A judgement on 5 players

[Natman]

Because it is a bit quiet on the Power front I thought that I would share a judgement on 5 important players in our team - it is subjective, but also objective in that I make the judgement against the best in the AFL.

The players: Dom, Kane, Surj, Tommy and Thommo mainly came to us as lower picks and IMO are similar in 'style'. As a collective group, I see them as:

A grade in; commitment, character and courage.
C grade in; disposal efficiency, disposal hurt-the-opposition, real speed and line-breaking running.

So, the discussion is around the following questions:

Is my judgement fair and accurate?
Do the players deserve to be picked based on the perceived deficiencies?
Can we afford to have them all in the team at the same time?
Can we push for a top 4 spot in the next 1-2 years with them all in the team?
Can we push for a GF in the next 2-4 years with them all in the team?

 

[Malibu#27]

Because it is a bit quiet on the Power front I thought that I would share a judgement on 5 important players in our team - it is subjective, but also objective in that I make the judgement against the best in the AFL.

The players: Dom, Kane, Surj, Tommy and Thommo mainly came to us as lower picks and IMO are similar in 'style'. As a collective group, I see them as:

A grade in; commitment, character and courage.
C grade in; disposal efficiency, disposal hurt-the-opposition, real speed and line-breaking running.

So, the discussion is around the following questions:

Is my judgement fair and accurate?
Do the players deserve to be picked based on the perceived deficiencies?
Can we afford to have them all in the team at the same time?
Can we push for a top 4 spot in the next 1-2 years with them all in the team?
Can we push for a GF in the next 2-4 years with them all in the team?

If all 5 appear in the team we have big issues in terms of becoming a top echelon side. (I'd leave Surj out of the list as he plays a different role).

I think we should look to thin them from the side. We really need to get more ball winners and users into the side and less defensive midfielders that dont hurt the opposition.

 

[wapower]

I don't think you've thought this through that well at all just in terms of team composition from the outset. You cannot have an entire team of same-same players. Neither of the 5 plays a similar role or a same game style. Also Kane Cornes was pick 20 of the 2000 draft.

Dom is one of the best tacklers in the league, Kane Cornes is acclaimed as one of the best negators in the league, Surj is the best lockdown defender (and gets a bum rap for his disposal which is unwarranted) in the league which leaves Logan - who performs a variety of swingman roles for us where needed and Thomas who I've never rated other than his physicality.

What you need to ask yourself is out of that list would any of them improve the better sides in the competition? Three would and 2 don't other than to add depth.

 

[Peck]

I actually think they are all very different players.

I think Dom a fantastic inside player, and is highly underrated. His kicking isn't the best, but he still chips in with very good goals when we need them. I'd describe him as Brett Kirk with a better kick.

Kane is a great tagger, and has a fitness base so high that even after following someone around for most of the game he can then run off them and get a heap of the ball. He doesn't have a particularly great disposal by foot, but I'd still consider him a decent user of the ball most of the time.

Matt Thomas is big and tough, and throws himself at the ball alot of the time. He is pretty good at busting through tackles, and getting the ball away, and is a great mark. He isn't a very smart footballer though, and tends to get lost in no mans land a lot of the time. I think he is actually a decent kick, but makes bad decisions. You'd hope he gets a lot better with experience, but who knows.

I don't really know what to say about Logan. He basically fits the description, though I think he is a bit faster than he gets credit for. I also believe hes a lot better than a lot of other teams last selected players.

Surjan is a lot more talented than the rest of the other guys, and probably doesn't fit this thread IMO.

Though I guess your spot on with your general description of them. lol.

I reckon as long as we have good outside players Dom, Logan and Matt Thomas are very useful, and that Kane should be in the side until he chooses to retire. Surjan is a very good player, and demands selection a lot of the time.

If they are in the team we have every chance of making finals and winning a flag. These players are certainly not our problem at the moment. The fact that they are our best performers hurts us, but this is not because of them, rather because our "star" players simply aren't performing well enough.

I saw the qualifier against the West Coast Eagles from 07 a week or so ago, and wondered why we were so bad after that, even though our team didn't really change. As far as I can tell; Peter Burgoyne, and Lade were carrying that team, and to a lesser extent Chad Cornes, and that the loss of their form killed us.

Anyway, your understanding of footy is a lot deeper than mine Natman, so I'd be interested to hear more of what you think of these guys.

 

[wapower]

That's a reasonably good post Lurk3r. Well done.

 

[Natman]

I used the word "collectively" deliberately to decide whether 5 similar types and most importantly the C grade in relation to skills and running power adversely impacts on our ability to match the Geelongs and Collingwoods or create a new power team.

Do any of the top sides have so many of the style of player that I described?

This thread is not about the individual players per se, but more about the collective impact on the team performance.

 

[wapower]

I used the word "collectively" deliberately to decide whether 5 similar types and most importantly the C grade in relation to skills and running power adversely impacts on our ability to match the Geelongs and Collingwoods or create a new power team.

Do any of the top sides have so many of the style of player that I described?

This thread is not about the individual players per se, but more about the collective impact on the team performance.

They're not similar. Your summation intimates that they are similar players, with similar characteristics and similar playing styles. In reality they play nothing like one another, play on different types of opponents and play very different roles. Each of them bring different skill sets to the table and a completely different dynamic. Bunching them as a collective is a cop out.

I also have a bone to pick with the disposal efficiency comment. Of those players Surjan (78.17 [7th]), Logan (72.76 [14th]), Kane Cornes (70.63 [19th]), Thomas (70.29 [20th]) & Cassisi (69.44 [23]) rank higher than most of the perceived better ball users in our side.

I suggest that most of these boys are doing their jobs. The so called "blue chip" investments we have made are not doing their jobs.

 

[Natman]

They're not similar. Your summation intimates that they are similar players, with similar characteristics and similar playing styles. In reality they play nothing like one another, play on different types of opponents and play very different roles. Each of them bring different skill sets to the table and a completely different dynamic. Bunching them as a collective is a cop out.

I also have a bone to pick with the disposal efficiency comment. Of those players Surjan (78.17 [7th]), Logan (72.76 [14th]), Kane Cornes (70.63 [19th]), Thomas (70.29 [20th]) & Cassisi (69.44 [23]) rank higher than most of the perceived better ball users in our side.

I suggest that most of these boys are doing their jobs. The so called "blue chip" investments we have made are not doing their jobs.

I don't place a lot of emphasis on disposal efficiency as pure stat - I use my eyes to decide how effective and more importantly how hurtful it is to the opposition - IMO that is where these players are similar, and has nothing to do with their individual roles.

Once again, how many of these types of players (admittedly, very subjective) do Geelong and Collingwood have?

 

[Portia]

I saw the qualifier against the West Coast Eagles from 07 a week or so ago, and wondered why we were so bad after that, even though our team didn't really change. As far as I can tell; Peter Burgoyne, and Lade were carrying that team, and to a lesser extent Chad Cornes, and that the loss of their form killed us.

The defence was carrying Peter Burgoyne; he was just about the only person receiving shepherds in the entire side, and got great accolades playing completely unaccountably in defence while others picked up the slack. Then Kane Cornes won the B&F with a single-minded one-on-one style of game.

That was the precise season of our culture shift from team play to `look out for my man, if his gets away, its his problem'.

 

[wapower]

I don't place a lot of emphasis on disposal efficiency as pure stat - I use my eyes to decide how effective and more importantly how hurtful it is to the opposition - IMO that is where these players are similar, and has nothing to do with their individual roles.

Once again, how many of these types of players (admittedly, very subjective) do Geelong and Collingwood have?

So you're happy to discount proven fact in the hope that subjective opinion supports a standpoint? You are aware how easily opinion is to discredit given that notion? I tend to use a meshing of both given the definition of a possession includes both the kick and handball. I'll reiterate once more. The 5 listed players are according to Champion Data better users of the football than most of our "blue chip" players.

Also, define "hurt" for me? Surj hurts the opposition by completely nullifying the oppositions best small forward. In recent times small forwards have become a focal point in forward attacks. Ditto Kane Cornes. More often than not he nullifies the best midfielder the opposition has to offer. Captain Cassisi has a high contested possession count and restricts opponents ability to distribute the ball to outside receivers creating opportunities to score. Logan is much the same and creates big plays every now and then with his desperate style. The only one I can fault is Matt Thomas. Hurting a team extends more than to just creating offence.

As for your Collingwood-Geelong comment. I would suggest they have a similar amount of players on their list. The difference is their blue chip players are better performers than our blue chip players and that feeds down through the list come game day. They play well within the system for one another whereas Port Adelaide doesn't.

 

[Peck]

I don't watch much collingwood or geelong so I can't really comment on how many similar players they have. Saint Kilda have a fair few that I would say fit that type of description, though none of them are nearly as good as Thomas or Logan.

What are your answers to your questions Natman? I can't tell whether your implying things with them or just asking them. If you are implying that these players are dragging us down, I seriously disagree. Our team is percieved to have far too many hard working players that aren't great on the attack. I think we get caught up in blaming individual players, rather than seeing that the whole team generally has inconsistent disposal. Probably through a change in training emphasis (just a guess). Even Pearce - who is meant to be a brilliant kick - was pretty inconsistent this year.

While we certainly have a problem if our line up at a centre bounce is Cassisi, Thomas, and Logan. IMO we'd have just the same number of problems if we had Pearce, Davenport, and Hartlett there.

Porthos; I agree with you that he was unaccountable, and the solidness of our defence allowed him to play that way. I would still argue that he was our most important player in that game by far, and that we are desperate for another player to give us that rebound out of defence. Krakouer looked like he might fill that role (albeit more accountably), but now hes gone.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

From Collingwoods grand final team I would say that at least Johnson, Blair Macaffer and Toovey would fit the bill. Possibly Maxwell and Goldsack too.

 

[Portia]

Porthos; I agree with you that he was unaccountable, and the solidness of our defence allowed him to play that way. I would still argue that he was our most important player in that game by far

Only because the extra effort of 5 other players required that he be so. When PB was shut down, so was our entire defence.

and that we are desperate for another player to give us that rebound out of defence. Krakouer looked like he might fill that role (albeit more accountably), but now hes gone.

Oh **** no, no we aren't. Thats like saying we need one player to kick all of our goals.

We need to have diverse routes returning from goal, not cripple ourselves by always coming out of defence via the same route/player.

 

[Natman]

So you're happy to discount proven fact in the hope that subjective opinion supports a standpoint? You are aware how easily opinion is to discredit given that notion? I tend to use a meshing of both given the definition of a possession includes both the kick and handball. I'll reiterate once more. The 5 listed players are according to Champion Data better users of the football than most of our "blue chip" players.

Also, define "hurt" for me? Surj hurts the opposition by completely nullifying the oppositions best small forward. In recent times small forwards have become a focal point in forward attacks. Ditto Kane Cornes. More often than not he nullifies the best midfielder the opposition has to offer. Captain Cassisi has a high contested possession count and restricts opponents ability to distribute the ball to outside receivers creating opportunities to score. Logan is much the same and creates big plays every now and then with his desperate style. The only one I can fault is Matt Thomas. Hurting a team extends more than to just creating offence.

As for your Collingwood-Geelong comment. I would suggest they have a similar amount of players on their list. The difference is their blue chip players are better performers than our blue chip players and that feeds down through the list come game day. They play well within the system for one another whereas Port Adelaide doesn't.

IMO it is dangerous to use just stats to determine effectiveness - but this is an argument that won't go anywhere.

Hurt disposal is Buckley and Hodge like - penetration, setting up scoring options or continuity of possession - having so many guys that are questionable, irrespective of the % quoted, makes for a break down that leads to turnovers and leakage - one of the biggest complaints on this board. I have never attempted to bring any other characteristic like shutting down into this thread - purely is the C grade stuff overlooked for the A grade stuff.

So far your responses really only address the first question as to my judgement of the 5 and I welcome your retort, but what about the other questions. It seems that in your recent post, there is a comment that the unnamed Collingwood blue chip players are better than ours - which ones do you refer to as theirs and ours?

 

[wapower]

IMO it is dangerous to use just stats to determine effectiveness - but this is an argument that won't go anywhere.

Hurt disposal is Buckley and Hodge like - penetration, setting up scoring options or continuity of possession - having so many guys that are questionable, irrespective of the % quoted, makes for a break down that leads to turnovers and leakage - one of the biggest complaints on this board. I have never attempted to bring any other characteristic like shutting down into this thread - purely is the C grade stuff overlooked for the A grade stuff.

So far your responses really only address the first question as to my judgement of the 5 and I welcome your retort, but what about the other questions. It seems that in your recent post, there is a comment that the unnamed Collingwood blue chip players are better than ours - which ones do you refer to as theirs and ours?

If that's the case then you haven't offered anything other than to package a group of players together on your own ill advised perceptions of them.

 

[Natman]

If that's the case then you haven't offered anything other than to package a group of players together on your own ill advised perceptions of them.

Great response, but nobody advised me of anything. I made it clear from the outset that this was a subjective assessment and your view is different and that's fair enough.

 

[wapower]

Great response, but nobody advised me of anything. I made it clear from the outset that this was a subjective assessment and your view is different and that's fair enough.

Your list includes;

1. The best shutdown and arguably best small defender in the league,
2. Arguably the best tagger in the league, &
3. The 3rd most prolific tackler in the league (2nd best average).

I suggest your use of the term against the best in the AFL is strange at best. Your words not mine.

 

[TORRES_9]

Your list includes;

1. The best shutdown and arguably best small defender in the league,
2. Arguably the best tagger in the league, &
3. The 3rd most prolific tackler in the league (2nd best average).

I suggest your use of the term against the best in the AFL is strange at best. Your words not mine.

I think this highlights the point that Natman is making - We have 4 midfielders who's first action is defensive and that mix simply does not work.

I dont have a problem with Cassisi, K.Cornes, Logan or Thomas individually, but we cant have them all in the side.

 

[Powerade 08]

I'll happily defend every player you've mentioned cept you know who.

Being a defensive player and being selfish is not a good mix. I'd like to see Thomas take over as our main tagger but I think we have another 3 or so years of Kane left. Feelsbadman.

I think Logan will struggle for a game this year. When you look at the Collingwood, Geelong and St Kilda backlines players with height and an ability to rebound out of defence is the way to go. We've drafted a few of these players and they will hopefully start playing regular games this season.(Broadbent, P.Stew, Moore, Jacobs(?), Young (?), etc.)

Surj and Cassisi are A graders in my mind. They do their job week after week and plenty more. Reliable disposal as well.

To answer your question of can we make the top 4 with all 5 in the team, I'll say no. But I think 2 of them will be pushed out of the team halfway through the NAB cup anyway.

 

[wapower]

I think this highlights the point that Natman is making - We have 4 midfielders who's first action is defensive and that mix simply does not work.

I dont have a problem with Cassisi, K.Cornes, Logan or Thomas individually, but we cant have them all in the side.

I know exactly what Natman is attempting to intimate. My position is;

1. None of the 5 players are competing for the same position in the team.
2. The 5 listed players all bring different skill sets to the team.
3. The listed players in general have better disposal than our "blue chip" players according to statistical measures.
4. The use of the term "against the best in the AFL" is bizarre given my qualification about Jacob Surjan, Domenic Cassisi and Kane Cornes given they are the best in the AFL in what they do.
5. The system is broken and the players total application in the system is the problem.

Of the list I agree that the players closer to the fringe are Tom Logan and Matty Thomas. Tom Logan won me over with his performance after Surj succumbed to a knee injury. I find it hard to support Matt Thomas in most instances however his role in the side to be a midfield enforcer is partly because our better midfield players are either broken most of the year, cannot break tags or are simply not delivering performances to an acceptable standard every week.

I could put a line through most players in our team given their perceived upsides and potential inclusions in the side. I've also been exceptionally harsh on the shortcomings of the listed 5 here and there (as referenced by my inclusion in the cynic thread).

I don't have a particular issue with the inclusion of players who perform these roles in the side better than the listed players. That said there are 3 walk up starts in the list mentioned and 2 depth players. If Primus is any good as a full time head coach he'll put them in positions to succeed.

 

[Natman]

I think this highlights the point that Natman is making - We have 4 midfielders who's first action is defensive and that mix simply does not work.

I dont have a problem with Cassisi, K.Cornes, Logan or Thomas individually, but we cant have them all in the side.

Thanks - I think that you have looked past the first question.

 

[Natman]

Your list includes;

1. The best shutdown and arguably best small defender in the league,
2. Arguably the best tagger in the league, &
3. The 3rd most prolific tackler in the league (2nd best average).

I suggest your use of the term against the best in the AFL is strange at best. Your words not mine.

You still haven't got that far past the first question. A lot of arguablies there and also that the 3rd most prolific tackler quote - a great aspect of the our game, but just that skill alone is not enough, by itself to warrant selection in a very good team - which is what we are aiming to build.

By the way, I haven't said that I don't think that any one of these players are not worthy of selection individually, I just wish that you read the opening post carefully.

 

[wapower]

You still haven't got that far past the first question. A lot of arguablies there and also that the 3rd most prolific tackler quote - a great aspect of the our game, but just that skill alone is not enough, by itself to warrant selection in a very good team - which is what we are aiming to build.

By the way, I haven't said that I don't think that any one of these players are not worthy of selection individually, I just wish that you read the opening post carefully.

I didn't think I could take a greater sledgehammer to your first question than I already have.

 

[Schulzenfest]

That list includes probably the best tagger/small defender duo out of any club in the league and the league leader for contested possessions in '10, who also finished top 5 for disposals and one percenters. There's no reason why we can't have one of the best taggers in the AFL, one of the best inside players in the AFL and one of the best small defenders in the AFL in the same side at the same time. Collingwood would love to swap Toovey and Johnson for Surjan and Kornes, and Cassisi and Ball are about even IMO.

That leaves Logan and Thomas. Logan will never be a superstar because he doesn't have the skill for it, but I doubt there's a gutsier player in the game. Thomas throws his weight around well on the field and is good in contested situations, but has the football brain on Daniel Bass. I don't think I've facepalmed more at a player in my life. He makes as many stupid mistakes as Motlop, but gets away with it because he's perceived as a tough inside player rather than a selfish frontrunner. The two that stick out in my mind are that stupid attempt at a dribbled goal from about 30 metres out on a 45 degree angle last year against the Hawks (I think) and the second match against the Saints where he grabbed the ball in the goalsquare and could easily have just kicked it in, but instead tried to get around Sam Gilbert first and got caught holding the ball. If Mots did something similar he would've been crucified on here. Personally I don't rate him. IMO Thomas looks effective because of his high-impact style of play but actually isn't, whereas Logan plays the role of throwing himself around rather than throwing others around, which makes him look less effective than Thomas when in actual fact he's more effective.

So my thoughts are Cassisi, Kornes and Surjan: Yes, Logan: Maybe and Thomas: No. To address them as a whole, I agree that 4 defensive midfielders are too many but that there's no point grouping Surjan with them as he plays in a different area of the ground. Same with Logan when he's playing in defence. One as a tagger and one as an inside midfielder (Cassisi and Kornes) is fine, but any more is pushing it unless it's raining or against a team like Sydney.

I'll reiterate once more. The 5 listed players are according to Champion Data better users of the football than most of our "blue chip" players.

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?

 

[Natman]

I didn't think I could take a greater sledgehammer to your first question than I already have.

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.