Acres

[Johnny Member]

No they didn't. The 'clanger' stat is misleading.

You referenced the clanger stat in the Billings thread to prove a point and now it's no good as a stat because it's misleading?

Dangerfield, the best player in the comp on the weekend had
9 kicks & 18 HB
Yet still only went at 63% with a 1:2 ratio
6 clangers
Goal % 0

Dustin Martin
12 kicks 4 HB @50%
6 clangers
0 goals 3 behinds

Pointing to Billings & Acres career averages at this stage is a pretty pointless exercise.

Dangerfield couldn't breathe yesterday after the first 5 minutes, and Martin played an ordinary game.

It's misleading in the sense that it 'under quotes' errors. It doesn't take into account wrong options, and is too black and white. So it's misleading in the positive sense. Kicking to a 2 on 1 contest in which your player manages to break even, when you could have kicked to a bloke on his own in the goal square (just for example) is a glaring blunder - but doesn't count as a Clanger.

You've said from the beginning that you don't rate Billings kicking, which makes me wonder if you've ever played the game at all?

The way he kicks to where his team-mates should run is a gift and requires vision that very few players have.

Sure he's not nailing every kick and his goal kicking has been very disappointing but it will come with confidence and experience at the top level.

But that's a bit of a contradiction.

"Sure he's not nailing every kick and his goal kicking has been very disappointing"

How can you rate it when you also describe it as the above?

I'm not saying he won't improve, I'm just saying that I'm not seeing the definitive superstar traits that others are. In particular, his use of the ball and his work off the ball. And at this stage, the negatives far outweigh the positives in his game. Acres ditto.

Acres will probably always have a few shanks… just like Fyfe, Dangerfield and Martin who take the game on and kick at full burst speed to force the ball into a scoring position from nothing.

Shanks happen. You wouldn't want to shank too many, but it happens when you get it 30 odd times every week. It's the basic errors that are the concern. It's definitely not to say it won't improve as time goes on - but it's also not to say that it definitely will improve. Hence me keeping my power dry in terms of declaring these guys superstars in the making.

Mis-kicking when bursting out of a clearance whilst under extreme pressure is one thing. Mis-kicking when unopposed is another.



If we're trying to make a case that high level of skill isn't important in football - then I'm in strong disagreement.

If we're trying to suggest that thus far, Acres has shown that he has a high level of skill then I'm also in strong disagreement.

[dragit]

And at this stage, the negatives far outweigh the positives in his game. Acres ditto.

I actually feel sad for you then.

If Acres & Billings didn't play on Sunday we probably would have lost.

Two 21 year olds combine for 50 touches, 14 marks, 6 rebound 50's, 10 inside 50's, 2 goals 6 behinds… and the negatives far outweigh the positives?

"Sure he's not nailing every kick and his goal kicking has been very disappointing"

How can you rate it when you also describe it as the above?

I rate his kicking because he is attempting much more difficult kicks than a defender who chips the ball sideways and finishes with a 95% efficiency. He brings players into the game and creates play which is high risk, high reward.

I've seen Billings slot multiple goals from the boundary, 50+ metres out… I think he is a confidence player and will build into delivering on his obvious talent with more experience and confidence.

Acres too is a play maker, he's not the most skillful user of the ball, but neither is Nat Fyfe.

Acres & Billings aren't superstars, may never be, but they are showing some very promising signs and both just had a genuine impact on a win.

[samoht]

Players who "take on the game", run and carry and try to break lines (they don't always succeed) - players such as Gilbert, Acres, Webster, Savage, Montagna - we need to cut them some slack.
They could probably get their disposal efficiency close to 100% by chipping it - by not running and not taking on the game. Do we really want that?

Gresham is almost untacklable - he can buy as much time as he likes - he's the rarest of rare players.
But the others are trading off their disposal efficiency by taking risks - to put their team on the offensive.

[Johnny Member]

Acres & Billings aren't superstars, may never be, but they are showing some very promising signs and both just had a genuine impact on a win.

That's the perspective I'm in agreeance with.

[Johnny Member]

Players who "take on the game", run and carry and try to break lines (they don't always succeed) - players such as Gilbert, Acres, Webster, Savage, Montagna - we need to cut them some slack.
They could probably get their disposal efficiency close to 100% by chipping it - by not running and not taking on the game. Do we really want that?

Gresham is almost untacklable - he can buy as much time as he likes - he's the rarest of rare players.
But the others are trading off their disposal efficiency by taking risks - to put their team on the offensive.

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.

That's why they're good. And why we're not.

[samoht]

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.
That's why they're good. And why we're not.

There are better teams because things have all come together at the right time for them in regards to their team balance, the age, health and developmental stage of their players, and how they gel together - it's not all about disposal efficiency or personnel - but that helps, of course.
I think we were the most efficient team last year - as someone pointed out at the time, but can you imagine if all our players were all playing together at their peak? The right confluence - all the ducks lining up at the same time. That's when special things can happen.
I mean, Gresham at 23 playing alongside Armitage as he was playing in 2015, etc...
Hypothetical, I know - but in some teams things are aligning a little bit better (their better players are peaking at the same time and they are not carrying injuries, etc..)- that's why we are behind them.

[Johnny Member]

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.

That's why they're good. And why we're not.

There are better teams because things have all come together at the right time for them - balance, age and how they gel together - it's not all about disposable efficiency - but that helps, of course.
I think we were the most efficient team last year - as someone pointed out at the time, but can you imagine if all our players were all playing together at their peak? The right confluence - all the ducks lining up at the same time. That's when special things can happen.

I still don't think we'd be in the top 4 with the lack of talent we have.

I mean, Gresham at 23 playing alongside Armitage as he was playing in 2015, etc...
Hypothetical, I know - but in some teams things are aligning a little bit better - that's why we are behind them.

There's definitely some truth to that. But we can't seriously be suggesting a midfield of Steven, Gresham, Dunstan, Steele, Ross and Armitage is a top 4 midfield?

We can't be thinking that a backline without any attacking element to it at all with Carlisle, Webster, Gilbert, Geary, Roberton and Brown is a potential top 4 backline?


The difference between good teams, and the very good teams (ie. top 4/premiership teams) is that both 'gel' and have a good age and experience profile with guys that have played a lot of footy together - but the very good teams have more A-grade talent.

It's always been the case. Always will be.


There's a reason that in all sports, all over the world, for the last hundred years, A-grade talent gets paid the big bucks - because they make the difference between being good, and very good.


FWIW, the club is aware of this. And hence the desperate attempts to position us with a good shot at landing a superstar.

[longtimesaint]

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.
That's why they're good. And why we're not.

There are better teams because things have all come together at the right time for them - team balance, age, and how they gel together - it's not all about disposal efficiency or personnel - but that helps, of course.
I think we were the most efficient team last year - as someone pointed out at the time, but can you imagine if all our players were all playing together at their peak? The right confluence - all the ducks lining up at the same time. That's when special things can happen.
I mean, Gresham at 23 playing alongside Armitage as he was playing in 2015, etc...
Hypothetical, I know - but in some teams things are aligning a little bit better (their better players are peaking at the same time and they are not carrying injuries, etc..)- that's why we are behind them.

That's the reason why it is better to bottom out and have a total rebuild as the players come through together.
You always have some veterans but we have done it well so far, and why I believe we should use our two first round picks on top young players.
This is normally better than the continual top up system employed by Sydney and Geelong.
The top up version requires getting high priced recruits that cost a lot in draft picks (as Hawthorn have done)
Josh Kelly is a good example -pick 2 three years ago but would cost a fortune to get now.

[samoht]

A grade talent getting paid big bucks could also mean you end up with 6 D grade footballers.

I'd rather have a team full of B graders... get more sustainable bang for our bucks.

Armo playing at the 2015 level may be enough to make us a top 4 team. That's all it could take.

We could definitely do with more midfield run and spread - I'll grant you that.

[ace]

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.

That's why they're good. And why we're not.

There are better teams because things have all come together at the right time for them - balance, age and how they gel together - it's not all about disposable efficiency - but that helps, of course.
I think we were the most efficient team last year - as someone pointed out at the time, but can you imagine if all our players were all playing together at their peak? The right confluence - all the ducks lining up at the same time. That's when special things can happen.

I still don't think we'd be in the top 4 with the lack of talent we have.

I mean, Gresham at 23 playing alongside Armitage as he was playing in 2015, etc...
Hypothetical, I know - but in some teams things are aligning a little bit better - that's why we are behind them.

There's definitely some truth to that. But we can't seriously be suggesting a midfield of Steven, Gresham, Dunstan, Steele, Ross and Armitage is a top 4 midfield?

We can't be thinking that a backline without any attacking element to it at all with Carlisle, Webster, Gilbert, Geary, Roberton and Brown is a potential top 4 backline?


The difference between good teams, and the very good teams (ie. top 4/premiership teams) is that both 'gel' and have a good age and experience profile with guys that have played a lot of footy together - but the very good teams have more A-grade talent.

It's always been the case. Always will be.


There's a reason that in all sports, all over the world, for the last hundred years, A-grade talent gets paid the big bucks - because they make the difference between being good, and very good.


FWIW, the club is aware of this. And hence the desperate attempts to position us with a good shot at landing a superstar.

The club also knows that they did not win a premiership because over 60% of the salary cap was going to just 10 players leaving no capacity to import talent from elsewhere.
Those 10 bled for the club but allowed their managers like Paul Connors to bleed the club's chances of a premiership dry.

[Johnny Member]

The club also knows that they did not win a premiership because over 60% of the salary cap was going to just 10 players leaving no capacity to import talent from elsewhere.
Those 10 bled for the club but allowed their managers like Paul Connors to bleed the club's chances of a premiership dry.

FWIW, personally I'd prefer if the club used its two first round picks this year in the Draft, rather than on trading in someone on huge bucks.

But according to what the club has said publicly, it looks as though they won't do that.

[White Winmar]

I know matt Finnis has publicly stated we're after a "big fish" this year, and he's also commented that we're more likely to trade for one than get one via FA. That seems consistent with the mail that they've dropped off Dusty and Fyfe is likely to sign again with the shockers. What's left after that in the FA field may not be enough to tempt them to splash big bucks. Hopefully, if there is nothing great on offer they'll preserve their first rounders, especially if one is top 5. Then again, a Whitfield type may tempt them to trade at least one of those picks, plus a player or two. Interesting times ahead. I hope Ameet retains just firm at the trade table.

[White Winmar]

That should've read recent form at the trade table.

[Con Gorozidis]

Cant wait for Fyfe and Martin to sign with their current clubs so I can stop reading BS on here about us getting one of them.

[kalsaint]

I'm a fan. A genuine play-bursting play maker who needs to tidy up his skills to become a fully fledged weapon.

Always was a fan. He had great games at West Perth before Saints picked him. Looks a little slow at times but shows poise when under pressure.

[BigMart]

Why would you trade for a player, rather than access a free agent?

That's a bizarre comment??

Surely we our first option is to look at FREE agents?!

[saintsRrising]

Why would you trade for a player, rather than access a free agent?

That's a bizarre comment??

Surely we our first option is to look at FREE agents?!

You need to understand that to get a star now that you will most likely need to trade a player/s or pick/s.

1/ there are no good unrestricted free agents next window. NONE ARE FREE!

2/ there are only 2 restricted fa's worth chasing. Martin and Fyfe. Restricted means that their clubs can match any deal to retain the player. So the odds of getting a martin or fyfe by fa route is very small. If you want one then like the cats did with danger clubs will most likely trade.


With fyfe and martin too as both there clubs are now winning games the fa compo will be less making the fa path less tempting for their clubs.

Since you have to trade anyway you might as well expand the pool to any out of contract gun
Ie kelly etc.


The days of star free agents just walking are most likely gone

Clubs have gotten smarter since free agency started. Clubs will either trade stars when they are untestricted or they will re sign them to new contracts.

[Animal Enclosure]

Why would you trade for a player, rather than access a free agent?

That's a bizarre comment??

Surely we our first option is to look at FREE agents?!

You need to understand that to get a star now that you will most likely need to trade a player/s or pick/s.

1/ there are no good unrestricted free agents next window. NONE ARE FREE!

2/ there are only 2 restricted fa's worth chasing. Martin and Fyfe. Restricted means that thete clubs can match any deal to tetain the player. So the odds of getting a martin or fyfe by fa route is very small. If you want one then like the cats did with danger clubs will most likely trade.


With fyfe and martin too as both there clubs are now winning games the fa compo will be less making the fa path less tempting for their clubs.

Since you have to trade anyway you might as well expand the pool to any out of contract gun
Ie kelly etc.


The days of star free agents just walking are most likely gone

Clubs have gotten smarter since free agency started. Clubs will either trade stars when they are untestricted or they will re sign them to new contracts.

No club has ever matched a RFA offer. None.

The Dangerfield trade is often mentioned as one such example. It wasn't.

Adelaide made noises about matching but that was more to placate supporters. In the wake of the Phil Walsh tragedy, Geelong admirably made the decision to trade rather than force Adelaide's hand and gave up their first pick & a young player (Dean Gore) as a result. Should Geelong have held firm (& looked like total campaigners as a result) Adelaide would have faced the prospect of resigning a bloke who was desperate to leave or losing him for nothing (& losing any compo pick they would have got). I have no doubt that Walsh's passing played a significant role in Geelong's decision to trade.

In the (un)likelihood that Fyfe or Dusty leave, both clubs will no doubt play the game & threaten to match/send them to the draft. It won't happen.

Clubs are more pragmatic than supporters are understand that Free Agency departures will both benefit and hurt them from time to time. They'll take the compo pick and move on. No one wants to keep a player who wants out and no one wants to be left with nothing should they force a player into the draft (hence why the pre season draft is now a goner).

Free agency is definitely still on our radar and any slight withdrawal from that is more likely the club hearing that Fyfe and Martin are staying put than us realising that we'd need to trade.

[BigMart]

Dusty or Nat (unlikely) and I'm sure there are more free agents?

Could easily turn around to those clubs and say... I want out?

Why would they match a million dollar offer to a player who wants out... they'd just take the compo

[saintsRrising]

""""The Dangerfield trade is often mentioned as one such example. It wasn't. """

Which backs up what I was saying. Danger went as a trade and not as a rfa.

Superstar players are not likely to go as any form of free agent now.

Yes fa was stated originally as how the Saints would later get some guns. And in the early years of fa some guns moved as fa. Now no more is likely.

FA will mostly just now be a tool to get handy players.

If the Saints want a superstar.....they are most likely going to have to trade to get one.

[saintsRrising]

Dusty or Nat (unlikely) and I'm sure there are more free agents?

Could easily turn around to those clubs and say... I want out?

Why would they match a million dollar offer to a player who wants out... they'd just take the compo

Unless the club finishes low the compo would not be good.

I was hoping that we might snag Martin if the tigers crashed and burned. They might still lose many games but will not now finish bottom 2. Freo also look likely to win enough to mot be in the bottom couple.

[saintsRrising]

GWS have too many young guns to pay them all really good contracts. That is why there is good opportunity there.

[magnifisaint]

The good teams have guys that take risks - and maintain a high efficiency by foot.
That's why they're good. And why we're not.

There are better teams because things have all come together at the right time for them in regards to their team balance, the age, health and developmental stage of their players, and how they gel together - it's not all about disposal efficiency or personnel - but that helps, of course.
I think we were the most efficient team last year - as someone pointed out at the time, but can you imagine if all our players were all playing together at their peak? The right confluence - all the ducks lining up at the same time. That's when special things can happen.
I mean, Gresham at 23 playing alongside Armitage as he was playing in 2015, etc...
Hypothetical, I know - but in some teams things are aligning a little bit better (their better players are peaking at the same time and they are not carrying injuries, etc..)- that's why we are behind them.

Johnny, you need to change teams!

[BigMart]

I don't (and never did) think we were a chance for those two at all....

Or Kelly or Hurley or a lot of the guys floated.

All pie in the sky stuff

[longtimesaint]

That's why we are better to take our two first round picks to the draft and get the best possible young guys to give us the best building blocks for the next ten years.