Analysis Lin Jong 2017

[Next Waiting]

His self doubts will kill his career. He has improved 5-10% year on year and is now clearly AFL standard. But he simply has to start having shots and converting them.

Saturday was embarrassing for him. He had a shot from 40 meters and failed to make the distance. When it comes to shooting for goal he is in an almighty state of fear.

A few minutes later he got the ball 15 out - the only option was to shoot - every other AFL player in the same position would shoot. Not Jong - He tried to loop a handball over defenders towards goal! I saw Dalhaus shaking his head.

This is from one game but something similar has happened in virtually everyone of his game this year. He breaks clear of a pack, storming towards goal and refuses to shoot when there are no better options - instead he passes to a worse then 50/50 option.

It is infuriating - he does all the hard work and then freezes and fails to even try to mount the horse.

Goal kicking is 90% belief in your skill set - it's a pretty wide target. Know you kicking distance, if your in range, line it up, concentrate on a good drop and kick it straight - not too hard - not too soft. Don't worry about the result at all - keep your mind on line, drop, kick.

No one expects more than that and if you do that repeatedly your conversion will be high enough. Never Judge yourself by the result only the execution: was my line right? Was my drop right? Was my kick neither too hard or too soft?

Jong is at a cross roads - he cannot survive without fixing this. There are way too many quality players who will go passed him - shoot boy shoot.

Would be fun to be fly on the wall when they reviewed that over the top handball and non-shot. What do you say.

Jongy, WTF was that? You have to take the shot. It's irresponsible not to. Everyone misses. FFS Bont's the second coming and he kicked 1.4 but he takes the shot. Think of it this way Jongy. When Danger or JK grab the ball from the stoppage and you're right there you try to bury them don't you? Of course you do and you get 'em most of the time. Same thing. It's your responsibility to attempt the tackle like it's your responsibility to take the shot. I'd like you to talk with this guy (hands business card). He's a psychotherapist/hypnotherapist. Give 'm a call. You're almost there Jongy, almost there....

 

[FlyingDog]

Would be fun to be fly on the wall when they reviewed that over the top handball and non-shot. What do you say.

Jongy, WTF was that? You have to take the shot. It's irresponsible not to. Everyone misses. FFS Bont's the second coming and he kicked 1.4 but he takes the shot. Think of it this way Jongy. When Danger or JK grab the ball from the stoppage and you're right there you try to bury them don't you? Of course you do and you get 'em most of the time. Same thing. It's your responsibility to attempt the tackle like it's your responsibility to take the shot. I'd like you to talk with this guy (hands business card). He's a psychotherapist/hypnotherapist. Give 'm a call. You're almost there Jongy, almost there....

I've been a while to post here. These sentiments are exactly what I feel about Jong. He needs that confident in his ability to shot the goal. It was frustrating to watch that he did everything right until that last moment of stuffed up. But I believe he will get there soon. Go Jongy!

 

[darthbards]

I agree if a footballer is "average" they must have some elite quality to push them above the others.

My take on footballers at AFL level is I highly disagree with this idea of a "project" player. Players like Jong(sorry I have to mention him) spending 5-6 years in the system when in my thinking why not take a kid that has football ability and spend 5-6 years on them? Like Cox at the pies I simply think most of these players end up ok at best.

I have no issue with players having faults, no one is perfect but don't tell me players that have gone through our system wouldn't be as good if not better than Jong if they had been given the time and training he has. In the end we will have spent a minimum of 7 years on Jong to create a average footy player. For me that's too much time and far to much money for a project. Ps the same could be said for Williams also.

He's in our top dozen players now though?
You sure mention him a lot, even though you claim you don't.

 

[yebiga]

I agree if a footballer is "average" they must have some elite quality to push them above the others.

My take on footballers at AFL level is I highly disagree with this idea of a "project" player. Players like Jong(sorry I have to mention him) spending 5-6 years in the system when in my thinking why not take a kid that has football ability and spend 5-6 years on them? Like Cox at the pies I simply think most of these players end up ok at best.

I have no issue with players having faults, no one is perfect but don't tell me players that have gone through our system wouldn't be as good if not better than Jong if they had been given the time and training he has. In the end we will have spent a minimum of 7 years on Jong to create a average footy player. For me that's too much time and far to much money for a project. Ps the same could be said for Williams also.

You are right MD
If Jong doesn't turn out to be something special and only becomes what he is or there abouts then that is a non optimal use of our resources. He essentially needs to get to AA standard to justify the investment. I agree. I still think it's possible.

Agree - we wasted too many years on Tom Williams and I believe Ayce Cordy too. I luv that Bev gave Ace every chance in 2015 and we made the hard call quickly.

We may be going a year too long on Declan right now.

I think having one athletic project player on a list is a good strategy.

They need to be improving every year though to justify the investment.

When it works you get an Eastern Wood. I expect only 1/3 will work but you need to keep at it.

As for Jong - the clubs done all it can - he must now sink or swim on his own merits. I think he knows that - the clubs got him to a level - the rest is really all mental.

He has the capacity to be sinking 2 goals a game on top of his current out put. His leap and his speed is elite.

If he does - it changes the equation in our favor and justifies the investment. If he can't amp it up in front of goal he will drift out of the 22.

I think Bev wants his speed in the mid field and is prepared to give him every chance.

 

[BRWB]

Everyone is fit and firing. It's not a matter of "once", the only player who could reasonably be considered not fit and firing in our best 22 is Dunkley, but even then on both their form this year 99% of people would pick Jong ahead of Dunkley.

You've it quite clear in this thread that you don't rate Jong, but you're simply bending the truth right now. We don't have an injury list anywhere near as bad as what we've had since the beginning of 2016, yet you somehow claim that Jong won't get a game and is in "for now".

Everyone is not fit and firing - unless you genuinely believe a firing Libba is a twos player. Let's just wait and see. If he continues getting picked for the season and finals I might even concede he is best 22...

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Everyone is not fit and firing - unless you genuinely believe a firing Libba is a twos player. Let's just wait and see. If he continues getting picked for the season and finals I might even concede he is best 22...

He is available for selection and Jong is being picked ahead of him. We know all know Libba can, and is likely to, play better, but we're then playing a game of projecting the future - the future that I can equally claim that Jong will keep improving and keep Libba out of the team even if Libba returns to form. As it stands today, Libba is fit for selection and Jong is being preferred to him.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

I agree if a footballer is "average" they must have some elite quality to push them above the others.

My take on footballers at AFL level is I highly disagree with this idea of a "project" player. Players like Jong(sorry I have to mention him) spending 5-6 years in the system when in my thinking why not take a kid that has football ability and spend 5-6 years on them? Like Cox at the pies I simply think most of these players end up ok at best.

I have no issue with players having faults, no one is perfect but don't tell me players that have gone through our system wouldn't be as good if not better than Jong if they had been given the time and training he has. In the end we will have spent a minimum of 7 years on Jong to create a average footy player. For me that's too much time and far to much money for a project. Ps the same could be said for Williams also.

On the flip side the club could have missed/lost JJ and Wood with that approach who were both slow to develop athlete first types that are now elite.

Jong isn't elite (though there's time) but he has already played an important part in our first premiership season for >50 years, then backing up as BOG in the VFL premiership with a broken collar bone. And is now playing every single game in our premiership back up with no midfield injuries. There are a hell of a LOT of draft picks between 20 and 50 (hoping that covers everyone's view on his worth) that are persisted with for years that achieve a lot less.

PS - not having a go at you just conversing.

 

[TiAn_]

I love the zero sum game that either we take Lin Jong or a gun player. So, so stupid.

The bloke was a speculative rookie pick that was upgraded.

Declan Hamilton currently occupies a spot on our main list, but we should have delisted a guy that currently holds down a midfield spot in our 22...

Makes heaps of sense.

May as well turn over our list every 2 years until we have 22 Dangerfields. Can't believe every club isn't doing it.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Yep. Seems some folks will hang it on certain players because they "are not best 22". Well, where I went to school 44 players don't go into 22 places As long as those not in the 22 are either ready or almost ready if needed or are being developed for a longer term objective, then they have a purpose I only see one player i can't see tick any of those boxes so I'm a happy Chappy with the state of our list.

 

[BRWB]

He is available for selection and Jong is being picked ahead of him. We know all know Libba can, and is likely to, play better, but we're then playing a game of projecting the future - the future that I can equally claim that Jong will keep improving and keep Libba out of the team even if Libba returns to form. As it stands today, Libba is fit for selection and Jong is being preferred to him.

Difference being Libba has proved to be an elite player and even led the Comp in clearances. Jong has proven little. I can't even believe you just attempted to argue that an in form Libba would be kept out of the team by Jong. Bizarre.

 

[Next Waiting]

 

[Sharkey66]

Fact is Jong is and will be best 22 untill someone else displaces him. For a variety of reasons, Injuries, form, attitude etc this hasn't happened. Unless of course the MC decide otherwise for reasons we are only left to guess at ala Toby Mclean.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

He essentially needs to get to AA standard to justify the investment. I agree. I still think it's possible.

As for Jong - the clubs done all it can - he must now sink or swim on his own merits. I think he knows that - the clubs got him to a level - the rest is really all mental.

He has the capacity to be sinking 2 goals a game on top of his current out put. His leap and his speed is elite.

I'm sorry if I can't follow this logic.

Somehow the expected output for a rookie pick, signed on a 2 year deal probably at or slightly below the league average (for the salary cap hit) now constitutes the expectation of All-Australian form - ie among the best 10-15 midfielder in the competition?
2 goals a game makes no sense whatsoever. Of all full-time midfielders who rest forward, pretty much only Dangerfield, Martin and Bontempelli get anywhere near that. Are you suggesting that he has the capacity to be the next Dustin Martin and we should have disappointment if he falls short?

Same old same old. Unrealistic expectations so you can slam him down when he fails to meet the unrealistically high expectations the slammers were the ones that set for him.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Lin Jong has not conceded a free kick yet this season. #NewBillings

 

[yebiga]

I'm sorry if I can't follow this logic.

Somehow the expected output for a rookie pick, signed on a 2 year deal probably at or slightly below the league average (for the salary cap hit) now constitutes the expectation of All-Australian form - ie among the best 10-15 midfielder in the competition?
2 goals a game makes no sense whatsoever. Of all full-time midfielders who rest forward, pretty much only Dangerfield, Martin and Bontempelli get anywhere near that. Are you suggesting that he has the capacity to be the next Dustin Martin and we should have disappointment if he falls short?

Same old same old. Unrealistic expectations so you can slam him down when he fails to meet the unrealistically high expectations the slammers were the ones that set for him.

Firstly, I will not be slamming him one way or another. I am all for Jong succeed and believe he has a very high ceiling.

The point however is that if your going to invest 5-6 years to only develop an average player it's a fail. Now if you do it 3 times and 1 one 3 is all Australian quality it's worth it.
Otherwise you might as well just keep turning over more likely prospects.
Jong is here the example but my point is towards the strategy.
I think we should always have one project player that has unique qualities.
Wood, JJ are great examples.
But you can't ignore the opportunity loss.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Firstly, I will not be slamming him one way or another. I am all for Jong succeed and believe he has a very high ceiling.

The point however is that if your going to invest 5-6 years to only develop an average player it's a fail. Now if you do it 3 times and 1 one 3 is all Australian quality it's worth it.
Otherwise you might as well just keep turning over more likely prospects.
Jong is here the example but my point is towards the strategy.
I think we should always have one project player that has unique qualities.
Wood, JJ are great examples.
But you can't ignore the opportunity loss.

That's a terrible way at looking at it - both for bench marking and for what's considered the value of the list.
1 in 3 All-Australians - you do realise that only 22 players, or in others words, about 3%, of all listed players in a given year become All-Australian? Yet you're asking for a 1 in 3 chance of that happening for it to be a success?
You do realise that for years 2 and 3, we kept Jong on the rookie list? In that any given rookie listed player is unlikely to be good enough to ever play a single AFL game? Are you seriously suggesting that we should have cut the cord with Jong in any one of those rookie-listed years for the benefit ... of a rookie pick?
Jong is certainly more likely than players who are drafted with a 3rd, 4th round pick or something that, statistically speaking, are never good enough even to play 1 AFL game. Get rid of Jong so we can turn over Tom Hill, Alex Greenwood, Matthew Panos, Daniel Pearce, Matt Fuller etc.? I honestly don't understand the logic here - get rid of a player who at the very least has proven he will be good enough to play in the 22 for the rest his career for a player who is statistically unlikely to be ever good enough to last on the list beyond 3 or 4 years? Like if you look at the success rate of the draft, if we had taken rookie selections/3rd round picks instead of Jong on the list, you could have turned over 3 players with 2 year deals and the chances the net expected career value out of those 3 players are still lower than what Jong's proven to have done so far in his career.. I'm not following your logic at all.

 

[Wetdog]

The fact is that Jong is best 22 at the moment, and has been for the whole season. That is indisputable fact. Why? Because he has been picked in the team every week.

Who knows what the future holds. Personally I think there is a spot for Libba and Jong, along with Bont, Dalhaus and Wallis. I think that is a great engine room that can compete with any other stoppage crew in the competition. If Jong is our fifth tier stoppage midfielder, that means we are in great shape.

I'm sure BRWB will lurk around here until Jong inevitably has a bad game, and maybe even at some point gets dropped, and then he will tell us all how he was right all along. Looking forward to it.

 

[Dry Rot]

After discussing Jong, can we now move onto the other 21 players needed to be selected to take on the Swans as per the OP and thread title?

Or is Jong so good he can take on 22 Swans himself?

 

[BRWB]

The fact is that Jong is best 22 at the moment, and has been for the whole season. That is indisputable fact. Why? Because he has been picked in the team every week.

Who knows what the future holds. Personally I think there is a spot for Libba and Jong, along with Bont, Dalhaus and Wallis. I think that is a great engine room that can compete with any other stoppage crew in the competition. If Jong is our fifth tier stoppage midfielder, that means we are in great shape.

I'm sure BRWB will lurk around here until Jong inevitably has a bad game, and maybe even at some point gets dropped, and then he will tell us all how he was right all along. Looking forward to it.

Jong has already had shit games this year. Keep on fapping m8

 

[yebiga]

That's a terrible way at looking at it - both for bench marking and for what's considered the value of the list.
1 in 3 All-Australians - you do realise that only 22 players, or in others words, about 3%, of all listed players in a given year become All-Australian? Yet you're asking for a 1 in 3 chance of that happening for it to be a success?
You do realise that for years 2 and 3, we kept Jong on the rookie list? In that any given rookie listed player is unlikely to be good enough to ever play a single AFL game? Are you seriously suggesting that we should have cut the cord with Jong in any one of those rookie-listed years for the benefit ... of a rookie pick?
Jong is certainly more likely than players who are drafted with a 3rd, 4th round pick or something that, statistically speaking, are never good enough even to play 1 AFL game. Get rid of Jong so we can turn over Tom Hill, Alex Greenwood, Matthew Panos, Daniel Pearce, Matt Fuller etc.? I honestly don't understand the logic here - get rid of a player who at the very least has proven he will be good enough to play in the 22 for the rest his career for a player who is statistically unlikely to be ever good enough to last on the list beyond 3 or 4 years? Like if you look at the success rate of the draft, if we had taken rookie selections/3rd round picks instead of Jong on the list, you could have turned over 3 players with 2 year deals and the chances the net expected career value out of those 3 players are still lower than what Jong's proven to have done so far in his career.. I'm not following your logic at all.

Your not posing the question in a fitting cost benefit analysis.

Let's say you take 3 project players and invest 3 x 5 years into their development
That is 15 years!
What would you say was an acceptable outcome?

Alternatively, you turn over 7-8 rookies or late picks on 2 year terms over 15 years. Here your searching to find a Dalhaus or Morris or M Boyd.

Of course you take both approaches

But you have to some how measure your success.

 

[Wetdog]

Jong has already had shit games this year. Keep on fapping m8

This thread isn't actually about Jong. It's about you proving yourself to be right, and barracking against a kid trying his best so that you can pursue your own personal vendettas against certain posters.

You actually lose either way. Either Jong plays well for our team and your position looks more ridiculous. Or Jong doesn't perform for our team, which hurts our prospects of winning matches, and you clutch onto this as some sort of personal victory. What a loser position to be in, kiddo. I know which side of the argument I would rather be on.

 

[perro_loco]

This thread isn't actually about Jong. It's about you proving yourself to be right, and barracking against a kid trying his best so that you can pursue your own personal vendettas against certain posters.

You actually lose either way. Either Jong plays well for our team and your position looks more ridiculous. Or Jong doesn't perform for our team, which hurts our prospects of winning matches, and you clutch onto this as some sort of personal victory. What a loser position to be in, kiddo. I know which side of the argument I would rather be on.

 

[BEaston]

Your not posing the question in a fitting cost benefit analysis.

Let's say you take 3 project players and invest 3 x 5 years into their development
That is 15 years!
What would you say was an acceptable outcome?

Alternatively, you turn over 7-8 rookies or late picks on 2 year terms over 15 years. Here your searching to find a Dalhaus or Morris or M Boyd.

Of course you take both approaches

But you have to some how measure your success.

That bit is fine.

The bit where you expect them to become All-Australian is the whacked bit. Jong is capable at AFL level and therefore is already a success.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Your not posing the question in a fitting cost benefit analysis.

Let's say you take 3 project players and invest 3 x 5 years into their development
That is 15 years!
What would you say was an acceptable outcome?

Alternatively, you turn over 7-8 rookies or late picks on 2 year terms over 15 years. Here your searching to find a Dalhaus or Morris or M Boyd.

Of course you take both approaches

But you have to some how measure your success.

You're overestimating the statistical certainty of finding a Dahlhaus, Morris or Moyd in the rookie draft when we can look at the evidence of the Rookie draft.
In the history of the rookie draft, if you take the first 2 rounds (rookie draft picks 1-36), you get an average games per selection of about 30 games in the history of the rookie draft since the late 90's - with a sample size of over 700 players drafted. Whilst that includes players who will go onto play games but haven't yet, drafted in the last few years, it also includes mature-aged selections who are picked up for the benefit of 5-10 games here and there as injury cover/as a mature body for young kids etc. but provide no long-term value (so may as well be rated 0 games for that purpose). In any case, if we take 30 games as a benchmark, and compare that to Jong's return of 50 games and the likelihood that he'll be a 100, 150 gamer in time, it literally makes no sense to pass over Jong (someone who proved he could play in his 1st year), over the 10% chance of recruiting a Dahlhaus or whatever, which in the end, averages to 30 games or whatever production.

There's also the argument to be had, as more and more clubs invest more resources into the art of drafting, that the draft becomes more "efficient" than it was 10/20 years ago - the players that become better at the end of their careers are less likely to have been rookie picks than ever before, because the greater resources of AFL clubs as a collective are better at judging talent. Using data from 1998-now might even be underselling my point.

I can't follow your logic. It's not based in evidence/facts/what we know about the evidence at hand of the value of the rookie draft. It's a 30 game average.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

After discussing Jong, can we now move onto the other 21 players needed to be selected to take on the Swans as per the OP and thread title?

Or is Jong so good he can take on 22 Swans himself?

If we had a team of 19 Lin Jongs and 3 Fletcher Robertses (to play KPD, the only position Jong hasn't really played), how good would that team really be?