Coach Justin Longmuir

[gungho]

Our small forwards are bloody inconsistent this year.
Probably the best of them is Michael Walters

10

Michael Walters

Age

34

Ht

176cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

11.0

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.9

4star

G

1.7

5star

D

20.9

5star

K

11.8

5star

HB

9.1

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

3.3

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

13.0

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.8

4star

, who has still played a few shockers. (Freddy has been ok too).
It's critical Amiss, Jackson and Sturt never get outmarked. If they can just bring the ball to ground we can get some of these guys into the game. It's also another reason I think why Treacy should be in the team instead of Banfield. He can crash packs and create chaos in the forward line.

 

[Wobbly Punt]

Where did you get 3 pressure acts from, I checked after being dumbstruck, I think he had 12 on the weekend
View attachment 1675534

Yes, I'll clarify this as this startled me when I saw your post too so checked it out. I didn't look it up for my original post because I got the number I used number from chatting with my brother-in-law (who works at another AFL club) over the weekend when I asked him to look it up while we were chatting.

The standard pressure act stat above is the most commonly used one but apparently not the only one used in clubland. There is another one they use which is kind of like "hitouts" versus "hitouts to advantage". The one you posted is the standard Champ Data one which is "applying physical pressure to a player disposing the ball" - so not quite making a tackle or similar stuff like that. Apparently that one also includes chases that don't get there but "change the act of disposal of a player". Apparently some or all clubs see this as too loose, especially the last one as they register one for Champ Data if a player "seems hurried" by the chaser.

What I was told and led you astray with as a result is what his club (and others) call pressure acts but has another name I have now forgotten but lets say Actual Pressure Acts. So rather than hurrying someone along because you don't actually get there to put pressure on them or by diving and not quite smothering the ball (both BB staples). The ones I quoted are tackles laid but not registered as tackles by Champ Data (because the player tackled gets the ball to a team mate while being tackled), disrupting a possession chain by shutting down an outlet option that leads to a stoppage, blowing up a block/shepherd to get to the ball carrier but not registering a tackle, laying a block/shepherd that prevents the opposition from gaining possession, a chase that doesn't end in a tackle but actual physical contact is made.

At his club he says the coach there wants to see real pressure versus "beach muscle pressure". Apparently their coach is no fan of players who dive to make a show on a smother but don't make contact but then don't do the physical things to "lock down them or free us up".

It is murky but for comparison, I just asked his PA stats for the weekend and from that table above JOM went from 26 to 15, Serong went from 18 to 15, Schultz went from 12 to 5, Pearce stayed at 12c Clarke went from 12 to 2 and Banfield went from 12 to 1.

Apologies for the confusion. Seeing its not readily available I won't use that stat again and instead use the Champ Data one for ease of reference.

After clarifying I'm now worries JL2 and his team use the standard Champ Data suite rather than the deeper ones

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Yes, I'll clarify this as this startled me when I saw your post too so checked it out. I didn't look it up for my original post because I got the number I used number from chatting with my brother-in-law (who works at another AFL club) over the weekend when I asked him to look it up while we were chatting.

The standard pressure act stat above is the most commonly used one but apparently not the only one used in clubland. There is another one they use which is kind of like "hitouts" versus "hitouts to advantage". The one you posted is the standard Champ Data one which is "applying physical pressure to a player disposing the ball" - so not quite making a tackle or similar stuff like that. Apparently that one also includes chases that don't get there but "change the act of disposal of a player". Apparently some or all clubs see this as too loose, especially the last one as they register one for Champ Data if a player "seems hurried" by the chaser.

What I was told and led you astray with as a result is what his club (and others) call pressure acts but has another name I have now forgotten but lets say Actual Pressure Acts. So rather than hurrying someone along because you don't actually get there to put pressure on them or by diving and not quite smothering the ball (both BB staples). The ones I quoted are tackles laid but not registered as tackles by Champ Data (because the player tackled gets the ball to a team mate while being tackled), disrupting a possession chain by shutting down an outlet option that leads to a stoppage, blowing up a block/shepherd to get to the ball carrier but not registering a tackle, laying a block/shepherd that prevents the opposition from gaining possession, a chase that doesn't end in a tackle but actual physical contact is made.

At his club he says the coach there wants to see real pressure versus "beach muscle pressure". Apparently their coach is no fan of players who dive to make a show on a smother but don't make contact but then don't do the physical things to "lock down them or free us up".

It is murky but for comparison, I just asked his PA stats for the weekend and from that table above JOM went from 26 to 15, Serong went from 18 to 15, Schultz went from 12 to 5, Pearce stayed at 12c Clarke went from 12 to 2 and Banfield went from 12 to 1.

Apologies for the confusion. Seeing its not readily available I won't use that stat again and instead use the Champ Data one for ease of reference.

Mah gawd, how soon can we move to that recognition of pressure act because yes, the normal one is dumb and high numbers can be misleading and purely tackles are also misleading because I've watched champion data not count a tackle so many times (I assume for some dumb requirement reason) on a dream team score and it's

 

[Wobbly Punt]

Mah gawd, how soon can we move to that recognition of pressure act because yes, the normal one is dumb and high numbers can be misleading and purely tackles are also misleading because I've watched champion data not count a tackle so many times (I assume for some dumb requirement reason) on a dream team score and it's

Yeah I see it a LOT in Fantasy too. Freako hates getting questioned on it as does Warnie at the Traders so it must come up a lot. The easiest way I've found to determine it and eliminate frustration is if the ball carrier gets tackled but gets the possession away to a team mate, its not a tackle. Funnily enough, its not even a pressure act but it does get included in the deeper stat from what I'm told.

BUT, if you have your hand on the jumper of a guy who then fumbles the ball or handballs it away and it hits the deck - tackle counts. It is weird at times.

Serong on the weekend wrapped up Zorko in a strong tackle but because Zorko shoved the ball out and Dunkley got it on the full, no tackle. No more than 5mins later Brayshaw got credited with a tackle when he just grabbed Rich's jumper, Rich panicked a bit and dished out a rushed handball that went to ground and there was a contested ball, the tackle counted as Brayshaw had hold of Rich when the ball was disposed of and it didn't go directly to a team mate of Rich's.

It is infuriating in a close Fantasy game when you need every stat isn't it.

The stat I used originally also needs some after game assessments a bit like the stupid Supercoach scoring so I doubt we'll see it any time soon.

 

[blue shark]

With respect to our midfield woes, I’ve heard on very good authority that the Weags passed on Joel Cory as a mids coach when they were in the market because the interview went so badly. By all accounts Carr was light years ahead of him.

Well he was doing alright as a development coach.
I’d believe that Carr not getting replaced is the real problem.
Corey was at the Bulldogs for their premiership win, and as a player very
Professional.
To throw him into the midfield role without support?
I’d also like to know if clubs still have a stoppage coach, or I’d that now old school?

 

[WilloTree]

Most on here may agree, but Longmuir has consistently had Banfield in his teams.

for good reason

 

[MadEyeEmmy]

 

[Van_Dyke]

for good reason

View attachment 1680319

not trying to take away from banfield's performance tonight, but i think it's fair to say most of the people who aren't believers in him have no doubts about his performances against weaker sides like the Hawks, but it's what it looks like against better sides.

 

[One_Wing]

not trying to take away from banfield's performance tonight, but i think it's fair to say most of the people who aren't believers in him have no doubts about his performances against weaker sides like the Hawks, but it's what it looks like against better sides.

It looks like this vs Brisbane(last year)

 

[WilloTree]

not trying to take away from banfield's performance tonight, but i think it's fair to say most of the people who aren't believers in him have no doubts about his performances against weaker sides like the Hawks, but it's what it looks like against better sides.

Oh I totally get it. He's not going to win a Norm Smith any time soon.

Just think it would be nice if some of the posters who delight in constantly bashing him put their big boy pants on and get in here and yell as loudly when he goes well.

It's a bit like having a rental infestation of cockroaches. They're happy to sit in the shadows, spread their filth and make a mess, but turn on a light once in a while and they scurry away like cowards.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

not trying to take away from banfield's performance tonight, but i think it's fair to say most of the people who aren't believers in him have no doubts about his performances against weaker sides like the Hawks, but it's what it looks like against better sides.

So much this. He gets gifted "performances" against tanking teams and fades into insignificance against top 10 teams.
Never, ever gets forced to earn a recall over weeks at Peel, and keeps getting early contract extensions just to placate a certain player management group.

He also didn't do anything special today, his two goals were blatant gifts from other players, and he fumbled / missed tackles / got caught wrong sideded through the game. Against an opponent that was tanking and with multiple young (less than 12 game) players.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Oh I totally get it. He's not going to win a Norm Smith any time soon.

Just think it would be nice if some of the posters who delight in constantly bashing him put their big boy pants on and get in here and yell as loudly when he goes well.

It's a bit like having a rental infestation of cockroaches. They're happy to sit in the shadows, spread their filth and make a mess, but turn on a light once in a while and they scurry away like cowards.

Banfield did absolutely nothing today except take cheap easies against a tanking team.

Two years ago he showed so much more and was such an integral part of the core values and place / time / structure of the emerging game plan. He isn't now, and to "yell as loudly when he does well" when he did nothing except accept turnovers created elsewhere, and then gifts from other Freo players, all game long is just ridiculous. So many of the other folks on our list would have had just exactly the same results - if not more - if they were ever given the free passes and selection tickets that Banfield was given.

Hughes did nothing tonight, no need to say more.

 

[sdfc]

not trying to take away from banfield's performance tonight, but i think it's fair to say most of the people who aren't believers in him have no doubts about his performances against weaker sides like the Hawks, but it's what it looks like against better sides.

He drives me nuts but he was very good tonight. Not just Banfield good but good. His 45 kick to a team mate at half forward in the first quarter was as good as you'll see.

 

[CapitalA]

Yeah I see it a LOT in Fantasy too. Freako hates getting questioned on it as does Warnie at the Traders so it must come up a lot. The easiest way I've found to determine it and eliminate frustration is if the ball carrier gets tackled but gets the possession away to a team mate, its not a tackle. Funnily enough, its not even a pressure act but it does get included in the deeper stat from what I'm told.

BUT, if you have your hand on the jumper of a guy who then fumbles the ball or handballs it away and it hits the deck - tackle counts. It is weird at times.

Serong on the weekend wrapped up Zorko in a strong tackle but because Zorko shoved the ball out and Dunkley got it on the full, no tackle. No more than 5mins later Brayshaw got credited with a tackle when he just grabbed Rich's jumper, Rich panicked a bit and dished out a rushed handball that went to ground and there was a contested ball, the tackle counted as Brayshaw had hold of Rich when the ball was disposed of and it didn't go directly to a team mate of Rich's.

It is infuriating in a close Fantasy game when you need every stat isn't it.

The stat I used originally also needs some after game assessments a bit like the stupid Supercoach scoring so I doubt we'll see it any time soon.

Yeah tackle only counts if it results in an ineffective disposal. So if it gets to a team mate it is an effective disposal, therefore not a tackle.


Edit * Including a hand ball/kick to play on, even if it hits the deck.

 

[WilloTree]

Banfield did absolutely nothing today except take cheap easies against a tanking team.

Two years ago he showed so much more and was such an integral part of the core values and place / time / structure of the emerging game plan. He isn't now, and to "yell as loudly when he does well" when he did nothing except accept turnovers created elsewhere, and then gifts from other Freo players, all game long is just ridiculous. So many of the other folks on our list would have had just exactly the same results - if not more - if they were ever given the free passes and selection tickets that Banfield was given.

Hughes did nothing tonight, no need to say more.

This pretty much sums up where we're at. That's such a wildly inaccurate assessment of his game it borders on hysteria. The problem is, I think you're so knee-deep in loathing you can't assess the game with any perspective.

Pretty sad that it's one of our own players.

 

[Joao]

I'll preface this by saying I don't think last night is any indication (on its own) of us improving from the start of the year. Hawks are dire and at least part of that is by Mitchell's hand.

But...

I'm putting a line through him. Won't win a flag.

If he couldn't read the tea leaves to see that moving the ball slow doesn't work in the AFL after last year, he won't last long enough to figure it out. We'll drift along playing finals most years because of talent before looking back and wondering what we did with our golden generation.

Too conservative.

I'm willing to say I was wrong about this. I have seen enough to say that he has released the shackles somewhat this year. The awful chipping around I don't think is direction, I think it is the players current inability to execute with any consistency and especially against good teams.

Now you might say that this demonstrates incompetence (for the performance this year) rather than an issue of philosophy but I'd actually rather it that way because leopards don't change their spots etc. You can excuse some (not all) of this years performance on the fact we are still young.

 

[royale with cheese]

My son, watching the highlights this morning:

"Go Bailey Banfield

41

Bailey Banfield

Age

26

Ht

190cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

6.5

4star

M

2.9

3star

T

3.9

5star

G

0.3

3star

D

9.5

2star

K

5.3

2star

HB

4.3

3star

M

2.0

2star

T

2.8

4star

G

0.5

4star

D

14.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

6.8

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

3.2

5star

G

0.2

3star

! He is awesome!"

Sack JL.

 

[Joao]

Sturt is never playing again after BB last night.

Well tbf, I suppose they played together this year so there is hope.

 

[Bicco]

Oh I totally get it. He's not going to win a Norm Smith any time soon.

Just think it would be nice if some of the posters who delight in constantly bashing him put their big boy pants on and get in here and yell as loudly when he goes well.

It's a bit like having a rental infestation of cockroaches. They're happy to sit in the shadows, spread their filth and make a mess, but turn on a light once in a while and they scurry away like cowards.

Bailey was OK tonight. One issue is that his best is what most people would call average. He kicked 2 tonight, good on him, but back tonight's performance up with a few more like that. Then he'll get some recognition. He averages 0.5 goals per game over his career, so statistically he won't score a goal for the next 3 weeks. If he kicks 6 goals in that time, he will be deserving of his spot and some praise.

 

[Joao]

Banners always stands out when we dominate or when the other team isn't going full tilt (like pre-season) because, credit to the dude, he always give you everything he has. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd be guess that is why he gets picked ahead of Sturt.

I am more confident that Banners will put 18th to the sword than I am Sturt, because Sturt isn't reliable. I have more faith that Sturt could put 1st to the sword, because he has more talent.

 

[Dockeroo]

Oh I totally get it. He's not going to win a Norm Smith any time soon.

Just think it would be nice if some of the posters who delight in constantly bashing him put their big boy pants on and get in here and yell as loudly when he goes well.

It's a bit like having a rental infestation of cockroaches. They're happy to sit in the shadows, spread their filth and make a mess, but turn on a light once in a while and they scurry away like cowards.

Said it before the game even started last night as it was pretty predictable these kind of posts would appear.
Mature players beating up on some state leaguers and kids from hawthorn last night doesnt interest me, when it comes to long term solutions to our issues.
Guys in their mid 20s with several years experience like Hughes, Ryan, Banfield, JOM, Cox etc should 100% be dominating a game like last night.

Look at the last 5 min of the Gold Coast v Melbourne game for an idea of what intense footy looks like. Last night was a training drill by comparison, especially after half time.

If banners goes out in 2 weeks time at Optus and kicks 3 goals and has 17 or 18 touches on Zach Tuohy or Tom Stewart, I’ll be on here with my big boy pants to praise him the minute the final siren sounds.

 

[blue shark]

Banners always stands out when we dominate or when the other team isn't going full tilt (like pre-season) because, credit to the dude, he always give you everything he has. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd be guess that is why he gets picked ahead of Sturt.

I am more confident that Banners will put 18th to the sword than I am Sturt, because Sturt isn't reliable. I have more faith that Sturt could put 1st to the sword, because he has more talent.

I’d imagine Erasmus playing in Banfields position would benefit more.
Add that he can tackle and play midfield minutes.
That’s my take anyway.

 

[Scham]

Sturt is never playing again after BB last night.

Well tbf, I suppose they played together this year so there is hope.

Absolutely there is. Unlike most, I see them (Sturt and BB) playing a slightly different role. There's no doubting that they're totally different types of players.

Sturt is a talented footballer imo and is still youngish but very inexperienced so is still developing. We need him. But we need him playing well, following team rules and the role that he's been given, and most of all with a high level of intensity and endeavour for most if not the whole game.

 

[Pommie Docker]

It's funny how Banfield has become the sort of totem player for JLs reign in the same way Langdon for me was under lyon.

Ive been pleased with how we have changed things up the last few games. I think he can be very conservative but after the last four games there feels like more light at the end of the tunnel

 

[Joao]

I’d imagine Erasmus playing in Banfields position would benefit more.
Add that he can tackle and play midfield minutes.
That’s my take anyway.

I'm not a fan of this. I don't mind Ras spending time in the forwardline (he's big and will probably end up a good contested mark for size), but I would never play him as a pure forward. I don't think he is quick enough to pressure and I think he is better playing as much as possible in the midfield, wherever that is.

Absolutely there is. Unlike most, I see them (Sturt and BB) playing a slightly different role. There's no doubting that they're totally different types of players.

Sturt is a talented footballer imo and is still youngish but very inexperienced so is still developing. We need him. But we need him playing well, following team rules and the role that he's been given, and most of all with a high level of intensity and endeavour for most if not the whole game.

I think its obvious Sturt either doesn't have the want and/or ability to give everything required for 4 quarters each week as evidenced by his stats.

That could change and he is significantly better this year compared to last.