Player rankings

[Snowy]

I think the point Stellation made about leading is a good one and some people noted how ROK did a lot of dummy leading early in the season. It is why perhaps MOL is not performing to his maximum at the moment. He is generally allowed to lead into the premium space which provides the easiest shots at goal. Granted you still have to mark it there. But I think his output is not necessarily the greatest at the moment. But it always feels sacrilegious to criticise Micky somehow.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Ruckman
As for Nick though, regardless of coaches instructions; I do think his habit of falling off tackles

To harp on about the point, does he even fall off tackles that are still there to be made that often? I have seen him fall off tackles, but normally that is because the player has disposed of the ball and Nick just doesn't seem to have the "rub their face in the dirt" mentality. That doesn't mean he is soft, he doesn't seem to back down from having an excited chat with someone face to face, he just doesn't seem to want to take people out.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by stellation
To harp on about the point, does he even fall off tackles that are still there to be made that often? I have seen him fall off tackles, but normally that is because the player has disposed of the ball and Nick just doesn't seem to have the "rub their face in the dirt" mentality. That doesn't mean he is soft, he doesn't seem to back down from having an excited chat with someone face to face, he just doesn't seem to want to take people out.

What is "that often" numerically speaking? I don't know, in fact I don't think I've ever seen any failed tackle data.
The mad-dog part of me is screaming that no Swan tackle should be broken, that they should all hurt and that the McLeod's and Ozzie Jones' of this world should be to scared of our small forwards to even take possesion of the ball. However while making a short visit to planet reality I recognise that it's too much to expect any player to succeed in every tackle (the fend would be extinct if that was the case).

So I suggest his quota should be to aim for 1 crunchy tackle a game (or 2 Nick Specials) if he plays exclusively as a forward. What do you think?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
So I suggest his quota should be to aim for 1 crunchy tackle a game (or 2 Nick Specials) if he plays exclusively as a forward. What do you think?

He averages 1.9 tackles per game. His effectiveness level is quite high - if he lays 1 or 2 tackles they are often effective. Someone like O'Keefe or even J Bolton have lower effectiveness levels, so the total number of effective tackles is not that much higher.

How they define 'effective' I'm not sure. I assume one that prevents an opponent from getting an effective disposal.

[giant]

Don't think we can ever expect Nick to be the Enforcer of the Swans side. But earlier this year he did do some very good defensive work which led directly to goals.

Not sure how crunching he needs to be but tend to agree there is room for improvement here.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Ruckman
in fact I don't think I've ever seen any failed tackle data.

Viagra thread.

I don't seem to be able to take this week's discussion seriously. I guess that's because, after the disappointment of the result of the most recent game, it's anybody's guess how/if we bounce back.

[Snowy]

I think an effective tackle is defined as one which either stops the momentum of another player, leads to a stoppage, a turnover, or leads to a free kick to the player's team or himself. Midfield players tend to have more tackles though as they count the ones in stoppages which lead to more stoppages if that makes sense. In other words if a player lays a tackle, the opposition can't break free and the umpire bounces it again, it's counted as an effective tackle. That's why blokes like Kirk, O'Bree and Hayes do so well as they're always around the stoppages. Though I'd have to say Kirk is an excellent tackler and is good at forcing turnovers anywhere on the ground.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by Ruckman

So I suggest his quota should be to aim for 1 crunchy tackle a game (or 2 Nick Specials) if he plays exclusively as a forward. What do you think?

I think he should have tackling lessons from LRT.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
He averages 1.5 tackles per game. His effectiveness level is quite high - if he lays 1 or 2 tackles they are normally effective. Someone like O'Keefe or even J Bolton have much lower effectiveness levels, so the total number of effective tackles is not that much higher.

I'm afraid this raises more doubts about the data than reduces my doubts about Nick's 1% orientation.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
How they define 'effective' I'm not sure.

Always the problem with trying to quantify qualitative data. Perhaps, I suggest with due trepidation, that's why the more statistically challenged noticed LRT's improvement before the adepts?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
I'm afraid this raises more doubts about the data than reduces my doubts about Nick's 1% orientation.

Perceptions can be misleading.

Always the problem with trying to quantify qualitative data. Perhaps, I suggest with due trepidation, that's why the more statistically challenged noticed LRT's improvement before the adepts?

This assumes that the data is taken as gospel and then the observations are made to fit.

The above two comments are essentially the two opposite ends of the spectrum.

I find that observing games and keeping in mind data is the best combination.

In terms of tackle data:
J Bolton averages 6.6 tackles per game, of which 3.1 (47%) are effective.
O'Keefe averages 3.4 tackles per game, of which 1.7 (50%) are effective.
Davis averages 1.9 tackles per game, of which 1.1 (58%) are effective.

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Davis averages 1.9 tackles per game, of which 1.1 (58%) are effective.

Which also then means we are already getting our 2 Nick specials a game!

[Snowy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruckman
[B]I'm afraid this raises more doubts about the data than reduces my doubts about Nick's 1% orientation.


I don't think people can have it both ways. If you use data to damn people you can't complain when it shows you other things you don't want to see. Otherwise you're selective in your application and interpretation of it. I agree with the observation that you watch the matches, form opinions and also consider the data. I don't think there's any doubt that blokes like Bolton tackle more than a Davis, and that's partly because of the greater midfield role, but as mentioned above, sometimes these tackles are merely ones which force another ball-up in the middle and so on so aren't as effective as we think. So in some respects the stats don't lie. But it seems we all agree that Davis for example, can still do more. The team can only be improved for him providing even more. Ditto a few others.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

"Who have you offended, masters, that you are thus bound to your answer? this learned constable is too cunning to be understood. What?s your offence[Or sense?]?"
~ Much Ado about Nothing (Act V. Scene I.)

[Snowy]

Originally posted by Ruckman
"Who have you offended, masters, that you are thus bound to your answer? this learned constable is too cunning to be understood. What?s your offence[Or sense?]?"
~ Much Ado about Nothing (Act V. Scene I.)

I bet Willy Shakespeare never thought he'd be quoted in a an Aussie Rules footy context

[Sanecow]

Bacon probably did.