Strategy 2015 best side

[Teriyakicat]

Some good points there, Vic. I think 4quarter_cat did qualify his stats, saying they were simplified, though.
Yes, you'd assume that the probability of each player making it back SHOULD be >60%. The required probability, as you've indicated, would most likely decrease with increased ability of each of the individuals. Cowan must either be pretty special or have a higher probability of return and being successful- those must be your choices for keeping him on the list.

The probability of any one player returning and being a success is a number independent of other players' probabilities of return, as you've pointed out, but the probability of 2 or 3 of those players returning TOGETHER becomes linked (multiplied, iirc) if I remember my Uni stats lectures from oh, so long ago now. That's where 4quarter_Cat's numbers came from. At least I'm backing a high school maths teacher over my distant recollection of probability calculations.

 

[Lana]

Looking at historical data of ACL injury occurrence, (Cowan has a basket of injuries and there is a small sample size of Clark injury)

18% of all reconstructions are “revisions”(player doing an ACL for at leat the second time.
in the last 10 years there has been a total of 149 ACL surgeries of which 27 were re-occurrences.

% of players who have done an ACL, injury do an ACL again for a second time = 100*27/(149-27) = 22.13%
% of players who have done an ACL that will re-injury an ACL for a second time next year = 100*2.7/122= 2.21%
% of player players that will do an ACL for the first time next year = 100*(14.9-2.7)/(800-122) = 1.8%

I'd like to say that Menzel isn't that much more at risk of an ACL injury than another player but given that he counts for 2 of the 27 re-occurrence above and did another ACL since, he's probably an exception to the above calculations.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=afl injury report 2013&rlz=1C1EODB_enAU567AU567&oq=afl injury rep&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4151j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

[00VicWard001]

Some good points there, Vic. I think 4quarter_cat did qualify his stats, saying they were simplified, though.
Yes, you'd assume that the probability of each player making it back SHOULD be >60%. The required probability, as you've indicated, would most likely decrease with increased ability of each of the individuals. Cowan must either be pretty special or have a higher probability of return and being successful- those must be your choices for keeping him on the list.

The probability of any one player returning and being a success is a number independent of other players' probabilities of return, as you've pointed out, but the probability of 2 or 3 of those players returning TOGETHER becomes linked (multiplied, iirc) if I remember my Uni stats lectures from oh, so long ago now. That's where 4quarter_Cat's numbers came from. At least I'm backing a high school maths teacher over my distant recollection of probability calculations.

All I'm really trying to point out is that it is okay to put Menzel, Vardy, Clark etc into the best team, because as of right now, the club is saying that they are available AND they are still on the list as AFL ready players.

The club could be lying, but doing that long enough and often enough ensures that jobs are lost. I can't imagine Brian Cook being complicit in a grand plan to lie to supporters just to keep players on lists because of sentimentality. So, unless someone has a season ending injury today, it can be assumed that they will be available to be chosen in the best team.

Other factors will come into play such as match fitness and sharpened skills that will delay the return of some players. But these factors are generally diminished at the beginning of a season, since everyone on every list has had a couple of months off and will not be fit or have sharp skills.

 

[4quarter_cat]

I made lots of terrible assumptions in my calculations, and Vic you did a great job of outlining many of them . The whole point of my post was something pretty close to how TC read it. I would only add that, every decision made by the club is a calculated risk. For example delisting sheringham and stringer, is a risk that our younger mids will come on and not break down with fresh injuries this year.

- Of course the club will have done its due diligence, and have come to its own conclusions about how likely each player is to play and possibly star next year.
- Of course each player will have their own risk profiles as analysed by the club.
- Events are also not independent of one another. For Example. There are only 21 spots in the match day squad and 1 sub. so players selection impacts on the likelyhood of another player being selected.

I therefore think it is naive to assume just because players are listed as available in November that they will be fit and in good enough form to be selected in March.

I would have hoped that my calculations showed that the chances of some of these players coming into our side and making a difference is pretty good. Even if you find my method excessively crude. So there is plenty to be excited about.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So much negativity around this board... I don't see any reason why we wouldn't improve or stay up there, we have much more of a chance of this than hawthorn do. Posters want to point out our older players and their decline, well to me this isn't a big deal at the present, because we don't rely on them to perform anymore and we still went into the second round of the finals, bartel, Kelly and co aren't going to decline much more, it's very likely they will stay around the same mark, if not better with the new fitness program. If you want to look at age as an issue, take a look at the prehistoric midfield hawthorn has and just how heavy their reliance on hodge mitchel and Burgoyne is, if any if these names fall off, and it is very likely given their into their 30's they are royally stuffed. We don't have a reliance anymore on our older players, even enright not so much anymore, besides lonergan and Steve Johnson none of them really played a huge roll. We can easily see vast improvement from our young group this year while having our senior players contribute similar. I think we could potentially have a very well balanced team with good depth next season, could easily push into the top four or top two. Besides port Adelaide, I don't see any real direct threat who will rise up to stamp themselves on the competition just yet.

 

[The rabbi]

So much negativity around this board... I don't see any reason why we wouldn't improve or stay up there, we have much more of a chance of this than hawthorn do...... Besides port Adelaide, I don't see any real direct threat who will rise up to stamp themselves on the competition just yet.

So you don't give the team that has won the last two premierships and played in the last three Grand Finals, a reasonable chance of winning the Premiership, while Geelong has won a single finals game since the 2011 Premiership?

That's interesting.

 

[Claude Balls]

Woah woah woah back up for a second.

Rivers, Bartel and Mackie should ALL be here in 2016. I'd be very surprised if McIntosh gets offered a new contract.

Whilst Johnson going on in 2016 will depend on if he can fully recover from his need to have regular epidurals to play.

Kelly, Hmac and Enright are the ones most likely to be moved or retire.

Wouldn't be banking on Rivers being around in 2016.

 

[Claude Balls]

Our I50 figures were good, and our conversion rates from I50s were good.
We were hammered out of the middle, not out of our F50.
We need more good mids, especially big inside mids.

Were they? I crunched some numbers mid year - I50s Vs goals scored, all teams - and we were in the bottom half of teams for efficiency. Something like a goal every 4.2 entries, while the Hawks were 3.2 and 8 or 9 teams were between 3.9 and 4.1.

Do you have the stats for the entire year?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Were they? I crunched some numbers mid year - I50s Vs goals scored, all teams - and we were in the bottom half of teams for efficiency. Something like a goal every 4.2 entries, while the Hawks were 3.2 and 8 or 9 teams were between 3.9 and 4.1.

Do you have the stats for the entire year?

No, but pretty sure it was catempire who put up the figures for the year at some stage, perhaps he still has them.

 

[Lana]

No, but pretty sure it was catempire who put up the figures for the year at some stage, perhaps he still has them.

I don't have catempire's work, but I grabbed the data from the AFL website and put it in excel.

Ranked out of 18
Team-% marks per I50-% goals per I50 - % Scores per I50 - % behind per I50
Geelong-1st - 9th - 5th -2nd
Hawthorn- 6th - 1st - 2nd - 17th

We turned plenty our inside 50s into shots on goal but our conversion let us down.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Wouldn't be banking on Rivers being around in 2016.

He's only just turned 30

 

[WeAreGeelong]

I don't have catempire's work, but I grabbed the data from the AFL website and put it in excel.

Ranked out of 18
Team-% marks per I50-% goals per I50 - % Scores per I50 - % behind per I50
Geelong-1st - 9th - 5th -2nd
Hawthorn- 6th - 1st - 2nd - 17th

We turned plenty our inside 50s into shots on goal but our conversion let us down.

Wow, that's pretty damning. Do you guys/gals think it's our skills that let us down in this area or maybe we were under more pressure given that we tended to bomb it in? The marks per I50 sort of suggests that it's the former. Kind of has me scratching my head a little though given we traded for talls in Clark and Stanley. Really intersting stats, thanks for posting them 10lana. Still trying to get my head around them at the moment.

I still like the trades but it will be interesting to see what sort of game plan we wheel out next year.

 

[BlitzenTrapper]

Wouldn't be banking on Rivers being around in 2016.

He's only just turned 30

Unfortunately, I also can't see Rivers playing on in 2016.
Would love to see him do it, but I think his body may limit him, with his knee having to be closely monitored.

I remember not too long ago himself saying he was weighing up even playing next year (2015), saying his body might get the better of him, so not sure if he'll go another season after this one.

 

[Lana]

Wow, that's pretty damning. Do you guys/gals think it's our skills that let us down in this area or maybe we were under more pressure given that we tended to bomb it in? The marks per I50 sort of suggests that it's the former. Kind of has me scratching my head a little though given we traded for talls in Clark and Stanley. Really intersting stats, thanks for posting them 10lana. Still trying to get my head around them at the moment.

I still like the trades but it will be interesting to see what sort of game plan we wheel out next year.

I think our biggest issue is our ability to convert from a dropped mark, we don't have many player who play the crumbing role, when we were at our best we had Stokes, Byrnes, Varcoe and Chapman who would kick half of there goals after our forwards brought the ball to ground, but now we don't really have anyone playing that role.

We brought in new tall targets to support Hawkins. He took almost 30% of our marks inside 50, our next best senior player was Bartel who took just under 10%.

 

[WeAreGeelong]

I think our biggest issue is our ability to convert from a dropped mark, we don't have many player who play the crumbing role, when we were at our best we had Stokes, Byrnes, Varcoe and Chapman who would kick half of there goals after our forwards brought the ball to ground, but now we don't really have anyone playing that role.

We brought in new tall targets to support Hawkins. He took almost 30% of our marks inside 50, our next best senior player was Bartel who took just under 10%.

That's sounds about right to me 10lana. It does have me beat as to why we don't seem to have these crumbers around when it appears that Hawkins is double and triple teamed (hate those yankee terms, but suits the sentence ), which in effect means that there should be 1 or 2 crumbers free. Defences are obviously very organised these days but we still need to find a way to kick more goals. I think Blease could offer something up there - I will qualify that with the fact that I haven't seen a lot of him apart from the highlights package, but he certainly is quick and can kick a goal.

I take your point re:Chappy and the others and totally agree. Add to that, we have had to put SJ in the middle to support Selwood, so that has robbed us of another option. Hopefully Caddy and some of the youngsters can step up in that regard and release SJ back to the half forward flank to give us some more potency. I'm sure the club has plans in place and they obviously have a lot more info than us and more experience with these things, so I'll look forward to seeing what next year brings.

 

[Partridge]

The club could be lying, but doing that long enough and often enough ensures that jobs are lost. I can't imagine Brian Cook being complicit in a grand plan to lie to supporters just to keep players on lists because of sentimentality. So, unless someone has a season ending injury today, it can be assumed that they will be available to be chosen in the best team.

Of course not. But coaches are human just like us, and just like us they have emotions, biases and prejudices. Once an opinion is made on a favoured or non-favoured player, it takes an awful lot of evidence to change that view, if it's ever changed at all. Coaches are no different. They would have players they see train well, or that they think will add something to the team, and once that's done, confirmation bias kicks in and the rest doesn't matter. They see what they want to see.

For example, the coaches told themselves (and us) that Smedts was a defender this season. He never was and I think never will be, but it didn't matter; they weren't going to budge. They told themselves Blicavs was a midfielder (with an army in enthusiastic agreement on here), and again, there was little evidence for it and it took a thrashing in a final to show them. Even still I bet they'll do it again. And I'm sure the club thinks James Kelly is the best option we have as a small defender. I would argue some may disagree with that.

I don't think any of those moves are to lie to supporters, I'm sure the club genuinely think those moves are the right ones. But it doesn't mean they are, and with the recent finals results we've had, it certainly doesn't mean they can't be questioned.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Of course not. But coaches are human just like us, and just like us they have emotions, biases and prejudices. Once an opinion is made on a favoured or non-favoured player, it takes an awful lot of evidence to change that view, if it's ever changed at all. Coaches are no different. They would have players they see train well, or that they think will add something to the team, and once that's done, confirmation bias kicks in and the rest doesn't matter. They see what they want to see.

For example, the coaches told themselves (and us) that Smedts was a defender this season. He never was and I think never will be, but it didn't matter; they weren't going to budge. They told themselves Blicavs was a midfielder (with an army in enthusiastic agreement on here), and again, there was little evidence for it and it took a thrashing in a final to show them. Even still I bet they'll do it again. And I'm sure the club thinks James Kelly is the best option we have as a small defender. I would argue some may disagree with that.

I don't think any of those moves are to lie to supporters, I'm sure the club genuinely think those moves are the right ones. But it doesn't mean they are, and with the recent finals results we've had, it certainly doesn't mean they can't be questioned.

Those biases aren't just limited to football either.

Having a debate on the cricket board where my bias against Hughes is probably a factor.

 

[catempire]

No, but pretty sure it was catempire who put up the figures for the year at some stage, perhaps he still has them.

Was it this?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Was it this?

Yes, thanks ce, that's the one.
Shows we converted I50s at the same rate as all the top 8 sides except for Hawthorn, but that we had to keep it in there much longer than anyone else to get the goal each time we went I50; no doubt due to our lack of crumbers and general-play goalkickers. But a credit to our F50 defending.

 

[flatcat]

The big difference between Hawthorn and geelongs conversion rates is a product of Hawthorn moving the ball much faster than us so that their forward line is open more often. They are so well drilled. In comparison we still persist in running ball through the centre mainly by hand. The opposition crowds the corridor causing turnovers or often slowing us down. I'd like to see us improve our transfer of play at half back so we can utilise open side of the ground. Watch hawks, swans and port how much they utilised open runners on the wings. Requires speed and precision using the ball at half back. For this, perhaps thurlow and Guthrie are good options for halfback. Perhaps also the ability for Clark and Stanley to hit up to the wing might make the way we move the ball a bit less predictable

 

[BlitzenTrapper]

I think our biggest issue is our ability to convert from a dropped mark, we don't have many player who play the crumbing role

That's why I'm really hopeful to see McCarthy get some solid game-time next year.
Think he can play that role really well. Obviously he needs some more experience, but he's unpredictable, quick and his defensive pressure is good. Think there's some real X-factor about him.

 

[year of the cat]

Time for a revisit?

B: Bews, Lonergan, Rivers
HB: Enright, Taylor, Guthrie
C: Duncan, Caddy, Murdoch
HF: Motlop, Clark, Stokes
F: McCarthy, Hawkins, Bartel

Foll: McIntosh, S.Johnson, Selwood

Int: Stanley, Mackie, Cockatoo , Blease

Emerg: Kelly, Walker, Vardy, Menzel, Hartman, Thurlow.....

 

[GHS33]

FB: RIVERS - LONERGAN - KELLY
HB: ENRIGHT - TAYLOR - MACKIE
C: DUNCAN - GUTHRIE - MOTLOP
HF: BARTEL - VARDY - JOHNSON
FF: MENZEL - HAWKINS - CLARK
1R: SIMPSON - CADDY - SELWOOD

INT: MURDOCH, STOKES, BLEASE
SUB: COCKATOO

By the looks of this, we're a genuine chance to win another VFL flag next year. So many left out.

 

[fpm84]

Neither of you Blicavs fans?

 

[fpm84]

Changes I see from our last game (semi final 2014) to round 1, 2015.

OUT: Varcoe, Walker, Brown, McCarthy, Thurlow

IN: Clark, Stanley, McIntosh, Cockatoo, Johnson