List Mgmt. List management for 2016

[Portology]

I'd upgrade him. In our best 22.

I'd rather upgrade Snelling, and have him go head to head with Sam Gray. Looking forward to Bonner/Jonas/Clurey competing for what looks like a single spot too.

Krak is in our best 22 right *now* but if he's not #22 by round one next year we've done something wrong in the draft and trade period, or the proverbial black cat of injury has been run over while crossing Brougham place trying to get itself a 2017 pet membership. And really he has to not be best 22 by the end of the season - several kids must push past him including pick #9 or whatever that becomes - or else we've just had a third poor season in a row.

I think he's got another year in him but still in that line of honorable depth players though - Logan, Stewart, Krak.

 

[x_les_x]

Clurey was always groomed to be carliles replacement when he eventually retired and now that carlile has people want him gone? #bigfootybipolar

He can kick on both sides, defend and has the tank he went with nick riewoldt for a whole pre season game. He'll probably play every game for us in 2017 why do people want him gone? So we can net a top 30 pick that'd get us a skinny flanker doesnt make sense we have a ready built defender who can play. Move on back to broadbent or something

 

[Jack Grange]

St Kilda is also linked to everyone it seems, but i can settle for pick 10. Just about the right value for HH.

The overriding factor with the Saints of course is Richo which may add more credibility to such a play and if true I could see benefits to all parties.
Suggest due to Richo factor Saints should be more amicable to deal with....package up O'Shea in the deal as well...never know?

 

[Willsy10]

I rate Clurey and do not want him traded. Jonas and Oshea on the other hand.

 

[Arintaraj]

I get where you're coming from, but tbh that's your failure to understand the statistic rather than the stat itself. The stat doesn't claim that Clurey is the 2nd best 1-on-1 defender in 2016 in the comp, it claims that he had the second highest win % of 1-on-1 contests in 2016 in the comp.

In those contests it's recorded whether the forward wins (marks), the defender wins, or even where the boil is spoiled. Defenders are typically marked in terms of best 1-on-1 loss percentage - so keeping the forward to the least wins possible. This is seen as a better reflection of the game for a defender as KPDs are often trying to spoil the ball - hence a defender essentially "wins" his position if he either spoils or marks. Marks are obviously better, but a spoil is a win too. So being second best in the 1-on-1 wins just means that Clurey was more prone to marking the ball than most other KPDs and also has the ability to stick them more often than not. His 1-on-1 loss % might actually be average - and yes that would indicate that he is only an average KPD in the comp.

I appreciate the explanation and thought that went into your post.

I think where we differ is: you're saying it's ok to report relatively raw stats and it's up to the reader to discern meaning. Whereas I think that the onus should be on the reporter to present stats that are meaningful. Clurey's numbers would benefit from not taking the best forward, fewer games played, etc. I think the presenter needs to correct for those biases (or don't publish the numbers).

Otherwise it gets taken on face value and statements are made such as this:

The Advertiser today states that Clurey was the second best defender in 2016 in terms of winning 1 on 1 contests (behind Morris of the Dogs). He's ahead of names like McGovern, Hombsch, Harry Taylor, Tom McDonald, Josh Gibson, Tarrant.

Do. Not. Trade.

 

[Turiyasangitananda]

Prior to this season, Krak had the best vision and kick in our team. His ability to pick a player out surrounded by opponents is unreal, other players wouldn't even dream of it as they can't see it and if they could see it, there is no way they could do it.

But he needs a big preseason, we can't have another season of him being puffed out, and bring off his game.

I'd love to see him in the forward line at times. He's creative, and would be an asset kicking into 50 and finding gaps where no one else can. Needs to lift though.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Clurey held his own against Buddy and that is good enough for me to lock him in our starting backlines.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Any basis for this?

It works for me too if true

No basis, just a suggestion.

 

[Andre]

The stat is not the full picture, but it adds to the case that Clurey over Jonas everyday of the week and twice on match days Ken.

As for Krak I'd leave him on the rookie list and tell him unless he completes a full preseason (yet to do - injured going into Dubai the first year and his jaw last year) and gets his tank up, then he'll spend the year in the Magpies and get delisted.

A Krak with a tank would walk into our best 18 (shit best dozen), easily. An unfit one does not and would be more rewarding the half efforts we've allowed to fester too long.

 

[Powerade 08]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

 

[Portology]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

you are joking, right? Krak has given decent service on minimum coin. As opposed to indecent service on far too much coin.

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

People being to hard on Krak. In three years he has gone from being out of the AFL system for years and being unfit, to getting drafted and playing 29 games out of 44 in 2 years and contributing solidly.

 

[Coobk001]

Or in the case of most BigFooty users: employed full time but don't actually work one hour in the week

It's like you've known me all my life

 

[crafty_bernardo]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

Yes he shouldn't have been out with family at a club . But it was an unprovoked attack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coobk001]

Wow we have a lot of flankers. What the hell Ken? We know you played back there but this is ridiculous.

You only just realised? It's been a theme we've been banging on about around here for a couple years. We've got like 1 true ball winning mid on our entire list, Wines, and 1 on the rookie list in Snelling.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Can't believe some of the comments about Clurey and especially Krak.

This board is such hard work sometimes.

Very harsh on Krak. Much higher ROI than probably 2/3 of our list this far.

 

[Chrizzt]

I appreciate the explanation and thought that went into your post.

I think where we differ is: you're saying it's ok to report relatively raw stats and it's up to the reader to discern meaning. Whereas I think that the onus should be on the reporter to present stats that are meaningful. Clurey's numbers would benefit from not taking the best forward, fewer games played, etc. I think the presenter needs to correct for those biases (or don't publish the numbers).

Otherwise it gets taken on face value and statements are made such as this:

Well I'd disagree fundamentally on this. The stats of winning one on one % are very meaningful - ie. my description of Clurey preferring to mark. I'd much rather be given the stats and be allowed to form my own opinions rather than some pleb writer coming up with a story and shoehorning in whatever stats match his opinion.

And there's simply no way you can "correct" for the factors you've mentioned (which aren't biases). Clurey could take the best KPF week in week out and it just so happens that each of them have the flu leading in to the game so they are down on form, or maybe their mids are absolutely on fire that week and are lacing out every pass as a bullet on to the forwards chest. Those factors can't - and really shouldn't - be accounted for. They are all factors of the game that need to be taken into account. If Clurey has the 2nd best 1 on 1 win % taking the second best KPF each week maybe that says more about the fact that he is a fantastic 2nd KPD option as not only can he shut down the oppo, but he can intercept and rebound too. Additionally, whose to say that the second KPF in a team isn't actually their best forward? Austin would probably stand a Redpath or Boyd at the Dogs, whereas Clurey would take a Dickson/Stringer - and it's easy to figure whose the more dangerous forward there.

In the end, if people make poor conclusions with the data/information that they are given that's for them. However I'd wager anyone with a good idea about footy only needs half a mind for statistics to be able to make reasonably accurate conclusions given the stats that are available to us.

 

[RossFC]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

wtf?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I appreciate the explanation and thought that went into your post.

I think where we differ is: you're saying it's ok to report relatively raw stats and it's up to the reader to discern meaning. Whereas I think that the onus should be on the reporter to present stats that are meaningful. Clurey's numbers would benefit from not taking the best forward, fewer games played, etc. I think the presenter needs to correct for those biases (or don't publish the numbers).

Otherwise it gets taken on face value and statements are made such as this:

the reporter probably hasn't seen much of Clurey so that's why he isn't going to go into great depth. Anyway you can't say Clurey didn't take the best forward because the games I saw both Austin and he swapped on who they were playing on and they usually were our 2 best KPD's in the games they played together.

In the 9 games he played at the end of the season there was no Hombsch, Carlile, or Jonas on the field and Jacko only played CHB against the Crows and GC.

 

[OneGreatClub]

you are joking, right? Krak has given decent service on minimum coin. As opposed to indecent service on far too much coin.

Exactly, plus with a proper pre-season without the injury and then the suspension his year would have been even better. I hope we keep him.

 

[OneGreatClub]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

victim blaming

 

[Arintaraj]

Well I'd disagree fundamentally on this. The stats of winning one on one % are very meaningful - ie. my description of Clurey preferring to mark. I'd much rather be given the stats and be allowed to form my own opinions rather than some pleb writer coming up with a story and shoehorning in whatever stats match his opinion.

And there's simply no way you can "correct" for the factors you've mentioned (which aren't biases). Clurey could take the best KPF week in week out and it just so happens that each of them have the flu leading in to the game so they are down on form, or maybe their mids are absolutely on fire that week and are lacing out every pass as a bullet on to the forwards chest. Those factors can't - and really shouldn't - be accounted for. They are all factors of the game that need to be taken into account. If Clurey has the 2nd best 1 on 1 win % taking the second best KPF each week maybe that says more about the fact that he is a fantastic 2nd KPD option as not only can he shut down the oppo, but he can intercept and rebound too. Additionally, whose to say that the second KPF in a team isn't actually their best forward? Austin would probably stand a Redpath or Boyd at the Dogs, whereas Clurey would take a Dickson/Stringer - and it's easy to figure whose the more dangerous forward there.

In the end, if people make poor conclusions with the data/information that they are given that's for them. However I'd wager anyone with a good idea about footy only needs half a mind for statistics to be able to make reasonably accurate conclusions given the stats that are available to us.

Fine. Happy to leave it there.

 

[Finest of Wines]

lol. Krakouer has been given 3 years at he Magpies and Power to get himself fit and it hasn't happened. He is 28 years old and gets king hit out clubbing.

Brendan Fevola would have been a better investment.

The amount people go on about how terrible Krak is, you would think he's solely responsible for the poor year Port had. We finished tenth because our prime leaders couldn't get the results regularly enough on gameday.

If I remember correctly leadership member Tom Jonas got himself suspended for six weeks for a stupid, intentional hit from behind on Gaff, at a pretty important stage of our season. During his suspension he got injured and proceeded to not play another game for the year.

But Krak's fitness isn't elite (apparently) so he should be ****ed off.

Having a quality playing list requires depth, which Krak surely can remain on the list for at the minimum, but he has quality skills which our list is lacking.

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

You have no way of knowing this. Jimmy Toumpas can get 40 possessions in a sanfl game, he'd get 50 in the neafl. No one would give up pick 20 for him, not even another Port supporter.

I'll give you lobbe for him though

 

[powermacs]

With DBJ and Bonner coming through as half backs I'd love for us to use Krak as a permanent forward for a few years. Huge upgrade on Neade.