Cressa - will miss ya but not as much as some think

[TheHood]

Is there anyone on RWOer who thinks that Cressa was as important last year than Kel was at any time in his career?

I know Daz had one of his best years' ever last year. I loved his footy last year, more so than any before in fact, BUT he is not indispensable.

Certain sections of the media and some ROWers are rather pesimistic about our midfield minus Cressa, well I'm not. If we can play good footy without The Champ, what is stopping us without Cress? When did Daz become our MOST important player.

There was a lite hearted gag going around last year that our loses early in the year were attributed to Cress' absence, however that was dispelled during the Richmond win.

I reckon the hole is already filled by all that take the field as it was in 2003.

[liz]

Re: Cressa - will miss ya but not as much as some think

Originally posted by TheHood
Is there anyone on RWOer who thinks that Cressa was as important last year than Kel was at any time in his career?

I know Daz had one of his best years' ever last year. I loved his footy last year, more so than any before in fact, BUT he is not indispensable.

Certain sections of the media and some ROWers are rather pesimistic about our midfield minus Cressa, well I'm not. If we can play good footy without The Champ, what is stopping us without Cress? When did Daz become our MOST important player.

I think the concern may be more over the cumulative effect of losing several topliners. We effectively lost Schwass as a midfield force at the end of the 2001 year (because he struggled in his half season of 2002), then PK at the end of 2002 and now Cressa. None on their own is indispensable but these losses do start to add up.

Of course, all teams lose players through old age, and very good players at that. Midfielders (notably Jude and the Captain) stepped up last year to cover the losses. But we need them to maintain that form AND for at least one more to stand up to "replace" Cressa.

Only time will tell whether that will happen.

[NMWBloods]

Unless our current midfielders get better, we'll miss him in clearances. He was our 5th best in clearances/game. He was also our 2nd highest in disposals/game. He was still a very valuable part of our midfield last year, as you can from various stats, so it will be up to the guys to fill his place.

[robbieando]

To say we won't miss Cressa, because we didn't miss Kelly who was a better player last season isn't that good an example. Why??? Because we got use to not having Kelly in the side over his last 5 seasons thanks to his injuries, Kelly didn't have the impact on the side in 2002 that Cressa had on the side in 2003. We'll miss Cressa of course, but we do have some options to replace him which lessens the blow somewhat.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by robbieando
To say we won't miss Cressa, because we didn't miss Kelly who was a better player last season isn't that good an example. Why??? Because we got use to not having Kelly in the side over his last 5 seasons thanks to his injuries, Kelly didn't have the impact on the side in 2002 that Cressa had on the side in 2003. We'll miss Cressa of course, but we do have some options to replace him which lessens the blow somewhat.

Big wrap on Daz!

Don't get me wrong, he is a favourite of mine and there will be lots of little things that aren't there any more. Things like that poker face he pulls to umps when playing for a free. That used to make me laugh and the other thing I will miss, Daz kicking winning goals after the final siren...I loved those.

Seriously though...

I haven't got stats at hand, but I seem to recall us being a basket case when Kel was injured with a very low winning percentage. I reckon our game plan under Rocket was very reliant on his courage.

When Roosy took over the game plan changed so we weren't reliant on any one star. Now that fundametally has not changed.

If we're all on here at the end of August bemoaning a lousy season and that we missed Cressa's contribution in 2004, well, I'll eat me beanie (have to buy one first).

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by TheHood
I haven't got stats at hand, but I seem to recall us being a basket case when Kel was injured with a very low winning percentage. I reckon our game plan under Rocket was very reliant on his courage.

This seemed to be the case, but someone quoted the stats last year or the year before and showed that we actually won more games when Kelly wasn't playing.

Let's have a look...

In 1995-97 he didn't miss a game.

In 1998, he played 16 games, we won 10 and lost 6. During the rest of the season, we won 5 and lost 3.

In 1999, he missed only 1 game, which we won. Hence he played in 10 wins and 12 losses.

In 2000, he played 8 games and won 5, lost 3. During the rest of the season, we won 5 and lost 9.

In 2001, he played 11 games, and won 6, lost 5. During the rest of the season, we won 6 and lost 6.

In 2002, he played 18 games, we won 9, lost 8 and drew 1. During the rest of the season, we lost 4.

Summary

So from 1998 to 2002, the Swans played in 114 games, won 57 (50%), drew 1 and lost 56 (49%).

Kelly played in 74 games, where we won 40 (54%), drew 1 and lost 33 (45%).

So without him, in 40 games, we won 17 (43%) and lost 23 (57%).

So, I can't recall who provided those figures before but they were wrong. The Swans did much better when Kelly was playing, increasing their winning percentage a significant amount.

[barry]

We didnt miss Kelly because he faded away from a great player to a handy forward pocket who was lucky to play half the games, before he retired.

Cressa was definately key engine room material last year, but I think the younger guys in the centre will have learnt a lot from him, and can step up.

[Steve]

Which means that b/w 1998 and 2001, the stats would read:

With Kelly:
Won 31 (54.4%)
Lost 26 (45.6%)

Without Kelly:
Won 20 (52.6%)
Lost 18 (47.4%)

From memory the stats provided at the time were similar to the above - not neccesarily proving that we won more without Kelly, but that the difference wasn't as great as most originally thought.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
We didnt miss Kelly because he faded away from a great player to a handy forward pocket who was lucky to play half the games, before he retired.

I think that's overstating it a bit - he played 18 games out of 22 in 2002. Managed 18.6 disposals per game, third best average for the side that year and not far behind Cressa's 2003 effort.

Cressa was definately key engine room material last year, but I think the younger guys in the centre will have learnt a lot from him, and can step up.

Yep, I agree that Cressa was pretty key last year. We'll see whether the guys can fill his shoes well enough.

[dimelb]

I think the thing we are most likely to miss from Cressa is his in-your-face, take-no-prisoners attitude. He wasn't an enforcer in the classic mould, but he was a handy customer to have on your side. Who's going to provide that?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Steve
Which means that b/w 1998 and 2001, the stats would read:

With Kelly:
Won 31 (54.4%)
Lost 26 (45.6%)

Without Kelly:
Won 20 (52.6%)
Lost 18 (47.4%)

From memory the stats provided at the time were similar to the above - not neccesarily proving that we won more without Kelly, but that the difference wasn't as great as most originally thought.

I think 'With' should be 31 & 25, so a win % of 55.4%.

'Without' should be 17 & 18, so a win % of 48.5%.

By year, the win % are:
1998: With - 62.5%, Without - 62.5%
1999: With - 45.5%, Without - 100.0%
2000: With - 62.5%, Without - 35.7%
2001: With - 54.5%, Without - 50.0%
2002: With - 50.0%, Without - 0.0%

The critical years are 2000 and 2002 when we were woeful without him.
In those 2 seasons we went 14/1/11 when he was playing and 5/13 when he wasn't.
Of course, they were also the only 2 seasons we didn't make finals.

[Steve]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
In 1998, he played 16 games, we won 10 and lost 6. During the rest of the season, we won 5 and lost 3.

In 1999, he missed only 1 game, which we won. Hence he played in 10 wins and 12 losses.

In 2000, he played 8 games and won 5, lost 3. During the rest of the season, we won 5 and lost 9.

In 2001, he played 11 games, and won 6, lost 5. During the rest of the season, we won 6 and lost 6.

I just went by those figures but you're right about the 'Without' - I somehow added up to 20 when it should have been 17.

Statistically we were a better side with Kelly - that's a fact. Although he played in 'the worst game ever' so his mere presence didn't always make the difference.

It is (or was) a different argument as to whether his loss was going to be significant. In those last couple of years both he Schwass played reduced roles in the forward and backlines respectively.

In comparison Cressa was a key midfielder right through to the end.

[NMWBloods]

Yep - I agree!

[Reggi]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yep - I agree!

Thought of taking your temperature and a panadol

I suspect you're unwell

[NMWBloods]

I always agree with people when they are right!!