Come into my parlour - RWO Match Report Swans vs Hawks

[liz]

I tend to look at it from the other way around. Most people view life through the prism of their preconceptions, which they only change when they have become totally indefensible.

Malceski had 2 or 3 capital-K Klangers on the weekend, any of which could have cost us a goal if Hawthorn had capitalised properly (I can't remember if any did). If Bevan or McVeigh had had the ball in exactly the same situation and done exactly the same thing, people would have been screaming, 'The guy is useless! He's a HACK! Anyone who claims he isn't, just look at those disposals-- a 10 year old could have done better', etcetera.

For whatever reason, Malceski has butchered more ball in the last 2 matches than he had in the previous 10. For a guy who is consistently among the 5 best and most important players for the Swans, that's a trend I'd like to not see continue.

PS Brett Kirk's clanger count (if you don't count inaccurate kicks for goal as 'clangers') would be among the lowest in the team. He's exceptionally good at understanding his limitations and picking an option that works within them.

Yes and no. There are some on here who will not credit a handful of players with ever doing anything right. But I think most will acknowledge good games even from their pet projects (though I agree human perception tends to seek confirming evidence rather than contradictory evidence).

A few things to keep in mind with Malceski though. Based on stats in this week's record (ie excluding the Hawks game)

- he is neck and neck with Kirk leading the team for total disposals
- he is operating at overall disposal effectiveness of around 87% (only Kennelly and Barry are better, and they've both had very good years when on the park)
- he is 4th at the club for tackles, admittedly a long way behind Kirk but still indicating that he's not just getting uncontested ball across half-back

And from observation, his disposals would have the highest offensive hurt factor of any player in the team - ie not just whether they go to a team mate but whether they really do some damage.

So while none of us wants to see the odd clanger of the past two games, he is getting so much of the ball and doing a lot with it so much of the time that it is entirely fair he gets judged on the positive rather than the odd mistake.

I don't have any info available for total time on ground but my instinct tells me he'd be in the top few. I suspect he probably runs harder from one end to the other than everyone else in the team bar maybe Kirk and O'Keefe. And all this is from a player still only 22 and with around 30 games experience. Kirk and O'Keefe weren't running anything like that hard at the same age.

It could well be that the odd uncharacteristic error of the last two weeks (bearing in mind they have been significantly outweighed by good disposals) may be a sign of slight weariness. We supporters tend to expect an awful lot of the players at times in terms of perfection even when they are tired or maybe carrying niggling injuries.

And you excluded the part of my post noting that the rest of what Malceski did on Saturday was very very good. It is not a case of making allowances for Saturday's odd mistake because he's been good in the previous 10 weeks - he was a major part of the composure of the defence on Saturday afternoon.

[ScottH]

I had a look in the paper yesterday at Malceski's stats - 15 marks (24 Pos) which indicates he got the ball a lot, which means I was seeing him with the ball a lot. With an effectiveness of 88% he used the ball reasonably well.
I thought he was more consistent, than say Goodes and ROK, who floated in and out of the game, while both did some really good things.

As SImon points out it depends on the player. Take Bolton C for instance. While he was good, I would not rate his game in the best, maybe that is due to the fact that I expect more from him, as his standard is extremely good.
Davis kicked 3 goals, but didn't rate a mentio either. Without thoise 3 goals, we would be lamenting another game that got away, but whilst being the highest scorer for the game (besides Buddy), he didn't rate a mention in the best either.

[goswannie14]

PS Brett Kirk's clanger count (if you don't count inaccurate kicks for goal as 'clangers') would be among the lowest in the team. He's exceptionally good at understanding his limitations and picking an option that works within them.

According to the stats Kirk had 7 clangers on Saturday.

[ScottH]

According to the stats Kirk had 7 clangers on Saturday.

Name	Clangers
Adam Goodes	39
Barry Hall	37
Ryan O'Keefe	33
Brett Kirk	32
Michael O'L	31
Amon Buchanan	30
Nick Malceski	26
Jarred McVeigh	25
Nic Fosdike	24
Jude Bolton	23
Craig Bolton	23
Adam Schneider	22
Darren Jolly	21
Peter Everitt	19
Luke Ablett	18
Tadhg Kennelly	18
Leo Barry	17
Ted Richards	17
Ben Mathews	14
Jared Crouch	12
Paul Bevan	11
Nick Davis	9
Sean Dempster	9
Tim Schmidt	8
Jarred Moore	3
Heath Grundy	3
Keiran Jack	3
Luke Vogels	0
Simon Phillips	0

Low? Compared to what Simon?

[SimonH]

Good question. While 'clangers' isn't a meaningless concept like that (mercifully now out-of-fashion) stat '1 percenters', I'd be very interested to see some footage of those things defined by the stat-keepers as 'clangers'.

In particular, the mistakes that really hurt the team are when a player delivers the ball to the opposition from a free kick/mark, or when under no pressure. It's those mistakes, that I very rarely see from Kirk.

If failing to hit a team-mate after dredging the ball out from the bottom of a pack under pressure is called a 'clanger', then each team's inside players are inevitably going to dominate its clanger count (along with forwards, who have license to take greater risks to create scoring opportunities). Just comes with the territory.

The other thing obviously is that clangers as a proportion of disposals, is a more meaningful stat that a raw count of clangers. Looking at that list untutored, you'd conclude that Kirk is 4 times more likely to butcher a possession than Tim Schmidt!

[ugg]

I believe all free kicks against are counted as a clanger. So remove the 22 FAs against the Captain and his tally of 10 a game doesn't seem that awful after all.

[ScottH]

Thats one of the who;e misconception with stats, unless you have a full description of what each column means exactly, taking them on face value can be meaningless. Roos said the same thing recently about an ineffective disposal.

You last point is quite true too, generally the more times you have the ball in tight contests, the more likely you are to butcher it.

The other thing I find interesting with stats/wtaching a game, is how often a player goes barely noticed in a game, then you read they had 20+ touches. Or vice versa. You notice them a lot with the ball, but the only had 5 touches.

[hammo]

The other thing I find interesting with stats/wtaching a game, is how often a player goes barely noticed in a game, then you read they had 20+ touches. Or vice versa. You notice them a lot with the ball, but the only had 5 touches.

Yes, you do tend to notice Ben Mathews' more when he gets pinged for holding the ball several times a game

[ScottH]

Yes, you do tend to notice Ben Mathews' more when he gets pinged for holding the ball several times a game

Wrong. Tackled with the ball. Very rarely pinged for HTBl.

[ScottH]

Speaking of the best list for this game, I just noticed the AFL.com list

Sydney: B Kirk, N Fosdike, L Barry, N Malceski, J Bolton

One notable ommission from that list. No Spida.

go ROGER VAUGHAN (AAP)

[alison.z]

davis was in the smh's best

[ScottH]

davis was in the smh's best

Doesn't count if Stella sent them in.

[stellation]

Doesn't count if Stella sent them in.

Nick Davis infatuation aside, I think that 3 goals in not overly high scoring games (did we have anyone else with multiple goals in either game?) should be enough to get someone in all of the "best" lists.

[ScottH]

Nick Davis infatuation aside, I think that 3 goals in not overly high scoring games (did we have anyone else with multiple goals in either game?) should be enough to get someone in all of the "best" lists.

Thats just the glory, without the hard work. He was definitely up there, but IMO, I did not think he was worth a top 5 mention.

(6 goals might've )

[stellation]

Thats just the glory, without the hard work. He was definitely up there, but IMO, I did not think he was worth a top 5 mention.

(6 goals might've )

So forwards count for nothing? You, sir, read midfielder friendly stats only!