Craig on 5AA

[WALL-e]

Continous statement that the opposition is wrong, using fear and pecamistic strategies to gain support and skirting the issue.

Obviously CM is a politician.

 

[macca23]

Smoovy, it wouldnt matter how good your knowledge of modern football is. Crow-mo is a master debater.

Crow-mo is one of those people that can mount a very strong case for almost anything, whether he believes it or not. I'm pretty sure that if Cm woke up tomorrow and decided that Matthew Smith was the unluckiest player to ever be delisted by the AFC he could make half the people on this board believe him by lunchtime.

He'd have more chance of convincing me that there are actually flying pigs than anything good about Smith!!

Smith and Jericho!! Bloody hell!!

 

[Wood_Duck]

He'd have more chance of convincing me that there are actually flying pigs than anything good about Smith!!

Smith and Jericho!! Bloody hell!!

Nothing quite like mentioning his name to get your attention Macca. Have you got some sort of alarm that goes of when his name appears in a thread?

 

[macca23]

Nothing quite like mentioning his name to get your attention Macca. Have you got some sort of alarm that goes of when his name appears in a thread?

Undoubtedly!!

 

[Macjoe]

PART A
I'll give you one example to focus on:

someone says: we did great we almost beat geelong in round 18, we obviously weren't far off the pace.
sounds good doesn't it? sounds impressive. unless you choose to look a little deeper:

this is Geelong's late season form:
round 14 - lost to St Kilda
round 15 - lost to Brisbane
round 16 - beat melbourne by 46 pts
round 17 - beat hawthorn by 1 pts
round 18 - beat Adelaide by 2 pts
round 19 - lost to Carlton
round 20 - beat sydney by 5 pts
round 21 - lost to doggies

looking at the wider angle, can you see how misleading and false that claim is now?

would any sensible person look at that, and say that round 18 was the one result that stands out?
exactly.

PART B

17 players played all 3 games so far. another 2 players, Burton & Porplyzia have played 2 out 3.

that's the majority of our best team on the park in the most part.

PART A

Yep, have to agree with you here - tempted to say the data presented leaves out the other 17 wins including the GF , but your slice of results are the relevent ones in the context of Adelaide's narrow loss. Doesn't matter what the reasons are - Geelong loading up, or whatever; in context Adelaide can only say they were around the level of Melbourne, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney at that time.

PART B: of your answer was supporting your previuos assertion: "the injury toll (up until now) is a myth, or at best its impact is vastly overstated."

The fact that 17 players were unchanged, and Burton + Porplyzia played 2/3 doen't make this "our best team". It only makes them the team selected by the Match Committee.

If I have understood your posts correctly, you assert that the performance of any player who is named in the side must be judged as if fit to play. I understand this, and can see why Blight said players going into a side under an injury cloud should not be used as an excuse by the coach. Its a fair call when judging the performance of the team in a particular game.

So the Match Committee must take responsibility for the team selected, and that team, with the coaches, is responsible for the result.

But the Match Committee can only pick from the available players on the list. The number available and the level of fitness/match readiness of players who are available is not a controllable factor when they are selecting. (I'm not commenting on the possibility that the player's or coach's previous decisions may be related to availability or fitness, only that this isn't a controllable factor at selection time).

The impact of who hasn't been available, and the level of readiness of those players who were available at the selection table can hardly be overstated, it has been so severe. Vader has set out the data demonstrating this previously, so I won't repeat it.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Agreed

Out of all the players we have lost in the last few years, the one player who's departure hurt us the most was Hudson. If he was still on our list we would now have close to the best ruck duo in the league. Don't get me wrong I love Maric and think that Maric is developing well, but he is not quite there yet as a top line ruckman and would have been assisted by a few more years playing as the second ruckman in our side.

The lack of a quality second ruckman on our list leaves us with the problem that Tippett is the next best ruckman on our list and we are constantly having to rob Peter to pay Paul by dragging Tippett away from the goal square to play as second ruck. I find it interesting how people can make the make the point that we didnt need to trade especially when Mumford, Jolly and Seaby were on the trade table

Was Jolly actually available to us? It was my understanding that he was specifically looking at a melbourne move?

As far as Hudson goes... im interested in that, because theres a slight contradiction in some peoples accounting... I know Crow-Mo for instance has held that it was a voluntary move on our behalf letting him go, as his contract demands werent unreasonable. The problem is, if hes held that, he can not include him in the 'forced' moves of 2007. It was either voluntary or it wasnt.

I do agree with you on the gap hes left in our list though. Was a big blow at the time, and will likely continue to be, made deeper by the fact that other guys (e.g. Griffin) have absolutely been found wanting when thrown the challenge his exodus left.

 

[relapse]

Was Jolly actually available to us? It was my understanding that he was specifically looking at a melbourne move?

As far as Hudson goes... im interested in that, because theres a slight contradiction in some peoples accounting... I know Crow-Mo for instance has held that it was a voluntary move on our behalf letting him go, as his contract demands werent unreasonable. The problem is, if hes held that, he can not include him in the 'forced' moves of 2007. It was either voluntary or it wasnt.

I do agree with you on the gap hes left in our list though. Was a big blow at the time, and will likely continue to be, made deeper by the fact that other guys (e.g. Griffin) have absolutely been found wanting when thrown the challenge his exodus left.

I wasnt implying that the club let Hudson walk out the door, I am more inclined to believe the opposite which is that the club realistically had no real chance being able to retain Hudson.

As for Jolly I am not sure who was or wasnt available to us, but I also dont think we ever really actively targeted anyone either. I was just responding to the comment that was made that "there was not one player (that was traded) which Adelaide should have got for their list" so I made the point that considering three ruckman were traded during trade week and that we really dont have a quality second ruckman that it was an interesting comment to make.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I wasnt implying that the club let Hudson walk out the door, I am more inclined to believe the opposite which is that the club realistically had no real chance being able to retain Hudson.

Wasnt claiming you had. Was addressing that at Crow-mo, mainly because of a previous discussion on the issue.

As for Jolly I am not sure who was or wasnt available to us, but I also dont think we ever really actively targeted anyone either. I was just responding to the comment that was made that "there was not one player (that was traded) which Adelaide should have got for their list" so I made the point that considering three ruckman were traded during trade week and that we really dont have a quality second ruckman that it was an interesting comment to make.

Yeah, its a silly statement.

Just important we make sure we're looking at people who are actually available to us when judging whether or not we pursue.

 

[smoovy]

Smoovy, it wouldnt matter how good your knowledge of modern football is. Crow-mo is a master debater.

Crow-mo is one of those people that can mount a very strong case for almost anything, whether he believes it or not. I'm pretty sure that if Cm woke up tomorrow and decided that Matthew Smith was the unluckiest player to ever be delisted by the AFC he could make half the people on this board believe him by lunchtime.

His Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

These aren't the droids you're looking for...move along.

 

[amer]

well there you go.

I'll give you one example to focus on:

someone says: we did great we almost beat geelong in round 18, we obviously weren't far off the pace.
sounds good doesn't it? sounds impressive. unless you choose to look a little deeper:

this is Geelong's late season form:
round 14 - lost to St Kilda
round 15 - lost to Brisbane
round 16 - beat melbourne by 46 pts
round 17 - beat hawthorn by 1 pts
round 18 - beat Adelaide by 2 pts
round 19 - lost to Carlton
round 20 - beat sydney by 5 pts
round 21 - lost to doggies

looking at the wider angle, can you see how misleading and false that claim is now?

would any sensible person look at that, and say that round 18 was the one result that stands out?
exactly.




17 players played all 3 games so far. another 2 players, Burton & Porplyzia have played 2 out 3.

that's the majority of our best team on the park in the most part.

Being thousands of miles away from the action, unable to get a gauge on the game from anything other than news articles and telecasts that show only where the ball is, seems to have numbed your feel for the game. While you've been gone, the house of pain hasn't been kind to us. Home ground advantage, remember it? Shall we skedaddle on deeper?

Round 5 - Geelong def. Brisbane at Skilled Stadium 126-33; 93 points

Round 7 - Geelong def. Sydney at Skilled Stadium 116-65; 51 points

Round 8 - Geelong def. North Melbourne at Skilled Stadium 119-49; 70 points

Round 13 - Geelong def. Port Adelaide at Skilled Stadium 122-88; 34 points

Round 16 - Geelong def. Melbourne at Skilled Stadium 117-71; 46 points

Round 18 - Geelong def. Adelaide at Skilled Stadium 93-91; 2 points

Round 22 - Geelong def. Fremantle at Skilled Stadium 94-54; 40 points

---

Not only were we the only team to get within six goals in this time frame, we were the only team for the year up until that point to keep them below 100 points at Skilled Stadium.

Stats'll say whatever you want - identify the standouts, buy them a drink, manipulate their sensitive areas and they'll yield. Babeh. We have once in a generation talent like Walker, Dangerfield et al, who will trend up and up and up; St Kilda's equivalent talent sits at the peak of its improvement curve as we speak, ditto Geelong. Let us not waste precious seconds debating this; we know it to be the case, bit of common sense here.

We remain well poised in my view, we'll gain. Might pay you to wait the season out and have a squiz at a few more of the tapes you receive via airmail in the coming weeks before passing your final judgment.

 

[jenny61_99]

Undoubtedly!!

Made me chuckle.

 

[crow_fish]

I'm not sure, but I think those salary cap concessions went some time ago.




I am surprised you'd say that given the ruckman who changed hands.

Not sure..yes you are not sure. Shouldn't have go at someone without doing some research. Link below is about Greater Western Sydney but also mentions the Allowance for Swans. Sydney still have the salary cap concessions it's put down as a 'cost of living allowance'. It for one gave them the plenty of money to chuck at Mumford.

And in regards to people talking about Jolly (regardless of him returning to Melbourne), you would had beat the offer of First round pick and pick 46. Don't we needed to give up that just to get a 2nd Ruckman (Fact of life that many sides this year (giving pace of game) are going in games with one ruckman and using bench more therefore and trying find a pinch hitter elsewhere. Especially given Jolly is 28, with the likely 3 good years left, and so far this season hasn't set the world on fire. (Big call by collingwood give up 2 picks one first round in shallow draft)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7106/newsid/86208/default.aspx

 

[Vader]

Not sure..yes you are not sure. Shouldn't have go at someone without doing some research. Link below is about Greater Western Sydney but also mentions the Allowance for Swans. Sydney still have the salary cap concessions it's put down as a 'cost of living allowance'. It for one gave them the plenty of money to chuck at Mumford.

I think the departures of BBBBH, Mickey O'Loughlin and Leaping Leo Barry, Crouch and Fosdike might have played some small part in freeing up salary cap room for the recruitment of Mumford.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Smoovy, it wouldnt matter how good your knowledge of modern football is. Crow-mo is a master debater.

Crow-mo is one of those people that can mount a very strong case for almost anything, whether he believes it or not. I'm pretty sure that if Cm woke up tomorrow and decided that Matthew Smith was the unluckiest player to ever be delisted by the AFC he could make half the people on this board believe him by lunchtime.

And when he does get 'beaten,' - he changes the terms or the focus of the debates, or clouds the waters.

Continous statement that the opposition is wrong, using fear and pecamistic strategies to gain support and skirting the issue.

Obviously CM is a politician.

His Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

Geez, all this pent up hate and frustration. Are you sure you're not all in love with him?

 

[Crow-mo]

Continous statement that the opposition is wrong, using fear and pecamistic strategies to gain support and skirting the issue.

Obviously CM is a politician.

WTF?

skirting the issue? i'd say using a simplistic surface level approach, with an uncritical, unchallenging view point makes you a partisan party supporter

 

[Crow-mo]

Poor analysis Mo.

The only way thats forced to be true is if we started with our best 22. We didnt.

but if you check the names, you'll also see it is the majority of our best players. every team is always missing a small number of their best players, and in that context we've done as well as any.

Also, players dont have to miss the game to be injured... a player can play with a significantly reduced output due to dehabilitating injury.

if his input is significant below par, he shouldn't be picked. it can take a player a couple of games to get back to 100%, but the margin should never be significant.

once a player is selected, he is expected to perform. our coaches own words. so lets say, roughly, a player should be at 85% of maximum before he can be selected. there is a severe limit to how much can be placed on this line of thinking.

not least because every team in the league has players underdone, or with niggling conditions etc. the one benchmark everyone agrees on, is that once you're selected then you no longer count as injured.

the only way to be certain that a player is fit to play, is to go by his selection. and that applies to every one of the 16 teams, not just us. they ALL have their concerns. I'm not hearing Geelong talk about the interrupted pre-seasons to guys like Corey, Johnson & Ottens - 3 players more important than any we have out - maybe Knights excepted, as personally I maintain he is the key to our forward line. just like Ottens is the key to Geelong.

it seems people want to pretend, and pretend is the only word, that we exist in a vacuum and they whilst we may the normal hiccups that occur in the normal course of business (underdone players) that this applies only to us, and not everyone else.

I mean for FFS some people are claiming bock as injured. he played 2 of the 3 preseason games and all of the 3 regular season games. I mean c'mon where does it end? is McLeod injured because he lacks cartilage in his knee from 1999?

 

[Crow-mo]

It's not even analysis, just blind denial of any facts that contradict his views.

that's rich. name these guys, and give some evidence of their injury status.

Fourteen injured, nearly all of them senior players, at least 10 guys with severely interupted pre seasons and no fit player on the bench last game and he says injuries affecting our performance is a myth.

name them and tell me how many games they played and whether they are 1st 22 (or close enough?).

the problem with this, is you are accusing others of what you have done all along.

Right, but not getting rid of one club legend from a list of 40 has aparently caused all of our problems. And he has the balls to accuse other posters of not understanding the modern game.

see this is the sort of mediocre analysis I am talking about, you don't even know who has said what. confused much?

Injuries always have been and are even more so now the main factor in determining success or failure of AFL clubs, just look at Hawthorn last year, and clubs having 140 interchanges a game only magnifies their effect.

well go on, why don't you tell me about other clubs and their interrupted pre-seasons.

 

[Crow-mo]

Seaby isn't even as good as Sellar, so you can scratch him from the list as well.

well that's just rubbish, so lets just leave that there. why don't you go to the swans board, and see how much support you get for that?

According to the coaches votes he was 4th best on ground against us.

That leaves Mumford. Mumford might develop into a very good player in the future, but right now he's just another developing ruckman who is only capable of playing 2nd fiddle. We have an abundance of those already.

well the swans and geelong both valued him highly, I don't see anyone offering any of our guys a million dollar contract?

 

[Crow-mo]

Smoovy, it wouldnt matter how good your knowledge of modern football is. Crow-mo is a master debater.

Crow-mo is one of those people that can mount a very strong case for almost anything, whether he believes it or not. I'm pretty sure that if Cm woke up tomorrow and decided that Matthew Smith was the unluckiest player to ever be delisted by the AFC he could make half the people on this board believe him by lunchtime.

I put this to you, how many other players have survived 5 years on a list without playing a game. the number must be close to zero, surely that is unlucky?

 

[Crow-mo]

And when he does get 'beaten,' - he changes the terms or the focus of the debates, or clouds the waters.

sounds like sour grapes there champ.

 

[Crow-mo]

Vader - without going through your post point-by-point (I think you underestimate Jolly, for one), I think this is the crux of it.

And in hindsight, being 10 seconds away from a PF was one of the worst things that could have happened. Not only because of the absolute kick in the groin way we lost; but because it gave us a false sense of how close we were.

Sure, we were up with 10 seconds to go - but equally, we were down with 90 seconds to go till we got an unlikely goal from that Tippett free. If we'd won, it's a game we pinched at the end.

We never looked like getting near St Kilda all season, we'd been belted around Footy Park by the Dogs, and although we got close to Geelong in Round 18, it was a very undermanned Geelong - no Scarlett, no Taylor, (and so Burton and Tippett had their way), no Ottens or Blake. The same Geelong team who handled us comfortably when most of this board were pretty pleased with the way we played in round 4.

Collingwood were also realistically a fair way off the pace off the top 2 (and perhaps top 3) - they got smashed around twice by St Kilda, belted in the PF by Geelong, and were lucky to hold off the fast finishing Dogs in their only meeting.

So the only way we were ever going to be a top 4 team in 2010 (with an improved-on-paper Dogs, and a significant gap to the top 2) was to get better than Collingwood, and hope no-one improved more from behind (such as Hawthorn ever getting close to fielding their best team). And hope is never a great strategy.

this is precisely it. when you look a little deeper, the picture is very, very different to the surface view.

hope appears to have been exactly our strategy, the same way people are *hoping* that by blaming injuries we won't need to face up to our real issues.

 

[Crow-mo]

He'd have more chance of convincing me that there are actually flying pigs than anything good about Smith!!

Smith and Jericho!! Bloody hell!!

Now Macca, as you know a picture speaks a thousand words.

 

[Crow-mo]

PART A

Yep, have to agree with you here - tempted to say the data presented leaves out the other 17 wins including the GF , but your slice of results are the relevent ones in the context of Adelaide's narrow loss. Doesn't matter what the reasons are - Geelong loading up, or whatever; in context Adelaide can only say they were around the level of Melbourne, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney at that time.

exactly. and anyone who pretends that the club was somehow swayed into believing this, must have a very low view of the intelligence of the people running our club.

you just wouldn't put too many eggs in your basket, based on that one performance. which is the claim/

PART B: of your answer was supporting your previuos assertion: "the injury toll (up until now) is a myth, or at best its impact is vastly overstated."

The fact that 17 players were unchanged, and Burton + Porplyzia played 2/3 doen't make this "our best team". It only makes them the team selected by the Match Committee.

but if you check the names, you'll see that they are majority of our best team. of course its not everyone, but its unrealistic to ever think you'll field your absolute best 22.

If I have understood your posts correctly, you assert that the performance of any player who is named in the side must be judged as if fit to play. I understand this, and can see why Blight said players going into a side under an injury cloud should not be used as an excuse by the coach. Its a fair call when judging the performance of the team in a particular game.

yes, they are fit to play. I don't expect a player to be a 100% in his first game back from an extended lay off, that's silly. however, they are expected to be competitive, and meet a minimum standard.

take Bock, he played 2 of our preseason games, and all 3 of our regular season games - don't tell me he counts as an injury. if he is that far away, he shouldn't be picked.

same with tippett, he played damn well in the preseason in those 3 games, but now in his 3 league games he is injured. now I don't dispute he might be carrying something, but who isn't? I'd say his biggest problem is a lack of confidence from how badly we are playing, who would want to be FF ahead of those skills and those clearance rates?

the thing is, people who make excuses can always find one. its what they do.

So the Match Committee must take responsibility for the team selected, and that team, with the coaches, is responsible for the result.

that's not really in dispute is it? certainly what Mr M Blight is saying.

But the Match Committee can only pick from the available players on the list. The number available and the level of fitness/match readiness of players who are available is not a controllable factor when they are selecting. (I'm not commenting on the possibility that the player's or coach's previous decisions may be related to availability or fitness, only that this isn't a controllable factor at selection time).

I think you should spend some more time considering what available means.

Goodwin	 3
Thompson 3
Vince	3
Mackay	3
Edwards	 3
Doughty	 3
Reilly	3
Bock	3
Douglas	3
McLeod	3
Cook	3
Dangerfield 3
Rutten	3
Petrenko 3
Walker	3
Tippett	3
Hentschel  3
Burton	2
Maric	2
Porplyzia 2

that's the 20 players who have played at least 2 of the 3 games. do they look like most of our best players? that's because they are.

do you know how many of the top 10 B&F who are missing from that list? only 2. Johncock & Knights.

there are 6 of our top 20 there too.

so that is 8 of the top 10, and 14 of our top 20 from last years B&F playing.

the guys missing:

Johncock
Knights
Otten
van Berlo
Symes
Stevens

I am sorry, but that just isn't an impressive injury list.

and when you take into account guys like Cook, Petrenko & Walker - they should be pushing for a place in our best 22 this year anyway.

The impact of who hasn't been available, and the level of readiness of those players who were available at the selection table can hardly be overstated, it has been so severe. Vader has set out the data demonstrating this previously, so I won't repeat it.

but Vader has only demonstrated it to the most unchallenging observer. the facts don't support that at all. just like when it was demonstrated how significant the Geelong game was, until you actually look at it.

 

[Crow-mo]

As far as Hudson goes... im interested in that, because theres a slight contradiction in some peoples accounting... I know Crow-Mo for instance has held that it was a voluntary move on our behalf letting him go, as his contract demands werent unreasonable. The problem is, if hes held that, he can not include him in the 'forced' moves of 2007. It was either voluntary or it wasnt.

I don't know what you mean by forced moves? we let him go, and tried to make him out to look like the bad guy for wanting an eminently reasonable contract

Mumford got a bigger contract than we were prepared to offer Hudson, who had just finished top 5 in our B&F, and according to champion data has been one of the most effective ruckman in the league the last 2 years.

 

[Southerntakeover]

but if you check the names, you'll also see it is the majority of our best players. every team is always missing a small number of their best players, and in that context we've done as well as any.

I dont like the continual use of the word majority. That seems to imply that having 12 of your best 22 is a good position. Its clearly not.

As far as it goes... looking at the names...

Johncock- Missed two.
Otten- Missed 3
Stevens- Missed 2
Symes- Missed 3
van Berlo- Missed 2
Knights- Missed 2.
Burton- Missed 1
Maric- Missed one.
Sellar- Missed 2
Moran- Missed 3.

The last two obviously depend on who you rate as our second best ruck for who is in the best 22. (some may be wrong, just doing it from memory)

Still, missing 21 games from your best 22, only 3 rounds in seems significant to me. 7 players on average per game.... Im not sure what the league average for this is.

if his input is significant below par, he shouldn't be picked. it can take a player a couple of games to get back to 100%, but the margin should never be significant.

I agree that injured players arent ideally selected. That is also a symptom of huge (14 players) injury lists.

once a player is selected, he is expected to perform. our coaches own words. so lets say, roughly, a player should be at 85% of maximum before he can be selected. there is a severe limit to how much can be placed on this line of thinking.

Even if the marker was 85 percent, theoretically extrapolate the effect of losing 22 15%s across the teams performance.

85 is being generous though. We have players who are quite clearly way below that, playing out of necessity. We simply dont have the fit numbers on our list to rest these guys. 14 on the injury list, and quite a few more ive got suspicions arent being reported.

not least because every team in the league has players underdone, or with niggling conditions etc. the one benchmark everyone agrees on, is that once you're selected then you no longer count as injured.

Most people also agree that playing under duress can have signficant effects on performance, technical classification of 'injured' or not.

the only way to be certain that a player is fit to play, is to go by his selection. and that applies to every one of the 16 teams, not just us. they ALL have their concerns. I'm not hearing Geelong talk about the interrupted pre-seasons to guys like Corey, Johnson & Ottens - 3 players more important than any we have out - maybe Knights excepted, as personally I maintain he is the key to our forward line. just like Ottens is the key to Geelong.

Actually, strangely enough my Cats supporting friend blamed the loss on the weekend on injury.

I rate Tippett as just as important to our team as any of those are to the cats. Now, you'll say hes played every game, and he has. At the same time, hes clearly crippled by injury. I dont want to use the 'you cant attend games' card, because its generally a weak ad hominem used against you by people with no other argument, but seriously... from what i saw at the Sydney game, Tippetts leg is alot worse than they let on. I watched him hobble around for the entire second half in that game, continually testing his knee and stretching it convinced he wouldnt play again any time soon. He may be still being selected, but hes a shadow of the guy he was last year, and youd struggle to convince me that its not injury related. Does it not impact our team because hes chalking up the 'games played' statistic?

it seems people want to pretend, and pretend is the only word, that we exist in a vacuum and they whilst we may the normal hiccups that occur in the normal course of business (underdone players) that this applies only to us, and not everyone else.

It is possible for teams to be worse affected than others by natural phenomina of course...

I mean for FFS some people are claiming bock as injured. he played 2 of the 3 preseason games and all of the 3 regular season games. I mean c'mon where does it end? is McLeod injured because he lacks cartilage in his knee from 1999?

He IS currently injured of course.....

Not to mention, whilst he may have played all three games in terms of starting them, he didnt finish the melbourne game.