Corporal Clanger

[The Dawes]

Was browsing the Pies stats up to round 5 and stumbled acrosss a slightly disturbing fact.

The player leading the 'clanger' count is none other than two-game veteran Jaxson Barham. I think 'clangers' can mean free kicks given away as well as skill errors and this may be partly due to his willingness to throw himself into contests - if anyone can give me a precise definition I'd appreciate it - but it's not a great sign.

Now, this isn't meant to bag the kid as he clearly has a real crack each week and defensively his work is first-rate, but to have had 16 clangers in only 2 games seems more than excessive to me.

His disposal efficeiency is also very low at 61.9% from his 42 possies.

I know stats don't always tell you the true story, but these figures are not great, to put it mildly.

I love the way he attacks the footy, but he must work at his use of the ball or else he won't have a future at AFL level.

 

[DaVe86]

Yep, as much as i admire the way he has gone about it....that figure is simply too alarming to ignore and he must be dropped.

I know i keep saying it, but atleast Toovey is playing defensively and to some extent his stats are irrelevent because its all about what his opponent has done (although if he is conceding direct goals from turnover that is an issue)

Barham is there to create adn win the ball. And if he is turning it over 16 out of 42 times he has had it....then that is a real liability in our team.


The thing is, his disposal at VFL is also inconsistent. He is clearly a bad kick. You don't have to be a good kick...look at Cross and Mitchell. But you have to know your limitations and atleast do the basic things right. We are not asking him to go get Nathan Buckley like footskills. But hitting a target over the minimum required distance is a must.


If i were coach, I'd be dropping him and making him do nothing other than 15 metre passes at training for a month. There is no doubting his intensity, stamina and speed.


When just under half your disposals are clangers, its cya later...no matter how experienced or young you are.

 

[Helfarch]

It would have a lot to do with all the kicking directly to the opposition with almost any kick over 20m

 

[rand corp]

With Licca long put out to pasture and Roids on his last legs, " I dub the the new Sir NATO".

 

[Old Spice]

Devil will be in the detail. I'd like to see what they comprise of before I start slagging off a 2 game player.

 

[Invigoration]

Devil will be in the detail. I'd like to see what they comprise of before I start slagging off a 2 game player.

Have you watched the last two games?
They generally comprise of the ball not going to the guys in the black and white strip.

 

[sloth6]

Shane O'Bree thread

 

[DoubleO7]

Shane O'Bree thread

In spite of the Brisbane game, O'Bree has performed rather well in regards to his clanger count.

 

[Axl the great]

Have you watched the last two games?
They generally comprise of the ball not going to the guys in the black and white strip.

Yeah agreed, Love the way he goes about it but disposal is pathetic, needs to learn to either pick a short option or kick to a safe option, if he can refine this part of his game hell be ok if not then the scrapheap may await which would be quite sad as the rest of his game is very exciting.

 

[Old Spice]

I think everyone know's his disposal is not el dente, but as has been pointed out several times before clangers is a broad category - details...

I think we should nip this stuff in the bud. If a players first disposal is suspect, delist and send to the glue factory.

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

Have you watched the last two games?
They generally comprise of the ball not going to the guys in the black and white strip.

He just reads the play 15 seconds ahead of everyone else, that's all. You wait until everyone else thinks as quick as he runs and BAM! Mark my words.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

Hopefully his sisposal gets a lot better, its like watching local footy when he kicks. If he doesn't improve just teach him to get a deadly handpass and use that whenever he can.

 

[Ickirus]

I'd be surprised if more than 1 of his kicks atually hit one of our players against the Dons, he basically turned it over every time he kicked it.

His kicking was also very poor against Brisbane and turned it over and over again kicking it into the forward 50.

Love his endeavour, hate his kicking and should not be played again until he improves his kicking, which is highly unlikely if history on players improving their kicking is anything to go on.

 

[pendles]

19 turnovers and counting. My Peter Daicos stats-keeper says so.

 

[Old Spice]

Maybe he got leather posioning and it affected his kicking - although again (sigh) not every kick was a clanger nor every clanger a kick.

Give me some hard stats broken down, not 'it seems' etc etc.

Crack a BARham in all your pants, for shame.

 

[mattys123]

This is the most comprehensive stats site I look at, has Barham's errors at 11.5 per game, highest amongst any player I can find. I will go light on him though, he has only played 2 games, but he does need to improve.

http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/player_profile?pid=2008061

 

[Genc the Magpieman]

I would have thought Nathan Brown would be a contender but I suppose to get a clanger, you need to be able to actually get the ball first.

 

[Old Spice]

Here's key Barham Supercoach stats from Champion Data for round 1:

Stats Kicks H/Balls Marks Tck FF FA Score
17 11 6 9 1 2 77
Points 9 36 4 -12 37


If the pro-stats data is correct re marks, Barham took 0 contested and 6 unconstested marks. An uncontested mark from your side is worth 1, from an opposition player 4. I'd guess 9 points is a fair assumption

Tackles are worth 4, so that is 36 points.

Free for's are worth 4 points, so that is 4.

Frees against are worth -6 points, so that is -12.

I've left out the value of the kicks and handballs so far as they vary so widely in value.

An effective kick is worth 4, an ineffective 0 and a clanger -8. An effective handball is worth 2, an ineffective 0 and a clanger -6.

But what we have is @40 points to be made up over kicks and handballs. Now if clanger kicks are worth minus eight and we think he made 7-9, that is 56-72 minus points. Which would mean the rest of Barham's kicks would have to be effective as well as his handballs and still you wouldn't be able to squeeze out the 40 points.

Someone who's good at Soduko can try and figure the mystery out, but there is no way he is as bad a kick as we has been suggested. Maybe razzed 4 kicks. Not great but not diaboloical - footage would tell us how many.

 

[Ickirus]

Here's key Barham Supercoach stats from Champion Data for round 1:

Stats Kicks H/Balls Marks Tck FF FA Score
17 11 6 9 1 2 77
Points 9 36 4 -12 37


If the pro-stats data is correct re marks, Barham took 0 contested and 6 unconstested marks. An uncontested mark from your side is worth 1, from an opposition player 4. I'd guess 9 points is a fair assumption

Tackles are worth 4, so that is 36 points.

Free for's are worth 4 points, so that is 4.

Frees against are worth -6 points, so that is -12.

I've left out the value of the kicks and handballs so far as they vary so widely in value.

An effective kick is worth 4, an ineffective 0 and a clanger -8. An effective handball is worth 2, an ineffective 0 and a clanger -6.

But what we have is @40 points to be made up over kicks and handballs. Now if clanger kicks are worth minus eight and we think he made 7-9, that is 56-72 minus points. Which would mean the rest of Barham's kicks would have to be effective as well as his handballs and still you wouldn't be able to squeeze out the 40 points.

Someone who's good at Soduko can try and figure the mystery out, but there is no way he is as bad a kick as we has been suggested. Maybe razzed 4 kicks. Not great but not diaboloical - footage would tell us how many.

The best way to analyse a players kicking is to watch the game, Barham butchered it and turned it over all day against Essendon, he would have struggled to have more than 2 kicks that hit their target.

Trying to argue he isn't a terrible kick is ridiculous, as all the reports from the VFL indicated he was a poor kick and his 2 games so far have shown his kicking is atrocious.

 

[rose jam]

The best way to analyse a players kicking is to watch the game, Barham butchered it and turned it over all day against Essendon, he would have struggled to have more than 2 kicks that hit their target.

Trying to argue he isn't a terrible kick is ridiculous, as all the reports from the VFL indicated he was a poor kick and his 2 games so far have shown his kicking is atrocious.

He also butchered it against Brisbane and people glossed over that too. His kicking is dangerously awful at this stage and he must get better in the VFL first. In today's footy the turnover kick just kills you and he has been terrible in that aspect. Back to VFL.

 

[Thommo 42]

I had hear he is a poor kick, and was horrified by his disposal in the Brisbane game. He got it 27 odd times, but may as well not have had it half of those times, very poor kick.

It got worse against Essendon, and poor kicking = poor football.

Love his endeavour, like his speed - but needs remedial kicking work pronto.

 

[Old Spice]

The best way to analyse a players kicking is to watch the game, Barham butchered it and turned it over all day against Essendon, he would have struggled to have more than 2 kicks that hit their target.

Trying to argue he isn't a terrible kick is ridiculous, as all the reports from the VFL indicated he was a poor kick and his 2 games so far have shown his kicking is atrocious.

Gee, really, I thought it would be to judge through smell. The problem is people's memories can decieve them, and that's clearly what you're relying on here. Phrases like 'I'd be surprised", "He would have struggled" indicate you're relying on the memory banks, not watching the game - that's psuedo science mate. The game is over, you're playing a faded tape in your mind.

The stats suggest that Barham could not have scorched every ball he kicked against Brisbane. The stats are the immediate notings of people from Champion Data who are paid to record them. The game was watched and the observations snap frozen in stats, not plucked from their arses.

I said below his kicking is ordinary, I'm talking about getting a sense of dosage and perspective. Yes his kicking needs improvement, and yes he may be dropped this week, but it certainly doesn't warrant talk of scrapheap and end of career after 2 games!

 

[buzzbuzz]

Gee, really, I thought it would be to judge through smell. The problem is people's memories can decieve them, and that's clearly what you're relying on here. Phrases like 'I'd be surprised", "He would have struggled" indicate you're relying on the memory banks, not watching the game - that's psuedo science mate. The game is over, you're playing a faded tape in your mind.

Everyone listen to this man. They speak the sense.

 

[Ickirus]

Gee, really, I thought it would be to judge through smell. The problem is people's memories can decieve them, and that's clearly what you're relying on here. Phrases like 'I'd be surprised", "He would have struggled" indicate you're relying on the memory banks, not watching the game - that's psuedo science mate. The game is over, you're playing a faded tape in your mind.

The stats suggest that Barham could not have scorched every ball he kicked against Brisbane. The stats are the immediate notings of people from Champion Data who are paid to record them. The game was watched and the observations snap frozen in stats, not plucked from their arses.

I said below his kicking is ordinary, I'm talking about getting a sense of dosage and perspective. Yes his kicking needs improvement, and yes he may be dropped this week, but it certainly doesn't warrant talk of scrapheap and end of career after 2 games!

Using stats to try and prove he isn't a terrible kick proves nothing, stats themselves are based on the statistician's opinion at a moment in time based on definitions that are generally ambiguous, just because they are paid doesn't mean their opinion is right, having studied statisitics I can tell you stats are not science, they are not the be end to end all.

I have seen the game twice, and watched Barham's kicking closely as I thought his kicking was very poor in the Brisbane game, his kicking was even worse against the Bombers.

We can no longer tolerate such poor kicks who turn it over constantly in modern day football and players rarely improve their kicking.

Find 10 players in the last 10 or so years to have substantially improved their kicking from very poor base and maybe the talk about throwing him on the scrapheap will prove unwarranted.

 

[Old Spice]

Your name is well chosen Ickarus, making a big statement early - don't fly too close to the sun.

Using stats to try and prove he isn't a terrible kick proves nothing, stats themselves are based on the statistician's opinion at a moment in time based on definitions that are generally ambiguous, just because they are paid doesn't mean their opinion is right, having studied statisitics I can tell you stats are not science, they are not the be end to end all.

Again, I'm talking degrees, you're talking absolutes. Of course stats are based on opinion, but there are two important differences. One is that they record the stats as they see them, they don't try and recall them 5 days later. The second is that given they are paid to record them, rather than sit back and enjoy the game, I presume there margin for error is less.

I have seen the game twice, and watched Barham's kicking closely as I thought his kicking was very poor in the Brisbane game, his kicking was even worse against the Bombers.

Yep, not great kicking, but we can work ourselves into a lather. His Essendon game was worse in the stats department, and from memory.

We can no longer tolerate such poor kicks who turn it over constantly in modern day football and players rarely improve their kicking

Find 10 players in the last 10 or so years to have substantially improved their kicking from very poor base and maybe the talk about throwing him on the scrapheap will prove unwarranted.

So you're calling then for Barham to be delisted asap as a waste of time then?