Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Manikato1]

Hi Rowsus

I have a question for you about opportunity cost. Early teams appear to have Rocky Beams and Fyfe as popular selections. These players have been inj often in recent times or not played for extended periods. Now I go back to a comment earlier this year by one of the regulars on this site (sorry cannot recall who it was) who made an interesting observation that it was worse to have missed out on a top defender than a top mid like Danger. The reason being there were any number of mids who although ave less than Danger only did so by a few points but that margin was much less than the big gap between the top def and the next best defender.

The issue is you can still pick plenty of other mids that will ave just much as Rocky or Beams or within a few points of them (or above them). These other mids have inj records much better than Beams and Rocky. Choosing Rocky and Beams does free up cash to be used elsewhere perhaps on lines that will be much more important than the mids.

But these guys have shown a clear propensity to get serious inj during the season. That often means copping a rookie score for an extended period or trading them out which costs trades and the opportunity cost that you could have been doing some other trade to fix /upgrade you team quicker.

I am unsure if the savings gained from getting Rocky and Beams and co is worth the risk. If you had both and they both went down (quite a good chance I would think) that would put a major hole in your season. Is this the equivalent of the Libba decision a lot of coaches had at the start of 2016 but x 2?

 

[Rowsus]

thanks for doing this thread again much appreciated

i was wondering what your opinion on jake lloyd is?

scored between 114 and 81 from round 20 to the grand final and 103 in the grand final which for his type of player is very good

priced at 460,200 as a back he is a lock for me and will hopefully be a top 6 back by the end of next season

Hi jarrad_, good to be back!

I think the biggest hurdle facing Lloyd is consistency in role. I have no doubt he will get some very SC friendly roles during the season, but I'm just as sure he will get some negative roles too. Part of the problem is Sydney like to rotate players through different roles. This makes it pretty hard to take players from Sydney, unless they are proven Prems or Rookies.
If you take him, I'd only do it if you have filled your team, and you have money left over. If you end up with Lloyd, and $200-$250k type player I think I'd swap them to a genuine Prem and Rookie instead!
Good luck.

 

[Beg2Differ]

Hi Rowsus

What is your take on Steele Sidebottom? I had him in my team from the start last year and he wasn't a bad pick (avg 106) but didn't quite live up to my 110+ expectations. The number of times he flew to 65+ at half time and then limped to 90-100 in the second half was annoying given he has a reputation for being super-fit and a greater runner.

 

[Jurn Stern]

Hey Row,

This is my first post in months, so I thought I'd come right to the source. What do you think of my new rule? The rule is to pick the least number of premiums I can whilst spending as close to all the salary cap as I can. I thought it may be a good way to ensure I'm picking a lot of rookies and expensive premiums, rather than trying to squeeze 14-15 premiums into a squad.

 

[Juzzo]

Hey Row,

This is my first post in months, so I thought I'd come right to the source. What do you think of my new rule? The rule is to pick the least number of premiums I can whilst spending as close to all the salary cap as I can. I thought it may be a good way to ensure I'm picking a lot of rookies and expensive premiums, rather than trying to squeeze 14-15 premiums into a squad.

Sounds like a traditional GnR approach.

 

[jarrad_]

thanks for the reply much appreciated after more research into lloyd i decided against starting him and your reply confirmed my research

my next question is about stephen coniglio

he is my pick to join the 110+ club next year can he do it with all the competition he has or is he at his limit now in your opinion?

obviously gws are not short on talent and points do get shared around im thinking he could be the bartel from the old abc days from gee longs dominance period hopefully im right

 

[Prochard]

Hey Rowsus,

How would you explain Bontempelli's incredibly high disposal to SC ratio or DT to SC ratio? And how would it be affected by perhaps more attention from the opposition?

 

[bomberboy]

Row,
What chances do you give Treloar to be a top 8 mid this year? Really, really wanting to select him.

 

[Dimmawit]

Hi rowsus,

I'm sure this info is somewhere but could you please point it out to me or explain the following please?

What typically happens to the magic number from round 4 onwards? How much does it typically fall round to round early in the season and at what point does it start to flatten out and remain fairly constant?

Cheers mate!

 

[Rowsus]

Thoughts on Jack Martin Row?
Could he improve/breakout?
D/F bonus.

Good to be back annoying you again!

Great to have you back, Juzzo. It wouldn't be the same without you!
Jack Martin was described as a complete freak, and the greatest thing since Betty White*, before debuted. A great example of junior champion not making the complete step to senior standard.
This his 4th season, and even though the past 2 seasons were only his 2nd and 3rd, given the injury woes GC had, he should have shone a little better, if he was going to make the SC grade this season. First 3 games in 2016: 91, 111, 90. First 2 games after the byes: 103, 116. He's good fresh! But take out those games, and his biggest 2 games streaks in 2016 was: 84, 86 in Rnds 9 & 10, and 81, 93 in Rnd 22 & 23. That's just not going to cut it, even for a Def.


* someone once stated out that Betty White is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He was then told that Betty White was actually born before sliced bread was "invented", so he corrected himself, and said "Sliced bread is the greatest thing since Betty White!"

 

[Juzzo]

Great to have you back, Juzzo. It wouldn't be the same without you!
Jack Martin was described as a complete freak, and the greatest thing since Betty White*, before debuted. A great example of junior champion not making the complete step to senior standard.
This his 4th season, and even though the past 2 seasons were only his 2nd and 3rd, given the injury woes GC had, he should have shone a little better, if he was going to make the SC grade this season. First 3 games in 2016: 91, 111, 90. First 2 games after the byes: 103, 116. He's good fresh! But take out those games, and his biggest 2 games streaks in 2016 was: 84, 86 in Rnds 9 & 10, and 81, 93 in Rnd 22 & 23. That's just not going to cut it, even for a Def.


* someone once stated out that Betty White is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He was then told that Betty White was actually born before sliced bread was "invented", so he coreected himself, and said "Sliced bread is the greatest thing since Betty White!"

Haha, funny quote.

Thanks for you reply mate. I still might take a gamble with JM, we'll see.
Another smokey for my defence is Tom Cutler, any thoughts on him?

Thanks bud.

 

[Dan45]

Hey Rowsus,

How would you explain Bontempelli's incredibly high disposal to SC ratio or DT to SC ratio? And how would it be affected by perhaps more attention from the opposition?

Well I'm not quite Rowsus, but I thought I might give a slightly different perspective on this as a bulldogs supporter.

The obvious answer is that it's just the way he plays. His disposals are very damaging and they regularly set up scoring opportunities, so he gets more points for each one. He kicks long and accurately to dangerous positions and his handballs clear congestion to find a teammate in space. He's also an inside beast, which means he gets more points for things like contested possessions. He also takes contested marks, gets hitouts to advantage and kicks goals. Many players are good at a few of these things, but Bont is great at all of them, allowing him to score more heavily for each disposal.

The less obvious answer is that he's such a clutch player, and he tends to perform best late in games. The big moments which determine the result of the game (like a winning goal) get scaled up and count for more points. Whenever we have a close game, he lifts in the third/fourth quarter to get us over the line. In these close games, he usually kicks/sets up the winning goal. All of his big scores come in close wins. In our 11 wins by less than four goals, he averaged 129.5. He scored 127+ in 9 of those 11 games. In our other 8 wins, he averaged 96 (top score 121) and in 7 losses, he averaged 90.4 (top score 112). Essentially, when the game is still on the line late, he usually steps up and carries us over the line. However, when the game is already over early, he doesn't need to step up as much and even if he does, he misses out on the big-moment scaling.

What does this mean for 2017? To be honest, I don't think it bodes well from an SC perspective. The dogs had an abnormally large number of close wins this year, which allowed him to be clutch in big moments very often. A lot of these close wins came when the team was hit hard by injuries. Next year, with more players available, I think we'll have a few more big wins and a few less close wins, so Bont will have fewer opportunities to be clutch late in games. Obviously, there are a lot of other factors to consider as well though (like how he averaged 115.5 over his last 20 games after playing mostly forward for the first 6 weeks).

 

[Rowsus]

Gawn would be very interesting to see for this one. We know he loves away teams but I wonder why?

It's hard to put a finger on why Gawn lifted, and averaged 150 when getting off a plane. I think there are a couple of keys to Gawn, and I'm pretty confident his average will dip this season.
I think he is a player more than most, that battles mental and physical fatigue. When one or the other strike, his performance suffers, and when they strike together (Rnd 23 last season?) it's a disaster. Even his 2015 hot streak showed ups and downs, which I believe were fatigue generated.
Max is a bit of a lad, as we all know. I wouldn't be surprised if he saw getting on a plane as "It's me and my boys going on a trip, to beat these buggers over there", and he mentally lifts for it. Who hasn't mentally lifted when a group of the boys are getting on a plane, for a lads trip away. I know I do.
When the frequency hits, the thrill/lift will dissipate, and it will become "another bloody plane trip". It's so hard to maintain a mental and physical approach, especially for our tallest players.
Gawn made a super effort to lift his fitness in 2016, and reaped the benefits. History tells us, that Rucks find it ridiculously hard to maintain this. Look at the recent history of Rucks that have "super prepared" one season, nearly without exception, they fall off the next. They are not Midfield type athletes, and they cop more bash and crash than anybody else, with CHF's the next most bashed/crashed.
I think Gawn should be given a "really well done" if he can come away with a 20/110 season, and I won't be surprised if he has a 18/107 season!

 

[Bomber18]

It's hard to put a finger on why Gawn lifted, and averaged 150 when getting off a plane. I think there are a couple of keys to Gawn, and I'm pretty confident his average will dip this season.
I think he is a player more than most, that battles mental and physical fatigue. When one or the other strike, his performance suffers, and when they strike together (Rnd 23 last season?) it's a disaster. Even his 2015 hot streak showed ups and downs, which I believe were fatigue generated.
Max is a bit of a lad, as we all know. I wouldn't be surprised if he saw getting on a plane as "It's me and my boys going on a trip, to beat these buggers over there", and he mentally lifts for it. Who hasn't mentally lifted when a group of the boys are getting on a plane, for a lads trip away. I know I do.
When the frequency hits, the thrill/lift will dissipate, and it will become "another bloody plane trip". It's so hard to maintain a mental and physical approach, especially for our tallest players.
Gawn made a super effort to lift his fitness in 2016, and reaped the benefits. History tells us, that Rucks find it ridiculously hard to maintain this. Look at the recent history of Rucks that have "super prepared" one season, nearly without exception, they fall off the next. They are not Midfield type athletes, and they cop more bash and crash than anybody else, with CHF's the next most bashed/crashed.
I think Gawn should be given a "really well done" if he can come away with a 20/110 season, and I won't be surprised if he has a 18/107 season!

Thanks for that Rowsus!
Amazing work! Really good to see the break up of his scores. Gee his away stats are bloody ridiculous!

I'm trying to find some sort of a pattern to his poor scoring but it seems non-existent. Best I could find was potentially he's worse at smaller grounds and at the MCG in losses.

Round 1 - v St Kilda, Etihad Stadium (Away) - small ground & maybe a loss?
Round 2 - v Carlton, MCG (Home) - uh oh
Round 3 - v Geelong Cats, Etihad Stadium (Away) - small ground & loss to bring his price down?
Round 4 - v Fremantle, MCG (Home) - Sandi to keep him under 100
Round 5 - v Richmond, MCG (Away) - uh oh
Round 6 - v Essendon, Etihad Stadium (Away) - small ground but should be fine versus Berger
Round 7 - v Hawthorn, MCG (Home) - uh oh
Round 8 - v Adelaide Crows, Adelaide Oval (Away) - UH OH
Round 9 - v North Melbourne v MCG (Home) - go Goldy but 170'd him last year
Round 10 -v Gold Coast Suns, TIO Traeger Park (Home) - UH OH a 170 for sure

Gawn might start slower with a few ES games early but those few away games before the bye will probably push his price back up to $600k.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

Hi Rowsus.

Great to see this thread is happening again. Ever appreciative of your wisdom.

I recall this year you were very interested in starting with Zac Williams but then he didn't play round 1 so obviously you didn't select him.

He starts next year at a much higher price but just wondering what your thoughts are on him this time around. Do you think he can make the jump to be a premium defender?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus

I have a question for you about opportunity cost. Early teams appear to have Rocky Beams and Fyfe as popular selections. These players have been inj often in recent times or not played for extended periods. Now I go back to a comment earlier this year by one of the regulars on this site (sorry cannot recall who it was) who made an interesting observation that it was worse to have missed out on a top defender than a top mid like Danger. The reason being there were any number of mids who although ave less than Danger only did so by a few points but that margin was much less than the big gap between the top def and the next best defender.

The issue is you can still pick plenty of other mids that will ave just much as Rocky or Beams or within a few points of them (or above them). These other mids have inj records much better than Beams and Rocky. Choosing Rocky and Beams does free up cash to be used elsewhere perhaps on lines that will be much more important than the mids.

But these guys have shown a clear propensity to get serious inj during the season. That often means copping a rookie score for an extended period or trading them out which costs trades and the opportunity cost that you could have been doing some other trade to fix /upgrade you team quicker.

I am unsure if the savings gained from getting Rocky and Beams and co is worth the risk. If you had both and they both went down (quite a good chance I would think) that would put a major hole in your season. Is this the equivalent of the Libba decision a lot of coaches had at the start of 2016 but x 2?

Hi Man1,
I think there are some significant differences between the Libba scenario, and the Rocky/Beams scenario.
The most important is ceiling. Libba had a best season of 110 before his injury, and the other two had 132/122, that's quite a difference.
Libba was returning to a totally different game plan, and a Midfield of improved strength and quality. Rocky/Beams are returning to a Midfield that without them is probably the weakest Midfield in the AFL, and are probably more versatile to cope with whatever game plan Fagan comes up with.
I think the only way you can decide is pick a side with them, and without them, and weigh the benefits of the team with more dollars used in other areas, against the team without Rocky/Beams. I'd be surprised if there was a huge difference in expected points.
If you start without them, and they fire, you have to consider if you'll restructure to get them in, before their prices make it impossible.
If you start with them, and they collapse, there is no easy fix, as you'll be a Prem down on the better teams, as their prices make it too hard to go two Prems out, two Prems in.
What a pickle!
Beams is more pure Mid, but also more of an injury risk. Rocky can get shunted to the Forward line, and just can't string together high game numbers.
At the moment my approach is simple. Barring an outstanding pre-season showing, I'm not even considering either. The Midfield isn't for speculation, it's where, if your whole team isn't G'n'R, then really your Midfield should be. As you can guess, I didn't start Libba last season. Play it safe. Pick a team without them, as it will be easier to fit them in later, if the pre-season tells you to. It's much harder to take them out later, especially Beams, as the price makes it hard to find a replacement.
As to Fyfe, I think that is an easy one. Moving/playing ok pre-season, he just goes in your team. If not, he doesn't.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus

What is your take on Steele Sidebottom? I had him in my team from the start last year and he wasn't a bad pick (avg 106) but didn't quite live up to my 110+ expectations. The number of times he flew to 65+ at half time and then limped to 90-100 in the second half was annoying given he has a reputation for being super-fit and a greater runner.

Hi B2D,
I noticed that Dusty type quality of flying the blocks, but failing to finish it off too. There is no doubt he can grab a game by the scruff, and tear out a big score now and then. I think the biggest problem is, if he is played like last season, he'll spend too much time on the wrong side of centre. Coming through the middle of last season, I was nearly betting we'd see him as a D/M this season, but then he played more pure Mid in the latter stages of the season.
I think with Collingwood trying to build a team with Grundy and 21 Midfielders, that Sidey might be one of the ones to suffer, as I see him playing "other roles" better than a Treloar, for example. I liked Sidey this time last year, but I'd struggle to risk taking him in my starting team this season.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Row,

This is my first post in months, so I thought I'd come right to the source. What do you think of my new rule? The rule is to pick the least number of premiums I can whilst spending as close to all the salary cap as I can. I thought it may be a good way to ensure I'm picking a lot of rookies and expensive premiums, rather than trying to squeeze 14-15 premiums into a squad.

Sounds like a traditional GnR approach.

Hey Jurn, great to see you back.
As a general idea, I don't like it. It sounds like you will be targeting high priced Prems just for the sake of it, without actually considering the risk/reward factor. I know that isn't you at all! If there is one man here that will work with a "how much risk is involved in paying $640,000 for this player, and what's the upside if I do?", it is you.
Go back to the old, original G'n'R hand book.
Step 1 - pick your 2 Captain options
Step 2 - pick your Ruck strategy
Step 3 - fill the rest of your team with 25-27 Rookies, with a definite preference order of: this is my best Rookie, all the way down to this is my last picked Rookie
Step 4 - start replacing your "bottom" picked Rookies with Prems, until you run out of money.

I wouldn't pick the least number of Prems you can, but the least number that would appear to have a reasonable upside!

Good luck, great to have you back!

 

[Rowsus]

thanks for the reply much appreciated after more research into lloyd i decided against starting him and your reply confirmed my research

my next question is about stephen coniglio

he is my pick to join the 110+ club next year can he do it with all the competition he has or is he at his limit now in your opinion?

obviously gws are not short on talent and points do get shared around im thinking he could be the bartel from the old abc days from gee longs dominance period hopefully im right

as always, happy to help.
Going on history, this is Coniglio's last chance to breakout. Players, especially Mids, don't often breakout after 6 seasons and 100+ games, and that's where he'll be in 2018. I think his ceiling is too low, and his cellar is also too low, for him to be 110+. I would think he's need things to go his way to reach 110, let alone beat it.

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus,

How would you explain Bontempelli's incredibly high disposal to SC ratio or DT to SC ratio? And how would it be affected by perhaps more attention from the opposition?

The secret is in his ability to maximise his scoring in close games. The Bulldogs had 7 wins between 3 and 15 points in 2016, and the Bont averaged 137 in those 7 games. His minimum was 127 and his max was 149 in those games.
I don't believe this is coincidence. He goes where he is needed in close finishes, whether it is Forward, to mark and goal, or back for a contested intercept mark. Both these things are gold at anytime, but they are platinum late in a close game!
This lifts his SC:disposal average up to a high level. I don't think this type of "bonus" scoring would be too affected by extra attention. They are pretty much trying to nullify his affect late in close games anyway.


I read this after I posted my response.

Well I'm not quite Rowsus, but I thought I might give a slightly different perspective on this as a bulldogs supporter.

The obvious answer is that it's just the way he plays. His disposals are very damaging and they regularly set up scoring opportunities, so he gets more points for each one. He kicks long and accurately to dangerous positions and his handballs clear congestion to find a teammate in space. He's also an inside beast, which means he gets more points for things like contested possessions. He also takes contested marks, gets hitouts to advantage and kicks goals. Many players are good at a few of these things, but Bont is great at all of them, allowing him to score more heavily for each disposal.

The less obvious answer is that he's such a clutch player, and he tends to perform best late in games. The big moments which determine the result of the game (like a winning goal) get scaled up and count for more points. Whenever we have a close game, he lifts in the third/fourth quarter to get us over the line. In these close games, he usually kicks/sets up the winning goal. All of his big scores come in close wins. In our 11 wins by less than four goals, he averaged 129.5. He scored 127+ in 9 of those 11 games. In our other 8 wins, he averaged 96 (top score 121) and in 7 losses, he averaged 90.4 (top score 112). Essentially, when the game is still on the line late, he usually steps up and carries us over the line. However, when the game is already over early, he doesn't need to step up as much and even if he does, he misses out on the big-moment scaling.

What does this mean for 2017? To be honest, I don't think it bodes well from an SC perspective. The dogs had an abnormally large number of close wins this year, which allowed him to be clutch in big moments very often. A lot of these close wins came when the team was hit hard by injuries. Next year, with more players available, I think we'll have a few more big wins and a few less close wins, so Bont will have fewer opportunities to be clutch late in games. Obviously, there are a lot of other factors to consider as well though (like how he averaged 115.5 over his last 20 games after playing mostly forward for the first 6 weeks).

Dan45 and I largely agree, except I am more bullish about the Bont improving his 90 average in losses, and his 97 average in wins over 3 goals.