How does our list compare to Richmond's?

[Gone Critical]

Thread title asks, 'do we have a better list than Richmond', so not sure of the relevance of going back 5 seasons.

Because the evidence we have to assess who has the better list comes largely from how the lists and players have performed over recent times. I am not sure how anyone would answer these questions without considering the history of the player

If we meet Richmond and if neither Martin and Rance are playing and if you take out who you believe is our top two, who do you think wins?

Richmond. Losing say Pendles and Treloar is a big hit for us also, it evens it a bit but still clearly the Tigers

Since Swan left we don't have a Martin and if Reid wasn't so injury prone, he would have been equal to a Rance. I am hoping that Howe becomes our Rance.

Thats a stretch, Reid would have been good I agree but Rance? Not likely. I am hoping De Goey becomes our Leigh Matthews, still its a bit of a forlorn hope. Again if we are realistic Tigers list is well ahead of us currently. I hope we close the gap but so do a lot of other sides at our level. They are the ones we need to get past before worrying about the top 4 sides.

I look at our team and ask: who is their Sidebottom, Wells, Adams/Treloar (assuming one is our best, Pendlebury the other), Crisp (I really rate him), Maynard, Elliott, DeGoey, Grundy and a fit Reid for example.

Cotchin, Reiwoldt, Prestia, Houli, Caddy, Butler, Edwards, Ellis, Vlaustin would be a start.

 

[Maggie5]

Because the evidence we have to assess who has the better list comes largely from how the lists and players have performed over recent times. I am not sure how anyone would answer these questions without considering the history of the player


Richmond. Losing say Pendles and Treloar is a big hit for us also, it evens it a bit but still clearly the Tigers



Thats a stretch, Reid would have been good I agree but Rance? Not likely. I am hoping De Goey becomes our Leigh Matthews, still its a bit of a forlorn hope. Again if we are realistic Tigers list is well ahead of us currently. I hope we close the gap but so do a lot of other sides at our level. They are the ones we need to get past before worrying about the top 4 sides.
[QUOTE="Maggie5, post: 54168826, member: 98636"

I look at our team and ask: who is their Sidebottom, Wells, Adams/Treloar (assuming one is our best, Pendlebury the other), Crisp (I really rate him), Maynard, Elliott, DeGoey, Grundy and a fit Reid for example.

Cotchin, Reiwoldt, Prestia, Houli, Caddy, Butler, Edwards, Ellis, Vlaustin would be a start.[/QUOTE]
Agree to disagree.

 

[jackcass]

Interesting given that many of us have agreed the Tigas have more top end talent yet Champion Data say we've got 3x elite players each and Richmond have the 9th best list.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-03/the-true-elites-which-clubs-have-got-them

 

[sr36]

Interesting given that many of us have agreed the Tigas have more top end talent yet Champion Data say we've got 3x elite players each and Richmond have the 9th best list.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-03/the-true-elites-which-clubs-have-got-them

But there elite players are on a different stratosphere of elite.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

But there elite players are on a different stratosphere of elite.

Elite player (Martin), not players. Pendles, Treloar, Adams, Grundy and Howe are much better collectively than their next best five, in my opinion.

Despite this, Richmond obviously have the better list, by a long way at the moment. They won the flag and easily won all of their finals, while we finished 13th. They had the equal top number of H&A wins with 15, which is 6 more than we had.

It's not really up for debate who has the better list.

 

[TKiL]

Elite player (Martin), not players. Pendles, Treloar, Adams, Grundy and Howe are much better collectively than their next best five, in my opinion.

Despite this, Richmond obviously have the better list, by a long way at the moment. They won the flag and easily won all of their finals, while we finished 13th. They had the equal top number of H&A wins with 15, which is 6 more than we had.

It's not really up for debate who has the better list.

Good coaches and club environments turn lists into flags - flags being what matters - can't recall what the award is for having the "best" list

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Good coaches and club environments turn lists into flags - flags being what matters - can't recall what the award is for having the "best" list

To an extent. I think it's more that good coaches and club environments turn GOOD lists into flags.

You can spin straw as much and as well as you want, but you'll never make gold with it.

 

[TKiL]

To an extent. I think it's more that good coaches and club environments turn GOOD lists into flags.

You can spin straw as much and as well as you want, but you'll never make gold with it.

Fair comment - but Hafey took some average Cwood lists deep into September

 

[Gone Critical]

Interesting given that many of us have agreed the Tigas have more top end talent yet Champion Data say we've got 3x elite players each and Richmond have the 9th best list.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-03/the-true-elites-which-clubs-have-got-them

Did you see some of the players rated elite

Papley, Crisp, Rich, Menzel, Menegola, Dixon, Boak, McEvoy, Hunt etc. pretty meaningless statistical assessment.

 

[TKiL]

Fair comment - but Hafey took some average Cwood lists deep into September

Hafey - coached for 5 full seasons - GFs in 4 seasons, PF in other season. Sacked 1/2 way through 6th season. Interesting comparison to now.

 

[jackcass]

Did you see some of the players rated elite

Papley, Crisp, Rich, Menzel, Menegola, Dixon, Boak, McEvoy, Hunt etc. pretty meaningless statistical assessment.

About as meaningless as some of the poster assessment in this thread but at least it has some basis in fact.

 

[Gone Critical]

About as meaningless as some of the poster assessment in this thread but at least it has some basis in fact.

True

 

[buzzbuzz]

Because the evidence we have to assess who has the better list comes largely from how the lists and players have performed over recent times. I am not sure how anyone would answer these questions without considering the history of the player


Richmond. Losing say Pendles and Treloar is a big hit for us also, it evens it a bit but still clearly the Tigers



Thats a stretch, Reid would have been good I agree but Rance? Not likely. I am hoping De Goey becomes our Leigh Matthews, still its a bit of a forlorn hope. Again if we are realistic Tigers list is well ahead of us currently. I hope we close the gap but so do a lot of other sides at our level. They are the ones we need to get past before worrying about the top 4 sides.

Cotchin, Reiwoldt, Prestia, Houli, Caddy, Butler, Edwards, Ellis, Vlaustin would be a start.

Hugely agree with this post. There's simply no evidence to suggest we have a better list. Why are people continuously saying "If you take out Martin and Rance..."? Those two players ARE ON THEIR LIST. They're the best players of their positions in the entire comp. They have to be included. Their list won the flag last season. It's clearly better than ours in every measurable way.

 

[adammania9]

Conversely, the Richmond folk reckon Castagna gets a game over Sidebottom and Moore, and apparently Pendlebury is too slow to get one

 

[JB1975]

Conversely, the Richmond folk reckon Castagna gets a game over Sidebottom and Moore, and apparently Pendlebury is too slow to get one

I hear what you're saying, but the team which holds onto the premiership cup gets to hold onto whatever delusions it likes.

 

[parvey]

Do we have a better list than Richmond?
Answer= NO

What we do have is an unproven team who has not been able to produce much evidence that they are going to be successful now or in the future.
This year there has to be big improvements in performance regardless of injuries or otherwise, basicly, no excuses this year or the real hard decisions need to be made.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Did you see some of the players rated elite

Papley, Crisp, Rich, Menzel, Menegola, Dixon, Boak, McEvoy, Hunt etc. pretty meaningless statistical assessment.

You need to watch more games that don't involve Collingwood.

The Elite rating is a very accurate statistical measure that rates a player in the top 10% against the players in that position. So for a midfielder to be rated Elite he has to be in the top 10% of midfielders, that leaves 90% as rated less than elite.

 

[Gone Critical]

You need to watch more games that don't involve Collingwood.

The Elite rating is a very accurate statistical measure that rates a player in the top 10% against the players in that position. So for a midfielder to be rated Elite he has to be in the top 10% of midfielders, that leaves 90% as rated less than elite.

I understand how it is rated. I do watch plenty of other teams. I would correct what you say by adding it means you are statistically elite on their calculation not elite without qualification.

The players I listed above are not elite AFL players on my subjective assessment. It's subjcetive and the stat fans may want to argue the toss but I don't think too many would disagree. I have watched Jack Crisp closely for the last 3 seasons. He is a solid B/C grader. No matter what the stats say he isn't elite.

 

[Bard]

I understand how it is rated. I do watch plenty of other teams. I would correct what you say by adding it means you are statistically elite on their calculation not elite without qualification.

The players I listed above are not elite AFL players on my subjective assessment. It's subjcetive and the stat fans may want to argue the toss but I don't think too many would disagree. I have watched Jack Crisp closely for the last 3 seasons. He is a solid B/C grader. No matter what the stats say he isn't elite.

The problem with the stats and Crisp is that I believe they've taken his stats for the last X years (however many they use to calculate ratings), most of which have been in the midfield, and then labled him a 'half-back' without taking into account the difference in positions. Generally speaking I've never actually agreed with Champion Data's assessment on just about anything anyway so none of this really surprises me.

 

[Black_White]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/magpies-may-be-surprise-packets-in-2018-20180208-h0vr9k.html
So according to Pelchen we should play finals with our list.
If we don’t, whom do we blame?

 

[spartan-magpie]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/magpies-may-be-surprise-packets-in-2018-20180208-h0vr9k.html
So according to Pelchen we should play finals with our list.
If we don’t, whom do we blame?

Lucifer.

 

[Gone Critical]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/magpies-may-be-surprise-packets-in-2018-20180208-h0vr9k.html
So according to Pelchen we should play finals with our list.
If we don’t, whom do we blame?

I dont think he actually did. Not surprising the subeditor went with the "Collingwood" headline

Once you read what Pelchen says its there is talent on the list, enough to be looking at an 8th-10th spot on the ladder and adds we should be able to contend (which is different to make)for finals. In the end puts us as 10th on his list.

 

[Bad Horse]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/magpies-may-be-surprise-packets-in-2018-20180208-h0vr9k.html
So according to Pelchen we should play finals with our list.
If we don’t, whom do we blame?

Ponies

 

[TKiL]

I dont think he actually did. Not surprising the subeditor went with the "Collingwood" headline

Once you read what Pelchen says its there is talent on the list, enough to be looking at an 8th-10th spot on the ladder and adds we should be able to contend (which is different to make)for finals. In the end puts us as 10th on his list.

Assume Pelchen has the list ranking about right and our list is 10th in ability.
In simple terms that means to make the 8, we need above average coaching, game plan, leadership, culture etc and below average injury rate.

 

[Black_White]

One of the biggest perceived issues facing the club is their list profile. Despite the club not making the finals since 2013, Collingwood's list is the third oldest and equal third most experienced in the competition.

That’s a huge problem for a team not in the finals.