Changes v Richmond

[crowsup]

If a man gets put in jail for a crime he didn't commit, and then kills a guard, should he be let out when he is proven innocent of his original crime?


Since Bock was adjudicated (however accurately...) to be fully fit and is nowadays viewed as an automatic start when fit, he was always going to come in. Meanwhile, Davis was second place behind Stevens in a race with only one podium position, and as such was relegated to the SANFL. The process is, and has always been, that you do your time there until A) a position opens up through form lapse/injury/suspension/positional needs, and B) you have proven that you deserve to be the next cab off the rank. Davis' form on the weekend was not great (mind you, I didn't see the match, but that's what Bickley seems to have implied), which gives him a cross on point B.

If the club decides that one of Stevens or Bock performed sufficiently poorly to place them behind Davis despite his less than stellar showing on the weekend, he'll come in. He could have forced the issue with a ripper game, but he hasn't done so, and it will hurt his chances.

A few (Lot?) of posters dislike Stevens so he has to go. Not just because he makes some mistakes, but because he is not popular.
The way I see it is that it is hypocritical to berate a defender for misjudging a pass that then results in a goal against us, but it is ok to forgive a forward for missing set shots at goal.
I believe that both types of mistakes should be judged with the same rule.
If that were the case, then the changes should be as follows:

Out: Stevens, Walker, Tippet, Henderson.
In: Davis, Sellar, Mckernan.

I don't believe too many people would like that, though. Would they?

 

[jenny61_99]

A few (Lot?) of posters dislike Stevens so he has to go. Not just because he makes some mistakes, but because he is not popular.
The way I see it is that it is hypocritical to berate a defender for misjudging a pass that then results in a goal against us, but it is ok to forgive a forward for missing set shots at goal.
I believe that both types of mistakes should be judged with the same rule.
If that were the case, then the changes should be as follows:

Out: Stevens, Walker, Tippet, Henderson.
In: Davis, Sellar, Mckernan.

I don't believe too many people would like that, though. Would they?

Very true! Both errors hurt us equally. Actually I think our forwards made more mistakes than our backs against Port.

Johncock is a forced change. So we have to replace him. I would have said Davis to come in, but have been reminded that he is too slow so not sure now.

Unless other players have been ripping it up in the SANFL (please excuse my ignorance on this), is there any worth in making other unforced changes?

 

[marvin]

Out: Stevens, Walker, Tippet, Henderson.
In: Davis, Sellar, Mckernan.

I don't believe too many people would like that, though. Would they?

Well, the 1st thing I don't like about it is that you are going in to the game one player short.

And IMHO, that's probably the best part of the case you are making.

 

[chigwidden]

A few (Lot?) of posters dislike Stevens so he has to go. Not just because he makes some mistakes, but because he is not popular.
The way I see it is that it is hypocritical to berate a defender for misjudging a pass that then results in a goal against us, but it is ok to forgive a forward for missing set shots at goal.
I believe that both types of mistakes should be judged with the same rule.

I think Stevens is current whipping-boy, and that he is way undervalued, but I have to disagree.

Just look at the statistics for disposal efficiency for defenders, as a group. Anything under 80% is quite rare, in a good side. Bock (85%), Davis (86%), Rutten (87%) all hover around 85-90%.

Stevens average is around 75% - he hits 80% or more in his 'good' games, of which the stats suggest he's had three-five this year (and I would concur).

In contrast, the goal efficiency, even of the best forwards, hovers around 60%.

You can't compare apple's with oranges -- Defenders have be be totally on their game, and have insanely high effectiveness rates to be considered good. In addition, I'd suggest that without a high rate of 1%ers, they aren't going to be considered elite. Even when Stevens has hit 85%, and has high 1%ers, people only grudgingly concede that he's had a decent game. But I think part of that is that his highest is nowhere near the highest (90%+) for the other three.

FWIW, I don't believe that stats are the be-all and end-all of judging a player's worth, but in this case they are illustrative that, as a group, defenders are held to a different standard to forwards, and it's not unreasonable to do so.

 

[fryingpan]

Porps for Schmidt.

You're crazy.

It looks as though it's going to be wet and we really need Porps to go forward with his strong hands and find form. He could rip up this game.

 

[Vader]

you'd drop Porpz for Schmidt!!! and neither Gunston or Goodwin were in the team last week.

On current form (as distinct from 2008/2009 form), Porps for Schmidt is a nil-all draw.

You're crazy.

It looks as though it's going to be wet and we really need Porps to go forward with his strong hands and find form. He could rip up this game.

Not so crazy. Porps will be used in defence again this week and Schmidt is no worse in that position than Porps. We have plenty of options up forward who are in considerably better form than Porps. He's shown very little to indicate that he's going to "rip up this game" or any other game until he gets a decent pre-season under his belt.

 

[fryingpan]

Not so crazy. Porps will be used in defence again this week and Schmidt is no worse in that position than Porps.

Couldn't disagree more. It is silly to take Schmidt over Porps when Porps is available. He wasn't even that bad last week. Porps will be used in defence but knowing Craig he will get chucked up forward if we need a new target and/or if conditions deteriorate considerably that we need a strong body with classy ground play.

We have plenty of options up forward who are in considerably better form than Porps. He's shown very little to indicate that he's going to "rip up this game" or any other game until he gets a decent pre-season under his belt.

We also have plently of options down back. Schmidt will only play in defence whereas Porps can go forward if need be and turn it on. Obviously he has shown little to indicate that he's going to be the same gamebreaker he was 12 months ago, but this could just be the game he turns around his form.

 

[Vader]

Doesn't really matter. I think we'll be seeing only the one change this week, with Schmidt replacing the suspended Johncock.

 

[King Elvis]

You're crazy.

It looks as though it's going to be wet and we really need Porps to go forward with his strong hands and find form. He could rip up this game.

He could've last week as well mate, but he didn't.

And sorry, meant Gunston for Johncock.

 

[Godallblighty]

Out-of-sorts forward Jason Porplyzia filled Goodwin’s role in defence last weekend and Bock said he expected the club’s leading goalkicker of last season to remain in defence against the Tigers.

“Having Goody out along with Graham Johncock will leave a couple of big holes there [in defence] that we need to fill,” Bock said.

“Jason played probably the best of all of us down back there. He showed a lot of composure and read the ball well. I think you might see him down there again this week.”

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99175/default.aspx

Didn't see the game. Didn't hear his name too often in the radio broadcast. Anyone concur with Bock's view?

 

[Vader]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99175/default.aspx

Didn't see the game. Didn't hear his name too often in the radio broadcast. Anyone concur with Bock's view?

Says more about how awful Bock, Stevens and Johncock were than it does about how good Porps was. All he had to do to be the best of them was to avoid stuffing up on a regular basis. He didn't stuff it up - he just didn't get enough of it and when he did he didn't do much with it. Yes, I know he had 18 disposals (5th most for any Crows player in the game), but he really should have done a LOT better.

 

[overtheline]

Riewoldt is the only good tall.

As I said before, Andrew Collins has been playing as the second marking target, and he's only 184cm, though last week they brought in the largely ineffectual 194cm Jayden Post. Nason is only 179cm and plays as a forward pocket. Polo plays as the main defensive forward. The other spot is usually a resting midfielder, seems to be Cousins more than anyone else, and none of them are tall. Waiting in the wings is the too small to have a real future at AFL level Robin Nahas. There are no spare Key Forwards of any quality they can bring in - there are actually none at all, Astbury is playing CHB, Griffiths is gone for the year and Polak is finished.

well, your so called "main defensive forward" lasted one week in the side.

AS I pointed out to you, he had played one game in 10 weeks and is now dropped again, yet you labelled him their "main defensive forward".

If you are going to attempt some analysis of the opposition, some accuracy please.

 

[fryingpan]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99175/default.aspx

Didn't see the game. Didn't hear his name too often in the radio broadcast. Anyone concur with Bock's view?

That's the thing - he was nowhere near our worst, so calls for him to be dropped are quite odd. There was one passage of play during the last quarter - at the time it was a crucial stage of the match when we were making a charge - where Porps was alone and needed to attack the ball head on and hold his ground otherwise Port were away with three players behind him, he did just that and whilst it obviously had no influence on the end result, it was typical Porpy And that's what we'll need in the wet this weekend.

 

[amer]

well, your so called "main defensive forward" lasted one week in the side.

AS I pointed out to you, he had played one game in 10 weeks and is now dropped again, yet you labelled him their "main defensive forward".

If you are going to attempt some analysis of the opposition, some accuracy please.

Lol. Main defensive forward.

 

[DJ75]

Lol. Main defensive forward.

Isn't that how Craig described to Walker the role he wanted him to play??