Analysis Inexperience watch

[Grasshopper17]

What about last week?

Last week I thought we outran Gold Coast. I finished watching the replay today and Gerard Healy's carry on about how we were struggling to run out the game really jarred with what I was seeing live at the ground.

We were 2cm shorter than the Suns on average, tomorrow we'll be basically 1cm taller than the Saints, needlessly in my view.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Last week I thought we outran Gold Coast. I finished watching the replay today and Gerard Healy's carry on about how we were struggling to run out the game really jarred with what I was seeing live at the ground.

We were 2cm shorter than the Suns on average, tomorrow we'll be basically 1cm taller than the Saints, needlessly in my view.

Just a pet peeve of mine. Whenever there’s a height differential according to posters on this board we’re at a disadvantage

I think Smith will be the sub anyway. Fagan played Fort as the sub when McStay were injured because without a tall backup our greatest risk was a tall injury.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Just a pet peeve of mine. Whenever there’s a height differential according to posters on this board we’re at a disadvantage

I think Smith will be the sub anyway. Fagan played Fort as the sub when McStay were injured because without a tall backup our greatest risk was a tall injury.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think having a taller team is ALWAYS a disadvantage. I just think that the way we want to play doesn't really suit that method. The kick-mark game, while it can appear relatively low risk, becomes incredibly risky when we make a skill error. That's when we have to scramble defensively, and having that extra tall, in my view, inhibits our ability to do that.

Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll see.

 

[Section 5]

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think having a taller team is ALWAYS a disadvantage. I just think that the way we want to play doesn't really suit that method. The kick-mark game, while it can appear relatively low risk, becomes incredibly risky when we make a skill error. That's when we have to scramble defensively, and having that extra tall, in my view, inhibits our ability to do that.

Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll see.

I don't think we really have an extra tall tomorrow as most believe Smith will be sub.
If he is not the sub, then we do have an extra tall on the ground.
Hopefully no injuries so the sub usually comes on in the last quarter.

Our best team (season injured players excluded) is with Payne 197cm in the side.
With the team announced tomorrow i think Prior (189cm) comes out for Payne, that makes us slightly taller.

Smith (206) most likely sub tomorrow anyhow, gets omitted. In comes a small let's say Reville as the sub.
That makes us a little shorter.

We basically have our best team on the field tomorrow excluding Payne.

 

[McIvor]

Last week I thought we outran Gold Coast. I finished watching the replay today and Gerard Healy's carry on about how we were struggling to run out the game really jarred with what I was seeing live at the ground.

We were 2cm shorter than the Suns on average, tomorrow we'll be basically 1cm taller than the Saints, needlessly in my view.

Gerard Healy wasn’t at the ground either so hard to take commentators like him seriously

 

[Jivlain]

	Brisbane	GWS Giants
(0 to 10 games)	2	2
0 to 24 games	5	4
25 to 49 games	4	3
50 to 99 games	0	6
100 to 199 games	9	6
200+ games	5	4
Games played	118.39	102.61
Age	25.83	25.40
Height	188.48	187.96
Finals played	7.65	6.04

Interactive version

 

[Lions Flag 2020]

View attachment 2072370

	Brisbane	GWS Giants
(0 to 10 games)	2	2
0 to 24 games	5	4
25 to 49 games	4	3
50 to 99 games	0	6
100 to 199 games	9	6
200+ games	5	4
Games played	118.39	102.61
Age	25.83	25.40
Height	188.48	187.96
Finals played	7.65	6.04

Interactive version

Thanks for doing this each week. When we were rising off the bottom of the ladder 6/7 years ago this was religious viewing for me each week.

 

[Miluxx]

Thanks for doing this each week. When we were rising off the bottom of the ladder 6/7 years ago this was religious viewing for me each week.

It's been a fun ride watching us finally get over the ave games and age.

 

[KissKiss]

Im loving that we have got the ave age and games up to that winning territory but still seeing us bring enough kids through. Keeping that cycle going should help us stay at the top for a while yet

 

[Nathan Barley]

Im loving that we have got the ave age and games up to that winning territory but still seeing us bring enough kids through. Keeping that cycle going should help us stay at the top for a while yet

9 under 50 is probably too many though, even with Wilmot graduating this week

 

[Nunez]

9 under 50 is probably too many though, even with Wilmot graduating this week

Pretty talented players in that group helps, but definitely not ideal.

 

[Elixuh]

9 under 50 is probably too many though, even with Wilmot graduating this week

The helpful thing is the inexperience and experience is relatively evenly spread on the field. It’s not as though they’re all jammed into our forward line.

 

[KissKiss]

9 under 50 is probably too many though, even with Wilmot graduating this week

Agree its not ideal. But looking into finals things should improve a little:

• Hipwood replaces Smith - lowest player jumps out
• Ashcroft will jump into the 25+ which think is an reasonable point to show their a solid player
• Prior/Brain are likely sub or drop out of the team.

 

[Section 5]

Teams in contention this year (+ the Tigers) and the number of players in 3 categories on their list.
Completely different to who actually takes to the field each week of course.

The number of players taken in the midseason draft will affect the numbers.
Three players: Brisbane
Two players: North, Pies
One player: Tigers, Eagles, Saints, Hawks, Demons, Bombers, Crows, Dogs, Blues, Port & Swans.

Team	Played Under 50 Games	Played 1 To 49 Games	Yet to Debut
Swans	17	8	9
Lions	24	17	7
Port	18	11	7
Giants	23	18	5
Cats	19	11	8
Dockers	23	16	7
Dogs	18	13	5
Blues	20	11	9
Bombers	17	11	6
Hawks	25	19	6
Pies	20	16	4
Tigers	26	22	4

 

[Grasshopper17]

Teams in contention this year (+ the Tigers) and the number of players in 3 categories on their list.
Completely different to who actually takes to the field each week of course.

The number of players taken in the midseason draft will affect the numbers.
Three players: Brisbane
Two players: North, Pies
One player: Tigers, Eagles, Saints, Hawks, Demons, Bombers, Crows, Dogs, Blues, Port & Swans.

Team	Played Under 50 Games	Played 1 To 49 Games	Yet to Debut
Swans	17	8	9
Lions	24	17	7
Port	18	11	7
Giants	23	18	5
Cats	19	11	8
Dockers	23	16	7
Dogs	18	13	5
Blues	20	11	9
Bombers	17	11	6
Hawks	25	19	6
Pies	20	16	4
Tigers	26	22	4

I don't understand why the first two columns have different numbers in them.

 

[DreadBat5701894]

I don't understand why the first two columns have different numbers in them.

Because the first column includes players who have yet to debut, while the second column doesn't

 

[Section 5]

The helpful thing is the inexperience and experience is relatively evenly spread on the field. It’s not as though they’re all jammed into our forward line.

Agree but we do have a few in defense at present although Wilmot is a lock so not too bad.

Defense: Wilmot, Prior, Joyce & likely sub Brain (Payne possibly back 64 games)
Midfield/Wings: Ashcroft, Fletcher
Forward: Lohmann, Morris
Forward/Ruck: Smith (Hippy should be back 171 games).

 

[Grasshopper17]

Because the first column includes players who have yet to debut, while the second column doesn't

What? Isn't that the last column?

 

[Section 5]

What? Isn't that the last column?

Swans: 9 yet to debut plus 8 have played 1-49 games = 17 have played under 50 games.
Zero games is under 50 games if that is what is throwing you out.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Swans: 9 yet to debut plus 8 have played 1-49 games = 17 have played under 50 games.
Zero games is under 50 games if that is what is throwing you out.

Nah I'm following now. Basically forgot how to maths momentarily.

 

[Nunez]

Nah I'm following now. Basically forgot how to maths momentarily.

TL'DR: Grasshopper can't do quick maff

 

[Grasshopper17]

TL'DR: Grasshopper can't do quick maff

Also can't read but let's solve our problems one by one!

 

[Jivlain]

	Collingwood	Brisbane
(0 to 10 games)	1	1
0 to 24 games	2	4
25 to 49 games	1	3
50 to 99 games	5	1
100 to 199 games	9	10
200+ games	6	5
Games played	143.91	125.57
Age	27.94	26.00
Height	188.65	188.04
Finals played	9.30	8.00

Interactive version

An actual inexperience watch this week!

 

[Section 5]

Our average of 125 is pretty good.
Zorko leading our games total with 271.
Sidebottom 329 and Pendlebury 401 bump the Pies up a bit.

 

[Dalions]

Our average of 125 is pretty good.
Zorko leading our games total with 271.
Sidebottom 329 and Pendlebury 401 bump the Pies up a bit.

Probably gives their average age a decent boost too. (27.94)