2018 Rolling All Australian Team

[cotter101]

Yeah, but those are irregular releases.


Is that leaders, or all players?

You can find the average/totals for basically every ruckman.

 

[Engimal v3]

You can find the average/totals for basically every ruckman.

Definitely not reliable then, in terms of scraping it.

Still cool.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Tested this out on the foxsports link provided.
Melbourne 185 hitouts to advantage (175 Gawn, Weid 3, Pedo 3, Smith 3, Harmes 1) Opponents 82 hitouts to advantage
Collingwood 131 hitouts to advantage (117 Grundy, 14 Cox) Opponents 71 hitouts to advantage

Chose those two because they seem to be the near consensus rivals here.

It also works for those two because they both ruck the majority of the game.

I'll have a play around with it - but certainly having those stats is a step in the right direction for having meaningful information.

I'm of a view that I'd pick both of them. Both stand out performers with different attributes and assets even away from the ruck contest.

It may seem a little self serving - but the team on top of the ladder is making two ruck work. We also made it work 7 years ago with two quality rucks.

No reason a Gawn/Grundy combo couldn't work

 

[Damon_3388]

Definitely not reliable then, in terms of scraping it.

Still cool.

All stats are for all players are available in full on AFL.com Stats Pro, for the current season and the career of all active players.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

It also works for those two because they both ruck the majority of the game.

I'll have a play around with it - but certainly having those stats is a step in the right direction for having meaningful information.

I'm of a view that I'd pick both of them. Both stand out performers with different attributes and assets even away from the ruck contest.

It may seem a little self serving - but the team on top of the ladder is making two ruck work. We also made it work 7 years ago with two quality rucks.

No reason a Gawn/Grundy combo couldn't work

Agreed. Sadly Melbourne after having a production line of good rucks for years just have the one all time great level player and literally nobody else. James Harmes has played more ruck than anyone not named Gawn for us this year and he's about 6 foot tall. We've got a couple of young project guys flailing around in the VFL but that's it for the list.

I think the club is banking on young Weideman being a foward-ruck helper for Max going forward but he's coming along very slowly. As it stands we get absolutely flogged when Gawn rests.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

In the fantasy world that the AA team plays in, the make believe football department have opted to include two ruckman due to the fantasy scheduling being against other make believe teams with two ruckman.

I don’t think it’s that hard to justify a hypothetical two ruck team in a hypothetical world with so many hypotheticals.

Except that has rarely happened in years past. Seems strange to do it now when even fewer teams field two ruckmen.

None of that is hypothetical.

Because if you have to awesome rucks it gives you a massive advantage against a team running out one ruck and a part timer. Your two rucks have to give something around the ground though.

If any team ran out grundy and Gawn for example the opposition would pick two ruckman every time (unless they didn't have two that could run without falling over)

Sure, but the reality is that picking two rucks in the AA team would be unrepresentative of how the vast majority of teams line up in 2018.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

Except that has rarely happened in years past. Seems strange to do it now when even fewer teams field two ruckmen.

Well this year I have it on good authority that the hypothetical fixture has a hypothetical chance for it to be the best hypothetical line up to field.

That’s the beauty of hypothetical teams, as long as it’s within the realms of reason then the selectors have every right to structure a team how they want.

If they were doing something ridiculous like fielding 18 small forwards, that might be a tad silly.

I don’t think the idea of two ruckman is too far-fetched. It would do well to show off the structural diversity that the game involves.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well this year I have it on good authority that the hypothetical fixture has a hypothetical chance for it to be the best hypothetical line up to field.

That’s the beauty of hypothetical teams, as long as it’s within the realms of reason then the selectors have every right to structure a team how they want

This makes no sense. My argument isn't based on hypotheticals.

Here are two facts: 1) rarely have two AA ruckmen been picked in recent years; 2) fewer teams field two ruckmen than ever before.

Hypotheticals are not necessary to bring those two facts to bear on a discussion about the make-up of the AA side.

Picking two AA ruckmen would not only be a departure from recent years but would also be unrepresentative of how most sides line up in 2018. Which part of that is disputable? Don't just say "yeah nah but hypotheticals". That's incoherent. Which part of what I just wrote is disputable?

 

[Richo83]

Hitouts to advantage %

Gawn 36.7
Grundy 31.5
Naitanui 29.2

 

[Richo83]

This makes no sense. My argument isn't based on hypotheticals.

Here are two facts: 1) rarely have two AA ruckmen been picked in recent years; 2) fewer teams field two ruckmen than ever before.

Hypotheticals are not necessary to bring those two facts to bear on a discussion about the make-up of the AA side.

Picking two AA ruckmen would not only be a departure from recent years but would also be unrepresentative of how most sides line up in 2018. Which part of that is disputable? Don't just say "yeah nah but hypotheticals". That's incoherent. Which part of what I just wrote is disputable?

The reason why teams don't play with two ruckmen is that it's hard to find two ruckmen who can justify a) sharing the ruck load and b) still contribute enough around the ground whilst playing limited ruck duties. Teams are trying to neutralise the impact of another ruckman due to limited resources, not because they think putting a midfielder in the ruck is a genius idea on itself. The idea of two gun ruckmen would appeal to any AFL coach. I'm pretty sure Richmond would play Naitanui, Grundy or Gawn if they could and tell Grigg to head back to the wing.

Given the AA panel can select any player from the competition, this isn't an issue. I'm not sure why the limitations of list management should influence the capacities of the All-Australian panel to pick players. If they're good enough and do enough in ruck work and enough around the ground, then I don't see why they wouldn't share duties. This is especially the case with the amount of hitouts increasing over the past decades.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

This makes no sense. My argument isn't based on hypotheticals.

Here are two facts: 1) rarely have two AA ruckmen been picked in recent years; 2) fewer teams field two ruckmen than ever before.

Hypotheticals are not necessary to bring those two facts to bear on a discussion about the make-up of the AA side.

Picking two AA ruckmen would not only be a departure from recent years but would also be unrepresentative of how most sides line up in 2018. Which part of that is disputable? Don't just say "yeah nah but hypotheticals". That's incoherent. Which part of what I just wrote is disputable?

You’re a cracker mate [emoji6]

I’m not saying your facts are incorrect, I’m saying the All Australian team is a hypothetical team that never takes the field and never has a direct opponent that isn’t another hypothetical team.

So your “facts” which are very accurate and true of course are about hypotheticals. Because the whole concept of AA is hypothetical.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Would rather recognize Gawn and grundy this year than the 10th best midfielder.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The reason why teams don't play with two ruckmen is that it's hard to find two ruckmen who can justify a) sharing the ruck load and b) still contribute enough around the ground whilst playing limited ruck duties. Teams are trying to neutralise the impact of another ruckman due to limited resources, not because they think putting a midfielder in the ruck is a genius idea on itself. The idea of two gun ruckmen would appeal to any AFL coach. I'm pretty sure Richmond would play Naitanui, Grundy or Gawn if they could and tell Grigg to head back to the wing.

Given the AA panel can select any player from the competition, this isn't an issue. I'm not sure why the limitations of list management should influence the capacities of the All-Australian panel to pick players. If they're good enough and do enough in ruck work and enough around the ground, then I don't see why they wouldn't share duties. This is especially the case with the amount of hitouts increasing over the past decades.

The fact remains: picking two AA ruckmen would be unrepresentative of how most teams line up in 2018.

Do you disagree with that?

Your argument is that "if teams had two elite ruckmen, they'd probably pick them both". That may well be true. But it would be true every year. Yet we have rarely seen two AA ruckmen picked.

Why weren't there two AA ruckmen last year or the year before or the year before that? Teams would have picked two top-shelf ruckmen if they had them, right? So why weren't there two in the AA side? In 2015, you'd play Goldstein and Naitanui if you could. Yet there was only one named in the AA side.

So that's the problem with your argument. Even if what you're saying is true – i.e. "if you've got two good ruckmen, you'd pick them" – that has not been reflected in recent AA sides. So we just flick the switch and apply it this year when it hasn't applied in recent seasons?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I’m not saying your facts are incorrect, I’m saying the All Australian team is a hypothetical team that never takes the field and never has a direct opponent that isn’t another hypothetical team.

So what? The concept still relies on it being anchored in reality.

So your “facts” which are very accurate and true of course are about hypotheticals.

No. They're just facts.

Because the whole concept of AA is hypothetical.

They name 22 players. That's not hypothetical.

 

[jatz14]

The fact remains: picking two AA ruckmen would be unrepresentative of how most teams line up in 2018.

Do you disagree with that?

Your argument is that "if teams had two elite ruckmen, they'd probably pick them both". That may well be true. But it would be true every year. Yet we have rarely seen two AA ruckmen picked.

Why weren't there two AA ruckmen last year or the year before or the year before that? Teams would have picked two top-shelf ruckmen if they had them, right? So why weren't there two in the AA side? In 2015, you'd play Goldstein and Naitanui if you could. Yet there was only one named in the AA side.

So that's the problem with your argument. Even if what you're saying is true – i.e. "if you've got two good ruckmen, you'd pick them" – that has not been reflected in recent AA sides. So we just flick the switch and apply it this year when it hasn't applied in recent seasons?

Is there any particular reason they COULDNT just flick the switch and pick 2 ruckmen? Or are they applying a No 2 ruckman rule or something.
I would think that the prediction they will not pick 2 ruckmen is more likely than they will, based on history, but its still just a prediction, they can pick whoever they want as far as I know.

 

[Richo83]

The fact remains: picking two AA ruckmen would be unrepresentative of how most teams line up in 2018.

Do you disagree with that?

No, but why should the All-Australian team reflect the limitations of team management? The reason why teams don't play two Gawns is because no-one has two Gawns, not because no-one wants to play them. It's like saying you shouldn't build a yearly best of cricket team with two all-rounders in them because most teams have, at most, one all-rounder. That's because gun all-rounders are really hard to find. If there's two or more all-rounders who are worthy of being in the 2018 XI, then pick them.

Here's some more stats:

Hitout win %

Naitanui 65.8
Gawn 63
Grundy 55.7

Hitouts to advantage

Gawn 17.5
Grundy 11.7
Naitanui 9.4

Ruck contests

Gawn 75.7
Grundy 66.6
Naitanui 49.1

AFL player rating:

Grundy 19.1 (1st, 1st for ruckmen)
Gawn 17.5 (5th, 2nd for ruckmen)
Naitanui 14.5 (28th, 4th for ruckmen)

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

So what? The concept still relies on it being anchored in reality.

No. They're just facts.

They name 22 players. That's not hypothetical.

Yep, reality is a pretty broad space mate. Are you now going to argue that two ruck men in a team is outside the realms of reality - even for you that would be a slog

They are fact in relation to the history of a hypothetical team that gets created. The team is never fielded or plays another team.

They do name 22 players. I bet you $15 that at least one AFL side in 2018 has named 22 players with two of them being ruck men. Therefor the selectors wouldn't just be dipping their toes in the big pool of reality, they'd be rolling around naked in it.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Cotchin is in at this stage, far from guaranteed to be captain though. Caddy would also be in. Rance is borderline and Martin would only be in on reputation atm

Cotchin and Rance have both been immense and are Richmond's only locks at this stage. Without Cotchin we'd be 6-4 and without Rance we'd be 4-6 at best. Dusty started well but has had a relatively ordinary 5-6 weeks since then and has made too many skill errors - not best-22 for me. Riewoldt and Caddy have both been fantastic and would be in 40-man squad, as would Astbury, but might have too much competition for best-22 at this stage.

 

[Scotland]

Cotchin and Rance have both been immense and are Richmond's only locks at this stage. Without Cotchin we'd be 6-4 and without Rance we'd be 4-6 at best. Dusty started well but has had a relatively ordinary 5-6 weeks since then and has made too many skill errors - not best-22 for me. Riewoldt and Caddy have both been fantastic and would be in 40-man squad, as would Astbury, but might have too much competition for best-22 at this stage.

Richmond fans. Don't stop.

 

[Richo83]

So what? The concept still relies on it being anchored in reality.

The AA selectors have put Joe Daniher and Tom Lynch in a forward pocket. If the selectors can put players out of position into the team, how come they can't select two ruckmen, especially given the ruckmen they'd be picking from could easily play tandem and push forward?

Your basic argument is that the team should function how teams and players play/represent how teams pick players. When was the last time you saw Daniher in a forward pocket? And don't give me this "oh but he's a third tall in the team nonsense" firstly, Daniher never plays as a third tall or linkman or forward pocket or any other type of forward, always takes central position in FF or CHF. Secondly, how many teams play with three KPFs, like Daniher, Kennedy and Franklin? Richmond sure don't, neither do Melbourne, Hawthorn, GWS, Geelong, Collingwood, Sydney and a host of other sides. Some do, like Adelaide and West Coast. But many don't.

Now why don't they? Partly due to the faster nature of the game, but also, it's hard to find three genuinely good tall forwards these days. There's a reason why Richmond are chasing Lynch, it's because Richmond want to play a second tall but don't have anyone worthy of selection.

But if the AA panel see three talls worthy of selection, I don't see the problem. I think Daniher could play as a third tall, it's not as if he can't play the role, it's just that due to the limitations of Essendon's list, he takes on a different role. So if we can have three genuine KPFs who can admittedly can move around the ground and be flexible, why can't we have two ruckmen who can do the same? You don't even have to have them on the field, pick the best ruckmen in the ruckmen position then put the next best on the bench. Because at the moment, Grundy and Gawn are in AA form and Naitanui isn't far behind once he improves his fitness base.

And if you tell me that Franklin isn't a real CHF even though he was selected at CHF then it just proves that these rules about selection are silly.

 

[Damon_3388]

So much discussion and argument about what the selectors may or may not do.

Are we playing "closest to the pin" with what the selectors might do, or are we making our own selections and providing justification for those?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Is there any particular reason they COULDNT just flick the switch and pick 2 ruckmen? Or are they applying a No 2 ruckman rule or something.

A principle of basic consistency. And the question of whether the AA side should be at all representative of how teams actually line up.

I would think that the prediction they will not pick 2 ruckmen is more likely than they will, based on history, but its still just a prediction, they can pick whoever they want as far as I know.

Should the AA team reflect the way teams actually line up that year? Or should we go ahead and pick four key forwards while we're at it?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, but why should the All-Australian team reflect the limitations of team management?

That's a weird question.

It should be anchored in reality, thereby reflecting the way teams actually line up in a given year.

Very few teams field two ruckmen in 2018. So why would there be two ruckmen in the AA side?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the limitations of team management". There's no inherent obstacle preventing teams playing two ruckmen. But most choose not to. So picking two AA ruckmen would be unrepresentative of AFL this year.

The reason why teams don't play two Gawns is because no-one has two Gawns, not because no-one wants to play them. It's like saying you shouldn't build a yearly best of cricket team with two all-rounders in them because most teams have, at most, one all-rounder. That's because gun all-rounders are really hard to find. If there's two or more all-rounders who are worthy of being in the 2018 XI, then pick them.

I'm not interested in analogies with other sports. That makes no relevant point.

Here's some more stats:

Hitout win %

Naitanui 65.8
Gawn 63
Grundy 55.7

Hitouts to advantage

Gawn 17.5
Grundy 11.7
Naitanui 9.4

Ruck contests

Gawn 75.7
Grundy 66.6
Naitanui 49.1

AFL player rating:

Grundy 19.1 (1st, 1st for ruckmen)
Gawn 17.5 (5th, 2nd for ruckmen)
Naitanui 14.5 (28th, 4th for ruckmen)

What's your point?

 

[jatz14]

A principle of basic consistency. And the question of whether the AA side should be at all representative of how teams actually line up.

Should the AA team reflect the way teams actually line up that year? Or should we go ahead and pick four key forwards while we're at it?

Coaches association did their own all Australian team 5 or 6 years ago specifically because the All Australian team is not picked as a team at all, and the method of its selection does not represent how modern teams are selected, or the positions and roles players actually play. On that basis, there is no particular reason to pick an actual ruck at all, or to not pick 3. Reality is, it isnt a team, the `team` in All Australian team is just a word.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yep, reality is a pretty broad space mate. Are you now going to argue that two ruck men in a team is outside the realms of reality - even for you that would be a slog

Am I now going to argue something I haven't argued to this point?

No. Why would I?

The arguments I've actually made seem to have left you grasping at thin air so let's stick with those for now.

Fact 1: We have rarely seen two AA ruckmen named in the recent past.

Fact 2: Very few teams field two ruckmen in 2018.

Therefore, naming two AA ruckmen would not only break with the precedent of recent years, it would also be unrepresentative of AFL in 2018.

You can blether about "reality being a broad space" and fantasise about arguments I haven't made. But do you have any coherent rejoinder to what I've posted above?

They are fact in relation to the history of a hypothetical team that gets created. The team is never fielded or plays another team.

They name 22 players. That is not a hypothetical.

You're very keen to pretend facts are something other than facts.

They do name 22 players. I bet you $15 that at least one AFL side in 2018 has named 22 players with two of them being ruck men. Therefor the selectors wouldn't just be dipping their toes in the big pool of reality, they'd be rolling around naked in it.

Of course teams have named two ruckmen. WC do it every week. But that is not representative of what most teams are doing.