Strategy Positional changes for 2015

[catempire]

Pretty sure West's average deficit wasn't 2.5 to 1, though.

1.6 to 1.

Goldstein had 33, 42, 42, 33 in those matches.

 

[Cattery]

1.6 to 1.

Goldstein had 33, 42, 42, 33 in those matches.

And 54 in last years final.

If comparing the merits of West and Blicavs as ruckmen, wouldn't a more pertinent stat be 20.64 hitouts per game [West] as opposed to 9.67?

 

[catempire]

And 54 in last years final.

If comparing the merits of West and Blicavs as ruckmen, wouldn't a more pertinent stat be 20.64 hitouts per game [West] as opposed to 9.67?

I like apples with apples - each player playing the number 1 role against the same opposition player. Remove the noise from the equation (time spent in other positions, against different opposition etc).

 

[catempire]

Also interesting. Of the five matches I've referenced - one Blicavs and four West - only in the semi final did North not win the clearances. West rucking was 0 from 4.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Also interesting. Of the five matches I've referenced - one Blicavs and four West - only in the semi final did North not win the clearances. West rucking was 0 from 4.

Which surely goes to show, once again, that hitouts is an almost totally useless statistic.

 

[Partridge]

Also interesting. Of the five matches I've referenced - one Blicavs and four West - only in the semi final did North not win the clearances. West rucking was 0 from 4.

You might want to look closer at the second match in 2013 then.

West had 14 hitouts from 55% time on ground (was subbed off).
Blicavs had 8 hitouts from 77% time on ground.

Just to ensure we're comparing apples with apples.

 

[Partridge]

Which surely goes to show, once again, that hitouts is an almost totally useless statistic.

I'd say it's one metric among many. Still be more useful to win it than lose it I would have thought.

 

[catempire]

You might want to look closer at the second match in 2013 then.

West had 14 hitouts from 55% time on ground (was subbed off).
Blicavs had 8 hitouts from 77% time on ground.

Just to ensure we're comparing apples with apples.

Quite right. We can rule out leather poisoning as the reason for his subbing though.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'd say it's one metric among many. Still be more useful to win it than lose it I would have thought.

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends upon each ruckman's head to head nett hitouts to advantage, figures not available to the public. Sunday papers publish hitouts to advantage, but not hitouts to disadvantage.
And we don't get any head to head figures at all.

 

[Partridge]

Quite right. We can rule out leather poisoning as the reason for his subbing though.

Can rule that out for half our list in some games.

 

[Cattery]

I like apples with apples - each player playing the number 1 role against the same opposition player. Remove the noise from the equation (time spent in other positions, against different opposition etc).

I thought we were, Blicavs first ruck against Goldstein, West first ruck against Goldstein.

Blicavs has also played ruck [1st or 2nd] in about 95% of his 45 games so the hitout percentage of the two is still valid.

Rather then tap dancing around it though it would probably be easier to simply ask, do you consider Blicavs a better "ruckman" then West?

 

[Teriyakicat]

Out of interest, is Trent West a part timer?

I'd say that West became a part-timer in the seniors before getting the boot.

 

[Teriyakicat]

You might want to look closer at the second match in 2013 then.

West had 14 hitouts from 55% time on ground (was subbed off).
Blicavs had 8 hitouts from 77% time on ground.

Just to ensure we're comparing apples with apples.

What about comparing amount of hitouts vs time spent in the ruck?
OH- we can't I guess comparisons between West and Blicavs are pretty pointless, then.
I can't see any benefit in going over the stats for a bloke who spent 6 years at the club and played as 2nd ruck behind a decent 1st ruck vs a bloke who's been there for 2 years and thrown in the deep end with no available 1st ruck for the majority of his first year.

 

[catempire]

I thought we were, Blicavs first ruck against Goldstein, West first ruck against Goldstein.

Yep, 22 v 22.75. It's when you look at career wide averages that it becomes problematic for reasons of which you are well aware.

Blicavs has also played ruck [1st or 2nd] in about 95% of his 45 games so the hitout percentage of the two is still valid.

I'm sure reasoned minds would agree that the number of games played as first ruck (Blicavs one that I recall, West 50-odd) would make that comparison quite useless.

Rather then tap dancing around it though it would probably be easier to simply ask, do you consider Blicavs a better "ruckman" then West?

Absolutely not, and never have I said so.

The original reason I raised the comparison here was to point out that both a part timer and a much loved "full timer" have been slaughtered by Goldstein with regularity. I don't think it matters whether it's your part timer or full timer that gets slaughtered; I'd rather a decent ruckman there not getting slaughtered. Neither Blicavs or West is that player.

 

[catempire]

What about comparing amount of hitouts vs time spent in the ruck?
OH- we can't I guess comparisons between West and Blicavs are pretty pointless, then.
I can't see any benefit in going over the stats for a bloke who spent 6 years at the club and played as 2nd ruck behind a decent 1st ruck vs a bloke who's been there for 2 years and thrown in the deep end with no available 1st ruck for the majority of his first year.

Sometimes pointing out uselessness is useful in itself!

BTW, it is of course relevant that West played many of his games as 2nd ruck - his first 20 were while Ottens was at the club. But he has also played a stack more than Blicavs as first ruck.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Sometimes pointing out uselessness is useful in itself!

BTW, it is of course relevant that West played many of his games as 2nd ruck - his first 20 were while Ottens was at the club. But he has also played a stack more than Blicavs as first ruck.

It sure would've been handy to have had a fit Simpson for him to play second fiddle to- poor West I really felt for the young fella.

I thought he was reasonably capable in front of goal- and wondered why there was no place for him when we were short a CHF or even any other forward position in 2013. He couldn't even get a gig as a ruckman for half of the season, despite being a better ruck than the two alternatives that were put on the ground.
We know he could take a ripper mark- a bit of confidence in himself wouldn't have hurt:


and here's a great goal that he kicked after running his guts out and picking up the ball cleanly before booting it through:


Yeah, it's all water under the bridge now but I can't help thinking what might have been, if the MC had had a bit of faith in this guy.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Yep, 22 v 22.75. It's when you look at career wide averages that it becomes problematic for reasons of which you are well aware.


I'm sure reasoned minds would agree that the number of games played as first ruck (Blicavs one that I recall, West 50-odd) would make that comparison quite useless.


Absolutely not, and never have I said so.

The original reason I raised the comparison here was to point out that both a part timer and a much loved "full timer" have been slaughtered by Goldstein with regularity. I don't think it matters whether it's your part timer or full timer that gets slaughtered; I'd rather a decent ruckman there not getting slaughtered. Neither Blicavs or West is that player.

It irks me to watch Goldstein playing like a bloody hero, when I consider him to be pretty darned useless

 

[catempire]

It sure would've been handy to have had a fit Simpson for him to play second fiddle to- poor West I really felt for the young fella.

I thought he was reasonably capable in front of goal- and wondered why there was no place for him when we were short a CHF or even any other forward position in 2013. He couldn't even get a gig as a ruckman for half of the season, despite being a better ruck than the two alternatives that were put on the ground.
We know he could take a ripper mark- a bit of confidence in himself wouldn't have hurt:


and here's a great goal that he kicked after running his guts out and picking up the ball cleanly before booting it through:


Yeah, it's all water under the bridge now but I can't help thinking what might have been, if the MC had had a bit of faith in this guy.

I dunno if faith was the problem (In a 46 games stretch between round 17 2011 and round 11 2013 he was only omitted for one game and he played 43), but yes, certainly there were certain glimpses he showed which I think made him all the more frustrating as a player because we knew what he was capable of.

 

[Teriyakicat]

I dunno if faith was the problem (In a 46 games stretch between round 17 2011 and round 11 2013 he was only omitted for one game and he played 43), but yes, certainly there were certain glimpses he showed which I think made him all the more frustrating as a player because we knew what he was capable of.

That made it all the more incomprehensible that he was suddenly out of favour and never returned until 2 of the last handful of games... I just didn't understand why he became persona non grata with the MC.

 

[catempire]

That made it all the more incomprehensible that he was suddenly out of favour and never returned until 2 of the last handful of games... I just didn't understand why he became persona non grata with the MC.

I think only the inner sanctum knows. We can only guess. It certainly was a quick fall from grace.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I dunno if faith was the problem (In a 46 games stretch between round 17 2011 and round 11 2013 he was only omitted for one game and he played 43), but yes, certainly there were certain glimpses he showed which I think made him all the more frustrating as a player because we knew what he was capable of.

He's an excellent second ruckman (because his tapwork is good, especially against part-timers, he can run around, jump, take marks and generally look dangerous in the forward line) and a mediocre first ruckman (where he simply doesn't have the size to do much more than create a contest with the really big boys - though in some games in the past two years 'a contest' would have been an improvement). I think it's really that simple.

As for positional changes, I'd earmark the following:

Stanley -> defence: We coughed up a pretty hefty price for him, considering which lines were looking vulnerable at the time he was recruited (put it this way: a second ruckman/second key forward wasn't exactly top of my wish list once we'd secured Mitch Clark). He has played as a defender though and not only are Lonergan, Rivers and Mackie all likely to finish up in the next 2-3 years (tops), by that time, Taylor will also probably be due for a Scarlett-esque shift away from the big boys, to play more as a rebounder exclusively. And if Stanley can show a bit as a key defender this year, that's one piece of the puzzle in place.

Smedts -> forward: I still think Bartel and Murdoch have the ability to kick 30 goals for us this year, but neither is a crumber. McCarthy is, but he's injured and he's still yet to kick his first AFL goal anyway. Menzel's a question mark and even if we assume he plays close to a full season in the seniors, he'd probably be taking the Murdoch role - he's a lead-up small forward as well. Motlop can be one of the best in the league at crumbing a goal, but he might be needed further up the ground. Smedts has the tricks to get to the feet of Hawkins, Clark, Walker etc. pick up the spilt ball and get a shot away in heavy traffic. It's not only the easiest way in to the seniors for him this year; it just might be the most critical introduction to the side in 2015. With Hawkins, Clark, Bartel, Motlop and another genuine crumber, that's a very dangerous forward line. Plus, it would allow Murdoch to break lines with his run and carry up the wing.

Kelly -> midfield: Pretty obvious. Bews is bashing the door down, the defence is ancient even without Kelly back there and our midfield has a few too many question marks. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Pops getting deployed as a tagger, when required.

Blicavs -> defence: Contrary to others, I was reasonably impressed with what Blicavs gave us in defence, which follows a happy trend of Blicavs performing better than initially expected, wherever he goes. But it's year 3 now and it's time for us to give him a chance to make a position his own. The same reasons as Stanley, essentially, with a bonus that it is a spot where you can legitimately sneak a third ruckman into the side without compromising the team's overall balance. It feels like I've been on this for years, but what would be wrong with Stanley/Blicavs moving into the ruck and Simpson/McIntosh resting across half back as a spare man, funneling attacks to the boundary, cutting off indiscrimanent bombs and generally making a nuisance of themselves?

And the following should be considered, depending on other factors:

Murdoch -> wing: Depends on whether we need his goalkicking and with a few options to come into the forward line, along with Bartel essentially filling the same role, he could possibly be better used up the ground. He did have good tackling numbers though and if someone takes his spot in the forward 50m, we would need them to be getting around the four tackles per game mark as well.

Guthrie -> defence: All comes down to how the midfield - sans Guthrie - is looking and how the defence is gelling. One would hope at least that Selwood, Johnson, Stokes, Kelly, Caddy, Duncan, Horlin-Smith and a couple of the younger guys (among others) are playing well enough together that it's at least an option.

 

[Rainfall]

I'm not so sure......

Clark, McIntosh, Simpson, Rivers, Kersten, Thurlow, McCarthy, Vardy, Menzel, Cowan, Cockatoo and Delaney

I'll give you Clark, McIntosh and Rivers. The rest are either unproven or broken.

McIntosh?

 

[dazbroncos]

McIntosh?

broken….

Go Catters

 

[Rainfall]

broken….

Go Catters

thats what I thought. Then why did he put him in the same category as Rivers?

 

[Teriyakicat]

thats what I thought. Then why did he put him in the same category as Rivers?

Cos Rivers has got old man's knees.