Strategy Collingwood's Best 22 2015

[Maggie5]

Have serious doubts as to Fasolo being in our best 22.

Like this team by iGNITER with a couple of changes.

B - Toovey Brown Goldsack
HB - Williams Frost Langdon
C - Sidebottom Adams Swan
HF - Cloke Varcoe Blair
F - Elliott White Karnezis
R - Witts Pendlebury Thomas
INT - DeGoey Crisp Kennedy Broomhead

With apologies to Gault, Grundy.

 

[mike123]

How about Keeffe?

Don't mention Keeffe to THATSGOLD

He hates him

 

[loki04]

Kicking for goal is his issue because of nerves but overall he's a brilliant thumping kick. Pressure would be right off.

He's a thumping kick but not an overly accurate one.
Besides the kicking Cloke has a pace issue that would be even more exposed down back.
He can't even get meterage on defenders now and that is with the benifit of him deciding when amd where to go.

 

[mike123]

He's a thumping kick but not an overly accurate one.
Besides the kicking Cloke has a pace issue that would be even more exposed down back.
He can't even get meterage on defenders now and that is with the benifit of him deciding when amd where to go.

But he doens't go anywhere, that's the problem when he's up forward.

The solution is really obvious, Tell Cloke to lead up the field more and tell other not to kick it to him when he's being double teamed.

 

[iGNITER]

Don't mention Keeffe to THATSGOLD

He hates him

Hate is a strong word!

 

[mike123]

Hate is a strong word!

Strongly dislikes Keeffe and thinks his a spud. Better?

 

[iGNITER]

Have serious doubts as to Fasolo being in our best 22.

Like this team by iGNITER with a couple of changes.

B - Toovey Brown Goldsack
HB - Williams Frost Langdon
C - Sidebottom Adams Swan
HF - Cloke Varcoe Blair
F - Elliott White Karnezis
R - Witts Pendlebury Thomas
INT - DeGoey Crisp Kennedy Broomhead

With apologies to Gault, Grundy.

I would have had Witts in there but I thought I read somewhere he wouldnt be playing round 1... I could be wrong.
Hope I am... I think Witts is in for a good year.

 

[iGNITER]

Strongly dislikes Keeffe and thinks his a spud. Better?

Better.
Do you like Keeffe?

 

[mike123]

Better.
Do you like Keeffe?

I like Keeffe, his tall athletic and most important can kick the ball. Needs work one on one and some other areas but I think he can improve those.

 

[on the de goey]

Have serious doubts as to Fasolo being in our best 22.

Like this team by iGNITER with a couple of changes.

B - Toovey Brown Goldsack
HB - Williams Frost Langdon
C - Sidebottom Adams Swan
HF - Cloke Varcoe Blair
F - Elliott White Karnezis
R - Witts Pendlebury Thomas
INT - DeGoey Crisp Kennedy Broomhead

With apologies to Gault, Grundy.

I like that team too...

I would hope & pray that freeman shows something and forces thomas out of the team. Also hope sharenberg comes on later in the year to push williams out of the team as well..
Also love goldsack in defence, but I have a feeling Bucks is too dumb to realise that GOLDSACK IS NOT A FORWARD.

 

[THATSGOLD]

He gets a shitload of frees against him up forward.
Imagine if he was playing down back.

Games are won in defence, I understand that but Cloke is needed up forward.

How about Keeffe? He is a big lad who can play at CHB.
Allowing Brown to man FB and Reid to play a sweeping role off the half back line with his generally good kicking skills.

Keeffe doesn't have the power to knock a player off the ball. That's the difference Cloke could bring to CHB. Lisence to split packs open.

 

[THATSGOLD]

He's a thumping kick but not an overly accurate one.
Besides the kicking Cloke has a pace issue that would be even more exposed down back.
He can't even get meterage on defenders now and that is with the benifit of him deciding when amd where to go.

Just can't believe its never even been trailed. He's trailed Keeffe in the ruck ffs. (In a final). Imo Cloke at CHB would be a monster.

 

[THATSGOLD]

I like Keeffe, his tall athletic and most important can kick the ball. Needs work one on one and some other areas but I think he can improve those.

He's not strong enough to play KPD. KPF he could be ok on a lead, just can't tussel with the big guys.

 

[pablo disco bar]

Don't mention Keeffe to THATSGOLD

He hates him

I gitta say I rate keefe in the backline

 

[Vicky Park]

An interesting concept, but if I was at the selection table going 1-45 in order of preference to play I'd go with:
1. Scott Pendlebury
2. Travis Cloke
3. Steele Sidebottom
4. Dane Swan
5. Jamie Elliott
6. Ben Reid
7. Tim Broomhead
8. Marley Williams
9. Alan Toovey
10. Jordan De Goey
11. Tom Langdon
12. Alex Fasolo
13. Lachlan Keeffe
14. Paul Seedsman
15. Travis Varcoe
16. Clinton Young
17. Jack Frost
18. Jarrod Witts
19. Brodie Grundy
20. Matthew Scharenberg
21. Nathan Freeman
22. Darcy Moore
23. Patrick Karnezis
24. Nathan Brown
25. Ben Kennedy
26. Taylor Adams
27. Tyson Goldsack
28. Levi Greenwood
29. Corey Gault
30. Adam Oxley
31. Brayden Maynard
32. Michael Manteit
33. Jonathan Marsh
34. Mason Cox
35. Josh Thomas
36. Jack Crisp
37. Brent Macaffer
38. Matthew Goodyear
39. Brendon Abbott
40. Tony Armstrong
41. Sam Dwyer
42. Jackson Ramsay
43. Jesse White
44. Jarryd Blair
45. Ben Sinclair

The basic theme is to play the better rounded young talent with a preference towards guys with footskills, pace and versatility with the overall talent in terms of how good they are today and how good they project to become being critical to the evaluation.

A lot of guys who have been in the system for a period and have failed to perform or develop and others who can't kick and aren't high level players are way down my selection board.



With the dynamic of the list with few stars or even high level players, but then a bunch of back end best 22 and depth guys will lead to great variation this year with best 22s as I imagine most would agree after seeing my list as to where I feel players should be rated on the list.
Just with those guys at the back end of my rankings. I really want to see less, or even better none of them as opposed to seeing them get games most/every week. I just don't see any of them getting games or being of any usefulness to our next run not only at a premiership or even a run at the top 4 which likely is best case scenario another three years from now if we really get lucky in free agency and get a Mark Thompson/Clarkson/Lyon/Malthouse or equivalent level head coach. Whereas those guys inside the best 22 are either guys I see as certainties to be there next opportunity or otherwise the best players we have who can help us play the quality of game we require.

Gulp.

 

[Knightmare]

I agree Greenwood and Adams have issues with their disposal. It's there to see in their game. I don't see it as being enough of a reason to drop them out of the side because they bring value in other areas that outweigh their deficiencies.

The kicking efficiency data you quote is also a completely flawed stat to the extent to be meaningless. There are too many variables involved in its collection for it to have any meaning at all. With such variable uncontrolled data anyone with any statistical knowledge would recognise than any conclusions drawn from it are so potentially flawed as to render the information useless. In this area just trust your eyes and knowledge. I don't need champion data to tell me who has good disposal and who doesn't. It can be told by watching the game by any reliable football watcher. The stats will probably agree with your eyes most of the time but the kicker is that where it doesn't I would think your eyes are much more likely to be telling you the truth than the data. Data of this quality will invariably lead you frequently to wrong conclusions and should not be trusted at all.

Really that is true many of the stats used in the AFL and the biggest problem is this data is given to all the coaches and their assistants who I assume in the main have have no understanding of stats and therefore will invariably draw many false conclusions. But stats and coaching numbers being what they are today I understand there is no way we will wii bring any sense to this area

Kicking efficiency a meaningless stat? Really? Useless information? I can't agree at all and I'd claim the complete opposite.

Additionally in doing the eye test on Greenwood and Adams. They can't kick, and lack reliability on their kicks with frequent badly sprayed kicks and looking deeper into the stats, and surprise, surprise, the data backs me up.

There are limitations in the stats that are publically ability and there are also limitations in the stats that are collected that we aren't exposed to.

Personally I'd love to get the long and short kick stats back and have kicking efficiencies over specific distances. Additionally I'd love to have information on the outcome of the kick - be it a kick that leads to a goal whether that be a direct assist, a hockey assist (a pass to the guy who assists on the goal), whether it's a play that launches the scoreboard opportunity.
Then you could have various levels of blunders on the kicks suggesting whether those inefficient kicks lead directly to opposition goals etc.

I could go on all day just with regards to kicking and the types of stats you could have recorded to determine bits and pieces about what they can do/can't do.

But in saying that while all this data would give us a greater level of detail, the data we have is none the less absolutely useful and can allow us to reasonably make conclusions about a players game. Just the more data of usefulness and ability to refer to that data, obviously the better and more things we can conclude.

What about Goodyear knight...have you been tracking him over the preseason? Is he a chance to play seniors this season (interested for DT Keepers )

I don't believe he is a senior chance this year unless most everyone in the back half or midfield get hurt.

He's not a guy I'd be recommending. Whether you're banking on his immediate or long term potential. As bad as Collingwood are looking.

I wouldn't of Collingwood's first year players get sucked into anyone other than De Goey who I would start in round one and maybe Maynard who can play if we have lots of injuries down back.

Even Moore I doubt plays or plays more than a few games late season even in a best case scenario, as much as I'd like to see him play for developmental reasons.

Freeman and Scharenberg as second year players are the two you should be watching more, with Scharenberg back half eligible and probably over the second half coming into the best team once healthy and has some time in the VFL, getting his game back after the time out with injury.

 

[Gone Critical]

Kicking efficiency a meaningless stat? Really? Useless information? I can't agree at all and I'd claim the complete opposite.

Additionally in doing the eye test on Greenwood and Adams. They can't kick, and lack reliability on their kicks with frequent badly sprayed kicks and looking deeper into the stats, and surprise, surprise, the data backs me up.

There are limitations in the stats that are publically ability and there are also limitations in the stats that are collected that we aren't exposed to.

Personally I'd love to get the long and short kick stats back and have kicking efficiencies over specific distances. Additionally I'd love to have information on the outcome of the kick - be it a kick that leads to a goal whether that be a direct assist, a hockey assist (a pass to the guy who assists on the goal), whether it's a play that launches the scoreboard opportunity.
Then you could have various levels of blunders on the kicks suggesting whether those inefficient kicks lead directly to opposition goals etc.

I could go on all day just with regards to kicking and the types of stats you could have recorded to determine bits and pieces about what they can do/can't do.

But in saying that while all this data would give us a greater level of detail, the data we have is none the less absolutely useful and can allow us to reasonably make conclusions about a players game. Just the more data of usefulness and ability to refer to that data, obviously the better and more things we can conclude.

I think you miss my point here KM. The eye test so to speak will often and probably usually agree with the stats, I already said that originally

My kicker was that if the 2 disagreed it was probably your eyes that are right and if that is true it makes the data redundant

The trouble with the data is people are claiming it to be significant when it is flawed in so many ways. Just the effective kick definition is a conglomeration of different measurements and definitions. That for a start immediately renders it dodgy. There are problems with the control and method of its collection that lacks objectivity and I cant see that there is any planning going into the data to test the reliability and statistical significance of the information received. That's just starting. If you got someone trained in stats to look at this data i can guarantee they would tell you it is all very interesting and could be telling you what you think it is telling you but there is no way of having any statistical confidence in its reliability thus rendering it useless.

I work in an area where this sort of discussion is had all the time and people work constantly to control data and tighten it so it can be interpreted with some reliability. As such you will see trials and data lie to you all the time because it is not controlled and properly collected. The trouble with the stats you are relying on is they just cant be given the accuracy you are hoping they have. Thats ok because its just a footy game and incorrectly collected data and conclusions thus drawn wont ever wash out anyway and cant as such cause any significant measurable damage. Of course that doesnt apply in many other fields where the consequences of poor data and stats have much worse consequences.

 

[ace andy]

Have serious doubts as to Fasolo being in our best 22.

Like this team by iGNITER with a couple of changes.

B - Toovey Brown Goldsack
HB - Williams Frost Langdon
C - Sidebottom Adams Swan
HF - Cloke Varcoe Blair
F - Elliott White Karnezis
R - Witts Pendlebury Thomas
INT - DeGoey Crisp Kennedy Broomhead

With apologies to Gault, Grundy.

Broomhead has talent but he shouldn't be in the team round one because he hasn't played well at all this pre season in any of the games. When he finds some form he can come in. Don't believe in gifting games to talented players. Make them work for it.

 

[pieanitis]

Kicking efficiency a meaningless stat? Really? Useless information? I can't agree at all and I'd claim the complete opposite.

Additionally in doing the eye test on Greenwood and Adams. They can't kick, and lack reliability on their kicks with frequent badly sprayed kicks and looking deeper into the stats, and surprise, surprise, the data backs me up.

There are limitations in the stats that are publically ability and there are also limitations in the stats that are collected that we aren't exposed to.

Personally I'd love to get the long and short kick stats back and have kicking efficiencies over specific distances. Additionally I'd love to have information on the outcome of the kick - be it a kick that leads to a goal whether that be a direct assist, a hockey assist (a pass to the guy who assists on the goal), whether it's a play that launches the scoreboard opportunity.
Then you could have various levels of blunders on the kicks suggesting whether those inefficient kicks lead directly to opposition goals etc.

I could go on all day just with regards to kicking and the types of stats you could have recorded to determine bits and pieces about what they can do/can't do.

But in saying that while all this data would give us a greater level of detail, the data we have is none the less absolutely useful and can allow us to reasonably make conclusions about a players game. Just the more data of usefulness and ability to refer to that data, obviously the better and more things we can conclude.



I don't believe he is a senior chance this year unless most everyone in the back half or midfield get hurt.

He's not a guy I'd be recommending. Whether you're banking on his immediate or long term potential. As bad as Collingwood are looking.

I wouldn't of Collingwood's first year players get sucked into anyone other than De Goey who I would start in round one and maybe Maynard who can play if we have lots of injuries down back.

Even Moore I doubt plays or plays more than a few games late season even in a best case scenario, as much as I'd like to see him play for developmental reasons.

Freeman and Scharenberg as second year players are the two you should be watching more, with Scharenberg back half eligible and probably over the second half coming into the best team once healthy and has some time in the VFL, getting his game back after the time out with injury.

Interestingly enough when it comes to analysing statistical info. relating to kicking efficiency we still fall into the trap of comparing inside mids like Adams and Greenwood who often out of a necessity of their role kick under pressure with players who have completely different roles i.e outside mids, running backs, wingers etc. Who through the very nature of their role get more time and space to deliver an effective kick. Kicking efficiency as a stat. has its place, as long as we balance this with the undeniable facts of what the individual role of a player is. If you break the stat. down to kicking under pressure and kicking with no pressure you get a clearer picture of a players true efficiency.
As for Goodyear NM, seems you're not a fan, but seen enough of him to know he's going to be something special for us over the next few years, in fact him and Degoey have impressed me most of the draftees over the pre-season. I think you'll have egg on your face with this boy KM. Can only hope so as it will mean another Calder gem past pick 40 in the last ten years. Ok i might be getting carried away, but he's still going to be very going IMO.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...-2015-afl-season/story-fni5f22o-1227276106152

 

[pieanitis]

I think you miss my point here KM. The eye test so to speak will often and probably usually agree with the stats, I already said that originally

My kicker was that if the 2 disagreed it was probably your eyes that are right and if that is true it makes the data redundant

The trouble with the data is people are claiming it to be significant when it is flawed in so many ways. Just the effective kick definition is a conglomeration of different measurements and definitions. That for a start immediately renders it dodgy. There are problems with the control and method of its collection that lacks objectivity and I cant see that there is any planning going into the data to test the reliability and statistical significance of the information received. That's just starting. If you got someone trained in stats to look at this data i can guarantee they would tell you it is all very interesting and could be telling you what you think it is telling you but there is no way of having any statistical confidence in its reliability thus rendering it useless.

I work in an area where this sort of discussion is had all the time and people work constantly to control data and tighten it so it can be interpreted with some reliability. As such you will see trials and data lie to you all the time because it is not controlled and properly collected. The trouble with the stats you are relying on is they just cant be given the accuracy you are hoping they have. Thats ok because its just a footy game and incorrectly collected data and conclusions thus drawn wont ever wash out anyway and cant as such cause any significant measurable damage. Of course that doesnt apply in many other fields where the consequences of poor data and stats have much worse consequences.

What a post! Beautifully said.
One prime example of the unreliability of the kicking efficiency stat. Is, if you kick the perfect ball lace out to a teammate who through pressure, battling the elements or pure lack of skill drops the mark it's deemed as an ineffective kick! You only need your team mates to let you down three or four times in a game for it to have a profound impact on your efficiency.
Alternatively if James Manson gets on the end of 3 handballs and strolls into an open goal line and boots it into the 3rd tier of the G his efficiency is looking alright for the afternoon. As i said there's a place for the stat. But with all anomalies that go with it, it can't be the determining factor of a players true prowess in the area of kicking.

 

[Lemma]

How far away is Oxley from making the 22?

 

[Baird]

How far away is Oxley from making the 22?

Not far if he keeps playing like he did on Saturday

 

[Knightmare]

Interestingly enough when it comes to analysing statistical info. relating to kicking efficiency we still fall into the trap of comparing inside mids like Adams and Greenwood who often out of a necessity of their role kick under pressure with players who have completely different roles i.e outside mids, running backs, wingers etc. Who through the very nature of their role get more time and space to deliver an effective kick. Kicking efficiency as a stat. has its place, as long as we balance this with the undeniable facts of what the individual role of a player is. If you break the stat. down to kicking under pressure and kicking with no pressure you get a clearer picture of a players true efficiency.
As for Goodyear NM, seems you're not a fan, but seen enough of him to know he's going to be something special for us over the next few years, in fact him and Degoey have impressed me most of the draftees over the pre-season. I think you'll have egg on your face with this boy KM. Can only hope so as it will mean another Calder gem past pick 40 in the last ten years. Ok i might be getting carried away, but he's still going to be very going IMO.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...-2015-afl-season/story-fni5f22o-1227276106152

You're absolutely right that kicking efficiency by position varies.

It's easiest for backs and hardest for forwards, and as you noted harder for inside players than outside players for the same reasons. And it's most appropriate comparing kicking efficiency it to others by the same position/types.

For me it's rather than pressure you're under as much as ratio of contested v uncontested ball winning ratio that I'd be putting more weight into. Pressure for me isn't a great measure with some players really good either at bursting away to get into space after winning the ball and others able to use evasive steps to create more space, when really they won it in a contested situation and they're finding a way to make circumstances more advantageous for them to more effectively dispose of the ball. On the other hand with contested v uncontested ball winning, unlike pressure, it's easier to accurately measure without ambiguity as would occur with pressure, and it's clear if you're winning a high proportion of contested or uncontested ball as to whether you're more likely to have a low or high kicking efficiency.

On Goodyear, there are lots of good things he can do. He can win the contested ball. He has pace. His numbers are pretty good and his overall impact also was pretty good at TAC Cup level. So he has some things going for him to justify his draft position. Just for me like so many others on our list it's the poor kicking efficiency again as a guy who shockingly in the TAC Cup last year had 14 more inefficient kicks than he did efficient kicks from his 15 games. That's terrible man. On a team with so many bad kicks, you just can't get away with that. He's someone I'd much rather another team have taken, and have instead gone for Reece McKenzie, with Oscar McDonald and Dean Gore two others I'd also have favoured. But as a Collingwood fan naturally I hope you're right with Goodyear in our colours, and the other guys not. If Goodyear makes it, it won't be the first or last time I've been wrong, so he's hoping for our sake collectively.

 

[Lethal06]

Just can't believe its never even been trailed. He's trailed Keeffe in the ruck ffs. (In a final). Imo Cloke at CHB would be a monster.

Keefe is out of the leadership group, out of the best 22 and, by season's end, probably out of the club! He is way too tall to play in defence. He's got a ruckman's height but is useless in the ruck!

As a defender, as soon as the ball hits the ground, he's dead. When caught one-out, the smart, agile opposition forwards also get him to over-commit by leading hard and then turning sharply and running back towards goal, with their midfielders drilled to kick it over the contest in expectation that their forward will win the foot race back to the ball and on open goal. Its almost child's play. Keefe's only hope of survival, and its a very slim one, is to reinvent himself as a forward. Perhaps he could play out of the goal square to free-up Cloke. He probably wouldn't be any worse than White. At least if Keefe plays forward, his stuff-ups when the ball hits the ground aren't as glaringly costly as they are in defence. Most of your reckon he's a good kick, so might help our conversion rate! I'm not advocating for it, I just think its his only hope. Realistically, I expect him to be delisted.

All this talk about playing Cloke as a defender is utter nonsense. It smacks of desperation and for that reason there is no way that Buckley would entertain it. It doesn't even matter that your arguments for it may be valid. Above all else, Buckley is all about presenting an image of calmness and that everything is going according to his plan. Putting Cloke into the backline would not be greeted in the media and public eye as a Sheedy-like act of genius but as confirmation that the wheels have fallen off at Collingwood and that Buckley is dead man walking.

Besides, do you really think that any forward-line made from our current squad and excluding Cloke would be capable of kicking 12-15 goals week in, week out? It might have worked against the Hawks pre-season reserve grade team but on the big stage for premiership points, it will only ever work as an occasional surprise tactic. If nothings else, Cloke draws 2-3 defenders to every marking contest. Its criminal that we don't kick so many more goals from crumbing those contests and/or quickly redirecting the ball to other unmanned forwards. Mostly, I blame Blair for the appalling forward line crumbing. He's the only small who was been playing in the forward line continuously and his scoreboard impact is atrocious. Paul Puopolo he ain't!

 

[THATSGOLD]

Keefe is out of the leadership group, out of the best 22 and, by season's end, probably out of the club! He is way too tall to play in defence. He's got a ruckman's height but is useless in the ruck!

As a defender, as soon as the ball hits the ground, he's dead. When caught one-out, the smart, agile opposition forwards also get him to over-commit by leading hard and then turning sharply and running back towards goal, with their midfielders drilled to kick it over the contest in expectation that their forward will win the foot race back to the ball and on open goal. Its almost child's play. Keefe's only hope of survival, and its a very slim one, is to reinvent himself as a forward. Perhaps he could play out of the goal square to free-up Cloke. He probably wouldn't be any worse than White. At least if Keefe plays forward, his stuff-ups when the ball hits the ground aren't as glaringly costly as they are in defence. Most of your reckon he's a good kick, so might help our conversion rate! I'm not advocating for it, I just think its his only hope. Realistically, I expect him to be delisted.

All this talk about playing Cloke as a defender is utter nonsense. It smacks of desperation and for that reason there is no way that Buckley would entertain it. It doesn't even matter that your arguments for it may be valid. Above all else, Buckley is all about presenting an image of calmness and that everything is going according to his plan. Putting Cloke into the backline would not be greeted in the media and public eye as a Sheedy-like act of genius but as confirmation that the wheels have fallen off at Collingwood and that Buckley is dead man walking.

Besides, do you really think that any forward-line made from our current squad and excluding Cloke would be capable of kicking 12-15 goals week in, week out? It might have worked against the Hawks pre-season reserve grade team but on the big stage for premiership points, it will only ever work as an occasional surprise tactic. If nothings else, Cloke draws 2-3 defenders to every marking contest. Its criminal that we don't kick so many more goals from crumbing those contests and/or quickly redirecting the ball to other unmanned forwards. Mostly, I blame Blair for the appalling forward line crumbing. He's the only small who was been playing in the forward line continuously and his scoreboard impact is atrocious. Paul Puopolo he ain't!

Agree on Keeffe. With Cloke its a move that could make Buckley as a coach. The forward line has never functioned well with Cloke. The reason we won the flag is because of our mids streaming forward and creating options.
Cloke has is a focal point forward but it doesn't work. Don't worry about the amount the of goals required to win, as long as you have more than the opposition. Who cares. Cloke forward is over rated.