Yep. The salary cap, free agency and draft make it hard to stay competitive. All of the top teams over the last few years are losing players to other clubs willing to pay more. Richmond has gambled on paying a few key players more at the expense of a bunch of fringe players leaving. Watch what happens to Richmond or GWS this year when they get some injuries
Certified Legendary Thread The Squiggle is back in 2023 (and other analytics)
- Thread starter Final Siren
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yep. The salary cap, free agency and draft make it hard to stay competitive. All of the top teams over the last few years are losing players to other clubs willing to pay more. Richmond has gambled on paying a few key players more at the expense of a bunch of fringe players leaving. Watch what happens to Richmond or GWS this year when they get some injuries
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
It'll be interesting. I don't reckon that there is a team that can deal with a few key injuries to the wrong people. But the top teams have depth to a good extent. Looking forward to 2019.
We did it this year....
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
Yep, and in the end you have Gaff as the only key out. Still when key forwards were missing WC lost games. That's the point. Right now no team has depth to cover there top few players. It is what it is.
We also had Nic Nat out. He’s kind of a big deal...
Also we had Sheppard out who arguable should have been in the AA squad of 40.
What I was more referring to is the squiggle calling us one of the weaker GF winners. Our overall ranking was tanked on squiggle due to missing key players for big chunks of the year. Were still good enough to win games, just not good enough to punish teams like would have happened if we were fully fit
Squiggle doesn't take into account the impact of injuries, which everyone seems to overlook. I dare say we were also one of the most injury riddled premiership sides in the last 20 years as well, and not just throughout the season which impacted our win/loss and %, but in finals as well. I can't think of many teams missing 3 players the quality of gaff, naitanui and shep throughout the entire finals series who went all the way.
Jk and Ryan missed half a season, Shuey, Darling and Barrass missed a quarter, Naitanui missed 10 games, Gaff missed 6, Shep missed 3, Jetta missed 5 and Mackenzie missed the whole season.
Considering we still finished 2nd and won the flag despite all of this, I'd say we were one of the stronger premiership sides of the last 20 years. Imagine if we'd had Richmond's run of injuries, or lack thereof.
You can’t use Gaff missing 6 games as an example of an injury ridden season. Gaff lost his chance to win a premiership because of a heinous act.
And he got replaced by Sheed, who showed that he had nerves of steel to kick the winning goal. Would Gaff have shown such temperament? Very doubtful.
As for losing Naitanui, I think West Coast played better as a team afterwards. Their premiership winning tactic of tagging the dominant ruckman only developed when Vardy and Lycett teamed up.
Bottom line, the squiggle is about points for and points against. If injuries (or Gaff’s brain) were better, then things might have turned out differently. All you can go on is the squiggle, and to not try and make allowances for injuries or stupidity.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
As an Eagles fan I am fine with the Squiggle.
People seem to take it a personal attack when Squiggle doesn't rate their team. It is simply a predictive tool that has proven quite capable. No model is ever 100% correct and we aren't exactly the strongest premiership side this century, even the most one-eyed Eagles fan would acknowledge that. We won via Simmo finding a match-winning system that exploited our strengths and grinding out results when we were depleted, we weren't full of superstars thrashing teams into next Tuesday.
This is what makes our flag even more special than 2006, for example.
People seem to take it a personal attack when Squiggle doesn't rate their team. It is simply a predictive tool that has proven quite capable. No model is ever 100% correct and we aren't exactly the strongest premiership side this century, even the most one-eyed Eagles fan would acknowledge that. We won via Simmo finding a match-winning system that exploited our strengths and grinding out results when we were depleted, we weren't full of superstars thrashing teams into next Tuesday.
This is what makes our flag even more special than 2006, for example.
I'm not too fased by how we're ranked by Squiggle.
But is the fact we're so low despite being the #1 team for wins based on the last 100 games (68.5% wins, Sydney 66% #2) and 2nd based on last 50 games (64%) more to do with the fact we haven't been belting teams off the park?
Or that we have been beating up on lower teams?
Or that our home-ground advantage off-sets a lot of the wins?
But is the fact we're so low despite being the #1 team for wins based on the last 100 games (68.5% wins, Sydney 66% #2) and 2nd based on last 50 games (64%) more to do with the fact we haven't been belting teams off the park?
Or that we have been beating up on lower teams?
Or that our home-ground advantage off-sets a lot of the wins?
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Squiggle rates teams that absolutely belt the s**t out of others while keeping them to record low scores.
That Richmond game vs Brisbane where they only scored 17 points total saw them shoot to the right by a record margin, even though they didn't score that much themselves. Some quirks like Port belting Gold Coast in China when it was according to Squiggle a Gold Coast home game also assist.
And, in general, we haven't been giving that many 10 goal thrashings in the past few years. But we have finally mastered the art of winning close ones.
Yeah true, I mean the squiggle rated GWS beating Carlton by 105 as a much bigger win that West Coast beating Melbourne by 66. (edit: in terms of jumping up the squiggle rating)
I guess all it can do is look at the score, not take into account the circumstances of a match, but interesting nonetheless.
Yep, it was a famous victory. One for the ages.
But the poster was bemoaning the fact that the squiggle didn’t rate West Coast as one of the stronger premiership sides. I know which Grand final I’d watch again: it isn’t the Geelong v Port Adelaide game.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Yep, also gave Geelong a big leg up following consecutive record dead rubber spankings of Freo and Gold Coast and then of course were immediately found out in the first week of finals.
However, the moment you introduce subjectivity in the model is the moment you ruin it. I like what Squiggle attempts to do and always defend Final Siren when the nuffies come in to tear it apart without understanding what it actually means.
The squiggle didn't account for Gaff's loss in the team, and his loss for whatever reason was still a loss. Regardless if he was suspended, injured or just didn't rock up, his loss was felt, and I don't think there's many premiership teams in the last 20 years who could've covered the loss of 3 players the quality of Gaff, Nic nat and Sheppard. Gaff was one of the ten players I mentioned when I listed examples of us having an injury riddled season.
Sheed played in the 2 games prior to Gaff's suspension, and 12 of the 18 games up til that point they played together, so claiming he "replaced gaff" is intellectually dishonest. Sheed would've been called up regardless given his WAFL form and played almost 70% of the season prior to the derby so pretending he only got a call up because of Gaff's suspension is ridiculous. Silly of you to even compare Gaff and Sheed's temperament in that situation because had Gaff not been suspended they would've been playing side by side in the same team on GF day.
I don't think we had any trouble playing as a team at the beginning of the year when we had 10 wins in a row, then had a rough patch when we were missing half of our forwardline and other key players, which is to be expected after 10 straight wins. Regained some players back and got some continuity around the time of the Collingwood game which resulted in getting back on track, completely off the mark to suggest that it was because of Naitanui. We have no need to tag dominant ruckmen when we have Naitanui in the side because he wins almost every head to head ruck battle, so developing the "premiership winning tactic" after he was injured is irrelevant. Put Naitanui in that grand final side and we probably win by 4 goals, not 1.
The squiggle is a useful but limited analytical tool. Due to the fact it doesn't incorporate qualitative information like injurys, suspensions etc, the impact that those factors have must be assessed subjectively. Saying that west coast are the weakest premiership side of the last 20 years simply based off of the squiggle's placement among other premiership teams is completely ignoring the impact that having numerous key players miss large chunks of the season. Like I said earlier, imagine if we'd had an injury run as good as Richmond's, we likely finish on 18 or 19 wins. Not many teams could miss so many games from near-elite to elite players throughout the season and still finish top 2, nor miss 3 AA quality players throughout the entire finals series and still go all the way. Make no mistake, this WC side is elite and very well balanced with a lot of depth. If they get a good run with injury next year they will be very hard to stop again.
Did basically the same for us last year, except our final position got boosted by smashing everyone for 5 weeks at the end of the year, so it picked us for top 4.
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
Yep
We've never had to deal with injuries before, so it'll be interesting to see.
Gaff was one of only three players that you mentioned as part of an injury riddled season that missed the finals. Apart from Naitanui (who I think you were better without, because of his limited mobility and limited involvement in general play) and Sheppard (who was missed), all the injuries happened at the right time of the year. Gaff doesn’t count as an injury. 2 players out is lucky.
All credit to you banking wins in the season with injuries, but that happens all the time. In 2013 Freo qualified for finals without Pavlich and Sandilands for much of the year. The outlier is Richmond 2017 with such a full, healthy list.
If Sheed was to play alongside Gaff in the finals, that means another premiership hero would have had to make way for Gaff. That may have changed the game completely. You don’t know. I reckon Gaff has shown that he is mentally weak and would have fluffed it somehow. You appear to think he was the difference between a close victory and a slaughter. Likewise Naitanui. I reckon Gawn and Grundy would have had a field day.
The sguiggle is what it is. Carrying on that it doesn’t respect you enough is pretty silly. Every year there is a hard luck story amongst the Premiers (except the tigers) and every year there are a couple of premiership players that never repeat their form afterwards. No special consideration needs to be given to the 2018 West Coast squiggle over previous premiers.
West Coast won their flag deservedly and should be up there again next year. They built their depth through exposure to injury, and have elite players such as McGovern, Kennedy, and Shuey to drive the group, with some great youngsters coming through. They only need a good run with injuries during the finals next year - other than that, they just need a normal injury run, like every premiership team has faced almost every year.
You still need to get to finals, and finishing top 2 with the injury list we had throughout the season was no easy feat. Naitanui doesn't have limited mobility or limited involvement in general play, and I think you would probably be one of the only people that would suggest we're somehow better off without him. Missing 3 of your best 8 players who are all AA quality during the finals certainly isn't lucky in any language.
All credit to freo for finishing 3rd with half a season from Sandi, Pav and a chunk missed from Mcpharlin, but I'll take freo's '13 injury list over ours this year any day. You weren't missing an elite ruck, an elite mid and an elite defender on grand final day, which just goes to show how hard it is to win one, even with your best 22 playing on GF day. Not sure if Richmond was the outlier, still waiting for you to point me in the direction of another premiership side with that amount of talent sitting on the sidelines.
Obviously the game would've unfolded completely differently had Gaff played instead of someone like Masten, I don't need you to explain that for me. You were the one who seemed to think that had Gaff played instead of Sheed he would've been in the exact same position, kicking for goal with 2 minutes to remain. In reality, you replace an average player like Masten with an AA quality player like Gaff, run the game back 100 times with each player and we win more often with Gaff playing than Masten, because he's a better player. Odd that you'd even try to suggest otherwise. Where did I suggest Gaff was the difference between a close win and a slaughter? Not sure why you're building strawmen arguments to argue against instead of arguing against what I've actually said.
You genuinely don't have a clue if you think Gawn and Grundy would've had a field day, Naitanui had the highest % of HO won of all ruckmen before his injury, and same in 2016 before he did his ACL. He was comfortably winning the ruck battle against Grundy in round 17 before he went down, and he has one of the highest clearance differentials in the league when he's in a stoppage vs when he isn't. How you arrived at the conclusion that replacing someone like Lycett with Naitanui would've somehow negatively impacted the team, despite Naitanui's clear hitout advantage, clearance advantage and scoring advantage is absolutely bewildering. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you, displaying you either don't know what you're talking about or simply disagreeing for the sake of it, which isn't surprising given the team you support.
Where did you get the idea that I said the squiggle doesn't respect WC, because I certainly didn't say it? All you've done is build up strawman after strawman and make bold claims that I don't think anyone would agree with.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
This below:
Like I said before, the second you introduce subjective components (eg quality of players missing, missed umpiring calls (coughRobysPowerRankingscough) etc) the model becomes useless.
It is what it is. Squiggle doesn't rate us, so what? It didn't rate the Dogs at all heading into the finals series in 2016 and four games later you know what happened next. It rated us about right, we were never a super dominant team throughout the year. It is one of the best analytical tools that is out there, and it's free as well. Champion Data has a much more comprehensive analytical model but you have to fork out a lot of money for access to that one.
No strawman. From me anyway. Here’s your original post:
A fair bit of whining about Squiggle there and claiming of specialness for your flag, including the spurious claim of injury to Gaff.
Bottom line: only Richmond has had an injury free run over the last few years. The West Coast injury toll was fairly normal.
You say I don’t have a clue because I think you’ve overrated Naitanui and underrated Lycett? Nic’s good at hitouts and a couple of contested marks a season, but he’s not a stats hound like Gawn and Grundy ( or Cox before him) and I don’t think he was ever used as a ruck tag like Lycett and Vardy were. We can’t tell what would have happened if the injured and suspended players played, so my guess is as good as yours.
And I’ll say it again, I think the Eagles are well placed with good depth and very good quality players to at least challenge again next year. Squiggle agrees, I believe.
No, you're mistaken. I never carried on about the squiggle not respecting us, and I never suggested to introduce subjective components to the squiggle's model, because I don't think it would work. The squiggle is good at what it does, which is rating a team's chances of winning based on their points for and against other teams. What it doesn't take into account is the subjective factors, which is what we can do individually when using the model as a guideline. It's completely fine that the squiggle rates us as one of the weakest flag sides of the last 20 years, because it doesn't take into account those subjective factors. We can determine the impact that those factors have ourselves and then use that alongside the squiggle to make our own assessment. The squiggle is right more often than not, and is a pretty good guideline, but if it tells me one team is going to beat another in a close game but the supposed winning team has some injuries to key players that the squiggle obviously can't assess, then I make my own assessment on whether or not those injuries have a big enough impact on the team to effect the outcome.
