Player Watch #3: Jed Anderson - successfully returns against Adelaide

Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Posts
12,277
Likes
24,044
Location
Waiting for Lindsay Thomas
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Titty Bong two's
Points are arbitrary.

Pick 5 gets me the 5th best available kid in the country in my judgement.

Someone giving me picks 41,42,43,44 in exchange for pick 5 doesn't achieve this no matter what algorithm Gillian Turing cranked out to the contrary in his man cave.
Not trying to rain on your parade but a few years back pick seven was a lot more valuable than pick 3, just sayin :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Heaps of fun

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
16,405
Likes
33,563
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I honestly hope you're right, but it's just been a complete shock at how far off the pace he is at the moment. Being picked for round 1 was a pretty big deal over blokes like garner, but garner is miles ahead of him.

I can see glimpses of things here and there, but under pressure it all falls away. He can have fantastic skills at training but if he can't deal with pressure he'll never make it and we'll never see his good skills. Needs to come back to pack with a big preseason.
Garner played round 1.
 

roos_fanatic08

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Posts
18,330
Likes
24,167
Location
Vic
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I honestly hope you're right, but it's just been a complete shock at how far off the pace he is at the moment. Being picked for round 1 was a pretty big deal over blokes like garner, but garner is miles ahead of him.

I can see glimpses of things here and there, but under pressure it all falls away. He can have fantastic skills at training but if he can't deal with pressure he'll never make it and we'll never see his good skills. Needs to come back to pack with a big preseason.
Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%
 

groo

All Australian
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Posts
635
Likes
149
Location
geelong
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%
Any sub vests or part games due to leaving ground injured?
 

Benno_900

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Posts
29,088
Likes
13,947
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Arsenal FC
Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%
1. Subs
2. Effective disposal stat is crap. You can count Anderson's on one hand.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Elite Master

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
9,716
Likes
6,826
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%
Turner and Garner are nothing special and probably never will be, so the fact that Jed is statistically not even up to par with them is worrying, even at this early stage.
 

scooby1279

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
7,173
Likes
9,602
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
kangaroos
If Garner was so good why was he the sub or getting subbed?

People overrated Garner on this board big time, and I'm one of his biggest fans
Agree, was a number of games when he played where he didn't do anything. So many people here rated him higher then Wood too.
Hopefully he gets over his injuries but he won't be a star player.
 

shintemaster

Premium Gold
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
13,916
Likes
21,131
Location
Ponderama
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Agree, was a number of games when he played where he didn't do anything. So many people here rated him higher then Wood too.
Hopefully he gets over his injuries but he won't be a star player.
I think this is fair. If he can get over his injuries though he can be a valuable impact player. Big hitting, speed, pressure, goals but unlikely to ever get huge numbers consistently (which to be fair is not uncommon with that position anyway).
 

giantroo

Bleeding Blue and White
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Posts
58,255
Likes
92,091
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Arsenal, Chicago Bulls
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-02/roo-jed-anderson-walking-tribunal-tightrope-in-finals


Roo walking Tribunal tightrope in finals

PLAYERS involved in finals can consider themselves big winners under the latest incarnation of the Match Review Panel, with only one player walking the Tribunal tightrope through September.

North Melbourne's Jed Anderson is the only finals-bound player charged by the MRP this season with two minor classifiable offences*, meaning he will be suspended if he commits another.

A further 22 players involved in finals have committed one minor classifiable offence this season – such as a low impact strike to the body – giving them one more chance before facing suspension.

Under the previous carryover points system, players who had transgressed once during the season would enter September knowing that one more minor offence could see them miss a cutthroat final.

Among finalists this season, North Melbourne has the most players (six) with a strike against their name.

Geelong and the Western Bulldogs have clean records.

1. Sydney Swans
Callum Sinclair
Heath Grundy
Sam Naismith

2. Geelong
Nil

3. Hawthorn
Grant Birchall
Taylor Duryea
Daniel Howe
Luke Hodge
Cyril Rioli

4. Greater Western Sydney
Stephen Coniglio
Adam Tomlinson
Tom Scully

5. Adelaide
Kyle Hartigan
Taylor Walker

6. West Coast
Mark LeCras
Scott Lycett
Jamie Cripps
Jeremy McGovern

7. Western Bulldogs
Nil

8. North Melbourne
Shaun Atley
Ben Cunnington
Scott Thompson
Michael Firrito
Jed Anderson (two strikes)
Brent Harvey

*Common classifiable offences are striking, rough conduct and tripping. They result in a financial sanction when graded intentional with low impact to the body, careless with medium impact to the body, or careless with low impact to the head, groin or body.
 

GoNorth

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Posts
5,565
Likes
2,427
Location
Arden St - HOME of NMFC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
North Melbourne
My mum has been getting stuck into Jed. I told her to remember that when he wins us a final... hoping that this week we tick that one off the list.
It must have something to do with mothers because mine also can't stand him and bags him whenever he dares to touch the ball (whether he's done something good or not!).
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Posts
1,616
Likes
2,450
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This analogy is getting tiresome.
Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick in 17.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison :thumbsu:
 
Last edited:

Mr Reliable

Proud member of the outer scrotum
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Posts
17,055
Likes
5,596
Location
Arden Street
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It's not what you've got but how you use it.

I believe that saying originated in the early years of draft picks.
Soundtrack song from the 1986 Scorsese film "The Color of Money" - "It's in the way that you use it". I think Clapton was singing about "talent".

Was there even a draft back then?
 

Mr Reliable

Proud member of the outer scrotum
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Posts
17,055
Likes
5,596
Location
Arden Street
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It must have something to do with mothers because mine also can't stand him and bags him whenever he dares to touch the ball (whether he's done something good or not!).
With thanks to Paul McCartney, though she was born a long, long time ago, your mother should know, GoNorth.

Your mother too, shintemaster.
 

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
13,809
Likes
25,707
Location
Bottom of the ladder
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we've made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison :thumbsu:
Again with semantics to support one of your arguments because you simply can't see the merit in alternative views once you've made your mind up.

Yes, we "used" pick 15, so we didn't still have pick 15. But we didn't just get Anderson for it. So, he didn't "cost" us 15 at all. It's not a lie, despite your vehement assertion that it did.

I'd be concerned if I was your employer if this is the way you interpret not looking at basic facts.
 

Mcarcherey

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Posts
1,308
Likes
1,451
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we've made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison :thumbsu:
North still had a first round pick. Anderson cost us a few picks from 15 to 19 (or 21 i forget exactly).

What's hard to figure out?
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Posts
1,616
Likes
2,450
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Again with semantics to support one of your arguments because you simply can't see the merit in alternative views once you've made your mind up.

Yes, we "used" pick 15, so we didn't still have pick 15. But we didn't just get Anderson for it. So, he didn't "cost" us 15 at all. It's not a lie, despite your vehement assertion that it did.

I'd be concerned if I was your employer if this is the way you interpret not looking at basic facts.
Ha. Rubbish.

Anderson cost us 15.

Bastinac cost lions 2 second rounders (helped from Anderson picks in our favour) and himself.

That's why we got 17 back.

The end.
 

Wells Now Williams Fan

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Posts
3,124
Likes
2,305
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Personally I think Anderson has improved as the year has gone on.

Don't be too harsh on him guys as you tear your hammy & then try and come from that far behind fitness wise.

Needs to do a massive summer in the gym and work on core strength but I am more than happy to have him at the club.

Full proper preseason & he will improve dramatically.
 
Top Bottom