True but it doesn't excuse this KPP issue that should also be brought to light during the Hinkley years.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Player Watch Pick #18 (2019) - Mitch Georgiades
- Thread starter Holden Hillbilly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Absolutely.
- May 16, 2019
- 3,871
- 7,672
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
now as much as i reckon MG could be a star of the future
yes please, get it done
we legitimately have an elite midfield then.
Ken played Marshall despite everyone on this board (myself included) consistently bagging him out and saying he wouldn't make it. Ken saw something and persisted, and when Todd finally starts to vindicate Ken, you say it's despite of Hinkely and not because of him?
The easy option would have been for Ken to drop Marshall and not play him in the AFL side.
I'm no Ken fan, but this just shows the sort of bias he's up against - you have to give credit where credit is due.
I agree that the issue is form/confidence - however I think dropping him to the twos is the solution.
Previously he was getting multiple shots at goal and just not converting them - and I think keeping him in the AFL side at that point is the right thing to do.
However now he's not finding the ball, is constantly running under the ball, mistiming his jumps and just bereft of general confidence. Playing in the AFL is only going to make it worse.
He needs to find his touch and find the ball more, and he's not going to do that up against the best defenders in the country. Either he plays in a different position to find the ball more (wing, down back, whatever) - or he goes into the reserves and beats up on some weaker opposition.
I'm personally questioning whether his mind is elsewhere and he wants to go back home.
On a side note, I was really disappointed that nobody went and helped him when Noble stood over him and shoved him to the ground a few times. Where were our leaders? That stuff is not on, someone should have gone in and helped him out.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,584
- 3,617
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
part of the issue that I see is that Todd, Dixon and Mitch all play the same role. One answer would be to have Dixon play higher up the ground and more of the third tall/resting ruck role. That would allow Todd and Mitch to play closer to goal.
But I think Mitch has been alright. Give him more time, let him settle. Let him enjoy his footy. It’ll work itself out.
Now on the Hinkley not developing players or KPPs. It’s BS. I’m not a fan of Hinkley anymore and believe he has made mistakes at selection and that his game plan has more holes that Swiss cheese. But he undoubtedly has supported and developed players.
- Frampton, Shaw, Butcher, Austin, Lienert, Redden, Renouf and Skinner all got games and were supported during the Hinkley era. None have hurt us since leaving the club.
- Grundy and Harvey are the only ones who really never looked like it.
We have lost Impey, Amon and Wingard - none have really set the world on fire.
I would also suggested we look at other clubs and how they have gone developing KPPs. Most take time, most require a good system, good fitness and regular support to build their confidence. Few coaches can claim to regular develop champion players. Hinkley has his faults but supporting junior players and developing them, is not one of them.
But I think Mitch has been alright. Give him more time, let him settle. Let him enjoy his footy. It’ll work itself out.
Now on the Hinkley not developing players or KPPs. It’s BS. I’m not a fan of Hinkley anymore and believe he has made mistakes at selection and that his game plan has more holes that Swiss cheese. But he undoubtedly has supported and developed players.
- Jonas as a KPD
- McKenzie went from wingman to KPD at Port
- Alir was AA at port
- Dixon was an inconsistent and injury prone KPF at the suns, he has been better at Port no doubt
- Finlayson played a very different role at Port and was very good
- Schulz was much better at Port and during Hinkley’s reign was borderline AA
- Clurey and Todd have been developed during Hinkley’s tenure
- Howard and Ladhams had games early in their careers at Port and were supported by Hinkley, whether their trades will hurt Port remains to be seen
- Mitch has been supported and given games
- Lobbe developed under Hinkley
- Frampton, Shaw, Butcher, Austin, Lienert, Redden, Renouf and Skinner all got games and were supported during the Hinkley era. None have hurt us since leaving the club.
- Grundy and Harvey are the only ones who really never looked like it.
We have lost Impey, Amon and Wingard - none have really set the world on fire.
I would also suggested we look at other clubs and how they have gone developing KPPs. Most take time, most require a good system, good fitness and regular support to build their confidence. Few coaches can claim to regular develop champion players. Hinkley has his faults but supporting junior players and developing them, is not one of them.
Clearly you are watching a different Mitch:
- Multiple shots on goal. 4.5 a match. Equal 4th in the league and the same number as Todd.
- 13.5 disposals a match. 5th in the league. More than Larkey, Ben Brown, Curnow, McDonald, Todd etc etc.
- 6 marks a game. Equal 5th. More than Todd, Curnow, McDonald etc etc. 3 of those marks are inside 50.
It is one aspect of his game that is letting him down. Otherwise he is doing fine. Better than fine. You mention Marshall in another post. Compare Mitch to Todd two games into his breakout year:
- Average 1.5 shots
- 4 disposals
- 33% shot accuracy
- 2 marks
So maybe we give Todd at least 3 or 4 games before dropping him, trading him, or making him a defender. Perhaps we leave him in the goal square for a couple of games to give him some simple shots at goal? What do you say? Jeez,
JakeNeadeFan
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 25, 2019
- 5,181
- 10,320
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Here are 'literally' two separate sources discussing the validity of the AFL player ratings and their value in predicting performance. In fact one of them goes into detail about how the player ratings are better than Supercoach scores.
A Review of AFL Player Rating Data — Matter of Stats
The fine folk who brought us the fitzRoy R package have been diligently collecting historical AFL Player Rating data with a view to potentially including it in an upcoming version of the package, and asked me to take a look at what they have so far, which spans the period from 2012 to the end of 2
www.matterofstats.com
There is your 'literal' evidence, as opposed to your ill informed opinion.
They are not subjective KPIs some nerd came up with. They use a range of metrics, most of which the general public don't have access to, to quantify the relative effect that a players action has on the expected value of the next score. If you had a brain, you would release that that is actually a very objective methodology of quantifying player performance.
Yes I do think people in clubs use it. Is it the whole truth? No. But along with other statistical metrics and tape it is quick way to assess how a player is going and their value. Here is a quote from Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.
Champion Data explains contentious rating system, reveals best AFL player ‘by some margin’
Champion Data explains contentious rating system, reveals best AFL player ‘by some margin’
www.foxsports.com.au
I'm not twisting any numbers. Those are the numbers. I'm not lying about them or misconstruing their meaning. They are what they are, they measure player performance. On the whole, I would suggest most people do agree with them. Most of the time people disagree with them because some whipping boy has been given a decent score and people can't see past their own biases when assessing player performance. Which is exactly the purpose and value of the ratings.
I'd rather defend an opinion with actual evidence and data than defend it with...nothing. With the vibe or whatever you believe in
Mitch Georgiades is in shit form. You can see that pretty clearly with your own eyes, you don't even need any metrics to tell that. The numbers merely match up with reality in this case.
So you can honestly say you agree that Nic Nat in 2021 was the best player in the competition by 'a considerable margin' ahead of the likes of Wines, Bontempelli and Oliver. 'By a considerable margin'? He should have won the Brownlow and the AFLCA Award with 68% game time?Here are 'literally' two separate sources discussing the validity of the AFL player ratings and their value in predicting performance. In fact one of them goes into detail about how the player ratings are better than Supercoach scores.
A Review of AFL Player Rating Data — Matter of Stats
The fine folk who brought us the fitzRoy R package have been diligently collecting historical AFL Player Rating data with a view to potentially including it in an upcoming version of the package, and asked me to take a look at what they have so far, which spans the period from 2012 to the end of 2
There is your 'literal' evidence, as opposed to your ill informed opinion.
They are not subjective KPIs some nerd came up with. They use a range of metrics, most of which the general public don't have access to, to quantify the relative effect that a players action has on the expected value of the next score. If you had a brain, you would release that that is actually a very objective methodology of quantifying player performance.
Yes I do think people in clubs use it. Is it the whole truth? No. But along with other statistical metrics and tape it is quick way to assess how a player is going and their value. Here is a quote from Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.
Champion Data explains contentious rating system, reveals best AFL player ‘by some margin’
Champion Data explains contentious rating system, reveals best AFL player ‘by some margin’
I'm not twisting any numbers. Those are the numbers. I'm not lying about them or misconstruing their meaning. They are what they are, they measure player performance. On the whole, I would suggest most people do agree with them. Most of the time people disagree with them because some whipping boy has been given a decent score and people can't see past their own biases when assessing player performance. Which is exactly the purpose and value of the ratings.
I'd rather defend an opinion with actual evidence and data than defend it with...nothing. With the vibe or whatever you believe in
Mitch Georgiades is in s**t form. You can see that pretty clearly with your own eyes, you don't even need any metrics to tell that. The numbers merely match up with reality in this case.
A system which, to my understanding, would rate a player who had 3 ground ball gets and effective, but hospital, handballs to a team mate equal or better than a player who kicked 5 goals and 8 posters???
Last edited:
Bad kicking is bad football.
JakeNeadeFan
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 25, 2019
- 5,181
- 10,320
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Yep I would say that Naitinui is a very good player and if the Brownlow and AFL coaches awards were not midfielder medals then he would be in the conversation as the best player in the comp at that time.
I don't know how the system evaluates those metrics so can't comment. If they are hospital handballs then they probably aren't going to contribute score and would be rated poorly.
It basically rates each act a player does on how that act has improved (or reduced) the chances of the team scoring. It's why set shot misses from short range are punished so heavily (they might be something like -4pts, because they miss has converted a 85% chance of 6 points into 1 point).
Ruckmen who get centre square hitouts to advantage rake in the points, as they are rated at something like 1.2 rating points each, based on the likelihood of each hitout to advantage leading to a score.
What it doesn't do (or didn't do) is assign ratings for football acts that prevent the other team from scoring. The generic acts (pressure, tackle, spoil intercept) are weighted for field position (more heavily weighted the closer to defensive goal), however touching the ball on the goal line should be worth 5 points (converted an otherwise certain 6 points to an actual 1 point), but just gets the same weighting as a normal spoil.
Another example would be the Darcy Moore tackle on Ollie Henry from round 1. That defensive act should be rated just as highly as a goal scored. Henry will lose points from it, but Moore doesn't gain as many as he should.
It has strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I think defensive players should get a bonus for the negative impact they have on their opponent's average output, but I'm not sure how you would calculate that.
You are so correct with this. It also sways heavily to meters gained which is an important stat but is focused to heavily. eg Round 1 Daniel Rich 1,010 meters gained. 12 Kick ins of which he played on 11 times he also received a 100 meter penalty and then kicked a goal which will be at least 130m gained.
His rating points for this game will very high. With our game, sometimes there are nuances that are really important. A defender who manages to put a block on another playing from impacting a contest, a player who runs to space to cause a defender to peel off and cover them opening up space for someone else. I laugh at the Patrick Dangerfield type that has no defensive bone in his body is rated so highly, when every club knows that they can run off him at will when they have the ball. I think the basic parameters that the ratings are valued on require validation.
Option 1. Keep playing him, and potentially wreck him for life, with goal kicking Yips.
Option 2. Play SANFL for 3-4 weeks to turn his goal kicking and confidence around.
Option 3. Play him higher up the ground in the AFL team, with less emphasis on goal kicking.
I actually reckon he is, as a young player just putting himself under too much pressure.
The poor bugger probably also has an agent in one ear, saying ‘play good footy and lift your value for your next contract’
Sometimes young people just don’t perform when the expectations are too much.
I actually reckon if he signed a mid/low level contract for a few years to take him to free agency, and he was encouraged to just enjoy his footy, his goal kicking would instantly improve.
In the end if he wants to go back to WA contract or not, Port has always helped players move and not held them back. It’s slightly better for us if he is in contract, and kicking goals.
Option 2. Play SANFL for 3-4 weeks to turn his goal kicking and confidence around.
Option 3. Play him higher up the ground in the AFL team, with less emphasis on goal kicking.
I actually reckon he is, as a young player just putting himself under too much pressure.
The poor bugger probably also has an agent in one ear, saying ‘play good footy and lift your value for your next contract’
Sometimes young people just don’t perform when the expectations are too much.
I actually reckon if he signed a mid/low level contract for a few years to take him to free agency, and he was encouraged to just enjoy his footy, his goal kicking would instantly improve.
In the end if he wants to go back to WA contract or not, Port has always helped players move and not held them back. It’s slightly better for us if he is in contract, and kicking goals.
Launchpad McQuack
Internet fact checker.
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
AFL Fantasy Club Board Champion
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
- Jul 6, 2011
- 5,362
- 17,231
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Yeah, so not everyone. philthy05 El_Scorcho and myself were some, but not all, that were bullish on Marshall and wanted him in the side.
He played 20 games in his first three seasons. Compare this to Hipwood who played 52 in his first three years. What about this screams persistence?
Despite playing him in the humiliating 2017 elimination final loss, Hinkley proceeded to pick Marshall a grand number of seven times in the proceeding year.
Marshall provided genuine quality link play between our midfield and forward, something that is lacking in the majority of our list. No other player has developed like Marshall under Hinkley.
Come 2022 and Dixon misses the majority of the year and Hinkley is forced to play Todd. He breaks out. Amazing. Well done, Ken.
So yes, I stand by the opinion Todd broke out despite Hinkley, not because of him. If he was at 100 games already, what kind of player would we have on our hands?
**** Hinkley. Even if he had any significant part in Marshall becoming the player he is right now it is one very tiny part of a job he is doing to a record level of bad. Go ahead and tongue his little nuts if you want.
DaTBird187
What D Farke?
- Feb 9, 2014
- 17,155
- 46,281
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Boston Celtics
Mitch has had his issues this year no doubt. But he's got a sweet boat.
Turksta84
Senior List
- Jul 15, 2018
- 179
- 263
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Mitch clearly is down on confidence, a move to CHB to me is exactly what he needs. will be great for himself and for the team. Can fly for the footy in the vein of Jeremy Howe and rebound the footy. fills a need for the team and himself
Yeah this.
Any other club and Todd would have an extra 20 odd games or more behind him. Hinkley was slow to trust him, and the only reason he stuck with Todd at all is that Todd is a generational freak in terms of his skill set / movement.
He’s currently Top 20 in the league for marks inside 50 and shots on goal over the first two rounds.
He will figure it out.
He will figure it out.
This isn't a broader defence of Hinkley, but blaming him for lack of KPP development is a little off mark for mine.
The only KPF of note (that I can think of) who wasn't selected as a first round pick is Ben Brown (and maybe Tim Membrey). Hawkins was a F/S (under the old rort of a system), Walker was tied to the crows through the NSW scholarship, and Dixon and Cameron were zone picks by the expansion clubs.
The failure here is only by our recruiting team in hoping that picking a dozen KPFs across the third and fourth rounds we would happen upon the diamond in the rough - it happens only by rare exception.
Georgiades is rapidly testing my patience at AFL level, but at the same time he is getting to the ball inside 50 and is getting scoring shots, so I'm willing to give him time to develop both his set shot, plus him hamstring so he can pick up a ****ing ground ball on the run just like any AFL standard player should be able to.
The only KPF of note (that I can think of) who wasn't selected as a first round pick is Ben Brown (and maybe Tim Membrey). Hawkins was a F/S (under the old rort of a system), Walker was tied to the crows through the NSW scholarship, and Dixon and Cameron were zone picks by the expansion clubs.
The failure here is only by our recruiting team in hoping that picking a dozen KPFs across the third and fourth rounds we would happen upon the diamond in the rough - it happens only by rare exception.
Georgiades is rapidly testing my patience at AFL level, but at the same time he is getting to the ball inside 50 and is getting scoring shots, so I'm willing to give him time to develop both his set shot, plus him hamstring so he can pick up a ****ing ground ball on the run just like any AFL standard player should be able to.
He's a fourth year tall, everyone used to bang on that talls take a while, why is that suddenly out the window? Marshall was pretty average in his first 4 seasons, we persisted and now look at him.
- Apr 25, 2013
- 4,593
- 5,077
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Not too sure what you are getting at about our late selections for KPFs, but George and Todd were first round picks (18 and 16).
- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,586
- 6,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
They're saying that it's no coincidence that they are the only 2 drafted KPFs that have seen any extended run in the seniors, and that your Mitch Harveys, Riley Grundys and Ollie Lords aren't really much chance of making it no matter how much development you give them.
I thought it was a point well made, but I will say though that Ladhams, Howard and probably Hayes are three examples of late pick wins that Hinkley and co have still ****ed up through terrible management of young talls and a massive lack of respect for their value whether it be giving them a run of games, keeping them in a distinct role or even in their trade value when you give them the flick.
Yep, and that's why Todd looks like the first genuine KPF we've had for a long time.
People have been hanging shit on Hinkley for George (and previously Marshall) for not being up to scratch and saying it's because he's failed to develop a KPF in his time at the club. But when the other stock he's had to work with have been Mitch Harvey and Mason Shaw, it's easy to see why that might be the case.
Similar threads
- Locked
