Analysis Adelaide against the top teams

[BRL121]

I'm somewhat comfortable in saying that the intent is there from our players (bar hendo), but the cohesion is not. We play dumb football, and so much of our good work is too often in vein.

Surely, you're not suggesting that we're better at injecting drugs than playing football? I thought that was Essendon!

 

[Andrew P]

This is why Campo cannot be considered for the senior role.

If Campo is in the box next year we will be rubbish again ... or slightly better than rubbish .

 

[Mike Smyth]

Interesting read guys, seems like a lot of you want a good clean out of the old boys club?

I notice there's still ill feeling towards those involved in Tippettgate, and with good reason too, you can never replace those missed high draft picks and wasn't one of them about pick 6 or 7 - ouch!

We're feeling the strain of the vindictive trade ban slapped on us (for not breaking any rules) by the VFL, I mean AFL.

Good luck with Dangerfield, I hope he stays.

awww you poor things. Cola and zone concessions - cry me a river.

 

[Mattrox]

 

[JPetro83]

Tomorrow night will be the same old story.. we will stay close to Richmond, probably hit the front at some stage in the 3rd and then in the last the tigers will kick away.. we will then challenge late but it will be too late.. we will lose by 20-39 points.

 

[Mattrox]

This is the experience profile vs GWS
Our average age: 24y 96d vs GWS average age: 23y 180 days
Our games exp: 1674 vs GWS games exp: 1656

When going through our experience profile, round 8 stuck out so I graphed it on its own.

I'm going to go through our 1st 11 games and compare Hawthorns 1st 11 games........

 

[Mattrox]

Since we are talking Crows vs Top 4 sides:

This is the profile of Crows vs Hawthorn in Round 12.

 

[Mattrox]

Here is Round 9 vs Fremantle

 

[Mattrox]

This shows the average number of players fielded at each of the "experience"categories for the 1st half of the season.

 

[Andrew P]

We can't beat a top team because our midfield as a unit, is ****ing deplorable. Sure we may have some individual stars, but as a unit we are rarely on song.

- We never seem to have anyone on the defensive side of the contest, it's see ball get ball.
- We can't spread
- We still can't tackle properly (has improved though)
- we can't run 2 ways
- we can't ****ing kick.

The battle is won in the midfield IMO, plain and simple. Occasionally we have the individual brilliance of some of our stars who put the team on their shoulders and the lesser teams are not a good enough 'unit' to overcome our top end players dragging us over the line. But when going up against the big boys, we fall to pieces through the midfield every god damn ****ing time. The good teams have 8-10 players rotating through who all know exactly what they're doing and execute it to plan. We have danger, or sometimes it's Sloane, or Douglas, or Thommo.

When all of them fire however, we look like a damn good football team. Go watch our round 1 fixture vs North and look at the movement and cohesion of our midfield, it's a sight for sore eyes. But it is a rare sight if anything. I sometimes sit back and just watch in awe at the Hawks players just rolling through the midfield in waves, they always have players in the right spot and are set up so well. Tigers and Sydney too. Yes they are also much better users of the ball and probably better decision makers too, but even when they muff a kick, they are always set up so well and their pressure is manic in their attempt to win the ball back.

Our midfield is our biggest weakness. Our defence is young and actually holds up quite well 1v1 for such an inexperienced unit. Our forwards are also decent at making something happen when they are on the end of "good" entries. However we don't apply enough pressure and allow entries into our defence under little to no pressure, and going the other way we dish up a steaming pile of s**t on a golden platter to the likes of Betts, Tex and JJ way too often.

I'm somewhat comfortable in saying that the intent is there from our players (bar hendo), but the cohesion is not. We play dumb football, and so much of our good work is too often in vein.

I completely agree which is why it makes it infuriating to see that we have not actually found out what we should have 2-3 years ago which is that Wright , Mackay , VB and Martin do not provide anything , not now and not in our next premiership contending team . We have wasted time by not getting more games into Lyons , Ellis-Yolmen , M.Crouch , Grigg ( who can actually kick ) , Atkins and Knight .

The coaches are so slow to react can clearly have no blueprint or foresight .

WTF hasn't Lyons been given 6-8 games starting on the field to see what we have in him yet Wright can spud it up and he is rewarded with endless opportunity . I liked Wright in 2012 but he doesn't give us what we need ! He could play a role with a team that has outside pace but we do not . There was interest a couple of years ago but unlikely now .

Mackay is supposed to provide us with outside run yet all i see in games is his arms flailing whilst he is getting burnt by the opposition on the spread , him being tackled like he is putty or kicking the ball 7 metres over a team mates head on an uncontested 25 metre pass . Again there was interest from Melbourne a couple of seasons ago but his value is way under his pay packet . Pay another club some salary to take the trade .

Van Berlo would not have been given a game in any other team this year and his AFL days are over .

Thompson whilst getting alot of the ball ( clangers ) is not in our next premiership team and must play more a mentoring role , maybe rest him forward at times and do not play him against teams with vast leg speed advantage . He gets killed on the spread and is like getting around a training cone .

Henderson has always had great promise but never delivered , he should have been traded when he had value .

Martin is a dime a dozen and the fact that he is given games ahead of players like Grigg , Crouch , Lyons , Atkins , CEY or Knight is a blight on the coaching department . Which brings me to the fact that Campo , Clarke , Noble etc are all overvalued by us and all have had ample opportunity yet under delivered .

It is the same as Neil Craig , he stayed waaaaayyyy too long and look at the impact he has had at Melbourne and Essendon .
His W-L ratio as Head Coach and Senior Assistant or Coaches Manager over the Last 6 years must read Like a very sad taLe .

Our back line is looking like it is 1 piece away from being very good for the now and the future and our forward line can be extremely functional if we have some decent delivery and better system . A bit of tinkering , aggressive play at the trade table and a FA could sharpen this list towards where we should be pretty quickly but it will unlikely happen with the same old boys club that has control now .

Stewart Dew or Brendan Bolton please .[/QUOTE]

 

[baldandbroke]

Since we are talking Crows vs Top 4 sides:

This is the profile of Crows vs Hawthorn in Round 12.
View attachment 159676

Here is Round 9 vs Fremantle
View attachment 159680

This shows the average number of players fielded at each of the "experience"categories for the 1st half of the season.View attachment 159691

Good stuff Mattrox, maybe keep the same scale on the y-axis? It will show the massive gap even more ...

 

[icrow32]

Tomorrow night will be the same old story.. we will stay close to Richmond, probably hit the front at some stage in the 3rd and then in the last the tigers will kick away.. we will then challenge late but it will be too late.. we will lose by 20-39 points.

Sadly this is so true, how many times has we done this over the past 5 years? The only difference is if the game is wet we will lose by 11-20.

 

[Mattrox]

Good stuff Mattrox, maybe keep the same scale on the y-axis? It will show the massive gap even more ...

I've gone back to tidy things up.

 

[azza77]

I've gone back to tidy things up.

View attachment 159716 View attachment 159717
View attachment 159718
View attachment 159719

Brilliant. This is also very damning. Says a lot imo

 

[Mattrox]

Brilliant. This is also very damning. Says a lot imo

Damning, how?

 

[azza77]

Damning, how?

Maybe it's not the correct word for it but....

Look at those experience profiles of the top teams in comparison to ours and it says it all really. We still have a long way ahead of us in terms of development and getting the age/experience balance right.

What's even worse is that despite this, we are still calling for the kids to be played, but rightly so. VB and Mackay both 100+ gamers with Thompson on his last legs and Wright having played around 95 from memory?

That leaves us with Eddie, Dougy, Danger, Sauce, Tex. 5 effective senior players with over 100+ games that actually deserve their spot in the side. Admittedly Smith and Talia aren't that far off 100 games themselves, but still, there's a very long road ahead of us.

 

[Iron]

Brilliant. This is also very damning. Says a lot imo

Not sure it's damning at all... We don't have as many mature players. Our results are what they are.

There's no point looking at it through the same lense as the past, either, given the effort the club has made to change its ways. It's not an overnight fix but there's enough evidence of change to have a little optimism.

It's sad what the old regime has done to the patience of our fans! Understandable though maybe.

 

[Mattrox]

Maybe it's not the correct word for it but....

Look at those experience profiles of the top teams in comparison to ours and it says it all really. We still have a long way ahead of us in terms of development and getting the age/experience balance right.

What's even worse is that despite this, we are still calling for the kids to be played, but rightly so. VB and Mackay both 100+ gamers with Thompson on his last legs and Wright having played around 95 from memory?

That leaves us with Eddie, Dougy, Danger, Sauce, Tex. 5 effective senior players with over 100+ games that actually deserve their spot in the side. Admittedly Smith and Talia aren't that far off 100 games themselves, but still, there's a very long road ahead of us.

Notice how the games profile has shifted from round 9 to 18 as players moved up into the next category.

25 more games has the profile much healthier in terms of contending.

Just in time for 2017.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In 2010 I didn't really find many games where there were less than 6 under 21 yo. Most had more. And if you take into account the magic 50 game mark, the numbers were higher. In terms of playing senior players; for 2010, 2013, 2014, the number of younger players was often high. So I'd say it is nothing like we were going all out to win games. The first rounds of 2010 have a number of players under 20 games two. The theory doesn't stand up under scruitiny. The fact that the kids didn't work out and we subsequently lost draft picks makes it hard to replace the duds.

It's almost like in 2010 we tried to rebuild while we had Edwards and Macca still going around and failed.
Armstrong, Cook, Sloane, Walker, Petrenko, Sellar, Young, Schmidt, Davis, Gunston, Henderson, Jaensch, McKernan (under 20 gamers played) Keeping in mind Tippett had less than 50 games at the start of the year and Dangerfield was on 24 games...

Henderson and Schmidt were mature aged recruits - both 21 year olds.

McKernan - 0 games, Young - 2 games, Gunston - 2 games, Sellar - 4 games, Armstrong - 9 games
Cook - 9 games, Jaensch - 10 games, Petrenko - 12 games... it's largely a token amount of games in many cases. Certainly nothing that helps develop the player or list.

All players on the cusp of being dropped each week who sometimes get games when we had enough injuries. Minimal significant investment except for a handful of standouts.

Rinse and repeat in 2011.
McKernan, Davis, Henderson, Sloane, Smith, Jaensch, Martin, Cook, Luke Thompson, Wright, Jacobs, Gunston, Sellar, Moran, Talia

You've included Moran (24yo), Schmidt (22), Walker (21), Henderson (22) and Wright (21) here.

No to mention Cook - 2 games, Davis - 3 games, Sellar - 5 games, Martin - 5 games, Armstrong - 5 games, Talia - 9 games.

Token. We're doing the same now. Refusing to invest a significant amount of games into our identified talent in order to fast track their development.

I mean... we'll equally be able to say that Matt Crouch "played" this season but we know that's exceptionally misleading. Despite form, he has spent a heap of time in the SANFL, as sub and as travelling emergency.

Oh, we've got a lot of players under 50 games. Yeah we do, because we don't do what it takes to get them there quickly.

Jarryd Lyons - 5 seasons on the list and will have approximately 30 games by the end of it
Sam Kerridge - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 30 games by the end of it
Matt Crouch - 2 seasons on the list and will have approximately 20 games by the end of it
Brodie Martin - 7 seasons on the list and will have approximately 40 games by the end of it
Mitch Grigg - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 20 games by the end of it
Cam Ellis Yolmen - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 15 games by the end of it

Has there not been enough time to get them to 50 games? No. Has our team been too strong to break into? Definitely no. Are they not up to it? Maybe. So find out and make a decision - play them or delist them.

They're not delisted. They're not experienced. They're not able to be traded for anything significant. We've positioned them in a way that they cant make any positive impact on the football club at all.

If we'd decided they weren't up to it and started down the track with someone else we'd be better off. We're just stringing them along - they'll be the next Tony Armstrong or Aidan Riley. If we're THAT sure that they aren't worthy of being first 22 players then delist them now and progress the squad.

Now - if we had a winning 22 and they couldn't crack into it and were being retained as depth then that's fine. But we've had a losing 22 for much of the time they've been here. There is absolutely no reason to stick with players who can't even make it consistently into a losing team.

Personally I think all of those guys (particularly Grigg, CEY and M Crouch) would be very good AFL players and we'd be a better team now and in the future if we just picked them. But we don't and for a long period of time players like them have flittered in and out of the team, treading water.

 

[Mattrox]

Henderson and Schmidt were mature aged recruits - both 21 year olds.

McKernan - 0 games, Young - 2 games, Gunston - 2 games, Sellar - 4 games, Armstrong - 9 games
Cook - 9 games, Jaensch - 10 games, Petrenko - 12 games... it's largely a token amount of games in many cases. Certainly nothing that helps develop the player or list.

All players on the cusp of being dropped each week who sometimes get games when we had enough injuries. Minimal significant investment except for a handful of standouts.


You've included Moran (24yo), Schmidt (22), Walker (21), Henderson (22) and Wright (21) here.

No to mention Cook - 2 games, Davis - 3 games, Sellar - 5 games, Martin - 5 games, Armstrong - 5 games, Talia - 9 games.

Token. We're doing the same now. Refusing to invest a significant amount of games into our identified talent in order to fast track their development.

I mean... we'll equally be able to say that Matt Crouch "played" this season but we know that's exceptionally misleading. Despite form, he has spent a heap of time in the SANFL, as sub and as travelling emergency.

Oh, we've got a lot of players under 50 games. Yeah we do, because we don't do what it takes to get them there quickly.

Jarryd Lyons - 5 seasons on the list and will have approximately 30 games by the end of it
Sam Kerridge - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 30 games by the end of it
Matt Crouch - 2 seasons on the list and will have approximately 20 games by the end of it
Brodie Martin - 7 seasons on the list and will have approximately 40 games by the end of it
Mitch Grigg - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 20 games by the end of it
Cam Ellis Yolmen - 4 seasons on the list and will have approximately 15 games by the end of it

Has there not been enough time to get them to 50 games? No. Has our team been too strong to break into? Definitely no. Are they not up to it? Maybe. So find out and make a decision - play them or delist them.

They're not delisted. They're not experienced. They're not able to be traded for anything significant. We've positioned them in a way that they cant make any positive impact on the football club at all.

If we'd decided they weren't up to it and started down the track with someone else we'd be better off. We're just stringing them along - they'll be the next Tony Armstrong or Aidan Riley. If we're THAT sure that they aren't worthy of being first 22 players then delist them now and progress the squad.

Now - if we had a winning 22 and they couldn't crack into it and were being retained as depth then that's fine. But we've had a losing 22 for much of the time they've been here. There is absolutely no reason to stick with players who can't even make it consistently into a losing team.

Personally I think all of those guys (particularly Grigg, CEY and M Crouch) would be very good AFL players and we'd be a better team now and in the future if we just picked them. But we don't and for a long period of time players like them have flittered in and out of the team, treading water.

So you are saying we should have played Sellar, Young and Cook for more games.... Instead of bringing in Gunston which occurred later in the season?

A mature age recruit at 21 is still young. Especially in relation to average age of an AFL side.

There were plenty of games given to kids. It looks, post hoc, that the games were shared amongst the young guys in an attempt to work out who to develop.

The selection process from '10 - '11 is vastly different than '12. The rinse and repeat argument is invalid. And selection this year has been vastly different than '12.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you are saying we should have played Sellar, Young and Cook for more games.... Instead of bringing in Gunston which occurred later in the season?

Or no games for them and given them all to Gunston or Davis or whoever the real identified talent is.

Same as this year - instead of Atkins, Knight, Lyons, Martin, CEY, M Crouch, Grigg, Kerridge... all rotating through for a few games, who are the ones most likely to make it? Invest in them.

A mature age recruit at 21 is still young. Especially in relation to average age of an AFL side.

A mature age recruit is a safer selection than an 18, 19, or 20 year old.

There were plenty of games given to kids. It looks, post hoc, that the games were shared amongst the young guys in an attempt to work out who to develop.

Yes and they decided none of them! Hence five years down the track and we're no closer than we were then.

 

[Mattrox]

Yes and they decided none of them! Hence five years down the track and we're no closer than we were then.

And not a whole lot of games were wasted on them, bonus.

Debuting year players often only get a taste anyway. And get a few more the following year.

 

[Sanders]

Kids (under 21) like Petrenko, Armstrong, Cook.

Those who remain with us like Walker, Sloane, Dangerfield are our top tier.

Mackay turned 22 that year and Dougy was 23.....

Oh Sellar was played as well as Will Young, Phil Davis, Matthew Jaensch, Chis Schmidt and Jack Gunston.


As I go through games there were regularly 6 or more 21yo or under played

A good majority spuds. Those still with us are mostly quality players, with Mackay the only middling player. With the notable loss of Davis and Gunston.


We were blooding kids (injuires may have forced it) in the 1st 10 rounds.... we won 2 games. The following year Craig is sacked midst a sea of fans baying for blood because of a disastrous start to 2010 and a shocker in 2011.

And people wonder why some coaches avoid kids........

It just so happens we had a lot of spud kids on the list.

You argument sounds nice, but when we go back and look at all the "kids" back then, we have turned over the vast majority in 5 years......

The result is still a young list with new kids.

You used to argue that all that mattered was experience (which was dumb); thankfully you've now come around to the idea that games into spuds doesn't count (which is obvious).

The problem is that this means it's all about talent. Which we don't have, and haven't done much to get, for a number of years.

 

[Mattrox]

You used to argue that all that mattered was experience (which was dumb); thankfully you've now come around to the idea that games into spuds doesn't count (which is obvious).

The problem is that this means it's all about talent. Which we don't have, and haven't done much to get, for a number of years.

I never argued it was all that mattered. YOU argued that was what I was saying.

I asked the question about how important is experience. And then I had a gander at some evidence. Turns out experience is a significant factor. More significant than average age.

Which is a damn sight better than you on your high horse misrepresenting the whole thing and then arguing semantics.

 

[Sanders]

I never argued it was all that mattered. YOU argued that was what I was saying.

I asked the question about how important is experience. And then I had a gander at some evidence. Turns out experience is a significant factor. More significant than average age.

Which is a damn sight better than you on your high horse misrepresenting the whole thing and then arguing semantics.

Stop twisting after the event. youve been tediously banging on about experience for what seems like forever.

But as has been shown before there isn't really any correlation between age/experience and ladder position now is there?

Hawthorn had 3416 games versus Richmonds 2284 how did they lose?
Freo had 2694 games (how are they top?) versus GWS 1522. Shouldn't the margin have been more than 21 points?

Oh and whilst the pretty pictures are nice and all, it would be useful if you also included the data tables, as you aren't always the most reliable in terms of what you include/exclude.