Rolling All Australian Team 2020

[Yojimbo]

All Australians 2018-2019-2020:

Fantastic beasts and where you find them (The multiple men 2+)

Three:
Patrick Dangerfield: 3 x Half Forward
Max Gawn: 2 x Bench, 1 x Ruck

Two:
Tom Stewart: 2 x Back Pocket
Harris Andrews: 2 x Full Back
Shannon Hurn: 2 x Half Back
Jeremy McGovern: 2 x Centre Half Back
Marcus Bontempelli: 1 x Wing, 1 x Half Forward
Jackson Macrae: 1 x Wing, 1 x Bench
Patrick Cripps: 1 x Centre, 1 x Ruck Rover
Dustin Martin: 1 x Centre, 1 x Forward Pocket
Tom Hawkins: 2 x Full Forward
Brodie Grundy: 1 x Ruck, 1 x Bench
Lachie Neale: 2 x Rover

There it is the thirteen men who dominated the All Australian landscape the last three incarnations, Patrick Dangerfield is clearly the best Half Forward to ever play the game in the last three seasons picked on the same flank for three consecutive years. How many was there Huddo ? THIRTEEN.

 

[Grrr]

I love all these posts from Richmond supporters saying how Danger shouldn't be in the team or in a forward position whilst at the same time trying to justify Martin's inclusion lmao.

Reckon Martin has played about 40% of games in the forward line. Doubt Danger has, I may be wrong there. And Martin is always very dangerous when playing forward, whereas Dangerfield is less consistent in that regard.

 

[Gunf]

Reckon Martin has played about 40% of games in the forward line. Doubt Danger has, I may be wrong there. And Martin is always very dangerous when playing forward, whereas Dangerfield is less consistent in that regard.

Danger (G 11 GA 19 B 16) 27 shots 30 goals created

Dusty (G 15 GA 9 B 11) 26 shots 24 goals created

Not much different in output apart from Accuracy and GA in which Danger is worse in acc and better in GA

 

[Grrr]

Danger (G 11 GA 19 B 16) 27 shots 30 goals created

Dusty (G 15 GA 9 B 11) 26 shots 24 goals created

Not much different in output apart from Accuracy and GA in which Danger is worse in acc and better in GA

Of course you put Dangerfield anywhere he will be good, but would think Danger is still more of a mid that forward, Martin maybe the opposite these days. Martin had to play more midfield this year due to Prestia and Edwards missing. Reckon next season both will play mainly as forwards and will be interesting to watch, perhaps as early as next week.

 

[Yojimbo]

All Australians 2015-2016-2017:

Fantastic beasts and where you find them (The multiple men 2+)

Three:
Alex Rance: 3 x Full Back
Eddie Betts: 3 x Forward Pocket
Josh Kennedy (wc): 3 x Full Forward
Patrick Dangerfield: 2 x Ruck Rover, 1 x Rover

Two:
Heath Shaw: 1 x Back Pocket, 1 x Half Back
Jeremy McGovern: 2 x Back Pocket
Michael Hurley: 2 x Centre Half Back
Dan Hannebery: 2 x Wing
Robbie Gray: 1 x Half Forward, 1 x Bench
Lance Franklin: 2 x Centre Half Forward
Cyril Rioli: 2 x Half Forward
Joel Selwood: 1 x Rover, 1 x Bench
Dustin Martin: 1 x Centre, 1 x Bench

There it is the thirteen men who dominated the All Australian landscape the previous three incarnations before the three listed above, Patrick Dangerfield what an incredibly consistent effort named in the last six All Australian Teams. How many was there this time Huddo ? THIRTEEN.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I love all these posts from Richmond supporters saying how Danger shouldn't be in the team or in a forward position whilst at the same time trying to justify Martin's inclusion lmao.

How many times did Danger play HF? And what does his stats heat map look like? Most of his possessions were as a mid and in the back half. He rarely played HF. I wouldn't argue that he shouldn't have been in the team...he shouldn't have been gifted the HF role though. Same for Bont. Both should have been on the bench if not starting.

So, still not competing with Sheppard for a position then?
Not saying that you are one of them but some of the other Tiger's supporters campaigning for any of their backmen over Sheppard are clearly clueless and more than a bit perplexing.

Nah it was either Vlaustin or Haynes imo. Now I'm biased and thought Vlaustin had the better season but Haynes's numbers were very good and can understand why he got the nod. I also thought Grimes should have been in the team as one of the KPD but like I said earlier, I'm biased. He started slowly but then again, the other 2 had either quiet periods or missed games. Moore got in because he is flashy with his run...having said that, it was deserved.

 

[JasRulz63]

I think we named Will Day at FB on one list.

Coaches have fun with them sometimes. The only thing which matters is the 22 names. And the Emergencies.

Yeah I agree, the named positions don't mean very much. Birchall was listed as our CHB 6-7 times, with even Zorko being named at CHB for once. Don't think Andrews, Gardiner or Payne were ever named at CHB this season which shows you how much it really means.

In our last game we named Coleman (182 cm) in the ruck, and had McInerney (204 cm) named in the forward pocket and Martin (199 cm) on the bench.

 

[nineteen eighty]

first ive heard of it

The Cats have a leadership group made up of 8. A third of the team.

 

[Trav 20]

And finally, Gawn was a disgraceful selection.

That's an imbecilic comment.

I wouldn't have had Gawn in either, but if they wanted a second ruckman then clearly it was Gawn.

Some muse that Goldstein had a better year. If averaging less disposals, less hitouts, less hitouts to advantage, less tackles, less marks and less contested marks makes you better then fair enough.

If Goldstein had made the team I suspect there would have been just as much outrage. It's the decision to name a second ruck in the team that should be the focus. By any measures Gawn had a very good year.

 

[Wojcinski]

How many times did Danger play HF? And what does his stats heat map look like? Most of his possessions were as a mid and in the back half. He rarely played HF. I wouldn't argue that he shouldn't have been in the team...he shouldn't have been gifted the HF role though. Same for Bont. Both should have been on the bench if not starting.




Nah it was either Vlaustin or Haynes imo. Now I'm biased and thought Vlaustin had the better season but Haynes's numbers were very good and can understand why he got the nod. I also thought Grimes should have been in the team as one of the KPD but like I said earlier, I'm biased. He started slowly but then again, the other 2 had either quiet periods or missed games. Moore got in because he is flashy with his run...having said that, it was deserved.

What data are you using regarding Dangerfield? You clearly haven't watched any Geelong games if you think he mostly played in the half back. It's fine if you don't know, but why lie and pretend you're speaking in facts?

 

[Grrr]

What data are you using regarding Dangerfield? You clearly haven't watched any Geelong games if you think he mostly played in the half back. It's fine if you don't know, but why lie and pretend you're speaking in facts?

Think he might be referring that midfielders tend to follow the ball which goes to half back pretty regularly, not that he was named there. Martin doesn't go to near the back half, it's beneath him.

 

[Damon_3388]

That's an imbecilic comment.

I wouldn't have had Gawn in either, but if they wanted a second ruckman then clearly it was Gawn.

Some muse that Goldstein had a better year. If averaging less disposals, less hitouts, less hitouts to advantage, less tackles, less marks and less contested marks makes you better then fair enough.

If Goldstein had made the team I suspect there would have been just as much outrage. It's the decision to name a second ruck in the team that should be the focus. By any measures Gawn had a very good year.

If we just grab this season's top 7 in hitouts per game and hitouts to advantage per game (minimum 14 games played), and the look at measures of what is actually important for ruckmen (not raw disposal and mark numbers):



This shows is that NicNat and then Gawn were the standout ruckmen of the season, and (if you are selecting two ruckmen in the side) their AA selection was valid.

Also noteworthy is that NicNat stands out statistically, especially when you normalise the numbers for the same amount of gametime played. Despite the long-time narrative to the contrary (and numerous comparisons to Cyril Rioli in this sense), statistics do show NicNat's effectiveness and impact, if you're looking at stats that are relevant to his role.

NicNat also ranks highly among rucks in secondary attacking measures, like kick-to-handball ratio, metres gained per disposal, score launches, and score involvements, which (along with his attacking ruckwork) also goes against the other long-time narrative of him being an attacking liability.

 

[Damon_3388]

How many times did Danger play HF? And what does his stats heat map look like? Most of his possessions were as a mid and in the back half. He rarely played HF. I wouldn't argue that he shouldn't have been in the team...he shouldn't have been gifted the HF role though. Same for Bont. Both should have been on the bench if not starting.

I'd say the argument for Danger being in the AA side, and being on the HFF, would be that he's been once of the most prolific attacking forces in the game this year. 2nd in inside 50s per game, 4th in score involvements per game, 1st in goal assists per game. Given that nobody really had stand-out individual goal totals, and nobody else in the league ranked in the top 5 in those three categories, IMO he's a perfectly valid selection at half forward, even if it's not exactly where he plays or gets his touches on the ground.

Bont at HF, and Bont in the side in general, is far more questionable IMO.

 

[Damon_3388]

Also, can someone explain to me the selection of Caleb Daniel over Jake Lloyd and Adam Saad? Lloyd and Saad appear to be far better defensively (something Lloyd in particular has massively improved upon this year), while matching or exceeding Daniel's attacking output as well. It's not all about the numbers, but I think if you were picking an attacking defender who can actually defend, too, you'd be picking Lloyd or Adam Saad over Daniel every time.

 

[nineteen eighty]

That's an imbecilic comment.

I wouldn't have had Gawn in either, but if they wanted a second ruckman then clearly it was Gawn.

Some muse that Goldstein had a better year. If averaging less disposals, less hitouts, less hitouts to advantage, less tackles, less marks and less contested marks makes you better then fair enough.

If Goldstein had made the team I suspect there would have been just as much outrage. It's the decision to name a second ruck in the team that should be the focus. By any measures Gawn had a very good year.

Fair enough as it was your last paragraph that I was referring to. I just don't think the team requires 2 rucks unless they were standouts. I don't believe Gawn nor Goldstein had standout years to warrant a 2nd ruck selected.

NicNat should have been a lone ruck in the team.

I shouldn't have called out Gawn.

 

[Sea fog]

Ling just said that Butler was a lock early on but he and Papley tailed off and he made the point that when Dusty and Danger go forward they impact and are matchwinning. He pointed out that Papley was wasteful in the final match. He also implied that Maynard was close. Maynard ranked elite in all categories as a general defender and probably should have been in instead of Daniel.

 

[Sea fog]

Ling just said that Butler was a lock early on but he and Papley tailed

Also, can someone explain to me the selection of Caleb Daniel over Jake Lloyd and Adam Saad? Lloyd and Saad appear to be far better defensively (something Lloyd in particular has massively improved upon this year), while matching or exceeding Daniel's attacking output as well. It's not all about the numbers, but I think if you were picking an attacking defender who can actually defend, too, you'd be picking Lloyd or Adam Saad over Daniel every time.

If Daniel had to play a whole season man on man he wouldn't get in. Longmuir made him accountable and he had 2 touches to half-time before Bevo put him on the ball.

 

[Damon_3388]

If Daniel had to play a whole season man on man he wouldn't get in. Longmuir made him accountable and he had 2 touches to half-time before Bevo put him on the ball.

Fair enough, given his size, that's what you'd expect.

That being said though, is he really worthy of AA selection as basically an unaccountable half back?

 

[Yojimbo]

Longmuir made him accountable and he had 2 touches to half-time before Bevo put him on the ball.

I think it was 4 touches, thank god they kicked some points.

 

[Yojimbo]

Fair enough, given his size, that's what you'd expect.

That being said though, is he really worthy of selection as basically an unaccountable half back?

Keath, Gardner, Cordy, Wood, Williams, Crozier that is six Johannisen, Daniel that is eight it's an outrage.

 

[HairyO]

Ling just said that Butler was a lock early on but he and Papley tailed off and he made the point that when Dusty and Danger go forward they impact and are matchwinning. He pointed out that Papley was wasteful in the final match. He also implied that Maynard was close. Maynard ranked elite in all categories as a general defender and probably should have been in instead of Daniel.

Ling desperately seeking facts to suit the pre-determined narrative.

What was his excuse for Gunston?

Tony Lockett was rarely match winning. I guess he doesnt deserve his Brownlow.

 

[nineteen eighty]

What data are you using regarding Dangerfield? You clearly haven't watched any Geelong games if you think he mostly played in the half back. It's fine if you don't know, but why lie and pretend you're speaking in facts?

Someone earlier in this thread referenced Heat Map possessions to show that Danger's stats were predominantly gained from mid back. I'm not saying his possessions were largely in the back half.
I'll try to hunt down the Heat Maps when I get a moment. If someone beats me to it, all the better.

 

[nineteen eighty]

One sec
View attachment 931807View attachment 931808View attachment 931809

Hey mate are you able to provide the heat maps for Dusty and Dangerfield?

edit: also Bont if possible.

 

[Damon_3388]

One sec
View attachment 931807View attachment 931808View attachment 931809

Someone earlier in this thread referenced Heat Map possessions to show that Danger's stats were predominantly gained from mid back. I'm not saying his possessions were largely in the back half.
I'll try to hunt down the Heat Maps when I get a moment. If someone beats me to it, all the better.

Hey mate are you able to provide the heat maps for Dusty and Dangerfield?

edit: also Bont if possible.

Were those heat maps shown for their most recent game, or the whole season?

 

[Altum Volantes]

Ling desperately seeking facts to suit the pre-determined narrative.

What was his excuse for Gunston?

Tony Lockett was rarely match winning. I guess he doesnt deserve his Brownlow.

Probably more so because he was one of the dirtiest players ever but ok...

Ling doesn’t have to desperately seek facts to explain why Papley and Butler didn’t make it, it was quite obvio- Papley had a hot start and an extended slump and Butler’s form mirrored the Saints as the season wore on.

Gunston was pretty much a ‘general forward’ this year yeah? - You couldn’t really define him as a traditional forward pocket role but I have a feeling you’ll be at pains to say he wasn’t competing for a key forward spot?

The Hawks played a few decoys up there but ultimately Gunston was the main guy - similar to Papley in a lot of ways.

‘General Forwards’ without a defined position, who had really good seasons - made the squad of 40 - but weren’t unquestionable inclusions in the B22 and were squeezed out in preference of naming better players, albeit ‘pushed up the ground’.