Delisted #4 Ryan 'The Clamps' Clarke

[Kennedy Parker]

Ryan Clarke

Player Profile
The Sydney Swans recruited Ryan Clarke from North Melbourne ahead of season 2019 and he’s since shown promising signs as a young midfielder. The number four is a prolific ball-winner and can also be used to blanket a star on-baller, which he proved last year in shutting down gun Kangaroo Shaun Higgins and classy Magpie Steele Sidebottom. Clarke played 14 senior games in a stop-start 2019 campaign and has set his sights on cementing a spot in coach John Longmire’s best 22 this year. Draft history: 2015 National Draft selection (North Melbourne), No. 31 overall

Ryan Clarke

4

Ryan Clarke

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.8

5star

K

9.1

4star

HB

9.7

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.2

2star

D

18.5

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.5

3star

G

0.3

3star

D

19.6

5star

K

7.0

3star

HB

12.6

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.0

1star

DOB:17 June 1997
DEBUT:2016
DRAFT:2015
RECRUITED FROM: Rowville (Vic)/Melb Grammar (Vic)/Eastern U18/North Melb

Ryan Clarke | AFL

Follow Ryan Clarke's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[caesar88]

Sorry but this is a ridiculous call. He's not a super damaging user by any stretch, and he makes some errors, but not so often that we'd rather he avoid touching the ball. For that to happen he would have to do more damage than good per possession which is so far from reality.

Is he a player who should look to hand off to better kicks when he gets the chance? Of course. He's a player who would probably be at his best with a 50:50 kick to HB ratio. But he shouldn't be actively avoiding the ball.

Where did I say he should be actively avoiding the ball?

I'm just saying we are better off if he is getting less of it and just doing his role. Not sure how that's a ridiculous call by any measure.

 

[BarneyBent]

Where did I say he should be actively avoiding the ball?

I'm just saying we are better off if he is getting less of it and just doing his role. Not sure how that's a ridiculous call by any measure.

"We'd be better off if he is getting less of it". I'm not sure how to interpret that other than that he shouldn't be getting the ball.

 

[caesar88]

"We'd be better off if he is getting less of it". I'm not sure how to interpret that other than that he shouldn't be getting the ball.

It's an observation, not a directive for Clarke.

If I said "we're better off when Heeney is kicking bags of 4 or 5" does that mean I want all of our other forwards to not attempt any goals and instead just pass to Heeney?

 

[GoTheSwannies]

He'll get better as he goes along. The thing is, if he's getting into positions to accept the ball, and he's the best option, then so be it, he's worked hard to put himself in that position. He'll make a few errors, but on balance, he's performing well in his role. Even with a couple of errors, preventing one of the opposition's dangerous players from having an impact the other way is more important to our team than the couple of errors he'll make.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's an observation, not a directive for Clarke.

If I said "we're better off when Heeney is kicking bags of 4 or 5" does that mean I want all of our other forwards to not attempt any goals and instead just pass to Heeney?

That's a weird analogy, I don't see how that applies at all. Clarke getting more ball doesn't mean others getting less.

Provided it doesn't negatively impact his defensive game, Clarke getting 16 touches is better for us than him getting 10. Especially when you consider that part of his role is to make his opponent accountable.

You've literally said 16 touches was too many for him. To use your goal-kicker analogy, it would be like saying "we're a better team when Gulden is kicking less goals, 1 goal was too many for him on the weekend, would prefer he focus on being a link-up player instead."

Just a weird take. Clarke isn't the best user but possessions are still good to get. He can be a good shut down player AND get decent numbers at the same time.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

That's a weird analogy, I don't see how that applies at all. Clarke getting more ball doesn't mean others getting less.

Provided it doesn't negatively impact his defensive game, Clarke getting 16 touches is better for us than him getting 10. Especially when you consider that part of his role is to make his opponent accountable.

You've literally said 16 touches was too many for him. To use your goal-kicker analogy, it would be like saying "we're a better team when Gulden is kicking less goals, 1 goal was too many for him on the weekend, would prefer he focus on being a link-up player instead."

Just a weird take. Clarke isn't the best user but possessions are still good to get. He can be a good shut down player AND get decent numbers at the same time.

And if he’s getting those possessions inside forward 50 - he often either gives it off by hand, or has a ping at goal.

All of which are pretty good outcomes.

 

[caesar88]

That's a weird analogy, I don't see how that applies at all. Clarke getting more ball doesn't mean others getting less.

Provided it doesn't negatively impact his defensive game, Clarke getting 16 touches is better for us than him getting 10. Especially when you consider that part of his role is to make his opponent accountable.

You've literally said 16 touches was too many for him. To use your goal-kicker analogy, it would be like saying "we're a better team when Gulden is kicking less goals, 1 goal was too many for him on the weekend, would prefer he focus on being a link-up player instead."

Just a weird take. Clarke isn't the best user but possessions are still good to get. He can be a good shut down player AND get decent numbers at the same time.

My point is that just because one makes an observation about the team it doesn't mean the players should play any differently just to cater to that observation.

You seemed to interpret my comment about Clarke's ball use as meaning he should try and not win the ball, which was not my point at all. I want every Swan to go for the ball every chance they get and to never shirk an opportunity. But there are other Swans I'd rather get the ball than Clarke. 21 of them in fact.

They aren't mutually exclusive. I can want Clarke to try his best and also want everyone else to win enough of the ball so that Clarke doesn't have to.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

My point is that just because one makes an observation about the team it doesn't mean the players should play any differently just to cater to that observation.

You seemed to interpret my comment about Clarke's ball use as meaning he should try and not win the ball, which was not my point at all. I want every Swan to go for the ball every chance they get and to never shirk an opportunity. But there are other Swans I'd rather get the ball than Clarke. 21 of them in fact.

They aren't mutually exclusive. I can want Clarke to try his best and also want everyone else to win enough of the ball so that Clarke doesn't have to.

Same as I prefer others to be taking set kicks for goal than Reid.

 

[Kapers]

Clarke's ball use is bad for the team. Not his fault, just has to play within his limitations.

I would want him either to give off quick handballs OR go for goal, he's never going to be a play maker, but he's a wonderful tag, and a very important position.

 

[dosser]

He is averaging 76% disposal efficiency this year. That is better than Wicks and Ronke.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Clarke's ball use is bad for the team. Not his fault, just has to play within his limitations.

I would want him either to give off quick handballs OR go for goal, he's never going to be a play maker, but he's a wonderful tag, and a very important position.

Horse alluded to his limitations while also praising his discipline in the presser.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

He is averaging 76% disposal efficiency this year. That is better than Wicks and Ronke.

With typically a higher possession count that Wicks and Ronke (not to mention Bell).

And a wonderful negating job on some very handy opposition distributors.

He's probably going to be a perennial fringe player, but surely he's earned another contract.

 

[Deccas]

Clarke's ball use is bad for the team. Not his fault, just has to play within his limitations.

I would want him either to give off quick handballs OR go for goal, he's never going to be a play maker, but he's a wonderful tag, and a very important position.

About a third of his touches are part of a chain of possession that ends in a score. That's ... Not bad for the team. He can be worse than other with the ball without his touches being a negative. This is a stupid conversation. Everyone is aware of his limitations, no one is proposing a role change to get him the ball in space in the way that we do with Blakey. He's doing really well, he's winning a lot of possession for a defensive forward, generally tries to give it off or have a ping for goals when he does, but is in the team to shutdown half backs and he's doing it wonderfully.

 

[sataris]

With typically a higher possession count that Wicks and Ronke (not to mention Bell).

And a wonderful negating job on some very handy opposition distributors.

He's probably going to be a perennial fringe player, but surely he's earned another contract.

Clarke is doing the role that I suspect nobody else wants to (or even can).

Sticking him on the oppo's best hbf is a great win for the team overall.

Unless someone comes along with a great tank and the discipline to do it for 4 quarters, he's probably one the first selected.

 

[caesar88]

About a third of his touches are part of a chain of possession that ends in a score. That's ... Not bad for the team. He can be worse than other with the ball without his touches being a negative. This is a stupid conversation. Everyone is aware of his limitations, no one is proposing a role change to get him the ball in space in the way that we do with Blakey. He's doing really well, he's winning a lot of possession for a defensive forward, generally tries to give it off or have a ping for goals when he does, but is in the team to shutdown half backs and he's doing it wonderfully.

It's a relevant conversation because ball use matters. If he gets too much of the ball and they lead to errors or good passages of play coming undone, then that actually increases his chance of being dropped than if he just had say a dozen touches but performed his negating role well.

No one is proposing he is not doing his role well or that he should be dropped. But if we can't discuss a players flaws as well as their positive attributes without it being called a "stupid conversation" then WTF is the point of this site?

 

[SSwans2011]

Seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on with Clarke's ball use IMO. His errors stick out more because we're actively looking out for them.

But in reality, the only Swans players with better disposal efficiency this season are defenders. Not a single other player on the list has been more effective with their disposals.

 

[TheMase]

I don’t think there is much wrong with Clarkes skills. It’s not his strength but I think they’re adequate. Kicking has improved.

I feel he can be a bit indecisive and this shows in a few areas of his game rather than it be a skills problem. Sometimes it results in a misdirected handball that gets turned over or he takes a while to make a decision where to kick the ball.

His work ethic however is elite and for the role he is playing has earnt a spot in our best 22.

 

[caesar88]

Seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on with Clarke's ball use IMO. His errors stick out more because we're actively looking out for them.

But in reality, the only Swans players with better disposal efficiency this season are defenders. Not a single other player on the list has been more effective with their disposals.

It's not confirmation bias at all. I just want Clarke, who is a bottom four player for us right now (not a criticism) to solidify his place in the team more so that he can become a staple of the team. In his case, given his ball use isn't his strength, less is more. I'd hate for him to have done a good job on his direct opponent but then get dropped because of a handful of moments that induced face-palms, like I saw on the weekend. Let's be honest, spots in the team are competitive and Horse has shown he'll drop Clarke even despite success with his role. It may not take much to get a bottom four player dropped, and I will reiterate that I want Clarke to stay in the team.

So I don't think it's bias, or weird, or stupid, or whatever else, to hope that Clarke's game can stay as net-positive as possible. For his sake.

 

[SSwans2011]

It's not confirmation bias at all. I just want Clarke, who is a bottom four player for us right now (not a criticism) to solidify his place in the team more so that he can become a staple of the team. In his case, given his ball use isn't his strength, less is more. I'd hate for him to have done a good job on his direct opponent but then get dropped because of a handful of moments that induced face-palms, like I saw on the weekend. Let's be honest, spots in the team are competitive and Horse has shown he'll drop Clarke even despite success with his role. It may not take much to get a bottom four player dropped.

So I don't think it's bias, or weird, or stupid, or whatever else, to hope that Clarke's game can stay as net-positive as possible. For his sake.

But the reality is completely different to what you're saying. On numbers atm he is less likely to make an error than anyone else forward of centre*.

He might not be the most skilled player, but this season he finds a teammate with his disposals 3/4 times which, once again, is better than anyone else on the list barring defenders.

Sure he doesn't take on the risky plays, but that's fine. If he can be clean enough, and get it into the hands of our better distributors 15 times from 20 touches a game, I fail to see how that's worse than him doing that 7.5 times from 10 touches.

*edit: less likely to give the ball to the oppo would be more accurate phrasing

 

[caesar88]

But the reality is completely different to what you're saying. On numbers atm he is less likely to make an error than anyone else forward of centre.

He might not be the most skilled player, but this season he finds a teammate with his disposals 3/4 times which, once again, is better than anyone else on the list barring defenders.

Sure he doesn't take on the risky plays, but that's fine. If he can be clean enough, and get it into the hands of our better distributors 15 times from 20 touches a game, I fail to see how that's worse than him doing that 7.5 times from 10 touches.

With all due respect, you lost me at "on numbers". I don't have any regard for disposal efficiency as a stat.

I only go on what I see with my eyes. He lacks awareness of the options around him and is slow to execute both a decision and a disposal. That's just my opinion, we don't have to agree.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's not confirmation bias at all. I just want Clarke, who is a bottom four player for us right now (not a criticism) to solidify his place in the team more so that he can become a staple of the team. In his case, given his ball use isn't his strength, less is more. I'd hate for him to have done a good job on his direct opponent but then get dropped because of a handful of moments that induced face-palms, like I saw on the weekend. Let's be honest, spots in the team are competitive and Horse has shown he'll drop Clarke even despite success with his role. It may not take much to get a bottom four player dropped, and I will reiterate that I want Clarke to stay in the team.

So I don't think it's bias, or weird, or stupid, or whatever else, to hope that Clarke's game can stay as net-positive as possible. For his sake.

Ok but this logic assumes that Clarke's disposals are on average a net-negative to the team, and that is just simply not true.

When Clarke gets more touches, he has a more positive impact to the team than if he had less. Yes, it's less positive impact per touch than some other players, but it's not negative!

 

[Jewelsbon]

With all due respect, you lost me at "on numbers". I don't have any regard for disposal efficiency as a stat.

I only go on what I see with my eyes. He lacks awareness of the options around him and is slow to execute both a decision and a disposal. That's just my opinion, we don't have to agree.

No Caesar your eyes are seeing what you want them to see, I think he has pretty good awareness and isn't slow to execute, but as TheMase said, he can be indecisive, but even that seems to have improved this year.

 

[caesar88]

Ok but this logic assumes that Clarke's disposals are on average a net-negative to the team, and that is just simply not true.

When Clarke gets more touches, he has a more positive impact to the team than if he had less. Yes, it's less positive impact per touch than some other players, but it's not negative!

Correct, and I want it to stay that way. If you go up you will find the comment you quoted as specifically saying "hope that Clarke's game can stay as net-positive as possible."

His game on the weekend was creeping back a little too much the other way I thought, that's all.

 

[caesar88]

No Caesar your eyes are seeing what you want them to see, I think he has pretty good awareness and isn't slow to execute, but as TheMase said, he can be indecisive, but even that seems to have improved this year.

Why the **** would I want to see Clarke not doing well Jewels?

Go back in this thread and you will see I was an early advocate of trying him as a defensive forward. I wasn't happy when he was dropped after the Saints game. I called for his inclusion to play on Hind against the Bombers. I said it was a mistake that we didn't play him. I embraced his growing list of half-back casualties. I defended him last week when people were calling for his head.

Not sure how much clearer I can be that I like the work he is doing and have full respect for it. We're going round and round in circles. I think we all want Clarke to stay in the team, we just have different ideas on how he can do so. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[BarneyBent]

Correct, and I want it to stay that way. If you go up you will find the comment you quoted as specifically saying "hope that Clarke's game can stay as net-positive as possible."

His game on the weekend was creeping back a little too much the other way I thought, that's all.

OK, but Clarke getting more touches doesn't make the quality of those touches worse. So saying he should get fewer touches to improve his game makes no sense.

Clarke getting 20 touches is, all else being equal, better for the team than him getting 10 touches.