Are we light on for elite talent?

[samoht]

You can be light on elite-wise - but still be the best overall or on the way to becoming the best.
I'm not light on for lame analogies -- here's another one, sorry....

It's like a tug of war - I look at the overall strength of the teams, not individuals within them.
Who cares if we have the second or third best ruckman, or if Steven is behind Dangerfield - are we stronger than Geelong overall,?... Are we tracking/trending better than them (or this , that and the other team)? Because that's what matters.

[dragit]

Most premierships sides of the last 20 years have had more elite players than the other sides in the comp… that's why they tend to make up the bulk of the AA squad each year.

Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong who've had a hand in most of the last 10-15 GF's I'm guessing would have had more elite players than any other side in that period.

The dogs Cinderella story was an anomaly, not something to try and replicate.

[samoht]

Most premierships sides of the last 20 years have had more elite players than the other sides in the comp… that's why they tend to make up the bulk of the AA squad each year.

Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong who've had a hand in most of the last 10-15 GF's I'm guessing would have had more elite players than any other side in that period.

The dogs Cinderella story was an anomaly, not something to try and replicate.

Geelong has arguably more elite players than us - but we are tracking better.

Sydney have their weaknesses, too - a very strong defense and midfield - but a weak ruck and a key forward in Franklin who needs to play like a midfielder (despite Sydney's midfield strength) - and their key ex-Adelaide forward whose name escapes me (maybe because he's useless) who can't get a kick.
So the Bulldogs were not an anomaly - they were stronger overall!

[dragit]

I'm talking about in their premiership years samoht.

[dragit]

Not much point looking at one year of data as a premise to build a side.

[samoht]

I'm talking about in their premiership years samoht.

OK, but Sydney is current ...
Sydney were favourites in the GF in 2016 because everyone thought they had more elite players than the Bulldogs - but they didn't figure on the overall strength and balance of the Bulldogs.
Then the journos had to re-rate the Bulldog players and look for "elites"(that aren't there) to justify their GF win.

[dragit]

I'm talking about in their premiership years samoht.

OK, but Sydney is current ...
Sydney were favourites in the GF in 2016 because everyone thought they had more elite players than the Bulldogs - but they didn't figure on the overall strength and balance of the Bulldogs.
Then the journos had to re-rate the Bulldog players and look for "elites"(that aren't there) to justify their GF win.

back up the cherry picker…

[samoht]

The premiership teams you're referring to were stronger overall, dragit.
Having more elites is not a negative, obviously -- but what counts is for a team to be stronger overall than the next team.

A rough rule of thumb... let's say we can assign a plus 1 to an elite, and a negative one to a delete (a GOP).
6 elite players and 6 deletes (GOPs) = a zero sum gain.... but 10 elite players and 3 deletes = a plus 7 score.

Having less GOPs is just as important.... and this is where the overall strength comes in. You can't just look at the ceiling (the elites) and ignore the floor (the deletes).

You need balance and good players everywhere - Sydney were exposed in areas where they were weak, where there were GOPs, even though the pundits thought they had more "elite" players compared to the Bulldogs - and that this alone should somehow guarantee them the win.
Not so.

[dragit]

what counts is for a team to be stronger overall than the next team.

That's genius.

[samoht]

The genius is in looking at the whole picture - not fussing over whether Hickey is as good as Gawn, etc... - the minutia.

[BigMart]

Elites do add to the overall talent of a list though? Don't they??

You can list teams who haven't won grand finals with elites, but hard to name the ones who have won them without many

To think the dogs didn't have elites is a little silly, an AA is an elite player of the competition in their position, they had AAs

Plus they were nearly the best contested ball team going around thanks to elite inside players, mainly Libba

They also had the best outside spread outside of GWS (McRae, Johanneson, Hunter, McLean, Daniel etc..)

They had an elite intercept HB (Wood)

To think they had no elite talent is a bit silly

Hawthorn
Mitchell, Hodge, Franklin, Gunston, Burgoyne, Rioli, Roughead, Lewis

Sydney
Kennedy, Parker, Hannebury, Jack, McVeigh, Jetta - made up an elite midfield in 2012

Geelong
Where do you start in their 3 Prems, possibly Gary

WCE
Cox, Kerr, Cousins, Judd along with their other guns

Port
Cornes X 2, Tredrea, Burgoyne x 2

Brisbane
The big 4 + Brown, Leppitch

Every great side has scary elite talent and good soldiers around them

[samoht]

Of course elites add to the overall talent --- but you still need to consider the overall picture, big mart.

In 2016..
The Swans had 5AA's, Geelong had 3 AA's and the Bulldogs only 2AA's (and both of their AA's were picked on the interchange bench).
It's the reason why most pundits were going for the Swans in the GF and why everyone was surprised that we beat Geelong - after all we have no AA's.

Some more cherry picking:

In 2010, Geelong had 7 AA's, we had 4. We made the GF, Geelong didn't.

In 2011 Collingwood had 6AA's, Geelong only 3 (same as in 2016!!) ... Geelong went on to beat Collingwood easily in the GF.

[dragit]

18 of the 22 All Australians last year came from the top 7 sides.

The swans lost 2 of their AA's during the grand final before the umpires finished them off.

Didn't the dogs go all in on securing a superstar FF?

[samoht]

18 of the 22 All Australians last year came from the top 7 sides.

The swans lost 2 of their AA's during the grand final before the umpires finished them off.

Didn't the dogs go all in on securing a superstar FF?

That's true and I wouldn't be surprised if a factor in all this is the extra attention being drawn to the top performing teams -- it's like the BOG or the votes for the top 3 players on the ground always seems to come from the winning team.
It might account for another 5 or 6 players making it as AA's from the top performing teams - if there's some skewing going on.

So if this is true and if you take 6 players out -- that becomes 12 out of 22 coming from the top 7 sides.

[dragit]

Some more cherry picking:

In 2010, Geelong had 7 AA's, we had 4. We made the GF, Geelong didn't.

In 2011 Collingwood had 6AA's, Geelong only 3 (same as in 2016!!) ... Geelong went on to beat Collingwood easily in the GF.

Now you're getting silly… having stars doesn't guarantee you a flag every year, but it goes along way to helping you there.

That 2011 geelong GF side had 11 players who have been AA with a combined tally of 33 AA spots between them.

[dragit]

18 of the 22 All Australians last year came from the top 7 sides.

The swans lost 2 of their AA's during the grand final before the umpires finished them off.

Didn't the dogs go all in on securing a superstar FF?

That's true and I wouldn't be surprised if a factor in all this is the extra attention being drawn to the top performing teams -- it's like the BOG or the votes for the top 3 players on the ground always seems to come from the winning team.
It might account for another 5 or 6 players making it as AA's from the top performing teams - there's some skewing going on.

So if this is true and if you take 6 players out -- that becomes 12 out of 22 coming from the top 7 sides.

Haha! might account for 5 or 6? WTF

You can't just randomly invent an algorithm like that and expect people to take you seriously.

Which 6 AA players would you take from finalists and which players would you replace them with?

The best sides of the last 10-20 years have had way more elite players proportionally than the lower sides, that's a fact no matter which way you spin it.

[samoht]

Having a strong team overall is what counts.
Doesn't matter how that's made up.
It could be no elites ---let's say comprising 22 strong players all over the ground with no GOPs.

That factor does happen --- it's human nature to rate players higher from winning teams/stronger teams than if the same players were in weaker teams.

[dragit]

It could be no elites --- comprising 22 strong players all over the ground with no GOPs.

That hasn't happened yet and is very unlikely to ever happen in the future.

[samoht]

It could be no elites --- comprising 22 strong players all over the ground with no GOPs.

That hasn't happened yet and is very unlikely to ever happen in the future.

Yes, because when you win - you probably do get noticed more.
But theoretically it's possible.
I mean Geelong only had 3AA's in 2011 when it easily won the GF. Collingwood had 6AA's that year.
3 is not that far away from zero! Anyway, Geelong was superior overall - and that's what counts.

The number of elites is not a good indicator.

[dragit]

It could be no elites --- comprising 22 strong players all over the ground with no GOPs.

That hasn't happened yet and is very unlikely to ever happen in the future.

Yes, because when you win - you probably do get noticed more.
But theoretically it's possible.
I mean Geelong only had 3AA's in 2011 when it easily won the GF. Collingwood had 6AA's that year.

lol
Yep that 2011 Geelong GF side practically pulled off a miracle with only 50% of side with AA's to their name.

Scarlett x 6, Enright x 6, Selwood x 5, Johnson x 3, Bartel x 2, Chapman X 2, Taylor x 2, Hawkins, Kelly, Ottens, Mackie

These guys are all elite even if they weren't considered starting 22 AA that year.

[samoht]

The point is Geelong was a stronger side overall in 2011.
That's all that matters. All the players you mentioned were arguably elite - how many is subjective.
In 2010, all those great players were napping. Cat-napping.

[dragit]

The point is Geelong was a stronger side overall in 2011.
That's all that matters. All the players you mentioned were arguably elite - how many is subjective.
In 2010, all those great players were napping. Cat-napping.

3 flags in 5 years… powered by upto a dozen elite players, much like Hawthorns recent 3.

Just a subjective coincidence probably.

[samoht]

Subjective as far as who their elite players are. Every one sees it differently - but everyone would rate them highly.
I always look at the strengths as well as the weaknesses of teams -- I never rate teams just based on elites. That's all I'm saying.
Surely you would agree with this - so why are we even arguing about it?

[BigMart]

I reckon the injection of Sheil into the midfield (which also takes him from the GWS midfield)

And a few jumping up to the level Really opens up 2018 - 2020 possibility

[dragit]

I'll be disappointed if we don't take advantage of free agency…

While Shiel would be an amazing addition he would cost a fortune.

One of Martin, Fyfe or Zaharakis plus 2 first rounders next draft would be the ultimate and is possible.