Sounds obvious but Tackling has to improve big time to make top 8 in 2014

[nrich102]

Aish went to Brisbane at 7.. Let's not forget 3 of the first 7 picks were non Victorian picks. I guess everyone is just bias against SA

Massive steal for us though. Should have gone pick 2.

[TeeJay]

Aish went to Brisbane at 7.. Let's not forget 3 of the first 7 picks were non Victorian picks. I guess everyone is just bias against SA

Massive steal for us though. Should have gone pick 2.

He was never going pick 2..

[tbagrocks]

Aish went to Brisbane at 7.. Let's not forget 3 of the first 7 picks were non Victorian picks. I guess everyone is just bias against SA

Massive steal for us though. Should have gone pick 2.

He was never going pick 2..

What the flower would you know? Better player than Kelly will ever be, another clubs could easily nab Aish at #2, stop talking shower ::)

[Vinny]

Come on T, #1 & #2 were always going to be Boyd and Kelly. :P

At best Aish could have went to the Doggies at 4. 7 isn't even that much of a steal.

[tbagrocks]

Come on T, #1 & #2 were always going to be Boyd and Kelly. :P

At best Aish could have went to the Doggies at 4. 7 isn't even that much of a steal.

Pick #7 this year is one of the great steals, as I said already, nothing Kelly does is better than Aish, James was tagged all carnival also. Won two League Premierships already with the great Norwood where he was the youngest too ever debut for the club

Kelly looked tops at the Carnival but so did Taylor and Dunston, even Sheed went way after him, nothing special about Kelly. GWS just do as they please cos they can, please stop trying to compare Kelly with Aish ::)

History says our best usually slide a little, Wingerd, Trengove, Toumpas, Grundy, Kennedy, Mayes from recent drafts clearly went latter than they should have, this Kelly bias again is proof of this

[Ziplock]

Come on T, #1 & #2 were always going to be Boyd and Kelly. :P

At best Aish could have went to the Doggies at 4. 7 isn't even that much of a steal.

Pick #7 this year is one of the great steals, as I said already, nothing Kelly does is better than Aish, James was tagged all carnival also. Won two League Premierships already with the great Norwood where he was the youngest too ever debut for the club

Kelly looked tops at the Carnival but so did Taylor and Dunston, even Sheed went way after him, nothing special about Kelly. GWS just do as they please cos they can, please stop trying to compare Kelly with Aish ::)

History says our best usually slide a little, Wingerd, Trengove, Toumpas, Grundy, Kennedy, Mayes from recent drafts clearly went latter than they should have, this Kelly bias again is proof of this

Trengove, Toumpas have not been amazing, and we haven't seen enough from Kennedy to judge I mean, first year for Toumpas/ Kennedy, so to be fair, that can be disregarded, but Trenegove hasn't been anywhere near as good as Martin, and has been basically the same as Scully.

Grundy slid because he was a ruckman, not because he was SA.
You have more of an argument for mayes/ wingard.

Frankly, you're the one who's being biased, once again. The best way to look at this, with 0 bias is purely statistical.

So, in the U18s comp, I'll compare their average stats and in brackets put down the winner

Disposals: Aish 15.8, Kelly 27.25 (Kelly)
Disposal efficiency: Aish 87.3, Kelly 67.9 (Aish)
Marks: Aish 7, Kelly 12.5 (Kelly)
Contested Possessions: Aish 3.8, Kelly 9.25 (Kelly)
Free for: Aish 0.8, Kelly 1.25 (Kelly)
Frees against: Aish 0.4, Kelly 0.25 (Kelly)
Clearances: Aish 1.2, Kelly 3.25 (Kelly)
Tackles: Aish 2.6, Kelly 4.25 (Kelly)
Inside 50s: Aish 2.2, Kelly 3 (Kelly)
Rebound 50s: Aish 0.8, Kelly 1.25 (Kelly)
Goals: Aish 0.2, Kelly 0.25 (Kelly)
Behinds: Aish 0.2, Kelly 1 (Well, this is debatable, Kelly clearly had more of a scoreboard impact, while Aish capitalised more on his opportunities).


So out of all those categories, the only one Aish wins is disposal efficiency, which to be fair, is elite while Kelly's is more average. However, Kelly's comparative lower DE is probably largely due to the different natures of their game, in which (looking at these stats), Kelly's more of an inside mid while Aish is more of an outside mid.

So, Aish has better DE, while Kelly has more possessions, marks, contested possessions, clearances and tackles

I mean, it really depends on what you're looking for in a player... I would understand if Aish had gone top 3, or if he had gone before Kelly, but I'm not surprised that GWS took Kelly before Aish, and I don't think it had anything to do with SA bias.

To be fair, there is a chance the melbourne clubs might be a little more biased to victorian players- not necessarily intentionally, or because they believe that they are better, but because they probably have more information and see more of their games 'personally' (using that term loosely) because they're closer physically to where the clubs are based, subsequently have more of an idea of how how good these players actually are.

It's like how adelaide/ port probably draft (not that I've looked into it indepth) more SA than most clubs. It's also to avoid the go home factor in both scenarios.

[tbagrocks]

calling me the bias one again ::)  We knew back when Scully went first that Jack was robbed, Toumpas probably only because of his hips, purely on when they were drafted not after we have the chance to see their development

How does simply stating our players drifted in drafting make me bias anyway?

Stats again are void even though we know you nerdy types love to set your watch to them. Take Burgoyne and see what his stats say, yet he has as much influence on a game as anyone

As I already said, James Aish was tagged all champs, voiding your stats again. Stats smats, how did he play? Take your eyes off the computer for a sec and watch them play! ;) 

[Mr.Craig]

None of us are AFL recruiters and none of us know the process they went through in selecting a particular player. It's a little premature to be suggesting any player was picked too high or low. Lots of players who were highly touted as juniors turned out to be busts while rookie draft selections became champions. For Aish and Kelly the future is not written, we need to wait and see what they become.

[Ziplock]

calling me the bias one again ::)  We knew back when Scully went first that Jack was robbed, Toumpas probably only because of his hips, purely on when they were drafted not after we have the chance to see their development

How does simply stating our players drifted in drafting make me bias anyway?

Stats again are void even though we know you nerdy types love to set your watch to them. Take Burgoyne and see what his stats say, yet he has as much influence on a game as anyone

As I already said, James Aish was tagged all champs, voiding your stats again. Stats smats, how did he play? Take your eyes off the computer for a sec and watch them play! ;) 

Saying how they play is arbitrary, the only way to really break it down objectively is statistically.

Backs are one of the harder to analyse statistical positions in AFL, that's why every major fantasy football game is unfairly weighted to their contributions, so burgoyne is a pretty bad example. Compared midfielders (with the exception of those designated negating/ defensive roles), where you can pretty much identify their strengths/ weaknesses based on stats.

Oh no, Aish got tagged out of the game, by some other kid in U18s who probably wasn't even good enough to get drafted. Sorry, you're right, he must be awesome.

For the record, in SANFL he averaged 17 disposals at 81.6% efficiency as well, so unless he was tagged every game there as well (which would indicate that SANFL is a far showerter league than you would have us believe), shows that he isn't really a big accumulator.

To be fair, I think he slipped a little as well, but I don't think it's because of victorian bias, or at least nothing beyond a go home factor. Tbh, I didn't think he'd slip past collingwood at the least, but fact is that teams were drafting based on what they largely needed- GWS went for Boyd as a tall forward, then Kelly as an inside mid, saints went for Billings as a medium forward, Bulldogs for Bontempelli as a versatile tall, GC for Kolodjashnij as a tall defender and Collingwood with Scharenberg as a tall back/ forward. They're all completely different players to Aish... it's like comparing Cyril Rioli to Dean Cox.


And mate, you're on a fantasy football website, so probably stop calling everyone nerds... what's the saying
'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' ?. You're as much of a nerd as I am, you're just not as good at it.

[tbagrocks]

Wasted my time reading half that crap sheesh :P

James played senior footy, most kids played U18s all year and please don't call the TAC better than the SANFL ::)  Matt Crouch ave 37 disposals in the U18s but wasn't taken high?

I disagree on your rating of players, when we know that stats have little impact on how good or bad they are, do umpires look at stats for giving Brownlow votes? So what is our highest award given by? The judgment of the people umpiring the game, as it should be and as you should be

No I won't stop calling people nerds! who lives in a glass house? Sorry champ but nerd is the last thing I am

[Noz]

Before the season started everyone had Aish to even be the man to knock of Tom Boyd as number 1.

[Ziplock]

Wasted my time reading half that crap sheesh :P

James played senior footy, most kids played U18s all year and please don't call the TAC better than the SANFL ::)  Matt Crouch ave 37 disposals in the U18s but wasn't taken high?

I disagree on your rating of players, when we know that stats have little impact on how good or bad they are, do umpires look at stats for giving Brownlow votes? So what is our highest award given by? The judgment of the people umpiring the game, as it should be and as you should be

No I won't stop calling people nerds! who lives in a glass house? Sorry champ but nerd is the last thing I am

My point on SANFL was that, same as U18s, he isn't a huge possession getter.
Crouch had some issues with his combine testing- how prolific they were we don't know since we don't have access to the full results. What we know is Crouch didn't feature in the top 10 in any category, and neither did Aish for that matter, while Kelly was top 10 for Running vertical jump , repeated sprints, beep test and the 3km time trial.

Stats have little impact on how good players are, but how good players are impact their stats. Firstly, don't bring up the brownlow voting system, its inherently flawed, and completely biased towards midfielders. Secondly, you shouldn't have brought that up since it reinforces Kelly's value over Aish- since umpires ARE swayed by stats, especially the number of possessions you get.

I'm going to put a players ranking in  the brownlow as the first number, then their name, then their rank for average disposals.

1. Ablett (=1)
2. J. Selwood (33)
3. Swan (=1)
4. Dangerfield (47)
5. Hannebery (27)
5. Pendlebury (3)
5. Rockliff (12)
8. Cotchin (21)
8. K Jack (29)
10. Watson (10)
11. D. Martin (36)
11. S. Mitchell (9)
11. Mundy (36)
14. Hodge (73)
14. Sloane (45)

considering that there are 821 afl players and around 400 playing each week, even hodge's rank of 73 is still comparatively pretty high.

And mate, you don't spend 158 days online a fantasy football forum in 18 months and not be a nerd. Just because you're not particularly bright, doesn't mean you're not one of us :) And I'm reallllly hoping that I'm misinterpreting your comment on the glass house and that it isn't that you don't understand a relatively common saying and simple metaphor...

Before the season started everyone had Aish to even be the man to knock of Tom Boyd as number 1.

Before the season started a lot of people were tipping WCE as premiers, so... :/

[CrowsFan]

Zip one thing I've learned is when tbag starts throwing around the word nerd you're never going to get any point across to him. He will just repeatedly call you a nerd and live in his own little bubble ;)

[tbagrocks]

So then it seems like the Umpires view was similar to what we read in the stats column while not checking the stats sheet? Seems like they don't need your stats to make good judgement

as for judging players, it seems you're worse at judging people. Called me a non bright nerd? am neither mate sorry to disappoint you

Just because i'm not a "paper writer" like many of the students on here doesn't make them any brighter than me or anyone  ;)  and you have no idea why some might spend huge amounts of time on a forum, that statistic again doesn't make anyone a nerd

[Ziplock]

So then it seems like the Umpires view was similar to what we read in the stats column while not checking the stats sheet? Seems like they don't need your stats to make good judgement

as for judging players, it seems you're worse at judging people. Called me a non bright nerd? am neither mate sorry to disappoint you

Just because i'm not a "paper writer" like many of the students on here doesn't make them any brighter than me or anyone  ;)  and you have no idea why some might spend huge amounts of time on a forum, that statistic again doesn't make anyone a nerd

You could make the argument that umpires are professionals and able to gauge these stats without looking at the stat sheet, which subconsciously factors into their decisions. That being said, as I stated before, the brownlow voting system is seriously flawed, and practically useless rating anyone who isn't a midfielder, and subsequently, the umpires decisions are flawed in rating anyone who isn't a midfielder.

I'm going to leave the rest of it at that, since this has gone way off topic.