Jim Park Analysis 2019 March 23, 2019, 08:39:56 pm I might be a bit slow with this for this round: my laptop is in for repairs. I won't have access to a computer for much of the time. I do get a computer from the school I'm at, but minimal internet privileges. So, I will be a bit slow. But it will be done! Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #1 – March 31, 2019, 10:46:11 am A little late, but better than never. I'll be back of schedule next week, now that my supplementary brain is back in action.Round 1: Carlton vs RichmondWhat is called an 'honourable loss'. To me it is still a loss, but considering what we could put on the park, it was a long way from embarrassing. Still hate losing. Points of Interest:We had 15 voters in Round 1, which is 10 less than for the same game last year. The reason for that I will not speculate on, but a number of long term posters didn't vote. Hopefully we can have a few more put in their 2 cents worth when we win next week.The rating this week was 7.31, a not unreasonable score. That translates to a D+. Probably accurate, as we were the better team after quarter time. Our first quarter was deplorable.We had 14 players who managed to get a vote this week, again, not unreasonable considering how we played for much of the game.Patrick Cripps - what can you say? He started like he did last year. What a star!Votes:376 - Cripps, Patrick (0)239 - Newman, Nicholas (0)103 - Fisher, Zac (0)88 - Thomas, Dale (0)78 - Murphy, Marc (0)76 - Weitering, Jacob (0)47 - Jones, Liam (0)25 - Walsh, Sam (0)18 - Setterfield, Will (0)15 - Dow, Patrick (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Curnow, Edward (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)5 - McKay, Harrison (0) Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #2 – April 05, 2019, 05:28:08 pm Round 2: Carlton vs Port Adelaide in AdelaideWith no free to air coverage, this is another game where I saw nothing. hence my not voting. Such is life. This week will be different. Hopefully the result will be too.We managed to get with 16 points of this mob, with them having one of the best ruck combos in the country. Another honourable loss? Appears that way to me. However, it also has promise. We will be getting better!Points of Interest:[1] Twelve people voted this week. This is 6 less than this round in 2018, but it is not unreasonable considering the distribution of pay TV through the population. Hopefully with the game back at 'home', there will be more opportunity for people to see the game, hence voting.[2] 11 players were worthy of votes this week. Not unreasonable considering a loss. However, I am hoping that number to increase this week when we beat Sydney. When we manage about 14 players worthy of a vote, we usually win.[3] The rating this week was 7.72, more or equivalent to a C-. Again that is not too bad for a loss. It is better than last week, and we were the better team for more of the game. Of course, when we were ordinary, we were worse than ordinary. We were crap. [4] For the first time in quite a while we managed to have 2 players get more than 300! That is promising.Votes:Cripps, Patrick 350Weitering, Jacob 309Petrevski - Seton, Sam 243Dow, Patrick 77McKay, Harrison 77Phillips, Andrew 30Thomas, Dale 24McGovern, Mitchell 24Newman, Nicholas 12Fisher, Zac 6Walsh, Sam 6Nice to see Walsh get a mention in his first 2 games. Nice to see the Gov get his first mention for us. Nice to have SPS get a really good score! Nice to see Paddy Dow making an impact.Progressive Votes:726 - Cripps, Patrick (0)385 - Weitering, Jacob (0)251 - Newman, Nicholas (0)244 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)112 - Thomas, Dale (0)109 - Fisher, Zac (0)92 - Dow, Patrick (0)83 - McKay, Harrison (0)78 - Murphy, Marc (0)47 - Jones, Liam (0)31 - Walsh, Sam (0)30 - Phillips, Andrew (0)24 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)18 - Setterfield, Will (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Curnow, Edward (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)Patrick Cripps heads out to a positive lead after only 2 games. Only injury will probably beat him to the Ultimate Prize. Quote Selected Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 06:05:47 pm by crashlander
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #3 – April 13, 2019, 12:03:38 pm Rd 3: Carlton vs SydneyAnother one that got away because we don't know how to win yet, but .... Points of Interest:[1] We have 12 voters again this week, down from 16 for this game last year. That is disappointing as the game was a LOT more accessible than the previous one was. Is it that we are driving people away with our inability to win?[2] The opinion of how well we played was also quite varied. The rating was this was was 7.17, which represents approximately a D+.[3] 12 players got votes this week. We do much better when we win. [4] Cripps was the only one to get past 300 (again!), but Jones' 257 was pretty good.Votes:Cripps, Patrick 305Jones, Liam 257Curnow, Edward 173Walsh, Sam 152Weitering, Jacob 84Petrevski - Seton, Sam 45Dow, Patrick 18Murphy, Marc 15Newman, Nicholas 9Fisher, Zac 9Casboult, Levi 6Lobbe, Matthew 3Cripps has probably got Brownlow votes for all 3 games this year, even though we've lost them all.Progressive Voting:1031 - Cripps, Patrick (0)468 - Weitering, Jacob (0)304 - Jones, Liam (0)289 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)260 - Newman, Nicholas (0)183 - Curnow, Edward (0)183 - Walsh, Sam (0)118 - Fisher, Zac (0)112 - Thomas, Dale (0)110 - Dow, Patrick (0)93 - Murphy, Marc (0)83 - McKay, Harrison (0)30 - Phillips, Andrew (0)24 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)18 - Setterfield, Will (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)6 - Casboult, Levi (0)3 - Lobbe, Matthew (0)Cripps is already double the votes of anyone else. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #4 – April 19, 2019, 10:59:56 am Rd 4: Carlton vs Gold CoastWhat a disaster! 1 point with 18 seconds to go. Points of Interest:[1] We have 15 voters this week, up from 12 last week, but down from 16 last year. Considering that we were only on Pay TV, that is pretty good. Maybe one day we can really win![2] With ratings from C to F, our effort was really polarizing. Looks like nobody appreciated our forward play. The rating was 6.67, a D-.[3] 11 Players got a vote this week, with not a forward amongst them. Says a lot.[4] This week Cripps missed 300 votes - by 2. He managed 298. Next best was Weitering.Votes:Cripps, Patrick 298Weitering, Jacob 236Walsh, Sam 178Jones, Liam 160Murphy, Marc 40Thomas, Dale 36Newman, Nicholas 29McGovern, Mitchell 11Petrevski - Seton, Sam 4Setterfield, Will 4Marchbank, Caleb 4Progressive Voting:1328 - Cripps, Patrick (0)704 - Weitering, Jacob (0)464 - Jones, Liam (0)361 - Walsh, Sam (0)293 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)289 - Newman, Nicholas (0)183 - Curnow, Edward (0)148 - Thomas, Dale (0)133 - Murphy, Marc (0)118 - Fisher, Zac (0)110 - Dow, Patrick (0)83 - McKay, Harrison (0)35 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)30 - Phillips, Andrew (0)22 - Setterfield, Will (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)6 - Casboult, Levi (0)5 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)3 - Lobbe, Matthew (0)This list really tell us a lot.[1] Ed Curnow has been our best forward this season by a mile, and he hasn't played that well at all (except for his 4 goal effort).[2] Some of our more important players have either very votes (Simmo, for example) or none (Charlie Curnow, for example). That shows that we've been carried by a very small number of players who have played quite decently.[3] Our ruck division has been a real problem, with Lobbe (3 votes from 2 games) and Phillips (30 votes from 2 games). Rucks have been in the best against us for 3 out of 4 weeks. In fact, they have probably been Brownlow vote getters. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #5 – April 27, 2019, 10:13:30 pm Rd 5: Carlton vs Western BulldogsAt last the win we've been hoping for! Pity I didn't get to see any of it. Such is life: even on Fox we don't get much coverage. Points of Interest:[1] We had 14 voters this week, one down from last week and 4 less than this game last year. I guess it wasn't too bad when we weren't on TV, but I was really hoping for a big number of voters this week.[2] The rating this week was 9.91, almost an A. The first for the year and hopefully not the last. I can't remember the last time we really deserved one.[3] There were 11 vote getters this week. This is the same as last week. Maybe it was because I didn't put my 2 cents in. [4] This was the first time Cripps has been clearly our best. He was 3rd this week. SPS was first, while H was 2nd. Even so, Cripps managed over 300 votes! SPS got over 400!Votes:Petrevski - Seton, Sam 432McKay, Harrison 318Cripps, Patrick 304Fisher, Zac 156Walsh, Sam 71Murphy, Marc 57Plowman, Lachlan 42Casboult, Levi 35Kreuzer, Matthew 28Jones, Liam 14Gibbons, Michael 14Progressive Voting:1633 - Cripps, Patrick (0)725 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)704 - Weitering, Jacob (0)478 - Jones, Liam (0)432 - Walsh, Sam (0)401 - McKay, Harrison (0)289 - Newman, Nicholas (0)273 - Fisher, Zac (0)190 - Murphy, Marc (0)183 - Curnow, Edward (0)148 - Thomas, Dale (0)110 - Dow, Patrick (0)43 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)42 - Casboult, Levi (0)35 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)30 - Phillips, Andrew (0)29 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)22 - Setterfield, Will (0)15 - Gibbons, Michael (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)5 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)3 - Lobbe, Matthew (0)Cripps is 900 votes ahead. What a player! Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #6 – April 28, 2019, 02:58:05 pm Surprised Weiters is ahead of Jones tbh.... Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #7 – April 28, 2019, 03:12:26 pm Probably because Weitering tends to get more possessions and intercept marks, but they've both been very, very good so far Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #8 – May 02, 2019, 08:40:00 am Quote from: flyboy77 – on April 28, 2019, 02:58:05 pmSurprised Weiters is ahead of Jones tbh....Because Jones isn't Carlton enough, same with Daisy. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #9 – May 02, 2019, 09:37:06 am Because Jones makes more mistakes than a kid with a Rubik's cube. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #10 – May 02, 2019, 11:58:07 am Quote from: Professer E – on May 02, 2019, 09:37:06 amBecause Jones makes more mistakes than a kid with a Rubik's cube.Think Jones takes the game on more and his mistakes tend to be more highlighted and stay in peoples minds... Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #11 – May 02, 2019, 12:46:03 pm True, and his first five games were very good but his most recent was poor. Weeters has also been bloody good this Year. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #12 – May 02, 2019, 05:28:34 pm Quote from: Professer E – on May 02, 2019, 12:46:03 pmTrue, and his first five games were very good but his most recent was poor. Weeters has also been bloody good this Year.You must have been watching a different games Prof.A couple of blunders doesn't ruin an overall game and he was far from Robinson Carusoe. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #13 – May 02, 2019, 08:33:42 pm Quote from: flyboy77 – on April 28, 2019, 02:58:05 pmSurprised Weiters is ahead of Jones tbh....Why?Weitering has been the defensive general we’ve been missing, his intercept (and contested) marking has been very good and his work in moving the ball out of defence has been excellent.Jones has been good but his work is generally one on one (although he does provide support to his fellow defenders) whereas Weitering is playing well in a much broader and more challenging role. Quote Selected
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2019 Reply #14 – May 04, 2019, 10:36:11 pm AFL Round 6: Carlton vs HawthornThe 2nd heartbreaker in 3 weeks really irritated me. We should have won. But we didn’t. By about 2 seconds.Points of Interest:[1] We had less voters this week, 12. This compared to 18 for this game last year. Disappointing.[2] The ratings this week were all over the place. Some people considered that we played pretty well, while others thought we threw the game away. Fair enough: everybody has an opinion and our play was not easy to rate. The final rating was 7.89, which represents a C-.[3] There were 14 vote getters this round. We had a lot of players who did something, but very few 4 quarter players. In the end, that was a reason we lost.[4] Cripps ended up getting the votes, which surprised me somewhat. However, he couldn’t get the 300 votes this week.Votes:Cripps, Patrick 256Thomas, Dale 184Curnow, Edward 131Kreuzer, Matthew 125Walsh, Sam 122Jones, Liam 102Fisher, Zac 99Weitering, Jacob 79Petrevski - Seton, Sam 53McKay, Harrison 16Murphy, Marc 7Newman, Nicholas 3Plowman, Lachlan 3Silvagni, Jack 3Progressive Votes:1889 - Cripps, Patrick (0)783 - Weitering, Jacob (0)777 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)580 - Jones, Liam (0)553 - Walsh, Sam (0)417 - McKay, Harrison (0)372 - Fisher, Zac (0)332 - Thomas, Dale (0)315 - Curnow, Edward (0)292 - Newman, Nicholas (0)197 - Murphy, Marc (0)154 - Kreuzer, Matthew (0)110 - Dow, Patrick (0)46 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)42 - Casboult, Levi (0)35 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)30 - Phillips, Andrew (0)22 - Setterfield, Will (0)15 - Gibbons, Michael (0)13 - Cuningham, David (0)10 - Simpson, Kade (0)5 - Marchbank, Caleb (0)4 - Silvagni, Jack (0)3 - Lobbe, Matthew (0)Cripps has a lead of over 1000 votes at this point. My God! Quote Selected
Topic: Jim Park Analysis 2019 (Read 10806 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Jim Park Analysis 2019 (Read 10806 times)
previous topic - next topic