Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jim Park Analysis 2022
#7
Round 6: Carlton vs Fremantle
What could have been: had Pitto not been injured, it is quite possible that the game could have been different. We were, after all, comfortably in front and not playing that badly. But losing Pitto, for maybe three months, hurt us badly and allowed Freo’s mids to get the better of us.

Trends:
[1] We responded poorly to the loss: only 11 people voted. The only solution to this problem is that we don’t lose anymore. I can hope.

[2] The rating for this game was 7.12, which represents a D. Maybe a little harsh, as Freo look to be a contender, but a loss is a loss is a loss.

[3] 10 players managed a mention this week, with the bulk of the votes coming for only a handful of players. That tends to suggest that too much was left to too few.

[4] The average number of votes per vote getter this week was 23, suggesting that few players got a mention.

[5] Patrick Cripps returned in style with an eye-catching BOG performance. This was his 3rd for the year. He managed a massive 356 votes on a day when the rating was low. That is some sort of performance. Sam Walsh was second for the second week in a row and Adam Cerra returned with 3rd place.

[6] Pitto being injured was a massive out for us. We have lost when he’s been unavailable. Tom de Koning tried hard, and was noticed for his efforts, but he couldn’t stop Freo getting the better of the play. It shows how important the ruck is for our structure.

[7] Three players managed votes from everyone: Cripps, Cerra and Walsh. Two players, Docherty and Hewett, managed to miss by one voter. This, too, suggests too much left to too few.

[8] 4 players managed 100 votes or more, which is usually a great sign. However, this week it shows that not enough was done by the others.

[9] Sam Docherty remains the only person to get votes from every game, although a number of others have votes every time they’ve played. This shows just how significant our injuries continue to be. We have not had a complete list available once this century, as yet. Compare that to teams like Richmond, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Votes:
Cripps, Patrick 356
Walsh, Sam 181
Cerra, Adam 168
Hewett, George 142
Docherty, Sam 87
Young, Lewis 42
Saad, Adam 32
Weitering, Jacob 32
de Koning, Tom 23
Newman, Nicholas 3

Progressive Voting:
1276 - Cripps, Patrick (0)
837 - Hewett, George (0)
810 - Docherty, Sam (0)
614 - Curnow, Charles (0)
567 - Kennedy, Matthew (0)
531 - Walsh, Sam (0)
454 - Cerra, Adam (0)
432 - Saad, Adam (0)
374 - McKay, Harrison (0)
305 - Silvagni, Jack (0)
261 - Weitering, Jacob (0)
231 - William, Zac (0)
216 - Pittonet, Marc (0)
109 - McGovern, Mitchell (0)
85 - Young, Lewis (0)
58 - Durdin, Corey (0)
52 - Fisher, Zac (0)
50 - O'Brien, Lochie (0)
30 - de Koning, Tom (0)
27 - Martin, Jack (0)
16 - Cottrell, Matthew (0)
14 - Newman, Nicholas (0)
13 - Setterfield, Will (0)
7 - Owies, Matthew (0)
6 - Plowman, Lachlan (0)

Live Long and Prosper!
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 03-15-2022, 06:36 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 03-26-2022, 05:33 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-04-2022, 10:24 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-11-2022, 12:34 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-18-2022, 01:32 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 04-24-2022, 03:49 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-05-2022, 10:03 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-12-2022, 10:18 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-30-2022, 03:11 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 05-30-2022, 03:55 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 06-15-2022, 09:45 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-08-2022, 02:01 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-08-2022, 02:48 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-14-2022, 11:28 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-20-2022, 11:04 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 07-24-2022, 10:48 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-04-2022, 07:10 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-12-2022, 10:15 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-18-2022, 11:17 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 08-19-2022, 11:04 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 09-05-2022, 06:42 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by dodge - 09-05-2022, 07:25 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by pinot - 09-05-2022, 08:55 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by percy - 09-05-2022, 09:13 AM
Re: Jim Park Analysis 2022 - by crashlander - 09-05-2022, 10:36 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)