Draft Game 2016 V2

Archer wrote:
I see what you are saying but i still disagree. We had some fans (only 1 or 2 really) bagging out Sezer all year and using TA's to try and back it up. What they were missing, was the bloke had put Wighton in the gap over and over and Wighton usually used that space to get it into the hands of the winger/centre. Both were important in the try but only Wighton gets the TA (Have a look at how many TA's he got this year), often Sezer was actually more important in the try, but didn't get a TA. We also had plenty of times where he would put in a nice kick close to the line, a centre/winger would leap up right on the line and bat it back/offload to the bloke beside him... guess who gets the TA.

I see we agree on this. But instead of x players who DID get the TA you used a perfect example of a great player that didn't get those accolades.

Based on this view I have decided you are a negative, pessimistic lemon sucking fun sponge! 

I AM! Have you been reading my auto biography "Why I hate everything and you should too"?!

Archer wrote:I have a question for anyone who quoted try assist stats in the writeups... why?

Everyone knows how terrible and subjective that stat is, in some cases its someone doing all the work before giving one last pass to the try scorer and in PLENTY of others its the reverse, where the bloke who really set up the try is either one or two passes (or a kick) before, or the bloke who scores the try does so in an almost solo effort and the guy with the TA did fuck all. You better give me something better than that about your team or I'll assume there is nothing.

Just in reference to this, because it was primarily the focus of my spine. It goes to show you their play making potential. You can say that it is boosted due to the team around them. This may be the case for DCE, but for someone like Hunt who had Milford, Boyd, McCullough in the team. He certainly wasn't needed to be the playmaker and could just rely on controlling the field and his kicking game. Yet he topped the list in his team in that stat, showing how much of a playmaker he is. Yes the TA stat can be subjective, but considering the large portion that they made, it can be the basis to show that they create opportunities.

Regarding Mearcats comment about DCE. You make a good point, he was the primary playmaker and clearly the go to player. I am pretty sure that would put him under more pressure if the ball was being fed to him more. His examples of try-assists are potentially even better because opponents could focus in on him knowing the other options aren't great.

My breakdown of opponents teams are simple. It was what I think would run better throughout an entire season. (Which hurts Welshy a little.) then take into accounts flaws, issues or concerns with teams. Ranking them based of severity. My next post will outline how voting will work.

@SI are you doing an analysis?

Archer wrote:
I see what you are saying but i still disagree. We had some fans (only 1 or 2 really) bagging out Sezer all year and using TA's to try and back it up. What they were missing, was the bloke had put Wighton in the gap over and over and Wighton usually used that space to get it into the hands of the winger/centre. Both were important in the try but only Wighton gets the TA (Have a look at how many TA's he got this year), often Sezer was actually more important in the try, but didn't get a TA. We also had plenty of times where he would put in a nice kick close to the line, a centre/winger would leap up right on the line and bat it back/offload to the bloke beside him... guess who gets the TA.

I understand the data noted TA you are on about mate, real fans know who made what and will be judged as so

what stats can back up are contrary to Bren stating Taumaulolo as being the most damaging ball runner in the NRL, which was, in fact incorrect. Andrew Fifita averaged the most RM of any forward in the NRL this year 170.5m a game to 165m for Lolo along with more TBs 126 to 82 and offloads 70 to 9

So as Mearcats pointed out, you make another prime example of why it is more difficult for those in the middle of the field/halves to get TA's over other positions that simply end the play e.g. CTR's/WRS. Making a more impressive stat for Ben Hunt, Josh Hodgson and Daly Cherry-Evans.

Mearcats wrote:

Even then that's a rather subjective way to view things though isn't it? Take Melb for example. One of the pet plays they developed this year was Smith outta dummy half with Proctor running the close decoy then cutout behind to Cronk for the tryline. When team structures take away from a halves dominance off the back of the ruck that naturally means that their TA's are going to be lower.

Teams with more running halves (think Austin, Hunt etc) are more likely to have TA's.

Not saying I disagree entirely with the stat, just that in a team sport it's almost impossible to actually rule upon. If Munster runs the length of the field on tackle 4 only for Smith to grubber to Vunivalu, who REALLY created the opportunity?

see reply to Archer mate.

TopDog wrote:

Nah nothing like that. Along the lines of...

Thurston = 10 points
Brooks = 1 point

going to have to show scores for every player then to explain reasonings, which could take a while haha

Inb4everyonestartslistingallstats.

Voting:

- Personal Message me with your votes. (You can choose to add analysis to that, or not.)
- Rank your teams from Best to Worst
- Points are awarded to the Top 3 teams (3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd and 1 point for 3rd)
- You do not rank your own team
- After all votes have been tallied, I will release the results. (At which point you can list your voting analysis. If wanted I can release all votes as well.)

(Subject to change if you scrubs whine. Probably Archer when he realises he will walk out with 0 points.)

(Also should it be Top 3 getting points, or Top 4. It would have been Top 4 if we had 8 players.)

Also can I just point out statistics are the least subjective way to get my point across. Other than saying X player is great, he is easily as good as Y player.

I mean I could start listing my players as the "Lite" version of other players on different teams. Even though Mitchell Latrell is in no way comparable to Greg Inglis at this point in their careers.

Welshy wrote:
going to have to show scores for every player then to explain reasonings, which could take a while haha

Not really. Pretty quick actually..

10 points for each player who are the top of their position. 9 points for the next level below and so on. The lowest I have gone is 5 points.

TopDog wrote:

Welshy wrote:
going to have to show scores for every player then to explain reasonings, which could take a while haha

Not really. Pretty quick actually..

10 points for each player who are the top of their position. 9 points for the next level below and so on. The lowest I have gone is 5 points.

Farah is at least a 6.

Random wrote:Voting:

- Personal Message me with your votes. (You can choose to add analysis to that, or not.)
- Rank your teams from Best to Worst
- Points are awarded to the Top 3 teams (3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd and 1 point for 3rd)
- You do not rank your own team
- After all votes have been tallied, I will release the results. (At which point you can list your voting analysis. If wanted I can release all votes as well.)

(Subject to change if you scrubs whine. Probably Archer when he realises he will walk out with 0 points.)

(Also should it be Top 3 getting points, or Top 4. It would have been Top 4 if we had 8 players.)

votes should definitely be released, preferably with reasons for doing so, keeps people honest

everyone thinks they have the best team, so could be a prat and vote for what they perceive to be the worst team (archers) to keep the better teams from higher voting points

TopDog wrote:

Not really. Pretty quick actually..

10 points for each player who are the top of their position. 9 points for the next level below and so on. The lowest I have gone is 5 points.

fair enough mate.

as long as they are listed

Welshy wrote:
votes should definitely be released, preferably with reasons for doing so, keeps people honest

everyone thinks they have the best team, so could be a prat and vote for what they perceive to be the worst team (archers) to keep the better teams from higher voting points

I think for the most part people on here aren't idiots and wouldn't vote for Archer the worst team. I am willing to release the votes, but will let everyone decide whether or not to release their own analysis. After all this is just for fun, and it will be obvious if someone makes bad votes on purpose.

Welshy wrote:
votes should definitely be released, preferably with reasons for doing so, keeps people honest

everyone thinks they have the best team, so could be a prat and vote for what they perceive to be the worst team (archers) to keep the better teams from higher voting points

See... i was going to agree with you, but then you had to let your jealousy ruin this post!

Welshy wrote:
fair enough mate.

as long as they are listed

More then happy to post up squad listing points afterwards. No dramas.

Holy shit I'm coping a pasting in here right now! Feels like a defensive mechanism. Everyone talk down the biggest threat so nobody votes for him quick! Erm uhhh, Archer's team is bad!

Get some of these into you!

Still haven't read all the teams analysis, just getting onto archer now!

@Random, @Mearcats @TopDog well done guys, some great analysis and effort put into everyone so far!! good effort