Listen NOW to Part 1of the Lunchtime Catch Up mid-season review. We review and score every player’s year to date. This week the first 20 players. Tomorrow Part 2 of the remaining players. Hope you like
can’t say I agree with Grant’s assessment of Luey
would be very lucky to be on the list next year imo
I’m not sure he is on the list now.
What’s his status? I’m not sure anyone knows.
Thanks guys… The differences in your markings were pretty amusing!
Agree with Grant on Zerrett… Very harsh by Scotty.
Agree with Scott on Stewart… I don’t agree with Grant on this one. We needed him to step up with Joe out… that hasn’t happened. The forwards have let us down so far this season.
Look forward to the next ep. I reckon there will be plenty of disagreement for the next group of players!
… Do you reckon you would be able to get Joe on the podcast… Would love to know how he is going.
Mutchs ability to read the play is his weapon.
Agreed with donut.
Leuys time should’ve been done last year. He’s cooked hasn’t effectively done good tap work for us since his first year.
Getting players is tough as club can be protective of them outside of media. We can still ask though
Yeah, I thought that would be the case…
Understand getting current players is tough.
Would hooker or Bellchambers be up for it given their media stuff last year.
Goddard seems to do all our media this year.
Zaka does a little as well, maybe you could get him while he’s out injured.
Scooter seemed a little harsh on some players. Leuy, Zerrett
You guys will have to do ratings end of year now too I think.
Back again because I listened to the rest. Agree with all grant said about Stewart. But that’s not a 7/10 performance that should be the bare minimum for a key forward so think 5/10 is appropriate.
Presenting 2nd efforts are good. But that stutter step has to go.
Yeh I think I had Stewart 5/10
Thought it was interesting how @CJohns was rating the players relative to their ability, which meant a player could get a higher mark even if they weren’t playing as well, or contributing less to the side.
It would probably be more consistent to rate the player’s perceived current potential (PCP) out of 10 as well as rating their performance relative to that potential (PRP) out of 10.
To get a bit carried away with how to make this work so you ended up with a figure that represents their current value to the side relative to each other …
PCP x PRP x 10 = a number out of 10 which reflect how good they are right now.
So if a player had a 10 out of 10 potential (PCP) and were performing at 10 out 10, then
10/10 x 10/10 x 10 = 10
Where if their PCP was 8 and their level of performance relative to that potential was 5, then:
8/10 x 5/10 x 10 = 4
This would give a picture of both how you rated a player’s potential and actual performance, relative to each other.
If you wanted to go the whole hog with player rating then you might throw in a perceived future potential, which would quantify, for example, the reason to persevere with a young player with a higher ceiling versus a known quantity or a player in decline.
Well done Scott and Grant - very difficult job trying to rate each player. I don’t think Joe D should have been rated because he was playing injured before finally being given time off to recover.
I like that you defended Myers and BJ - I agree.
Really enjoy your podcast - Love the passion and honesty of the discussion.
But just one thing… Please, please Grant don’t call Zerk-Thatcher ‘maggie’… It conjures up horrible images!
Fair call on Joe. Hope it came across that I wasn’t really sure on rating him too tbh
Yes it did. I would never doubt your intentions when it comes to discussing the club.
Dutch biscuit, huh? Are they cooked in a dutch oven?
So did you average the player scores, see how far it was above the team score, and attribute the difference to the coaches?
I think you are leaving out a synchronicity score which is dependent on team line-up.
Eg: when JD is functioning at CHF with Hooker at FF which brings Raz, Walla and Green and Stewart all into a more synergistic unit which is greater than the sum of the parts.
Mind you it is often up to the coaches and selection panel to create some synchronicity when a given line-up and/or game plan aren’t working. So perhaps the coaching outcome could be rated against an team score that can either under-achieve, meet expectation or as is evident in Richmond, well exceeds the sum of the parts. So in short I concur with your sentiment.
“In short” we synchronised. Eventually.
Now that would be nerdy but impressive if we did!!! But in reality it was an un-scripted open chat with a gut feel on the spot rating. I might go back and do the average score and see if it is close to coaches score however