And I still remember the niggling thought, when he was injured that night, that could be a telling blow to our chances the following week. He was playing at such a high level and was that important to our play. If he reaches that level of form again, they'll find a way to accommodate him, with Melican.
He's not in top form, but he should be fit enough given he's had 2 games (I think at 60% & 67% game time), plus another 2 weeks of training leading up to this round. He's got to be in better form than Hannebery and Jack.
We're not playing very well. We have to make some changes to try to improve. The only benefit about the way we're playing now is that it won't cost us much to draft Nick Blakey.
I'm really pleased with myself. I got you to pick on liz for something I did.
The AFL rankings are all about pressure, pressure, pressure. I'll put it this way: Every time you see Gary Rohan your blood pressure goes up. Right? That counts as a pressure act. By the end of the game he's got your blood boiling, which means he was best on ground.
A more complete explanation can be found here: Ratings Explained - AFL.com.au
Btw, hurcluean refers to an effort worthy of Michel Hurley. Most people use Herculean instead. I applaud your originality.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
My sincerest apologies Liz.
I believe it was Ludwig that quoted the champion data stats rather than Liz. Their exact methodology is not published, but they look at each play, the contribution of the player to that play, and whether it led to a score (for either team), or a turnover, or metres gained etc. It values the contribution of the player in terms of how it affected the scoreboard, rather than just counting disposals or tackles. No metric is going to fully capture a player's contribution, but I don't think it is too bad. The AFL match report had Rampe amongst our best and omitted Heeney, and I don't think that's the greatest assessment either.
I think you are being a bit harsh on Rohan - he certainly did not have a bad game and I would have had him amongst our better players. He was certainly far from our worst and I would certainly be picking him again next week (if he's available to travel).
I agree that Melican is a definite in and Hayward is probably the one to go out. He makes an effort but he gets pushed around too easily.
In terms of the mids, Parker has been very good this year, even if he was down on Friday night. Hannebery gets one more week from me on his "no pre-season" ticket, but I think that is his last ride on that. The problem for him and Kennedy is do you dare to drop them? They are playing badly enough, but if they can switch it on, then they are among the best in the comp. And if you do drop them, who do you bring in? Can someone like Mills get the job done? I'm not sure.
In the end I think the changes (barring injury) will be:
In: Melican
Out: Hayward
I think a player could 'game' the AFL player rankings by only going into contests he knows he can win.
Fake stats.
Those calling for Hayward to be dropped have short memories. Against West Coast, 2 goals, 21 disposals, 6 cp's, 5 marks and 3 i50. GWS, 2 goals, 18 disposals, 6 cp's, 9 marks and 4 i50. He was universally lauded for those games. Yet after a couple of quieter games he needs to be dropped. Tough selectors.
Bookmarks