Autopsy Round 18 Review - The Winner Is… Not Us. Freo 65, Sydernee 82

Remove this Banner Ad

I think Banfield is more competing with Logue for a medium tall spot, not those three. Contrary to belief, Banfield isnt actually a good pressure forward, in fact, his pressure is comfortably the worst of the non-KPF forwards. Switta will likely take one of Walters or Colyers spot, Logue, IMO still offers more up front than Banfield despite his knack of kicking goals.

View attachment 1449768

Depends if we’re mixing rolls around. I don’t think Banfield is a good pressure fwd at all, but he’s finding the ball in good spots and converting, especially on the snap.

Logue is best 22 regardless. He’s not coming out for anyone. It’s just a matter if he’s used forward or back.
Could have used his marking down the line on the weekend
 
I think Banfield is more competing with Logue for a medium tall spot, not those three. Contrary to belief, Banfield isnt actually a good pressure forward, in fact, his pressure is comfortably the worst of the non-KPF forwards. Switta will likely take one of Walters or Colyers spot, Logue, IMO still offers more up front than Banfield despite his knack of kicking goals.

View attachment 1449768
Are those averages based on games played or minutes played?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think Banfield is more competing with Logue for a medium tall spot, not those three. Contrary to belief, Banfield isnt actually a good pressure forward, in fact, his pressure is comfortably the worst of the non-KPF forwards. Switta will likely take one of Walters or Colyers spot, Logue, IMO still offers more up front than Banfield despite his knack of kicking goals.

View attachment 1449768
Those stats need to be adjusted for time on ground. Because he's been a sub regularly Bailey has only played 58% of game time for matches he's been selected for.

If we adjust his time on ground to 82% (the average time a player spend on the field during a game) we are looking at a different picture.

That would put him at approximately 14 pressure acts per game.

It also puts him on average at about 1.4 goals per game, which over a season puts him at just about 30 odd goals.

I have to eat humble pie on Banfield. I would have delisted him twice, but the club's persisted and we are finally starting to see why.
 
Those stats need to be adjusted for time on ground. Because he's been a sub regularly Bailey has only played 58% of game time for matches he's been selected for.

If we adjust his time on ground to 82% (the average time a player spend on the field during a game) we are looking at a different picture.

That would put him at approximately 14 pressure acts per game.

It also puts him on average at about 1.4 goals per game, which over a season puts him at just about 30 odd goals.

I have to eat humble pie on Banfield. I would have delisted him twice, but the club's persisted and we are finally starting to see why.
Good call on the time on ground
 
Does that include the games where he didnt play at all?

His current average is from 17 games when he's been unused medi sub in 3 so only actually played in 14. So already its bumped up to 12.2. And then factoring in tog% it ends up at 17.3 for 82% tog, which is right up there with freddy, sonny, and schultz.

His goals per game is actually 1.2 already (from 14 games), so adjusting for tog% has him going at 1.7 goals a game.
Imagine if he had the speed of Freddy, he would be an A grader.
 
Does that include the games where he didnt play at all?

His current average is from 17 games when he's been unused medi sub in 3 so only actually played in 14. So already its bumped up to 12.2. And then factoring in tog% it ends up at 17.3 for 82% tog, which is right up there with freddy, sonny, and schultz.

His goals per game is actually 1.2 already (from 14 games), so adjusting for tog% has him going at 1.7 goals a game.
Hmm I'm not sure. I went by his TOG% off AFL tables.

Either way, if Banfield keeps his current form up he's gonna have a much longer career than most of us thought.
 
Hmm I'm not sure. I went by his TOG% off AFL tables.

Either way, if Banfield keeps his current form up he's gonna have a much longer career than most of us thought.
Yeah actually just re did it and ur correct. Still, pretty good considering he's the last player signed every off season.
 
Sydney's 8 meter kicks won't work in finals because A) The game is faster and B) Umps should call play-on.

Wishful thinking there. In the 2015 prelim Hawthorn chipped 8m kicks around all game and the only one the umps called all day was one against us in the last qtr.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wishful thinking there. In the 2015 prelim Hawthorn chipped 8m kicks around all game and the only one the umps called all day was one against us in the last qtr.
This still frustrates the s**t out of me.

If I remember correctly, it was Suban going inside 50. People blamed poor T-train, but it was those short kicks that cost us that prelim.
 
I'll be disappointed if we drop Banfield from here, we've been consistent with him which has been baffling at times but he's shown that he belongs in the team. Longmuir saw something in him that we didn't and he was right.
What's this we s**t?

I was a supporter from day 1.

I will admit that being a Claremont boy it was kind of my default position but still...
 
Was at the game
Disappointed but not devastated

My takes

Zone football is bullshit, man up FFS . No way Sydney should have been able to chip their way through our wings that easily

The umpires play on calls on those short kicks were a joke

I’m going to give Freddy the benefit of the doubt after the s**t that went down last week, but if he plays like that again 👉 Peel
Was watching him in a contest where Lobb was in a two on one and Freddy didn’t even have the game sense to get front and square - concerning

The bomb it to the talls game is so predictable………… seriously Freo 🤯

When we win 👉 no passengers

This game 👉 passengers = Fyfe , Freddy , Serong , Acres ( to be expected coming off injury) , Colyer to some extent .

Logue was amazing- Love that guy
His presence in the forward line was sorely missed

Schultz was everywhere - not much more the guy could have done .

Crumbers missed many many opportunities particularly first quarter - disappointing.
 
I haven’t given the couch a good punching in quite a long while, I guess that comes with expectations.

I was hoping for a coaching response whilst watching but upon reflection, maybe sometimes it’s ok to persevere with an approach and be better ready to respond for next time.

Some good lesson to be taken from this game.
 
Some filthy calls. You don't normally see that kind of stuff in finals. We seemed to cop it hard against the hawks
Yeah, how about that absolute pr*ck of an umpire who was overheard saying to his umpiring team that ..."it was good that they were on top of the Ballantyne stuff." F*ck the AFL!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top