MVP Monday's Expert and MVP voting R4 vs Western Bulldogs

Who were our best 5 players versus the Bulldogs

  • Jenkins

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Thompson

    Votes: 43 91.5%
  • van Berlo

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Sloane

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jaensch

    Votes: 29 61.7%
  • Wright

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Talia

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • Walker

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Mackay

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Hartigan

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Brown

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • Betts

    Votes: 26 55.3%
  • Jacobs

    Votes: 32 68.1%
  • Douglas

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lynch

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ellis-Yolmen

    Votes: 14 29.8%
  • Laird

    Votes: 8 17.0%
  • Lyons

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Dangerfield

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • Smith

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Henderson

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • Kelly

    Votes: 17 36.2%

  • Total voters
    47

Remove this Banner Ad

Jul 17, 2006
11,651
12,957
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg
Well, after 3 promising weeks to start the new era of the AFC, the big question prior to R4 was whether we had truly reformed or whether the old Crows were due to resurface? Were we now a gut running, hard tackling, selfless, organised, efficient machine or, once an opposition was able to scratch the surface, would we find the physically insipid, individually orientated, haphazard and unpredictable Crows of old?

After years of snatching failure from the jaws of success, deep within most learned Crow supporters this week was a nagging sense of pessimism that this was a massive danger game…and so it turned out to be.

Q1:

- Early on it was obvious the Bulldogs had come to play. Their intensity at the contest, run and spread, and team structure had us under the pump. Unfortunately, the umps added the icing on their cake allowing them shots at goal whilst down the other end we struggled to convert the easy chances to stay in touch. - - We fumbled, made poor decisions, had no lead-up forwards and I damn near lost my s**t when I predicted Ten Goal Tommy would no doubt ignore the sensible option to look inboard to a 3v1 impossible kick…which he duly did :mad: Our pre-game fears were realised.

Q2:

-
My notes very early in 2nd quarter stated the defensive match-up on Stringer had to change. He was ripping us a new one and Boyd was never going to…the swap needed to be made. I'm hoping Phil simply had the longer term educational view in mind cos Hartigan really got schooled.
- Our goal kicking was laughable, tackling back to last years level, skills atrocious, Jenkins was taking the shortest steps ever for a guy his size and Tex looked pre-occupied with body contact and going one-handed at the contest.
- 2 goals at the end gave us a slither of hope and a flattering scoreline.

Q3:
- What an insipid display. For the first half we were comprehensively pantsed but this took it to a whole new level of embarrassment. It was a soulless, soft, gutless quarter.
- Highlights were Hartigan 'dropping the comeback' (I've heard he's got a comedy gig booked in for the Fringe next year…great slapstick act apparently full of slips, juggling, and falcons), Tex trying to boot another snap shot 80m and the Bulldogs getting another ridiculous free for headbutting an opponent.
- Thompson and CEY kept trying to stem the midfield avalanche.

Q4:
- Smith finally woke up and started playing proper footy…he was shocked to find he was playing the Bulldogs when he thought it was the Pies in R2…can someone fill him in on the last couple weeks cos I'm sure he hasn't been right.
- Despite the effort it was more of the Crows of old structurally…hacking it forward with no method, preferably to Eddie in a 1v4 due to a distinct lack of decent options presenting up the field.
- Betts is a freak and I hope we can assemble a decent list before he's too old.


Where was the game won/lost?

- I'm not sure who the 22 bodies were in Crows guernsey's out there but it seems the real blokes didn't board the plane. It can only be said in hindsight but we just weren't up for the challenge mentally.
- Some quite rightly will also question our physical preparation…we looked flat as a tack from the start.
- But credit where it is due…the Bulldogs were sensational. Their tackling pressure, running game, defensive structure to block our rebound exits (every time we switched player they zoned the space perfectly), and skill level were impressive for a young outfit.
- Personnel wise, when the 'team defence', work ethic and structure was insufficient, we were exposed. We lack class defenders, marking forwards and midfielders who can run both ways every week.
- Overall poor prep, shallow list depth and a rabid opposition caused us to regress to the Crows of 2013-14.

Stats:

-
WB scored 11.11 from our turnovers…reminds me of the start of 2014 when we were league leaders!
- Tackles 51-69
- Clangers 50-31
- Scoring shots 18-35
- Uncontested possessions 209-258
- Efficiency 67%-77%

I reckon these sum it up.

Key Moments:


- Dangerfield's inaccuracy in the 1st quarter was inexcusable. A couple of very easy shots we desperately needed to halt the momentum. Instead, he choked it and the horse bolted.
- Hartigan 'dropped the comeback' early in the 3rd, handing a second wave of momentum to the Bulldogs and away they went!
- Jenkins taking a half-decent contested grab in the dying minutes…I put it in here as an 'anti key moment' because it was so effing infuriating given his disgraceful performance for the rest of the day. To have the affront to pretend he was a key marking forward when the Bulldogs were basically walking off for a well deserved shower just highlighted what an imposter he has been this year. On multiple occasions Betts had to contest a pack while Jenkins waited out for the crumbs FFS.

Decisive Match-Ups:

- Hartigan v Stringer…poor match up, was obviously in need of a change after the 1st quarter (at the latest). Walsh persisted, and so did the Stringer onslaught.
- Walker v Talia…oh dear, it really hurts cos I was one of a few who stated before the trade period that MT was a perfect target. We needed a mature KPD, he would've been a low price, was on the outer but clearly had potential. Oh well. On the other side of it, Tex must be injured cos he's struggling to move/jump/kick/cover the ground. Chalk and cheese from R1.
- Murphy v ??? (VB/Mackay)…not only did our forwards do bugger all but those charged with 'cooling' Bob were abject failures.


What we've learned?

This is a tough one because this game stands in stark contrast to the first 3. I guess the sample size is growing but here goes:
- Leopards don't change their spots…Jenkins and Henderson simply do not know how to impose themselves physically. It's embarrassing.
- Our list is nowhere near good enough to compete in September. We need decent KPD's, KPF's, and running mids. Trigg's legacy lives on.
- Walsh is taking the long view and this is no quick fix…if it was Hartigan would've been moved much earlier.
- Eddie Betts is currently our best key forward and best small forward at the same time…quite a feat.
- CEY is a keeper. After a promising start in contributing to good wins, he stood up today against the tide.

Questions:

- Are 'ground ball gets' a critical stat and are they correlating to results on the scoreboard? If not, does this bring into question Phil's whole game plan?
- Where are the best position/roles for the following players: VB, Mackay, Henderson, Jaensch, Lynch? I'm thinking I'd like to try VB back to get him out of the flankers graveyard, Hendo HF to utilise his running and lead-up marking while minimising his time squibbing in defence, Mackay sub, Jaensch wing as we have Brown/Laird in defence and i reckon Jaensch could use his kick to greater effect up field, Lynch…persist HF/swingman but ffs just choose the obvious option and stop trying to be someone you're not.
- How will Walsh improve our transition game this week? Who will provide a lead-up target…we know it won't be Fabio Jenkins. How will we recapture the defensive pressure through the middle part of the ground to stop us getting sliced up so easily?
- Who should debut this week…Lever, O'Brien or Ramsey?
- Should Scott Thompson stay in the side? Will he…100% yes. Should he? Stupid question based on today's performance but I'd still like to see him well and truly phased out this season. We have a bunch of inside mids and at least one should be traded…we need to see who will cut the mustard this year!

MVP:

1. Scott Thompson…sounds hypocritical after the above comment but hard to go past his contribution today. Sure he's old and slow but at least he showed some pride in his performance, some fight in the clinches. I still wonder about how he can contribute defensively across the ground but tbh the same criticism could be levelled against Lyons, Grigg and Junior.

2. Sam Jacobs…plenty of hit-outs against crap opposition but also contributed around the ground and at least tried to be a marking target. Not his best game but a solid contribution.

3. Cam Ellis-Yolmen…full of heart and endeavour. Love what he's bringing. Fought to the end, took some nice marks, didn't panic as much as the others, 6 clearances and only one less hit-out than Jenkins.

4. Matthew Jaensch…stats may flatter a little as lots of kicks were sideways crabs which didn't achieve a lot but was generally clean with ball in hand, defended pretty well given the pressure the defence was under and actually looked like he gave a s**t.

5. Jake Kelly…bit an encouragement award here as Betts 4 goals were no doubt a bigger contribution (though when the game was over). Jake defended strongly and disposed of it within his limitations resulting in a good disposal efficiency for a guy with generally poor skills…at least he's not like Lynch who thinks his kicking is way better than it is!

Well, thank God I didn't have to pick the bottom 5 as 15 blokes would've deserved votes!

Now we have a balanced sample size, it's onwards to the Showdown which will reveal whether we were early season pretenders or still a team on the rise?!
 
key positive i found was jake kelly - looks the goods. i don't think i noticed him burn the ball, arguably came out even in his matchup. will be a great aquisition in a few years. looks a bassett type
 
Thommo our best by miles. Jacobs fought hard. Kelly beat his man and looked the goods. Ellis Yolmen poor first half but kept on trying. Laird tried hard. The rest ......as my mother said, if you can't say something nice...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

My fear is that Thompson is doing what he always does - accumulating possessions that have no significance. I have sat very strongly in the camp for a few years that his net value to the team is a negative one. I do this on the back of two 'good' games from him - so I can't be accused of kicking him when he is down/injured.

My biggest fear is that over the season we will see CEY slowly be taken out of the midfield, in to sub and then out of the team in favour of Thommo. You can almost predict it happening. Funny though that we were better without Thompson in the side and doing this would be to the detriment of the side in the long term.

The only thing that might save CEY is that when the coach goes looking for midfielders that will add some pace to balance the side, he will find the cupboard very, very bare (esp with Atkins and Knight injured). He will find plenty of midfielders that are the same as Thommo - M Crouch, Lyons, Grigg but nothing different. For a while the questions was asked of our recruiters why we kept on drafting slow inside mids with the same skill set - and now we see the issues this creates. The only way around it is to trade someone (or two) with currency and try to fill the gaps. One or two of Lyons, CEY, and Grigg will have to be sent out.

Gee I wish B crouch would shock everyone and be available this week!
 
Worst overall game by us since the infamous St Kilda game at Etihad in 2011.

Trouble is I sat through both of them.

Totally embarrassing stuff.

Bring on next week and lets never speak of this game again.
 
Just checked something out I've been wondering about.

Some posters have said that Scott Thompson, since his return, has unbalanced our midfield, and we were better without him.

He also won't be in our next premiership side. Probably.

Of the 95 games we've played since the beginning of the 2011 season, we are

Overall 49-46, a 51.6% win rate;
With Scott 45-45, a 50% win rate;
Without Scott 4-1, an 80% win rate.

Quantitatively, we are better without him in the side. Qualitatively, watching him yesterday, his work rate can't be questioned, but he seems unable to take the first option when in the clear, and too often hacks it out of congestion. As opposed to everyone else yesterday who had neither finesse nor workrate.

Is it time we move on, tell him to join Pods in the Break-Glass-In-Case-Of-Emergency Lounge?
 
Couple of things from me:
- I think Walshy loved the outcome in some way. His presser was the most buoyant I've seen him since his time at the club I reckon. Has evidence to point to for how things need to be and why. Also got alot of feedback on where the weak points are in his game plan IMO. (kicking across the ground certainly exposed as a weakness in some sense.. needs to train the guys on how to read the defence better when doing that). He didn't change some things that many coaches would - seemed happy to get some data or let the guys learn.
- I'm becoming more convinced Hartigan will not make it. I'm probably 90% there in all honesty. Physical attributes are fine, I'm just not sure he is 'good enough' from a football sense. Doesn't have the balance of composure, disposal skills and clean hands to not get exposed once or twice every game. If we get further exposed and find that this year is really a development year, and hartigan continues to show he's unlikely to make it, we need to get games in Snake Plissken instead.
- Tex playing under the weather? Love him to death but needed more from him yesterday. Much more.
 
Just checked something out I've been wondering about.

Some posters have said that Scott Thompson, since his return, has unbalanced our midfield, and we were better without him.

He also won't be in our next premiership side. Probably.

Of the 95 games we've played since the beginning of the 2011 season, we are

Overall 49-46, a 51.6% win rate;
With Scott 45-45, a 50% win rate;
Without Scott 4-1, an 80% win rate.

Quantitatively, we are better without him in the side. Qualitatively, watching him yesterday, his work rate can't be questioned, but he seems unable to take the first option when in the clear, and too often hacks it out of congestion. As opposed to everyone else yesterday who had neither finesse nor workrate.

Is it time we move on, tell him to join Pods in the Break-Glass-In-Case-Of-Emergency Lounge?
dude... you're looking at a less than 10% sample size for losses. Whilst I have a gut feel some of what you say deserves consideration.. i think the implication is less than fair on Scotty T.
 
- I think Walshy loved the outcome in some way. His presser was the most buoyant I've seen him since his time at the club I reckon. Has evidence to point to for how things need to be and why. Also got alot of feedback on where the weak points are in his game plan IMO. (kicking across the ground certainly exposed as a weakness in some sense.. needs to train the guys on how to read the defence better when doing that). He didn't change some things that many coaches would - seemed happy to get some data or let the guys learn.

I haven't seen the presser yet but I keep hearing he seemed happy - and I like it. Looks like he's playing the long game, hopefully putting lines through names and seeing who has what it takes.
 
dude... you're looking at a less than 10% sample size for losses. Whilst I have a gut feel some of what you say deserves consideration.. i think the implication is less than fair on Scotty T.

Yeah, i know - i was being a touch facetious (you try telling Thommo he's not playing ;)) - but watching him yesterday it occurred to me he's wonderful for DreamTeam but just not helping out the side the way he moves the ball. This was an attempt to quantify it: I wonder, if he'd been left out when he was actually injured, or just all those times when we as a Board said he needed a rest and shouldn't be in the team, what the numbers would look like.
 
Yeah, i know - i was being a touch facetious (you try telling Thommo he's not playing ;)) - but watching him yesterday it occurred to me he's wonderful for DreamTeam but just not helping out the side the way he moves the ball. This was an attempt to quantify it: I wonder, if he'd been left out when he was actually injured, or just all those times when we as a Board said he needed a rest and shouldn't be in the team, what the numbers would look like.
easier way to qualify it IMO.
Compare DT with AFL Player ranking.

AFL Player ranking has him down and out of the top 100 in comp. Reflects that what he does isn't necessarily putting us in better positions to score.
 
the more I think about it the harder it is to accept that we could have come out looking that flat after anything resembling a proper preparation.

I reckon they got worked hard during the week, harder than they should have been if we were serious about trying to win. Walsh said that he asks the players to play a demanding play style and that they wouldn't be able to do it week in week out off the back of one good preseason. This, plus Walsh's calmness during and after the game makes me think this is one he was prepared to let fall by the wayside.

in all the years I've followed this club I've seen nothing to suggest that going into a showdown undefeated would be a good thing for us. I'm thinking Walsh has tried to squeeze in a lot of extra work this week just gone with a focus on this weeks game. I guess we'll have to wait til Sunday to see if this idea has any plausibility and if so, if it pays off.

I feel like I'm drawing a long bow but I can't accept that the whole team has blown up after 3 games. The prep had to be off, and I'm hoping it was deliberate and for a purpose.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

easier way to qualify it IMO.
Compare DT with AFL Player ranking.

AFL Player ranking has him down and out of the top 100 in comp. Reflects that what he does isn't necessarily putting us in better positions to score.

Ah yes there he is at #109. After Sloane, Dangerfield and Douglas in our midfield, and 12 spots ahead of David "played one good game in the last two years" Mookay.

If we're going to be ruthless from now on... how ruthless are we going to be?
 
The prep had to be off, and I'm hoping it was deliberate and for a purpose.

It would make it easier to understand why everyone in the team bar the guy who missed the first two matches, looked slooooooooooooow from the opening siren.
 
It would make it easier to understand why everyone in the team bar the guy who missed the first two matches, looked slooooooooooooow from the opening siren.
didn't they just, and everyone still looked ****ed at the end of the first quarter.

definitely something up in my opinion, but too early to call if it's for better or worse.
 
Ah yes there he is at #109. After Sloane, Dangerfield and Douglas in our midfield, and 12 spots ahead of David "played one good game in the last two years" Mookay.

If we're going to be ruthless from now on... how ruthless are we going to be?
The fact that he didn't play in R1 & 2 might have something to do with that..
 
I know everyone is sinking the boot into JJ and not without good reason - he was softer than your average marshmallow and spectated at far too many contests yesterday. What I don't understand is why Tex is escaping such scrutiny? At least JJ got close enough to spectate the contests, Tex might as well have been playing on Mars, given that's about as close as he got to the ball yesterday. JJ was very, very bad. Tex was even worse.

Yesterday's game demonstrated why having a KPP forward as Captain is a high risk option. A midfield Captain will always be close to the action and at least has the opportunity to impact the game. Tex was truly awful yesterday (comprehensively beaten by M Talia), but his situation certainly wasn't helped by the Dogs' midfield dominance which meant that the ball was rarely in our forward half and even when it was, the delivery to our forwards was atrocious. Given those circumstances, it's very difficult for a KPP forward to have much of an impact on the game, leading from the front as Captain - even if he wasn't having an absolute stinker in his own right (and probably hungover from celebrating his birthday the previous day).
 
The fact that he didn't play in R1 & 2 might have something to do with that..

Funnily enough, it doesn't.

How is each player's rating worked out?
Players accrue or lose points every time they are involved in a passage of play. The score awarded to them each time they are in the play is determined by a complex algorithm formulated and refined over a number of years by Champion Data. Players accrue or lose points depending on whether they have a positive or negative impact on a passage of play.

A player's rating is determined by aggregating his points tally based on a rolling window of the previous two seasons. For example, after round six of the 2014 season, a player's rating will be based on matches from round seven of the 2012 season onwards. However, only a player's most recent 40 matches are used in the calculation of his rating. This creates a buffer for players missing matches through injury, suspension, omission or by not being involved in finals. A player's most recent 20 matches are given greater weight in determining his rating. Matches 21 through 40 are progressively reduced in weighting, from 100 per cent down to five per cent for the earliest game in the window.
 
Funnily enough, it doesn't.

How is each player's rating worked out?
Players accrue or lose points every time they are involved in a passage of play. The score awarded to them each time they are in the play is determined by a complex algorithm formulated and refined over a number of years by Champion Data. Players accrue or lose points depending on whether they have a positive or negative impact on a passage of play.

A player's rating is determined by aggregating his points tally based on a rolling window of the previous two seasons. For example, after round six of the 2014 season, a player's rating will be based on matches from round seven of the 2012 season onwards. However, only a player's most recent 40 matches are used in the calculation of his rating. This creates a buffer for players missing matches through injury, suspension, omission or by not being involved in finals. A player's most recent 20 matches are given greater weight in determining his rating. Matches 21 through 40 are progressively reduced in weighting, from 100 per cent down to five per cent for the earliest game in the window.
Are we talking DT or SC?

DT takes all recent games into account, whether the player was selected or not.
 
I know everyone is sinking the boot into JJ and not without good reason - he was softer than your average marshmallow and spectated at far too many contests yesterday. What I don't understand is why Tex is escaping such scrutiny? At least JJ got close enough to spectate the contests, Tex might as well have been playing on Mars, given that's about as close as he got to the ball yesterday. JJ was very, very bad. Tex was even worse.

Yesterday's game demonstrated why having a KPP forward as Captain is a high risk option. A midfield Captain will always be close to the action and at least has the opportunity to impact the game. Tex was truly awful yesterday (comprehensively beaten by M Talia), but his situation certainly wasn't helped by the Dogs' midfield dominance which meant that the ball was rarely in our forward half and even when it was, the delivery to our forwards was atrocious. Given those circumstances, it's very difficult for a KPP forward to have much of an impact on the game, leading from the front as Captain - even if he wasn't having an absolute stinker in his own right (and probably hungover from celebrating his birthday the previous day).
fair point. i don't think he was worse than JJ, but he was certainly as bad.

tex still did a bit of work off the ball
 
Yeah, i know - i was being a touch facetious (you try telling Thommo he's not playing ;)) - but watching him yesterday it occurred to me he's wonderful for DreamTeam but just not helping out the side the way he moves the ball. This was an attempt to quantify it: I wonder, if he'd been left out when he was actually injured, or just all those times when we as a Board said he needed a rest and shouldn't be in the team, what the numbers would look like.
If I was Phil I would have made the other players apologise to thommo
 
Just checked something out I've been wondering about.

Some posters have said that Scott Thompson, since his return, has unbalanced our midfield, and we were better without him.

He also won't be in our next premiership side. Probably.

Of the 95 games we've played since the beginning of the 2011 season, we are

Overall 49-46, a 51.6% win rate;
With Scott 45-45, a 50% win rate;
Without Scott 4-1, an 80% win rate.

Quantitatively, we are better without him in the side. Qualitatively, watching him yesterday, his work rate can't be questioned, but he seems unable to take the first option when in the clear, and too often hacks it out of congestion. As opposed to everyone else yesterday who had neither finesse nor workrate.

Is it time we move on, tell him to join Pods in the Break-Glass-In-Case-Of-Emergency Lounge?

Okay, due to the outcry I've gone back even further... to 2006, that's 211 games.

Overall is 115-96, a 54.5% win rate
With Scott is 109-94, a 53.7% win rate
Without Scott is 6-2, a 75% win rate.

I think it's pretty clear now. I need to fill in my lunch breaks more productively, and Scott Thompson has played 203 of the last 211 games, a phenomenal effort.

That AFL player rating thing though... makes me think he's a space filler, not a game thriller.
 
Back
Top