Preview R12: Changes vs. Sydney Swans

[Southerntakeover]

Same result in terms of W or L, but I reckon overall the wins have been improved upon. That said, Saints and Bombers were both missing 6+ best 22 and we had zero injuries. Roos a lesser result, especially given we beat them by more last year away than at home this year. Giants break even. Blues a bigger win, but they are putrid at AO, so that's probably overstated a bit. And the Eagles a lesser margin than last year. So, you're probably right, the obvious stronger wins had a vast injury discrepancy or includes a team with horrific history at Adelaide Oval.

View attachment 2329025

The losses to Geelong, Collingwood, Freo, Suns all appear largely indistinguishable to how we lost to them last year as well.

 

[Betts are off]

A team comparison of "Minutes played in Rookies season" statistic.

Now there's a stat I bet you didn't anticipate you'd see when we are top 4 at the bye round.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

 

[kirky]

In reverse order:

I think it means the defence has tightened up which is a good thing, after the high scores against of the first 5 rounds.
Murray back from injury has helped.
Butts playing well, better than Borlase did anyway, has also been good.
Worrell has gone to a new level.


To be honest, I think that rating and our Ladder position after 11 Rounds flatters us. Of the current Top 8, we're ranked last as a chance to go top in 2025 (with GCS, both at $13

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/ladder).

We have still only beaten teams that are presently 8th or lower. Losing to Freo was a nightmare.
A better indication will be where we are after the next 3 games.

What counts most is being the higher-scoring Team on the last game in September.
Do you think Nicks (still our losing-est ever Coach) is going to take us to that result in 2025, or even 2026?
I do not.

Yes, that is logical given we haven’t made finals since 2017 and is why Gold Coast are also at $13. The believe to win the flag you have to had finals experience - shit, who would have known that.

Seriously, it ain’t bloody rocket science.

 

[1970crow]

It's pretty damning looking through the TOG rankings for our draftees in their first year

Some anchor points for other highly rated players

Nick Daicos - 2051
Harry Sheezel - 1954
Sam Walsh - 1847
Connor Rozee - 1804
Mattaes Phillipou - 1799
Cam Rayner - 1709
Nick Blakey - 1657
Bailey Smith - 1693
Harley Reid - 1631
Jack Lukosius - 1609
Adam Cerra - 1594
Josh Gibcus - 1505
Aaron Naughton - 1502
Caleb Windsor - 1502
Tarryn Thomas - 1459
Oliver Hollands - 1430
Zak Butters - 1427
Nick Watson - 1325
Jason Horne-Francis - 1297
Bailey Humphrey - 1285
Colby McKercher - 1218
Andrew Brayshaw - 1134
Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera - 1126
Finn O'Sullivan - 787 (half season)
Sam Lalor - 801 (half season)
Levi Ashcroft - 924 (half season)

And then us

Sid Draper - 340 (half a season so far)
Dan Curtin - 323
Max Michalanney - 1823
Josh Rachele - 1040
Jake Soligo - 1195
Riley Thilthorpe - 1145
Luke Pedlar - 150
Brayden Cook - 196
Sam Berry - 1219
Fischer McAsey - 855
Harry Schoenberg - 609
Josh Worrell - 0
Chayce Jones - 545
Ned McHenry - 0
Darcy Fogarty - 802
Jordan Gallucci - 80
Wayne Milera - 567
Tom Doedee - 0
Jake Lever - 1083
Matt Crouch - 419
Charlie Cameron - 547
Brad Crouch - 1137
Brodie Smith - 926
Daniel Talia - 0
Jack Gunston - 123

That's as far back as the stats go. As far as I can tell since 2010 we have given ONE draftee a high level of TOG in their first year, that player being Michalanney. Maybe six to eight others have gotten middling time in 15 years.

Our players were just at a different stage of their development.

What I always loved was the excuse 'but we're contending, we can't risk up and coming kids, need experience and continuity'. And then when we're not 'but we're rebuilding, we need to play as many seniors as possible, otherwise we'll be the next Carlton or Melbourne'.

 

[1970crow]

The losses to Geelong, Collingwood, Freo, Suns all appear largely indistinguishable to how we lost to them last year as well.

I think I was overly influenced by the first 2 rounds. Having put them side by side, and taking into account injury differential, it's close to a carbon copy.

 

[Scorpus]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

It would certainly be better evidence of improvement than anything else this season so far.

It would be tempered by Sydney's poor form and the fact Nicks does win around 15% of games against the "unbeatable" sides.

2-3 of those sorts of wins and it would be definitive

 

[George CantStandYa]

It would certainly be better evidence of improvement than anything else this season so far.

It would be tempered by Sydney's poor form and the fact Nicks does win around 15% of games against the "unbeatable" sides.

2-3 of those sorts of wins and it would be definitive

Sydney are missing something like 9 first choice players, if we don’t beat them it would be shocking.

A win means nothing. Beat Brisbane or Hawks and then we can say there’s legitimate improvement

 

[1970crow]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

Not necessarily, it's never as simple as a W or an L. Firstly, the Swans that we lost to last year have plummeted down the ladder and are also injury hit. I posted a while ago that I reckon that Suns loss will end up looking really good. I'd rate that higher than just getting over the line against the Sydney that we'll be facing this weekend.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

You seem to have taken both positions and are arguing now for the sake of it.

Pretty much now

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

We’ve improved regardless off an extremely low base but it’s whether it’s meaningful improvement or just enough to get us in the pack

 

[Scorpus]

Sydney are missing something like 9 first choice players, if we don’t beat them it would be shocking.

A win means nothing. Beat Brisbane or Hawks and then we can say there’s legitimate improvement

We've failed to beat teams missing tons of players before.

 

[George CantStandYa]

We've failed to beat teams missing tons of players before.

Yeah but 9 and some key players?

 

[jo172]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

It's the Fogarty 13 disposal game

 

[Scorpus]

Yeah but 9 and some key players?

Last year we lost to the 18th placed side at home who were missing 6 or so best 22 players

 

[George CantStandYa]

Last year we lost to the 18th placed side at home who were missing 6 or so best 22 players

That was shit and unacceptable but we also had injuries.

Port beat Sydney in Sydney with less outs.

 

[jo172]

For what it's worth I think it's clear that we're better than last year and a bit churlish to suggest we're not.

It's whether we're better than 2023 that's the real and more significant issue in terms of assessing whether this is heading in the right direction.

Note at 2023 after 11 we were 6-5 with a percentage of 108%. Better point of comparison for hte second half of the season imo

 

[Southerntakeover]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

No, I think winning this game will tell us nothing but losing will show everything.

Win 2 out of the next 3, and I might start to believe that there's some improvement, even if its not the jump we should be expecting.

 

[Southerntakeover]

For what it's worth I think it's clear that we're better than last year and a bit churlish to suggest we're not.

It's whether we're better than 2023 that's the real and more significant issue in terms of assessing whether this is heading in the right direction.

Note at 2023 after 11 we were 6-5 with a percentage of 108%. Better point of comparison for hte second half of the season imo

How can it be churlish to compare the results to the equivalent games last year?

 

[feenix67]

For what it's worth I think it's clear that we're better than last year and a bit churlish to suggest we're not.

It's whether we're better than 2023 that's the real and more significant issue in terms of assessing whether this is heading in the right direction.

Note at 2023 after 11 we were 6-5 with a percentage of 108%. Better point of comparison for hte second half of the season imo

With the incoming talent we've had since then, it would be horrific if we hadn't improved since 2023. The question really is whether the current trajectory is sustainable and whether it will ultimately bear fruit (silverware), given coaching/selection/player development.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

I think there’s no doubt we’ve improved a bit (though that’s expected with our far better run of health and recruitments). Our next three weeks will be very indicative of whether we’ve made any tactical improvement, or our stronger wins have just been due to personnel. Should be coming out of that 2-1 bare minimum.

 

[WetCrow1991]

A team comparison of "Minutes played in Rookies season" statistic.

Now there's a stat I bet you didn't anticipate you'd see when we are top 4 at the bye round.

bye round?

 

[1970crow]

With the incoming talent we've had since then, it would be horrific if we hadn't improved since 2023. The question really is whether the current trajectory is sustainable and whether it will ultimately bear fruit (silverware), given coaching/selection/player development.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's no doubt that we have a finals capable list and a coach capable of getting us to finals. But inherent club philosophies on football strategy result in us needlessly limiting our ceiling. When the chips are down, we always favour the known mediocre or injured experienced players ahead of testing what we might have underneath our preferred 25. We don't manage our playing list properly, continuity is favoured ahead of maximising the wellness of the group heading into the finals period.

The last time we genuinely contended around the top 4 for multiple years we couldn't make the GF because our philisophies are ultimately limit us from being our best. We have spiked off bad years with the commensurate easier draw to reach a PF and GF, but then plummet following. This is where we are again now and it's no accident that we're playing the soon to retire Smith ahead of up and coming kids, we choose the average performer without a future ahead of taking a risk and unearthing something better.

Over 23 rounds Nicks and co can get us into the finals, even in the top 4 depending on fixture & injury. But this group will never win the 3 games against the hottest teams and coaching groups in the last month of the season. And the club has been comfortable with this since for more than a decade. Playing finals is the end game.

 

[TBM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's no doubt that we have a finals capable list and a coach capable of getting us to finals. But inherent club philosophies on football strategy result in us needlessly limiting our ceiling. When the chips are down, we always favour the known mediocre or injured experienced players ahead of testing what we might have underneath our preferred 25. We don't manage our playing list properly, continuity is favoured ahead of maximising the wellness of the group heading into the finals period.

The last time we genuinely contended around the top 4 for multiple years we couldn't make the GF because our philisophies are ultimately limit us from being our best. We have spiked off bad years with the commensurate easier draw to reach a PF and GF, but then plummet following. This is where we are again now and it's no accident that we're playing the soon to retire Smith ahead of up and coming kids, we choose the average performer without a future ahead of taking a risk and unearthing something better.

Over 23 rounds Nicks and co can get us into the finals, even in the top 4 depending on fixture & injury. But this group will never win the 3 games against the hottest teams and coaching groups in the last month of the season. And the club has been comfortable with this since for more than a decade. Playing finals is the end game.

great post

 

[GreyCrow]

Do posters agree that if we beat Sydney away then we have definitively improved?

And if we lose to them we haven't?

In essence the future of mankind depends on the outcome of this game

'' Brisbane are gash and we will beat them at home therefore our season remains on track you negative nancies ''