The Swans Blog

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Chunky,

Can I disagree with you on the rankings...

Smith a 5.5? How? He was awful, smith and Greene kicked how many? He dropped off how many tackles? Lucky to get a 2/10.

Marsh the same as Melican? Marsh was smashed by Cameron.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Chunky,

Can I disagree with you on the rankings...

Smith a 5.5? How? He was awful, smith and Greene kicked how many? He dropped off how many tackles? Lucky to get a 2/10.

Marsh the same as Melican? Marsh was smashed by Cameron.
Click to expand...

By all means, disagree.

Overall, Smith & Marsh were much better than last week and better overall. Losing this game can't be pinned on the defence because they didn't butcher it like they have done in recent weeks, they were just out-bodied by bigger, stronger opponents. GWS were smart and isolated Grundy up the field, and then went long and high to Cameron, Patton and Lobbe, who had size, height and weight advantages over their opponents.

I don't think it's fair to say that Smith was responsible for Greene & Johnson kicking a few between themselves. Jones, Lloyd and Mills (especially) at times minded them and had goals kicked on them.

Smith: His pressure was better, his work rate was better, even though there's a worrying lack of tackles. His disposals were a lot better and he was far from the worst defender.

Marsh: Easily beaten by his opponent in the first half, just like every other Swan in defence, but was solid in the 2nd half and provided a fair bit of run and drive out of defence.

Melican: Good debut, even though he had his ass handed to him in the contests. Tidy on the ball and loves to take a mark.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Fair enough chunkychicken I just would have Smith a bit lower and probably Melican a 7, Marsh staying the same.

Good effort though

Surprised Jack didn't get minus votes!
Click to expand...
Well, you should comment on the blog ;) I'm still a bit away from having user player ratings, which would be nice to see what readers really think.

Jack falling off the edge isn't unexpected, but the drop off is really disappointing.
 
chunkychicken said:
Well, you should comment on the blog ;) I'm still a bit away from having user player ratings, which would be nice to see what readers really think.

Jack falling off the edge isn't unexpected, but the drop off is really disappointing.
Click to expand...

I will lol and I'll be happy to help with that. Rankings are so hard- one week I'll see someone as having a great game and then someone else wouldn't. It's nice with rankings to get input from others. Most of the rankings are pretty fair.

Jack has been very poor he's looked unfit all season.
 
I know that I've mentioned several times during the pre-season as well as the first couple of rounds. The overall fitness level of the squad is alarming. I do wonder how many injuries the team sustained throughout December and January, because Kennedy hardly played midfield in the JLT cup and has hardly looked fit enough to do it, as well as Parker and Hannebery. Jack on the other hand didn't have a pre-season, who his form isn't surprising, and throwing back Heeney, Rohan, Papley and other who've trained for 1 week in the last 2 months is just reckless. They've had * all positive impact on the side, if anything, have contributed to even worse performances each week.
 
chunkychicken said:
I know that I've mentioned several times during the pre-season as well as the first couple of rounds. The overall fitness level of the squad is alarming. I do wonder how many injuries the team sustained throughout December and January, because Kennedy hardly played midfield in the JLT cup and has hardly looked fit enough to do it, as well as Parker and Hannebery. Jack on the other hand didn't have a pre-season, who his form isn't surprising, and throwing back Heeney, Rohan, Papley and other who've trained for 1 week in the last 2 months is just reckless. They've had **** all positive impact on the side, if anything, have contributed to even worse performances each week.
Click to expand...

Well said. Alarm bells ring for me if we have so many blokes injured before the season starts. They should all be fit. They have 6 months to get themselves right!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yeah I'm sorry but I just disagree with many of your ratings and comments on your blog. It's almost as if you watched a different game for some of these blokes, in particular Melican, Lloyd and Grundy. You claimed that Grundy and Melican weren't physically (outbodied) strong enough which was totally not true and that Lloyd gets the cheap ball. Now, if you think uncontested is cheap then your understanding of outside player is somewhat skewed. He's not chicken s**t who bolts at the sound of footsteps, he's a two way runner who gets a lot of the ball (he often does kick it too high) and looks to set up play. He's having a mighty fine season!

Only other issue is with your ratings. Some guys you will give 5.5 and state that they were pretty bad and others, you'll give the same rating and state they've played poorly. I think it's just a flaw that you haven't totally thought through. Hopefully there'll be a few 8s, 9s & 10s this week!

Other than that, you do a fine job, keep it up!
 
Mick Oxlong said:
Only other issue is with your ratings. Some guys you will give 5.5 and state that they were pretty bad and others, you'll give the same rating and state they've played poorly. I think it's just a flaw that you haven't totally thought through. Hopefully there'll be a few 8s, 9s & 10s this week!
Click to expand...

They're unbalanced for a reason, because you have to take into account expectations, experience and averages. So when you're looking at someone like Lloyd, who's averaging close to 30 this season, a little more than last season, you've got to look at his overall impact. Tackles, contested possessions, his influence on the field, impact, metres gained, rebound 50s and inside 50s.

He really didn't do an awful lot on Saturday night. Had 29 disposals and I struggled to single him out for doing anything good throughout the match. If anything, he looked small.
 
chunkychicken said:
They're unbalanced for a reason, because you have to take into account expectations, experience and averages. So when you're looking at someone like Lloyd, who's averaging close to 30 this season, a little more than last season, you've got to look at his overall impact. Tackles, contested possessions, his influence on the field, impact, metres gained, rebound 50s and inside 50s.

He really didn't do an awful lot on Saturday night. Had 29 disposals and I struggled to single him out for doing anything good throughout the match. If anything, he looked small.
Click to expand...
Well that's like rating coffee isn't it? Only you're including alternate parameters such as expected body, flavours, caramel overtones and the size of cup and saucer. Merely makes no sense!
 
Mick Oxlong said:
Well that's like rating coffee isn't it? Only you're including alternate parameters such as expected body, flavours, caramel overtones and the size of cup and saucer. Merely makes no sense!
Click to expand...
So, you'd rather give 3/4 for a new player, than saying '7, nice debut, looks promising even if out bodied etc. etc.' ??

I'm just asking because everyone has a different perspective on ratings. I even get heckled on Facebook and it generates good debate for what people think and measure.
 
chunkychicken said:
So, you'd rather give 3/4 for a new player, than saying '7, nice debut, looks promising even if out bodied etc. etc.' ??

I'm just asking because everyone has a different perspective on ratings. I even get heckled on Facebook and it generates good debate for what people think and measure.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't understand what you've said here.
A good rating system IMO is 0-10, with 0 being ******* s**t, to 10 being ******* well played there young fella!
 
Mick Oxlong said:
Sorry, I don't understand what you've said here.
A good rating system IMO is 0-10, with 0 being ******* s**t, to 10 being ******* well played there young fella!
Click to expand...
Yeah of course, but you're going to reserve judgement on an inexperienced kid most of time. Unlike Hiscox who was clearly out of his depth.
 
chunkychicken said:
Yeah of course, but you're going to reserve judgement on an inexperienced kid most of time. Unlike Hiscox who was clearly out of his depth.
Click to expand...
Hiscox...that's when you bring the - scale into the equation!

It's your ratings tool Chumpy, at the end of the day it's how you see it!
 
Mick Oxlong said:
And I can't believe he was given a game...ever!
Click to expand...
It was a bit of a surprise watching him play, a bit of o_O

Mick Oxlong said:
Hiscox...that's when you bring the - scale into the equation!

It's your ratings tool Chumpy, at the end of the day it's how you see it!
Click to expand...
Cheers :D I encourage everyone who agrees or disagrees to talk about it. I don't want to be one of those that's always negative and blasting the team when they don't perform. That's why I started writing the blog so that I could look at things in an objective manner, rather than just slinging off when players underperform.

There's also a comment feature on the blog too :thumbsu:;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Majestic
It's A Dave Thing Blog & Podcast
Replies
6
Views
484
The Majestic
The Majestic
Gosaints12
From the Stands Podcast
Replies
1
Views
117
Gosaints12
Gosaints12
FrontnCentrePod
Front n Centre Podcast
Replies
0
Views
462
FrontnCentrePod
FrontnCentrePod
aCunningPlan
The Footy with Broden Kelly Podcast
Replies
15
Views
1K
Canberra Pear
Canberra Pear
The Footy Couple Podcast
The Footy Couple Podcast
Replies
0
Views
705
The Footy Couple Podcast
The Footy Couple Podcast
Zanerednwhite
Zanerednwhite podcast
Replies
0
Views
640
Zanerednwhite
Zanerednwhite
Not Like This
Not Like This - AFL Podcast
Replies
16
Views
1K
Not Like This
Not Like This

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top