A judgement on 5 players

[wapower]

No, being a 'better user' of the ball implies that you're actually damaging with it. Champion Data's definition of 'effective' is not the same as damaging. A guy who chips it 20 metres to an unmarked opponent in the backline 10 times will have a better disposal efficiency than a guy who bombs a pinpoint 50 metre pick to pick out a leading forward 9 times out of 10 and misses the target on the last one.

'Effective Disposal (not including 100 less disposals)

Jason Blake 89% 378 Disposals
Stephen Gillham 87% 264 Disposals
Tom Lonergan 86% 274 Disposals
Ben Rutten 86% 340 Disposals
Brady Rawlings 83% 623 Disposals'

That's the top 5. Doesn't exactly read like a who's who of quality disposal, does it?

That would be well and fine if the OP didn't use the specific term in reference to disposal efficiency. The holy grail is the ability to have high efficiency and damaging disposal.

Perhaps you can petition Champion Data for the data that illustrates the damage factor and we can address that elsewhere. For now I will stand by the claim that according to recorded data, the 5 listed players are better users of the football in reference to the OP's initial claim.

 

[wapower]

That's the whole point - you have only really addressed one of the 5 questions raised. I have already commented on your many responses to question one, but you seem to be repeating yourself.

Actually you're being facetious and whiny because I've given you reasons as to why your position is flawed to begin with. Everything else from there is inconsequential.

 

[Schulzenfest]

That would be well and fine if the OP didn't use the specific term in reference to disposal efficiency. The holy grail is the ability to have high efficiency and damaging disposal.

Perhaps you can petition Champion Data for the data that illustrates the damage factor and we can address that elsewhere. For now I will stand by the claim that according to recorded data, the 5 listed players are better users of the football in reference to the OP's initial claim.

I agree that according to recorded data they are, but the 'recorded data' is highly flawed in actually reflecting how good a user of the football a player is. Disposal efficiency was a poor choice of words by Natman.

 

[Natman]

Actually you're being facetious and whiny because I've given you reasons as to why your position is flawed to begin with. Everything else from there is inconsequential.

I am not trying to be funny or silly, I am just getting you to put forward your argument on the other 4 questions - it should be easy seeing the position that you have taken with question 1 - and it is not inconsequential, because that is the whole point of this thread.

I also think that the disposal efficiency stats gopower provided and the players listed prove that they are pretty meaningless and the real measure of hurting disposal is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Power freak 2008]

I agree with Wapower in that the players mentioned are generally good at what they do and probably can fit in the team. If we lost 3 of those 5 in Kane, Surj and Dom we would be up the creek big time.

Why are we so reliant on Rodan and Pearce firing? They get heavy tags nowadays. If Kane gets so much of the ball why are so many players stagnant when he inevitably wins possession? Why do we collectively crumble when the opposition crowds our space. We can't seem to handle congestion and physical teams.

Our real problem comes in the way have been coached and the way other teams negate our style of play. We will have to wait and see how that changes.

 

[Natman]

I agree that according to recorded data they are, but the 'recorded data' is highly flawed in actually reflecting how good a user of the football a player is. Disposal efficiency was a poor choice of words by Natman.

Maybe the words should be disposal effectiveness, but I added to that by saying disposal that hurts the opposition. That is an area were we really lack and getting a fit Boak and Hartlett and eventually Jacobs ans Stewart into the mid-field will help us improve in that area.

 

[wapower]

I am not trying to be funny or silly, I am just getting you to put forward your argument on the other 4 questions - it should be easy seeing the position that you have taken with question 1 - and it is not inconsequential, because that is the whole point of this thread.

I also think that the disposal efficiency stats gopower provided and the players listed prove that they are pretty meaningless and the real measure of hurting disposal is in the eye of the beholder.

Changing the goal posts mate! OK I'll give you a short summation of my thoughts with the question number listed first.

1. I've disagreed with your judgement and listed the reasons as to why.
2. No player deserves to be picked on their deficiencies. Coaches select players on their attributes and role in the side.
3. Yes, but that is dependent on a range of factors such as coaching, injuries, opposition, luck etc.
4. See answer 4.

Maybe the words should be disposal effectiveness, but I added to that by saying disposal that hurts the opposition. That is an area were we really lack and getting a fit Boak and Hartlett and eventually Jacobs ans Stewart into the mid-field will help us improve in that area.

By making this comment you are illustrating that your initial post was loaded. Jacobs hasn't proven anything in the AFL and we need a replacement for Stewart in defense before his midfield role can be explored.

If Port Adelaide has drafted wisely, the players are coached well, play for each other etc etc then we'll see what type of positional succession plan is put in place.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Is Stewart's disposal really any better than the players you listed. I don't think it is.

 

[Natman]

Is Stewart's disposal really any better than the players you listed. I don't think it is.

I think that he can hurt the opposition with his disposal because he has the other attributes that I included in the first post - speed and line-breaking run. This part has been forgotten in this whole premise.

 

[Natman]

Changing the goal posts mate! OK I'll give you a short summation of my thoughts with the question number listed first.

1. I've disagreed with your judgement and listed the reasons as to why.
2. No player deserves to be picked on their deficiencies. Coaches select players on their attributes and role in the side.
3. Yes, but that is dependent on a range of factors such as coaching, injuries, opposition, luck etc.
4. See answer 4.


By making this comment you are illustrating that your initial post was loaded. Jacobs hasn't proven anything in the AFL and we need a replacement for Stewart in defense before his midfield role can be explored.

If Port Adelaide has drafted wisely, the players are coached well, play for each other etc etc then we'll see what type of positional succession plan is put in place.

Changing the goal posts - what are you on - I haven't changed my stance one bit.
You have chosen only to look at one question and then only mainly commented on one aspect - the disposal assessment and you have not even addressed the speed and line-breaking run part.
How is my question loaded - by including Jacobs was based on his high selection and undoubted skills and potential - why would I not include him as a potential mid-fielder - that is where he is slated to go in the future.

 

[wapower]

I think that he can hurt the opposition with his disposal because he has the other attributes that I included in the first post - speed and line-breaking run. This part has been forgotten in this whole premise.

Cassisi, Cornes and Thomas lack outright speed. Then again Dom needs hand and reaction speed whereas Kane and Matty need aerobic capacity and the application of short burst 5 metre quickness with opponents.

Surjan is one of the fastest at Port Adelaide and proven line breaker when given the opportunity to run off. He's not afforded that opportunity in our zone structure.

Logan has a measure of speed. His ability comes from the gift of being able to maintain that speed for long periods of time.

 

[wapower]

Changing the goal posts - what are you on - I haven't changed my stance one bit.
You have chosen only to look at one question and then only mainly commented on one aspect - the disposal assessment and you have not even addressed the speed and line-breaking run part.
How is my question loaded - by including Jacobs was based on his high selection and undoubted skills and potential - why would I not include him as a potential mid-fielder - that is where he is slated to go in the future.

Right so you never changed your position from disposal efficiency to disposal effectiveness or simply hurt factor given efficiency doesn't marry up with your initial comment? Now you're moving to include a teenager who based on his selection in the draft will be pushing players out of the team without even seeing his AFL ability?

You haven't thought this through at all.

 

[Natman]

Right so you never changed your position from disposal efficiency to disposal effectiveness? Now you're moving to include a teenager who based on his selection in the draft will be pushing players out of the team without even seeing his AFL ability?

You haven't thought this through at all.

Not really, you are now nit-picking - Iin my first post I added to disposal efficiency with hurting disposal to try to describe my thoughts - if I used one incorrect word - efficiency instead of effectiveness - then I apologise for my one error.

I am basing Jacob's potential on the facts that he was highly regarded by people in the know and was picked at 16 - what else are we supposed to go on. In any event we have to push some players out of the team to improve just to get into the 8 and a few more to get to the GF - that is the whole point of this thread.

 

[wapower]

Not really, you are now nit-picking - Iin my first post I added to disposal efficiency with hurting disposal to try to describe my thoughts - if I used one incorrect word - efficiency instead of effectiveness - then I apologise for my one error.

I am basing Jacob's potential on the facts that he was highly regarded by people in the know and was picked at 16 - what else are we supposed to go on. In any event we have to push some players out of the team to improve just to get into the 8 and a few more to get to the GF - that is the whole point of this thread.

Which is fine apart from the fact that you have proposed three of our best players over the course of the last 2 seasons with questionable reviews of their abilities without acknowledging their individual roles in our structure.

 

[Natman]

Which is fine apart from the fact that you have proposed three of our best players over the course of the last 2 seasons with questionable reviews of their abilities without acknowledging their individual roles in our structure.

I looked at the team as a whole and looked at where we are deficient and I came up with the disposal and speed characteristics - not brain surgery as many other posters have also commented.

I then looked at players who I assess as having, IMO, these weaknesses and that is the group I came up with. I never said that they haven't performed individually, but that these players are the ones who have been around for a while and on whom we have come to depend. I just don't think we can afford to have them all in the same team - sometimes you have to get rid of 'good' players by way of trade, to improve.

The same assessment could be done on 'front-runners' - and ask if they should all be in the team at the same time - I won't name the 3 or 4 that I have in mind because the board might blow-up.

 

[wapower]

I looked at the team as a whole and looked at where we are deficient and I came up with the disposal and speed characteristics - not brain surgery as many other posters have also commented.

I then looked at players who I assess as having, IMO, these weaknesses and that is the group I came up with. I never said that they haven't performed individually, but that these players are the ones who have been around for a while and on whom we have come to depend. I just don't think we can afford to have them all in the same team - sometimes you have to get rid of 'good' players by way of trade, to improve.

The same assessment could be done on 'front-runners' - and ask if they should all be in the team at the same time - I won't name the 3 or 4 that I have in mind because the board might blow-up.

We've established that I disagree with your assessment and omissions so there's no point rehashing that. I'd welcome your offerings on the other players for discussion.

 

[Portia]

Kane Cornes is Wayne Campbell

Despite his great success as a player, Campbell was often maligned by Richmond supporters.

One of the reasons for supporter negativity was his perceived tendency to go missing during important matches against traditional club rivals and when the club needed to win games to make finals series. The perception was also there that he underperformed in the few finals matches that Richmond was involved in during his tenure.

Another issue was his tendency to deliver the ball into the forward line with very high (lobbed) kicks, sometimes termed "hospital passes" or "Wayne Campbell kicks."

Extrapolated, we have probably been 90s Richmond for the past few years, and I have to say that feels like the truth.

 

[Peck]

Okay, so you were implying things with your questions.

Well, I think I've already given my answers but I'll repeat it anyway.

1. I think they all somewhat fit the generalization except for Surjan. Though I would not say that they are similar players. I will say that it isn't a useful generalization though, as it doesn't give indication of their individual strengths.
2. Yes, they all deserve to be picked, especially Dom, Kane, and Surjan. Thomas and Logan may slide out of the team. I don't think Thomas will, as he is a beast in contested situations (and I'm massively biased), but Logan likely will.
3. Yes we can. These players all played OK last year, and they are not the problem in the slightest. If the other players can pick up the slack, and these players stop being so critically important, we will be a lot better off.
4. We can and will.
5. Same as 4.

 

[SupportMe]

People forget that Logan - for all his inaccuracy - can go forward and kick a goal or two while still doing some great defensive stuff.

I haven't seen the same from Thomas.

 

[oporto]

We've established that I disagree with your assessment and omissions so there's no point rehashing that. I'd welcome your offerings on the other players for discussion.

Why bother with other offerings given his take on the current 5 he has put forward.

 

[Fazualdo]

Of the 5, Dom, Kane & Surj are super important to our side over the next 3 years and Surj hopefully a bit longer after. As courageous as Logan & Thomas are, one can only hope that either they develop a smarter footy brain or a couple of the young high skilled players come through and take there spots. That being said I think there is always room for at least one player who brings extra aggression and commitment, often the case in football history that these are the less skilled players.

Players are picked on what they bring to the side structually, their defiencies and strengths are weighed up by those with more knowledge than most of us in the grandstands.

There is no reason why we couldn't go all the way with all of these players, as pointed out from many in this thread - when we are losing (which sadly has been happening more often than not lately) it's not those players that go missing.

For us to go forward we need to use them in a structure that enables them to do their job and have the outside players working hard to feed off them in the right spots.

 

[Fazualdo]

Kane Cornes is Wayne Campbell


Extrapolated, we have probably been 90s Richmond for the past few years, and I have to say that feels like the truth.

Sorry I just can't agree there. I may have a distorted memory, but I remember Kane as being one of our better players in finals games, showdowns and his job in the GF was legendary and I consider him unlucky not to win the Norm Smith. Whenever he comes up against the best in Judd, Cousins & others more often than not Kane takes the honours.

I do agree though that Kane is much maligned by supporters and I as big fan cannot understand why (and yes I'm aware of his deficencies).

 

[Schulzenfest]

It's not that he's a bad player per se, he just makes the type of annoying, noticeable mistakes which make you want to jump the fence and slap him.

 

[Andre]

Kane Cornes is Wayne Campbell


Extrapolated, we have probably been 90s Richmond for the past few years, and I have to say that feels like the truth.

That hurts. Unfortunately I have to agree, except that Kane is the same in all matches. His limitations are there whether we are playing crunch/final games or not.

Some of the grief though I think Kane cops for the coach (and we'll see if Primus does this) playing him as if he's a better player then he is.

I.e. he's a very good negator and when played in that role has shut down some top players - and I think still can for another couple of years. Where it starts to go pear shape is the coach then thinking he's also got the skills to set up play and be a clearance player. He hasn't. If Primus can accept Kane's limitations and not ask him to play a role that doesn't suit AND ensures he puts then player(s) to perform those roles then he'll make a valuable contribution to the team.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

That hurts. Unfortunately I have to agree, except that Kane is the same in all matches. His limitations are there whether we are playing crunch/final games or not.

Some of the grief though I think Kane cops for the coach (and we'll see if Primus does this) playing him as if he's a better player then he is.

I.e. he's a very good negator and when played in that role has shut down some top players - and I think still can for another couple of years. Where it starts to go pear shape is the coach then thinking he's also got the skills to set up play and be a clearance player. He hasn't. If Primus can accept Kane's limitations and not ask him to play a role that doesn't suit AND ensures he puts then player(s) to perform those roles then he'll make a valuable contribution to the team.

Or is it when we lack enough others with the ability/desire to do the other roles consistently.

Either way I agree that Kane is better when he plays to his strengths.