Saints Player Ratings from the AFL Site

bergholt · Post: # 850449Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 9:50am

Here's a summary of the ratings from the AFL site (http://www.afl.com.au/offseason/stkilda ... fault.aspx). The number is the percentage of voters who wanted to keep that player. They've got rid of the ratings for the players who are already gone (Allen, Clarke X, Hudghton).

96 Dal Santo, Fisher S, Gilbert, Goddard, Hayes, Jones, Montagna
95 Gardiner, Gram, Riewoldt
94 Ray
93 Baker, Dawson
92 McEvoy
91 Geary
90 Schneider

Roo unlucky to miss the top group? Jones did well to get in there. Gram shot to the top thanks to his GF. Geary and McEvoy look higher than I'd expect.

87 McQualter, Steven
86 Koschitzke
84 Armitage
82 Blake
80 Lynch
79 King
77 Dempster, Eddy, Stanley

Blake is way too low - shows that people are still biased against him. Stanley high just because he won the footrace.

71 Heyne
67 Tungatulum
62 Gaertner
61 Ball
58 McGrath, Simpkin
57 Smith
54 Maguire
50 Cahill

Ball down because he asked to be traded? Tunga high. Maguire lower than I would have expected.

45 Milne
41 Gwilt
38 Miles
36 McGarry
35 Haretuku
33 Connors

Poor Milney! Another bad finals series really hurt his ranking.

20 Howard
19 Clarke R, Fisher L
16 Begley

Whipping boys, to be sure.

chook23 · Post: # 850450Post **chook23** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 9:56am

what a load of rubbish

flawed

bergholt · Post: # 850451Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 9:58am

chook23 wrote:what a load of rubbish

flawed

how? it's the way people actually voted.

chook23 · Post: # 850452Post **chook23** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:00am

bergholt wrote:
chook23 wrote:what a load of rubbish

flawed
how? it's the way people actually voted.

maybe people from other clubs with certain agenda

no control

rubbish

and you ask how?

bergholt · Post: # 850453Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:02am

chook23 wrote:
bergholt wrote:
chook23 wrote:what a load of rubbish

flawed
how? it's the way people actually voted.
maybe people from other clubs with certain agenda

really? how many other clubs' lists did you vote on? what agenda could they possibly have? that conspiracy theory doesn't hold much water for mine.

chook23 · Post: # 850454Post **chook23** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:04am

bergholt wrote:
chook23 wrote:
bergholt wrote:
chook23 wrote:what a load of rubbish

flawed
how? it's the way people actually voted.
maybe people from other clubs with certain agenda
really? how many other clubs' lists did you vote on? what agenda could they possibly have? that conspiracy theory doesn't hold much water for mine.

internet survey...........really accountable

attracts the d............

St Fidelius · Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:09am

What a load of crap.

35 Haretuku

19 Clarke R

bigcarl · Post: # 850468Post **bigcarl** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:29am

you'd get a more realistic result by running that vote on this forum, though even that wouldn't keep out the opposition supporters.

borderbarry · Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:43am

With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

bigcarl · Post: # 850479Post **bigcarl** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:51am

borderbarry wrote:With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

he has some degree of support here because if he didn't the raph threads wouldn't run to six or seven pages.

i can cop our own fans' criticisms of him, but you should have heard the spray i gave two carlton-supporting friends who suggested we'd traded the wrong clarke.

along the lines of carlton was been bent over on the fevola deal and should have stuck by their man rather than allowing the media and moral minority decide his future etc, etc.

having said all of that, next season is make or break for raph. he has ability, but as others have said, the difference between his best and worst is too great.

if he is going to deliver on his potential he must make every post a winner in 2010. perhaps a change of role would help him do that.

gosainters66 · Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:40am

borderbarry wrote:With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

get real mate its not only this forum , 90% of saints supporters dont rate him as a player

SainterK · Post: # 850496Post **SainterK** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:45am

gosainters66 wrote:
borderbarry wrote:With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

get real mate its not only this forum , 90% of saints supporters dont rate him as a player

Disagree, you are just taking about the extreme's here....

Some love him, some don't, and both extreme's are equally vocal.

bigcarl · Post: # 850497Post **bigcarl** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:51am

SainterK wrote:
gosainters66 wrote:
borderbarry wrote:With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

get real mate its not only this forum , 90% of saints supporters dont rate him as a player
Disagree, you are just taking about the extreme's here....

Some love him, some don't, and both extreme's are equally vocal.

otherwise the raph threads wouldn't run to six or seven pages.

he's a bit of an enigma. when he's good he's very, very good. when he's bad he's horrid.

he's got to stamp the weaknesses out of his game to finally arrive as a player.

bergholt · Post: # 850525Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 1:44pm

gosainters66 wrote:
borderbarry wrote:With all the anti-Raph members of this forum I am not so sure the result would have been much different.

get real mate its not only this forum , 90% of saints supporters dont rate him as a player

agreed. i'm about 60-40 raph, personally, but i've probably spoken to twenty or thirty non-fanatical, non-saintsational saints supporters this year, and overwhelmingly they don't like him.

bergholt · Post: # 850529Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 1:46pm

bigcarl wrote:you'd get a more realistic result by running that vote on this forum, though even that wouldn't keep out the opposition supporters.

maybe i'm naive, but why would opposition supporters vote on a poll like this? what are they trying to bias it towards? why?

i'd suggest that 90+% of the votes would have been from real saints supporters - it's just too much effort to do 40 ratings for a team you don't care about. i certainly didn't for any other teams and i have far too much time on my hands.

Milan Faletic · Mon 19 Oct 2009 1:56pm

I didn't vote on this poll. Just out of curiosity, could forumites post if they voted on this poll.

How could Roo be below 100%? Who would not want him?

Maybe we should have a poll on the forum.

bigcarl · Post: # 850539Post **bigcarl** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 2:12pm

bergholt wrote:
bigcarl wrote:you'd get a more realistic result by running that vote on this forum, though even that wouldn't keep out the opposition supporters.
maybe i'm naive, but why would opposition supporters vote on a poll like this? what are they trying to bias it towards? why?

well perhaps you are right though i would like to see the sample size of the poll. might have only been 5 who voted, which wouldn't really be enough to draw any conclusions.

it surprises me that the anti-raph feeling is that high. i'm aware that some do not rate him at all, but he's not without his supporters on this site.

Milan Faletic · Mon 19 Oct 2009 2:46pm

Given the volume and vitriol of the weekly threads on Raph, he would be thrown out if the forum voted on players and we would draft anyone who was delisted and make 6 changes per week. Half the forum would have come on to the ground at 3/4 time in the GF and would easily have kicked all Schneider's shots and yes, they would have all won the Norm Smith Medal. Oh and of course they would have coached better than Ross Lyon and Mark Thompson.

Who are they?

battye · Post: # 850549Post **battye** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 2:48pm

Milan Faletic wrote:I didn't vote on this poll. Just out of curiosity, could forumites post if they voted on this poll.

How could Roo be below 100%? Who would not want him?

Maybe we should have a poll on the forum.

I'm happy to turn it into a poll if you create the topic.

Milan Faletic · Mon 19 Oct 2009 2:52pm

battye wrote:
Milan Faletic wrote:I didn't vote on this poll. Just out of curiosity, could forumites post if they voted on this poll.

How could Roo be below 100%? Who would not want him?

Maybe we should have a poll on the forum.
I'm happy to turn it into a poll if you create the topic.

Ok.

Maybe it could be something like:

"Below is St Kilda's complete list of players, please tick the box if you think that this player is a required player in 2010."

Then you could have all 44 players with tick boxes next to their names and we could work out the percentage for each player similar to the AFL website.

Would that work?

battye · Post: # 850557Post **battye** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 2:55pm

Yes, see my PM

bergholt · Post: # 850574Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 3:42pm

battye wrote:I'm happy to turn it into a poll if you create the topic.

excellent initiative guys, thanks!

bergholt · Post: # 850577Post **bergholt** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 3:45pm

Milan Faletic wrote:I didn't vote on this poll. Just out of curiosity, could forumites post if they voted on this poll.

How could Roo be below 100%? Who would not want him?

i think that's a good measure of the margin of error. obviously no-one's on 100% which suggests that there was a bit of donkey voting and it caused variation of about +/- 5%.

i still think the values are broadly representative of the opinion of the majority of st kilda supporters. certainly they mostly correspond with what i'd expect of the rank and file - blake, for instance, has always been disliked and so despite a great season ends up 21st on the list with 82% wanting to keep him.