2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Topic: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis: (Read 12178 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

March 21, 2017, 08:55:04 pm

It will be nice to get back to 'normal' (what is 'normal'?)
Here will be the summary of the votes and whatnots.
At this early stage I have no idea who is going to stand out.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #1 – March 30, 2017, 07:22:01 pm

Round 1: Carlton vs Richmond
I did go into the game with some hope, but....

Some notes:
[1] We had 24 people vote for this round. That compares well to most games last year. However, 30 people did vote in this game last year. Considering that so many people consider that we will be spooners, getting 24 voters is a good turnout. Hopefully we can get the voters for longer this season.
[2] We rated the game at 7.24, which is close enough to D+. Considering how we went, this rating shows that our voters are seeing the future. Hopefully we can see more of the future in the weeks to come.
[3] We had 12 players getting a vote, which is not the spread we tend to see when we win. We also had some of our more important players not making huge contributions. I won't go into that, enough has been mentioned on other threads. But we need some of 'name' players to stand up to be successful.
[4] On the other hand, it was very nice to see Murphy and Kreuzer stand up. Both have struggled with injury in recent times and both made a positive statement.

Votes:
Kreuzer, Matthew 311
Murphy, Marc 246
Marchbank, Caleb 147
Weitering, Jacob 115
Plowman, Lachlan 99
Gibbs, Bryce 39
Rowe, Sam 36
Simpson, Kade 35
Wright, Matthew 33
Silvagni, Jack 29
Docherty, Sam 12
Casboult, Levi 5

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #2 – April 11, 2017, 11:04:15 am

Round 2: Carlton vs Melbourne
Disappointing, but there were positive signs. We didn't take our chances, but we improved significantly over the previous game.

Some notes:
[1] This year we had 17 voters, compared to 22 for the same game last year. I guess we should be happy: we lost a lot of voters late in the year and ordinary losses to not motivate people to see our games.
[2] This week we rated the game at 7.76; more or less a C- and an increase of 0.52 over last week.
[3] Again, we had 12 vote getters this week, which appears to be fairly typical when we lose.

This week's votes:
Cripps, Patrick 269
Wright, Matthew 233
Murphy, Marc 210
Plowman, Lachlan 176
Rowe, Sam 87
Docherty, Sam 64
Kreuzer, Matthew 48
Curnow, Edward 30
Marchbank, Caleb 18
Macreadie, Harrison 14
Thomas, Dale 9
Gibbs, Bryce 7

Matthew Wright had one of his best games, with 4 excellent goals. Murphy continues his renaissance with another 30+ possession game, while there was an improved output from Gibbs, Kreuzer and Curnow (Ed). But it was nicest to see Plowman, Marchbank and Macreadie in the votes.

Progressive Voting:
456 - Murphy, Marc (0)
359 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)
276 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)
270 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
267 - Wright, Matthew (0)
145 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)
123 - Rowe, Sam (0)
115 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
77 - Docherty, Sam (0)
47 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)
35 - Simpson, Kade (0)
30 - Curnow, Edward (0)
29 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
14 - Macreadie, Harrison (0)
10 - Thomas, Dale (0)
5 - Casboult, Levi (0)

Murphy has gone out to an early lead with 456 votes, ahead of Kreuzer and a trio around 270 vote mark.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #3 – April 17, 2017, 03:51:28 pm

A win over the Drug Cheats was one to celebrate. Especially considering the conditions and the youthful squad we had.
Very enjoyable, even in the rain.

Some Notes:
[1] We had 2 less people vote this year compared to last year. That was probably due to the weather, which kept the crowd down significantly. 22 people voted this time.
[2] We appreciated the win. The rating for this week was 9.24, easily the best this year. This represents approximately a B+.
[3] 14 different players got votes for this performance. Very strong result.
[4] Some of our higher ranked players stood up this week, especially Murphy, Kreuzer and Gibbs.

Votes:
Murphy, Marc 374
Kreuzer, Matthew 195
Gibbs, Bryce 193
Rowe, Sam 149
Plowman, Lachlan 137
Docherty, Sam 95
Curnow, Edward 67
Cripps, Patrick 63
White, Simon 61
Petrevski - Seton, Sam 32
Simpson, Kade 11
Marchbank, Caleb 8
Silvagni, Jack 8
Williamson, Tom 4

Progressive Votes:
830 - Murphy, Marc (0)
554 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)
412 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)
333 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
273 - Rowe, Sam (0)
267 - Wright, Matthew (0)
229 - Gibbs, Bryce (0)
171 - Docherty, Sam (0)
154 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)
115 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
97 - Curnow, Edward (0)
61 - White, Simon (0)
46 - Simpson, Kade (0)
38 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
32 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)
14 - Macreadie, Harrison (0)
10 - Thomas, Dale (0)
5 - Williamson, Tom (0)
5 - Casboult, Levi (0)

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #4 – April 17, 2017, 06:54:30 pm

Daisy's tearing it up!

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #5 – April 18, 2017, 01:09:54 pm

10 votes is better then nothing, especially given the state of Daisy's body. But he does need to provide more than leadership.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #6 – April 18, 2017, 04:57:44 pm

Quote from: crashlander on April 18, 2017, 01:09:54 pm

10 votes is better then nothing, especially given the state of Daisy's body. But he does need to provide more than leadership.

Crash, when Simon White out polls you by a factor of 6, surely it's time to walk.....

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #7 – April 18, 2017, 07:38:38 pm

To be honest, I cannot see Daisy going on next season. There is a good chance he will become part of the coaching staff. He is well respected for his footy brain. But his body can no longer get him to do the things that made him so highly regarded.

On the other hand, Sam Rowe polling 273 votes so far suggests he will be around for a while yet. He was beaten on Saturday, but he had silver service from the GC mids.

That White has polled more votes than Simmo so far is also a point of interest.

But one of the things that really pleases me is the performance of Plowman. To be 3rd at this point is a great effort and suggests we did the right thing in recruiting him. Even if the others in his deal do not come off, he is an excellent pickup.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #8 – April 18, 2017, 09:48:49 pm

Quote from: crashlander on April 18, 2017, 07:38:38 pm

To be honest, I cannot see Daisy going on next season. There is a good chance he will become part of the coaching staff. He is well respected for his footy brain. But his body can no longer get him to do the things that made him so highly regarded.

On the other hand, Sam Rowe polling 273 votes so far suggests he will be around for a while yet. He was beaten on Saturday, but he had silver service from the GC mids.

That White has polled more votes than Simmo so far is also a point of interest.

But one of the things that really pleases me is the performance of Plowman. To be 3rd at this point is a great effort and suggests we did the right thing in recruiting him. Even if the others in his deal do not come off, he is an excellent pickup.

The Plow was taken at 3 in his draft, first tall in that draft. He will be a gun just like Caleb M.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #9 – April 18, 2017, 10:07:02 pm

That draft year was regarded as really weak; Plowman was viewed as the best natural defender, although a bit small for a key position. O'Rourke went at number one, and the caveats on him have proven to be correct - doesn't look like making it at Hawthorn either.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #10 – April 18, 2017, 11:56:22 pm

Quote from: crashlander on April 18, 2017, 07:38:38 pm

To be honest, I cannot see Daisy going on next season. There is a good chance he will become part of the coaching staff. He is well respected for his footy brain. But his body can no longer get him to do the things that made him so highly regarded.

On the other hand, Sam Rowe polling 273 votes so far suggests he will be around for a while yet. He was beaten on Saturday, but he had silver service from the GC mids.

That White has polled more votes than Simmo so far is also a point of interest.

But one of the things that really pleases me is the performance of Plowman. To be 3rd at this point is a great effort and suggests we did the right thing in recruiting him. Even if the others in his deal do not come off, he is an excellent pickup.

Not sure Daisy will last the 2nd half of the season, no doubt he is trying but the body wont do the things the brain is telling it to do and I think both player and club
need to sit down and formulate a retirement deal now so he gets to go out in a dignified manner rather than be pushed/staggering over the line..

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #11 – April 19, 2017, 07:30:26 am

Simple reality is he shouldn't be picked on current form.....and agreed he does try hard!

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #12 – April 19, 2017, 09:42:07 am

I wouldnt be so sure guys.

There are stats that mean a lot to teams that the average punter wont be privy to unless they go searching.

Dale Thomas is currently sitting 6th in our team for metres gained this season in our team.

A stat that is very important to getting the team going forward of centre. The top 6 at the Blues:

1. Sam Docherty
2. Marc Murphy
3. Bryce Gibbs
4. Kade Simpson
5. Patrick Cripps
6. Dale Thomas

He is also sitting 9th in our team for score involvements.
13th for intercept posessions,
3rd for Marks taken (which indicates hes getting to where the ball is frequently as his contested stats are not very high).

The other thing that I can see is that his team mates seem to like him, and are trying to involve him as much as possible.

Now, Ive seen just by watching him for a few minutes at a time that he is a smart player who gets to where the ball is, and has a high workrate with lots of repeat efforts at putting defensive pressure on. The only thing really letting him down is his ball use by foot and I would say based on his disposal efficiency (higher than a few in our team who most consider undroppable at the minute at an overall 66%, Bryce Gibbs is travelling at 59%) is that he is only letting us down at critical moments which is highlighting the poor disposal more than anything else.

He isn't what he once was, but I think we need to learn the lesson of Brock Mclean. He too was a footballers footballer, who could get to where the ball was going even though his leg speed didnt show he was worth it, and on current form is still worth playing. Its important that the MC who ask people to perform roles, seem to be happy enough with his work at the minute, but at the same time, it doesn't say anything about whether or not he will go on with it next season.

We will see how the rest of the year pans out, but there are positives he is providing our team which is all we can really hope for.

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #13 – April 19, 2017, 03:32:41 pm

I call BS to that.

What of his multiple clangers that lead to cheap turnovers - and easy goals to the other side.

Metres gained means jack when the ball misses the target!

Re: 2017 Jim Park Medal Analysis:

Reply #14 – April 19, 2017, 05:17:05 pm

Is there a metres lost stat?