Bickley does things Craig could never do

[Allefgib]

Most of those changes are fairly marginal - less than 5%. VB & Thompson were the big movers - in VB's case it was clearly caused by a positional move. Thompson had been outstanding all year, just found an extra gear as the season drew to a close.

Must have missed your stats on Thompson - i certainly didn't publish any...

Danger on the other hand had a 33% increase in his possession count.
Doubled his tackle count.
Something I personally feel needed to be facilitated earlier. Has alot to work on but he'll learn more with the ball in his hand rather than sitting up forward.

VB was around the mark of a 30% increase in touches as well.
Also doubled his tackle count!!

Sloaney an increase in disposals of around 33% as well.... not sure where you are pulling these 5%'s from vader.. shit... (i do agree hard format to read...)

 

[Allefgib]

I agree with this bit. Although this was enabled due to Tippetts injury to some extent?

I specifically mentioned Danger because I believe Craigy would have played Danger as the main forward target in Tips abscence. Or at least rotated him in the mix heavily.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Tex would not have kicked 14 or 15 goals in the games he played, that is for sure. He may have played when Tippett was injured but no way would have he kicked as many goals.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Craigy would have played Danger as the main forward target in Tips abscence. .

This can't be argued.

To play in Neil's forward line, you had to be adept at keeping the ball in there.

Whether you could kick goals or not was completely irrelevant.

 

[Vader]

Must have missed your stats on Thompson - i certainly didn't publish any...

Sloaney an increase in disposals of around 33% as well.... not sure where you are pulling these 5%'s from vader.. shit... (i do agree hard format to read...)

Your use of the nickname "relentless" threw me. You were referring to Sloane, I thought you were referring to Thommo.

As for the 5% comment, I was going off the change in each player's SC scores (the last figure in each row).
Danger: 78.9->84.2 (+6.7%)
VB: 80.4->107.2 (+33.3%)
Tex: 69.3->75.3 (+8.6%)
Bernie: 87.2->88.8 (+1.8%)
Sloane: 81.6->101.8 (+24.7%)

Would you settle for less than 10% - still within the random error range, given the small sample size.

 

[Vader]

I specifically mentioned Danger because I believe Craigy would have played Danger as the main forward target in Tips abscence. Or at least rotated him in the mix heavily.

He definitely would have rotated him through there heavily, but Tex would have been the main target with Tippett AWOL through injury.

If Tippett hadn't got injured, then Tex would have continued playing in the SANFL under Craig - and in the AFL under Bicks.

 

[Allefgib]

Your use of the nickname "relentless" threw me. You were referring to Sloane, I thought you were referring to Thommo.

As for the 5% comment, I was going off the change in each player's SC scores (the last figure in each row).
Danger: 78.9->84.2 (+6.7%)
VB: 80.4->107.2 (+33.3%)
Tex: 69.3->75.3 (+8.6%)
Bernie: 87.2->88.8 (+1.8%)
Sloane: 81.6->101.8 (+24.7%)

Would you settle for less than 10% - still within the random error range, given the small sample size.

Not really that interested in random error ranges here mate

Sloaney and VB.. stunning turn arounds - can't be denied.

Danger - massive improvement in development as a midfielder, then lost SC due to lack of goals coz he wasn't playing as a forward anymore. Need to consider the reason the SC changes - it was critical we develop him as a mid-fielder. If he was gonig to stay a forward for most his career then we have an ever MORE pressing need for elite mid-field talent. He is the key to the future - had to play in the guts. Bicks did it and his numbers went up appropriately. More importantly his learning opportunities massively increased.

 

[Allefgib]

FYI, Rory 'Relentless' Sloane I've used before and you shoudl expect it again.

 

[Vader]

No argument that VB & Sloane had massive increases in their outputs under Bicks. The others, if anything, indicate that the outputs attributed to them have been somewhat overstated.

 

[jenny61_99]

I still want to know how much can be attributed to the fact that Craig left?

 

[Allefgib]

I still want to know how much can be attributed to the fact that Craig left?

For VB I'd say the vast majority of his uplift is because of the way bicks used him compared to Craig.

Sloaney - similar, as he was pushed through the middle more but happy to admit haven't watched enough replays and looked out for his usage when outside the square.

Danger - again all Bicks as he changed how he used him compared to Craig.

You can't see that Jen? I reckon you may have just pushed me beyond the care of trying to highlight it anymore.

 

[Allefgib]

No argument that VB & Sloane had massive increases in their outputs under Bicks. The others, if anything, indicate that the outputs attributed to them have been somewhat overstated.

Disagree. Danger's output change significantly. Go look at each stat.

 

[jenny61_99]

For VB I'd say the vast majority of his uplift is because of the way bicks used him compared to Craig.

Sloaney - similar, as he was pushed through the middle more but happy to admit haven't watched enough replays and looked out for his usage when outside the square.

Danger - again all Bicks as he changed how he used him compared to Craig.

You can't see that Jen? I reckon you may have just pushed me beyond the care of trying to highlight it anymore.

I just can't see how you can completely discount it? Granted Bicks made some moves, but was it the only reason their performance lifted? I say no.

The danger in stating that Bicks is solely responsible for the increase in their output is that the Club might feel the same way. My guess is - certainly with Danger and VB - both who adored Craig - they were feeling guilty for their part in his undoing - and deservedly so! I could be wrong, and it could be all Bicks... but god I hope not!

 

[Southerntakeover]

I dont really like that explanation.

If the lift was attributed to the great love for Craig, why didnt they perform when his job was actually on the line?

 

[Allefgib]

agree with you sto (that's going to cost me cred). in some ways there may have been no difference in their desire to perform for either coach.. but i don't think craigy set them up to produce their best (no matter how much they may have wanted to)


esp for danger/vb - they were not put in positions to influence the game enough under craig.

bickley put them in that position - and influence they did. more importantly, they had more opportunities to develop

I never said i discounted anything.... I just believe the more important changes were positional moves/simplifying attack on the footy/man and giving confidence back to some of the players who needed to have some shown in them.

 

[jenny61_99]

I dont really like that explanation.

If the lift was attributed to the great love for Craig, why didnt they perform when his job was actually on the line?

Yeah, good points (absolutely I want to know that!) - but you know how relationships get tired and mundane after a while? Both parties take the other for granted sort of thing. A parting of ways is a sure fire way to shake someone up, don't you think?

 

[Vader]

Disagree. Danger's output change significantly. Go look at each stat.

So.. his stats improved, but his impact on the game (as measured by SC points) barely moved... What are we proving or achieving here?

 

[Elite Crow]

That the more possessions Danger has the more clangers he contributes impacting on his sc points.

 

[Vader]

That the more possessions Danger has the more clangers he contributes impacting on his sc points.

So maybe we're better off positioning him at FF, where he just has to kick goals, rather than trying to hit a teammate on the chest?

 

[Elite Crow]

So maybe we're better off positioning him at FF, where he just has to kick goals, rather than trying to hit a teammate on the chest?

Problem is the ball wasn't getting to him

We recruited Danger as a midfielder and he should be developed as one, not a stop gap measure to address our forward line woes.

But Dangers disposal is a worry but in our team he isn't alone. Hopefully our new coach has different priorities.

 

[cmndstab]

Danger and VB had more possessions because they actually played in the midfield more, which is a positive move in my opinion

 

[Allefgib]

So.. his stats improved, but his impact on the game (as measured by SC points) barely moved... What are we proving or achieving here?

I thought I had my view of that clear already?
We were playing him as a midfielder not as a forward. More opportunities to learn and develop in the role we need him to play in for the next decade!

Also allowed tex to be more of a focal point up forward.

 

[Allefgib]

Yeah, good points (absolutely I want to know that!) - but you know how relationships get tired and mundane after a while? Both parties take the other for granted sort of thing. A parting of ways is a sure fire way to shake someone up, don't you think?

just so long as there's no ex-sex here...

 

[Vader]

I thought I had my view of that clear already?
We were playing him as a midfielder not as a forward. More opportunities to learn and develop in the role we need him to play in for the next decade!

Also allowed tex to be more of a focal point up forward.

As long as the first thing he learns & develops is the ability to hit a target more often than once in a blue moon.. This, more than anything else, is what's currently holding him back.

 

[Allefgib]

As long as the first thing he learns & develops is the ability to hit a target more often than once in a blue moon.. This, more than anything else, is what's currently holding him back.

Amen!

He won't learn that as a lead up, mark, kick goal forward.

I think he needs to find that moment to balance before kicking.

Currently he is worse than Symes at times....