Analysis Who Is The Barometer?

[shewho]

This may be oversimplistic, but if we had have beaten Geelong last year, we would have finished second.

If Dixon had heard the call of "10 secs" from the ump and kicked the goal, we probably get to a GF. The way our year ended and when it ended, really hid how close we were to a top 2 finish.

Our faults last year were:

#1. forward entry
#2. forward conversion
#3. composure at times.

We have addressed all of these issues already. We recruited Watts, Rockliff, Thomas and Motlop so that we can not only address #1, but #2 and #3 also. We are now the second most experienced team by games. As a result of being so close and as a result of an excellent off season, par next year is a top 4 finish. All we need is to back up the recruitment with performance on field.

I think we know what we can expect from the majority of the list, even some of the recruits. However, there will inevitably be some players who are a key to us taking that next step.

So who is our barometer for next year? I've allowed 3 responses per person. If you want me to add someone, I will.

 

[chiwigi]

Whom?

 

[shewho]

I voted Motlop- his inconsistency does cause concern. With him on song, we are top 4, simple. If he goes missing, we will struggle.

Ryder- no viable replacement.

Polec- the modern game relies, in the main, on breaking lines. He is our premier line breaker and can run through the lines and/or kick over them. How he goes will determine how far we go.

 

[badbeats]

Thomas but no Wines or Wingard?

 

[Ateen7tee]

I really wanted to select 'Wines', but alas not an option.

We need Wines to become the beast that he can be. An unstoppable force!


Chose Polec instead!

 

[dirty2]

When polec is on song... makes us a hard team to beat....

 

[SureBuddy]

I would say our wingers, Motlop and Polec. If those two are firing, we won't be losing many games.

Would be tough to find a team that has more class and skill on both wings.

 

[Grave Danger]

Josh Carr

 

[DaTBird187]

Let me check.

 

[edgie]

We became pretty reliant on Dixon this year, to the point where two games can directly be put down to him missing his chances.

Therefore, I'm going Charlie. He doesn't need to start, but if he's making the most of his opportunities, we're winning.

 

[RangaInTeal]

We became pretty reliant on Dixon this year, to the point where two games can directly be put down to him missing his chances.

Therefore, I'm going Charlie. He doesn't need to start, but if he's making the most of his opportunities, we're winning.

I would go the opposite and ask if no Charlie, then who do we replace him with that is going to Crash, Chase and Intimidate like he?

 

[Janus]

Hartlett.

Reasoning is if Hamish is playing well it means that a) our team defence is humming and b) he’s pushing forward and kicking goals, which means our attack is humming too.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Polec. If he isn't getting the ball, it means our midfield is struggling.

 

[simba_]

Ryder because I like him

 

[Visenfest]

Polec for the reason noted by Feel.

Ryder because if he's down, so is the whole midfield.

 

[chiwigi]

Most essential to a good performance is clearly Ryder.

If they are playing well then it means the team is playing well Polec and Hartlett.

 

[Andre]

A barometer player, IMO, has to largely stand on his own performances. Having outside players or forwards that stay mainly forward or key backs as barometers puts their status in others hands to a large degree. Throwing up the usual proviso that with 18 on the field we can carry a few players being s**t if everyone else is playing to their best, it'd have to be Ryder, a centre midfielder or Dixon for me. For 2017 it was definitely Ryder. I think with support to let him be more accountable for one opposition player, Dixon next year.

Though as per the first bit, I'd hope with our recruits this off-season, plus our improvements elsewhere that we aren't so reliant on a few, as to whether we're on or off.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

When Ryder has a poor game or poor for a large chunk of a game, we lose
Adelaide x 2, poor after 1/4 time in game 1, very poor all of game 2. Missed GWS game. Average against Geelong. Smashed against Essendon. Gawn beat him easily in the first half when Melbourne smashed us early. Very very poor first half and ok second against WCE in the final.

Other games we lost but he did well in were the WCE and Richmond games at AO when we pissed the wins up against the wall with poor goal kicking and all the stats except for one, ie goals kicked, in both those games said we should have won.

The coaches votes confirm this. In order of the games I mentioned out of 25 he got 10,0,0,9,4,5,1 and 18,14. Ryder polled another 180 votes in the 14 games we won.

 

[Kingfish73]

Wingard. When is playing at his best we beat quality teams

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Donny burke

 

[JayPea14]

If Polec isn't up and about we struggle...when he's firing the team generally is

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

1. When Chad Cornes is up and about everyone knows it. He is really invested in the outcome of games and can show a bit more emotion than the players.

2. When Travis Boak plays well, we win.

3. Tom Jonas. Tommy chips in as the third man in the big contests, provides the ‘45’ get out option, and brings some physicality. When Tommy is in the game for extended periods, we play well. We he drifts in and out, we are inconsistent.

 

[Pappagallo]

You know we’re in for a good day when Westhoff starts kicking goals with his beard.

 

[shewho]

I've added Wingard and Wines to the options. You can change your vote if you wanted them.

While important, you generally know what you are going to get from them. Same could be said of Boak I suppose.

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

R. Gray........Wingard,Polec & Ryder. Daylight between last 3. Dixon is always solid a is why I didn’t choose him.