Analysis Lin Jong 2017

[doggies ftw]

Sydney will carve us up if we serve up that next week.

Guess we will see.

See the shit Swans served up? If we both serve up what we did round 1 we'll roll em

 

[BEaston]

Actually, surprisingly, I think the discussion in this thread has been very good. You have the non-Jong fans that have been putting forward their views and opinions in a way that isn't hateful or hyperbolic and those views have been argued against and discussed in a generally civilised manner. Lots of good back and forth IMO. The 2016 version, however

 

[stefoid]

The discussion on Jong turns into a shit fight for some people the same way the discussion on Dicko and Hrovat has/did - MD is unnecessarily abrasive and is always up to reiterate his points endlessly and a certain number of other posters are unnecessarily offended by his abrasiveness and are always up to reiterate their replies endlessly.

 

[Mr. Walker]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

Thanks Dannnnnn, best post on Jong ever. I would just like to add that not everyone is in either camp. Just because you post a piece questioning one aspect of Jong's play does not mean you are in the anti camp. I have been hoping Jong would succeeed as he has the height, strength and (in the VFL) ball winning ability that would contribute greatly to senior team success. Why it hasn't translated to the seniors yet i do not know and i am having doubts that after about 5 years in the system this may be as good as it gets. I hope i am wrong. In Bev we trust and if he sees something then i am happy for the MC to persist with him. (WARNING - until recently I said the same thing about the Aus cricket selectors and the Marsh brothers. I now hold a very different view)

 

[BEaston]

Thanks Dannnnnn, best post on Jong ever. I would just like to add that not everyone is in either camp. Just because you post a piece questioning one aspect of Jong's play does not mean you are in the anti camp. I have been hoping Jong would succeeed as he has the height, strength and (in the VFL) ball winning ability that would contribute greatly to senior team success. Why it hasn't translated to the seniors yet i do not know and i am having doubts that after about 5 years in the system this may be as good as it gets. I hope i am wrong. In Bev we trust and if he sees something then i am happy for the MC to persist with him. (WARNING - until recently I said the same thing about the Aus cricket selectors and the Marsh brothers. I now hold a very different view)

Definitely agree with this. I think most people actually sit on the fence with Jong. IMO it's about giving your point of view in a respectful way. He is still a Bulldog, after all. I think that is actually where people take an issue, not the fact that someone says something negative about him. More the manner in which it's done.

 

[Jean Claude Vas Deferens]

Quite ambivalent on Jong. Sometimes he's good. Sometimes not so much. He was ordinary on Friday night so if he's dropped that's fair enough. Depends on the Premiership winning coaching staff making the call as opposed to a bunch of anonymous Internet posters who like to pretend they know more than the people who are actually paid the justified salary that they deserve. And no, I'm not wearing blinkers just because these guys won the flag…. but for now I reckon they've got way more clout than us.

 

[Next Waiting]

Bevo made mention in his presser that we are role based team. So for each player it's interesting to try and nail down the specifics of the role. I watched the replay today with a specific emphasis on stoppages. It's clear that Jong's role is that of a defensive clearance player. If he gets an actual clearance it's by accident and not design. What's interesting to me about that is that the MC are effectively saying that they want a lot of two man contests for the ball at a stoppage, particularly centre bounces, rather than 3 man contests (I haven't decided whether was particular to the opposition that was Collingwood). Jong never went for the ball once at a centre stoppage and that is by design. It may surprise that he was very effective in stopping and curbing his direct opponents influence at centre bounces. They generally thrived when he wasn't there. He had Treloars measure at stoppages all night and over the course of the entire match, Pendelbury was less effective at a centre bounce when Jong stood him. After Pendels had started to peg the game back a bit in the 4th Jong was sent to shadow him and jump on him when he got near it. Pendels influence lessened. He's not a tagger and isn't used in that role and wasn't all night bar the last 10 mins or so. He doesn't tag at stoppages nor does he compete for the ball but rather blocks and obstructs the player he's on and tackles him (most of the time) if he gets the ball creating another stoppage. He's actually very good at this role and seemingly it's a role that MC see value in. I presume it's to allow genuinely excellent clearance machines like Libba and Bont more space and time and less congestion to work in. Both Bont and Libba were a bit down on their normal high clearance standards in this game as was everyone else whose job it was to compete for the ball at the stoppage but this was also very likely influenced by the oppositions ruck dominance.
I recall in a recent doco that Bevo said in the GF that they allocated both Libba and Bont to put a lot of work into Kennedy in the 3rd because he was getting away on them. Obviously Jong didn't play that game but if he is selected this week I'll be very interested to watch how many times he stands Kennedy at a stoppage and how effective Kennedy is.

 

[bontshow]

I don't think this is all about Jong

Like many polarising players, Jong has obvious strong points and weak points. He's not like other arguably fringe players like Cordy, McLean, Smith & Dunkley who can just play OK games. Jong's average game is a bunch of tackles, a couple of contested marks, maybe a goal or a goal assist, but then several turnovers

It's comparing that sort of game with someone who is less involved, less damaging, but more reliable with ball in hand that generates the discussion. MD's not even in this thread yet it has reached 8 pages in 8 days

 

[DelRe]

Like many polarising players, Jong has obvious strong points and weak points. He's not like other arguably fringe players like Cordy, McLean, Smith & Dunkley who can just play OK games. Jong's average game is a bunch of tackles, a couple of contested marks, maybe a goal or a goal assist, but then several turnovers

It's comparing that sort of game with someone who is less involved, less damaging, but more reliable with ball in hand that generates the discussion. MD's not even in this thread yet it has reached 8 pages in 8 days

I've quite enjoyed this thread (surprisingly finding myself a top contributor - in quantity at least) particularly seeing the different views on why he's getting a game and how the MC may be trying to use him (as compared with a more direct assessment of his ability) and why that may lead to his selection over others - particular from that broad spectrum of posters comprising those with more knowledge than me.

I think he's polarising just because that seems to come more commonly with fringe players - they're frustrating because they show potential (more so at lower levels) but don't seem to deliver against it enough, because they keep others favorites/preferreds out of the side and because ultimately a fringe player is by definition not as good as others in the side. It's accentuated for Jong because he's been on the list longer, had more opportunities but not been able to push out of the fringe category and so there's the valid question of how long do you persist (seeing the potential) versus gamble on another draft pick (seeing him as a list 'clogger') or change strategy and play a different role with a different player or adapt another player to the role they want Jong to do (better).

 

[bontshow]

I think he's polarising just because that seems to come more commonly with fringe players - they're frustrating because they show potential (more so at lower levels) but don't seem to deliver against it enough

That's a good point as well - Jong's highs are higher and his lows lower, he's more inconsistent than the others on the fringes of selection

Webb is probably the best contrast - you can rely on him to do his bit, it will only be 10-12 touches, but he'll be a link in the chain when needed. Jong will do more but can let us down as well

 

[Hard Ball Get]

That's a good point as well - Jong's highs are higher and his lows lower, he's more inconsistent than the others on the fringes of selection

Webb is probably the best contrast - you can rely on him to do his bit, it will only be 10-12 touches, but he'll be a link in the chain when needed. Jong will do more but can let us down as well

Jong is also more versatile than all the others.

 

[bontshow]

Jong is also more versatile than all the others.

Smith & Dunkley can both play mid & forward as well, I don't think that's Jong's point of difference. He's more powerful than the other two though, quicker and a better leap

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Smith & Dunkley can both play mid & forward as well, I don't think that's Jong's point of difference. He's more powerful than the other two though, quicker and a better leap

Jong can play attacking mid, defensive mid, forward as a mid size and as an undersized key position. He's also even done some ruck work.
He's more versatile than Dunkley and far, far more versatile than Smith. That's not to say he's a better player, he definitely provides more options though.

 

[Metal]

Bevo made mention in his presser that we are role based team. So for each player it's interesting to try and nail down the specifics of the role. I watched the replay today with a specific emphasis on stoppages. It's clear that Jong's role is that of a defensive clearance player. If he gets an actual clearance it's by accident and not design. What's interesting to me about that is that the MC are effectively saying that they want a lot of two man contests for the ball at a stoppage, particularly centre bounces, rather than 3 man contests (I haven't decided whether was particular to the opposition that was Collingwood). Jong never went for the ball once at a centre stoppage and that is by design. It may surprise that he was very effective in stopping and curbing his direct opponents influence at centre bounces. They generally thrived when he wasn't there. He had Treloars measure at stoppages all night and over the course of the entire match, Pendelbury was less effective at a centre bounce when Jong stood him. After Pendels had started to peg the game back a bit in the 4th Jong was sent to shadow him and jump on him when he got near it. Pendels influence lessened. He's not a tagger and isn't used in that role and wasn't all night bar the last 10 mins or so. He doesn't tag at stoppages nor does he compete for the ball but rather blocks and obstructs the player he's on and tackles him (most of the time) if he gets the ball creating another stoppage. He's actually very good at this role and seemingly it's a role that MC see value in. I presume it's to allow genuinely excellent clearance machines like Libba and Bont more space and time and less congestion to work in. Both Bont and Libba were a bit down on their normal high clearance standards in this game as was everyone else whose job it was to compete for the ball at the stoppage but this was also very likely influenced by the oppositions ruck dominance.
I recall in a recent doco that Bevo said in the GF that they allocated both Libba and Bont to put a lot of work into Kennedy in the 3rd because he was getting away on them. Obviously Jong didn't play that game but if he is selected this week I'll be very interested to watch how many times he stands Kennedy at a stoppage and how effective Kennedy is.

At last, someone who sees the way to judge our players is to be able to identify just what role they are playing at any given time during a game. Jong has played in the back half, as a winger, as a forward, as a distributor by hand, as a ruck and as a contested shadow / blocker mid.

Your observations equate to mine. He has, for a number of years now, tried to negate or block players at centre bounce downs. He also appears to fill in spaces in the middle of the ground (cover the ground) rather than follow a player too far which can be misinterpreted as being loose defensively. His versatility is not the issue.

The issue most have with him, though, is that he can fluff the chance to do something really meaningful for the side when he has the ball in his possession or should have had it in his possession. This stands out when much of the other stuff that gets him selected does not.

 

[BRWB]

At last, someone who sees the way to judge our players is to be able to identify just what role they are playing at any given time during a game. Jong has played in the back half, as a winger, as a forward, as a distributor by hand, as a ruck and as a contested shadow / blocker mid.

Your observations equate to mine. He has, for a number of years now, tried to negate or block players at centre bounce downs. He also appears to fill in spaces in the middle of the ground (cover the ground) rather than follow a player too far which can be misinterpreted as being loose defensively. His versatility is not the issue.

The issue most have with him, though, is that he can fluff the chance to do something really meaningful for the side when he has the ball in his possession or should have had it in his possession. This stands out when much of the other stuff that gets him selected does not.

I get that Jong has been picked but If Jong is playing a team role so well I'd have thought he gets a lot more recognition from the MC than 27-32 in the B and F.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I get that Jong has been picked but If Jong is playing a team role so well I'd have thought he gets a lot more recognition from the MC than 27-32 in the B and F.

We've been through this before. The nuances of a voting system - one that had All-Austrlian Matthew Boyd as our 12th best player and Champion Data rated Elite Mitch Wallis as our 28th best player - isn't a better representation for what the match committee things of a player, than, actually choosing to select him in the team over others. It's starting to sound like a broken record.

 

[BRWB]

We've been through this before. The nuances of a voting system - one that had All-Austrlian Matthew Boyd as our 12th best player and Champion Data rated Elite Mitch Wallis as our 28th best player - isn't a better representation for what the match committee things of a player, than, actually choosing to select him in the team over others. It's starting to sound like a broken record.

No the points being made was that Jong plays an unrecognised role well. The B and F is not about the best player it's about how well the MC see a player playing his role.

 

[Next Waiting]

At last, someone who sees the way to judge our players is to be able to identify just what role they are playing at any given time during a game. Jong has played in the back half, as a winger, as a forward, as a distributor by hand, as a ruck and as a contested shadow / blocker mid.

Your observations equate to mine. He has, for a number of years now, tried to negate or block players at centre bounce downs. He also appears to fill in spaces in the middle of the ground (cover the ground) rather than follow a player too far which can be misinterpreted as being loose defensively. His versatility is not the issue.

The issue most have with him, though, is that he can fluff the chance to do something really meaningful for the side when he has the ball in his possession or should have had it in his possession. This stands out when much of the other stuff that gets him selected does not.

Yes what can often be seen as a negating role at a clearance on a particular player doesn't morph into tagging that player in general play but rather he becomes part of the defensive zone set up (like everyone else). There may be a preferred part of the ground for him to reside in - the middle of the ground as you're suggesting.

It's interesting to consider (for me anyway) that it is largely a strategy that is driving Jongs selection because clearly there are more 'natural' footballers and you could name any of Smith, Dunkley, Maclean et al. But, the attributes that he has in abundance, those being burst speed, tackling, hardness, physical presence and commitment are being used in a way that is both defensive and creative but not in the traditional sense.

Many might imagine (and I have myself) that his burst speed combined with physical strength and robustness is or should be an offensive weapon. But it's being used primarily in a defensive capacity on players like Treloar and Pendelbury at stoppages. He's fast and powerful enough to grab them or get a disruptive nudge in or hand in that compromises their disposal if they happen to edge past him in the contest which they very often they don't. And to simply bury them if it goes directly to them.

And he's creating in an unconventional sense. Creating time and space for others by very effectively obstructing a direct opponent in the only set play there is in football - the centre clearance. It's the only time where the position on the ground and numbers in attendance are set. 1 ruckman and 3 clearance players and everyone else outside the square. There is never more space and time at a clearance and Jong's skill set is being used specifically to create more time and space for the other 2 clearance players on our side. His role at stoppages is dual purpose. Create time and space for us and negate an opponent whilst also being a higher percentage chance of stopping an opposition possession should it come his way at the stoppage because of his speed and strength.

So there must be value and significance in this role within this strategy that is perhaps not entirely appreciated or understood. Seemingly Jong is considered one of if not the best exponent of this very specific role within this strategy. If/when the strategy changes or an injured player like Wallis resumes then things might change.

 

[BEaston]

Jong can play attacking mid, defensive mid, forward as a mid size and as an undersized key position. He's also even done some ruck work.
He's more versatile than Dunkley and far, far more versatile than Smith. That's not to say he's a better player, he definitely provides more options though.

Also has a lot more speed than both of them.

Edit: Next Waiting beat me to it ^^

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No the points being made was that Jong plays an unrecognised role well. The B and F is not about the best player it's about how well the MC see a player playing his role.

But then the point should be he clearly played that role to the extent that he kept his place in the team when a dozen or so other players were dropped. Surely that's a better determinant of where the MC rate him as opposed to what a voting system with its inherent flaws can determine.

 

[DelRe]

No the points being made was that Jong plays an unrecognised role well. The B and F is not about the best player it's about how well the MC see a player playing his role.

But then the point should be he clearly played that role to the extent that he kept his place in the team when a dozen or so other players were dropped. Surely that's a better determinant of where the MC rate him as opposed to what a voting system with its inherent flaws can determine.

I think you're probably both right here in that if he was performing the role asked to a high level on a at least a semi-regular basis then that should show up in the B&F recognition (presumably). Roberts game on the weekend is probably a good example of that in the context of the coaches votes. I can only rationalize that he hasn't on the basis that the MC see he's played the role to a consistently 'OK' level - not enough to get good votes but enough to keep his place - right on the fringe!

 

[Fossie 32]

I mostly agree Mutt, but with respect, I don't think this is all about Jong. I'm going to tread carefully here because I understand a lot won't agree (and bear no ill will towards those who do), but nevertheless, my two cents.

Something about negative posts regarding Jong tend to elicit spirited and at times aggressive defence even when it's not really called for. We see the attribution of sinister motives to the "against" crew by the "for" group more than we do with any other player. Even in response to very minor, fleeting criticisms, the replies quickly become disproportionate - both in quantity and quality. On the flip side, if somebody were to offer criticism of premiership full back Fletcher Roberts, for example, it would be taken as par for the course and most would move on very quickly.

In my opinion - and perhaps only my opinion - the aggressive negativity is somewhat of a blowback against the incessant and often unnecessary defence of him. There is frustration from the "against" side because it feels as though any comment on Jong's weaknesses must be qualified six times and is suddenly made the focus of the thread, while people can say whatever they want about a chunk of other fringe players. Perhaps my perception is warped but I see countless threads derailed not because a Jong naysayer drags it off track, but because a passing mention of Jong has been replied to seven times with some minor name calling or comments like, "You clearly don't know anything," thrown in (in fact, there's a very, very recent example of this in the Preview thread...).

Over time, this has led to the negative crew intensifying their arguments and growing more disenchanted with the whole argument; and with that has come the frustration from the positive group. Overall we get repetitive arguments that gradually escalate in animosity and encourage more and more people to jump on. Neither side has covered themselves in glory (and yes, the negative group has their fair share of antagonists as well) and I want to stress that I'm not intending this post to be in support of the "against" group, but simply an alternative perspective.

I think this board would be a much better place - and indeed, much more conducive of quality discussion - if both sides could simply occasionally admit that people disagree re: Jong and not jump at alternative viewpoints every time they see them. It seems as though one passing comment about Jong is all it takes for the opposing side to get their backs up - and instead of continuing to scroll, they have to reply. Rarely are these replies good-natured; instead they quickly turn personal because of the topic's history.

At this point we know the arguments for and against Jong. We can continue to discuss the merits of both sides, but it doesn't need to happen every time somebody gently whispers his name.

Good on u for such a considered post but I would think quite the opposite to much of it Fine to debate the pros and cons of players but a bit more respect is due imho - not talking about you there

 

[the conch]

Smith & Dunkley can both play mid & forward as well, I don't think that's Jong's point of difference. He's more powerful than the other two though, quicker and a better leap

Dont know about power c/f Clay and even Dunkley, but his straight line acceleration is special.

 

[Mofra]

Smith & Dunkley can both play mid & forward as well, I don't think that's Jong's point of difference. He's more powerful than the other two though, quicker and a better leap

When in the side Smith attended far less centre bounces than Dunkley or Jong.
MC seem to have earmarked Smith as a forward who pinch hits in the middle, the other two are mids who rest forward.

 

[VitalDread]

I actually like seeing Jong play more as a forward then a midfielder in the AFL. Keeps his game to simple techniques and is a great contested marker