- They lack leadership?
- They got ahead of themselves?
- They haven’t recovered from last year’s finals loss?
- They are mentally soft?
- They lack confidence?
- They are too slow?
- They recycled the wrong players?
- Their game plan is faulty?
- The team is cursed?
Alright, what has really happened? Maybe some of these explanations are true, but the answer is probably not as extreme as the above explanations suggests. Let us have a look at each player’s SuperCoach rating for 2014 compared to 2013.
The interesting column is the last one. With the players ranked from ‘most productive’ to ‘least productive’ (ignoring for now positional differences in SuperCoach ratings), it shows the cumulative difference between the average ratings of the top x ranked players in 2014 compared to 2013. So for example, the top 4 ranked players in 2014 collectively average over 17 less SuperCoach points in 2014 than in 2013.
2013
Games
|
SuperCoach
average
|
Total
SuperCoach points
|
||
1
|
22
|
107.09
|
2356
|
|
2
|
23
|
104.35
|
2400
|
|
3
|
23
|
100.39
|
2309
|
|
4
|
20
|
98.95
|
1979
|
|
5
|
23
|
91.74
|
2110
|
|
6
|
21
|
91.67
|
1925
|
|
7
|
23
|
87.43
|
2011
|
|
8
|
9
|
84.67
|
762
|
|
9
|
22
|
84.00
|
1848
|
|
10
|
23
|
82.52
|
1898
|
|
11
|
21
|
80.52
|
1691
|
|
12
|
21
|
80.38
|
1688
|
|
13
|
12
|
77.92
|
935
|
|
14
|
17
|
76.47
|
1300
|
|
15
|
20
|
76.40
|
1528
|
|
16
|
18
|
75.44
|
1358
|
|
17
|
19
|
74.37
|
1413
|
|
18
|
6
|
73.83
|
443
|
|
19
|
16
|
71.56
|
1145
|
|
20
|
5
|
70.60
|
353
|
|
21
|
11
|
69.00
|
759
|
|
22
|
22
|
67.73
|
1490
|
|
23
|
18
|
67.33
|
1212
|
|
24
|
12
|
62.08
|
745
|
|
25
|
9
|
58.44
|
526
|
|
26
|
16
|
56.12
|
898
|
|
27
|
5
|
53.00
|
265
|
|
28
|
22
|
49.14
|
1081
|
|
29
|
9
|
46.11
|
415
|
|
30
|
6
|
39.33
|
236
|
|
Team
avge
|
1699
|
|||
Best
22
|
1827
|
|||
Ratio
|
0.9299645
|
2014
Games
|
SuperCoach
average
|
Total
SuperCoach points
|
Cumulative
difference
|
||
1
|
8
|
100.88
|
807
|
-6.21
|
|
2
|
11
|
98.73
|
1086
|
-11.83
|
|
3
|
11
|
98.00
|
1078
|
-14.22
|
|
4
|
8
|
95.62
|
765
|
-17.55
|
|
5
|
7
|
94.43
|
661
|
-14.86
|
|
6
|
11
|
88.18
|
970
|
-18.35
|
|
7
|
11
|
87.18
|
959
|
-18.60
|
|
8
|
10
|
86.90
|
869
|
-16.37
|
|
9
|
11
|
85.82
|
944
|
-14.55
|
|
10
|
6
|
83.33
|
500
|
-13.74
|
|
11
|
9
|
81.56
|
734
|
-12.70
|
|
12
|
6
|
81.17
|
487
|
-11.91
|
|
13
|
8
|
75.12
|
601
|
-14.71
|
|
14
|
11
|
75.09
|
826
|
-16.09
|
|
15
|
10
|
74.20
|
742
|
-18.29
|
|
16
|
5
|
71.00
|
355
|
-22.73
|
|
17
|
11
|
70.00
|
770
|
-27.10
|
|
18
|
9
|
69.00
|
621
|
-31.93
|
|
19
|
8
|
68.50
|
548
|
-34.99
|
|
20
|
3
|
68.33
|
205
|
-37.26
|
|
21
|
7
|
63.00
|
441
|
-43.26
|
|
22
|
10
|
61.30
|
613
|
-49.69
|
|
23
|
3
|
56.33
|
169
|
||
24
|
7
|
51.57
|
361
|
||
25
|
6
|
50.67
|
304
|
||
26
|
5
|
46.40
|
232
|
||
27
|
11
|
46.18
|
508
|
||
28
|
4
|
45.75
|
183
|
||
29
|
7
|
44.00
|
722
|
||
Team
avge
|
1642
|
||||
Best
22
|
1777
|
||||
Ratio
|
0.9238237
|
What we can see by this is that the drop off at Richmond has
been at the top end and the bottom end of the list. At the top end, both Trent
Cotchin and Brett Deledio are averaging about 10 less points each in 2014
compared to 2013. It is not completely clear why they have taken a step back –
for Deledio early season injuries may have played a part – but their drop in
form looks to be a significant part of Richmond’s deterioration in 2014.
The middle part of Richmond’s list – which is the part which
seems to be under the most fire – is actually collectively pretty much the same
as in 2013. Brandon Ellis, Reece Conca (despite being dropped recently), and
Jack Riewoldt are performing a bit better in 2014 (with Ellis and Conca being
young this is not that surprising), while Bachar Houli, Alex Rance (who has
been injured), Tyrone Vickery, and Shaun Grigg are performing a bit worse.
Collectively though, it pretty much evens out.
The other drop off then has been among the bottom seven. It
is a little hard to compare because the bottom seven is fairly variable due to
injuries, omissions, and positional differences, but the cumulative column
suggests there has been a fall in performance among this group. In particular,
Chris Newman and Nick Vlastuin have taken a step back. In Newman’s case this
may be because he is relatively old, but Vlastuin is only young, so it is less
obvious what is affecting his form. The retirement of Shane Tuck, the reduced
use of Nathan Foley, and the absence of Jake King also look to have contributed
to the reduced performance from the lesser lights.
Overall then, keeping in mind the caveats around SuperCoach player
rankings, a drop off in form among Richmond’s best two players and also their
bottom players seems to be what is driving the Tigers’ lesser performance in
2014. Given that, it is not clear what the solution should be. In terms of the
lower rung players, maybe it is going to take a while for the Tigers to bring
through more productive players to replace the departed Tuck, and the aging
Newman, Foley, and King. In terms of Cotchin and Deledio, maybe they are out of
form or being more heavily targeted by opposition clubs. In any case, sacking
the coaching staff, gutting the list, and detonating Punt Road may be a little
extreme as a way of fixing what ails the yellow and black in 2014.
Amendment: Readers may wonder, as I did later, why Ivan Maric and Jake King do not appear on the 2014 list. I got the stats from Footywire, and they had limited the view to players with 3 games or more. In any case, it is clear the absence of Maric, who was one of the Tigers' top players in 2013, has also hurt them in 2014,
Amendment: Readers may wonder, as I did later, why Ivan Maric and Jake King do not appear on the 2014 list. I got the stats from Footywire, and they had limited the view to players with 3 games or more. In any case, it is clear the absence of Maric, who was one of the Tigers' top players in 2013, has also hurt them in 2014,
No comments:
Post a Comment