It’s already Round 14 of the 2015 AFL Season, and each team has played 12 games. By now, we’ve got a very good idea of where everyone is at, both from a look and feel perspective and by the numbers.
There’s been a week’s delay, so without further ado here’s the latest stab at the 2015 regular season ladder.
Improper Projections: Round 13
So I said the last run was our big mid-season adjustment. Bah! There’s some more big moves in the latest run of Improper Projections.
Yes that’s right, I have West Coast near the top four now. And I’ve finally given up on Essendon – it would be a bit naïve and idiotic of me to hold my “they’ll still make it” line in the face of the evidence we’ve seen.
This week, lets have a quick fire look at how teams are faring ahead of the final 10 games of the season. I spent a lot of kilobytes laying our Carlton’s Starting with perhaps the most interesting team from a scheduling perspective, North Melbourne.
North Melbourne are firmly in frame for the Top Four…
And yes, I’m serious.
I’ve had the ‘Roos my four seed since Round 8, despite the fact they’ve only been above 0.500 for one round so far in 2015 (Round Seven). Their defensive woes are well documented, and it hasn’t really gotten any better for them despite some positional tweaks – specifically their new-found penchant for playing a spare man for much of the game.
At seventh and 11th respectively on the offensive and defensive charts, and sitting two wins outside of the top eight, North Melbourne might be battling just to make it to the second week of September.
Except guess what? North Melbourne have what may be the cushiest run home of any side in recent memory. If they’ve managed to play their draw to chalk in the first 12 games, their final 10 are most certainly cheese.
In their first 12 rounds, North Melbourne’s opponents averaged an Offensive Efficiency Rating (OER) score of 89.7, and a Defensive Efficiency Rating (DER) score of 74.9; the second hardest and hardest on these metrics, respectively. Over their remaining 10 games, North Melbourne face an average OER of 79.7 and DER of 84.7; both ranked easiest.
Does the chalk and cheese metaphor make more sense now?
Essendon face a similar scenario (OER and DER ranked first and third over the first 12 rounds, and 15th respectively over the final 10), but are coming from way too far back to be entertaining a finals spot. And if we’re talking about the ‘Dons making a run, we have to have a conversation about the Saints, too. Richmond c. 2014 doesn’t happen every year.
North Melbourne have this slate of games coming up over the next 10 weeks:
@ Gold Coast
v Geelong
v Essendon
@ Brisbane
v Carlton
@ Melbourne
v St Kilda (Tasmania)
v Fremantle
v Western Bulldogs
v Richmond (at Etihad)
I give them six of those comfortably (GCS, ESS, BRI, CAR, MEL, STK – which are the bottom six right now just quietly), three leaning heavily North Melbourne (GEE, WBD, RIC) and one probable loss (FRE). Splitting the leaning games would give North Melbourne 13 or 14 wins for the year.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them sweep the three against the Cats, Dogs and Tigers, and finish the year at 15-7 – in any case, 14 wins should be enough to be in the frame for a top-four spot.
Speaking of which…
West Coast aren’t a lock for the Top Four, and the Pies may drop out all together…
What do two of the AFL’s surprise packets have in common? In the case of West Coast and Collingwood, it’s the peculiar statistic of having played a set of teams that a net negative efficiency rating over the first 12 rounds of the season. That’s a fancy way of saying the schedule, and year-to-year fluctuations in form, have been very kind to these two teams in the opening half of the season.
Newton’s law of gravity says what goes up must come down. In the case of two high flying birds – West Coast, currently second on the ladder, and Collingwood, fifth – will they be able to withstand much tougher second half draws?
A lot has been made of West Coast’s strong start to the season, both because of and regardless of its draw. Champion Data seems to have lost interest in their weekly “Premiership Standard” trolling just as West Coast look to have thrown off the shackles of doubt. There’s irony in there somewhere.
As Cam Rose noted last week, the Eagles look to be the real deal. Their transformation under President Adam Simpson (hat tip to anyone that gets that reference) has been remarkable. The draw has conflated things somewhat, but when adjusting for the schedule West Coast are still second on the percentage table. Notwithstanding, West Coast have thrown up some very solid offensive numbers, clocking in at +31.7 on OER – behind another big bird (more on them in a minute).
But it gets tougher in the final ten games, with the Eagles flying headlong into the fourth-toughest defensive run home in the league. The average DER of their opponents ups from 83.6 (17th) to 77.1 (fourth), with dates against the top four defensive units not named West Coast to come.
Do West Coast have the chops to capitalise on their nine-win start to the year, and book the five wins (likely) required to get the double chance? With just two more trips to Melbourne, it’s probable, and I’d back them in. But the test will be sterner than it has been to this point.
It’s a similar story for fellow high flyers Collingwood, with the Pies going from a draw clearly ranked easiest in the league to something more akin to their position on the ladder. Collingwood play five of the current top eight in their last ten, sprinkled with a few cellar dwellers and mid table adversaries.
In their favour is travel. Collingwood leave the wide expanses of the Melbourne Cricket Ground just four more times; two of those mere tram trips to Docklands. That’s right, trips to Adelaide and Sydney are Collingwood’s lone jaunts out of Melbourne. Five of Collingwood’s last six games are at the ‘G, four of which are considered Collingwood home games.
So how do they go? Eight wins is a very solid platform, to be sure. Four more wins is likely to get them into September, with Round 17’s Docklands throwdown against the Dogs looming as a mini elimination final. Lose that, and finals become a more challenging equation.
Fremantle are still favourites, for now…
But let’s not kid ourselves, Fremantle, Hawthorn and Sydney (in that order) are the best three sides in the competition. And it’s between these three that the Premiership will be decided.
Fremantle’s biggest concern is the lack of forward-line potency that has crept in over the past few weeks – specifically the tall-small combination of Matthew Pavlich and Hayden Ballantyne. The two have scored just 0.6 and 0.8 goals per game respectively over the past five weeks, with the team scoring just 77 points per game (and that includes their 115 point performance against North Melbourne in Round 8).
That’s dragged their offensive efficiency to bottom four levels over that stretch, which has been enough to see Fremantle drop all the way to 10th in the season-long standings. Now it does include two rain-soaked games (against Adelaide, 68 points, and Gold Coast, 53 points), but it’s still clear the Dockers are in an offensive rut.
But guess what? To this point in the season, Fremantle has managed to up their defensive efficiency to +31.2, which is above St Kilda’s all-time record of +30.5 in 2009. And that’s been without mid-season All Australian full back Michael Johnson. Good luck scoring on these guys once he’s back.
The combination of poor form – which I’m calling transitory but let’s wait and see – of their full-time forwards, and their record setting defensive unit, plus some guy with a unisex name in a headband, still put them as Premiership favourite for me. That, plus that they face the third-weakest defensive schedule in football over their final 10 games. Plenty of chances to get that offence clicking into gear.
Speaking of clicking into gear…
Hawthorn are still here, everybody
The Hawks haven’t had the same start to the year as Fremantle in the Ws column, but there are a few statistics that hint at just how good they have been thus far in 2015.
In a season where the average game-winning margin is hovering right around six goals (35.5 points), Hawthorn’s average winning margin to this point in the season is an even 10 goals, and average losing margin is just six points. Yes that’s right: Hawthorn have conceded their four losses by a combined margin of 24 points – two thirds of the average losing margin of a single game for everybody else.
That not impressive enough for you? Well, this one will be. I’ve dusted off a favourite stat of mine: Pythagorean expected wins. You can read about it here. This model uses a team’s points for and against in the context of how everybody else is doing to allocate wins. My system also accounts for close wins and losses, because winning (or losing) games decided by less than two kicks is somewhat random.
How to Hawthorn do on this front? They should be allocated 12.4 wins.
Yes, 12.4.
Yes, I am aware they have only played 12 games.
It’s a quirk of the model that Hawthorn have been allocated more wins than is mathematically possible in the real world – Hawthorn has lost all four of its close games, to which my model is saying “if we played the last two minutes of these four games 1,000 times over, you’d expect to win two of them, so here you go”. What a nice model.
And of all the teams in the AFL, Hawthorn’s injury list is far and away the smallest – and least significant in terms of the players they do have out (sorry, Kaiden Brand).
Point is, count out the Hawks at your peril. Fremantle travel down to Tasmania in Round 15 to play the Hawks. This looms as a game to decide who the real premiership favourite is heading into the final rounds of the season.
It’s a shame it’s not at the ‘G, but I guess you’ve got to stash those unpopular teams somewhere, right?
Just one last one. You know how Hawthorn won last year’s premiership? It hasn’t been reflected in their draw; the first 12 rounds of the season suggest that Hawthorn will have played the league’s third easiest slate of games in 2015, based purely on the OER and DER of their opponents (ie not adjusting for home field, number of days break and the like). How can that be?
Geelong and Port Adelaide are (probably) cooked
Its not really the AFL’s fault. They didn’t know Hawthorn playing Geelong and Essendon twice would be advantageous to the degree it’s proven to be in 2015.
Speaking of Geelong, I’m sorry to break it to Cats fans, but it’s looking really likely that your team is going to miss the finals for the first time since 2006. Its been a good run: three Premierships, two Brownlow medallists, and a shiny new stadium. But with a draw that sees your boys take on the league’s best offensive units, and with your defensive efficiency running at 13th in the league, it’s hard to see you getting the six wins you’ll need to break into the eight.
Ditto Port Adelaide, although the task at hand for the Power is even tougher. The Power rank 12th for offensive efficiency and ninth for defensive efficiency over the first 12 rounds of the season, and in both instances it’s a failure of their forward and back units to do things with the ball once it ends up in their area of the ground.
The Power rank second last on forward 50 conversion (converting inside 50s to scoring shots), and dead last on stopping sides from converting inside the arc. That’s quite remarkable – no other side comes close to matching them in this regard. Unfortunately for Port, their final ten games sees them play the sixth-most defensively efficient slate of games, including match ups with Sydney, Essendon, Hawthorn and Fremantle. At 5-7, I can’t find the seven wins required to get them into the eight.
Sydney could sneak into the double chance
Port’s Thursday night opponent, Sydney, are still a very big chance to end the year in the top two, despite Hawthorn rising up the ranks. The Swans play a slate of games very amenable to their abilities: the third strongest offensive slate of games (which match up well to their second-in-the-league defence) and the fifth-weakest defensive set (meshes with their sixth-ranked offence).
Sydney haven’t really made me proud since I stood like a shag on a rock and said Kurt Tippett was Sydney’s most valuable player, turning in a three game OER of +1.9, ranked 11th in the league. But it’s not been the Franklin-Tippett pairing, who have averaged five goals a game between them over that stretch (and over the season). As I said in last week’s Friday Night Forecast, it’s been the Swans’ midfield letting the team down on the offensive front.
So if that’s the case, it’s quite possible that the Swans midfield brigade start hitting the scoreboard again over the final ten rounds as a function of their weak schedule, giving Sydney the scoring power then need to rack up another seven or eight wins. That would put them in the frame for a double chance.
Sifting through the bottom of the eight
So I’m pretty comfortable locking in Fremantle, Hawthorn, Sydney, North Melbourne and West Coast as the league’s top five. Collingwood are there now, but as above I can see the Pies being swallowed up by a very tough second half of the year.
If we assume the Pies fall out of the eight – and it’s certainly not a guarantee – that leaves three spots to be decided, and by my reckoning four teams to squish into them. Those teams are the Crows, Dogs, Giants and Tigers.
Richmond may just be the hottest team in football right now, having knocked off Port Adelaide, Fremantle and Sydney away from home in recent weeks. Their run built on a new-found defensive identity, with the Tigers ranked second in DER since their gritty win against the Power (behind Fremantle). Richmond have conceded scores on just 42 per cent of inside 50 entries against them in that stretch, a mark that would be second in the league if maintained over the course of a season.
With eight wins already banked, I think it’s almost certain the Tigers make it to September. The question becomes can they keep their recent run of form going and challenge for the four? It’ll take six wins, and there are definitely six winnable games on offer.
Adelaide, like Fremantle, have gotten themselves stuck in an offensive rut in recent times, with a woeful 44.1 per cent scoring accuracy killing their scoring power in the past five rounds. The Crows have also dropped off the pace defensively, conceding an average score of 90 points, including tons against GWS and Hawthorn.
Fortunately, the Crows’ draw opens up over the last 10 rounds relative to their recent run (which included Hawthorn, Fremantle and a then-rampant Giants), and with six games within the confines of Adelaide Oval – where the Crows have scored an average of 95 points per game – should help lift Adelaide from seven wins to 13.
To my mind, that leaves eighth spot open, and it’s a race between the wounded Giants and the volatile Western Bulldogs.
I eulogised the Giants season on the occasion of Shane Mumford’s untimely ankle implosion a few weeks back, and their performance against the ‘Roos in the weekend following his injury largely met expectations.
From this point, I think they’ll be struggling to crack the five wins they need to get to the magic 12 wins required to put themselves in contention for finals over the remaining part of the season. In their favour is an amenable draw – ranked 17th in OER and 13th in DER – but not in their favour is their injury list and relatively low percentage (101.0 per cent). They could still surprise, but I’d be planning holidays if I was on the Giant’s list.
So that leaves the hard-to-read Western Bulldogs. The Dogs have beaten West Coast, Richmond and Sydney, but have lost to St Kilda, Melbourne and Port Adelaide. By my reckoning, those wins and losses cancel each other out in terms of being unexpected, and so 7-5 may actually be a true reflection of where Luke Beveridge has got his team to.
Hands up if you thought the Dogs would be playing for finals with 10 rounds to go at the end of the season?
I wrote that they were on the rise after two rounds of action, but didn’t think they’d be headed for the promised land in 2015. But with the third easiest and second easiest draw from an offensive and defensive perspective respectively, is it possible? It just might be.
And now, a Wins and Losses Forecast…
**gulp**
Here goes nothing (but my reputation…).
Below is a summary of what I’ve just run through above. I’ve allocated four points and zero points for clear wins/losses, three points and one point for games that are leaning one way, and two points for games that look too close to call based on the numbers (and some gut feel, of course), as well as some of the information I’ve used above.
What do you think? Have I got your team where you think they’ll end up? Let me know below!
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Please never make any positive predictions about Freo. EVER. #KissOfDeath
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I see what you’re doing there Macca. Clever. Deploying the “nah, but you are” defence is a very tricky one to counter, well played. Oh what the hell. It’s only time. Ok your position: i) The compromised draft of the past few years has allowed Hawthorn, Sydney & Geelong to dominate the premierships since 2011. ii) The primary reason for this is that bottom and mediocre sides have had to slide back a couple of places in the draft, which has been an insurmountable handicap to them racing up the ladder and claiming the ultimate prize. So my position on these two points are: i) Probabilities are low on it having any meaningful effect to date, because the vast majority of premiership teams are built over years of draft and putting in place systems (including best practice utilising and developing talent) that allow them to overcome finals intensity. ii) This is vastly overestimated due to the following moderating factors: a) Top draft picks don’t guarantee success, two examples being Melbourne & Carlton. b) Lower picks offer some amazing talent. An easy example for me is Freo’s midfield, which gets touted as one of the best in the comp by plenty of pundits, has two rookies (Sandi & Barlow), a pick 58 (Neale) and picks 19 & 20 (Mundy & Fyfe). Even one of your favourites, Tom Bell, was a rookie and the hot star of Carlton right now, Cripps, is not a top ten pick, but a (compromised) pick 13. c) Systems & established talent in contending teams quite often don’t allow the same amount of opportunities for young players to have an impact as more nebulous young and non-contending teams. Young players are more likely to be bit players. d) A player may have great impact (on whatever timeframe), but that doesn’t transform their side into a contender (e.g. Hogan at Melbourne) e) If higher picks were available top teams also get higher picks, which they can absorb more readily into their systems. f) All this can be tied together in the problems with your hypothetical involving Cameron going to Port Adelaide. I know you struggled with the logic of causality and consequence on this one, but it does provide a pretty useful scenario to demonstrate the flaws in your logic (especially as you would use Port as the most pertinent threat to the premiers): a. PA first pick in that Cameron draft was Wingard, so PA would no have Wingard, but Cameron. b. Wingard slides down, most likely joining an immediate rival, who becomes stronger and may be better placed to steal points from PA and eroding their EoY ladder position from which to challenge. c. The most common consensus was that Patton was the #1 pick, so they would have to overlook that and pick Cameron. So the possibility (with Pattons wonky knees) of being without both Patton and Wingard in the shorter term. d. Looking at the benefit of later picks is another factor, so you could just as easily say imagine PA with Fyfe in 2014. Using the “Butterfy-Flapping-Hurricane” analogy, we pretty much know that in 99.9999999999999999r% of cases that doesn’t happen (if it did occur with any frequency this world would be uninhabitable). Why? Because there are diluting/moderating factors that make it very hard for it to happen, such as a bigger bird flapping its wings in the opposite direction, or say general principles of climate, weather, atmospheric dynamics etc. Also I don’t think compiling slight grammatical variances into a paragraph demonstrates logical inconsistencies. Particularly, when they were written in response to your rabbit warren arguments and attempts to be proven correct by asserting the same thing over and over.
Macca
Guest
Don’t be too hard on yourself Dalgety, your fo olishness didn’t bring me down to your le vel – just next time try to figure out what your position (and try to understand your oppo nents position) before you start the arg ument.
Macca
Guest
Don't be too hard on yourself Dalgety, your foolishness didn't bring me down to your level - just next time try to figure out what your position (and try to understand your opponents position) before you start the argument.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Too true Macca, engage in an argument with a fool and soon there's two fools arguing.
Macca
Guest
Dalgety - "I think it’s naive to think it’ll affect it so early", "If anything you would think the impacts will only get stronger over the next few years" "There’s an impact, just maybe not quite like the one you subscribe too" "So whatever effect there has been, it’s not going to change all that drastically anytime soon""It may be a component, I don’t think it was a big one for the last little period, possibly have some effect down the track, but then again the more time goes the more other factors can influence outcomes too.""If there is a factor, then it’s going to be an ongoing one, but I don’t think it’s a big factor." These are the statements of your position - We range from there being an impact but not being able to impact so early and getting stronger as we go, to being unsure if there is an impact but not impacting anytime soon to there being an impact but one that will be overtaken by other factors to it being an ongoing but minor factor - you can see how I am confused as to what you are trying to say. But lets just look at your final position - "If there is a factor" I am saying there is "then it’s going to be an ongoing one" I agree it will be ongoing for a while but with every draft its impact become less and the lower clubs will have been impacted earlier and harder will also get over its impacts earlier than the top clubs, "but I don’t think it’s a big factor." I didn't say it was the only factor or even a big factor but a factor none the less and as I have said repeatedly if you acknowledge there is a factor we agree on the logic - it is simply the timing and extent that is in question. As for 5 years for a draftee to make an impact I will take that as a joke - although not sure how it is funny but you definitely can't be serious!
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
If you really want a question answered, perhaps leave it to it's own post Macca. Just to satisfy your retentive urges, let's say...5 years. Earth to Macca…. what I'm saying is it aint as big a factor as you think it is. If there is a factor, then it's going to be an ongoing one, but I don't think it's a big factor. Capisci?
Macca
Guest
Dalgety - I didn't just make it specific to those players (but if you are going to use examples try to make them relevant) if you read the next paragraph I said there is a big difference between being over 30 and over 34 - how many players I the league are over 34. On the draft you don't have reams of time but your first post today was 11.07 and your last was 8.35 and you may many in between but you took 4 requests to answer the simple question and then you went with"there is an impact but not the one you want" - really that is the best you could do? If you seriously believe the dilution effects everyone equally why do people want to get as high in the draft as possible? And it should be obvious to anyone that denying clubs with poorer lists access o top quality talent will effect them more than a club with a good list, trying to deny it is the same as claiming a flat $1000 tax will effect the poor and wealthy exactly the same. As for the unnatural time, name 1 side that has dominated for as long as these 3 have in the draft era? And it is just coincidence that this extended run corresponds with the introduction of the expansion sides and free agency? Finally you say it may be 1 factor and there are others which is exactly what I have been saying but you also earlier claimed that the impact wouldn't have happened this quickly, then you siad the impact will get bigger (although it is supposedly a different undisclosed impact) and now you say there may have been an impact already and it may remain for a while but dissipate over time - hardly a consistent argument.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
On Pav: How did I know you were going to make it specific to those players, rather than about the general point of assumptions because of age. Sigh. On draft: I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer. I don't have endless reams of time to always reply in detail, so gave a more concise one because I didn't want you get all to in a huff or righteous if I let it go for any period of time. No need to get melodramatic about it. The dilution is going across the board. And is continuing to happen. So whatever effect there has been, it's not going to change all that drastically anytime soon, unless you're innovative and/or good at managing your list and the options you have. I don't think there is any "natural" or "unnatural" period of time for a team to be successful. Sure there are historical factors and/or explanations we might have for a likely period of time, but (as is the way of human endeavour) teams are always looking and searching for ways to improve their standing with what conditions they have. Each team will have different reasons too, there might also be some luck involved (which added to good planning etc gets made the most of). It may be a component, I don't think it was a big one for the last little period, possibly have some effect down the track, but then again the more time goes the more other factors can influence outcomes too.
Macca
Guest
By "Roo" I assume you mean Riewoldt but he is 2 years younger than Pav (and averaging better figures in a worse side) but Harvey is a completely different player and his form hasn't dropped off to the extent Pav's has. And there is a difference between a player over 30 and a player over 34 - especially one who play in Perth where there is a pretty solid theory that all the travel shortens careers. On the draft - If you can't answer a fairly simple question don't bother trying to discredit what others say. And again if you go back to what I said this morning on the issue - "In an era where the draft is design to equalise things that is a disproportionate representation of Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney. Now other factors (like Free agency) have played their part as well but it is naive to think the dilluting of the talent pool through the introduction of the expansion clubs hasn’t benefitted teams that had established quality lists" you haven't offered any explanation as to why those teams have had an unnaturally long period of success but you have admitted the impact of the compromised drafts will get greater, despite not stating what impact you think has occurred nor when the impact will take effect - now that is a simplistic argument.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
On Pav: My reaction is more against simplistic arguments, rather than any "blind loyalty to Pav". I do have a view that we tend to interpret some things to categorically for players over 30. I'm sure there were plenty of arguments of a similar nature about Harvey or Roo 3 or 4 years ago. On the draft: There's an impact, just maybe not quite like the one you subscribe too.
Macca
Guest
Dalgety - He is in terminal decline but that doesn't mean he is unable to make a contribution now just not for much longer - considering I have said that exact thing numerous times I don't know hoe you couldn't figure out that is what I meant - over than you blinding loyalty to Pav. Things that seem minor and incremental can effect massive change - the improvement ot the list may seem minor but it alters the team by greater than the sum of its parts, if a butterfly flaps it wings in Japan type etc etc. You are right earlier picks don't guarantee success but if you give all the clubs I mentioned access to better players at least 1 of them will get it right. And again the fact you admit an impact will occur you have to agree with the logic just not the timing so for the fourth time when do you think the impact will be felt?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
On Pav: have no problem with where he is with his career being close to the end. Your argument was that he's in terminal decline (seemingly no longer able to make a significant contribution by your wording, but just perhaps you didn't mean that), and the only explanation for his downward trend in a (small sample of) stats was his age. My argument is that there are other plausible explanations, which were written off as excuses. On the draft: Umm, minor and incremental means minor and incremental and not "massive changes". Sorry for not clarifying exactly what I meant by the example I gave, but it was an example of a common logic error people make, where they assume if event A never happened, then event B would definitely have happened. Particularly where there is a complex network of causal influences on outcomes, it's just not logically sound. Earlier picks just don't guarantee success, nevertheless the top of the ladder clubs would also get higher draft picks without the new clubs, late picks can be some of the best players on the list and draft picks (especially in teams achieving sustained success) typically take some time to be consistent and of finals hardened standard.
Macca
Guest
Dalgety - Yes I framed my argument that the end is nigh - considering he is 34 and in you own words "not the player he was 5 years ago" why is that such a big issue - I haven't said Freo should drop him, I haven't said he offers nothing to the team right now, all I have said is that he is unlikely to continue playing for a number of years as Ryan suggested only to be met by Freo tragics with excuses like "oh but it was a bit dewy" and "his role has changed so of course is isn't going to eb getting the ball and kicking goals anymore" - if you can't face the reality that Pav's great career is close to done then that's your problem but don't try to force me to drink your kool aid. On the draft you are really grasping at straws going down the "disruption to the space time continum line". The fact is that (and this can not be disputed) that had Gold Coast and GWS not come in all clubs would have had greater access to top line talent but lower to middle clubs at the time (the likes of North, Richmond, Port, West Coast, Adelaide etc) would have benefitted more becuase they a) got earlier draft picks and b) had a greater disparity between the blokes coming into the side through drafting and blokes being pushed out of the side by the draftees. And yes the difference is incremental and minor but minor incremental difference make massive changes - look at Carlton pre & post Malthouse, look at the bulldogs under Beveridge, look at the impact of Hogan at Melbourne. And the impact might get greater before it disappears but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened already and the fact you agree an impact will occur means you agree with the logic just not the timing so for the third time - when do you think the impact of players drafted between 2010 & 2012 will hit given the quality of football those players are currently playing.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Back to the draft issue. Your argument is just flawed logically. So using the Cameron-Power example. So Cameron makes a big impact at the Power, there's no GWS to lose to, Powers form picks up a bit and Primus stays on for a year or two longer, Hinkley never gets his chance (or if he does he devises a game plan around the current structure that doesn't give them such a turbo boost in form) and Port stay a middling club. Also everyone bar GWS & Gold Coast, has similar handicaps, so the difference is only incremental and minor, certainly in the previous few years (allowing for maturation and opportunity). If anything you would think the impacts will only get stronger over the next few years.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I, on the other hand, do know you have a problem with granularity Macca. So you're pinning one quote as definitive? So we'll just pretend he's never used phrases like "spreading the load", "less reliance on Pav" or that he might've said that in defence of his player and not really about what they would like to be doing, shall we? You framed the argument in terms of "the end is nigh". He's not going to be the same player he was 5 years ago, but who is. The argument I'm making is that he has been and is very likely to offer a lot of vitality and skill into the future, certainly this year. Simple stats comparisons, while easy for you to grasp, aren't really a great reflection on that given the changing of his role. Or do you not think he shouldn't have a change in role?
Macca
Guest
Don - I have no desire for Pav's desire just simply observing what should be the bleeding obvious that a 34 year old player who's output is waning doesn't have years left in his career. And he isn't going at 2 goals a game, its 1.75.
Don Freo
Guest
"And since round 3 Pav has got more than 15 touches just twice, been held goalless 4 times (he was also goalless in round 3) and has taken more than 5 marks just 3 times" They are quite good stats for a full forward. The weather has to be factored in, so the goallessness is not an issue. As we have pointed out, he has scored quite well (2 goals a game) and he continues to create 2 or 3 goals a game. Your judgement is based on perfect playing conditions at day time on sunny spring days. Stats take nothing else into consideration. I wonder if you know what you are trying to argue. If the coaching staff, the fans and the ladder position are happy with him, do you really think your contrary desire for a career demise is really going to achieve anything?
Macca
Guest
Dalgety - When you reasons aren't even backed up by the coach (ie you say they are spreading the load Ross says other players are getting in his way) and you blame the weather (as if he has played his entire career prior in perfect conditions) then they are excuses. And saying the end is coming quickly isn't an implication he has fallen off a cliff (Fallen and Falling are 2 very seperate things) it is an implication that he won't play on for a number of years like Ryan suggested. And if I was just talking about disposals then yes I would agree career worst stats would be misleading but when extra time forward (by the way when was the last time he spent significant time in the middle) is correlating to less goals and less marks then it isn't misleading. I really don't know why you Freo people have such a hard time admitting a 34 year old CHF is past his prime - it is just nature.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Reasons pal, reasons, I don't need excuses as there's nothing really at stake with our little tete-a-tete here. As the stats of goals per game in which he has scored has shown when he kicks goals he's doing it more productively than he has over the past few years. And it's not as though he's had one bag of six, seven or eight. If you knew anything about that Gold Coast game, you'd also know that a prime tactic of theirs was to flood Freo's forward line, so along with the wet weather it became particularly hard to have a functioning forward line (but hence also possibly a reason for a spike in stats). So saying "I think the end is coming very quickly" isn't an implication he's fallen/falling off a cliff? "Career worst stats" is a misleading because of the time he's spent in the midfield. No question Freo has changed the way they play and system is a factor in form for forwards (which maybe is what Ross was implying with you're quoting there, but I haven't seen that quote or the context at which it was given).