List Mgmt. Draft Watch 2015

[Pdub]

Burton said he was good to go for the SANFL finals and could have played for the reserves side but didn't want to take the spot from someone who has played all year. Sounds like BS to me, not everyone in that team would have played all year and he had his AFL career on the line. I reckon port have told him they will take him, told him not to play as it could improve his draft ranking out of their reach.

 

[deeztreez]

Gets a lot of the ball, but carries his own jerry can of petrol and book of matches with him at all times. Worst arsonist I've seen in a long time.

What an exaggerated dumb comment.

 

[rezagun]

how many years would you be happy to get out of burton? presuming he won't have a long career without knee cartilage

If he plays a role in the 2017 premiership thats good enough for me

 

[rezagun]

What an exaggerated dumb comment.

I think matt crouch, cey and grigg are on his most hated list. All are good solid footballers and all will be playing important roles this year.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Just on this part and disposal efficiency in general, not all effective disposals are equal. I'd like to know how a disposal is
considered effective. Although Crouch has the highest efficiency of that group, he also has the highest handball to kick ratio,
although when looking it up Thompson is rather similar. Not that that is bad in an inside midfielder, the issue comes when they
throw the ball on the boot and it becomes a turnover.

Turnovers are our biggest issue imo, its all well and good to have players going at a relatively good disposal efficiency
but when the ball is turned over your making so much more work for the team. That's why it was painful to see VB selected
so much this season, he played some ok games but the frequent turnovers should not be apart of your game when you've
played 202 games.

I think people are being ridiculously selective with some players and have absolutely no sense of reality. It's like me walking to the car after the game with a mate after a very encouraging win in which Kyle Hartigan played really well. On the way to the car, I am listening to my mate dribbling shit how he would drop Hartigan for next game and how he himself counted 8 clangers from Hartigan in that game. Knowing that Hartigan played well that game I decided to pull up the stats for the game which showed Hartigan with only a single clanger count for the entire game. My mate's comment was that statistician was drunk!

In terms of statistics, our turnovers per game are very similar to Hawthorn's. In fact there is nothing in it what so ever. Surprising isn't it? You probably don't believe me but here is a fact that creates perception, Hawks turn the ball over in areas where it is "defendable" where as we do it where it is impossible to defend and then blame the defense for leaking goals .

Again people also draw a relationship between lack of clean disposal and turnovers. This quite often is not correct as it is the decision making that leads to a turnover more often than a disposal. Great players have time and space and are not necessarily best kicks but they have enough time to sum up their options and more often than not pick the right one.

Just for the giggles, clanger count for each player for 2015 season

Matt Crouch - 3 clangers per game
Patrick Dangerfield - 3
Richard Douglas - 3
Rory Sloane - 3
Scott Thompson - 4

And for self combustion of this boards - Nathan van Berlo - 2

In comparison to our other midfielders in 2015, Matt Crouch is right with them in terms of clangers per game. In fact, his statistical indicators are all as good, if not better than our core midfielders from 2015 season. The kid is copping some unwarranted slack here. He will be a very very good player for us and has so much scope for improvement. Matt Crouch in year 2 and Matt Crouch in year 7 will be very different players.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Burton said he was good to go for the SANFL finals and could have played for the reserves side but didn't want to take the spot from someone who has played all year. Sounds like BS to me, not everyone in that team would have played all year and he had his AFL career on the line. I reckon port have told him they will take him, told him not to play as it could improve his draft ranking out of their reach.

Or he did not want to risk getting knee soreness or re-injurying himself and really kissing his AFL chance goodbye. At least this way he will get drafted.

 

[earlsta]

Good old VB with 2 clangers per game, those 2 clangers are pretty much uncontested possessions as well.

 

[Geoffa32]

Do you remember what it was about/what was said?

Did Grigg skip his round...

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Furious]

how many years would you be happy to get out of burton? presuming he won't have a long career without knee cartilage

Andrew Mcleod managed a good 8 years without knee cartilage.

 

[Vader]

Not sure what you are aiming at here. If it's for his lack of tank, then draftees generally start getting an AFL tank after their 3rd AFL pre-season. Matt Crouch will have his 3rd AFL pre-season (hopefully uninterrupted). The improvement in his fitness from his rookie to his 2nd year was noticeable. No reason why that trend all of a sudden will stop.

If you are referring to his disposal efficiency, then you might want to have a look at these numbers from season 2015

Matt Crouch - 73%
Patrick Dangerfield - 68%
Richard Douglas - 71%
Rory Sloane - 68%
Scott Thompson - 68%

For an inside midfielder in his second season, that is more than a reasonable number.

Matt Crouch clearly has an elite attribute in his arsenal and that is to find the footy. He is a genuine accumulator of possessions and disposes it at an acceptable percentage for an inside player. For a 2nd year player he is well and truly on his way to becoming a bloody good midfielder for us for years to come.

I am implying that he burns the ball. A lot. He gets a lot of the ball, and as a direct result, so does the opposition.

I have no real problems with his fitness. That improved in 2015 (relative to 2014) and should improve again with another pre-season. It's his poor disposal that prevents him from being a high class inside midfielder. Put bluntly, he is a liability when he gets the ball - and I really don't care if the stats show he has a higher DE than the other players. The only midfielder we have who burns the ball anywhere near as badly is Thompson.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Andrew Mcleod managed a good 8 years without knee cartilage.

that he did and more actually , it's not the norm and andrew mcleod is a freak

 

[DJ75]

that he did and more actually , it's not the norm and andrew mcleod is a freak

A freak who could pull the boots on in 2016 and still be unbelievably good.

 

[Vader]

There is nothing holding these players back they have not even played 50 games have a look at Danger's first 50 he did not exactly set the world on fire. M Crouch will be a beauty and CEY after what he showed last year will be a solid player for us.

The biggest thing holding them back is a lack of talent. Dangerfield had talent in spades. Crouch & CEY combined don't have as much talent as Dangerfield has in his left pinky finger.

Crouch & CEY may well turn out to be "solid", but they will never be more than "solid" they will never be stars, champions, or whatever term you care to use for the top echelon of players.

 

[Vader]

What an exaggerated dumb comment.

Slight exaggeration, but the point is entirely valid. Crouch's disposal is at best average and at worst positively damaging to the Crows. He has a high handball-to-kick ratio and when he does kick it the ball frequently ends up in the hands of the opposition. VB is rightly criticised for his turnovers - Crouch is far, far worse.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Andrew Mcleod managed a good 8 years without knee cartilage.

Thing is he still had constant problems such as swelling/pain and had to be managed very carefully. Barely trained a full week by the end of his career. The same won't be allowed for Burton... he's a new draftee that needs as much football in him as he can. I'd stay away from Burton, I think he's too big of a risk at 13.

 

[LC40]

Not sure what you are aiming at here. If it's for his lack of tank, then draftees generally start getting an AFL tank after their 3rd AFL pre-season. Matt Crouch will have his 3rd AFL pre-season (hopefully uninterrupted). The improvement in his fitness from his rookie to his 2nd year was noticeable. No reason why that trend all of a sudden will stop.

If you are referring to his disposal efficiency, then you might want to have a look at these numbers from season 2015

Matt Crouch - 73%
Patrick Dangerfield - 68%
Richard Douglas - 71%
Rory Sloane - 68%
Scott Thompson - 68%

For an inside midfielder in his second season, that is more than a reasonable number.

Matt Crouch clearly has an elite attribute in his arsenal and that is to find the footy. He is a genuine accumulator of possessions and disposes it at an acceptable percentage for an inside player. For a 2nd year player he is well and truly on his way to becoming a bloody good midfielder for us for years to come.

Not in the market for a slagging match but that high disposal efficiency rate to M Crouch can be attributed in large part to his fondness for short dinky kicks that travelled ten metres to an unmarked man. I was disappointed how little he broke the line this year in any damaging fashion. His longer kicks on so many occasions were just floaters to an area.
As you point out, young and needs a uninterrupted pre-season.He has a game but also has a lot of faults.

 

[deeztreez]

I can't believe that people are still high on Burton given how bad his knee injury has been and how it even limits him now (e.g. didn't do the beep test because of running on a had surface). Not to mention that he has not played football in almost 2 years and had no contact training. No one knows how the knee will pull up after a game of football. It's a massive risk to take with pick 13 in the draft for a team that has not had a 1st and 2nd round picks for two years running (yes I know M. Crouch was a second rounder but we long Bernie Vince to get that pick....again a net loss).

Burton's knee will give him issues throughout his career. It might impact his ability to reach his potential as it did with Hentschel but even if he ends up playing AFL football, his longevity in the game will not be great. That knee will see his career cut short.

For someone like Hawthorn or Freo it's a risk worth taking. For us, I don't think it is. Pick up two healthy kids with some upside and develop them into very good players. If Burton goes on to becomes a superstar at another club, I can live with that because the reasoning for not taking him from our part are very reasonable and sound.

While I understand your point of view I think u are jumping to a few conclusions here. There was an interview with Jake Stringer in last few days who is in in NYC doing some complex trials and testing amongst other things. He was in a somewhat similar position to Burton injury wise. He had a breakout year this year, his third since injury but admited still restricted somewhat. He believes he's now & moving into next, his 4th year close to 100%...bit scary where his ceiling is.
I think Burton will be a similar player (better hands) and while some will argue Burtons injury is worse I think is worth a shot at 13. Even if takes 2 years to get regular, free moving senior football.
In a crazy world if Stringer was available during recent trade period, wouldn't most posters here have traded for Stringer with picks 9 AND 13?

 

[Hang_Time]

The biggest thing holding them back is a lack of talent. Dangerfield had talent in spades. Crouch & CEY combined don't have as much talent as Dangerfield has in his left pinky finger.

Crouch & CEY may well turn out to be "solid", but they will never be more than "solid" they will never be stars, champions, or whatever term you care to use for the top echelon of players.

Rubbish

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

that he did and more actually , it's not the norm and andrew mcleod is a freak

It is the norm... Smith that is (x2)

 

[Vader]

Rubbish

I'm not saying they're not competent AFL footballers, but they could play 500 AFL games each and they still wouldn't be as good as Dangerfield was after 50. They just don't have that degree of talent. That's not a criticism - very few players are blessed with the degree of talent that Dangerfield has - it's just the plain old facts of reality.

Every club has foot soldiers, and that's the kind of players that Crouch, CEY & Lyons are.

 

[rezagun]

The biggest thing holding them back is a lack of talent. Dangerfield had talent in spades. Crouch & CEY combined don't have as much talent as Dangerfield has in his left pinky finger.

Crouch & CEY may well turn out to be "solid", but they will never be more than "solid" they will never be stars, champions, or whatever term you care to use for the top echelon of players.

I think youl regret this in a few years time when he wins a bnf. Really vader the crap that comes out of your keyboard is pathetic

 

[Vader]

I think youl regret this in a few years time when he wins a bnf. Really vader the crap that comes out of your keyboard is pathetic

The fact that you disagree with it doesn't make it crap. It just makes it unpalatable - quite likely an unpalatable truth.

Sadly, even very average players can win a BnF. Even Matthew Connell managed to win one. That doesn't make him a good player.

 

[Golumless]

Not in the market for a slagging match but that high disposal efficiency rate to M Crouch can be attributed in large part to his fondness for short dinky kicks that travelled ten metres to an unmarked man. I was disappointed how little he broke the line this year in any damaging fashion. His longer kicks on so many occasions were just floaters to an area.
As you point out, young and needs a uninterrupted pre-season.He has a game but also has a lot of faults.

You do realize that M.Crouch isn't in the side to do that, right?

It's like being disappointed in Talia for not kicking goals.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I am implying that he burns the ball. A lot. He gets a lot of the ball, and as a direct result, so does the opposition.

I have no real problems with his fitness. That improved in 2015 (relative to 2014) and should improve again with another pre-season. It's his poor disposal that prevents him from being a high class inside midfielder. Put bluntly, he is a liability when he gets the ball - and I really don't care if the stats show he has a higher DE than the other players. The only midfielder we have who burns the ball anywhere near as badly is Thompson.

You don't care that the stats directly refute your claims?! That would be right. Fact is 73% of the time, he hits a target which is a higher clip than any other full time midfielder from season 2015. That is irrefutable. Seems to me there is a bit of this going on with you when it comes to Matt Crouch.

 

[Vader]

You don't care that the stats directly refute your claims?! That would be right. Fact is 73% of the time, he hits a target which is a higher clip than any other full time midfielder from season 2015. That is irrefutable. Seems to me there is a bit of this going on with you when it comes to Matt Crouch.

As has been pointed out, his high DE is due to him making short kicks and handballs which have almost zero hurt factor attached to them. When he tries kicking it longer, it almost invariably ends up in the hands of the opposition. Crouch is the anti-Brodie Smith (a player who hurts the opposition by kicking the ball accurately over long distances, to the benefit of his teammates). I know Crouch is an inside mid, and Smith is an outside HBF, but Crouch is frequently hurts us more than he helps us with his poor disposal.

Crouch's poor disposal is the reason he slipped to #23 in his draft. He's always been a ball magnet and if his usage of the ball even closely matched his ability to win it then he would have gone much, much higher. Sadly, nothing has changed in that aspect since the day he was drafted. He still wins the ball with ease, then either does nothing with it or turns it over.