Where are we at?

[Bicco]

Are you saying it's kind of a litmus test?

Probably more of an acid test.

 

[youmewe]

Don't buy into the media BS regarding our close wins. Good teams win close games, poor teams lose close games. This idea that it is luck isn't true. The Hawks three-peat was all about getting over the line in those types of games. Finding a way to win. I'm annoyed what should be being celebrated as our new (and much younger) team showing great character was replaced with a chart showing us 3rd bottom if we hadn't have won those games. It's ****** rude and I assure you the Hawks weren't described in those terms after winning a close one from '13-'15.

A dynasty which almost never happened. Went very close to missing the 2012, 2013 and 2014 GF's altogether.

2012 PF: d Adelaide 97-92.
2013 PF: d Geelong 102-97.
2014 PF: d Port Adelaide 97-94.



2015 PF: d Freo 94-67.

 

[EastcoastDocker]

Freo has one of the best and most versatile midfields in the AFL. On any given day that can win you the game.

 

[armpit]

A favourable is doing us a big favour, although we're knocking over sides like the doggies and Richmond, despite the latter's flakiness.
If we finish the next game close to the crows, we can be a little bit excited.

Yes happy and excited, but just a little bit.

 

[armpit]

We're a realistic chance of pinching 8th spot here. Of the games to come, we would have to be reasonable favourites in five of them - that gets us to 11 wins. Four of the away games would be unlikely to get any points. Given that we'd need 13 wins to get into the finals, I reckon (as long as we don't drop an "easy" one) we'll have to win two of the 50:50 games: St Kilda (Subi), North (Etihad), WCE (Subi) and Essendon (Etihad). All tough encounters, but you have to win games like that to be a contender.

R10: Adelaide (A)
R11: Collingwood (H)
R12: Brisbane (A)
R14: Geelong (A)
R15: St Kilda (H)
R16: North Melbourne (A)
R17: West Coast (H)
R18: Hawthorn (H)
R19: GWS (A)
R20: Gold Coast (H)
R21: Sydney (A)
R22: Richmond (H)
R23: Essendon (A)

Good list. Next game obviously might change things. But! if we don't beat geelong next time we play them I'll be in disbelief. That goes for west coast too.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Good list. Next game obviously might change things. But! if we don't beat geelong next time we play them I'll be in disbelief. That goes for west coast too.

Geelong away is a formidable task.

 

[theGav56]

The fitness of Bennell will determine how far we go this season, and of course injuries, but that applies to all teams. We lack depth though now, with all the delistings from last year.

To be honest I would rather bank on Fyfe's ability to hit peak performance, or Logue to step up, or A Pearce to return, or Ballantyne to turn in a career best streak. The bigger part of 2 years out won't end in us going deep in the finals.

 

[freo_leo29]

Where are we at?

5th place, our first time in the 8 since finishing top of the ladder in 2015, feels good to be back here.

 

[Arcassius]

Probably more of an acid test.

Part of a titration?

 

[Bicco]

Part of a titration?

Its all a bit basic.

 

[PurpleEyes]

In 2017, Freo still have big problems with their Forwards scoring efficiency. Geelong currently leads the competition with scoring goals 31% of the time they have an Inside50. Freo's is just 23% (likewise Western Bulldogs have the same problems as Freo and theirs is currently even less than ours at 22%).

Freo's scoring goals efficiency is just 18.6% for the 3 games lost. For our 6 games won, it is much better at 25.6%.

To give you an idea of just how bad our goal scoring efficiency still is, if Freo were scoring Goals per Inside 50 with the same efficiency that Geelong does, then Freo would currently be 8 wins 1 loss. That is, all other things being the same, just by magically changing Freo's scoring efficiency, we would have also beaten both Geelong and West Coast and would be sitting one game clear on top of the AFL Table with a percentage of 116.4%.

I can't see Freo, by the end of 2017, scoring as efficiently as Geelong, Adelaide, West Coast or Essendon, who all have good KPFs, so I see some limitation to our success this year. But, we can definitely improve from our current very poor goal scoring efficiency and have done so already since our first two games of the season, in which it was just 19.1%, vs our last three games at 26.1%.

It's worth noting that Freo's highest scoring efficiency was in Round7 FR vs ES (30.4%) when Taberner kicked 4 goals and took 7 Contested Marks. I think that statistic is startling and shows just how important it is to persist with Taberner in 2017. Likewise, if Freo want to win games in 2017, rebuild selection choices may need to take a back seat. That is, the likes of D.Pearce provide far better inside 50's, scoring involvements and metres gained, than a player like Tucker. Yes D.Pearce may cost Freo a turnover or two extra per game, but he does improve Freo's scoring capability.

 

[Kenny_01]

Our midfield is only just finding form. Games are won and lost through the midfield battle.

I feel like 2016 has caused pessimism amongst the supporter group. We aren't that young; while we are playing 3rd year players Blakely, Langdon and Weller, the crux of our team have been around for a while with a sprinkling of new recruits. Yes we also have youngsters like Hughes now regularly in our best 22 and first and second year players have been given plenty of game time, but they are blended in well with experienced players.

So IF our midfield can stay healthy and continue building form, then there is no reason why we can't play finals in 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unique Name]

Good post PurpleEyes Interesting to read.

That Essendon game was our best for marks inside 50. The extra tall stretched the Bombers backline and allowed Tabs and Kersten to have a mismatch at times.

Our tall setup didn't work on the weekend mainly due to the weather. We played wet weather football for the majority of the game and bombed it long for yardage. The Hill bros didn't impact the game on the outside so a lot of our inside 50's were kicks from the pack.

I hope we persist with the three tall forwardline. In dry conditions it will be easier for us to score with more targets.

 

[Bender571]

Likewise, if Freo want to win games in 2017, rebuild selection choices may need to take a back seat. That is, the likes of D.Pearce provide far better inside 50's, scoring involvements and metres gained, than a player like Tucker. Yes D.Pearce may cost Freo a turnover or two extra per game, but he does improve Freo's scoring capability.

I reckon that might be influenced by Pearce having 84% time on ground compared to Tucker's 58% as well as Tucker playing predominately in the back half.

 

[PurpleEyes]

I reckon that might be influenced by Pearce having 84% time on ground compared to Tucker's 58% as well as Tucker playing predominately in the back half.

Whether it's Tucker, Langdon, Hughes, Balic, Grey or Weller, the same logic applies. The only one of those close to D.Pearce's stats is L.Weller but he actually has more turnovers than D.Pearce ... it's just people don't seem to mind as much when L.Weller does it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy with our youth and like seeing them play, but you need to accept that this early in their careers, they struggle to produce more than some of our more experienced players can and from a pure offensive stats (i50s, score involvements, metres gained ...) point of view, D.Pearce still looks the better option.

EDIT: just an afterthought regarding youth vs experience ... I'm a huge Connor Blakely fan. I was posting last year how underrated he was. But having said that, RTB has stated that Freo let Barlow go last year because Blakely would be taking his spot most weeks. Well so far in 2017, Barlow has better stats than Blakely. I still struggle how we could not find a spot for Barlow on our list and I'm still convinced Freo's senior list would be better with Barlow on it for at least another 2 or 3 years.

 

[Confucius]

We've eeked out wins against sides playing average footy and been smashed by teams playing good footy. The confusing part is that no team is playing consistently good football. So, I'd rate us in the 5-14 zone.

I suspect that by the end of the year there'll be a few teams playing consistently well. And I think those teams will beat us without too much trouble. In the mean time, we'll continue to win plenty of games against the middling teams.

Finals experience would be invaluable for our youngsters.

The x-factor is of course, Bennell. If we can get him on the park and if Fyfe can regain top form, that could have a dramatic effect on our ability to score more heavily. I'm not convinced that would make us a top 4 team this year. But next year...

 

[Bicco]

Finishing 5-8th and getting a final in Melbourne, preferably at the G would be great. I'd be stoked with anything more, like winning said final.
I'll be disappointed if we miss finals but not shattered.
Also think that Bennell could be a huge X factor. Not just for his talent but the lift it would bring the team after his struggle to get on the park. Like many though I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Outshined]

Don't buy into the media BS regarding our close wins. Good teams win close games, poor teams lose close games. This idea that it is luck isn't true. The Hawks three-peat was all about getting over the line in those types of games. Finding a way to win. I'm annoyed what should be being celebrated as our new (and much younger) team showing great character was replaced with a chart showing us 3rd bottom if we hadn't have won those games. It's ****** rude and I assure you the Hawks weren't described in those terms after winning a close one from '13-'15.

Nah it's nothing to do with the media, I have enough contempt for them as is and do realize they thrive in taking the gloss off. I just think that expectations should be tempered. This is still very much a rebuild year and what we've experienced so far has been far beyond what most of us would've expected. I'm happy there's been clear development in areas which have been sorely lacking over the past couple of seasons like more attack-minded football, a commitment to blooding youth etc and a newfound propensity for coming back from a poor quarter and winning close games. At the same time, given it's still so early in the 'new era', it makes it bloody hard to figure out how good we are. You can't even use who we've beaten as guide since most teams are bipolar.

As I said originally, I'm just enjoying the ride!

 

[BStaff17]

Finals is certainly possible 6 home games remaining win 4 of those and jag a couple of wins on the road and we will be playing finals i reckon. Then from there who knows.

We certainly have enough A-grade talent in the team to get us to the finals if they all stay fit its why i suppose we were so shocked at the rubbish we dished up in the 1st few rounds. Cause we were and its proven a better team then that.

 

[Reynolds Number]

Just enjoying the ride.

A lot better than expected. It will get tougher and another big dissappointing loss will come.

Can't fault 6-3 and 5th given the state at the end of 2016 let alone end of round two this year.

Never underrate those close wins either.

 

[Big Animal]

Whether it's Tucker, Langdon, Hughes, Balic, Grey or Weller, the same logic applies. The only one of those close to D.Pearce's stats is L.Weller but he actually has more turnovers than D.Pearce ... it's just people don't seem to mind as much when L.Weller does it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy with our youth and like seeing them play, but you need to accept that this early in their careers, they struggle to produce more than some of our more experienced players can and from a pure offensive stats (i50s, score involvements, metres gained ...) point of view, D.Pearce still looks the better option.

EDIT: just an afterthought regarding youth vs experience ... I'm a huge Connor Blakely fan. I was posting last year how underrated he was. But having said that, RTB has stated that Freo let Barlow go last year because Blakely would be taking his spot most weeks. Well so far in 2017, Barlow has better stats than Blakely. I still struggle how we could not find a spot for Barlow on our list and I'm still convinced Freo's senior list would be better with Barlow on it for at least another 2 or 3 years.

ahh! the Pearced and metres gained stat one again rears it's ugly head. Putting those two things together just gets an eye roll and ignore the rest of the post (which may be otherwise good). Remember this is AFL and not javelin.

Could also highlight Suban's headbut stats.

 

[PurpleEyes]

ahh! the Pearced and metres gained stat one again rears it's ugly head. Putting those two things together just gets an eye roll and ignore the rest of the post (which may be otherwise good). Remember this is AFL and not javelin.

Could also highlight Suban's headbut stats.

Actually, D.Pearce is most valuable for his inside50 numbers ... has been for years (had the most in the league in 2015 and again has the highest average per game for Freo in 2017).
And when Freo are not scoring efficiently, more inside 50's are very important for us to win games.

 

[Proud SJW]

Players like Danyle Pearce are why players like Michael Walters have highlight reels.
Freo may have originally secured Danyle Pearce to be the highlight reel himself but if he's turned out to be a fairly valuable projectionist instead then I'm ok with that.

 

[wayToGo_]

Actually, D.Pearce is most valuable for his inside50 numbers ... has been for years (had the most in the league in 2015 and again has the highest average per game for Freo in 2017).
And when Freo are not scoring efficiently, more inside 50's are very important for us to win games.

Except this is at odds with, I think your, previous post (comparing to Adelaide, West Coast etc) about the importance of efficiency inside 50. The main reason Danyle has been a "scape goat" in recent times is because he has racked up plenty of inside 50s but they have rarely been to the advantage of our forwards. Unfortunately there is no 'inside 50 to advantage' stat (at least that we have access to publicly) but I do know in 2014 he had a below average kick retention and committed the most turnovers of all players at Fremantle - that is terrible for an outside mid. And he was no better last year. He has been a long kick but not an accurate kick.

If being efficient when the ball comes inside 50 is so important for top sides then surely it is critical that the kick i50 has to be to the advantage of our forwards? That is why players like Mundy, BHill, SHill, Kersten etc are generally far more valuable than Danyle with their i50 entries. And if you look at all of our youngsters Tucker is the one that has probably shown the most class and promise kicking inside 50 when given the opportunity (but he needs time to develop and gain confidence). Weller last year and Hughes and Blakely this year have also been better kicking i50 than DPearce was in past years. Not much point gaining a 100+ metres moving the ball from the back line to the forward line if we just burn the ball and turn it over coming inside 50. Poor i50 delivery also makes it difficult to lock it in as well - allowing easy rebound and generally increasing the chance for the opposition to score against. It's annoying because really it is just as critical as a poor kick to get out of d50 except the impact of a turn over from defence is so much more visible.

Credit to Danyle for being harder at the ball and improved the past two games but the past criticisms have been justified.

 

[Unique Name]

Actually, D.Pearce is most valuable for his inside50 numbers ... has been for years (had the most in the league in 2015 and again has the highest average per game for Freo in 2017).
And when Freo are not scoring efficiently, more inside 50's are very important for us to win games.

Lol.

Sorry do you even watch the games or are you just looking at the stat sheet?

Pearce's inside 50's have been of poor quality for years now. Anybody that uses D Pearces inside 50 count as a positive for his performance isn't watching. Watch David Mundy or Brad Hill for quality inside 50's.

There is a massive difference. Pearce rarely lowers his eyes or kicks to the advantage of a leading forward.

Edit: What WTG said.