Skip to main content
Topic: Jim Park Analysis 2020 (Read 244 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jim Park Analysis 2020

Welcome one and all to Jim Park Analysis 2020.
Yes, it is that time of year again, where the season beckons and hope fills our hearts (well, it did until a couple of weeks ago, but that is another tale).
Last year we had a win by Patrick Cripps. This year, who will it be?
Cripps remains the favourite. He is that good.
Sam Walsh appears to be the danger, as his brilliant 1st year form shows no sign of slowing.
Docherty is back. But is he back to his best?
Eddie Betts is back. GOOOAAALL!

Voting will continue as it has been for the last few years.
There are 15 votes available, to split as you choose, more or less.
No player is allowed to have more than 10 votes per game.
At least 3 players deserve a mention each week, even in the worst of losses.
Each game requires a rating, from F to A+. The rating determines the weighting of the game. This is usually important, as more players deserve a mention in a good game compared to that in a poor showing.
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: Jim Park Analysis 2020

Reply #1
Carlton vs Richmond Rd 1:  :(  :(

We couldn't do it. Again. An insipid first half, but some decent footy thereafter.

I'm not sure how many more times I'll be doing this for 2020, but here is what we thought:
[1] Rating: 7.51. This represents a score between a D+ and C-. Considering how we played early, this is a reasonable score.
[2] 9 Players deserved a vote. That suggests I didn't do a thorough enough job, but ... Seriously, 9 players suggests that not enough was done by too many of our players. When we get 13 or 14 guys getting a mention we usually win.
[3] 13 people voted in this round, also a little lower than I'd hoped. However, considering that we lost and that nobody could see the game in person, it is a reasonable turnout. Hopefully we can actually win a game or two this year and bring the voters out.
[4] 5 players managed 100 votes or more. This shows that we did have a significant number of the better players on the ground. In our worst losses it can be as few as 1 or 2.
[5] Jack Martin's score was an excellent one for his debut, beaten only by Cripps and Weitering.
[6] We suffered 3 serious injuries in this game. However, it looks like they won't be missing much football. But that is just because the season is so screwed up.

Cripps, Patrick   283
Weitering, Jacob   243
Martin, Jack   225
Casboult, Levi   127
Docherty, Sam   104
Petrevski - Seton, Sam   64
Murphy, Marc   52
Silvagni, Jack   23
Fisher, Zac   6

Not a surprise that Cripps topped the voting. Weitering's effort keeping his man goalless was excellent, as was Martin's effort up forward. Doc and Levi were giants, considering.
That Fisher got a vote suggests he was pretty decent, considering he was injured badly.

Progressive Scores:
284 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
243 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
226 - Martin, Jack (0)
128 - Casboult, Levi (0)
105 - Docherty, Sam (0)
64 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)
53 - Murphy, Marc (0)
24 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
6 - Fisher, Zac (0)

If, as we fear, this is the last game for 2020, then Cripps has won another Jim Park Award. Amazing!
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: Jim Park Analysis 2020

Reply #2
I am taking something of a risk writing this before I lock the thread, but I don't expect many more voters. If there are some, I'll update the numbers as necessary.

Carlton vs Melbourne: we fail by a single point after a multi-week break due to Covid-19.
Our first quarter was totally fecal. The rest wasn't bad, except for our kicking at goal.

[1] Marc Pittonet got his first senior game for us. he was thrashed early, but came back really well. We managed to get 2nd rating, a remarkable effort in the situation.
[2] 13 players managed to get a vote this week. This is the sort of result that is common when we win. This suggests that we probably deserved the win. Pity we couldn't manage it.
Last game only 9 people managed a vote, so this effort is an improvement. All the same, we need more from more players.
[3] We had 3 players get 100 or more votes. This is not as good as the previous round. Weitering again dominated his position and got top votes.
[4] 17 people voted in this round. That is an excellent effort. This compares to 9 in Round 1. If we start playing a bit better, more people will want to vote.
[5] A rating of 7.27 is slightly lower than last time. I guess it shows that we don't rate Melbourne. 7.27 represents a D+.
[6] We managed to get through this week with only 1 serious injury. Unfortunately, the one we got was a shocker and it happened early. We will miss Newman. He is gone for the season.
[7] Patrick Cripps was 8th highest this week, his lowest rating in a long time. Even so, he could have won us the game if he didn't hit the post.

Weitering, Jacob 377
Pittonet, Marc 152
Docherty, Sam 150
Curnow, Edward 94
Murphy, Marc 81
Gibbons, Michael 73
Jones, Liam 56
Cripps, Patrick 53
Martin, Jack 28
Petrevski - Seton, Sam 13
Cuningham, David 9
Casboult, Levi 4
McGovern, Mitchell 2

It is nice to see McGovern getting some votes. He is one who needs to step up.

Progressive Votes:
620 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
337 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
254 - Docherty, Sam (0)
254 - Martin, Jack (0)
152 - Pittonet, Marc (0)
134 - Murphy, Marc (0)
132 - Casboult, Levi (0)
95 - Curnow, Edward (0)
77 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)
73 - Gibbons, Michael (0)
56 - Jones, Liam (0)
24 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
9 - Cuningham, David (0)
6 - Fisher, Zac (0)
3 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)

Weitering has burst from the blocks with 2 dominant games.
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: Jim Park Analysis 2020

Reply #3
Rd 3: Carlton defeats Geelong at Geelong.
At last!
The next task is to play 4 quarters. It must be possible.

[1]   This is one of the evenest performances we’d had for a long time. 4 players managed more than 200 votes. 13 different players deserved a mention. That is the sort of thing I like to see.

[2]   With a rating of 9.53 (which represents halfway between an A- and B+), this was recognized as one of our better efforts in recent years.
But, how different would it have been if Geelong had kicked straight in the last quarter? Come to that, if we’d kicked the goals in the last quarter, as we did have chances.

[3]   17 people voted again this week, the same as last week. This round last year had only 12 voters.

[4]   Pittonet has impressed so far. He is ranked 2nd in the ruck stats at the moment. I don’t think that will last: there are some pretty good rucks out there, but it is a very positive sign. His aggression and commitment have been excellent.

[5]   We managed to get through the game without a serious injury. That is very positive, as we have the tendency to have a lot of injuries.

[6]   It was really nice beating Geelong at Geelong, something we haven’t done for quite a while. Granted that we haven’t played many games in Geelong either, but that is another issue.

Betts, Eddie 252
Cripps, Patrick 249
Weitering, Jacob 221
Pittonet, Marc 216
Casboult, Levi 157
Gibbons, Michael 92
Docherty, Sam 70
Martin, Jack 64
Curnow, Edward 62
Jones, Liam 34
Murphy, Marc 6
Petrevski - Seton, Sam 3

The coaches gave BOG to Levi. We gave it Eddie Betts in a very close race.

Progressive Votes:
841 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
587 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
368 - Pittonet, Marc (0)
324 - Docherty, Sam (0)
318 - Martin, Jack (0)
289 - Casboult, Levi (0)
253 - Betts, Eddie (0)
166 - Gibbons, Michael (0)
156 - Curnow, Edward (0)
139 - Murphy, Marc (0)
90 - Jones, Liam (0)
80 - Petrevski - Seton, Sam (0)
24 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
9 - Cuningham, David (0)
6 - Fisher, Zac (0)
3 - Walsh, Sam (0)
3 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)

Live Long and Prosper!