Bluemour Melting Pot XXVIII

[Kramer1]

Is Plowman the worst one on one or simply the most exposed. No Simmo, Doc not near his best. A couple of rookies along side him. Clean opposition entries time after time.

Similarly, Jones and Weitering ranking high in one on one's isn't actually a big plus.

 

[Coops93]

Is Plowman the worst one on one or simply the most exposed. No Simmo, Doc not near his best. A couple of rookies along side him. Clean opposition entries time after time.

Similarly, Jones and Weitering ranking high in one on one's isn't actually a big plus.

A one on one is kind of by definition exposed. It doesn't matter who's around him, if someone is around to help then it's not 1 on 1 anymore.

 

[Arr0w]

A one on one is kind of by definition exposed. It doesn't matter who's around him, if someone is around to help then it's not 1 on 1 anymore.

Is it though?

Who else plays a back 6, man on man defensive arc? Playing the +1 eliminates space to lead and or slowing down opposition forward entries, allowing defenders to shutdown "hurt" areas inside defensive 50

If more teams played this setup, many more 3rd tall/medium defenders would be exposed

 

[bmaurizio]

Close checking defender is the more appropriate term, as all defenders should be, mean, meager, attacking with good ball distribution, out of the danger zone.

 

[blue healer]

Just wanted to also point out that McGovern was also brought in because of Teague - Teague wanted to replicate the forward line he had installed as the forwards coach at Adelaide and he preferred having someone in from that system and the easiest get was McGovern. So while we may want to say it’s SOS who got it wrong and/or overpaid, it was very likely Teague who pushed for that to happen after his first year at the Blues (as an assistant coach).


McGovern has only shown glimpses of his value - and a lot will have to go right for it to click for him but the potential remains. It’s just that he’s 26 now and he will need to accept a much lower contract next time.






Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yep, SOS always gave the vibe that he could be pushed into a trade he didn't want by a first year assistant coach.

If he was that pliable I just can't fathom how we missed Ellis.

 

[Coops93]

Is it though?

Who else plays a back 6, man on man defensive arc? Playing the +1 eliminates space to lead and or slowing down opposition forward entries, allowing defenders to shutdown "hurt" areas inside defensive 50

If more teams played this setup, many more 3rd tall/medium defenders would be exposed

I'm not convinced it would effect the 1v1 stat much. I take the stat to mean a 1 on 1 contest, where both players are competing for the ball, not being hit up on the lead and taking an uncontested mark, for example. So the space wouldn't really matters as it's still a 1v1.

Maybe beating someone on the lead does count as winning a 1 on 1 contest from the statistics perspective, but that's not how I look at it.

 

[JustaBattler]

Yep, SOS always gave the vibe that he could be pushed into a trade he didn't want by a first year assistant coach.

If he was that pliable I just can't fathom how we missed Ellis.

Maybe - just maybe - SOS wasn't the non-team player with conflicts of interest that has been communicated to nuff nuffs who believed the shyte peddled by a CEO on training wheels and whose decisions through the Club are now subject to review - not him though - no review will be required to see him out in due course.

 

[chunkylover53]

Is Plowman the worst one on one or simply the most exposed. No Simmo, Doc not near his best. A couple of rookies along side him. Clean opposition entries time after time.

Similarly, Jones and Weitering ranking high in one on one's isn't actually a big plus.

Is isolated on purpose by opposition coaches. When he went out of the side and Stocker came in they did the same thing to him as well.

 

[Aphrodite]

The 200cm wingman ?

You mean the 'Unicrorn'

 

[Dramoth]

You mean the 'Unicrorn'

Is Hird, Dank, and Charters back at the club now?

 

[Arr0w]

I'm not convinced it would effect the 1v1 stat much. I take the stat to mean a 1 on 1 contest, where both players are competing for the ball, not being hit up on the lead and taking an uncontested mark, for example. So the space wouldn't really matters as it's still a 1v1.

Maybe beating someone on the lead does count as winning a 1 on 1 contest from the statistics perspective, but that's not how I look at it.

Look at it another way.

If I was a defender playing on DeGoey and I have a teammate sitting in the hole/leading lane, then I know that eliminates an avenue for my opponent or at the very least, reduces the likelihood.

I can then focus on a different defensive position to compete with a longer, so called more measured kick, that gives me more time to close that space or apply body contact to spoil or intercept

 

[CJMB]

Look at it another way.

If I was a defender playing on DeGoey and I have a teammate sitting in the hole/leading lane, then I know that eliminates an avenue for my opponent or at the very least, reduces the likelihood.

I can then focus on a different defensive position to compete with a longer, so called more measured kick, that gives me more time to close that space or apply body contact to spoil or intercept

A high 1v1 winning percentage is great but we want a lower number for total 1v1 contests

 

[jd2010]

2 to 3 more assistants to go as part of the review

Story around Barker slightly different to the public one but all in all he's gone.

Teague safe. My man seen many coaches but actually fan of Teague doesn't think it's his issue.

Big focus on development

Bit concerning if true since the review hasn't started

 

[Bluebag13]

I believe that data is old. These are our defender's contested 1v1 loss percentages:

Jones - 12%
Newman - 17%
Stocker - 18%
Weitering - 21%
Saad - 25%
Plowman - 26%
Parks - 40%
Docherty - 42%


EDIT - Just for reference as a comparison across other defenders in the league: Salem (12%), Stewart (13%), Hurn (15%), Grimes (18%), Broad (19%), May (20%), Andrews (24%), Barrass (26%), Maynard (30%).

Where do you get this data from?

 

[carlton_99]

The Plowman is a lockdown defender is interesting as statistically he is one of the worst in the AFL (I believe this may be from 2020)

On a side note it also shows how much action Weitering and Jones get compared to the rest of the league - lol

View attachment 1156296

There is a stat on the AFL website called "defensive contests lost %". In 2021 Plow (26.1%) has a percentage that is only slightly more than Weitering (21.2%), Moore (22.5%) and Andrews (24.2%). Plowman was at 40% in 2020 so he has improved signifcantly.

 

[jd2010]

There is a stat on the AFL webiste called "defensive contest lost". In 2021 Plow (26.1%) has a percentage that is only slightly more than Weitering (21.2%), Moore (22.5%) and Andrews (24.2%). Plowman was at 40% in 2020 so he has improved signifcantly.

After a shocking start to the year he definitely improved.

Can you view that by round? Wouldn't surprise me if the first 3-4 weeks he was still around the 40% mark.

 

[jimmyshell]

There's guaranteed money, match payments, there's incentives for various KPIs like games played, goals kicked, B&F fininish, Brownlow, Coleman, and a stack of other things.

Player X could be reported to be on 750k. That could include a guaranteed base of 500, match payments of 5, and the remaining split up with incentive payments based on winning/placing/top10 in the B&F, Brownlow, AA, AFLPA MVP, AFLCA MVP & Coleman, along with other KPIs. So for them to get that reported 750 they have to absolutely brain it. The

Those incentives will obviously vary player to player; Weitering certainly ain't gonna have anything about goal kicking, while a younger player (exc Walsh) likely isn't going to have anything relating to competition-wide awards.

Some players may not have match payments as part of their contract, they might have a higher base instead and that 'security' of guaranteed money was what their manager was chasing in contract negotiations (as opposed to the chance to get more if things go well). Ie player Y "on 750" might be on 650 base with 100 incentivised, or even 700:50 if that 'security' was a big part in the negotiation process. In both cases I'm pretty confident the number being leaked out to the media is the maximum possible payment, and quite possibly with a bit of mayo on top of that.

Bottom line is this stuff happens, it's in a lot of them but none of us have any f****** idea what's actually written on these contracts unless you're the player, their manager, the club, or someone close enough to somehow be told (but even then I'm sure you're not getting the full details, maybe an overall picture of expected or max).

Really insightful, thanks CJMB.

While you say you have no idea what's actually in there, is your answer based off some insight into player contracts? Or just some good judgement?

 

[carlton_99]

After a shocking start to the year he definitely improved.

Can you view that by round? Wouldn't surprise me if the first 3-4 weeks he was still around the 40% mark.

Doesn't let me break it up by round unfortunately. Just different seasons.

 

[Coops93]

Look at it another way.

If I was a defender playing on DeGoey and I have a teammate sitting in the hole/leading lane, then I know that eliminates an avenue for my opponent or at the very least, reduces the likelihood.

I can then focus on a different defensive position to compete with a longer, so called more measured kick, that gives me more time to close that space or apply body contact to spoil or intercept

I'm still not convinced it would make a big difference. It would make some, but not a jump from an average 1v1 player to a sound one.

 

[jd2010]

Really insightful, thanks CJMB.

While you say you have no idea what's actually in there, is your answer based off some insight into player contracts? Or just some good judgement?

Having seen some software around the AFL's cap management that is definitely the case. Clubs are only allowed a certain portion of their cap to be spent on incentives. They wouldn't even allow for what that sort of incentive % of the cap to be known by developers

 

[azlou]

There's guaranteed money, match payments, there's incentives for various KPIs like games played, goals kicked, B&F fininish, Brownlow, Coleman, and a stack of other things.

Player X could be reported to be on 750k. That could include a guaranteed base of 500, match payments of 5, and the remaining split up with incentive payments based on winning/placing/top10 in the B&F, Brownlow, AA, AFLPA MVP, AFLCA MVP & Coleman, along with other KPIs. So for them to get that reported 750 they have to absolutely brain it. The

Those incentives will obviously vary player to player; Weitering certainly ain't gonna have anything about goal kicking, while a younger player (exc Walsh) likely isn't going to have anything relating to competition-wide awards.

Some players may not have match payments as part of their contract, they might have a higher base instead and that 'security' of guaranteed money was what their manager was chasing in contract negotiations (as opposed to the chance to get more if things go well). Ie player Y "on 750" might be on 650 base with 100 incentivised, or even 700:50 if that 'security' was a big part in the negotiation process. In both cases I'm pretty confident the number being leaked out to the media is the maximum possible payment, and quite possibly with a bit of mayo on top of that.

Bottom line is this stuff happens, it's in a lot of them but none of us have any f****** idea what's actually written on these contracts unless you're the player, their manager, the club, or someone close enough to somehow be told (but even then I'm sure you're not getting the full details, maybe an overall picture of expected or max).

In other words if McGovern was being paid even close to $700,000 we would be doing very well as a team and so would McGovern

 

[slashin_velvet]

There's guaranteed money, match payments, there's incentives for various KPIs like games played, goals kicked, B&F fininish, Brownlow, Coleman, and a stack of other things.

Player X could be reported to be on 750k. That could include a guaranteed base of 500, match payments of 5, and the remaining split up with incentive payments based on winning/placing/top10 in the B&F, Brownlow, AA, AFLPA MVP, AFLCA MVP & Coleman, along with other KPIs. So for them to get that reported 750 they have to absolutely brain it. The

Those incentives will obviously vary player to player; Weitering certainly ain't gonna have anything about goal kicking, while a younger player (exc Walsh) likely isn't going to have anything relating to competition-wide awards.

Some players may not have match payments as part of their contract, they might have a higher base instead and that 'security' of guaranteed money was what their manager was chasing in contract negotiations (as opposed to the chance to get more if things go well). Ie player Y "on 750" might be on 650 base with 100 incentivised, or even 700:50 if that 'security' was a big part in the negotiation process. In both cases I'm pretty confident the number being leaked out to the media is the maximum possible payment, and quite possibly with a bit of mayo on top of that.

Bottom line is this stuff happens, it's in a lot of them but none of us have any f****** idea what's actually written on these contracts unless you're the player, their manager, the club, or someone close enough to somehow be told (but even then I'm sure you're not getting the full details, maybe an overall picture of expected or max).

+1 from me

In my experience, the match payments incentives were more frequent in younger (less experienced) players, and the awards incentives much more prevalent in more experienced players.

The one that always concerned me were bonuses attached to making grand finals - if too many players have those kickers, a Grand Finalist Club could put themselves in salary cap breach by mistake.

 

[slashin_velvet]

In other words if McGovern was being paid even close to $700,000 we would be doing very well as a team and so would McGovern

I wouldn't be so confident. Possibly he would have kickers for coleman/b&f or leading club goal kicker, but i'd anticipate a large chunk of his deal would be guaranteed.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Similarly, Jones and Weitering ranking high in one on one's isn't actually a big plus.

Huh? It's not a big plus that our two key defenders lose an extremely low percentage of 1v1 contests? That's an enormous plus...

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Is it though?

Who else plays a back 6, man on man defensive arc? Playing the +1 eliminates space to lead and or slowing down opposition forward entries, allowing defenders to shutdown "hurt" areas inside defensive 50

If more teams played this setup, many more 3rd tall/medium defenders would be exposed

A percentage doesn't care how often it happens. It still shows that *when* Docherty parks and plowman are 1v1 they've been poor this season. Good teams still create 1v1s against zone defences. It's just less often, plows win percentage in those 1v1s would remain the same.