Analysis Pies awesome Anzac Day win. Match review

[loki04]

Nice analysis.

I should of stated that was random stats didn't go through the whole game in that much detail in regards to seeds though I'm sure the club would. Just giving an example of what I would like to see so we can then use stats to back up what our "eyes" are seeing. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[jathanas]

Oh, I'm not advocating the comparison between Adams and Bucks, I just think that Adams has significant scope to improve his disposal, particularly if he learns to stop second guessing himself.
That will come with experience though.

Sorry mate, too sensible! :-/

 

[loki04]

I didn't read much of your post other then the stats but did you mention the weather was really wet? Long inside 50's and metres gained are a better reflection of a players worth in such conditions Mr glass half full.

Maybe you should of as I was referring to how stats in isolation don't paint the whole picture. But as we have previously discussed comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Also yep moving the ball long and fast in the wet is the best way to get the win but you still need to put it to your teams advantage more often then not.
In the 1st quarter for example Seedsman didn't do this as often as the meter-age gained stats suggest.
He runs 15m then kicks it 60m to an Essendon Def they then score a goal or even inside 50, Seeds still gets credited with 75m gained Mr. herp derp.

 

[Madagascar]

I like this stat, Essendon had the highest number of disposals for an ANZAC day game, but their disposal per goal stat was atrocious. They had 420 disposals for 6 goals. That's 70 disposals per goal.

It tells us a few things.

We were great at pressuring them.
They had players that butcher the ball.
Their conversion (Carlisle) was very bad.

You can add to those but I'm very happy with all three points.

 

[PieNSauce]

Not sure about that myself. The exceptional midfielders do very well in all awards Pendles included.

I think what he meant was that on a given day, although they may have been the better performed player, they won't necessarily get the 3 votes but due to their consistency, they're likely to be in the votes somewhere anyway and over the course of a season, players who are consistently good rise to the top just the same.

 

[MarkT2]

You watched a replay of Seeds game?

He kicked long that I agree with, he was more semi accurate then accurate imo. He butchered it in the 1st quarter did some nothing kicks into space later mopped up by bomber defenders. I'm not saying he was overall bad and think he was one of our better players but I agree with coach B more then A.

I haven't seen a replay. I watched in on TV not live at the ground which does give a different perspective. Comments during the game on TV about meters gained had him a long way in front but that was clear from watching. I'm not a big stats disciple but I thought that was telling in the context of the game. Pressure was high and skills were down in the wet. Seedsman was the only player to consistently run, carry and kick in a game that was crying out for exactly that. He provided a point of difference to all others IMO. I wouldn't have complained had Pendlebury, Brown or Frost got the medal.

 

[MarkT2]

Adams the wet weather specialist. Adams for Shaw is a win IMO.

Please!
No argument with the rest of your post but this is one billion miles from realty. Adams is a hard nut and get's his hands on the ball. He can't kick and he doesn't have anywhere near Shaw's creativity. You need both types in your side (minus the poor footskills) but Shaw has a hell of a lot more of what we lack in this squad than Adams and's quite apart from the fact that Shaw is an all round better player by a margin. Granted he's older but he should have won the rising start in year one so he was good early.

 

[Apex36]

Please!
No argument with the rest of your post but this is one billion miles from realty. Adams is a hard nut and get's his hands on the ball. He can't kick and he doesn't have anywhere near Shaw's creativity. You need both types in your side (minus the poor footskills) but Shaw has a hell of a lot more of what we lack in this squad than Adams and's quite apart from the fact that Shaw is an all round better player by a margin. Granted he's older but he should have won the rising start in year one so he was good early.

Shaw as an individual may be the better player (at the moment), but Shaw as the team man? Dubious.
Our back 6 were working better as a cohesive unit without him at the start of last year until injuries and fatigue of younger players took its toll. They seem to have picked that back up this year though, even with the loss of Maxwell as the defensive general.

I would regard the trade as a win twofold. Firstly because we needed a replacement for an ageing Ball, and secondly because our back 6 have become a far better drilled unit than they were in 2013, even with the loss of experience.

 

[Madagascar]

Please!
No argument with the rest of your post but this is one billion miles from realty. Adams is a hard nut and get's his hands on the ball. He can't kick and he doesn't have anywhere near Shaw's creativity. You need both types in your side (minus the poor footskills) but Shaw has a hell of a lot more of what we lack in this squad than Adams and's quite apart from the fact that Shaw is an all round better player by a margin. Granted he's older but he should have won the rising start in year one so he was good early.

I was going to comment on the very obvious but Apex summed it up beautifully.

Shaw as an individual may be the better player (at the moment), but Shaw as the team man? Dubious.
Our back 6 were working better as a cohesive unit without him at the start of last year until injuries and fatigue of younger players took its toll. They seem to have picked that back up this year though, even with the loss of Maxwell as the defensive general.

I would regard the trade as a win twofold. Firstly because we needed a replacement for an ageing Ball, and secondly because our back 6 have become a far better drilled unit than they were in 2013, even with the loss of experience.

The loss of Shaw probably also encouraged us to recruit Langdon.

Langdon, Ramsay, Oxley, Williams and when he comes in Scharenberg will more than compensate a declining Shaw into the future.

And this idiot (MarkT2 ) doesn't even consider list management going forward. Shaw will likely be thinking about father time pay checks when we are seriously challenging. I'm really liking our back six right about now very underrated.

 

[Bard]

Is a bit of a funny mix of votes

Break up looks like this

Coach A gave

5 Seedsman
4 Adams or Heppell
3 Hooker
2 Pendles
1 Goldy or Hibberd

Coach B gave

5 Pendles
4 Adams or Heppell
3 Seedsman
2 Williams
1 Goldy or Hibberd

They have seen the best fairly differently only having 2 in common and even those 2 they rated fairly differently. I suspect Coach B is Bucks and I reckon he most likely likely had Heppelll with 4 and Goldy 1 leaving Hird with Adams for 4 and Hibberd 1

My post was probably a bit worked up, but the way I see it is that Heppell was clearly their best but really didn't have a massive impact on the game. He probably deserved votes but getting 4 from a single coach is laughable, because that suggests he thought he was the second best on ground. Then comes Hooker v Frost who didn't even poll, once again laughable. Hooker had some decent plays, but a lot of it was because he was allowed to by poor positioning by our forwards or kicks to 2 on 1s to his favour, whereas Frost had to take serious initiative to effect the game and still had more impact. Hibberd is just bizarre.

 

[Bard]

Shaw as an individual may be the better player (at the moment), but Shaw as the team man? Dubious.
Our back 6 were working better as a cohesive unit without him at the start of last year until injuries and fatigue of younger players took its toll. They seem to have picked that back up this year though, even with the loss of Maxwell as the defensive general.

I would regard the trade as a win twofold. Firstly because we needed a replacement for an ageing Ball, and secondly because our back 6 have become a far better drilled unit than they were in 2013, even with the loss of experience.

Based on Adams' 2015 so far I'd say Adams is now the more valuable player, and will be the better player come next season.