Was last week the worst ever performance by the Adelaide Crows?

[SugarShane]

Worst game I remember (that I was at!)


Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final

Brisbane Lions 3.6 8.11 18.12 29.15 189
Adelaide Crows 2.2 4.6 6.10 6.12 48

You'd give their 4th quarter effort a passing grade i reckon. 11.3 to 0.2.

 

[Mattrox]

I do want to address some of the "playing the Kids" myths.

Last year round 1:
Lynch, Tom 21y 198d 7
Otten, Andy 22y 321d 42
Petrenko, Jared 22y 100d 37
Sloane, Rory 22y 14d 34
Smith, Brodie 20y 78d 15
Talia, Daniel 20y 181d 10
Walker, Taylor 21y 341d 46
7 players under 23 and less than 50 games, + Callinan on 4 games and Sam Jacobs had less than 50 games at this stage too.

A snap shot at round 5:
Lynch out, but Henderson is getting a go at under 50 games, Lyons makes his debut. Walker's 50th game.
Lyons, Jarryd 19y 282d 1
McKernan, Shaun 21y 241d 19
Wright, Matthew 22y 137d 21
Jaensch, Matthew 22y 224d 26
A total of 10 players under 23 and less or equal to 50 games.

At round 12:
Jenkins now has 5 games for us, not a youngster, but is getting a run. Remembering that Dangerfield is still 22 and Walker now has more than 50 games.
Shaw, Sam 21y 63d 3
A total of 7 players under 23 and less than 50 games. Martin was in but is older than 23.


At round 19:
Petrenko and Sloane have had their 50 games now and drop off the list.
Riley, Aidan 20y 236d 6
5 players under 50 games and less than 23.

Now the players we played who were 23 or under and less than 50 games at the beginning of last season with the number of games they played.
Sloane, Rory

24​

Wright, Matthew

22​

Smith, Brodie

22​

Walker, Taylor

19​

Petrenko, Jared

23​

Talia, Daniel

23​

Shaw, Sam

14​

Jaensch, Matthew

10​

Otten, Andy

6​

Lynch, Tom

6​

Riley, Aidan

5​

McKernan, Shaun

6​

Thompson, Luke

3​

Lyons, Jarryd

3​

Brown, Luke

3​

Johnston, Lewis

1​

Kerridge, Sam

1​

We used a total of 38 players, about middle of the road. Interesting to note that Hawthorn used 34 and Sydney the lowest on 31.

Given we have been playing between 8 and 10 less than 50 gamers this season I do not see how a "We are not playing the kids" call can be made. Even last year the "why are we not playing the kids" calls are more or less diversionary catch crys to hide some agenda, perhaps dropping whipping boys....

I think we might be forgetting that many of the players we have this year are still young in terms of development and we are expecting them to perform like seasoned 25 -27 year olds.

 

[Jack is Back]

I do want to address some of the "playing the Kids" myths.

You have a strange definition of KIDS.

The description originally referred to players in their first or second year on an AFL list excluding mature recruits. I'm surprised that you haven't included Ian Callinan. These KIDS are usually 18 or 19 years old at the start of the season. In what universe would Tom Lynch and Lewis Johnson be considered KIDS.

As I said in an earlier post, a 22 year old at Geelong is more likely to be called SKIPPER than a KID. The KIDS currently on our list are Atkins, Siggins, Grigg, Joyce, Ellis-Yolmen, Crouch, Laird and Kerridge. Brown was overlooked in his draft year and has been playing senior footy for 3 years. Lyons is also in his third year of senior footy and Tom Lynch is almost ready for pro-rata long service leave.

I will provide you with a comparison of games played by KIDS for all 18 teams in the mid-season break. Last year we ranked something like 15th but of course that didn't include Callinan, Reilly and van Berlo as KIDS

 

[Mattrox]

You have a strange definition of KIDS.

The description originally referred to players in their first or second year on an AFL list excluding mature recruits. I'm surprised that you haven't included Ian Callinan. These KIDS are usually 18 or 19 years old at the start of the season. In what universe would Tom Lynch and Lewis Johnson be considered KIDS.

As I said in an earlier post, a 22 year old at Geelong is more likely to be called SKIPPER than a KID. The KIDS currently on our list are Atkins, Siggins, Grigg, Joyce, Ellis-Yolmen, Crouch, Laird and Kerridge. Brown was overlooked in his draft year and has been playing senior footy for 3 years. Lyons is also in his third year of senior footy and Tom Lynch is almost ready for pro-rata long service leave.

I will provide you with a comparison of games played by KIDS for all 18 teams in the mid-season break. Last year we ranked something like 15th but of course that didn't include Callinan, Reilly and van Berlo as KIDS

But you want to play kids who are not AFL ready. Kerridge was a rabbit in the headlights last year. And in a year of build players confidence I can see why he wasn't selected again. This year he looks to be AFL ready.

Last year the Swans were the worst at bringing in new talent. They won a premiership.

Your kids theory doesn't hold water, because no matter what the age (up to a point) if the player has less than 50 games they are in experienced. Sando played the 1st cabs off the rank with less than 50 games.

I have also previously provided data about teams playing large numbers of kids ~ 10 at the most for non-cellar dwellars or expansion teams.

The Club has 2 concerns; winning games and developing players. If you throw out the first, then you will lose fans and sponsors before the second will happen.

Your agenda to axe the experienced veterans, is flawed. It is those experienced guys that the kids learn from, playing with club legends in awe-inspiriong and helps the young guys to lift. Your barrow pushing includes denegrating our older players by calling them "journeymen" like its some kind of insult. Apart from Callinan who has journeyed far and wide to get a game, the correct term for those players is Club Stalwarts. Axing veterans for the sake of axing them is really disruptive. This youngsters would be thinking "far out man, if he can't get a game, what hope am I". It destablises the team.

When players form drops, sure the club should play youngsters in front of them. The fact is that we haven't had top 10 draft pick access to the ready-made players like Wines and O'Meara. We do have Crouch, but your eagerness to include him, has lead you to miss that he was being managed for injury.

The fact that Lyons and Crouch are travelling emergencies means a lot. It is a clear signal to them and Jaensh, Wright, Callinan, Reilly and co that these two young guys are next in line and will take their spots if they don't perform. Yes I'd rather see them in the team, but I'd rather them feel the accomplishment of earning a spot by pushing others out than giving them a complete gift of a game.

I have already stated my selection preferences so no need to re-hash. But just because the club makes a decision you don't like, doesn't mean an axe grinding rant is required either.

 

[Mattrox]

As I said in an earlier post, a 22 year old at Geelong is more likely to be called SKIPPER than a KID. The KIDS currently on our list are Atkins, Siggins, Grigg, Joyce, Ellis-Yolmen, Crouch, Laird and Kerridge. Brown was overlooked in his draft year and has been playing senior footy for 3 years. Lyons is also in his third year of senior footy and Tom Lynch is almost ready for pro-rata long service leave.

Now to tackle this part specifically.

1st Kerridge is 20 now so he isn't one of your kids anymore. But I'll call him one. But if you want to call him a kid based on he turned 20 this year...., Brown is only 7 moths older.... where do you draw the line?

Tom Lynch spent 2 years at St. Kilda......... enough said. Last year we played him in the same number of games as St. Kilda did. We are infact developing him.

I have already stated my position, last year in fact, that experience rather than age is a better way to classify the kids. Someone like Dangerfield I put on par with the 22yo at Geelong.

Oh, back to Geelong. They manage to play 9 or 10 "kids" under 50 games and still have an average age North of 25. This speaks volumes about how they respect their elder statesmen. We do not have the luxury of this, and despite the numerical value of our teams age we are very inexperienced on the park.

Apart from Crouch, Laird and Kerridge, would Grigg be the next player ready to be selected from your list and the others not close to ready.... ok maybe E-Y might be close? Given the first 3 are currently in the team rotation that is pretty good going by the club.

Where does Aiden Riley fit into this? He's 21.5 yo. So is he too old to play and de-list? Or if some posters are correct, he'll turn put a gem. He'd have to be close to selection wouldn't he? If he were selected would you be happy?

I'll list the teams fielded with an average age less than us last round: GWS, Gold Coast, Melbourne. That was despite us playing Callinan.

 

[Jack is Back]

But you want to play kids who are not AFL ready. Kerridge was a rabbit in the headlights last year. And in a year of build players confidence I can see why he wasn't selected again. This year he looks to be AFL ready.

Last year the Swans were the worst at bringing in new talent. They won a premiership.

Your kids theory doesn't hold water, because no matter what the age (up to a point) if the player has less than 50 games they are in experienced. Sando played the 1st cabs off the rank with less than 50 games.

I have also previously provided data about teams playing large numbers of kids ~ 10 at the most for non-cellar dwellars or expansion teams.

The Club has 2 concerns; winning games and developing players. If you throw out the first, then you will lose fans and sponsors before the second will happen.

I have already stated my selection preferences so no need to re-hash. But just because the club makes a decision you don't like, doesn't mean an axe grinding rant is required either.

Is that you Steven?

It is always a question of balance, too many KIDS and the team performance falls. Too few KIDS and you end up with no players in the 40 - 60 game range when they either take off or **** off.

At the start of 2012 we had many players in this range and Dangerfield, Jacobs, Sloane and Tex continued to improve and we expect they will all be very good players for the AFC over the years ahead whereas the jury is still out for Petrenko and Otten.

From the current batch, Talia (43 games) and Smith (43) are a very good bet but I wouldn't put any money on Gus Graham (48) and the jury is still out for Wright (49), Jaensch (40), McKernan (28) and Henderson (48).

We need to either flick the less experienced players (e.g. martin (18)) or get them to the 40+ game mark asap. This includes Lynch (20), Kerridge (9), Jenkins (22), Brown (13), Shaw (14), Lyons (8), Laird (7) and Crouch (4).

I said at the start of last season that it would not help our quest to win another flag to give Johncock, Doughty, Callinan, Symes, Tambling and Porplyzia heaps of games. I think I'm winning that argument.

 

[Mattrox]

Is that you Steven?

It is always a question of balance, too many KIDS and the team performance falls. Too few KIDS and you end up with no players in the 40 - 60 game range when they either take off or **** off.

At the start of 2012 we had many players in this range and Dangerfield, Jacobs, Sloane and Tex continued to improve and we expect they will all be very good players for the AFC over the years ahead whereas the jury is still out for Petrenko and Otten.

From the current batch, Talia (43 games) and Smith (43) are a very good bet but I wouldn't put any money on Gus Graham (48) and the jury is still out for Wright (49), Jaensch (40), McKernan (28) and Henderson (48).

We need to either flick the less experienced players (e.g. martin (18)) or get them to the 40+ game mark asap. This includes Lynch (20), Kerridge (9), Jenkins (22), Brown (13), Shaw (14), Lyons (8), Laird (7) and Crouch (4).

I said at the start of last season that it would not help our quest to win another flag to give Johncock, Doughty, Callinan, Symes, Tambling and Porplyzia heaps of games. I think I'm winning that argument.

I still think that selection on form is a better selection process than age. Johncock's form dropped and he is out. But I think a lot of people on here, based on the selections thread, would not conceed that you are correct with Johncock, based on age alone.

With Doughty last year, his form in the latter part of the season was good. Had we snuck through the prelim, he would have thoroughly deserved to be a grand finalist.

Callinan was our 2nd leading goal kicker along with Tippett last year. He was a major reason in us making into finals and getting younger players experience, albeit Talia missed 2 finals.

Tambling and Symes, I think people have conceeded were a lost cause a long time ago, not because of age but because they are/were not up to it.

 

[Jack is Back]

I still think that selection on form is a better selection process than age. Johncock's form dropped and he is out. But I think a lot of people on here, based on the selections thread, would not conceed that you are correct with Johncock, based on age alone.

With Doughty last year, his form in the latter part of the season was good. Had we snuck through the prelim, he would have thoroughly deserved to be a grand finalist.

Callinan was our 2nd leading goal kicker along with Tippett last year. He was a major reason in us making into finals and getting younger players experience, albeit Talia missed 2 finals.

Tambling and Symes, I think people have conceeded were a lost cause a long time ago, not because of age but because they are/were not up to it.

I have never said that we should drop Rutten, I've even defended van Berlo and Reilly. I have not said that we should never play Porplyzia, Callinan and Johncock ever again. I have never suggested (unlike some others) that we should play CEY, Joyce, Atkins or Siggins.

My point has been that if it is a line ball decision then we should play the developing player. We should also fast track our few quality KIDS. I doubt if Sam Kerridge thinks he is being fast tracked compared to other top 30 draft choices in the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

 

[Vader]

My point has been that if it is a line ball decision then we should play the developing player. We should also fast track our few quality KIDS. I doubt if Sam Kerridge thinks he is being fast tracked compared to other top 30 draft choices in the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

Compare him against his peers.. He was drafted at #27, so comparing him with the top-10 is a bit ridiculous. Here's how many games have been played by players drafted 17-37 (Kerridge's draft position +/- 10):
17 - Clay Smith (Foots) - 25 games
18 - Brad McKenzie (North) - 2 games
19 - Elliot Kavanaugh (Essendon) - 3 games
20 - Hayden Crozier (Freo) - 8 games
21 - Tom Mitchell (Sydney F/S) - 2 games
22 - Joshua Bootsma (Carlton) - 10 games
23 - Murray Newman (West Coast) - 4 games
24 - Henry Schade (Gold Coast) - 0 games
25 - Sebastian Ross (St Kilda) - 9 games
26 - Todd Elton (Richmond) - 1 game
27 - Sam Kerridge (Adelaide) - 9 games
28 - Fraser McInnes (West Coast) - 0 games
29 - Alex Forster (Freo) - 0 games
30 - Elliott Yeo (Brisbane) - 17 games
31 - Jackson Merrett (Essendon) - 7 games
32 - Joel Hamling (Geelong) - 0 games
33 - Bradley Hill (West Coast) - 14 games
34 - Shane Kersten (Geelong) - 0 games
35 - Daniel Markworth (St Kilda) - 0 games
36 - Rory Taggert (Melbourne) - 0 games
37 - Jack Newnes (St Kilda) - 16 games

So.. of Kerridge's peers, only 5 of 20 have played more games than he has; 7 of 20 have yet to make their AFL debut; the average games played for the group is just 5.9 (Kerridge is 50% above average). I'd say he's doing OK relative to his peers.. but don't let the facts get in the way of a good agenda.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Jack is just excited that Tippetts ban is over and he gets to watch him line up for Gold Coast next week.

 

[Jack is Back]

Compare him against his peers.. He was drafted at #27, so comparing him with the top-10 is a bit ridiculous. Here's how many games have been played by players drafted 17-37 (Kerridge's draft position +/- 10):
17 - Clay Smith (Foots) - 25 games
18 - Brad McKenzie (North) - 2 games
19 - Elliot Kavanaugh (Essendon) - 3 games
20 - Hayden Crozier (Freo) - 8 games
21 - Tom Mitchell (Sydney F/S) - 2 games
22 - Joshua Bootsma (Carlton) - 10 games
23 - Murray Newman (West Coast) - 4 games
24 - Henry Schade (Gold Coast) - 0 games
25 - Sebastian Ross (St Kilda) - 9 games
26 - Todd Elton (Richmond) - 1 game
27 - Sam Kerridge (Adelaide) - 9 games
28 - Fraser McInnes (West Coast) - 0 games
29 - Alex Forster (Freo) - 0 games
30 - Elliott Yeo (Brisbane) - 17 games
31 - Jackson Merrett (Essendon) - 7 games
32 - Joel Hamling (Geelong) - 0 games
33 - Bradley Hill (West Coast) - 14 games
34 - Shane Kersten (Geelong) - 0 games
35 - Daniel Markworth (St Kilda) - 0 games
36 - Rory Taggert (Melbourne) - 0 games
37 - Jack Newnes (St Kilda) - 16 games

So.. of Kerridge's peers, only 5 of 20 have played more games than he has; 7 of 20 have yet to make their AFL debut; the average games played for the group is just 5.9 (Kerridge is 50% above average). I'd say he's doing OK relative to his peers.. but don't let the facts get in the way of a good agenda.

Cut off point is draft number 16, convenient?

And how many of the players you have named have been clearly best on ground (a perfect 10 in the coaches award) 2 games before they were dropped? Phil Davis didn't even make the top 5 before being savagely dropped for an All Australian Centre Half Back.

We were reliably informed that Sam was an absolute steal in the draft so even if you accept that top 10 draft picks are different why don't you look at 11-16.

(11) Green - 29
(12) Docherty - 4
(13) Adams - 22
(14) Smith - 30
(15) Ellis - 29
(16) Sheridan - 1

An inconvenient truth? I'll let you do the maths Vader.

 

[Mattrox]

But my whole point is that the AFC is not doing as bad a job at blooding young kids and developing them. Infact you pointed out in the other thread how well some of the previous kids have come along.

 

[Vader]

Cut off point is draft number 16, convenient?

And how many of the players you have named have been clearly best on ground (a perfect 10 in the coaches award) 2 games before they were dropped? Phil Davis didn't even make the top 5 before being savagely dropped for an All Australian Centre Half Back.

We were reliably informed that Sam was an absolute steal in the draft so even if you accept that top 10 draft picks are different why don't you look at 11-16.

(11) Green - 29
(12) Docherty - 4
(13) Adams - 22
(14) Smith - 30
(15) Ellis - 29
(16) Sheridan - 1

An inconvenient truth? I'll let you do the maths Vader.

I chose the cutoff point as being +/- 10 picks either side of where he was selected. It's not exactly comparing apples with apples if you wish to compare him with players taken >10 positions higher than him in the draft.

As for him being "an absolute steal".. I suppose you believe everything that comes out of the mouths of the recruiters on draft day. If Rendell is to be believed then every single player he selected, from Dangerfield at #10 to Kite in the '70s was in his list of top-10 most desirable players from the draft. I've got a bridge for sale - care to make a bid?

Yes, he was dropped 2 games after starring against North. That's 2 games in which he was absolutely putrid, making Porplyzia look good in the process. Kids will be inconsistent - up one week, down the next. Suck it up and get over it.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

If you bothered to read the original post you would discover that I was referring specifically to thrashings at Footy Park.

Yeh, except you weren't. This is the question you actually posed in the OP:

I think it is probably our worst ever performance (well excluding finals which should be judged separately). Where does everyone else rate last week's match?

I can see how a thrashing at home is worse than the exact same thrashing away, but it's only one factor when taking into account worst performances. To claim its our worst ever performance and then refuse to consider performances away from home, games which on your own stats constitute 90% of our all time thrashings, is completely disingenuous.

But if you insist on limiting it to home games, I'm going to put forward round 4 2011 when we somehow conspired to give up 10 consecutive goals to Port to turn a 34 point 2nd quarter lead into a 32 point loss. Port would go on to win 2 more games that year and became the first team to lose to Gold Coast the following week. They avoided the wooden spoon on percentage when they beat Melbourne in the last game of the year. For those following at home, yes this was the same year that Melbourne beat us by 100-odd points.

Forget the margin, I have never seen a more pathetic Crows performance than that night. I'm a bit young to remember, but from what I'm told it sounds like it rivals "that" Fitzroy game.

If there has been a worse Crows performance on our home deck than that Showdown, it may have been six weeks later when Brisbane hammered us by 40 points. In fairness, they were tougher opposition than Port though. The Lions won 4 games that year.

 

[jangofett]

You have a strange definition of KIDS.
In what universe would Tom Lynch and Lewis Johnson be considered KIDS.

lynch is young for his draft year. And i remember last year that the footy club said in the media that lynch was basically not developed properly at stkilda and hadnt put on any weight

And Johnston hasnt played at all really, so hes basically a shiny toy atm.

Maybe play the kids isnt the right word, should be 'play the new guys, see what they have got'

 

[Vader]

Care to revise the OP's stupidity, in light of today's game? Last week we lost to one of the best teams in the competition, playing at their very best. This week we lost to ****ing Richmond, in a performance that was at least 10-20x worse than last week's effort.

Or do we have to forget about today's game because it wasn't played at Football Park?

 

[Jack is Back]

Care to revise the OP's stupidity, in light of today's game? Last week we lost to one of the best teams in the competition, playing at their very best. This week we lost to ****ing Richmond, in a performance that was at least 10-20x worse than last week's effort.

Or do we have to forget about today's game because it wasn't played at Football Park?

Today was very disappointing but it was a game that impatial observers didn't expect us to win.

I agree with posters who said that "our worse ever loss" is not the same as our biggest loss. IMHO the worst loss relates to how we perform compared to reasonable expectations. Last week we were a $2-40 chance to win and didn't give a whimper, this week we were a $3-20 chance and barely gave a whimper.

As I said earlier, I don't consider last week oyur worst ever loss but I do rate it in the top ten.