Roast Brent Maccaffer

[Tippy78]

Just watched talking footy discuss macaffer vs griffin at centre clearances and they showed some of them.

1. Macaffer not in the picture. Swan on Griffin
2. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
3. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Mcrae
4. Adams on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
5. Macaffer on Griffin, griffin kicks off the ground

 

[Old Spice]

Just watched talking footy discuss macaffer vs griffin at centre clearances and they showed some of them.

1. Macaffer not in the picture. Swan on Griffin
2. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
3. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Mcrae
4. Adams on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
5. Macaffer on Griffin, griffin kicks off the ground

Nice work, it's always attention to detail that matters.

 

[Old Spice]

Great stuff Tippy. You can never take any of this stuff for granted. Got to watch the replay as I discovered with an early panning of Frost around the NAB Cup and early rounds.

I watched each Frost contest on review and the idea- which saturated this board - was that Frost played a shit game but the replay showed the contrary.

 

[Markfs]

Here are the centre clearances won by the player he tagged versus their averages in brackets*:

*Although he may not have taken his opponent for every single centre bounce from observation it would be the majority. In any case the numbers do not match up with his overall influence on restricting disposals.

Fantastic post. The use of asterisk and small print was the highlight. I might suggest the use of Harvard referencing or Chicago referencing. That might be determined by which publication you're going to publish your thesis in. I hope that you take this in the right way but I would suggest a multivariate analysis to determine the statistical significance of your findings. Great work though....

 

[piedpiper32]

If we look at the centre clearances, really, the red looks alarming but the only significant one is Griffen. Cotchin, Dangerfield, Steven are all sub 1 clearance. And as your asterix alludes to, that differential may be a matter of another opponent in the centre and account for that small differential.

I think it's an interesting point you make, and you accept he restricts them in general play - which is more significant, or perhaps scores from clearances are less significant, whichever way you want to read it - but there is a problem with your proposal. Besides the headache involved in switching opponents post the centre bounce, it's also worth considering that outside a centre clearance with the first touch, Cafe can stop them getting the 2nd disposal in a 1, 2 and from then running forward.

He can get his own ball too. Cafeteria is no slouch. I reckon he's not far behind Crowley as a negator and I'd wager he has more offensive hurt factor.

I happen to think Macaffer is a very good tagger around the ground and is underrated offensively so we are in agreement there OS.

But my point is that at centre clearances we are getting smashed and should try going 3 on 3. With Caff if he's not restricting his opponents centre clearances on average then we are effectively playing 2 v 3 mids and it shows in the numbers:
- We are ranked second last as a team in centre clearance averages.
- Since Rd 2 we are -23 in this stat so it's not a case about less centre bounces in general.
- As good as Pendlebury and Beams (our top 2) are they are only ranked 29th and 55th on average respectively and are not dominating enough to compensate for Macaffer.

As to the difficulties of starting him outside the square I agree it may be a little trickier to have him move and switch over. But having a third clearance guy (e.g. Ball, Adams, JT) means we should be getting a higher share and therefore give Caff more time to get across and on to his man. This also brings up the issue of having Ball/Adams/JT all in the side. Ball and Adams in particular need to be played at stoppages as much as possible as they don't have the game to be effective enough elsewhere. Given Pendles and Beams are our clear 1st and 2nd that doesn't leave much for the others already, and on top of that we have Caff taking up the 3rd slot most the time.

Also the 1-2 situation you mention could be a factor, but again by having a third clearance man in there you would expect them to have more impact in actually winning the ball first and therefore reduce opportunities for the opposition to have a 1-2.

Anyway as I said I think Macaffer is a good tagger, but giving up a fair bit in centre clearances means we are often having to start gaining possession from our own defensive 50. Might be time to try a slightly different approach, nothing too radical, just for centre clearances

 

[morelli89]

I don't like seeing him in there at centre clearances. Would much prefer he just rolls onto his opponent after the bounce. Got ripped up by Griffin this week, the week before I thought he was outstanding

 

[Old Spice]

I happen to think Macaffer is a very good tagger around the ground and is underrated offensively so we are in agreement there OS.

But my point is that at centre clearances we are getting smashed and should try going 3 on 3. With Caff if he's not restricting his opponents centre clearances on average then we are effectively playing 2 v 3 mids and it shows in the numbers:
- We are ranked second last as a team in centre clearance averages.
- Since Rd 2 we are -23 in this stat so it's not a case about less centre bounces in general.
- As good as Pendlebury and Beams are they are only ranked 29th and 55th respectively and are not dominating enough to compensate for Macaffer.

As to the difficulties of starting him outside the square I agree it may be a little trickier to have him move and switch over. But having a third clearance guy (e.g. Ball, Adams, JT) means we should be getting a higher share and therefore give Caff more time to get across and on to his man. This also brings up the issue of having Ball/Adams/JT all in the side. Ball and Adams in particular need to be played at stoppages as much as possible as they don't have the game to be effective enough elsewhere. Given Pendles and Beams are our clear 1st and 2nd that doesn't leave much for the others already, and on top of that we have Caff taking up the 3rd slot most the time.

Also the 1-2 situation you mention could be a factor, but again by having a third clearance man in there you would expect them to have more impact in actually winning the ball first and therefore reduce opportunities for the opposition to have a 1-2.

Anyway as I said I think Macaffer is a good tagger, but giving up a fair bit in centre clearances means we are often having to start gaining possession from our own defensive 50. Might be time to try a slightly different approach, nothing too radical, just for centre clearances

I think Grundy is a place to start with advantage in the centre square. I much prefer Witts and White as the two ruck options as both get closer to the contest and either provide a better tap (Witts) or a better 2nd effort (White). Grundy will be good and is good in a contest in his vicinity round the ground but if he doesn't win it he is burnt on the defensive spread.

Whatever value you place on centre clearances as a site of scoring, it's certainly still important. But as Tippy suggested above, Caff wasn't the one getting burned from the centre by Griffen. It sounds very much like Swan was on Griffen when he got away.

 

[piedpiper32]

I think Grundy is a place to start with advantage in the centre square. I much prefer Witts and White as the two ruck options as both get closer to the contest and either provide a better tap (Witts) or a better 2nd effort (White). Grundy will be good and is good in a contest in his vicinity round the ground but if he doesn't win it he is burnt on the defensive spread.

Whatever value you place on centre clearances as a site of scoring, it's certainly still important. But as Tippy suggested above, Caff wasn't the one getting burned from the centre by Griffen. It sounds very much like Swan was on Griffen when he got away.

The ruck is a place to look as well as we are -60 in hitouts for the season and again second last in the league on average.
Not sure the difference in hitouts to advantage, but we are already pushing uphill by losing overall hitouts more often that not.

Witts and Grundy are still learning the craft. As for White his second efforts should be better, but in his overall career so far he has actually shown to have better overall games as a full-time forward than as a forward/ruck. Unfortunately with his poor form recently as a forward, and our ruck/clearance situation he may need to be played there. I'm just not sure any combo will make that much of a difference to our competitiveness in the ruck.

So given that we can experiment with the rucks, but I still think the focus should be on the clearance guys and inside mids to give us the best chance.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Just watched talking footy discuss macaffer vs griffin at centre clearances and they showed some of them.

1. Macaffer not in the picture. Swan on Griffin
2. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
3. Swan on Griffin, Macaffer on Mcrae
4. Adams on Griffin, Macaffer on Wallis
5. Macaffer on Griffin, griffin kicks off the ground

Time to roast Swan mike123

 

[Old Spice]

I think White into the ruck turned the game V Melbourne and similarly I think we competed better once Grundy left the ground V Dogs.

No slight on Grundy overall as a developing player, but he is not fit enough right now and I think it hurts us.

The absence of Reid is the problem of course. The two young ruck lads are moonlighting as forwards and if White goes into the ruck Trav will be monstered. Still, I'd look for Witts/White and honour leads.

 

[HFF]

But the opposition could double team Cloke allot easier with one less forward.

The opposition are always going to double team Cloke.

 

[Magpie Mason]

I agree. Especially considering Griffin tore Macaffer a new one last season you would of thought Buckley would of learned from his mistake.

it was a bad match up. Caf should have had Libba. Agree, having Caf in the middle means we are one down when it comes to clearance options. If he is going into the middle he needs to work on getting the ball out as well. Also means we are one short at the stoppages, which is killing us around the ground. I wonder if the value of a tagger is over rated. All players should have a defensive game.

 

[Pendles!]

Its unbelievable hey! As soon as someone plays a bad game they just turn against them!

Pies fans very quick to drown your own...2 below par performances in 12 weeks, think a few of you need to take a GHLAY....

It's just the minority, most of us understand where we're at.

 

[jmac70]

It was interesting watching Caff prepare for Griffin on "The Club" tonight. At the end of the day Griffin was just too good. Caff is not going to win every duel and so far is doing an outstanding job. Back him in to have a good game this week.