Autopsy Game is long over, Swans were putrid

[ashep]

My point was that he did the job given to him. And it's inevitably a sacrificial job. Nine out of ten players are not going to pick up huge stats and have a huge impact the other way if they have a negative role.

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't believe that an opponent having marginally less impact in a game than average, while contributing close to nothing yourself - apart from a couple of clangers, is enough of a job for an AFL footballer.

Sure, we can guess that that is his primary role, but he should be able to stick a few tackles and get some of the ball himself at the same time.

 

[Kbroome]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't believe that an opponent having marginally less impact in a game than average, while contributing close to nothing yourself - apart from a couple of clangers, is enough of a job for an AFL footballer.

Especially when you have a guy by the name of James Jordan who had kept Whitfield to 19 touches and a mark when in the last 6 weeks he is averaging like 34 and 7 marks. Thats what a tag is not limiting stats but still within a reasonable margin of his average

 

[caesar88]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't believe that an opponent having marginally less impact in a game than average, while contributing close to nothing yourself - apart from a couple of clangers, is enough of a job for an AFL footballer.

Sure, we can guess that that is his primary role, but he should be able to stick a few tackles and get some of the ball himself at the same time.

The bolded is the part I have a problem with. It suggests a lack of respect to off-the-ball contributions.

Wicks' contribution to that game was nullifying Dale's impact. For the three quarters that he had the tag on Dale, he did that. It was up to others - whose job is to "contribute" with the ball - to actually contribute with the ball.

If contributions only count as what you do with the ball then I guess we do away with most defenders?

 

[Bloods86]

And the pretty obvious point is that he had a negligible impact on Dale as the week before Dale had 23 touches and less SIs against Geelong. Against Port a couple weeks before that he had a worse game than Wick's tag game, i don't believe he was tagged in either game

Yeah but against the Cats, Dale had 10 intercepts and 78% disposal efficiency, versus us he had 5 and 68%.

I would drop Wicks, but stats can be overused.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Mills and Parker came back for the North game. We were trash the week before against the Saints and below par against Freo before that.

Hasn't helped us, but it wasn't the trigger.

We have been trash since the Adelaide game. A flukey nine goal performance by Amartey papered over major cracks.

And the first quarter slides started before that even.

It has been a snow ball gradually gaining mass as it rolls down a hill.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't believe that an opponent having marginally less impact in a game than average, while contributing close to nothing yourself - apart from a couple of clangers, is enough of a job for an AFL footballer.

Sure, we can guess that that is his primary role, but he should be able to stick a few tackles and get some of the ball himself at the same time.

I'm with ashep on this one.

If Wicks' primary role is to negate an opponent, we might as well kept Ryan Clarke .... who was actually pretty damn good at it.

We need more from Wicks.

 

[Kbroome]

I'm with ashep on this one.

If Wicks' primary role is to negate an opponent, we might have well kept Ryan Clarke .... who was actually pretty damn good at it.

We need more from Wicks.

We have talked about how bad our offence is recently and how we were so reliant on our midfield to kick goals. Well one of the reasons is because we have a forward that has kicked 2 goals in 75 days.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

They didn't cause it, but particularly Mills, having unfit and out of touch players makes it harder for the rest of the team to correct it.

It never helps having growing injuries (both players out and players like Heeney) and then adding a new player to the mix that the team has to carry - Mills had been that player. It is the opposite of what a captain should do, which is make everyone around them better.

 

[ashep]

The bolded is the part I have a problem with. It suggests a lack of respect to off-the-ball contributions.

Wicks' contribution to that game was nullifying Dale's impact. For the three quarters that he had the tag on Dale, he did that. It was up to others - whose job is to "contribute" with the ball - to actually contribute with the ball.

If contributions only count as what you do with the ball then I guess we do away with most defenders?

But he simply didn't nullify Dale. If he locked him down, sure, that's a valuable contribution. But no, Dale was marginally less effective against us than in other games.

He's not playing as a defender, he's playing as an alleged pressure forward in a side that struggled to hit the scoreboard against the Dogs. As a small forward in the side for his pace, he should be creating opportunities for himself or his team mates. He isn't.

 

[caesar88]

But he simply didn't nullify Dale. If he locked him down, sure, that's a valuable contribution. But no, Dale was marginally less effective against us than in other games.

He's not playing as a defender, he's playing as an alleged pressure forward in a side that struggled to hit the scoreboard against the Dogs. As a small forward in the side for his pace, he should be creating opportunities for himself or his team mates. He isn't.

Who are we to say he didn't nullify Dale? Is that not for the coaches to decide?

I understand what his normal role is, but there are occasions, such as the game in question, where he was virtually playing as a defender. It was a hard, aggressive role focused on Dale and mitigating his impact.

I'm not denying Wicks is out of form, I'm not even arguing he'd be in the team if it were up to me. My original post was that it's too simplistic to just list the stats from each of Wicks' games and say he was poor in them, without knowing what his objective or role in those games was.

A few times now I've heard James Rowbottom when interviewed say his focus isn't on how much of the ball he gets. Think about how wild that is to hear from a starting on-baller at 70% of our centre bounces this year. But it's because disposals and impact with the ball is not the directive for his job each game. It's to bring pressure and physicality off the ball. Anything else is a bonus.

I'll reiterate that I don't think Wicks is in form, but when he is, I think he usually manages to get those bonuses often enough, so it's not like it's beyond his capability.

 

[Kbroome]

Who are we to say he didn't nullify Dale? Is that not for the coaches to decide?

I understand what his normal role is, but there are occasions, such as the game in question, where he was virtually playing as a defender. It was a hard, aggressive role focused on Dale and mitigating his impact.

I'm not denying Wicks is out of form, I'm not even arguing he'd be in the team if it were up to me. My original post was that it's too simplistic to just list the stats from each of Wicks' games and say he was poor in them, without knowing what his objective or role in those games was.

A few times now I've heard James Rowbottom when interviewed say his focus isn't on how much of the ball he gets. Think about how wild that is to hear from a starting on-baller at 70% of our centre bounces this year. But it's because disposals and impact with the ball is not the directive for his job each game. It's to bring pressure and physicality off the ball. Anything else is a bonus.

I'll reiterate that I don't think Wicks is in form, but when he is, I think he usually manages to get those bonuses often enough, so it's not like it's beyond his capability.

He didn't get the intercepts because it was the key defenders getting the intercepts instead. Aside from that Dale had a completely normal game so the tag from Wicks did nothing, and Wicks didn't punish him on the other end and now has a streak of 2 goals in 75 days

 

[ashep]

Who are we to say he didn't nullify Dale? Is that not for the coaches to decide?

I understand what his normal role is, but there are occasions, such as the game in question, where he was virtually playing as a defender. It was a hard, aggressive role focused on Dale and mitigating his impact.

I'm not denying Wicks is out of form, I'm not even arguing he'd be in the team if it were up to me. My original post was that it's too simplistic to just list the stats from each of Wicks' games and say he was poor in them, without knowing what his objective or role in those games was.

A few times now I've heard James Rowbottom when interviewed say his focus isn't on how much of the ball he gets. Think about how wild that is to hear from a starting on-baller at 70% of our centre bounces this year. But it's because disposals and impact with the ball is not the directive for his job each game. It's to bring pressure and physicality off the ball. Anything else is a bonus.

I'll reiterate that I don't think Wicks is in form, but when he is, I think he usually manages to get those bonuses often enough, so it's not like it's beyond his capability.

Where did any of the coaches talk about Wicks' role on Dale? I get what you're saying but we've all got eyes and can watch and assess the games for ourselves. I simply didn't see Wicks consistently in Dale's pocket or putting him under pressure. Nor did I see him around the ball creating opportunities.

Your point about impact beyond stats is valid, but that's not what I'm seeing from Wicks when watching the games, and it's not supported by the output of his opponents either.

 

[Kbroome]

Where did any of the coaches talk about Wicks' role on Dale? I get what you're saying but we've all got eyes and can watch and assess the games for ourselves. I simply didn't see Wicks consistently in Dale's pocket or putting him under pressure. Nor did I see him around the ball creating opportunities.

Your point about impact beyond stats is valid, but that's not what I'm seeing from Wicks when watching the games, and it's not supported by the output of his opponents either.

Agree with this because these mythical stats that people generally talk about fall under pressure acts and 1%rs. His 1%rs are roughly the same and his pressure acts are still down 31% on last year.

 

[ashep]

We didn't defend Stephens for "keeping his width" per coaches instructions to mask his lack of output.

 

[Day_night_honourer]

Just received a message from a John someone :

Unlike the thread on Swans BF from last week's utterly disappointing match we have now moved onto this week's challenge and putting all our energy into this important contest instead, against an up & about Collingwood outfit looking to return to the top 8. We prefer to concentrate on the things we can control & can't change last week's outcome unfortunately. We have reviewed last weekend's match & all the learnings from it and will be putting the best solutions into place for Friday night and will be looking to heavily improve our contests from front to back.
We are expecting a full SCG and would like to thank the fans for all their fantastic support throughout this record-breaking season for SCG attendances & hope to see a packed stadium for this important clash.
...and btw, bad luck haters! I'm here until the end of 2025 - at least!! ,,|,,

 

[Dubai Quacker]

The absolute worst thing about Saturday’s capitulation?

We’ve largely silenced Sack Hinkley 11.