Anyone at the Sandy game?

[saynta]

#Hickey will probably come in for Longer after that performance.
#Austin or Goddard in for Brown.
#Bruce in for Battle.
#Webster or Minchington in for Weller.

Meatball has been injured again. Out for two weeks.

[takeaway]

Just saw that hitouts to advantage was 11-5 Gawn’s way.

I fail to see how Billy got close to Gawn in any measurable stat. If the best thing he has going for him is he really ‘got in’ to Gawn and made him ‘earn it’, enough so that Gawn was only BOG, then that’s not good enough in my book.

I don't think Billy would have matched Gawn in any stat that is measured. Gawn beat him on the day, and was BOG. Gawn knew he was in a contest though.

I am fascinated by the obsession with stats - what exactly are hitouts to advantage - does that mean that the ruckman that won the tap sent it directly to his player and they went forward? Or simply put it to the advantage of his player(s) but they lost possession and the other team went forward. Or Both? Only 16 hitouts to advantage compared to 80 odd hitouts overall in the game vs Melb? Is that a normal ratio for a game? If so, doesn't mean much, as with a lot of "stats". I reckon analysing stats produced by the media gives no more than 20% value in analysing a game, the rest is actually watching the game, and taking heed of issues not recorded (by the media), such as player movement, blocking, leading patterns, zoning etc. That is the realm of the coaching team.

The only stat that really matters is the scoreboard result.

I agree with you about hitouts, I think they’re a bit of a rubbish stats. I would say 75% of ruck contests are basically 50/50, with the ball spilling out without much direction, yet they still award a hitout to one of the ruckman. Hit outs to advantage on the other hand are a damaging stat, I would say it’s a hitout that leads directly to teammate resulting in a possession, a clearance or goal, such as the end of the GC game.

I think the whole “knew he was in a contest” is complete crap. He was BOG by a mile, if he went that well every week he’d waltz in to a Brownlow medal. “Knowing he was in a contest” is pointless if it fails to curtail his influence on the game. I’d rather a ruckman who can influence the game than one who can run into the other guy a lot with no result. A perfect example was in the last quarter when Gawn took a mark right on the goal line preventing a goal, Longer was right there but unable to impact the contest at all, even enough to just body Gawn out and Shepard it through. So much for physical presence.

Gawn impacted in defence (7 intercept marks, 3 rebound 50s), the ruck/middle (11 hitout to advantage, 4 clearances) and attack (8 score involvements, 5 inside 50s). He had 20 effective disposals to Longer’s 4.

In contrast, Longer had 5 hit outs to advantage, 0 rebound 50s, 0 inside 50s, 2 clearances and 1 score involvement.

That is nearly as big a flogging as you will see in football today, and I would say a bigger discrepancy than Hickey has had in any game this year.

You cannot have a AFL footballer playing on the ball who only gets 4 effective touches in a game.

And yes, winning is the most important stat, but you can’t use that to justify a pathetic performance. It’s like saying Nathan Ablett was a better player that Roo because he won a premiership, which is the number 1 goal in the game.

There you go. Just quoting more stats. Of course Gawn was better than Billy, and his "stats" were good, but most of his disposals were in a non dangerous position, Billy was often further up the ground at the time, probably under instructions to not crowd the forward line. Billy was certainly not pathetic, and it seems the club is quite happy with his contribution.

Only his second game back, and he should be better for the run, but I don't think that he will ever satisfy the meaningless obsession with stats.

[stonecold]

Just saw that hitouts to advantage was 11-5 Gawn’s way.

I fail to see how Billy got close to Gawn in any measurable stat. If the best thing he has going for him is he really ‘got in’ to Gawn and made him ‘earn it’, enough so that Gawn was only BOG, then that’s not good enough in my book.

I don't think Billy would have matched Gawn in any stat that is measured. Gawn beat him on the day, and was BOG. Gawn knew he was in a contest though.

I am fascinated by the obsession with stats - what exactly are hitouts to advantage - does that mean that the ruckman that won the tap sent it directly to his player and they went forward? Or simply put it to the advantage of his player(s) but they lost possession and the other team went forward. Or Both? Only 16 hitouts to advantage compared to 80 odd hitouts overall in the game vs Melb? Is that a normal ratio for a game? If so, doesn't mean much, as with a lot of "stats". I reckon analysing stats produced by the media gives no more than 20% value in analysing a game, the rest is actually watching the game, and taking heed of issues not recorded (by the media), such as player movement, blocking, leading patterns, zoning etc. That is the realm of the coaching team.

The only stat that really matters is the scoreboard result.

I agree with you about hitouts, I think they’re a bit of a rubbish stats. I would say 75% of ruck contests are basically 50/50, with the ball spilling out without much direction, yet they still award a hitout to one of the ruckman. Hit outs to advantage on the other hand are a damaging stat, I would say it’s a hitout that leads directly to teammate resulting in a possession, a clearance or goal, such as the end of the GC game.

I think the whole “knew he was in a contest” is complete crap. He was BOG by a mile, if he went that well every week he’d waltz in to a Brownlow medal. “Knowing he was in a contest” is pointless if it fails to curtail his influence on the game. I’d rather a ruckman who can influence the game than one who can run into the other guy a lot with no result. A perfect example was in the last quarter when Gawn took a mark right on the goal line preventing a goal, Longer was right there but unable to impact the contest at all, even enough to just body Gawn out and Shepard it through. So much for physical presence.

Gawn impacted in defence (7 intercept marks, 3 rebound 50s), the ruck/middle (11 hitout to advantage, 4 clearances) and attack (8 score involvements, 5 inside 50s). He had 20 effective disposals to Longer’s 4.

In contrast, Longer had 5 hit outs to advantage, 0 rebound 50s, 0 inside 50s, 2 clearances and 1 score involvement.

That is nearly as big a flogging as you will see in football today, and I would say a bigger discrepancy than Hickey has had in any game this year.

You cannot have a AFL footballer playing on the ball who only gets 4 effective touches in a game.

And yes, winning is the most important stat, but you can’t use that to justify a pathetic performance. It’s like saying Nathan Ablett was a better player that Roo because he won a premiership, which is the number 1 goal in the game.

There you go. Just quoting more stats. Of course Gawn was better than Billy, and his "stats" were good, but most of his disposals were in a non dangerous position, Billy was often further up the ground at the time, probably under instructions to not crowd the forward line. Billy was certainly not pathetic, and it seems the club is quite happy with his contribution.

Only his second game back, and he should be better for the run, but I don't think that he will ever satisfy the meaningless obsession with stats.

Takeaway, your trying to justify logic to the clearly uneducated with little or zero actual football experience (have been down this track many times myself), your spot on by the way, Billy played the role asked of him perfectly, Gawn's possies were not in dangerous areaa and whilst BOG, he's impact was not in damaging areas.

The coaching staff were happy enough, so that says enough for me, particularly over the opinions of forum cowboy's!!!!!

Don't waste your time on them, not worth it the waste of energy, they just don't understand the inner workings of football teams!!!!!

Sad for them really!!!!!

Longer 4 games, 3 wins

Hickledik Too many games, zero wins

Easy to work out with which ruckman our midfield works better!!!!!!

The only stat that matters is Wins!!!!!

[rodgerfox]

Takeaway, your trying to justify logic to the clearly uneducated with little or zero actual football experience (have been down this track many times myself), your spot on by the way, Billy played the role asked of him perfectly, Gawn's possies were not in dangerous areaa and whilst BOG, he's impact was not in damaging areas.

The coaching staff were happy enough, so that says enough for me, particularly over the opinions of forum cowboy's!!!!!

He had the 3rd equal most Inside 50s on the ground. He only averages 2 this year - but Longer allowed him 5 on Sunday! I think he also had 2 shots at goal didn't he (or maybe just the 1)? Also got himself 4 clearances.

I don't know what Longer was asked to do on Sunday, but man Gawn had an absolute monster game.


Forget the Hickey vs. Longer stuff - Gawn was simply enormous on Sunday. I can't see how that can be argued.

[stonecold]

Takeaway, your trying to justify logic to the clearly uneducated with little or zero actual football experience (have been down this track many times myself), your spot on by the way, Billy played the role asked of him perfectly, Gawn's possies were not in dangerous areaa and whilst BOG, he's impact was not in damaging areas.

The coaching staff were happy enough, so that says enough for me, particularly over the opinions of forum cowboy's!!!!!

He had the 3rd equal most Inside 50s on the ground. I think he also had 2 shots at goal didn't he? Also got himself 4 clearances.

I don't know what Longer was asked to do on Sunday, but man Gawn had an absolute monster game.


Forget the Hickey vs. Longer stuff - Gawn was simply enormous on Sunday. I can't see how that can be argued.

The whole argument is Longer v Hickey and who is better for St.Kilda's midfield!!!!!

Gawn is about as relevant to that argument as Grundy, NicNat etc after pulling Hickey apart!!!!!

It's all about Longer v Hickey, neither is perfect, however our midfield performs better under Longer, simple really!!!!!

Tom has hardly played in a St.Kilda win since 2016!!!!!

[Mr Magic]

IIRC Gawn has destroyed whoever we played against him in the last couple of seasons, so it's pretty easy to accept that neither Longer nor Hickey was going to be effective against him in ruck contests.

Neither Gawn nor Longer played below my pre game expectations of their performance.
BUT our midfield managed to limit the effect of Gawn's dominance.

[kosifantutti]

Just saw that hitouts to advantage was 11-5 Gawn’s way.

I fail to see how Billy got close to Gawn in any measurable stat. If the best thing he has going for him is he really ‘got in’ to Gawn and made him ‘earn it’, enough so that Gawn was only BOG, then that’s not good enough in my book.

I don't think Billy would have matched Gawn in any stat that is measured. Gawn beat him on the day, and was BOG. Gawn knew he was in a contest though.

I am fascinated by the obsession with stats - what exactly are hitouts to advantage - does that mean that the ruckman that won the tap sent it directly to his player and they went forward? Or simply put it to the advantage of his player(s) but they lost possession and the other team went forward. Or Both? Only 16 hitouts to advantage compared to 80 odd hitouts overall in the game vs Melb? Is that a normal ratio for a game? If so, doesn't mean much, as with a lot of "stats". I reckon analysing stats produced by the media gives no more than 20% value in analysing a game, the rest is actually watching the game, and taking heed of issues not recorded (by the media), such as player movement, blocking, leading patterns, zoning etc. That is the realm of the coaching team.

The only stat that really matters is the scoreboard result.

I agree with you about hitouts, I think they’re a bit of a rubbish stats. I would say 75% of ruck contests are basically 50/50, with the ball spilling out without much direction, yet they still award a hitout to one of the ruckman. Hit outs to advantage on the other hand are a damaging stat, I would say it’s a hitout that leads directly to teammate resulting in a possession, a clearance or goal, such as the end of the GC game.

I think the whole “knew he was in a contest” is complete crap. He was BOG by a mile, if he went that well every week he’d waltz in to a Brownlow medal. “Knowing he was in a contest” is pointless if it fails to curtail his influence on the game. I’d rather a ruckman who can influence the game than one who can run into the other guy a lot with no result. A perfect example was in the last quarter when Gawn took a mark right on the goal line preventing a goal, Longer was right there but unable to impact the contest at all, even enough to just body Gawn out and Shepard it through. So much for physical presence.

Gawn impacted in defence (7 intercept marks, 3 rebound 50s), the ruck/middle (11 hitout to advantage, 4 clearances) and attack (8 score involvements, 5 inside 50s). He had 20 effective disposals to Longer’s 4.

In contrast, Longer had 5 hit outs to advantage, 0 rebound 50s, 0 inside 50s, 2 clearances and 1 score involvement.

That is nearly as big a flogging as you will see in football today, and I would say a bigger discrepancy than Hickey has had in any game this year.

You cannot have a AFL footballer playing on the ball who only gets 4 effective touches in a game.

And yes, winning is the most important stat, but you can’t use that to justify a pathetic performance. It’s like saying Nathan Ablett was a better player that Roo because he won a premiership, which is the number 1 goal in the game.

There you go. Just quoting more stats. Of course Gawn was better than Billy, and his "stats" were good, but most of his disposals were in a non dangerous position, Billy was often further up the ground at the time, probably under instructions to not crowd the forward line. Billy was certainly not pathetic, and it seems the club is quite happy with his contribution.

Only his second game back, and he should be better for the run, but I don't think that he will ever satisfy the meaningless obsession with stats.

How can you ignore a stat that Gawn had 8 score involvements? And then say none of his possessions were in a dangerous position!

He had more score involvements than Billy had touches.

[The_Dud]

Just saw that hitouts to advantage was 11-5 Gawn’s way.

I fail to see how Billy got close to Gawn in any measurable stat. If the best thing he has going for him is he really ‘got in’ to Gawn and made him ‘earn it’, enough so that Gawn was only BOG, then that’s not good enough in my book.

I don't think Billy would have matched Gawn in any stat that is measured. Gawn beat him on the day, and was BOG. Gawn knew he was in a contest though.

I am fascinated by the obsession with stats - what exactly are hitouts to advantage - does that mean that the ruckman that won the tap sent it directly to his player and they went forward? Or simply put it to the advantage of his player(s) but they lost possession and the other team went forward. Or Both? Only 16 hitouts to advantage compared to 80 odd hitouts overall in the game vs Melb? Is that a normal ratio for a game? If so, doesn't mean much, as with a lot of "stats". I reckon analysing stats produced by the media gives no more than 20% value in analysing a game, the rest is actually watching the game, and taking heed of issues not recorded (by the media), such as player movement, blocking, leading patterns, zoning etc. That is the realm of the coaching team.

The only stat that really matters is the scoreboard result.

I agree with you about hitouts, I think they’re a bit of a rubbish stats. I would say 75% of ruck contests are basically 50/50, with the ball spilling out without much direction, yet they still award a hitout to one of the ruckman. Hit outs to advantage on the other hand are a damaging stat, I would say it’s a hitout that leads directly to teammate resulting in a possession, a clearance or goal, such as the end of the GC game.

I think the whole “knew he was in a contest” is complete crap. He was BOG by a mile, if he went that well every week he’d waltz in to a Brownlow medal. “Knowing he was in a contest” is pointless if it fails to curtail his influence on the game. I’d rather a ruckman who can influence the game than one who can run into the other guy a lot with no result. A perfect example was in the last quarter when Gawn took a mark right on the goal line preventing a goal, Longer was right there but unable to impact the contest at all, even enough to just body Gawn out and Shepard it through. So much for physical presence.

Gawn impacted in defence (7 intercept marks, 3 rebound 50s), the ruck/middle (11 hitout to advantage, 4 clearances) and attack (8 score involvements, 5 inside 50s). He had 20 effective disposals to Longer’s 4.

In contrast, Longer had 5 hit outs to advantage, 0 rebound 50s, 0 inside 50s, 2 clearances and 1 score involvement.

That is nearly as big a flogging as you will see in football today, and I would say a bigger discrepancy than Hickey has had in any game this year.

You cannot have a AFL footballer playing on the ball who only gets 4 effective touches in a game.

And yes, winning is the most important stat, but you can’t use that to justify a pathetic performance. It’s like saying Nathan Ablett was a better player that Roo because he won a premiership, which is the number 1 goal in the game.

There you go. Just quoting more stats. Of course Gawn was better than Billy, and his "stats" were good, but most of his disposals were in a non dangerous position, Billy was often further up the ground at the time, probably under instructions to not crowd the forward line. Billy was certainly not pathetic, and it seems the club is quite happy with his contribution.

Only his second game back, and he should be better for the run, but I don't think that he will ever satisfy the meaningless obsession with stats.

Stats are what breaks down the game. If you need to rely on ‘unmeasurables’ and ‘feelings’ to judge how good their game was then you’re clutching at straws. If Billy’s instruction was to not look dangerous, don’t get the ball and let Gawn do whatever he wanted, then yes, he did exactly as asked. It’s like saying Plugger’s 1360 goals are just a meaningless stat, and X forward is greater because he’s got better leading patterns

And which of Gawns disposals were not in dangerous positions? The ones where he repeatedly halted our forward thrusts? Or the ones where he kept sending the ball inside 50? Or his 8 score involvements, second highest for his team? Or the 350+ meters he gained? Or the ones where he kept tapping the ball to his midfielders, allowing them to win more clearances?

If you are truly happy with what Billy dished up on Sunday and are glad for him to continue on producing those kind of performances, then I only see mediocrity in our future.

[Scollop]

Gawn also ran to spots deep in our goal square by taking defensive marks while Billy should have been providing a better contest not stumbling and falling over. The reason Gawn has an impact is because he reads the flight of the footy and he knows where the footy is going. He was not only damaging as a forward, but he also limited our attack by saving goals on the last line

Billy had a chance to spoil a Melbourne goal that was sailing in (and one of the other talls was also on the goal line) but our players weren't switched on or totally misjudged the flight of the footy. I think there were 2 goals that our talls could have potentially got a finger on, but the replays showed that our blokes were out positioned.

[stonecold]

Gawn also ran to spots deep in our goal square by taking defensive marks while Billy should have been providing a better contest not stumbling and falling over. The reason Gawn has an impact is because he reads the flight of the footy and he knows where the footy is going. He was not only damaging as a forward, but he also limited our attack by saving goals on the last line

Billy had a chance to spoil a Melbourne goal that was sailing in (and one of the other talls was also on the goal line) but our players weren't switched on or totally misjudged the flight of the footy. I think there were 2 goals that our talls could have potentially got a finger on, but the replays showed that our blokes were out positioned.

Your got a f****** selective memory then, Ol Hickledik did the same thing, but twice!!!!!

Go away please!!!!!

[To the top]

Gawn (and Hickey) can actually MARK a football.

From watching on a screen, there were 2 occasions on the MCG where St Kilda players under pressure kicked to Longer, who dropped both marks and could not then contest at ground level, laboring along behind in trying to chase the Melbourne player who had won the (then) ground ball on one occasion and pitiful and comical in trying to chase thru the middle of the MCG.

As long as Longer is in the St Kilda side, St Kilda will struggle.

To improve we need to address our "tail", so our bottom 6 of whom Longer is one.

Hickey can, at least, compete in the ruck on height, contest balls and win disposals at ground level, cover the ground and he can actually MARK the football.

Hence the far, far better option.

You just can not select players the opposition wishes to see involved in the transition.

[stonecold]

Gawn (and Hickey) can actually MARK a football.

From watching on a screen, there were 2 occasions on the MCG where St Kilda players under pressure kicked to Longer, who dropped both marks and could not then contest at ground level, laboring along behind in trying to chase the Melbourne player who had won the (then) ground ball on one occasion and pitiful and comical in trying to chase thru the middle of the MCG.

As long as Longer is in the St Kilda side, St Kilda will struggle.

To improve we need to address our "tail", so our bottom 6 of whom Longer is one.

Hickey can, at least, compete in the ruck on height, contest balls and win disposals at ground level, cover the ground and he can actually MARK the football.

Hence the far, far better option.

You just can not select players the opposition wishes to see involved in the transition.

You follow the round ball code, don't you?????

[takeaway]

Gawn also ran to spots deep in our goal square by taking defensive marks while Billy should have been providing a better contest not stumbling and falling over. The reason Gawn has an impact is because he reads the flight of the footy and he knows where the footy is going. He was not only damaging as a forward, but he also limited our attack by saving goals on the last line

Billy had a chance to spoil a Melbourne goal that was sailing in (and one of the other talls was also on the goal line) but our players weren't switched on or totally misjudged the flight of the footy. I think there were 2 goals that our talls could have potentially got a finger on, but the replays showed that our blokes were out positioned.

Did you read earlier posts? Billy quite often didn't follow Gawn into our forward line, probably under instructions to stay one kick back and not clog the forward line. Our mids, halfbacks etc were obviously told to lower their eyes and hit up a leading forward - which was done pretty well. There were some bombs to the forward line of course, and Gawn got some of them.

[takeaway]

Just saw that hitouts to advantage was 11-5 Gawn’s way.

I fail to see how Billy got close to Gawn in any measurable stat. If the best thing he has going for him is he really ‘got in’ to Gawn and made him ‘earn it’, enough so that Gawn was only BOG, then that’s not good enough in my book.

I don't think Billy would have matched Gawn in any stat that is measured. Gawn beat him on the day, and was BOG. Gawn knew he was in a contest though.

I am fascinated by the obsession with stats - what exactly are hitouts to advantage - does that mean that the ruckman that won the tap sent it directly to his player and they went forward? Or simply put it to the advantage of his player(s) but they lost possession and the other team went forward. Or Both? Only 16 hitouts to advantage compared to 80 odd hitouts overall in the game vs Melb? Is that a normal ratio for a game? If so, doesn't mean much, as with a lot of "stats". I reckon analysing stats produced by the media gives no more than 20% value in analysing a game, the rest is actually watching the game, and taking heed of issues not recorded (by the media), such as player movement, blocking, leading patterns, zoning etc. That is the realm of the coaching team.

The only stat that really matters is the scoreboard result.

I agree with you about hitouts, I think they’re a bit of a rubbish stats. I would say 75% of ruck contests are basically 50/50, with the ball spilling out without much direction, yet they still award a hitout to one of the ruckman. Hit outs to advantage on the other hand are a damaging stat, I would say it’s a hitout that leads directly to teammate resulting in a possession, a clearance or goal, such as the end of the GC game.

I think the whole “knew he was in a contest” is complete crap. He was BOG by a mile, if he went that well every week he’d waltz in to a Brownlow medal. “Knowing he was in a contest” is pointless if it fails to curtail his influence on the game. I’d rather a ruckman who can influence the game than one who can run into the other guy a lot with no result. A perfect example was in the last quarter when Gawn took a mark right on the goal line preventing a goal, Longer was right there but unable to impact the contest at all, even enough to just body Gawn out and Shepard it through. So much for physical presence.

Gawn impacted in defence (7 intercept marks, 3 rebound 50s), the ruck/middle (11 hitout to advantage, 4 clearances) and attack (8 score involvements, 5 inside 50s). He had 20 effective disposals to Longer’s 4.

In contrast, Longer had 5 hit outs to advantage, 0 rebound 50s, 0 inside 50s, 2 clearances and 1 score involvement.

That is nearly as big a flogging as you will see in football today, and I would say a bigger discrepancy than Hickey has had in any game this year.

You cannot have a AFL footballer playing on the ball who only gets 4 effective touches in a game.

And yes, winning is the most important stat, but you can’t use that to justify a pathetic performance. It’s like saying Nathan Ablett was a better player that Roo because he won a premiership, which is the number 1 goal in the game.

There you go. Just quoting more stats. Of course Gawn was better than Billy, and his "stats" were good, but most of his disposals were in a non dangerous position, Billy was often further up the ground at the time, probably under instructions to not crowd the forward line. Billy was certainly not pathetic, and it seems the club is quite happy with his contribution.

Only his second game back, and he should be better for the run, but I don't think that he will ever satisfy the meaningless obsession with stats.

Stats are what breaks down the game. If you need to rely on ‘unmeasurables’ and ‘feelings’ to judge how good their game was then you’re clutching at straws. If Billy’s instruction was to not look dangerous, don’t get the ball and let Gawn do whatever he wanted, then yes, he did exactly as asked. It’s like saying Plugger’s 1360 goals are just a meaningless stat, and X forward is greater because he’s got better leading patterns

And which of Gawns disposals were not in dangerous positions? The ones where he repeatedly halted our forward thrusts? Or the ones where he kept sending the ball inside 50? Or his 8 score involvements, second highest for his team? Or the 350+ meters he gained? Or the ones where he kept tapping the ball to his midfielders, allowing them to win more clearances?

If you are truly happy with what Billy dished up on Sunday and are glad for him to continue on producing those kind of performances, then I only see mediocrity in our future.

Stats have certainly broken down the game. There is so much concentration on stats that the actual football played seems secondary. I guess I am just sick of Bruce McAvaney as well with his bloody stats. Hawks Clarko rarely looks at the stats.

Repeatedly halted our forward thrusts? That's a bit of an exaggeration. 8 score assists? I have rewatched the replay and don't know how they define a score assist because I don't agree.

I never said I was happy with Billy's game, but that he certainly was not pathetic, and will improve with more games. He's the No.1 ruck, and if Hickey has half a dozen or so more good games, and Billy does not improve with more game time, Hick might be selected for a couple of games.

[Scollop]

I watched the game live and watched the whole thing again on the replay. Let's just for Billy that there's a lot of room for improvement

[stonecold]

I watched the game live and watched the whole thing again on the replay. Let's just for Billy that there's a lot of room for improvement

Wearing Hickledik glasses on both occasions I'm sure!!!!!

Billy is a better fit than Tom, Tom is not a Ruckman, too sort at the contest!!!!!