Changes for next week

[WaynesWorld19]

Now I am conviced you are just taking the piss, seriously do you really think that Craig is a great coach

His record certainly doesnt support that, a true mark of a great coach is premiership success. Good coaches are a dime a dozen, but great coaches are as rare as hens teeth. There have been plenty of good coaches that have come and gone through the system, but you can count on one hand the number of great coaches there has been in the last 10-15 years or so.

Regardless of how much people want to overrate Craig he will never be seen as a great coach until he achieves success in September. At the moment he has achieved no more than Ayres or Cornes did, arguably Ayres could be even be rated higher due to Geelong's 1995 grand final appearance.

Your opinion .....and yes I do think Craig is a great coach

Interesting ...do we judge coaching on premierships or winning game %

I can certainly understand thinking that a premiership is the ultimate test of success ......but does that entitle you to be called a great coach

Allistair Clarkson is a premiership coach with a 47% winning rate .......is Allistair a great coach?

Craig has a winning percentage of 59% ......and is getting us in positions to have regular shots at a flag which IMO still requires a touch of luck .....injuries and quality of opposition

Winning Records

Craig - 59%
Blight - 55%
Eade - 55%
Roos - 58%
Malthouse - 56%
Barassi - 53%


Now Blight is regarded as a great coach .......but if he hadn't come to Adelaide would his losing GF record have precluded him from being called a great coach ........IMO he was unlucky at Geelong, lucky at Adelaide .....but to me the ability to keep getting there stamped him as a great coach

Barrasi had the runs on the board with Carlton and North Melb ......but flopped miserably at Melbourne ........does he therefore not be considered a great coach because he failed to win a flag at Melbourne

The old adage strong administration, great cattle and an ounce of luck IMO holds true .......how much should that therefore influence perceived greatness in a coach

 

[Vader]

Vader your last highlighted point continues to be behind the "focussed" attack on Burton

I am still to be convinced in any way shape or form that Burton is keeping Walker out ............ It's not as if our forward line is kicking big scores and can't accept another good forward .....I am sure when Knights is available he'll come in and Burton also will remain

Indeed, I have raised the possibility several times this week that Burton might be dropped without Walker coming into the side. He may well be dropped to make way for Dangermouse or Knights.

Vince & Thompson may have had stats but their effectiveness has been minimal

I believe I made that point when I stated that they were butchering the ball as badly as Burton.

Which is why Walker is being developed the way he is

Indeed.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'd say a fair bit. Different type players. Look a hell of a lot alike, but a lot different. Davis has the inability to take a Mark Williams type for a full game, Otto could, which in turn releases Johncock/Doughty from the task. At the same time Otto took Scott Lucas, Allowing Bock to free up. I'd have them both in my 22, though I'm a massive Davis homer.

I think your memory is playing tricks on you. you massively overrated Otten and what he has achieved so far. He played 24 games, but on a per game basis his B&F ranking was only 18th.

Otto was also a line breaker. Would play on in every situation, carry the footy and use long kicking when possible. Davis (in defence) is more your stay at home. So we loose an attacking element.

I'd have them both in, but I'd say at this point in their careers Otto is a fair distance ahead in what he can do and what he provides the team.

if he was so valuable why is he playing the least accountable, easiest position on the ground? He was being developed last year, and somehow you've convinced yourself he was a front line performer.

He had a good year, and looks like he might be a front line performer one day.

This is good for CD rep. And as you said, as noone knows what it's exactly made up of, are you able to get the correlation on the 8-15 range in B&F and CD rankings?

what a pointless statement. why don't you provide some evidence for why you think 8-15 is the true test? stupid attempt at obfuscation.

This is where my issue lays, your top guys like a Judd, is usually also your top stat man as well. Now what Judd provides beyond stats is priceless, as seen Monday night, crap efficiency %, but broke lines and tore the game apart.

your issues are in basic understanding and a lazy unwillingness to do some research.

Judd is not a traditional top stat man at all, go check his dream team scores (which are based on traditional stats) to see how its only the advanced stats that really show his impact.

"tore the game apart" you want to use that, and then criticise more objective means of analysis?

My point being, what about those low stat guys, who provide something to their team? That can't be measured in stats. Leadership, (to uyse the now famous afc quote) HALF WINS!, dire tagging, the ability to attack with a handpass rather than defend. All very difficult to measure with a stat, mostly impossible.

have you thought that the reason that the things you think you think can't be measured is because they're not real?

that's just backwards rationalisation.

more to the point, the only customers for Champion Data stats are the media and the clubs. you cannot buy them.

If the industry itself is prepared to pay for them and indeed pay sufficiently to sustain them, maybe you need to stop repeating the mantra of the "out of touch" old man (commonly known as: what your dad says) that you can't measure heart, leadership etc etc

what's worse, and annoying about this sort of clumsy denial is that many of the things you now think of as ordinary stats are actually advanced metrics invented by champion data that have become common place due to the efficacy.

everything from disposal efficiency, contested marking/possession, inside 50, clearances etc etc.

what is true is that they don't necessarily measure role, but equally if that were significant you wouldn't see the correlation between B&F results and further you wouldn't see the clubs shell out to buy the stats that little use to them.

You've said they don't watch our games, so it's likely where this indicator falls down is in intangibles. As well as the fact they disregard players after they've been injured for a while. Symes, MOran and Otto are all best 22 (imo ofcourse ), yet none are FSI 22. Symes provides leadership, toughness, a hard nose edge, a footy nouse (like booting it long in the wet rather than handpassing backwards) and will lift the team through example, yet it is likely that Myke Cook (and I'm a fan) is above him now on the FSI best.

blah blah intangibles blah blah. by intangibles what you really mean is what you already think i.e. your opinion.

the reason you say Symes provides "leadership, toughness, a hard nosed edge" is because he is a shit player and you need to invent things to support your opinion. As opposed to looking at the evidence first and then deriving your view from there.

I think any system that doesn't support such random bias can only be a good one.

The FSI looks like it's taken the next step in stats, and it very proactive in it's analysis. Having read a bit more about it, it looks like it goes well beyong supercoach etc. But it's still fundamentally floored. Though I don't believe there can be a stat system that provides a true analysis of the 'best' team.

well I'm glad you've finally gotten around to taking a look at what it really does, maybe you can start to let go of this effluent intangibles toss too.

Just on the Mooney point. I said this because Harley and Bartel have both said that Mooney was their most important player for their structure. Obviously this wont be the Browlow case, but what he does allows so much more than the 1-3 he may kick. Running to create space, not a stat, but SO effective. Having played a ton of basketball and now with zoning in footy, movement is key. You get no stat for a dummy lead to open space, but you get a game next week.

So he plays his role, and that makes him their most important player? right.

He gets suspended plenty and misses games - what is the difference in their win/loss when he doesn't play? if he's so important surely we can observe an aggregate difference when he's not in the team.

Tippett was, as you said probably gifted games. But once again on structure, you could see why he was getting them. Defensive pressure, ability to ruck the 50 (as the Crows have shown that a forward will ruck pretty much every F50 ruck contest), mis-matches dues to athletecism etc. There were probably a few more that deserved a game statistically speaking, but Craig is a massive structure man, and Tippett is a wet dream for Craigs set up, no-one can play the role he does.

6 hitouts and 2 tackles a game. which also gets back to the fallacy that a FF provides structure, he plays too deep.

by the way, where do you think all the stats come from that the various assistant coaches in the match day box are looking at?

 

[Crow-mo]

I am going to quote a few things from Champion Data, in how they explain some of the factors around their rankings.

The reasons they list as to why they are valuable:

1. The measures are objectively set in formula and reviewed annually - so it avoids fashion and trends. NB. this has happened every year since 1999
2. Rankings have a rigour of research behind them and a substantial body of work that has focus on what statistics correlate the strongest with success
3. the rankings automatically adjust for different game styles and trends - concentrates on quality not quantity
4. Rankings don't forget. they apply the same measure to game one as they do to game 22. They enable you to quickly look at variations in performance between winning and losing or home and interstate
5. the rankings adjust for state of game i.e. a close game versus a blow out, as well as time of game and where events occur. rankings scale up points when the scores are close, when there is no time left on the clock or the player is executing something in a dangerous area of the ground. i.e. a kick inside 50
6. rankings correlate with B&F results
   

Other elements they talk about are:

the rankings are geared to reward the winning factors of a game of AFL football. They take into account impact on the scoreboard, how much of the ball a player wins, but more importantly how effectively they dispose of the football and in what manner they win the ball with a loading in favour of winning the disputed ball.

The rankings also take into account the defensive actions of a game including tackling, blocks and spoils. To highlight how sophisticated the formula is, a spoil that creates a stoppage is rewarded with 2 points, one that results in a teammate possession is worth 4 points, and one that results in an opposition possession is one point.

the positioning of where the ball wins the ball on the ground is also taken into account. For example, an action in the forward 50 will be weighted higher than one in the midfield because 68% of the game is played in the midfield, therefore there is less opportunity in the arcs.

Finally the state of the game is taken into account. When the game is at its tightest the points will be at a premium, however, if the game is a blow out the points are downgraded.

You can read more about it in the prospectus, but they have also devised a system to adjust for game styles and trends. since 2004 disposals per game are up 28% and they normalise 2009 performances against 2004.


on the subject of Chris Judd, they do an interesting comparison on Judd vs Scott Thompson who has almost identical possession rates.

Judd has a considerably higher ranking, despite 26.5 disposals vs. 26.3
He has a higher DE%, and wins 40% of his disposals in a contest against Thompson's 28%. Judd has higher scoreboard assists, and played in a team that averaged 28 disposals less than Adelaide.

the idea that this is some sort of unsophisticated system that is somehow inferior to an one eyed supporter in the outer cheering on his favourites is laughable.

 

[NTRabbit]

So he is being assessed to a higher standard?

Not necessarily a higher standard, just a different set of criteria.

Or perhaps it is the same criteria - in addition to onfield performances - which Tippett met and Walker is not.

 

[WALL-e]

I think your memory is playing tricks on you. you massively overrated Otten and what he has achieved so far. He played 24 games, but on a per game basis his B&F ranking was only 18th.

You asked me to compare Otto to Davis. I imagine their per game B&F results wouldn't differ too much, probably favoring Otto.

if he was so valuable why is he playing the least accountable, easiest position on the ground? He was being developed last year, and somehow you've convinced yourself he was a front line performer.

He had a good year, and looks like he might be a front line performer one day.

I didn't quote him as a tier one player, but listed his versatility. Played on smalls and talls. What position do you think he played last year? The same Bassett played when he was a Crow?

what a pointless statement. why don't you provide some evidence for why you think 8-15 is the true test? stupid attempt at obfuscation.

Arh yes. the player who finished extreemly high in the B&F is likely to finish high in the CD, usually because they get a lot of the ball, it's what good players do.

What I asked, is if there is a correlation down the list, not just at #1. This could help determine whether things taken into account for the B&F relate directly to the CD ratings, or if it's just more of a top line similarity. Players that range in that 8-15 range in the B&F are usually your important 2nd tier players, now some of these guys may not get a ton of ball, how do they match up. You disregarded this.

your issues are in basic understanding and a lazy unwillingness to do some research.

Judd is not a traditional top stat man at all, go check his dream team scores (which are based on traditional stats) to see how its only the advanced stats that really show his impact.

"tore the game apart" you want to use that, and then criticise more objective means of analysis?

Judd's a very good Super Coach player. And yes, he "tore it up" Monday. Took the game on and stood up in tackles providing handballs to open players when others would have been pinged for HTB. Yet his stats were average. Not reflecting the role he played and his importance. I'm sorry if watching the game isn't as objective as reading the stats, will keep that in mind.

have you thought that the reason that the things you think you think can't be measured is because they're not real?

that's just backwards rationalisation.

more to the point, the only customers for Champion Data stats are the media and the clubs. you cannot buy them.

If the industry itself is prepared to pay for them and indeed pay sufficiently to sustain them, maybe you need to stop repeating the mantra of the "out of touch" old man (commonly known as: what your dad says) that you can't measure heart, leadership etc etc

what's worse, and annoying about this sort of clumsy denial is that many of the things you now think of as ordinary stats are actually advanced metrics invented by champion data that have become common place due to the efficacy.

everything from disposal efficiency, contested marking/possession, inside 50, clearances etc etc.

what is true is that they don't necessarily measure role, but equally if that were significant you wouldn't see the correlation between B&F results and further you wouldn't see the clubs shell out to buy the stats that little use to them.

Stats are very important. And the best players usually have the best stats. But your neat little table shows the B&F, captain Darren Glass f,inishing 10th on CD being out done by Priddis, a stat whore who butchers it all too often. While solid, and a guy who just runs, isn't given the courtesy of being tagged at all.

blah blah intangibles blah blah. by intangibles what you really mean is what you already think i.e. your opinion.

You're inability to acknowledge that some things can't be measured in stats is a massive downfall to your arguement.

the reason you say Symes provides "leadership, toughness, a hard nosed edge" is because he is a shit player and you need to invent things to support your opinion. As opposed to looking at the evidence first and then deriving your view from there.

I think any system that doesn't support such random bias can only be a good one.

Symes has not only earned a spot on the leadership group in which he and VB are noticably younger, if you think he's shit that's fine, I think you're quite wrong.

well I'm glad you've finally gotten around to taking a look at what it really does, maybe you can start to let go of this effluent intangibles toss too.

No, you're glad I acknowledged your opinion has some merit, though it's far too black and white.

So he plays his role, and that makes him their most important player? right.

He gets suspended plenty and misses games - what is the difference in their win/loss when he doesn't play? if he's so important surely we can observe an aggregate difference when he's not in the team.

I'll be sure to tell Harley and Bartell that Crow-mo says their wrong and their opinions lack stats
YEs he plays his role, but his role is more important than others.

Wouldn't mind seeing that W/L differential, or seeing Geelong don't really loose, their efficiency, points dif stats. Wouldn't know where to get that mate, but I'm tipping you might. (C:/Stats/Stats_pr0n)

6 hitouts and 2 tackles a game. which also gets back to the fallacy that a FF provides structure, he plays too deep.

by the way, where do you think all the stats come from that the various assistant coaches in the match day box are looking at?

So you think NC has a vendetta against Walker?

I think that the pressure applied isn't a tackle, another 1%er. FF don't provide structure? Please don't take me to be an arseh*le by saying this, but I'm sure you've played the game at some level, what position?

Yes stats are fantastic for game day, you can see that you're not getting enough contested ball etc, magnificent. But you don't base selction on them.

 

[Crow-mo]

Wouldn't mind seeing that W/L differential, or seeing Geelong don't really loose, their efficiency, points dif stats. Wouldn't know where to get that mate, but I'm tipping you might. (C:/Stats/Stats_pr0n)

you can work it out easily enough for yourself.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/afl_index.html

give it a try

 

[relapse]

Your opinion .....and yes I do think Craig is a great coach

Interesting ...do we judge coaching on premierships or winning game %

I can certainly understand thinking that a premiership is the ultimate test of success ......but does that entitle you to be called a great coach

Allistair Clarkson is a premiership coach with a 47% winning rate .......is Allistair a great coach?

Craig has a winning percentage of 59% ......and is getting us in positions to have regular shots at a flag which IMO still requires a touch of luck .....injuries and quality of opposition

Winning Records

Craig - 59%
Blight - 55%
Eade - 55%
Roos - 58%
Malthouse - 56%
Barassi - 53%

Winning percentages can be non-conclusive when trying to compare someone like Malthouse to Craig. Craig has only been coaching for a relatively short period of time when compared to Malthouse who has been through the peaks and troughs (which affects your win/loss percentages) numerous times while Craig is yet to do so which makes his win/loss percentage more flattering than it actually is.

So while you claim that Craig having a 59% winning record should put him in the same class as Malthouse if we dig a little deeper into their respective win loss records it then paints a very different picture

Malthouse's finals record 53% (20 wins 18 losses)
Craig's finals record 33% (3 wins 6 losses)

Lets expand on that even more

Malthouse's record in preliminary finals 58% (4 wins 3 losses)
Craig's record in preliminary finals 0% (2 losses)

Malthouse's record in grand finals 50% (2 wins 2 losses)
Craig (yet to make a grand final)

These potentially paint a far more accurate picture as to the class of the coaches rather than the overall win loss percentage.

As for your point about Clarkson he took Hawthorn and basically went from rock bottom and built towards a premiership which highlights a further picture that the win loss records are not always reflective of whether someone is a great coach. IMO it is all about their relative performances in September more than anything else and Craig cannot be considered a great coach while he has such a poor win/loss record in September. Until that changes there is really nothing really seperating him from other coaches like Grant Thomas and Laidley.

 

[Crow-mo]

Winning Records

Craig - 59%
Blight - 55%
Eade - 55%
Roos - 58%
Malthouse - 56%
Barassi - 53%

setting aside the raw idiocy of only looking at the regular season, when were these stats taken? does it include this year?

I'll bet his % looks very different at the end of 2010

 

[jenny61_99]

ah the roll eyes, your favourite proxy for knowledge or content.

good times

It is actually a brilliant emoticon for use exclusively for people like yourself - who treat everyone that disagrees with them with complete and utter contempt.

On my computer the has your name listed next to it.

 

[relapse]

setting aside the raw idiocy of only looking at the regular season, when were these stats taken? does it include this year?

I'll bet his % looks very different at the end of 2010

I checked that out myself actually

His record at the end of round 7 is currently at 59%, if we go on to win 8 games this year it will drop down to about 58% and if we only win 6 games it will drop down to around 57%

 

[Crow-mo]

It is actually a brilliant emoticon for use exclusively for people like yourself - who treat everyone that disagrees with them with complete and utter contempt.

always interesting when someone tries to lump themselves in with an arbitrary collective to avoid the personal implication.

On my computer the has your name listed next to it.

I feel so honoured.

 

[Huntercrow]

to Relapse...

Craig has not coached as long as Mick so perhaps a little early to compare them.

But MM was fortunate to coach one of the strongest teams to ever play (West Coast)

I wonder how many premierships NC could have won had he coached the WC Eagles with that champion midfield at his disposal.

I don't think you can compare win loss ratios when you are talking different squads.

Had MM coached Melbourne or Richmond would this have made a difference to his record? Of course it would.

I remember the first full year that Neil coached the Crows and they were predicted to finish near bottom by most punters (myself included) but instead we were in for a pleasant surprise and really that has been the norm until this year.

I think where NC stands out more than any other AFL coach (bar Paul Roos) is his absolute professionalism in all aspects of coaching and representing our club.

He is widely respected over the border and that is saying something for a coach from SA that did not play VFL/AFL.

Yes you might say look at our current predicament! Neil is hopeless won't play the youngsters, persists with the old guys, has no plan B but what I like about him this year so far is that he is not willing to compromise or bow to outside pressure, he has stood by what he believes in to be the best for the Club. Rightly or wrongly he has shown class and some guts and I think many have underestimated how fortunate we are that our club is represented by the likes of Neil Craig and not Mick Malthouse.

 

[Crow-mo]

But MM was fortunate to coach one of the strongest teams to ever play (West Coast)

so why did they get rid of John Todd? was it because this super side, wasn't very super? perhaps they had finished 11th out of 14, or 4th from bottom?

they were not a super team until a couple of years after MM took over.

I wonder how many premierships NC could have won had he coached the WC Eagles with that champion midfield at his disposal.

as opposed to a midfield of Roo, McLeod, Goodwin & Edwards?

Craig inherited a very mature side, with plenty of star power.

Had MM coached Melbourne or Richmond would this have made a difference to his record? Of course it would.

Um, seeing as you brought up this point its a bit worrying that you didn't already know - he made his name coaching Footscray.

MM took over Collingwood after they won the spoon in 1999, it takes a fair imagination to think he hasn't taken on big challenges.

I remember the first full year that Neil coached the Crows and they were predicted to finish near bottom by most punters (myself included) but instead we were in for a pleasant surprise and really that has been the norm until this year.

this has been debunked so many times its getting tiresome. He took over a fully mature squad, that had been a continual deep finals contender after a disasterous year with injuries. A year so bad, he couldn't turn it around when he took the reigns in the 2nd half of the season.

go check the season records, and see the blip that is 2004 in an otherwise uninterrupt streak of finals appearances.

I think where NC stands out more than any other AFL coach (bar Paul Roos) is his absolute professionalism in all aspects of coaching and representing our club.

He is widely respected over the border and that is saying something for a coach from SA that did not play VFL/AFL.

who are these less professional coaches?

Clarkson?
Worsfold?
Thompson?
Malthouse?
Eade?
Lyon?

names please.

Yes you might say look at our current predicament! Neil is hopeless won't play the youngsters, persists with the old guys, has no plan B but what I like about him this year so far is that he is not willing to compromise or bow to outside pressure, he has stood by what he believes in to be the best for the Club. Rightly or wrongly he has shown class and some guts and I think many have underestimated how fortunate we are that our club is represented by the likes of Neil Craig and not Mick Malthouse.

let me guess, this was intolerable when that nasty Victorian Ayres bloke did the same thing right?

 

[relapse]

to Relapse...

Craig has not coached as long as Mick so perhaps a little early to compare them.

But MM was fortunate to coach one of the strongest teams to ever play (West Coast)

I wonder how many premierships NC could have won had he coached the WC Eagles with that champion midfield at his disposal.

I was trying to make the point that Malthouse's winning percentage is lower because he has coached for a far longer period of time. Malthouse has coached through numerous peaks and troughs over the years which Craig has not yet experienced therefore meaning that the win/loss stats are not an accurate gauge. I then made the point that their respective September records would have more relevance as a comparitive tool to compare the class of a coach rather than their overall winning percentage.

As to hypothesise whether Craig might have experienced success as coach of another list, who's to say that Eade wouldnt have taken us to at a grand final in 2005 or 2006 ?? The same basic principle applies it's all pointless sementics.

Had MM coached Melbourne or Richmond would this have made a difference to his record? Of course it would.

Go back and look at Collingwood's 1999 season (4 wins 18 losses and won the wodden spoon). Malthouse arrived with Collingwood in 2000 with the club at rock bottom (no different to Melb or Rich) and took them to a grand final within 3 seasons.

I remember the first full year that Neil coached the Crows and they were predicted to finish near bottom by most punters (myself included) but instead we were in for a pleasant surprise and really that has been the norm until this year.

Lets not get carried away by our squad being underrated in 2005. Neil inherited a squad with Roo, Macca, Goody, Edwards etc in their prime and obviously the results show that the quality of our squad was better than people believed it was.

Some people conveniently forget that we almost made a grand final in 2002 and we were expected to make the grand final in 2003 before falling away after a disasterous 2004 season. The squad that Craig inherited was good enough to make a grand final hence our strong results in 2005 and 2006.

I think where NC stands out more than any other AFL coach (bar Paul Roos) is his absolute professionalism in all aspects of coaching and representing our club.

He is widely respected over the border and that is saying something for a coach from SA that did not play VFL/AFL.

He is respected in Victoria as being a good coach, but this is no different to many other coaches that have come and gone through the system. The people I know over the boarder compare him to Grant Thomas while that isnt a terrible thing, it certainly isn't a good thing either.

Yes you might say look at our current predicament! Neil is hopeless won't play the youngsters, persists with the old guys, has no plan B but what I like about him this year so far is that he is not willing to compromise or bow to outside pressure, he has stood by what he believes in to be the best for the Club. Rightly or wrongly he has shown class and some guts and I think many have underestimated how fortunate we are that our club is represented by the likes of Neil Craig and not Mick Malthouse.

So hypothetically if Neil was heading down the wrong path you would be happy to see Neil continue going down the wrong path provided that he believes it is right ?

Does this mean that you applauded that decision to leave Massie on Franklin in the 2007 elimination final ???

 

[crowsup]

Some of you neil craig detractors are hypocrites:

I was trying to make the point that Malthouse's winning percentage is lower because he has coached for a far longer period of time. Malthouse has coached through numerous peaks and troughs over the years which Craig has not yet experienced therefore meaning that the win/loss stats are not an accurate gauge. I then made the point that their respective September records would have more relevance as a comparitive tool to compare the class of a coach rather than their overall winning percentage.

Malthoouse is allowed to go through numerous peaks and troughs, Neil craig is not.

As to hypothesise whether Craig might have experienced success as coach of another list, who's to say that Eade wouldnt have taken us to at a grand final in 2005 or 2006 ?? The same basic principle applies it's all pointless sementics.

Correct

Go back and look at Collingwood's 1999 season (4 wins 18 losses and won the wodden spoon). Malthouse arrived with Collingwood in 2000 with the club at rock bottom (no different to Melb or Rich) and took them to a grand final within 3 seasons.

Why has he not had success since 2003?

Lets not get carried away by our squad being underrated in 2005. Neil inherited a squad with Roo, Macca, Goody, Edwards etc in their prime and obviously the results show that the quality of our squad was better than people believed it was.

That could be true.

Some people conveniently forget that we almost made a grand final in 2002 and we were expected to make the grand final in 2003 before falling away after a disasterous 2004 season. The squad that Craig inherited was good enough to make a grand final hence our strong results in 2005 and 2006.

That is your opinion and you can stick to it. Even though N. C. does not get any credit for it. (I'm sur Malthouse would have got credit for it)


He is respected in Victoria as being a good coach, but this is no different to many other coaches that have come and gone through the system. The people I know over the boarder compare him to Grant Thomas while that isnt a terrible thing, it certainly isn't a good thing either.

Mehhh

So hypothetically if Neil was heading down the wrong path you would be happy to see Neil continue going down the wrong path provided that he believes it is right ?

No! But I think it is too early to toss him away.

Does this mean that you applauded that decision to leave Massie on Franklin in the 2007 elimination final ???

Personal opinions again

 

[jenny61_99]

always interesting when someone tries to lump themselves in with an arbitrary collective to avoid the personal implication.



I feel so honoured.

I'm not avoiding personal implications at all - I don't feel "special" because you treat everyone that disagrees with you with the same level of disdain and condescension.

You should feel honoured.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

setting aside the raw idiocy of only looking at the regular season, when were these stats taken? does it include this year?

I'll bet his % looks very different at the end of 2010

I believe they're current figures as I thought prior to this season Craig was batting in the 60%+ range

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I was trying to make the point that Malthouse's winning percentage is lower because he has coached for a far longer period of time. Malthouse has coached through numerous peaks and troughs over the years which Craig has not yet experienced therefore meaning that the win/loss stats are not an accurate gauge. I then made the point that their respective September records would have more relevance as a comparitive tool to compare the class of a coach rather than their overall winning percentage.

You say Neil hasn't experienced the troughs that Malthouse has ......isn't that what Neil is experiencing now .......and what he's being slagged for, or is every other coach entitled to a trough in their career except Neil

If you go down the track of finding stats that suit your argument ......then Blight is a failure as a coach because of his GF record at Geelong

Malthouse is a failure ......10 years at Collingwood, 2 GF's and not premiership ........surely if that were Neil Craig his head would well and truly had been cut off by you

Craig has been exceptional at rebuilding this list and turning over the older brigade and yet still getting us into finals and into positions to have a shot at the flag

 

[jackster83]

Craig has been exceptional at rebuilding this list and turning over the older brigade and yet still getting us into finals and into positions to have a shot at the flag

I think this point is still up for debate. The years where we were a contender (2005 & 2006) was when our list was basically what we had under Ayres. Since then, we have introduced a lot of younger players but let's not kid ourselves - we haven't been anything close to a contender. Even last year when we were a pretty solid outfit, we failed EVERY time we came up against quality opposition.

 

[Allefgib]

I am going to quote a few things from Champion Data, in how they explain some of the factors around their rankings.

The reasons they list as to why they are valuable:

1. The measures are objectively set in formula and reviewed annually - so it avoids fashion and trends. NB. this has happened every year since 1999
2. Rankings have a rigour of research behind them and a substantial body of work that has focus on what statistics correlate the strongest with success
3. the rankings automatically adjust for different game styles and trends - concentrates on quality not quantity
4. Rankings don't forget. they apply the same measure to game one as they do to game 22. They enable you to quickly look at variations in performance between winning and losing or home and interstate
5. the rankings adjust for state of game i.e. a close game versus a blow out, as well as time of game and where events occur. rankings scale up points when the scores are close, when there is no time left on the clock or the player is executing something in a dangerous area of the ground. i.e. a kick inside 50
6. rankings correlate with B&F results
   

Other elements they talk about are:



You can read more about it in the prospectus, but they have also devised a system to adjust for game styles and trends. since 2004 disposals per game are up 28% and they normalise 2009 performances against 2004.


on the subject of Chris Judd, they do an interesting comparison on Judd vs Scott Thompson who has almost identical possession rates.

Judd has a considerably higher ranking, despite 26.5 disposals vs. 26.3
He has a higher DE%, and wins 40% of his disposals in a contest against Thompson's 28%. Judd has higher scoreboard assists, and played in a team that averaged 28 disposals less than Adelaide.

the idea that this is some sort of unsophisticated system that is somehow inferior to an one eyed supporter in the outer cheering on his favourites is laughable.

Like it.

So what level of stats do you get with your subscription vs the media/league?

 

[srv23]

Tippett was, as you said probably gifted games. But once again on structure, you could see why he was getting them. Defensive pressure, ability to ruck the 50 (as the Crows have shown that a forward will ruck pretty much every F50 ruck contest), mis-matches dues to athletecism etc. There were probably a few more that deserved a game statistically speaking, but Craig is a massive structure man, and Tippett is a wet dream for Craigs set up, no-one can play the role he does.

WW if Craig is a massive structure man then why can he not see that by far our best structure from last year involves having 2 ruckman and leaving Tippett permanently in the forward 50? It seems obvious to many of us that this structure will only return when Sellar is fit.

Coaches who strongly believe in their structure will do whatever they can with the personel at their disposal to maintain their structure. Blight believed in the structure of having a big body at CHF who whose only job was to provide a contest - either take the mark or bring the ball to ground, and have players at the fall of the ball to crumb. So depsite not being the most talented CHF, Robran made a name for himself in that psoition in our premiership years.

If Craig truly believed in his structures then one of McKernan or Griffin would have been playing in order to maintain this structure. The reality is he has more confidence in indivuals than his structure.

Tippett was gifted games in 08 which was crucial to his development and his resultant breakout year in 09. Dangerfield was also gifted games in 08 despite not even training in Adelaide (so we can't even use good training form as a reason)

 

[relapse]

You say Neil hasn't experienced the troughs that Malthouse has ......isn't that what Neil is experiencing now .......and what he's being slagged for, or is every other coach entitled to a trough in their career except Neil

Neil Craig isn’t being slammed for his win/loss record this year, he is getting criticised because players like Walker are sitting around in the SANFL while we are persisting to try and play someone like Burton (who wont be on our list next year) into form when the season is already shot.

If you ask most supporters we can all cop a bad year or two, but the true test for Craig is now about the redevelopment our squad and giving up the notion that if we just continue to tweak our squad around the same nucleus of senior players that we will eventually achieve success.

If you go down the track of finding stats that suit your argument ......then Blight is a failure as a coach because of his GF record at Geelong

Yes, but Blight had coached Geelong to multiple grand finals (3), in comparison Craig who has not even won a prelim final and has a subpar record in September. So your point about Blight might have been valid if he had a deplorable record in September that was comparable to Craig’s.

Malthouse is a failure ......10 years at Collingwood, 2 GF's and not premiership ........surely if that were Neil Craig his head would well and truly had been cut off by you

You are failing to take into account the strength of Malthouse’s resume before coming to Collingwood. If Craig had gotten us to a grand final in 05 or 06 then of course he will be viewed entirely differently and have far more credits in the bank than he currently has. Do you honestly think that Craig compares favourably with Malthouse ? As I said in a previous post everyone I know in Melbourne looks at Neil Craig as the interstate version of Grant thomas rather than Mick Malthouse.

I also wouldn’t underestimate where Collingwood are going. If you refer back to Collingwood’s 2003 grand final side you will see that only Presti, Didak and Fraser remain in the 2010 squad. Malthouse has rebuilt the Collingwood side since 2003 and over the past couple of years are showing signs that they are continuing to improve. They are certainly closer at the moment to a grand final than we are.

Craig has been exceptional at rebuilding this list and turning over the older brigade and yet still getting us into finals and into positions to have a shot at the flag

Craig has lived off a nucleus of a side that inherited from Ayres. 2005 and 2006 were Craig’s strongest years and they were built on the back of the squad that he inherited in 2004. We have not been in a position to have a shot at a flag since 2006 and have gone through the process each year of continually trying to tweak a side around a group of senior players that we still over rely on.

Go back and listen to where Neil Craig said the improvement would come from this season and that will show you that our focus this year was once again around tweaking our list to compliment our senior players to try and achieve success.

For me Craig’s struggle to let go of that senior group is a sign that as a coach he seems to be more of a finisher than a developer. This year has certainly exposed that our younger talent still remains on the second tier and has not taken the next step and the drop in performance from our senior group has significantly hurt the club this year.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Back on the Thread subject

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...to-tackle-kangas/story-e6frecoc-1225865910526

the article suggests that Danger will definitely play and Knights is a strong chance

Sellar and Henderson returning to play for their sanfl clubs is also good news

IMO the selection of Danger and possibly Knights will put more pressure on the Burton decision, Cook and Jaensch are the 2 other obvious players that will be under some pressure.

All this seems to be pending on the fitness of Knights, Danger, Macca and Johncock, so we wait with anticipation

My thoughts

IN - Walker, Danger (if fit) and Knights (if fit)
Out - Burton, Stevens and Johncock (if inj)

however IMO Birdman and Stevens are likely to be spared

 

[WALL-e]

The return of Danger and maybe Knights wouldn't bode too well for a Walker repreive considering the areas Knights and Danger roam.