Welcome Welcome to Hawthorn: Jasper Scaife - Pick 5, 2024 MSD

[Beandip]

A guy I work with is a cousin of the Rocca brothers. Fondly enough he's our IT guy and has sticks for legs and is built absolutely nothing like Saverio or Anthony. In regards to Anthony hopefully he comes out the other end of his recent diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Oh no. That's terrible news, wishing him luck as well

 

[KermitJagger]

Last four years he's only kicked five goals (one goal so far this year).

I don't understand why we don't look to use that leg of his more often, the further out from the goal square you go the harder it is to flood / play zone defense so we should be able to feed him "relatively" easy just outside the 50m mark

Probably the issue is he has had to be out key defender the last four years so he hasn't had the opportunity to float forward as much.

I liken it to when Steph Curry started to drain 3 pointers from 3 feet outside the NBA 3 point line. If you can hit a long three (goal outside 50m) it becomes a higher percentage play than trying to score a bucket in the paint (pinpoint a kick into a flooded forward 50m).

That's what I hope Scaife can bring, a long range threat from outside 50m.

Outside 50 goals will never be a higher percentage play than inside 50 goals. It works in the NBA because if you hit 40% from 10 shots from 3 it's 12 points, which is like hitting 60% at the rim. In the AFL a goal is a goal, but the percentages get worse further out. Having people able to kick from 50 is good, means the opposition has to respect a lead that far out and not flood D50, but there's a reason you don't see many do it. It's a very low percentage shot.

Also for someone like Sicily the issue is how you get him the shots, he tries regularly but no oppo gives him space for a hand off and if you try to kick and get him to spot up a mark on the 50 line you're risking turning it over in the absolute worst part of the ground in modern footy save for 30m> dead in front of the opposition goals. It also means that he's horribly out of position when it gets turned over.

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

 

[The Chad and I]

Outside 50 goals will never be a higher percentage play than inside 50 goals. It works in the NBA because if you hit 40% from 10 shots from 3 it's 16 points, which is like hitting 80% at the rim. In the AFL a goal is a goal, but the percentages get worse further out. Having people able to kick from 50 is good, means the opposition has to respect a lead that far out and not flood D50, but there's a reason you don't see many do it. It's a very low percentage shot.

Also for someone like Sicily the issue is how you get him the shots, he tries regularly but no oppo gives him space for a hand off and if you try to kick and get him to spot up a mark on the 50 line you're risking turning it over in the absolute worst part of the ground in modern footy save for 30m> dead in front of the opposition goals. It also means that he's horribly out of position when it gets turned over.

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

40% of 10 shots is 4 shots x 3 = 12 points?
Which is like 60% at the rim, since 12/2 = 6 shots out of 10.
What am I missing here?

But your point still stands.
Same points in AFL regardless of distance.
The analysis should include the ease with which you can actually get a shot though.
For every 10 inside 50 entries how many shots do you get x conversion %
Whereas getting a shot outside the 50m might come easier than inside x conversion %.
Also a shot from outside that doesn't convert might still come off as an inside 50 opportunity that results in a shot e.g. (miskick)

If the right players take them from outside: Amon, Scaife, Sicily, D'Ambrosio, Scrimshaw
Maybe it comes out in your favour, either in points or tactics, by drawing the defence higher up the ground, which opens up more space inside the F50.

 

[CHUBBSS]

Outside 50 goals will never be a higher percentage play than inside 50 goals. It works in the NBA because if you hit 40% from 10 shots from 3 it's 16 points, which is like hitting 80% at the rim. In the AFL a goal is a goal, but the percentages get worse further out. Having people able to kick from 50 is good, means the opposition has to respect a lead that far out and not flood D50, but there's a reason you don't see many do it. It's a very low percentage shot.

Also for someone like Sicily the issue is how you get him the shots, he tries regularly but no oppo gives him space for a hand off and if you try to kick and get him to spot up a mark on the 50 line you're risking turning it over in the absolute worst part of the ground in modern footy save for 30m> dead in front of the opposition goals. It also means that he's horribly out of position when it gets turned over.

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

It’s an untapped (well newly untapped, it’s been a bit more common in older times) part of the game though. It will take one unique high % converter of outside 50 goals to completely reshuffle defences as normally they allow far more space up near the 50 for the exact reason you mention. Have a player that can drag defenders up to the line will stretch teams and create more room for separation.

But it will take that one Steph curry type for clubs to really cotton on to it. To me it’s a no brainer but you need a player that can clear a kick from 50 out with ease.

Sicily has been having a few cracks but doesn’t have the accuracy consistently enough.

If skaife could make this his own it will be a pretty big advantage. Let skaife, Watson, and chol all get on the same page they could destroy a team. So many outlets for goals and plays whilst still having to look after another 3 forwards hopefully in space.

 

[extractasam]

It’s an untapped (well newly untapped, it’s been a bit more common in older times) part of the game though. It will take one unique high % converter of outside 50 goals to completely reshuffle defences as normally they allow far more space up near the 50 for the exact reason you mention. Have a player that can drag defenders up to the line will stretch teams and create more room for separation.

But it will take that one Steph curry type for clubs to really cotton on to it. To me it’s a no brainer but you need a player that can clear a kick from 50 out with ease.

Sicily has been having a few cracks but doesn’t have the accuracy consistently enough.

If skaife could make this his own it will be a pretty big advantage. Let skaife, Watson, and chol all get on the same page they could destroy a team. So many outlets for goals and plays whilst still having to look after another 3 forwards hopefully in space.

I spoke to Simon Prestagiacomo/Heath Shaw a long time ago and he said the hardest players he ever had to play on was guys like Fev who you had to defend inside 60 metres rather than 50 because he could “mark it on the junction and just put it straight through”

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Outside 50 goals will never be a higher percentage play than inside 50 goals. It works in the NBA because if you hit 40% from 10 shots from 3 it's 16 points, which is like hitting 80% at the rim. In the AFL a goal is a goal, but the percentages get worse further out. Having people able to kick from 50 is good, means the opposition has to respect a lead that far out and not flood D50, but there's a reason you don't see many do it. It's a very low percentage shot.

Also for someone like Sicily the issue is how you get him the shots, he tries regularly but no oppo gives him space for a hand off and if you try to kick and get him to spot up a mark on the 50 line you're risking turning it over in the absolute worst part of the ground in modern footy save for 30m> dead in front of the opposition goals. It also means that he's horribly out of position when it gets turned over.

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

You have a point with regards to the risk of turning it over, I hadn't considered that element.

But with regards to it being a low percentage shot it all depends who is kicking it. I remember watching Dunstall practise goal kicking in the pre game kick warm up and he would bang them in from the 50m line lile clockwork.

 

[CHUBBSS]

I spoke to Simon Prestagiacomo/Heath Shaw a long time ago and he said the hardest players he ever had to play on was guys like Fev who you had to defend inside 60 metres rather than 50 because he could “mark it on the junction and just put it straight through”

I far to often think about how good Fev could of been if he trained as hard as cousins/crawf level

 

[KermitJagger]

40% of 10 shots is 4 shots x 3 = 12 points?
Which is like 60% at the rim, since 12/2 = 6 shots out of 10.
What am I missing here?

But your point still stands.
Same points in AFL regardless of distance.
The analysis should include the ease with which you can actually get a shot though.
For every 10 inside 50 entries how many shots do you get x conversion %
Whereas getting a shot outside the 50m might come easier than inside x conversion %.
Also a shot from outside that doesn't convert might still come off as an inside 50 opportunity that results in a shot e.g. (miskick)

If the right players take them from outside: Amon, Scaife, Sicily, D'Ambrosio, Scrimshaw
Maybe it comes out in your favour, either in points or tactics, by drawing the defence higher up the ground, which opens up more space inside the F50.

I've slept like 2 hours. The worst part was I had 12 written and then thought no 4x4 is 16. No idea where I got the 2nd 4!

The difficulty with getting shots from 50 or further is that shallow entries are tougher to defend if the ball is turned over, so coaches won't coach players to go for them. Players are also very conscious of hand offs to anyone with 50m distance in their kick too so will shut those down very quickly.

So a combination of no scoring advantage, high risk off turnover and low percentage shot is a tough sell. Anyone can hit a kick deep into 50 for a contest, not many can pin point a player's chest off a 45 degree pass through the middle of the ground to set up the shot. Then the shot itself is a tough one.

I still love seeing the key forwards kick from 50, I hate that it's largely gone away, but I don't think we'll ever see a strategy to capitalise on long distance goals unless it's out of desperation. That Scaife has it in his bag is only a good thing though.

 

[HappyHawk_1]

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

… so what you’re saying is… bring back the super goal?!?

 

[Beandip]

… so what you’re saying is… bring back the super goal?!?

cringe but.... maybe? Wouldn't be against opening things up a bit!

 

[extractasam]

… so what you’re saying is… bring back the super goal?!?

I wonder if it would stop the level of flooding we see to some extent

 

[kazzooka]

Outside 50 goals will never be a higher percentage play than inside 50 goals. It works in the NBA because if you hit 40% from 10 shots from 3 it's 12 points, which is like hitting 60% at the rim. In the AFL a goal is a goal, but the percentages get worse further out. Having people able to kick from 50 is good, means the opposition has to respect a lead that far out and not flood D50, but there's a reason you don't see many do it. It's a very low percentage shot.

Also for someone like Sicily the issue is how you get him the shots, he tries regularly but no oppo gives him space for a hand off and if you try to kick and get him to spot up a mark on the 50 line you're risking turning it over in the absolute worst part of the ground in modern footy save for 30m> dead in front of the opposition goals. It also means that he's horribly out of position when it gets turned over.

As much as a like a 50m goal most coaches won't ever consider it worth the risk unless it's a chance at 50% more points like a 3 ball.

Say you convert at 30% from 60m out and 100% from 15m straight in front. It's still a better chance from 60m out because the chances of 1. hitting a smaller moving target that is defended. 2. that player winning the ball 3. that player converting is less than 30%. Against Geelong we have 54 inside 50s for 20 scoring shots so 37% but only 10 goals that's 18%.

Now obviously an inside 50 could come from the wing where no scoring is possible but it is usually much much easier to move the ball around and find targets just outside 50 as sides don't defend them as hard. If you have enough players that can roost it I can see us getting much higher than 18% return of "over 50s". So instead of hitting a target inside 50 you hit the goals.

Where this theory works even better is just taking the shot. The other week gunston was in the middle of the behind posts literally a few meters from the goals and instead of snapping a shot which admittedly was a tough angle, he took an impossible option of trying to hit a target 30m out in the pocket who would need to win a 2v1 and then kick a goal from a tough angle, easier than gunstons shot but gunstons pass was harder than a shot on goal. And instead of a behind and us defending it was unsurprisingly a turnover from a more vulnerable position.

 

[hawkmang]

Anyone know how bad his knock was today? Concussion protocols?

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Say you convert at 30% from 60m out and 100% from 15m straight in front. It's still a better chance from 60m out because the chances of 1. hitting a smaller moving target that is defended. 2. that player winning the ball 3. that player converting is less than 30%. Against Geelong we have 54 inside 50s for 20 scoring shots so 37% but only 10 goals that's 18%.

Now obviously an inside 50 could come from the wing where no scoring is possible but it is usually much much easier to move the ball around and find targets just outside 50 as sides don't defend them as hard. If you have enough players that can roost it I can see us getting much higher than 18% return of "over 50s". So instead of hitting a target inside 50 you hit the goals.

Where this theory works even better is just taking the shot. The other week gunston was in the middle of the behind posts literally a few meters from the goals and instead of snapping a shot which admittedly was a tough angle, he took an impossible option of trying to hit a target 30m out in the pocket who would need to win a 2v1 and then kick a goal from a tough angle, easier than gunstons shot but gunstons pass was harder than a shot on goal. And instead of a behind and us defending it was unsurprisingly a turnover from a more vulnerable position.

That's exactly my thinking.

Say James Sicily takes a mark 50 / 55m out. He can make the distance easy so he's, I would say, at worst a 40% chance of kicking a goal from there (I haven't looked his numbers up that's just a gut feel on my behalf).

But if he tried to pinpoint a pass inside a crowded 50m arc that chance of kicking a goal goes down to under 30% (again just a gut feel). And like you say the further out form goals you go the more space the opposition has to defend so it "should" be easier to find a free player just outside 50m.

I'd love to try and get Sic more opportunities to kick these goals. They don't just help the score line but seeing him roost one from 50m out through the middle of the sticks really fires up the crowd.

 

[wahawk]

Anyone know how bad his knock was today? Concussion protocols?

It was a knock to his chest wasn’t it ?

 

[KermitJagger]

Say you convert at 30% from 60m out and 100% from 15m straight in front. It's still a better chance from 60m out because the chances of 1. hitting a smaller moving target that is defended. 2. that player winning the ball 3. that player converting is less than 30%. Against Geelong we have 54 inside 50s for 20 scoring shots so 37% but only 10 goals that's 18%.

Now obviously an inside 50 could come from the wing where no scoring is possible but it is usually much much easier to move the ball around and find targets just outside 50 as sides don't defend them as hard. If you have enough players that can roost it I can see us getting much higher than 18% return of "over 50s". So instead of hitting a target inside 50 you hit the goals.

Where this theory works even better is just taking the shot. The other week gunston was in the middle of the behind posts literally a few meters from the goals and instead of snapping a shot which admittedly was a tough angle, he took an impossible option of trying to hit a target 30m out in the pocket who would need to win a 2v1 and then kick a goal from a tough angle, easier than gunstons shot but gunstons pass was harder than a shot on goal. And instead of a behind and us defending it was unsurprisingly a turnover from a more vulnerable position.

I'm not sure you can factor in the difficulty of finding a target I50 and not factor in the difficulty of finding a target around 50, or the risk of turning the ball over in that area. Turnover is the primary source of score in the AFL, and turning the ball over around 50 out is almost a guaranteed clean I50 against - easy out the back of the press.

Like I said, it's good to have players who can hit it from outside 50 because it allows for more space, but if it became a thing tactically especially with defenders floating forward you'd very easily get found out. Missing Sic with a kick on the 50 mark and then not having him back for the rebound sounds like an absolute worst case scenario. Scaife being able to do it is great though, the league needs more forwards with the confidence and ability to nail em from a distance.

 

[TylerDurden]

Broken finger.

 

[tommyk72]

Broken finger.

God. We can't take a trick these last few weeks.

 

[Big Hotdog]

God. We can't take a trick these last few weeks.

Yep. The broken finger feels like a kick to the balls.

On SM-A546E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TylerDurden]

It's unconfirmed. Trying to verify.

 

[Newmo89]

Broken finger. Had surgery yesterday.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

Broken finger. Had surgery yesterday.

 

[peetoo]

Mentioned in box hill squad as injured

 

[lyger]

Broken finger. Had surgery yesterday.

What’s the prognosis in terms of likely recovery period?

 

[Bugs1977]

What’s the prognosis in terms of likely recovery period?

You'd think it would depend on various things like:

• was it a compound fracture / hairline fracture
• was there any ligament or tendon damage
• which finger was it (ie pinky / index / thumb)
• were pins, plates, screws or wires inserted to stabilise it

He could be out from anything from 1-2 games to 6 to 8 weeks.