Teams vs Players

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

I thought I'd put this up to provide a bit of balance to the roast threads about different players. It clearly has not occurred to a lot of purple comrades that teams win games, not players.

You can be conned into thinking differently because the media tend to fous on players as they do in any media story. For example, every disaster story is puntuated by personal stories.

While individual players are important it is the combination of players that provides the winning formula. You only have to remember when we had Bell-Hasleby-Carr-Carr-Schammer as our midfield to remember that a bevy of slow, short, hard boiled, inside midfielders who can't run down a dead chicken isn't going to win games no matter how good they are individually.

Within a team, individual players will fluctuate in form. Anyone who plays golf knows how you can be on the boil for a couple of weeks then go right off then come back.

We now have a team that wins more often than not. That includes players who run both hot and cold and often somewhere in between. But collectively, they are running hotter than we have ever seen given the circumstances of our pre-season. One of the clear changes is our depth. I have a 2009 poster on my sons wall. In it is Gilmour, Dodd, Murphy, Head, Foster, Obrien, Browne, Drum, Campbell and Peake.

Whatever you think of the current crop, their worst is far better than anything the above dished up except in very short bursts. The team is far more competitive than at any time in our history. We have way more players who can step up and play acceptably because they compete and play a team role. We have a winning combination.

That doesn't mean that individual players won't have their bad runs or may not not be at the elite level we expect. But as a team we are way better. Exhibit A is JVB whose worst game is way better than Dodd's games. Exhibit B is Crowley who can at least get his hands on the ball to take his wayward shots so he is way better than Murphy or Campbell. McPhee similarly is way more useful than Murphy or Campbell even though he may drive us insane. Who would you rather have Johnson or Josh Head? Rhys or a perpetually injured Browne or Obrien?

So some of you need to take a chill pill. Players are being scorned for poor performances that are more than acceptable at an AFL level, particularly when all the players have contributed to a team win.

We are looking ominous. We are hard to beat and but not yet at our best. Quite a few players are still underdone. Then if you think that for the last 6 to 8 games of the year we might have Barlow, Mzungu, Hayden, Silvagni and Suban to fit into a team that nearly beat one prelim finalist from last year and did beat another. I think we have more to toast than roast.

 

[bfff]

Couldn't agree more. The improvement in our depth has been so important. The old axiom that you are only as good as your worst player still rings true.

 

[Lach72]

Agree with you to a point. But:

Please provide stats this year of Crowley getting hands on the ball...also, i know you are an advocate of tackling as a marker of of Freo's success...please provide tackle stats for Crowley.

Only one player had less influence on the ground than Jesse Chrichton... in fact, his defensive job was so good in our forward line that he got two possessions to his mans 20-odd...Who might that be? That's a net loss, and if Murphy had his kicking shoes on, we may have got towelled up.

Indefensible...Has to get booted

 

[Clay Davis]

I see more toast threads than roast threads. Johnson deserves all the criticism he cops, not playing at anywhere near the level he is capable of.

 

[Lach72]

Further to that, Michael Walters vs Ryan Crowley:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare...rs&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=

With Sonny, when he gets his hands on the ball something happens...goals, elite passes etc

Double the goals and double the tackles, in 2 less games...

I'm all for the team etc, but there are ways to improve the team...Crowley has had 5 games to get on the right track...a defensive forward/tagger, who is neither defending/tackling or kicking goals...not on, AFIAC

 

[Wizard]

Agree with you to a point. But:

Please provide stats this year of Crowley getting hands on the ball...also, i know you are an advocate of tackling as a marker of of Freo's success...please provide tackle stats for Crowley.

Only one player had less influence on the ground than Jesse Chrichton... in fact, his defensive job was so good in our forward line that he got two possessions to his mans 20-odd...Who might that be? That's a net loss, and if Murphy had his kicking shoes on, we may have got towelled up.

Indefensible...Has to get booted

Always been a big fan of Crowls but i have run out of patience at the moment, he just looks to slow to play that defensive forward role.
Wells and Murphy have run off him too easily two weeks back to back now.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Spot on Lach

He's either a forward target or a tagger

He's not got any goals and he's hardly made any tackles. GTFO maybe?

 

[prattsta]

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Given that, I'm not sure what the problem with supporters being critical of those who are perceived to be the weak links is.

Every single player needs to make a valuable contribution if we are to be great. Simply being on the field with 17 other guys who are doing all the work is not enough.

 

[Nickos66]

Crowley looks like he has bulked up yet again over the offseason. His arms were always big but he just looks to heavy and slow. Somehow he still has the tank to run a decent 3k time trial but that's the one and only feather in his cap at the moment as the rest have fallen out.

^Walters' tackles just don't seem to stick, they slip too easily.

Good post though, Doc. I agree. Some people on here are acting like spoilt brats in the aftermath of every game, just looking for doors to punch holes through.

 

[Moo]

Good post Dagg.

Team balance and who gets extended opportunities versus who is just getting a taste, who is sacrificing their game for a team objective versus who is just not getting the footy .....difficult to know from our vantage points.

For example the game to Crichton let's him know he is in the picture, rewards hard effort at WAFL and now lets him hit the gym with how hard/fast the AFL is. pitt is getting a game because you can just tell he is that step above kid who actually is about 8 kg off a regular berth.

With Crowley, you would think Harvey just wants to see if he can play himself into form - his pre-season was OK (from memory), and veteran players are going to be handy come finals time.

At the moment there is not a lot of contest from WAFL, some of the kids are going OK - however no one (including Walters is really smashing that door down and demanding to be picked).

When Silvagni and Barlow start there come backs, Crowls would of wanted to have found his feet.

Ibbo was a very solid player, Roberton is doing enough, MJ though tainted on here is a very handy player with substitutes on the books, Pitt looks like a footballer to me and I wouldn't be moving him out ...so it is the JVB's and Crowleys who need to be putting consecutive 4 quarter games together.

Pressure is good.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Given that, I'm not sure what the problem with supporters being critical of those who are perceived to be the weak links is.

Every single player needs to make a valuable contribution if we are to be great. Simply being on the field with 17 other guys who are doing all the work is not enough.

That wooshing sound you can hear is my point going over your head.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

Further to that, Michael Walters vs Ryan Crowley:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare...rs&PlayerName3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=

With Sonny, when he gets his hands on the ball something happens...goals, elite passes etc

Double the goals and double the tackles, in 2 less games...

I'm all for the team etc, but there are ways to improve the team...Crowley has had 5 games to get on the right track...a defensive forward/tagger, who is neither defending/tackling or kicking goals...not on, AFIAC

I'm not going to respond to this because it is exactly the kind of post I was suggesting needs some balance. My point has gone way over Lachie's head which is unusual.

So, Lachie provide stats for me that Crowley is not being played as an FP/HFF because it is best for the team even though it is not his best position.

Further, explain to me how you know that Son Son would have as many tackles and goals if he was playing instead of Crowley instead of with Crowley. Where is the proof that if Crowley was not playing Son Son might have to pick up a better players and have no goals and no tackles.

And then, what I'd really like to know is where Crowley kept Stiffy Johncock bloody quiet, how you think Son Son would have handled the same job in the name of team improvement.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

I thought I'd put this up to provide a bit of balance to the roast threads about different players. It clearly has not occurred to a lot of purple comrades that teams win games, not players.

You can be conned into thinking differently because the media tend to fous on players as they do in any media story. For example, every disaster story is puntuated by personal stories.

While individual players are important it is the combination of players that provides the winning formula. You only have to remember when we had Bell-Hasleby-Carr-Carr-Schammer as our midfield to remember that a bevy of slow, short, hard boiled, inside midfielders who can't run down a dead chicken isn't going to win games no matter how good they are individually.

Within a team, individual players will fluctuate in form. Anyone who plays golf knows how you can be on the boil for a couple of weeks then go right off then come back.

We now have a team that wins more often than not. That includes players who run both hot and cold and often somewhere in between. But collectively, they are running hotter than we have ever seen given the circumstances of our pre-season. One of the clear changes is our depth. I have a 2009 poster on my sons wall. In it is Gilmour, Dodd, Murphy, Head, Foster, Obrien, Browne, Drum, Campbell and Peake.

Whatever you think of the current crop, their worst is far better than anything the above dished up except in very short bursts. The team is far more competitive than at any time in our history. We have way more players who can step up and play acceptably because they compete and play a team role. We have a winning combination.

That doesn't mean that individual players won't have their bad runs or may not not be at the elite level we expect. But as a team we are way better. Exhibit A is JVB whose worst game is way better than Dodd's games. Exhibit B is Crowley who can at least get his hands on the ball to take his wayward shots so he is way better than Murphy or Campbell. McPhee similarly is way more useful than Murphy or Campbell even though he may drive us insane. Who would you rather have Johnson or Josh Head? Rhys or a perpetually injured Browne or Obrien?

So some of you need to take a chill pill. Players are being scorned for poor performances that are more than acceptable at an AFL level, particularly when all the players have contributed to a team win.

We are looking ominous. We are hard to beat and but not yet at our best. Quite a few players are still underdone. Then if you think that for the last 6 to 8 games of the year we might have Barlow, Mzungu, Hayden, Silvagni and Suban to fit into a team that nearly beat one prelim finalist from last year and did beat another. I think we have more to toast than roast.

This is a rather pointless post IMO. Of course Johnson and Crowley are better than Head and Dodd. The point is they're playing well under the required level by their own standards.

There's absolutely no reason to carry a defensive forward who isn't defending (0 tackles) and isn't kicking goals or touching the footy (2 posessions). It simply means other players have to increase their output to make up for it. This has been every week as far as Crowley has been concerned this year. 5 weeks is long enough to turn it around for someone not structurally vital.

Then there's the development angle to consider.

This is Pearce and Sibo's last year on the rookie list. Sooner or later we need to play them to see if they have anything to offer going forward. Might as well be now when we have injuries and Crowley/Johnson are horribly out of form. Going to be much harder to include them come the 2nd half of the year and it would be ridiculous to delist both of them without giving them a shot this year. And there's not a shadow of doubt that Pearce wouldn't offer more than Crowley has so far.

Add to this the negative impact of not rewarding great WAFL form and the effects start to snowball.

Having 21 players contributing - whether developmental (Pitt/Crichton/Sibo) or immediate input (Pearce/Anthony/Walters) - is surely more potent and ominous than 19 and 2 senior passengers?

 

[Freo2012]

I'm not going to respond to this because it is exactly the kind of post I was suggesting needs some balance. My point has gone way over Lachie's head which is unusual.

So, Lachie provide stats for me that Crowley is not being played as an FP/HFF because it is best for the team even though it is not his best position.

Further, explain to me how you know that Son Son would have as many tackles and goals if he was playing instead of Crowley instead of with Crowley. Where is the proof that if Crowley was not playing Son Son might have to pick up a better players and have no goals and no tackles.

And then, what I'd really like to know is where Crowley kept Stiffy Johncock bloody quiet, how you think Son Son would have handled the same job in the name of team improvement.

Dear Dr,

We all know exactly what you mean. Yes, we are fully aware of team balance and that we will never know all the intricacies of direct player instructions.

You should realise this is a footy forum where naturally the performance of teams and players, both good and bad are discussed. Yes, it is all our opinions - perhaps this site and others shouldn't exist and we should be blind faithful followers?

The old saying "if you aren't improving, you're going backwards" applies to everything in life. Apart from just talking about the footy on here we naturally want Freo to continue to improve and foster that winning culture of never accepting mediocrity. That only comes from being able to accept praise and criticism, and learn from it. Equally you are limiting yourself if you censor certain areas from being able to criticise. Need to get past the ego's and realise that value can be attained from ALL directions, not just the appointed few - have a read of the book "It's your ship" by Captain DM Abrashoff and it may just open your eyes a little to the value of non-censorship.

Whilst there is blatant outward criticism that almost seems over the top on some players, you need to see the underlying meaning and intent behind it - its aim from almost all is to try to get that aspect addressed or improved. If the criticism is wrong, I'm sure you and others will point it out and it won't be taken on board by those it is directed at. If the criticism has some validity to it then the person receiving it will take that on board as well, and may just do something about it. If the criticism is valid and the person its directed at responds badly as a result then it is reflective of their character and you were never going to get the best out of them regularly anyway - sooner you find that out the better. Censorship never improves an organisation, it always diminishes.

We are not blind followers.

 

[Lach72]

I'm not going to respond to this because it is exactly the kind of post I was suggesting needs some balance. My point has gone way over Lachie's head which is unusual.

So, Lachie provide stats for me that Crowley is not being played as an FP/HFF because it is best for the team even though it is not his best position.

Further, explain to me how you know that Son Son would have as many tackles and goals if he was playing instead of Crowley instead of with Crowley. Where is the proof that if Crowley was not playing Son Son might have to pick up a better players and have no goals and no tackles.

And then, what I'd really like to know is where Crowley kept Stiffy Johncock bloody quiet, how you think Son Son would have handled the same job in the name of team improvement.

That's a mighty fine chrystal ball I require, there Ralph.

If that's your criteria, no one would ever get dropped

 

[Clay Davis]

That's a mighty fine chrystal ball I require, there Ralph.

If that's your criteria, no one would ever get dropped

Pretty sure Ralph Dagg was one of the dudes heavily arguing against bringing in youth under Connolly and the early days of Harvey.

 

[prattsta]

That wooshing sound you can hear is my point going over your head.

Yeah, but the point you are making is, well, pointless.

While individual players are important it is the combination of players that provides the winning formula. You only have to remember when we had Bell-Hasleby-Carr-Carr-Schammer as our midfield to remember that a bevy of slow, short, hard boiled, inside midfielders who can't run down a dead chicken isn't going to win games no matter how good they are individually.

Ignoring the fact that the combination of Bell-Hasleby-Carr-Carr-Schammer were good enough to make it to a Preliminary Final for a second...

Okay, so the best possible combination of players will win games. Fine, I don't think anyone would really disagree with that. Therefore, as a team we need to get the best possible combination of players. How exactly do you suggest we achieve that?

Within a team, individual players will fluctuate in form. Anyone who plays golf knows how you can be on the boil for a couple of weeks then go right off then come back.

Fluctuations in form are fine; if you're making a positive contribution more often than not. Some players are not perceived to be making a positive contribution from week to week (or at all) so some supporters consider them to be letting the team down.

We now have a team that wins more often than not. That includes players who run both hot and cold and often somewhere in between. But collectively, they are running hotter than we have ever seen given the circumstances of our pre-season. One of the clear changes is our depth. I have a 2009 poster on my sons wall. In it is Gilmour, Dodd, Murphy, Head, Foster, Obrien, Browne, Drum, Campbell and Peake.

Whatever you think of the current crop, their worst is far better than anything the above dished up except in very short bursts. The team is far more competitive than at any time in our history. We have way more players who can step up and play acceptably because they compete and play a team role. We have a winning combination.

Okay we win more often than not, we have good depth and we have players who run hot and cold. I wonder what would happen if those players who run hot and cold were held to account by those depth players, if we'd win even more games.

Who cares if the current side is better than some of the rubbish sides from our history? Honestly, they achieved nothing. If a 2009 Fremantle Dockers poster is your measure for what's acceptable...

That doesn't mean that individual players won't have their bad runs or may not not be at the elite level we expect. But as a team we are way better. Exhibit A is JVB whose worst game is way better than Dodd's games. Exhibit B is Crowley who can at least get his hands on the ball to take his wayward shots so he is way better than Murphy or Campbell. McPhee similarly is way more useful than Murphy or Campbell even though he may drive us insane. Who would you rather have Johnson or Josh Head? Rhys or a perpetually injured Browne or Obrien?

Again, comparisons to former Fremantle sides/players are meaningless. We want this side to be great, not ordinary.

So some of you need to take a chill pill. Players are being scorned for poor performances that are more than acceptable at an AFL level, particularly when all the players have contributed to a team win.

Acceptable performances are not good enough if you want to be a great side.

Not all the players are contributing to a team win. Simply being on the field doesn't mean you have made a positive contribution. That is why supporters are critical of players who put in poor performances more often than not. The team winning, does not cancel out a poor individual performance.

We are looking ominous. We are hard to beat and but not yet at our best. Quite a few players are still underdone. Then if you think that for the last 6 to 8 games of the year we might have Barlow, Mzungu, Hayden, Silvagni and Suban to fit into a team that nearly beat one prelim finalist from last year and did beat another. I think we have more to toast than roast.

Wait...why do we need to get some better players back? I thought we had the right combination already. What do you mean we're not at our best? I thought everyone was doing their job and playing at an acceptable level. If there are better options on the sidelines, does that mean some of the guys playing, aren't the best option? Does that mean under-performing players can be replaced or only the guys who don't make up the winning combination? How do we even know what the winning combination is until after we've won?

 

[Sman-21]

When a teams winning.
Should they keep everything the same till the rest of the league catches up to them?
Or should they continue to try an improve.

Maybe with a few changes instead of just scraping home for wins we can win comfortably??

Maybe by dropping underperforming players, they come back hungrier desperate to be a part of the winning team so they come back with new hunger an better performances thus making the team even stronger.

But nah lets not change a thing we are winning.
Lets not try an improve an keep everything the same until we start losing.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Strong competition for spots should be a huge positive

Means players will want to play well each week - but at the other end of the scale team performance > individual performance everyday of the week (except Mundy's)

 

[malpaso]

I think the main point is the performance of the 'TEAM' as a whole in context with things that seem like a 'down' performance to us based on past things we've seen from certain players.

Crowley and Johnson are a great example.

Crowley IS doing a job, he is restricting his opponent, he hasn't converted the goal chances however and his tackling has dried up, maybe that's because his opponent doesn't get the ball?

Johnson to me is the strangest, he's playing way more defense that he has in the past. Whether this is because the coaches NEED him to do this OR because they feel he needs to learn more accountability who knows?

Dr. Dagg's main point I believe is to criticize in the context of the Team and not the individual, some players are going to disappear during games and/or make errors. Surely we all have enough faith in our club that they are not trotting out players that are underperforming to the extent that they are hurting our chances to win?

 

[Clay Davis]

Both Crowley and Johnson are doing a role that the coaches are giving them. Neither are playing as well as they could, but I don't think they're on the cusp of being cut.

As a team on game day, I don't think Freo are doing a thing wrong. There have been some lapses in individual performance and some worrying structural issues, but it seems everyone is playing a role and sticking to the game plan. Combined with the winning, that's all you really want.

 

[Whatname]

Firstly players do make mistakes and people have every right to bring those mistakes into question. That being said a winning team is a good team and I totally agree with the Dr when he speaks of team balance. There is no doubt we now have a football TEAM instead of a collection of mercurial players. This has every thing to do with our coaching and football staff and i have the utmost faith in their decisions. They have picked players for the role they serve in the side and while the team is winning the football staff quite rightly will be reluctant to make changes.
There will be hard decisions to be made as the season progresses and Broughton, Silvagni, Barlow, Hayden and Suban become available. Players like Johnson, Palmer and Crowley may find themselves on the outer, not because of trivial reasons but how well they fit into the team structure.

 

[Scham]

Pretty sure Ralph Dagg was one of the dudes heavily arguing against bringing in youth under Connolly and the early days of Harvey.

Yes, he was. His criticism even extended to Hill believe it or not!

His views on the game are very much stuck in the 70's version of the game.

 

[Aussiblood]

Fact is, whatever or whoever 'we' see as a deficiency, the coaching staff would magnify three-fold. So three times the scrutiny is not powerful enough to justify a change to these 'roasted' players... they must be doing something right.

 

[dominguez]

While individual players are important it is the combination of players that provides the winning formula. You only have to remember when we had Bell-Hasleby-Carr-Carr-Schammer as our midfield to remember that a bevy of slow, short, hard boiled, inside midfielders who can't run down a dead chicken isn't going to win games no matter how good they are individually.

We now have a team that wins more often than not. That includes players who run both hot and cold and often somewhere in between. But collectively, they are running hotter than we have ever seen given the circumstances of our pre-season. One of the clear changes is our depth. I have a 2009 poster on my sons wall. In it is Gilmour, Dodd, Murphy, Head, Foster, Obrien, Browne, Drum, Campbell and Peake.

Good post DRD but I think some people take criticism of individual players far too seriously.

Where as the above mentioned players often attracted posts of "Out - Peake/Dodd/etc In - Anyone else" the new crop of players are treated with far more respect and it's simply a case of some posters preferring other players to be in the line up.