Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
I'm not strong on the "must have" concept, particularly prior to the season starting. The only "must" leading into Round 1 is having 2 or 3 good Captain options, and then using the rest of your cash, as well as you can.
So I guess my answer to your question is, no I don't see Neale as a must have for your starting team.
So I guess my answer to your question is, no I don't see Neale as a must have for your starting team.
G'day SlicenDyce,
around 5 or 6 years ago, someone did a bit of research on players in contract years. The end result was, that contract years were largely inconsequential. Some players did well, some did poorly, some just did as they do. To the naked eye, that hasn't changed too much.
Also, just to the naked eye, it actually seems that well established players, that have just penned long term extensions may have a down year, in that first year after the extension. I have no numbers on this, just what I have observed.
around 5 or 6 years ago, someone did a bit of research on players in contract years. The end result was, that contract years were largely inconsequential. Some players did well, some did poorly, some just did as they do. To the naked eye, that hasn't changed too much.
Also, just to the naked eye, it actually seems that well established players, that have just penned long term extensions may have a down year, in that first year after the extension. I have no numbers on this, just what I have observed.
Hi Rowsus,
One that came up recently and I thought would be interesting to look at was the #moremidtime rationale in theory and practice (wasn't my theory or work - saw it pop up and took my interest).
Took the 2020 midfielder data and adapted to try to make sure I captured players who had been listed as DEF / FWD-eligible but played primarily in the midfield.
Then ranked each club's midfielders and looked at the top 4 (basic idea being when a player is pushing into the midfield or moving to another club in search of opportunities, they're likely not going to be higher up than 4th in the pecking order - and an average any worse than the 4th midfielder would likely not be particularly viable either way).
Looking at it, it doesn't really seem like Caldwell and Hately types would necessarily be expected to be that viable.
It ultimately comes down to the player's talent and opportunities, but it doesn't seem that likely either of those could be expected to deliver high enough output (they might still have validity in generation of cash etc.) in their roles in their future teams.
Have you looked at the moving club / shift into the midfield types in the past and, if so, what was the rough success rate?
One that came up recently and I thought would be interesting to look at was the #moremidtime rationale in theory and practice (wasn't my theory or work - saw it pop up and took my interest).
Took the 2020 midfielder data and adapted to try to make sure I captured players who had been listed as DEF / FWD-eligible but played primarily in the midfield.
Then ranked each club's midfielders and looked at the top 4 (basic idea being when a player is pushing into the midfield or moving to another club in search of opportunities, they're likely not going to be higher up than 4th in the pecking order - and an average any worse than the 4th midfielder would likely not be particularly viable either way).
Looking at it, it doesn't really seem like Caldwell and Hately types would necessarily be expected to be that viable.
It ultimately comes down to the player's talent and opportunities, but it doesn't seem that likely either of those could be expected to deliver high enough output (they might still have validity in generation of cash etc.) in their roles in their future teams.
Have you looked at the moving club / shift into the midfield types in the past and, if so, what was the rough success rate?
Hewett only played 6 games as well 
It's a big reason why adding Mills, who, imo, is better than Parker, makes such a big difference and why Heeney should be there. Papley also needs to go through there a bit more.
Doesn't help that we had Sinclair as the ruck.
Stats do support Caldwell as chance for mine if you could back him to actually be the 4th mid! 11 of those were 90+ which if there is a bit of a drop from the premium group would definitely be enough.
It's a big reason why adding Mills, who, imo, is better than Parker, makes such a big difference and why Heeney should be there. Papley also needs to go through there a bit more.
Doesn't help that we had Sinclair as the ruck.
Stats do support Caldwell as chance for mine if you could back him to actually be the 4th mid! 11 of those were 90+ which if there is a bit of a drop from the premium group would definitely be enough.
Hi gutsroy,
I have a pretty hard and fast rule on players changing clubs. If they are a player that has been in the system a decent period, had a chance to show us, and their clubs, what they have, if they have already shown us a SC ESP (Expected Scoring Pattern), then changing clubs, won't change what they give us, from a SC perspective. Basically, if they have had a chance (4 or 5+ seasons, and/or 80+ games), they are not suddenly going to become a better player, by changing clubs. People are always pointing to "better opportunities" at the new club, but we very rarely see it happen with an established player!
This doesn't apply to the 2 players in question, Caldwell and Hately.
Caldwell - M/F - $348,600 - of the 2, he might have the harder task, to be considered a good pick. Essendon have Merrett, Shiel, McGrath and the surprise packet of Parish, who actually had the 2nd most Clearances for Essendon in 2020. None of them are too old, but none of them are A+ grade Midfielders either! That might be harsh on Merrett, but certainly not harsh on the others. Given Essendon have some perceived Mid depth, but not depth of high quality Mid talent, it is possible that there is an opportunity there for Caldwell. He certainly has the opportunity to have some improvement, and could easily force his way into the the top 2 or 3 Mids at the Bombers. He probably wants to go 95+ to be called a win, and 90-94 to be called a draw, as far as a pick goes. To paraphrase @wogitalia, if he was just $50k cheaper, he'd be a lot easier to pick! The thing is he isn't, and the likes of Ziebell, Impey and Daniher are more than $50k cheaper. That fact combined with not wanting to fill my team with too many $200k-$400k type players, means I'll likely wait and see on Caldwell.
Hately - M - $310,300 - Really has an opportunity. Goes from a strong club to a weak club. B Crouch gone, Sloane (31) getting older, Laird in and out of the Midfield, you then get down to the likes of B Smith and Ben Keays. I don't think Hately has to be brilliant, to push his way into the top 4 of that lot. We didn't get to see a lot of him at GWS, but what we did see, he certainly looked to have potential. Still he probably needs to go 90+ to be a win, and 84-89 to be a draw. I'm not sure Adelaide have the team, or the players to have 3 Mids go say 95+ at the moment, so that is probably a hurdle. I have no doubt he has the potential to push into their top 4 Mids, the question is, is that enough to keep us happy? Too many doubts there for mine, and I hate Stepping Stones in the Midfield, so he's a no from me.
I have a pretty hard and fast rule on players changing clubs. If they are a player that has been in the system a decent period, had a chance to show us, and their clubs, what they have, if they have already shown us a SC ESP (Expected Scoring Pattern), then changing clubs, won't change what they give us, from a SC perspective. Basically, if they have had a chance (4 or 5+ seasons, and/or 80+ games), they are not suddenly going to become a better player, by changing clubs. People are always pointing to "better opportunities" at the new club, but we very rarely see it happen with an established player!
This doesn't apply to the 2 players in question, Caldwell and Hately.
Caldwell - M/F - $348,600 - of the 2, he might have the harder task, to be considered a good pick. Essendon have Merrett, Shiel, McGrath and the surprise packet of Parish, who actually had the 2nd most Clearances for Essendon in 2020. None of them are too old, but none of them are A+ grade Midfielders either! That might be harsh on Merrett, but certainly not harsh on the others. Given Essendon have some perceived Mid depth, but not depth of high quality Mid talent, it is possible that there is an opportunity there for Caldwell. He certainly has the opportunity to have some improvement, and could easily force his way into the the top 2 or 3 Mids at the Bombers. He probably wants to go 95+ to be called a win, and 90-94 to be called a draw, as far as a pick goes. To paraphrase @wogitalia, if he was just $50k cheaper, he'd be a lot easier to pick! The thing is he isn't, and the likes of Ziebell, Impey and Daniher are more than $50k cheaper. That fact combined with not wanting to fill my team with too many $200k-$400k type players, means I'll likely wait and see on Caldwell.
Hately - M - $310,300 - Really has an opportunity. Goes from a strong club to a weak club. B Crouch gone, Sloane (31) getting older, Laird in and out of the Midfield, you then get down to the likes of B Smith and Ben Keays. I don't think Hately has to be brilliant, to push his way into the top 4 of that lot. We didn't get to see a lot of him at GWS, but what we did see, he certainly looked to have potential. Still he probably needs to go 90+ to be a win, and 84-89 to be a draw. I'm not sure Adelaide have the team, or the players to have 3 Mids go say 95+ at the moment, so that is probably a hurdle. I have no doubt he has the potential to push into their top 4 Mids, the question is, is that enough to keep us happy? Too many doubts there for mine, and I hate Stepping Stones in the Midfield, so he's a no from me.
Hi Rowsus,
hope all is well in Denmark. It can only get better with the vaccine being distributed in Denmark to all over 18 year olds.
My question, especilally this year with the possible shortage of Cash Cows and over-priced good players, is it better to have a permenant non-player (like a Treacy, A.Fyfe) for the Captain loop, or select a non-playing Rookie who is expected to play in the near future (like a Highmore, J.Worrell, Flynn, Cockatoo, Valente)?
Selecting a permanent non-player increases one's chances of getting a higher scoring Captain, but selecting a Rookie missing the early rounds can generate more cash in the long run?
I'm thinking, if playing for league wins, then select the non-player, but if going for the highest points, then select a a Rookie missing the early rounds is best?
I will have Gawn, Grundy and Neale to select from if I don't have the loop available for a round, and then select the one with the easiest game for the Captain.
We only know the AFL teams order of playing up to Rd 6, but the AFL seem to have a template they work to, so I feel pretty safe the usual teams will generally play the early and late games each round, so selecting a permanent non-player is not that risky.
I'm pretty much undecided which way to go, so any help would be appreciated.
hope all is well in Denmark. It can only get better with the vaccine being distributed in Denmark to all over 18 year olds.
My question, especilally this year with the possible shortage of Cash Cows and over-priced good players, is it better to have a permenant non-player (like a Treacy, A.Fyfe) for the Captain loop, or select a non-playing Rookie who is expected to play in the near future (like a Highmore, J.Worrell, Flynn, Cockatoo, Valente)?
Selecting a permanent non-player increases one's chances of getting a higher scoring Captain, but selecting a Rookie missing the early rounds can generate more cash in the long run?
I'm thinking, if playing for league wins, then select the non-player, but if going for the highest points, then select a a Rookie missing the early rounds is best?
I will have Gawn, Grundy and Neale to select from if I don't have the loop available for a round, and then select the one with the easiest game for the Captain.
We only know the AFL teams order of playing up to Rd 6, but the AFL seem to have a template they work to, so I feel pretty safe the usual teams will generally play the early and late games each round, so selecting a permanent non-player is not that risky.
I'm pretty much undecided which way to go, so any help would be appreciated.
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2019
- Messages
- 435
- Likes
- 2,565
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Thanks Nicohighscore. I understood your question to be slightly different to the one I am asking and Rowsus last line was ".........My best advice this season, is aim for 30 starters in Round 1, or at least 29 if you need the Captain's loophole in Round 1!"
Basically, I would like to know if Rowsus thinks having 30 starters in Rd1 is better then having 29 starters, with 1 Captain's loophole, for all the rounds.
Basically, I would like to know if Rowsus thinks having 30 starters in Rd1 is better then having 29 starters, with 1 Captain's loophole, for all the rounds.
Hi Rowsus
Asking this with 2 games (and 1 qtr) to go in the pre season games so might be one to answer in 24 hours but........
Are the rucks scoring less than last season?? (small sample size)
If so has this been caused by less stoppages and more open play (I don't think so as hit outs per game seem same as last years averages) or could there have been some adjustment to scoring? I have always thought that the scoring for rucks has been higher than their actual influence on games.
Asking this with 2 games (and 1 qtr) to go in the pre season games so might be one to answer in 24 hours but........
Are the rucks scoring less than last season?? (small sample size)
If so has this been caused by less stoppages and more open play (I don't think so as hit outs per game seem same as last years averages) or could there have been some adjustment to scoring? I have always thought that the scoring for rucks has been higher than their actual influence on games.
For mine, not noticeably.
Pittonet - 101 - Strong score for him.
Hunter - 77 - Good ratio and a strong score, McKernan as 2nd ruck scored 109 as well but that was mostly as a forward/around the ground.
Grundy - 118 - Didn't even seem that good.
Nank - 62 - Played under a half, Chol had 45 in his half as well.
Goldy - 68 - Preseason Goldy and spent a fair bit of time forward with Campbell in also.
McEvoy/Ceglar - 87/92 - Pretty damn good in a ruck share from two of the weaker rucks.
Jenkins - 92 - Mostly on followup work.
Draper - 71 - In a bit over a half.
Briggs - 81 - Solid in 3/4 for a kid.
Hickey - 50 - Amazing given how incredibly bad he played.
ROB - 58 - The only really worrying score so far but they were abysmal.
Lycett/Ladhams - 68/89 - Ruck share in a game with no contest, was pretty decent still.
NicNat - 39 - In not a whole lot more than a quarter.
Meek - 75 - The most underwhelming of the scores, I thought he would have 95+.
Lots of the rucks haven't played much or have had big share situations. Also have Gawn and Witts still to play who are two of the top rucks. Will worry if they don't score well and play full games!
Pittonet - 101 - Strong score for him.
Hunter - 77 - Good ratio and a strong score, McKernan as 2nd ruck scored 109 as well but that was mostly as a forward/around the ground.
Grundy - 118 - Didn't even seem that good.
Nank - 62 - Played under a half, Chol had 45 in his half as well.
Goldy - 68 - Preseason Goldy and spent a fair bit of time forward with Campbell in also.
McEvoy/Ceglar - 87/92 - Pretty damn good in a ruck share from two of the weaker rucks.
Jenkins - 92 - Mostly on followup work.
Draper - 71 - In a bit over a half.
Briggs - 81 - Solid in 3/4 for a kid.
Hickey - 50 - Amazing given how incredibly bad he played.
ROB - 58 - The only really worrying score so far but they were abysmal.
Lycett/Ladhams - 68/89 - Ruck share in a game with no contest, was pretty decent still.
NicNat - 39 - In not a whole lot more than a quarter.
Meek - 75 - The most underwhelming of the scores, I thought he would have 95+.
Lots of the rucks haven't played much or have had big share situations. Also have Gawn and Witts still to play who are two of the top rucks. Will worry if they don't score well and play full games!
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 475
- Likes
- 1,201
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Some of these scores are horrible given the exact situation. ROB and Goldstein obviously. Grundy historically dominates Nank scoring wise, one of his favourite opponents, and despite Nank barely playing, he still scored subpar even against weak opponent (nank) + even weaker back up. Then on top of that his DT score is also very very low, so even his 118 is an outcome of highly favourable DT:SC ratios.
A better way of measuring this would be by total hitouts per game (both teams combined), this would represent the number of opportunities for rucks to score, as well as the frequency of stoppages. Using an inaccurate eye test, from what I've seen this has decreased. While this could be a result of preseason games and lesser intensity, still concerning nonetheless.
A better way of measuring this would be by total hitouts per game (both teams combined), this would represent the number of opportunities for rucks to score, as well as the frequency of stoppages. Using an inaccurate eye test, from what I've seen this has decreased. While this could be a result of preseason games and lesser intensity, still concerning nonetheless.
Could well be something to it. Looking at it average hitouts last preseason was 76 a game, this season so far is just 60. Worth noting that it was 81 per game for the first 9 games last year and then just 71 for the next 9 but still both are significant drops to this years number.
Edit: Which would just make me more keen to go the two rookies if they're there come round one.
Edit: Which would just make me more keen to go the two rookies if they're there come round one.
Hi Bermi,
things here are ok, thanks. The weather is slowly improving, and the days are getting longer again.
My wife and I are in the 2nd last group scheduled for vaccination, so won't be due to get it until early June.
The essence of your question is, is it better to start a FDTP, or an expected permanent FD?
I generally think a FDTP (Floating Donut To Play) is better, but there is a rider on that. It applies in most seasons, and could be even more important to be aware of this season. If you choose a FDTP, you are potentially robbing yourself of a good downgrade target. There may be a limited quantity of those this season, with so many young players missing a year of football last season. If your FDTP becomes a great looking bubble boy in say Round 9 or 10, you have saved a trade, but you might have to take a real risky prospect, when you go to do a down grade in that Round!
It's a double edged sword, but in general, I'd say a FDTP is usually a better option than a pure FD. Pure FD's are usually not required, as you usually have 1 or 2 (or more) non-players amongst your 30 anyway!
things here are ok, thanks. The weather is slowly improving, and the days are getting longer again.
My wife and I are in the 2nd last group scheduled for vaccination, so won't be due to get it until early June.
The essence of your question is, is it better to start a FDTP, or an expected permanent FD?
I generally think a FDTP (Floating Donut To Play) is better, but there is a rider on that. It applies in most seasons, and could be even more important to be aware of this season. If you choose a FDTP, you are potentially robbing yourself of a good downgrade target. There may be a limited quantity of those this season, with so many young players missing a year of football last season. If your FDTP becomes a great looking bubble boy in say Round 9 or 10, you have saved a trade, but you might have to take a real risky prospect, when you go to do a down grade in that Round!
It's a double edged sword, but in general, I'd say a FDTP is usually a better option than a pure FD. Pure FD's are usually not required, as you usually have 1 or 2 (or more) non-players amongst your 30 anyway!
Just for a contrarian opinion I think we might actually see a lot of downgrade options this year for the exact same reason, the lack of football means some really talented kids need to play some football for seasoning before hitting the big stuff. Someone like Will Phillips for example would have been close to a lock round one in normal seasons but wont play this year most likely. Basically the kids will get an extra month or so of conditioning work through the reserves and then will earn spots in the AFL.
May not happen though, depends just how far behind they actually are.
May not happen though, depends just how far behind they actually are.
Hi Mudflap.
Let's look at the numbers, keeping in mind, some of the numbers below are small sample pools (ie. the pre-season numbers.
Let's do them in chronological order.
The following are averages per game (CB = centre bounces):
2019 season proper: CB 27.16, Stoppages 49.88, Total 77.04
2020 pre-season: CB 26.94, Stoppages 45.89, Total 72.83
2020 season proper: CB 21.51, Stoppages 37.67, Total 59.18 - Let's scale that up 25% for shorter quarters
2020 season proper: CB 26.89, Stoppages 47.09, Total 73.98
2021 pre-season: CB 29.78, Stoppages 32.22, Total 62.00
As I said, it's a small sample, but I can understand your concern! In Round figures, Goals up by 3, but stoppages down by 16!!!
Net result, 13 less Ruck contests.
Will that trend continue? My guess is yes, but not to that full extent.
If a Ruck like Gawn is getting 70-75% of his SC score at, and around stoppages and CB's, and those contests drop by say 15%, it's reasonable to say that Gawn's scoring, all things being equal, will drop by 15% of 72% = 11%. The flip side is, they will now pick up slightly more scores "around the ground" to compenate for that, so you might see a net effect of say a 8% or 9% drop, if this continues to be a thing.
I have feeling/suspicion about last seasons Ruck scoring. No matter how you stack it up, it is still open to human interpretation, and therefore human error. My suspicion is something along the lines of, CD reviewed the ratings given early in the season, and found those calling/giving interpretations in Ruck contests were being too generous. CD then tightened it up a little. As I say, human interpretation of of something will always be open to some form of error.
Lets' look at: Gawn, Grundy, Goldy, ROB, English and NicNat in 4 Round blocks from last season:
Rounds 1-4 = 23/119.8
Rounds 5-8 = 24/119.1
Rounds 9-12 = 21/111.5
Rounds 13-16 = 18/103.2
That's quite a difference, and I'm not sure it is all attributal to fatique and niggles.
Let's look at the numbers, keeping in mind, some of the numbers below are small sample pools (ie. the pre-season numbers.
Let's do them in chronological order.
The following are averages per game (CB = centre bounces):
2019 season proper: CB 27.16, Stoppages 49.88, Total 77.04
2020 pre-season: CB 26.94, Stoppages 45.89, Total 72.83
2020 season proper: CB 21.51, Stoppages 37.67, Total 59.18 - Let's scale that up 25% for shorter quarters
2020 season proper: CB 26.89, Stoppages 47.09, Total 73.98
2021 pre-season: CB 29.78, Stoppages 32.22, Total 62.00
As I said, it's a small sample, but I can understand your concern! In Round figures, Goals up by 3, but stoppages down by 16!!!
Net result, 13 less Ruck contests.
Will that trend continue? My guess is yes, but not to that full extent.
If a Ruck like Gawn is getting 70-75% of his SC score at, and around stoppages and CB's, and those contests drop by say 15%, it's reasonable to say that Gawn's scoring, all things being equal, will drop by 15% of 72% = 11%. The flip side is, they will now pick up slightly more scores "around the ground" to compenate for that, so you might see a net effect of say a 8% or 9% drop, if this continues to be a thing.
I have feeling/suspicion about last seasons Ruck scoring. No matter how you stack it up, it is still open to human interpretation, and therefore human error. My suspicion is something along the lines of, CD reviewed the ratings given early in the season, and found those calling/giving interpretations in Ruck contests were being too generous. CD then tightened it up a little. As I say, human interpretation of of something will always be open to some form of error.
Lets' look at: Gawn, Grundy, Goldy, ROB, English and NicNat in 4 Round blocks from last season:
Rounds 1-4 = 23/119.8
Rounds 5-8 = 24/119.1
Rounds 9-12 = 21/111.5
Rounds 13-16 = 18/103.2
That's quite a difference, and I'm not sure it is all attributal to fatique and niggles.
The following are averages per game (CB = centre bounces):
2019 season proper: CB 27.16, Stoppages 49.88, Total 77.04
2020 pre-season: CB 26.94, Stoppages 45.89, Total 72.83
2020 season proper: CB 21.51, Stoppages 37.67, Total 59.18 - Let's scale that up 25% for shorter quarters
2020 season proper: CB 26.89, Stoppages 47.09, Total 73.98
2021 pre-season: CB 29.78, Stoppages 32.22, Total 62.00
2019 season proper: CB 27.16, Stoppages 49.88, Total 77.04
2020 pre-season: CB 26.94, Stoppages 45.89, Total 72.83
2020 season proper: CB 21.51, Stoppages 37.67, Total 59.18 - Let's scale that up 25% for shorter quarters
2020 season proper: CB 26.89, Stoppages 47.09, Total 73.98
2021 pre-season: CB 29.78, Stoppages 32.22, Total 62.00
Awesome work...
On last year's rucks, do you have stoppage numbers for those rounds as well? Would be interesting to see if they also dropped or stayed the same? Do you also happen to have the DT stats for that period, be interesting to see if it's more SC scoring or just those players losing form as Gawn notably didn't decline in that period in either format.
Edit: Just expanding on this and the discussion over in the ruck thread, what do the mark numbers look like across the same period
On last year's rucks, do you have stoppage numbers for those rounds as well? Would be interesting to see if they also dropped or stayed the same? Do you also happen to have the DT stats for that period, be interesting to see if it's more SC scoring or just those players losing form as Gawn notably didn't decline in that period in either format.
Edit: Just expanding on this and the discussion over in the ruck thread, what do the mark numbers look like across the same period
Last edited:
- Status