we had out best team out every game is some of the responsibility that Ryder has taken on, a bit of the improvement that Hooker has shown that he probably couldn't have gotten at Bendigo, but otherwise I think most of the players would have developed just as well as they have otherwise, and we've had had a better team on the park that would have won us a few more games.
Are there any other real gains this season, from players like Zaharakis, Jetta, Houli, Myers, Lonergan or whoever that people think have only come from playing in the first team? Is it really unreasonable to expect that they might have come along as well playing for Bendigo (Prismall did most of his development for Geelong in the reserves, remember)?
bOmBeR_BoY1
7 Jul 2009, 16:28
Introducing our best new recruit for 2010:
https://www.essendonfc.com.au/images/06/r20mw-05.jpg
Whomb, he called me a moron. Please dole out the moderation in a evenhanded fashion or let me insult him in return. :)Fair point; it was the 'straw that broke...' I guess.
Just sick of seeing people on here turning on each other like bogans.
Colin D'Cops
7 Jul 2009, 18:02
Geez, reading this thread makes my head spin. Understand where posters are coming from, but I think people need to think a little more how they construct their posts and it'll make them ten times clearer.
Geez, reading this thread makes my head spin. Understand where posters are coming from, but I think people need to think a little more how they construct their posts and it'll make them ten times clearer.:o 'needle that broke the camel's back'.
Colin D'Cops
7 Jul 2009, 19:09
:o 'needle that broke the camel's back'.
Haha, knew what you meant anyway mate. :p
In an effort to be more productive and less pedantic I'm going to suggest this new topic, in which we name our best 22, given what we have seen up to this point, and then identify how many games we have missed from that best so far this year. I think this will give a better indication of how much trouble we have had from injuries this year, even if we wont be able to compare it to other clubs.
My Best 22:
B: Pears Hurley Slattery
HB: Dempsey Fletcher McPhee
C: Stanton McVeigh Lovett
HF: Monfries Gumbleton Winderlich
F: Davey Lloyd Hille
R: Ryder Watson Prismall
Int: Dyson Welsh Laycock Hocking
From this we have missed Hurley(~10), Fletcher (5), Slattery (2), McPhee (1), Dempsey (1), McVeigh (9), Gumbleton (14), Winderlich (1), Hille (10), Watson (1), Prismall (10), Welsh (11), and Laycock (14) at one time or another.
That's 89 games missed through injury from what I consider our best side. That's an average of 6.35 of our best team missing every match so far, nearly a third of the whole team.
What we probably would have missed if we had out best team out every game is some of the responsibility that Ryder has taken on, a bit of the improvement that Hooker has shown that he probably couldn't have gotten at Bendigo, but otherwise I think most of the players would have developed just as well as they have otherwise, and we've had had a better team on the park that would have won us a few more games.
Are there any other real gains this season, from players like Zaharakis, Jetta, Houli, Myers, Lonergan or whoever that people think have only come from playing in the first team? Is it really unreasonable to expect that they might have come along as well playing for Bendigo (Prismall did most of his development for Geelong in the reserves, remember)?
the problem with your list is that you haven't included games played at Bendigo.
For example; Hurley has played one game for Essendon and 5 games for Bendigo. In other words he has missed 8 games not 10 games through injury.
the problem with your list is that you haven't included games played at Bendigo.
For example; Hurley has played one game for Essendon and 5 games for Bendigo. In other words he has missed 8 games not 10 games through injury.
Incorrect, I just accounted for a couple of games to return to fitness after injury. Did the same with Welsh also.
Skeeta Olly
7 Jul 2009, 21:27
I've given up with this thread. "There is no reasoning with some people".
I think it says a lot that the 4 teams below us are the bottom 4 on the ladder yet we sit 8th
windyhill
7 Jul 2009, 21:43
Since Essendon was formed we have always gone broken hand in broken hand with injury. No club comes near us.