Thanks for the article.
Goes to show the importance of turnovers and how you play.
More likely to win a game when losing the turnover count comes from a team that moves it a bit slower so they have something set up behind them. Becomes more a territory battle.
That goes against us and our skill set. It annoyed me all year that playing fast doesn’t match our skill set as we couldn’t hit a target and gave up goals from turnovers. We tried to slow it down early in the year but that put further heat on our disposal. Can only win with bad disposal if you have the best fwd line which our mix in 17 was close to with Daniher, Hooker, Stewart, Fantasia and Walla. Daniher going down was huge this year.
We can go in next year with the same plan and try to structure up faster behind the ball and heavily rely on a fit Daniher. But you’d expect the foundations have been built and less time is spent on structures and more on disposal. Back off the time spent on structures and pressure and hone in our kicking skills.
From the article we can also take away Martins role and implement that into a few of our players. Stringer and Langford to be our centre clearance specialists and role forward and let heavy runners take on the midfield duty. Majority of possession should be forward of centre for those two while endurance pressure runners like Merrett, Smith, Heppell, Zaka and McGrath take over the midfield run.
Imagine a centre bounce with Belly, Langford, Stringer and one of Heppell/Parish/Myers getting a long deep clearance into Daniher, Smack, Fantasia, Walla, Merrett and Smith. The pressure on the defenders would be huge because if that ball isn’t marked by one of them good luck clearing the ball once it hits the deck. It will be a i50 stoppage or a scoring shot.
Another thing I’d like to add is the increasing trend of turnovers and scoring from this source is at 2/3. Rule changes such as longer goal square and 6-6-6 starting formations allows the other two sources to be boosted. I think they should come in to change the game up as the style of footy is here to stay. Other avenues to score and win need to come in. We don’t want to decrease turnover goals we want to boost total scores and that will happen with those two rule changes allowing more goals to come from clearances and more so kick ins.
Some of us have been saying for sometime the AFL create the narrative and then change the circumstances to fit the narrative. They make stats say what they want to prove.
For the good of the game, you are joking Garry and Gill, get your hand of it. What a pair of whankers.
Who’d have thought, AFL valuing “the vibe” above everything.
These proposed rule changes are a complete disgrace, but the “bubble” of the AFL commetariat have been convincing themselves for months.
Leave the game alone. Enforce the rules that have always existed, and if you want less congestion at stoppages, throw the thing up straight away, don’t f**K around worrying who the ruck is, and whether everyone is ready, and whether anyone is out of position. And if people slow you down pay a free against for time wasting.
Umpires need to have the guts to enforce the HTB and incorrect disposal rules. That would break up congestion very fast. Instead the indecision creates chains of stoppages, and nominating gives time for players to crowd in, as you say.
Some observations on our trade targets based on the PAV evaluation system. There’s plenty of info on the hpnfooty.com website - it’s a statistical system that attempts to measure aggregate contributions to team success. As a rule of thumb, a PAV of 20 should have you in AA consideration most years.
Dylan Shiel has a PAV of 17.86 for 2018 (this would make him the 4th most valuable player at Essendon this season, behind Hepp, Zerrett, and Smith - Daniher was our most valuable player in 2017). This is down on his output of 19.79 in 2017, and 19.28 in 2016. In other words, Shiel has been just below AA level for the past 3 seasons.
Gaff interestingly, is not well loved by PAV versus his reputation. It scored him at 15.58 for the season which is slightly higher than in 2017. He was rated the 6th most valuable player at WC in 2018. It’s actually Elliot Yeo that PAV rates as having a massive year, rating at 22.49 (7th best player in the comp). This is based on the H&A season, so not factoring in his massive final.
Mitch Wallis is an interesting one. His 2018 he scored a 12.76 which is about the same as David Myers (off of 2 less games). If we go back to his last full season, however, (2015!) He scored a PAV of 17.25 which would have him as a roughly top 50 player - he managed 6.0 clearances per game that year.
For those who want to fantasize about getting Parker, he had an underwhelming 19.94 in 2018, after being ranked top 10 in the league the two seasons prior.
Anyone mad enough to want Hannebery, he scored a 5.45 for 2018.
Dylan Shiel is not a big body like the Bont, Fyfe, Kennedy, Myers, Heppell, or even Langford are. He is actually closer to Zac Merret, who we would regard as a rover, not a “ruckrover” in the old parlance.
OK so he is good. But people keep saying we need a big body mid, Do we actually just want another good mid ?
You didn’t quite read that CD table correctly DJR, according to that, Franga is the #1 player under 25 in the competition taking into account age and expected level wrt position, over the 2018 season.
It took a somewhat conflated pastiche of stats and weighting factors to arrive at that conclusion, when we have been saying the kid is uber talented for about 3 years
Forget CD, the most important thing is, does Bruce call him “special”
