Random thoughts not worthy of a thread (Part I)

[Mixed Results]

biased as anything but feel like Ziebell is being underrated

Youngest of all the draftee's in the top 15 of peoples lists, and plays 10% less Game Time then all of them and is coming off 2 broken legs and despite that is Still in the top 25 for Clearances and top 30 for Contested Possessions

however Inside mids are a lot less 'sexier' to football fans but you just have to look at the 21 blokes who got more clearances per game to see it's a pretty elite list

for example Ziebell got more clearances then the following (players with less contested possessions as well underlined): Lenny Hayes, Scott Selwood, Trent Cotchin, Callan Ward, Kieran Jack and Travis Boak.

If he raises his gametime to an AFL standard 80% then projecting his stats he'd be Top 10 for Clearances and Top 15 for Contested Possessions

only other players at that level are Josh Kennedy, Patrick Dangerfield, Garry Ablett, Dane Swan, Jobe Watson, Matthew Priddis, Scott Pendlebury, Joel Selwood, Andrew Swallow and Scott Thompson.

now the projecting is obviously shaky but evidence backs it up. One example is Josh Kennedy who upped his GT% by 9% from 2010 to 2011, with the extra game time he had 1.4 times as many clearances and 1.7 times more Contested Disposals. Projection would only predict a 1.13 increase. Beams raised by 10% this year and again shattered projection, so history is on Jacks side.

However this is a strong draft, but I'd go out on a limb and put him above types like Shuey, Zaharakis, Sidebottom, Sloane, Redden, Hartlett etc Look at those names and ask yourself how many of those would you want over those players I listed above as being in the top 10 for Clearances and Top 15 for Contested Possessions. That is the potential Ziebell obviously has to people who watch him, and you can easily see a 21 year old (turns 22 on Feb28) coming off 2 broken legs and running at 68% gametime adding an extra clearance per game as well as 1.5 contested touches to join the elite group above.

Here is a post I made on the draft board, was wondering what North Supporters think about it? Is it too hopeful? does Ziebell have that potential in him? It's honestly not hard at all to see him adding 1 clearance and 1.5 contested touches to his average, but the names that would put him with are quite impressive.

However with a Strong Pre-Season I really feel like Ziebell could take the next step in 2013, although I feel like 2014 would be the more likely time for Ziebell to really stamp his authority over the AFL.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

It's a good analysis.

80-90% of the stuff on the draft board should be ignored as it basically consists of parrots seeking credibility and bored supercoach nuffies.

Jacks real impact will come when he is a man smashing packs rather than a boy smashing packs. He has destiny written all over him.

Rate him on the same tier as Dangerfield.

 

[Daz]

He's really quite similar to Kennedy.

 

[TheKanga]

It's a off-season, Not much happening on BF lately.

I need a new sport to follow i think.

 

[gustev]

It's a off-season, Not much happening on BF lately.

I need a new sport to follow i think.

I was thinking of opening a thread titled "Don't mention the cricket". The Ponting is done thread or whatever it was called was a good way of keeping up to date last time around. Mods is it worth a thread or should we keep cricket discussion in this thread or in the Lounge sub-forum?

 

[muttley45]

didnt i hear clarke put the mozz on on quiney and tip him to make a ton on debut ?

 

[Bigeasy]

Who believes that Scott will develop a defensive side to our game plan or continue on with the theory "that if we have it, the opposition don't"?

 

[Only Forwards]

Who believes that Scott will develop a defensive side to our game plan or continue on with the theory "that if we have it, the opposition don't"?

I think that this is almost completely unavoidable.

There may be an ethos of "that if we have it, the opposition don't" but it needs to be tempered with the ability to shut them down when they do.

The Freo game was a shining light of this, Lyon conceded that we could win the uncontested ball across half back chip to space and then need to go long to a contest, a contest which Freo would force the turn over in. Our players set up for the attack and weren't able to defend as readily, the game cracked and Freo put on scores quickly.

Scott is yet to show that the style we play is capable of beating sides that play flooding defensive. The Saints under Lyon, the Swans, now Freo.

Even if you look at the Melbourne or Bulldogs(the second one) games our forward structure was hampered by the loose man in defense, sure we got over those sides but it took a half of football before we really started to click into gear.

I worry about us having to play so many consecutive games with the must win attitude and then coming out and saying that we were tired because of it. In my view we should be going into every game as a must win by as much as possible. That is the mark of a mature side, put weak sides to the sword, put decent sides to the sword when the opportunity arises, don't allow good sides to play the way they want to.

 

[muttley45]

In my view we should be going into every game as a must win by as much as possible. That is the mark of a mature side, put weak sides to the sword, put decent sides to the sword when the opportunity arises, don't allow good sides to play the way they want to.

well put,couldnt agree more,"show no mercy"

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

There may be an ethos of "that if we have it, the opposition don't" but it needs to be tempered with the ability to shut them down when they do.

It's a pointless philosophy if you can't get "it"

 

[DunderHead]

The way we will beat the flooding/strong defensive pressure teams is to improve in the following areas:

Skills
Decision making
Experience as a group (games played together)
Endurance

I might have missed your point OF but I don't think we should be matching flooding with flooding. Scott's trying to take the Geelong route. We're a team that plays aggressive attacking football. Let other teams worry about trying to stop us and not the other way around.

I also don't think playing a highly defensive game style is of much benefit to kids when they are trying to develop in the AFL. Lyon is a prime example of this. Sydney may prove this theory incorrect but I don't think they play like they used to under Roos. They are a far more attacking and look at the improvement in their kids over the last two years.

I'm very happy with the emphasis this pre-season being on skills. Endurance will come naturally and so will decison making while the boys get more experience playing together. I think Scott is trying to stay a course which he is certain will get us where we need to be as opposed to throwing the magnets around and hoping something remarkable happens.

 

[Black Diamond]

The way we played against Collingwood showed we we can win a final. They still had top four on the line and were on a high having beaten Sydney the week before. We kept calm and pulled back a four goal margin to win by 30 points.

My main concern at the moment is the use of players like Anthony, Gibson and to a lesser extent Bastinac as link players. Geelong for example don't have any mids that never play "on the ball". James Kelly and Paul Champman frequently line up at half forward but still rotate through the inside. I'd like our outside players to be given more of a licence to win possession. It would help break tags for one, and Bastinac has shown he is capable of roving.

 

[Only Forwards]

The way we will beat the flooding/strong defensive pressure teams is to improve in the following areas:

Skills
Decision making
Experience as a group (games played together)
Endurance

I might have missed your point OF but I don't think we should be matching flooding with flooding. Scott's trying to take the Geelong route. We're a team that plays aggressive attacking football. Let other teams worry about trying to stop us and not the other way around.

I also don't think playing a highly defensive game style is of much benefit to kids when they are trying to develop in the AFL. Lyon is a prime example of this. Sydney may prove this theory incorrect but I don't think they play like they used to under Roos. They are a far more attacking and look at the improvement in their kids over the last two years.

I'm very happy with the emphasis this pre-season being on skills. Endurance will come naturally and so will decison making while the boys get more experience playing together. I think Scott is trying to stay a course which he is certain will get us where we need to be as opposed to throwing the magnets around and hoping something remarkable happens.

These teams play a more defensive style which leads to more contested ball. We can win or break even in the middle, we have a decent core group but get exposed because we have a tendency to run forward of the ball.

Skills - Agree hitting targets or consistently putting it to advantage. Flooding/defensive teams shut down the space, we have skillful players its about being able to absorb pressure and execute skills precisely. We are fine in less contested games.

Decision making - Making things a little smarter. In the Freo game we persisted with the same decisions that won us a heap of games. Switch of play across half back, winning the uncontested ball, thing is Lyon clearly out coached Scott. We played a style that Freo were completely ready for and essentially played directly into their hands.

Experience as a group (games played together) - Yeah it'll help in making things more automatic(things will in turn get quicker) and provide more confidence that players are able to play their role. However as I pointed out above it won't work if we are completing something that the opposition has us completely sussed out doing.

Endurance - More of our top line at more contests for longer.

Flooding may not counter act flooding but we need an alternate for when things begin to go pear shaped. Freo had us completely undone, West Coast in the EF the same. A more defensive side to our game that allows us to put the breaks on when teams get a run on. It doesn't need to be all one way TBH I think its about being able to flick the switch at the right point in games.

Against Port had we been able to go to a more defensive game style after they began to get a run on its likely we would have won. It may have even been less than that, if Brad had moved Dish to Schultz (after they started their run on) who was clearly their most dangerous player we probably would have won.

Laidley would often defend small leads rather than go for the throat.
Scott is willing to lose but maintain attacking structure.

Only Forwards wants the team to be able to defend small leads, but maintain attacking structure when required

 

[GarnerSmash]

Only Forwards wants the team to be able to defend small leads, but maintain attacking structure when required

Part of this comes with an ability to effectively run both ways and skills enough to not burn the ball on the turn over. The other part is playing a loose man in defence or adopting a deep defensive zone, which is pretty much how we played initially under Scott. We have played three different styles in the last three years. I'd imagine there will be some changes for 2013 which may go some way to alleviating some of your concerns OF.

 

[Only Forwards]

Part of this comes with an ability to effectively run both ways and skills enough to not burn the ball on the turn over. The other part is playing a loose man in defence or adopting a deep defensive zone, which is pretty much how we played initially under Scott. We have played three different styles in the last three years. I'd imagine there will be some changes for 2013 which may go some way to alleviating some of your concerns OF.

Yeah perhaps even 4 if you count the rise of the triple towers and the change mid season this year.
Getting the blend right is crucial to how we can go about winning games. Brad seems to be adaptable but prehaps a little slow in the execution of the adaptations. We have weeks where I think that we execute on our plans completely, and look awesome in doing so. There are weeks where I wonder if we have even gone in with a plan, such is the way we unravel.

As to my concerns I want to win both games in Perth and round 3 in Hobart. We do that and I will consider my concerns alleviated.

 

[Kimbo]

As to my concerns I want to win both games in Perth and round 3 in Hobart. We do that and I will consider my concerns alleviated.

We do that and I will be ecstatic. Both WA teams who are top 8 material, on their own putrid dunghill? Can't see it.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Yeah perhaps even 4 if you count the rise of the triple towers and the change mid season this year.

Indeed.

Getting the blend right is crucial to how we can go about winning games. Brad seems to be adaptable but prehaps a little slow in the execution of the adaptations. We have weeks where I think that we execute on our plans completely, and look awesome in doing so. There are weeks where I wonder if we have even gone in with a plan, such is the way we unravel.

We unraveled against the Hawks because we got absolutely slaughtered in the middle and exposed down back. That was like a reset moment, particularly after we happened to beat Geelong earlier. I reckon it was a wakeup call that the group were not as good as they thought they were.

We lost to West Coast in Hobart because of Dean Cox. Yes, they pulled back a lead but they are a good side and good sides will do that despite the best efforts of a coach.

We lost to West Coast in Perth because we were spent. I know folk on here don't like that rationale but it was evident for the two weeks prior that it was the case. We had won 6 in a row before the Freo game, three of which against teams playing for a finals appearance, once against a premiership contender and the last two were two of the biggest games of the year for us, one of which we played two short for 80% of the game. This on the shoulders of a bunch of kids and a few old hands. Shit like that takes it out of a player, and by the time we got the Perth more than a few were f****d.

Yes, players give their all when out there, but if your tank is emptier than your opponents and the game is more intense than what you have experienced before then I don't care who you are, you are screwed.

I too would like to see a bit more game day innovation from the coaches box but I'm not overly concerned. It appears to me that Scott is giving the team the blueprint, relying on them to execute it and will back them to do so even when loosing as a teaching exercise. When they can execute their roles at the end of 120 mins despite being rooted and then take the initiative if they see things happening on the field, what the coach does in the box is a bonus. If we can get to that level and Scott can prove to be a flexible and innovative tactician on game day well, watch out AFL.

As to my concerns I want to win both games in Perth and round 3 in Hobart. We do that and I will consider my concerns alleviated.

Do that and concerns will be more than alleviated. That makes us a challenger which I would be extremely surprised if is the case.

 

[Daz]

Average age of the senior list is now 22.75. The median is 22 and the mode is 21.

We have 14 players aged either 20 or 21. Needless to say their development over the next couple of years is hugely important to the success of this group.

FWIW, the average age of the senior list this time last year was 22.77.

 

[The_Wookie]

Brent Harvey just checked into the hotel I manage in Adelaide. Damn hes short. Presumably here for the cricket. just fyi

 

[Black Diamond]

Brent Harvey just checked into the hotel I manage in Adelaide. Damn hes short. Presumably here for the cricket. just fyi

It's traditional for a senior player to hand deliver the membership package to our number one ticket holder, Ponting.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Gysberts conditioning is said to be absolutely terrible. our players are puttin him to Shame. At least it will be easy to monitor how committed he his this time round. Wether it's him in isolation or more the MFC's fault we don't know. But I'd say he has a lot of hard work and a lot to prove before he becomes best 22. Maybe he gets a game early to see how he goes match day? I don't know? But yeah, it's pretty much like bringing in a first yr player I reckon.

Melbourne did the right thing by parting ways, he definetly needs a fresh start, new program and new coaches.


Lets hope he puts in like his life depends on it, he's going to have to or he won't last.

 

[Daz]

Swallow: 24.5 disposals (49% contested) at 74% DE.
Anthony: 24.3 disposals (30% contested) at 74% DE.
Bastinac: 22.2 disposals (27% contested) at 71% DE.
Harvey: 22 disposals (28% contested) at 79% DE.
Wells: 21.3 disposals (36% contested) at 72% DE.
Gibson: 20.5 disposals (16% contested) at 78% DE.
Adams: 19.1 disposals (39% contested) at 71% DE.
Ziebell: 17.9 disposals (55% contested) at 63% DE.
Cunnington: 17.3 disposals (46% contested) at 74%.

- Poor DE% for Ziebell is misleading. He has the highest K:H ratio at the club (along with Wellsy) as well as the highest CP:UP ratio. Neither of those things are good for the DE%.

- That is an astonishingly low amount of contested ball from Gibson. Particularly when you compare it to Anthony and Basti who seemed to play equally outside roles. Also didn't hit the scoreboard enough for a bloke with that amount of time and space.

- Low contested ball and DE numbers are not a good combination for Basti. His redeeming stats are goals and goal assists where he was the best of the midfielders not named Wells or Harvey (or Adams if you count him).

 

[NiceCunnington]

Interesting to compare.

Bastinac and Gibson were both very effective inside players before they got to the club. Even compared to his first couple of years, Basti dropped off in contested ball and clearances. Obviously they have been given specific outside roles.

The % of possessions being clangers thing is wrong, though. All of them would be much lower. A lot of clangers have nothing to do with possession or disposals. The inside players probably have more frees against, for example.

 

[Daz]

Interesting to compare.

Bastinac and Gibson were both very effective inside players before they got to the club. Even compared to his first couple of years, Basti dropped off in contested ball and clearances. Obviously they have been given specific outside roles.

The % of possessions being clangers thing is wrong, though. All of them would be much lower. A lot of clangers have nothing to do with possession or disposals. The inside players probably have more frees against, for example.

Good point. I'll get rid of the clangers bit.

 

[KingPetrie]

WTF is going on with josh gibsons head