Game Day Round 15 Vs Richmond

[Ben The Donkey]

Stephen Hill - cooked, or underdone?
Problem with this sort of situation is that being as experienced as he is, dropping him may do more harm than good. I think he needs a solid pre-season, and a bit of confidence. He's not a naturally self-confident sort of player (in my opinion, having never met him) but there are some players who will benefit from being dropped, and some who won't. In Hill's case, I think dropping him at this point will * him for good.
I think Stephen just needs a bit of time to get back into the swing of things. This season being what it is, we should persist for while. Give him a reason to play for his life in 2021. He's got at least one more good season in him, given half a chance and a bit of self-belief after the run he's had over the last couple of years. And he'd be a good balance to the younger guys too... as soon as he figures out he's a Mundy-in-Waiting.

 

[stax on the mull]

Rory Lobb is the number 3 contested mark in the AFL.

Short break and all so there might be a couple of changes.

Out: Crowden (omitted), Duman (omitted), Aish (managed)
In: Hogan, Watson, Acres

Good reminder. Forgot about Acres - he should be close to a return.

Also, heard the coach say we won't be playing any more scratch matches during our time in the hub, so players have to come in on what they've shown so far and on the limited training. Of the others out injured - Eastough interviewed on Friday said Colyer was still a week away.

 

[Dockeroo]

Good reminder. Forgot about Acres - he should be close to a return.

Also, heard the coach say we won't be playing any more scratch matches during our time in the hub, so players have to come in on what they've shown so far and on the limited training. Of the others out injured - Eastough interviewed on Friday said Colyer was still a week away.

No disrespect but I don’t think there are too many people getting excited at the thought of Colyer coming back. The season is now over in terms of finals. We know exactly what Colyer can offer. We want to see what some of the untried players can do in these last 4 matches.

 

[Ysaye]

Rory Lobb is the number 3 contested mark in the AFL.

Short break and all so there might be a couple of changes.

Out: Crowden (omitted), Duman (omitted), Aish (managed)
In: Hogan, Watson, Acres

When you look at "information" you hope to either be able to see something which reaffirms a hypothesis, or makes you reasonably question it. However when I look at the list of top contested marks, I can't but help question - what is this stat (Contested marks), how is it defined and measured and does it have any relationship to winning or losing, or good forwards?

Of the top 4 teams (Port, Geelong, Brisbane, Richmond) currently, only one team has a player in the top 10 and only 3 (Dixon, Taberner and Darling) are also the only ones in the Top 10 goal kickers. Additionally, in an intuitive sense looking down the list, the players that you would well want to bank your bet on being able to take a mark are well down this list as well.

This suggests to me that "good marks" are not being registered as contested; they are registered as uncontested. Eg. most of Jeremy Cameron's marks yesterday out on a lead are measured as uncontested (despite having Luke Ryan competing); see that only 2 of his 8 marks registered as contested.

As such I would hypothesise that having a team with a high contested mark numbers is actually a sign of a poor team; it means your forwards either can't get to a position where they are not contesting a mark and/or the deliverers are putting them to a poor spot more often than not.

 

[Dockeroo]

When you look at "information" you hope to either be able to see something which reaffirms a hypothesis, or makes you reasonably question it. However when I look at the list of top contested marks, I can't but help question - what is this stat (Contested marks), how is it defined and measured and does it have any relationship to winning or losing, or good forwards?

Of the top 4 teams (Port, Geelong, Brisbane, Richmond) currently, only one team has a player in the top 10 and only 3 (Dixon, Taberner and Darling) are also the only ones in the Top 10 goal kickers. Additionally, in an intuitive sense looking down the list, the players that you would well want to bank your bet on being able to take a mark are well down this list as well.

This suggests to me that "good marks" are not being registered as contested; they are registered as uncontested. Eg. most of Jeremy Cameron's marks yesterday out on a lead are measured as uncontested (despite having Luke Ryan competing); see that only 2 of his 8 marks registered as contested.

As such I would hypothesise that having a team with a high contested mark numbers is actually a sign of a poor team; it means your forwards either can't get to a position where they are not contesting a mark and/or the deliverers are putting them to a poor spot more often than not.

Thus is a good point. Scores from contested marks are hard work. There’s a lot of effort expended and they are attritional.
Easy scores from good movement are more sustainable.

 

[Freo2]

JL could be eating his words today.... Made some big statements on hogan over the past few days! Clearly has to come in. Defence is going to have fun with Lynch and co

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Fyfe looked injured to me, had a solid limp a few times.

Should rest at minimum Fyfe, Hill, one of Taberner/Lobb, Henry, Ryan.

Would bring in Valente, Watson, Hogan, Frederick and Acres.


Also expect some soft tissues to go ping this week.

 

[Taylor]

We are going to get spanked so hard in this game we won't be able to walk for the following match and cop it then too.

Painful period coming up for us. We need to play some debutant players so I don't discover mid week vodka lime and sodas

 

[WilloTree]

When you look at "information" you hope to either be able to see something which reaffirms a hypothesis, or makes you reasonably question it. However when I look at the list of top contested marks, I can't but help question - what is this stat (Contested marks), how is it defined and measured and does it have any relationship to winning or losing, or good forwards?

Of the top 4 teams (Port, Geelong, Brisbane, Richmond) currently, only one team has a player in the top 10 and only 3 (Dixon, Taberner and Darling) are also the only ones in the Top 10 goal kickers. Additionally, in an intuitive sense looking down the list, the players that you would well want to bank your bet on being able to take a mark are well down this list as well.

This suggests to me that "good marks" are not being registered as contested; they are registered as uncontested. Eg. most of Jeremy Cameron's marks yesterday out on a lead are measured as uncontested (despite having Luke Ryan competing); see that only 2 of his 8 marks registered as contested.

As such I would hypothesise that having a team with a high contested mark numbers is actually a sign of a poor team; it means your forwards either can't get to a position where they are not contesting a mark and/or the deliverers are putting them to a poor spot more often than not.

All good points. In a perfect world, you would have a game of 0 contested marks and the game was basically a training drill.

To add to your point, we just don't have the Torantos, Kellys, Whitfield's etc to put it lace out to our forwards, which creates more emphasis on 'contested marks' in our stage of development. I agree it's a bad thing but it would explain why Freo have the No2 and No3 on the list, and that they are both players who play forward.

I also agree, it's probably more an indictment on the midfield delivery than anything else, but it also means that those two are at least clunking them when they are getting half opportunities, which I guess is better than not having any marks at all.

 

[Taylor]

Their contested marks will mostly outside the fifty because we use them to move the ball up the ground.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

One change we can agree on is Blakely out yeah?

6 touches on a perfect day playing a lot of midfield minutes is seriously pathetic. And it’s not like his disposal is good enough that they’re all quality touches. He’s just lazy.

I was on the Blakely train a year or 2 ago when there was talk of him stepping up to fill Neale’s shoes but he’s been a big disappointment. Should be looking trade him end of year for whatever we can get, as for now let’s see what Valente or North can offer.

 

[TheLastCall]

Fyfe looked injured to me, had a solid limp a few times.

Should rest at minimum Fyfe, Hill, one of Taberner/Lobb, Henry, Ryan.

Would bring in Valente, Watson, Hogan, Frederick and Acres.


Also expect some soft tissues to go ping this week.

I’d also drop Blakely for North.

Go six changes on the four day break.

Pity Meeks got injured was a perfect time for him to get a game.

 

[Superkoops]

I’d also drop Blakely for North.

Go six changes on the four day break.

Pity Meeks got injured was a perfect time for him to get a game.

Meek needs a go granted and realise he is injured at moment. But if you read the article and listen to the JL interview on the podcast (on Freo website) I agree with his comments on list management/ recruitment.

Outside run and ruck depth (and a ruck that can play forward a bit). They had a crack at trading for Frampton last year.

Anyway with these comments I’m not sure they believe Meek is up to it yet. People don’t realise but Meek is the same age as Sean Darcy. Many are writing off Darcy and pushing for him to be replaced with Meek.

Meek was playing WAFL reserves a bit last year and was even thrown into them backline. Granted his very last game when he got injured looked promising but that was a genuine first good game that I had seen.

He is contracted and needs a taste this year but he would need to play in tandem with big Lobb.

If it was me I’d rest Lobb the next game and replace with Hogan. Then rest Darcy in a week or two and replace with Meek once he is over his minor calf injury. Meek prob won’t be ready until round 17 anyway (on 12 Sep) at the earliest.

 

[salim malik]

Blakely was given his chance and I backed him in, he failed the test unfortunately.
I still can't see what the coaching panel see in Schulz and Bewley.
Duman as well. Would they get a game in any other side? Out any of the above plus Lobb rested.
Hogan, Acres, North and Valente in please coaching panel.

 

[apuchar]

Blakely was given his chance and I backed him in, he failed the test unfortunately.
I still can't see what the coaching panel see in Schulz and Bewley.
Duman as well. Would they get a game in any other side? Out any of the above plus Lobb rested.
Hogan, Acres, North and Valente in please coaching panel.

Yeah. If Blakely isn't getting the hard ball out to others he hasn't got much else. Very poor around the stoppages yesterday. Schultz I don't mind so much, but Bewley, seriously. Duman is like some of the other second tier players can play at the level for a week or two then drops off. Doubt he will be anywhere near best 22 next year. Agree with your in's. Maybe Aish to the backline in the place of Duman, Acres on the wing. + Freddie back

 

[freo1997]

I don't rate him at all but Acres should be given a go.
Hogan is out of form, but I remember James Clement had one disposal in the wafl way back when...neesham for whatever reason played him. He kicked 5 goals.

 

[Lach72]

Acres has shown a lot more at St Kilda than he’s shown here...we have him for two more years.

j-Lo needs to get him to work...

 

[FreoRicci]

Blakely was given his chance and I backed him in, he failed the test unfortunately.
I still can't see what the coaching panel see in Schulz and Bewley.
Duman as well. Would they get a game in any other side? Out any of the above plus Lobb rested.
Hogan, Acres, North and Valente in please coaching panel.

Crowden, Schulz AND Henry isn’t going to kick many goals. Not particularly inspiring either.
However it could mean Banfield comes in.
Watson is ahead of Duman, tbh. Very unlucky he got dropped for structure

 

[Wilksyy]

Crowden, Schulz AND Henry isn’t going to kick many goals. Not particularly inspiring either.
However it could mean Banfield comes in.

Banfield isn't particularly inspiring either tbh.

 

[DeanS]

We are going to get spanked so hard in this game we won't be able to walk for the following match and cop it then too.

Painful period coming up for us. We need to play some debutant players so I don't discover mid week vodka lime and sodas

"Discover"?

 

[tacopavlich]

Stephen Hill - cooked, or underdone?
Problem with this sort of situation is that being as experienced as he is, dropping him may do more harm than good. I think he needs a solid pre-season, and a bit of confidence. He's not a naturally self-confident sort of player (in my opinion, having never met him) but there are some players who will benefit from being dropped, and some who won't. In Hill's case, I think dropping him at this point will fu** him for good.
I think Stephen just needs a bit of time to get back into the swing of things. This season being what it is, we should persist for while. Give him a reason to play for his life in 2021. He's got at least one more good season in him, given half a chance and a bit of self-belief after the run he's had over the last couple of years. And he'd be a good balance to the younger guys too... as soon as he figures out he's a Mundy-in-Waiting.

unpopular opinion but while our goal is to debut as many young players as we can, we don't really have the luxury to carry Hill unless we're accepting we are happy to be belted for the remaining 4 games. He's been a great player for our club but he will be replaced by the time we're contending, so what do we objectively gain by persisting. I'd maybe give him one more chance but if he's near worst on ground again for a 30 year old in a rebuilding team you can't justify his selection anymore.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

Im happy with the way the year is progressing ...Blooding lots of young guys and some of them look very exciting prospects
Also JLo has shown he has a game plan which is promising ,and when we have a full squad on the park next year , he will prove it

Changes this week....He will only bring in one debutant at a time I think , so this week it will be Valente for Blakely (who was responsible for his long contract?)
Collier to come in for either Crowden or Henry. Not a fan of Travs but hasnt been too bad before getting injured
Acres to a wing..(Saints fans did warn us he can have the occasional shocker) for Duman
Aish to half back and Duman out.
Almost forgot Stephen Hill....shame to the shadow of his old self out theret .totally cooked but who else have we got ? Maybe we keep playing Blakely in the hope he as a reasonable game before seasons end and we can get some loose change for him

 

[Sumwun]

unpopular opinion but while our goal is to debut as many young players as we can, we don't really have the luxury to carry Hill unless we're accepting we are happy to be belted for the remaining 4 games. He's been a great player for our club but he will be replaced by the time we're contending, so what do we objectively gain by persisting. I'd mayb

Not accepting that we are happy to be belted for the remaining games, but we need Hill in the team as one of those wise men who can mentor the young guys onfield. People forget the interupted season(s) he has had and a few games under his belt will be much better.

 

[tacopavlich]

Not accepting that we are happy to be belted for the remaining games, but we need Hill in the team as one of those wise men who can mentor the young guys onfield. People forget the interupted season(s) he has had and a few games under his belt will be much better.

yeah that's true which is why it would be an unpopular opinion but i'm just pessimistic he'll actually turn it around, happy to be wrong and give him more chances though.

 

[muzzington]

I wish I felt better about having Walters and Fyfe available but they're just not doing... much, either because they're still hurt, uninterested or both.