Opinion Attempting an honest list assessment

[The King!]

Was listening to the MMM rub podcast discussing how many A graders Carlton had right now. I have watched our side stink it up this year and the second half of last year, well below expectations. Supposedly once players came back we were going to be a contender. I have read a lot of interesting opinions and i was bored so i thought i would try and step back and honestly assess what grade of players we have. If i try to be objective its pretty average reading.

Any thoughts appreciated good or bad, happy to be corrected, but my assessment is we have the following.

A Graders- i gave us 4 yet all 4 concern me for different reasons
Franklin- he is a superstar of the comp BUT he has not done it at Sydney yet and has been B grade at best this year but cant move him on 4 games

Goodes- he was still good when we last saw him- BUT thats the thing we havent seen him since mid last year and he is 34 so possibly generous to keep him here by default

Smith maybe this is generous but he is arguably the elite small defender in the game BUT elite small defensive stoppers arent match winners no matter how good they are

Tippett- considered leaving him B grade to be honest but he was outstanding when he actually played last season but i could be easily convinced to move him.

B Graders
Bird- perhaps playing more at C level over the last 12 months
Grundy- is never going to be an A grader he is a 2nd banana
K Jack- has at times been A grade but isnt at the moment but i expect can get there
Kennedy - was a grade in 2012 and could get back there needs help
Malceski- b i his ceiling
Mcglynn- this is arguably his best year but he isnt a match winner- got to B on shear effort
Mcveigh- i dont care if he was all australian is not and never will be an a grader- been c grade in 2014
Parker- he is solid potential a grader
richards- was n a grader for a few years not anymore and wont get back there


C Graders
Biggs- showed enough when he played could be a future B grader could be delisted
Cunningham- could grow to B
Hannebery- marking hard on this years form but he isnt worth a spot in the side on 2014 form- is potentially A grade probably should still be a b grader
B Jack- could grow to B
Jetta should be a B but lacks defensive skills
Laider- honest trier possibly more a d grader
Mitchell- young but future A grader
Okeefe was A a while back but he has fallen that far
Pyke- a honest toiler- maybe a B grader but he is not and never will be able to carry a ruck division (probably harsh to have as a C)
Rampe- on his way to B disposal needs work
Reid- could be anything but never plays consistently enough to progress
LRT- was never a star and hasnt done much due to injury and form since 2012
Rohan- see reid but never a big ballwinner
Shaw- was a great B grader but competing with ROK for fading the quickest though injury last year hurt

D Grade

Derickx- lets be honest he is better than Paul Chambers but he is a list clogger
Walsh- not convinced he can play waste of space


Yet to see
Aliir
Dick
Hewett
Jones
LLoyd
Lockyer
Marsh
Membrey
P Mitchell
Nankervis
Perris
Robinson
Towers
X richards- not going to judge on a few minutes

Irrelevant
Johnson- it hurts he was awesome in 2012 but if he plays round 1 2015 its 2 years since the kid played so has no impact on our current status

Maybe i am channeling punts - or being harsh but the above wont win a flag anytime soon.

Too much of the list is unknown or on its way down it seems right now.

Not to mention clear under performers such as Hannebery

 

[MarkP]

Agree in essence although I believe JPK and Jack deserve to be rated A Grade.

JPK's output has been exceptional for an inside mid. I think calling 2012 a baseline and then judging him from that is harsh.

Similarly Kizza has shown over an extended period he is one of the best mids in the game. I can forgive him a month of poor form that is probably injury based anyway. He can be assessed down in the future if needs be and the slump continues.

The only other main change I would have is Goodes. I would put him B grade. Can play bursts of A grade but in reality his normal output when on the field is B stuff, good B stuff but B none the less.

Good list though mate, well done.

 

[The King!]

yeah goodes is hard. If i made the list last year id probably still chuck him in as an A grader and he hasnt been back to have an impact on it so left him there.

I agree jack and kennedy have both had times of peak performance, but i think there are plenty of players ahead of Jack in the comp and i was trying to step back and look at it with non swans eyes on, because i would normally slot him as A grade.

Kennedy maybe, i dont know, feels like since 2012 he gets the stats but the impact on games is down

Its all subjective

 

[Tas]

I think the distinction between the different grades is a bit fuzzy, what constitutes A grade, what constitutes B grade, etc then there is the question of do you factor pedigree and potential into the assessment of the quality of the players or if you go just based on current output?

 

[grimlock]

If Kennedy isn't A grade I'll eat my scarf. In the top 3 clearance players in the league.

 

[grimlock]

swansrule100
I'm really confused about the criteria you used to classify our players. On one hand you're clearly using their most recent form to judge them like Jack and Hanners, but then you have someone like Goodes who hasn't played for almost a year and you're rating him A Grade?

 

[GotTheGoodes]

I think it's clearly a subjective thing. For me, there is a potential factor that needs to weigh in on the eventual placing.

- Their potential importance (or lack of) to the team structure (Things like replacability, flexibility etc)
- Their potential for improved/diminished skill set over time (age is a factor but so is positional awareness)
- Their potential output up/down (Linked to skill set but also injury clouds, new roles, gameplan, who they're playing alongside etc)

As an example, Teddy has lost AJ & Marty in a year. He's also had LRT gone for the most part (when LRT is back he's floating forward). He's had to absorb more of the defensive 'toll' over this period as such I believe. He's had these stable & highly effective defenders, which he knows inside out, replaced with a kid who's constantly undersized and has erratic disposal (Rampe) or someother makeshift replacement. His form, I think, taking into account these negatives has been quite good actually. He's still fairly solid on his opponent and is relying on building his troops again with guys not meant to even be there in the first place (e.g. Macca).

In the same breath I think you have someone like Reid who has been carrying the load for those years he was basically our focal point up forward. Right when he finally get's some help up there (Tippett), injury strikes and he's unable to take advantage of it. He loses time to learn the structures & leading patterns etc and now he's being thrown into an alternate position (defence) due to furthe rinjuries that end of the ground. Great in the long term but shocking for his current "value". In 3 years time when he's cemented that swingman role and is as potent a fwd as he is a solid defensive option then I believe his 'grading' now would look well under what it should be. Then again, he could never achieve this potential. In any case I believe it needs to be factored in and form a core part of the grading system.

For what it's worth, and it really pains me to say it, it's the guys like Goodes, ROK, Shaw, LRT that have the negative variable of natural decline hanging over their ranking. These guys are past their prime in terms of consistent A grade footy. However, the potential for Goodes to tear a game apart (when fit) is far more than say a Reid or McGlynn. On balance I'd have Goodes with Reid at the moment, one declining but potentially a game breaker & one with the potential to provided a long term positive impact to our success but still developing.

 

[The King!]

swansrule100
I'm really confused about the criteria you used to classify our players. On one hand you're clearly using their most recent form to judge them like Jack and Hanners, but then you have someone like Goodes who hasn't played for almost a year and you're rating him A Grade?

Goodes i almost left off because he has barely played

In fact given jack and kennedy its probably fair

Its just an attempt to capture who is where now i guess

No criteria so x stat level.doesnt equal a grade and i am more than happy to be challenged

I feel kennedy is an a grade at his best but i think has fallen from that elite bracket in terms of output over 12 months

Hanners just pisses me off of late

He should be better given talent

 

[The King!]

If Kennedy isn't A grade I'll eat my scarf. In the top 3 clearance players in the league.

Yeah a fair comment

Again im not claiming i posted fact just gut feel opinion

 

[grimlock]

Goodes i almost left off because he has barely played

In fact given jack and kennedy its probably fair

Its just an attempt to capture who is where now i guess

No criteria so x stat level.doesnt equal a grade and i am more than happy to be challenged

I feel kennedy is an a grade at his best but i think has fallen from that elite bracket in terms of output over 12 months

Hanners just pisses me off of late

He should be better given talent

You mean the 12 months where he was in the 40 man All Australian squad? And the same 12 months where Jack and Hanners made the final AA team? No doubt Jack and Hanners have been very poor by most standards, let alone their form over the past 2 seasons, but I feel it's more than a little short-sighted to give so much weighting to the past 4 games and not the preceding 25 or so before that. Sure, one part of being rated "A grade" might be consistency but you still need to differentiate between form slumps and actual playing ability.

Also, you'll have to be a little clearer about what you mean by A Grade? For example, Champion Data have their own classifications and their top ranked class "Elite" is defined as in the top 10% in their position. You may or may not agree with the players they've placed in that category but at least we have an idea of what they mean what they are talking about "Elite"

 

[The King!]

You mean the 12 months where he was in the 40 man All Australian squad? And the same 12 months where Jack and Hanners made the final AA team? No doubt Jack and Hanners have been very poor by most standards, let alone their form over the past 2 seasons, but I feel it's more than a little short-sighted to give so much weighting to the past 4 games and not the preceding 25 or so before that. Sure, one part of being rated "A grade" might be consistency but you still need to differentiate between form slumps and actual playing ability.

Also, you'll have to be a little clearer about what you mean by A Grade? For example, Champion Data have their own classifications and their top ranked class "Elite" is defined as in the top 10% in their position. You may or may not agree with the players they've placed in that category but at least we have an idea of what they mean what they are talking about "Elite"

I dont have to do anything, its a list, you can read it and disagree pick it apart i dont mind, but i was clear its a gut feel.

You seem to want me to provide a set statistical measure. If thats the case then he biggest drop is on the scoreboard, and i think he solely has become a contested inside player who lacks the outside ball he used to get at his best, he is more a product of his team mates drop yes but thats my opinion.

I think Kennedy was lucky to make the 40 man all australian squad, i compare him to other similar players like Jobe Watson and think he is not in the same league right now.

If that makes my list invalid thats fine, im not an expert.

 

[The King!]

my post is not meant to be as aggressive as it may read grimlock apologies for that.

I just wanted to discuss where the list is at.

To me an elite midfielder is someone who wins contested and uncontested possession, has good disposal efficiency and can hit the scoreboard- ablett, watson, pendlebury, dangerfield those types

I also dont care what the AA selectors think, i mean Nic Natanui made the all australian team in 2012 or whenever it was, and if he is elite ill eat that scarf you were eating before.

 

[grimlock]

I didn't take anything from your post as being aggressive, I'm just curious to how you came about your judgments, and whether you were deliberately being harsh on some of them to incite discussion or not.

 

[The King!]

I didn't take anything from your post as being aggressive, I'm just curious to how you came about your judgments, and whether you were deliberately being harsh on some of them to incite discussion or not.

I felt i am usually too one eyed and go ok swans a graders

jack
kennedy
parker
hanners
franklin
goodes
etc etc

and feel i overrate the list
so i may have overcorrected

 

[Numbered Days]

I'm not sure it matters how many A Grade players we have. How many did we have in 2004? Two? How about 2011? One?

What matters is how many players have it in them to perform at an A grade level for a period of time - and whether the club can get that performance out of the player.

At the moment we are struggling in this regard but that doesn't mean that Kennedy, Hannebery, Jetta, McVeigh, Jack, Richards, McGlynn, Malceski, etc., can never perform at that level again. Seeing players as talented as some of those guys listed as C grade is pretty exciting. The comp won't know what hit it when they get back to their best. Just not likely to be this season

 

[The King!]

the list profile matters i think, forget the grades even, maybe even a depth chart would be more relevant

We have the 2nd least amount of players under 25 and the majority are untested and unhyped (not that it means they wont be good) but this side needs work, more than i thought perhaps given recent efforts

 

[MarkP]

My 2 bob on ratings.

I simply try and imagine which players would be an automatic on field starter for any other side in the comp and go from there. Buddy,Tippett and Smith would definitely be. Jack and JPK I reckon would also be picked.

The rest not so sure.

Again my opinion only and not definitive but there it is.

 

[Numbered Days]

If you are judging that on this year, I agree. But taking into account careers, every side in the AFL would grab McVeigh, Hannebery & Richards and stick them in their starting side tomorrow if they could. Most would probably take Malceski & Parker as well.

 

[cinderella man]

If Kennedy isn't A grade I'll eat my scarf. In the top 3 clearance players in the league.

Well share it around because I will have a piece of it too.

 

[Numbered Days]

the list profile matters i think, forget the grades even, maybe even a depth chart would be more relevant

We have the 2nd least amount of players under 25 and the majority are untested and unhyped (not that it means they wont be good) but this side needs work, more than i thought perhaps given recent efforts

Serious question - why does that matter both in terms of what we are currently going through and long term? We could delist our 8 oldest players at the end of the year and replace them with draftees and we will have more players under 25. Does that get us closer to a flag? My guess would be that the clubs with less players under 25 are more likely to be finalists but I don't know.

I'd be interested to see any research that shows that things like this matter - especially in an environment where a whole list can be changed within five years.

 

[The King!]

Serious question - why does that matter both in terms of what we are currently going through and long term? We could delist our 8 oldest players at the end of the year and replace them with draftees and we will have more players under 25. Does that get us closer to a flag? My guess would be that the clubs with less players under 25 are more likely to be finalists but I don't know.

I'd be interested to see any research that shows that things like this matter - especially in an environment where a whole list can be changed within five years.

maybe it doesnt just generally they are the teams challenging for the flag

 

[swansfan51]

The way I rate players is how they sit in relation to the other 17 guys in their position.

For example, lets take a key position player: Heath Grundy. He is named at CHB. The following CHBs that were named at CHB last weekend are better than him:

Harry Taylor
Eric Mackenzie
Josh Gibson
Scott Thompson
Cale Hooker
Daniel Talia
Michael Johnson

Then you have an argument about players who are of similar level, and then you have the defenders that were out injured like Rory Thompson, Brian Lake.

Therefore Heath Grundy is around the 9th-12th CHB in the league, for a rating of average to poor. I don't think the above rating is really questionable, but the midfielders are a lot harder. Tippett I rate 2nd (excellent), most of the best forwards line up at CHF (Kennedy, Cameron etc)

 

[Jack2Jack]

Not bad most are about right, although maybe Tippett may need to do what he did last season for a little longer to gain an A grade tag & Kennedy is no doubt A grade...may not be at his absolute best but has probably still been our best player so far this year (Parker maybe the only challenger).

The AA selectors got it wrong last year imo, Hannebery was very good early in the year and rightly received a fair few plaudits for it, but if you were choosing solely between the 2 for the last AA spot, Kennedy was better over the course of the year (as reflected in the Skilton medal). You only need to look at the difference between the best and worst of most our players, Kennedys worst when he's copping a heavy tag still brings in 20 odd possessions, some of the others go completely invisible. Says a lot when a 27 possession average, and being no1 for contested possession and clearances at the club was considered an 'average' season.
Reckon our midfield would completely fall apart without this guy - is our best& most important player imo, victim of his own consistency in a way because you can almost lock in a good game, people just expect it and don't take as much notice, while laud lots of praise/votes onto a kid, or second tier who has probably only had half the game Kennedy did.

 

[Ed_Gein]

I don't think there is enough letters in the alphabet to correctly rank Grundy, amirite Stat_Machine?

Struggling for form yes, but lets not forget we have 3 players who were AA last year, 2 of which are definitely A grade in McVeigh and Jack. Hannebery is too inconsistent still, if he could bridge the gap between his best and worst, he is A grade, but i think B+ until then. Parker is getting there, whilst JPK is bona-fide A grade too.

Who cares about Franklin, he is content in bleeding us dry so i will leave that alone

 

[melbournehammer]

The thing is that in a salary capped competition it is inevitable that you will have a list comprised of a range of players from out and out stars to good ordinary footballers to players who will make way after injuries recede. The basic approach I adopt is a good ordinary footballer is a player who would get a game at a another club, but the majority of clubs have players of similar ability, a b grader make an impact at most clubs and an a grader be sought after highly on the open market as someone that is a valuable commodity.

On paper (based on 2005-2013 output) we have

A graders
Goodes
Franklin
Kennedy
Jack
Richards
Tippett
Mcveigh


B graders
Hanners
Jetta
Mal
Rok
Reid
Smith



C graders (good ordinary footballers)
Lrt
Rampe
Bird
Rohan
Grundy
Shaw
Mcglynn
Pyke
Parker



Reserves
Everyone else


Currently I would suggest that only Parker is moving up that scale. Kennedy is the only a grader playing like it. Franklin deserves points for effort, but the ball movement and conditions have hindered his performance. Richards has been a grade for us for a long time but this has been because of the pressure on the ball carrier and the help he has received - he was always undersized against the Geelong forwards, hawks and cloke. Smith is the only b grader playing like it - but highly dependable back pockets are reasonably common in the league and he offers almost nothing going the other way. In short our entire list is being re rated because of poor skills, a lack of hard running and opponents beating up on them. We rated the list in a lot of cases on potential and their best performances, and their age. More slack is given to Mitchell's poor kicking than to shaw or rok. The endless protection of Reid by supporters and the coaching staff on the basis that he was going to come good unlike White is still based on potential.

When you look at this we also have a trapdoor. Mitchell, Reid, jetta, rohan, jack, hanners are the core of our potential and our future. If jetta rohan Mitchell and Reid don't make it into a graders we have a serious talent problem in 2015 forwards. For those who say our window opens then you have to assume that those 7 are going to be absolute a graders playing for us surrounded by a list of b and c graders. I think 2014 actually may turn out to be our last really good chance which is partly why I am so disappointed. I have been pondering for a while that goodes made so many others better players as did the back six including tadgh, mattner and aj. I can see us just as likely becoming like the lions 2009-2014 with a marquee forward and some good midfielders who can jag a win every now and then but never seriously threaten.


But that is why the game plan matters. Luke bruest, Isaac smith, puopolo, mzungu, ibbotson, etc are good ordinary footballers. But in a team of good kickers or where there is immense pressure on the ball, they can be made to look better than what they would elsewhere. An example of the latter is Shannon Byrnes who as a Geelong forward pocket looked like a 40 goal a season, 4 tackles and pressure acts player. At Melbourne he looks like a liability. Look how Sean dempster is going now st kilda can't stop the ball entering. He still halves a lot of contests but he used to halve about 80-90%.

Anyway Tokyo Disney in an hour or two awaits...