Delisted #2: Ricky Dyson

[Nasty Penguin]

Statistics can be made to prove anything. I do like that you left out disposal efficiency and clangers, good way to make you point. Bring back Hank Slattery while you are on your Dyson crusade

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Statistics can be made to prove anything. I do like that you left out disposal efficiency and clangers, good way to make you point. Bring back Hank Slattery while you are on your Dyson crusade

Strawman. Please try and address the topic.

 

[Duckworth]

Statistics can be made to prove anything. I do like that you left out disposal efficiency and clangers, good way to make you point. Bring back Hank Slattery while you are on your Dyson crusade

Then make them prove your point.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Statistics can be made to prove anything. I do like that you left out disposal efficiency and clangers, good way to make you point. Bring back Hank Slattery while you are on your Dyson crusade

I presented every stat offered from that site

But since you asked...

Clangers per game
Browne 0.8 (from13.7 disposals)
Baguley 1.7 (from 16.1 disposals)
Dyson 1.8 (from 19.1 disposals)
Dell'Olio 2.1 (from 8.8 disposals)



Disposal Efficiency
Baguley 73%
Browne 73%
Dyson 70%
Dell'Olio 63%

Contested Possesions
Dyson 5.9
Browne 4.8
Baguley 4.7
Dell'Olio 3.3


Some extra stats...

Inside 50's
Dyson 3
Browne 2.3
Dell'Olio 1.75
Baguley 1.29

Rebound 50's
Baguley 3.3
Dyson 2.5
Browne 1.3
Dell'Olio 0.1

Goal Assists
Dell'Olio 0.8
Dyson 0.5
Browne 0.2
Baguley 0

Now, are you going to bring up anything meaningful to support your argument?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I presented every stat offered from that site

But since you asked...

Clangers per game
Baguley 1.7 (from 16.1 disposals)
Dyson 1.8 (from 19.1 disposals)
Dell'Olio 2.1 (from 8.8 disposals)
Browne 0.8 (from13.7 disposals)


Disposal Efficiency
Baguley 73%
Browne 73%
Dyson 70%
Dell'Olio 63%

Now, are you going to bring up anything meaningful to support your argument?

haha no dison is shit lol

 

[Towno78]

Browne, Dell, O'Brien and Bags had more impact than Dyson did in 2012 and they've only just started careers at an AFL level.

Are you mates with Benno?

 

[Eleven 38]

Your reply makes no sense at all. You think he didn't improve because he didn't play round 1?

Dyson is a depth player. Players get injured, he comes in and does a good job. Better players come in, he gets dropped. Top 4 clubs have these depth players to get through the long season. Bottom 4 clubs gamble on rookies. Depends where you think we are.

which top 4 club brings in a 27yo like Dyson as depth ?? they bring in kids that do a job..

 

[The Prosecutor]

which top 4 club brings in a 27yo like Dyson as depth ?? they bring in kids that do a job..

Sydney brought Morton in during the finals...

 

[Doss]

Speechless.

I'm with Bruno- such statements seriously endanger my faith in humanity.

 

[Benno30]

Are you mates with Benno?

We do not know each other at all to be honest but i have to agree with most of what he is saying.

If you want to win more games of footy and win flags and so on you have to always be looking to improve. Now the more games you get into Browne and baguley in particular the more they will improve. Games should not be gifted but in the same sense where is the sense of keeping someone on your list that has no improvement left and would be somewhere in the range of player 28 - 35 on the list. Brown and co could still fail but surely they have shown enough to suggest it is worth giving them every oppurtunity to step up. Sometimes the added responsibility is enough for players to jump a level or 2.

It is obvious that we are not all going to agree on this one but as the season unfolds in 2013 i am pretty sure that not many of us will be saying dyson should have stayed. The kids are prove their worth and dyson will be all forgotten about.

 

[Slattery_20]

While Nasty Penguin thinks we should use the draft pick, I would ask him/her to provide an example or two of a player taken in the 100's who has had any impact at AFL level, let alone in an immediate fashion.

To be fair though, that 'pick in the 100s' will not be in the 100s, when you consider the actual number of list spots open & the number of rookie upgrades going on around the league.
Assuming we use every one of our picks, our last "pick", the one for Baguley's upgrade, that will be about early-to-mid 80s.
The one that we are talking about (the one opened up by delisting Dyson) will be 80 or thereabouts.

And every club that decides to go after a delisted free agent, every club that holds off for the PSD is a 'win' for that pick.

TL;DR, we've reached a point where actual output > potential/development.

For which group?
Irks me where we talk about the list as one, homogenised unit and everything's black & white and there are defined windows etc
They have hacked into our 25-28year olds. A few of our 20 year olds are gone. And we will add a largeish group of 18 year olds.
That doesn't mean all the eggs are in the basket of the few, remaining, 25-28 year olds.
In fact I don't see that as working to any defined script at all, other than they've added the best available talent.

 

[Towno78]

We do not know each other at all to be honest but i have to agree with most of what he is saying.

If you want to win more games of footy and win flags and so on you have to always be looking to improve. Now the more games you get into Browne and baguley in particular the more they will improve. Games should not be gifted but in the same sense where is the sense of keeping someone on your list that has no improvement left and would be somewhere in the range of player 28 - 35 on the list. Brown and co could still fail but surely they have shown enough to suggest it is worth giving them every oppurtunity to step up. Sometimes the added responsibility is enough for players to jump a level or 2.

It is obvious that we are not all going to agree on this one but as the season unfolds in 2013 i am pretty sure that not many of us will be saying dyson should have stayed. The kids are prove their worth and dyson will be all forgotten about.

I haven't commented on the argument at all. In reality I'm on the fence with this one. I would've kept him, particularly with all the other delistings, but I'm not losing sleep over it (do feel for the bloke though).

However, that comment he made, the one that I quoted, was extremely poor.

 

[BrunoV]

Speechless.

I'm with Bruno- such statements seriously endanger my faith in humanity.

It is not a good thing when you'll say literally anything, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it supports an argument.

The really annoying thing is that a lot of those who we've been arguing with see Dyson's de-listing as supporting their view, formed about 6 years ago, that he is a "dud". There is a middle ground. Solid 100 game player being seen as expendable, in light of a what is increasingly looking like a planned replacement and not the sacking of an underperforming player*, is no disgrace. It is pretty much at the heart of ambitious list management.

The Dyson de-listing has re-emphasised that preconceived ideas are much more influential than the footy that is being played on the weekends when "opinions" are formed. It is why opinion for the sake of opinion is a waste of time.




*Bomber strongly hinted at us knowing more than one of the players we will be recruiting at the end of the year. I got the impression it is going to be further mature aged players (whose destinations are usually known before the draft) and maybe Jacobs who could put a price on his head enough to allow us to select him with pick 35.

It doesn't change my view that the de-listing was harsh but I can appreciate what they are doing if they are able to look at it as 20-24 yo Jacobs/VFL Player vs Dyson. It is very different to unknown speculative pick vs Dyson.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Your reply makes no sense at all. You think he didn't improve because he didn't play round 1?

Really?

Dyson is not as good as any player in the first 22 ergo when he comes in he does not improve the team.

If you want to talk about the list - then yes, he does strengthen the list as he is a solid replacement, but that is a short term thing as he cannot improve the list any further as he is at the peak of his powers.

Dyson is a depth player. Players get injured, he comes in and does a good job. Better players come in, he gets dropped. Top 4 clubs have these depth players to get through the long season. Bottom 4 clubs gamble on rookies. Depends where you think we are.

Garbage. Go and watch a Collingwood or a Geelong or even a Hawthron game and tell me all the depth players they are using. They have a few blokes who are borderline 22 and the rest are 18-22 year olds looking to find a spot in the team.

Oh and your comment also confirms my comment - if better players come in and he gets dropped, how can he improve the performance of the side? All he can do is limit the amount we are weakened by, due to losing player x out of the backline.

 

[Slattery_20]

Garbage. Go and watch a Collingwood or a Geelong or even a Hawthron game and tell me all the depth players they are using. They have a few blokes who are borderline 22 and the rest are 18-22 year olds looking to find a spot in the team.

Oh and your comment also confirms my comment - if better players come in and he gets dropped, how can he improve the performance of the side? All he can do is limit the amount we are weakened by, due to losing player x out of the backline.

Hawthorn have pretty specifically recruited guys like Bruce, Skipper, McAuley, Cheney, Boumann & Pattinson to do just that.
I doubt the Pies saw/see Buckley, Russell & Young as regulars either.

Cats have not really recruited many from elsewhere, prior to getting Rivers/McIntosh anyway. And you'd imagine they will both be pretty much 1sts players for the remainder of their careers.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Really?

Dyson is not as good as any player in the first 22 ergo when he comes in he does not improve the team.

Which would make him a depth player. You can only have 22 best 22 players. You have a list of 40+

 

[BrunoV]

Hawthorn have pretty specifically recruited guys like Bruce, Skipper, McAuley, Cheney, Boumann & Pattinson to do just that.
I doubt the Pies saw/see Buckley, Russell & Young as regulars either.

Cats have not really recruited many from elsewhere, prior to getting Rivers/McIntosh anyway. And you'd imagine they will both be pretty much 1sts players for the remainder of their careers.

The Cats are at the other end of the scale. They held onto some players too long (Milburn going 1 year earlier would have enabled them to retain Laidler for example), drafted genuinely old VFL players (Stephenson & Pods) and retained guys like Byrnes and Wojak until they were absolutely certain that they had replacements.

As ridiculous as it sounds my impression of Wojak (who played in 2 or 3 flags) was that he was not really considered best 22 but that it was more his reliability and experience that saw him trusted as the man to turn to. I have no doubt that it is the case for Byrnes who was very quickly superseded.

As you've already pointed out Hawthorn are serial depth recruiters while Collingwood has recruited many players to plug gaps and add depth.

 

[Slattery_20]

The Cats are at the other end of the scale. They held onto some players too long (Milburn going 1 year earlier would have enabled them to retain Laidler for example), drafted genuinely old VFL players (Stephenson & Pods) and retained guys like Byrnes and Wojak until they were absolutely certain that they had replacements.

As ridiculous as it sounds my impression of Wojak (who played in 2 or 3 flags) was that he was not really considered best 22 but that it was more his reliability and experience that saw him trusted as the man to turn to. I have no doubt that it is the case for Byrnes who was very quickly superseded.

As you've already pointed out Hawthorn are serial depth recruiters while Collingwood has recruited many players to plug gaps and add depth.

Dunno. They held onto him for a long while through hammie injuries. And he always played in finals. With an otherwise fairly slow list, he was probably more important than he would've been at other clubs.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Hawthorn have pretty specifically recruited guys like Bruce, Skipper, McAuley, Cheney, Boumann & Pattinson to do just that.
I doubt the Pies saw/see Buckley, Russell & Young as regulars either.

Cats have not really recruited many from elsewhere, prior to getting Rivers/McIntosh anyway. And you'd imagine they will both be pretty much 1sts players for the remainder of their careers.

Hawks routinely turf them if they do not perform and they are also a top 4 team who can pick some of them up as insurance. We are not.

I woudl also argue the Hawks improvement has not come form those players but from the younger ones Suckling, Breust, Smith stepping up. Most have been given generous runs in the firsts to establish themselves. They obviously have to perform, but they were provided those opportunities over those mentioned above.

Pies again are at the top. Buckley has struggled to get games in front of the younger ones (hasn't he been delisted or am I thinking of someone else?). Russell has a top2 BnF so he has talent. Young played in a GF. Both better footballers than Dyson

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Which would make him a depth player. You can only have 22 best 22 players. You have a list of 40+

Exactly. The quesiton is, do we need 27yr old depth players?

The coaching staff think not thankfully as depth players who will only be dpeth players are really only needed once you are aiming for top 4 (even if you don't make it). Otherwise you play younger guys 19-22yr olds and develop them so that either they become the depth for your flag shot, or become your top liners. If they fail to do either, they become part of the general list management and are replaced.

The reason we have gotten rid of a 1/4 is due to the GC/GWS. We would likley have made 6 changes each year and spread the load, but we couldn't. No point accepting where we are at is good enough. Bottom end of the list needs a lot of work according to the coaches and I agree.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Exactly. The quesiton is, do we need 27yr old depth players?

The coaching staff think not thankfully as depth players who will only be dpeth players are really only needed once you are aiming for top 4 (even if you don't make it). Otherwise you play younger guys 19-22yr olds and develop them so that either they become the depth for your flag shot, or become your top liners. If they fail to do either, they become part of the general list management and are replaced.

The reason we have gotten rid of a 1/4 is due to the GC/GWS. We would likley have made 6 changes each year and spread the load, but we couldn't. No point accepting where we are at is good enough. Bottom end of the list needs a lot of work according to the coaches and I agree.

I'll be incredibly pissed off if we're not aiming for top 4 and beyond this season. We're ready. Time to stop developing at all costs (Melksham 22 games for example) and start winning at all costs.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Our best left kick has left the building.

Good luck with everything Dyson.

 

[Slattery_20]

Hawks routinely turf them if they do not perform and they are also a top 4 team who can pick some of them up as insurance. We are not.

Well, true. To my mind that just changes the numbers a bit. You don't immediately flick a switch from 'future future future' to 'now now NOW!'.

We have probably 8 known good things, another 15 or so we're happy enough with, and maybe 2 heading towards retirement, which gives us the balance ( 15 or so) to play with, between depth/new prospects - priority 1 is (by far) new prospects.

Hawks have probably 12-15 good things, another 10-12 they're happy enough with, which means they have less pressing need for new prospects. And can afford a few more depth. Priority 1 is the 'now'. Soon enough (with a lot of 29-30yos) they will have to think about the future.

I woudl also argue the Hawks improvement has not come form those players but from the younger ones Suckling, Breust, Smith stepping up. Most have been given generous runs in the firsts to establish themselves. They obviously have to perform, but they were provided those opportunities over those mentioned above.

True.
But how much did being able to only play in their preferred position (for those players) help?
ie they specifically got Cheney to play back pocket, so they weren't forcing a more creative player (ie Suckling) back there. etc.

Just saying, there are times (for any club) when it probably is right to have (or go and get) a specific, depth player.

ie I think it's probably right for us to get a depth tall back, if we want to set Hurley as a forward. It will allow us to manage Fletch better, it allows us to keep Hurley forward and it means we're not going to be pushing unfit guys across the line (which we've done probably half a dozen times over the last few years, with Pears/Hooker)

 

[Pevers-Legend]

I'll be incredibly pissed off if we're not aiming for top 4 and beyond this season. We're ready. Time to stop developing at all costs (Melksham 22 games for example) and start winning at all costs.

I agree. But I don't think our depth players were good enough to allow it to happen.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Well, true. To my mind that just changes the numbers a bit. You don't immediately flick a switch from 'future future future' to 'now now NOW!'.

We have probably 8 known good things, another 15 or so we're happy enough with, and maybe 2 heading towards retirement, which gives us the balance ( 15 or so) to play with, between depth/new prospects - priority 1 is (by far) new prospects.

Hawks have probably 12-15 good things, another 10-12 they're happy enough with, which means they have less pressing need for new prospects. And can afford a few more depth. Priority 1 is the 'now'. Soon enough (with a lot of 29-30yos) they will have to think about the future.

And that is the cycle I talk of (stupid AFL). We are on the verge of joining them, but our list so far is not good enough to join them. Hence we are tyring to find those players to help us get there.

True.
But how much did being able to only play in their preferred position (for those players) help?
ie they specifically got Cheney to play back pocket, so they weren't forcing a more creative player (ie Suckling) back there. etc.

Just saying, there are times (for any club) when it probably is right to have (or go and get) a specific, depth player.

ie I think it's probably right for us to get a depth tall back, if we want to set Hurley as a forward. It will allow us to manage Fletch better, it allows us to keep Hurley forward and it means we're not going to be pushing unfit guys across the line (which we've done probably half a dozen times over the last few years, with Pears/Hooker)

No arguments. But it doesn't change that Dyson is not necessary and that we need better back up players who have the potential at least to improve the squad.