I was more referring to what SOS's brief was: to set us up for long term success in 4+ years time. He had to identify talent and to sort through the players, hitting often enough and in the right areas.Yes and no. SOS had carte blanche to trade players and lots of low draft picks to work with. He also had so many holes to fill, that he could chase whowever he wanted and "fill a hole".
SOC on the other hand, has many less holes to fill, has to be far more targeted and hasnt had the low draft picks *
IMO Saad, Williams and Fogarty look like fantastic uses of our picks, and the resultant pick downgrades* have netted us some quite promising young smalls in durdin and carroll
I don't think we're in a rush for talls, but I would like to see us bring in one at either end over the next two off seasons.I agree that we now need to start thinking about KPP/rucks again. SOC has topped up our smalls and mids, and by the end of 2021 we should have a good handle on their progress. Best case is that all our young mids take a step up and we have real depth, Marchbank and charlie , make successful comebacks, TDK and Mitch remain injury free, Parks continues on his promising debut.
Levis luke warm start to 2021 highlights our fragile KPP stocks, when we have a string of injuries to our talls. But arguably, most clubs would struggle to cover the loss of their ruckman, 2 of the top 3 forwards and a great intercept defender.
I feel that SOS's greatest strength was KPP's- bringing in Charlie, Harry, Weiters, TDK, barely a miss hit with prime picks. But his attempts at rebuilding our midfield have been less than stella. I think Walsh picked himself, and we shouldnt really give sos too much credit for that pick. But if we look at his other midfield prime picks, the story gets murkier
2015: DC pick 23
2016: SPS pick 6
2017: Dow pick 3 LOB pick 10
2018: Walsh pick 1, Stocker pick 19
2019: kemp pick 17, Philp pick 20
Aside from Walsh, there is not one prime pick that has shown anything more than "promising"
It's an interesting discussion.I was more referring to what SOS's brief was: to set us up for long term success in 4+ years time. He had to identify talent and to sort through the players, hitting often enough and in the right areas.
Doing this with regards to single players over single year timelines is tricky enough, but to do so with an entire list of about 20+ players? With only Brodie and the vestiges of our talent scouts from the previous regime?
Austin has done very well, from a small sample size. I'm optimistic with him going forward, based on his resume. But SOS had less to work with, more to accomplish, and much more risk if he got things wrong.
Given the length of time these sorts of players take to develop, its probably 3 years away that we have to plan for. That brings us to the end of Jones and Levis career. Without Jones and the flexibility that Levi brings, we look decidedly weaker. Marchbank could maybe pinch hit as a tall defender, but is really not big enough, ditto SOJ and ditto Parks. Maybe Mitch could be switched down back, but that takes away from the forward line.I don't think we're in a rush for talls, but I would like to see us bring in one at either end over the next two off seasons.
Don't have to be 18yos from the draft either, pretty much anyone under 28 would be fine to look at, provided they're AFL quality (significantly different to Weitering-quality).
Weitering and Harry give us the major bookends, and we're hoping that TDK can carry the ruck division for a long time to come.
Jones is tearing it up, but you'd have to think that he'll decline rapidly at some point in the next three seasons given how much of his game is based on his athleticism. Might be able to rework his game to play as a lockdown full back but I'm not without doubts there.
Charlie isn't someone we can bank on, but if he comes good then we certainly wouldn't want to have overinvested in insurance to cover him in case he doesn't.
Give me a young KPD to develop behind Jones (draft a kid or trade for an under-22yo), and a key forward in the mold of Josh Bruce or Matt Taberner to partner up with Harry should Charlie fall apart, and to offer some ruck relief.
I don't disagree with this at all. I've been a bit critical myself of certain aspects of our list management several times over: did we truly need to lose Henderson and Tuohy? Could we have retained Gibbs, by working with him and his family to get them as satisfied as they could be; he'd still be playing, I'd have thought. He didn't retire because he didn't any more to give, certainly. Did we have to go so KPP focused? Did we have to go so small with the midfield players we chose?It's an interesting discussion.
SOS stripped the existing list for parts, which gave him developing prospects and draft capital to work with, he didn't turn nothing into something.
I've been less rapt with his list build than others as outside of the early work in building our KPP stocks there never appeared to be a strategy behind the recruitment of players or thought of how they would meld with our existing list but there's no doubt that he gave the club a platform to build upon.
Austin now takes over a middling list with the task of making it elite, whether he's up to the task - it's far too early to tell.
Yeah, that's why I'd be looking to target a young defender and an older forward.Given the length of time these sorts of players take to develop, its probably 3 years away that we have to plan for. That brings us to the end of Jones and Levis career. Without Jones and the flexibility that Levi brings, we look decidedly weaker. Marchbank could maybe pinch hit as a tall defender, but is really not big enough, ditto SOJ and ditto Parks. Maybe Mitch could be switched down back, but that takes away from the forward line.
We havent had much success apart from Weiters with drafting KPD's, 2 being delisted last year, so it is not a given that even if we prioritised it , that we would find the right player quickly.
Not right now, but at current rates it'll take LOB or Dow 2 to 4 seasons to play 50 more games.Hopefully soon, but it's a mite disingenuous to assert that Carroll, Stocker or Kemp aren't getting ones gametime because of LOB, or that Cuningham hasn't gotten a decent crack at it.
He's competing with Newnes for a position, Newnes or the rotating other wing (Curnow, Setterfield, Williamson, Williams, Martin).
Perhaps it is the perception of size with Cottrell v LOB. Please tell be you can see that Cottrell imposes himself on the game more significantly than LOB?Cottrell is listed as 181 and 72kg, I'd hardly say that's offering size.
Cottrell will play the defensive wing role, on the far side probably a good 30m off the play, and be responsible for guarding space and either sweeping back to add numbers or getting forward to fill space and provide an outlet kick (which is predominantly a 'non kick' option, more an attempt to spread the opp defenders). Even when Walsh was playing wing he was rarely in the graveyard that can be the 'fat side' winger; that's the Tom Scully ran 18km for 15 disposals role.
I don't mind Cottrell in our current setup playing that def wing role. Hard to tell after last week, we controlled the game from about the 2 minute mark, but it felt like he added to our system and cohesion in transition. It was sure as hell an improvement over having Ed and Setters attempt the same thing.
His VFL write-up was pretty good, ideally he can stay fit (unlike last year with that hip and extra kegs from attempting to beef him up) and continue to work on and improve his play in the reserves. We could really use a player like him in the seniors, it's now on him to continue to work on both sides of his game and push for selection.
Good call. Not sure if LOB displays more character development than Walsh though. Not more than JSOS in the face of his dad’s issues with the club and Fisher’s capacity to put his hand up to move forward and be extremely personable.I don't disagree, exactly. What I see from LOB - more than almost anyone on the list - is development and character. He was a shellshocked teenager in his first few games, incapable of playing at the level or dealing with pressure.
Then, he got better. He made a mistake? He'd go in harder, and harder, desperate to fix it, determined to make things right. And such would last the rest of the game. He's stronger, faster, has come a thumping long way since he got drafted, and last year was a development void.
As I said to BigBreakfast above, it depends on how the coaches view the role he is to play, and what they're unwilling to compromise on. They need that contested game from a wing, Carroll or SPS; they want someone more pressure oriented, Philp or even Fogarty; they want disposal, gut running, speed, LOB.
It's part of why, when I see the posts of 'we need another rebuild', '20 years for jack squat!', it makes me roll my eyes. For the first time in my memory, we have options. We can choose to build a team properly for once. We have a backlog of decent/AFL capable players, and we don't have enough space in the 22 for them all.
Really interesting thanks for posting. I reckon it is worth the effort keeping track of every round to increase sample sizes.Wasn't worth its own thread so I thought I would stuff it in here - I have long thought there was a pretty easy metric to go by to see if your team is likely to win any given game of footy thanks to the Telstra Tracker stats. In it, they show the average speed in attack and defence of the both teams. It's always seemed to me that if you ran faster in defence than your opposition did in offensive (i.e. when you don't have the ball and when they do), then you would win. And vice-versa.
So I did the sums for the first three rounds, and it turns out - lo and behold - teams who outworked their opposition won the game 75% of the time. Even more (81.8%) if you don't count North Melbourne who are clearly running super fast but without any sort of system or structure whatsoever. They have outrun their opponent by notable amounts in two games and got pumped in both.
Interestingly, Hawthorn have won twice while not outrunning their opponent. This probably reflects how structured and well-drilled they are.
If anyone is interested, the little calculations are attached. Red represent when the team who ran the hardest lost. Green when they won, and a funny one in orange - we were dead even with Richmond in round 1 and lost. Doh
.View attachment 1096520
I understand (most of) those concepts, but have no idea how to do them!Really interesting thanks for posting. I reckon it is worth the effort keeping track of every round to increase sample sizes.
My first thought on your thinking was: I think explanatory power would increase in the hypothesis if you introduced standardisation into the raw numbers (even basic Z-scores ) in the differential analysis V result
you'd get a good guage on the the level of confidence of the hypothesis at various 'differential' levels. ( eg how much difference between sides running adds how much predictability to result )
game : 22 rounds would give 22x9 data sets in the sample - plenty enough to remove random variable issues - and more than enough to highlight any consistent other variables even just by simple regression.
I think that LOB is at the very least comparable to both Walsh and Jack, and I cannot give him - or them - a higher complement.Good call. Not sure if LOB displays more character development than Walsh though. Not more than JSOS in the face of his dad’s issues with the club and Fisher’s capacity to put his hand up to move forward and be extremely personable.
hahaI understand (most of) those concepts, but have no idea how to do them!
I teach English, not useless math
Fair enough. He can keep showing his character in the 2s. Nothing personal, I just don’t see it.I think that LOB is at the very least comparable to both Walsh and Jack, and I cannot give him - or them - a higher complement.
Jack has a normalizing factor in his father; sure, it adds pressure, but he resisted the drive to take his dad's number. He's his own person, and I've zero doubt his dad'd support that. And Walsh is precisely the same person we drafted; he's shown almost zero character development. He's driven, capable, unwilling to allow for himself a moment's respite in pursuit of his goals whilst simultaneously not being unrealistic.
LOB came in as a young person, younger than both of them. He looked like a 14 year old in his first season, and got hit appropriately. To respond to that with a recklessness akin to Mitch Robinson at times is to demonstrate that despite his lack of size and his being clearly intimidated early he has the heart of a lion.
I can't help but have his back for that.
Unrelated but there was a deliberate out of bounds paid on the weekend, and Eleni tells the Freo player to stand the mark on the boundary line. Player still hasn't moved after second instruction, but is allowed to run at the kicker once play on is called.Even Eleni was giving us frees, even ones that weren’t there
This is left field and exploratory in nature.I've seen the same from Lob too though - they're also playing the hardest position in our structure. I think Cotters is a fine kick but with our structure if the wingers are in D50 and tight to a boundary their options are generally sh*t. Harry is almost always 75 metres down the line :/