Everything is About Port: Wingard's Trade; and Richmond-Collingwood PF [Offseason/Finals]
---
Moneyballing Wingard
After a season like ours, we have the impression that everyone could (or should!) leave. It is difficult, I know; I am as mad and disappointed as any other supporter. Still, we, Port people, need to cool down a bit. I do think every contract should be on the trading table. That should be the norm, always, regardless of how the season went. It doesn't mean that every contract is actually tradeable, though — some won't receive any fair proposal.
Port is obliged to play Moneyball. Moneyball demands courage; demands making unpopular choices, in order to get advantage over your opponents when the odds seem permanently stuck against you. There is a talk Wingard may be leaving. Trading Chad's contract would be such a move. Although I personally do not rate Polec that much, his exit is in the same category. There are others in similar situation.
On Wingard's rumour, I suggest listening what Tredrea has said about it. His comments on this really make sense. According to him, we may have not a choice. Here is the link: Tredders - MMM Rush Hour with Jars and Louie 14/9/18.
Chad is good and experienced. He is more valuable than a bunch of magic beans. We cannot put all our chips in "potential." We need people who can contribute immediately. Wingard is good enough to allow us exchanging his contract for some experience, along with youth, in return. If we get that, then, I would be fine.[1]
CARN THE POWER!
---
Why has Port's 2017 Gameplan failed?
Collingwood has just crushed Richmond out of the Finals. What that can tell us about Port? See-Saw is an exercise that I like to use to grasp the development of footy matches. It considers scoring streaks, and how they affect the overall score of the game. I use it to write notes on the games. I did it for the Tigers-Magpies PF match.[2]
I have called Richmond and Port "AFL Doppellgängers," because both rely on "applying forward pressure, playing contested footy, and moving the ball fast into attack." It is true that those words may be more fitting to describe the 2017 Port, than the 2018 version — as I have done. However, it shows the issues such a gameplan have, which we were unsuccesfully trying to solve this season.
For instance, Richmond is not a great goal-kicking team. If Richmond cannot suffocate its opponent and be superior in F50 entries and scoring shots, it gets into big trouble. We know that, because we saw that happening time and time again in 2017 with Port. The see-saw helps making this issue clear.
Goal-kicking accuracy isn't that much important, until it is — which is always the case in close games. The game had two big periods of domination: Collingwood's was in most of Q1 and Q2; and Richmond's from the end of Q2 up to the begining of Q4. When they were dominanting, Richmond kicked 7.5:47; while Collingwood, 10.4:64. When they were being dominated, Richmond kicked 1.2:8; while Collingwood, 2.3:15.
After its first goal, the Magpies never looked back. The match became all Collingwood's until the last minutes of Q2. At the apex of the Magpies' dominance, Collingwood outscored Richmond 14-6 (+8), for a 53-point lead — which is good for 8 goals and 5 behinds.
Collingwood's 8 scoring-shot advantage was equivalent to a 13 scoring-shot advantage due the difference in accuracy. Tigers ended the half kicking unanswered 1.3:9, finishing the half with a score of 2.8:20. If you want to lose, kicking 1 goal for every 4 behinds seems to be a pretty good way to go. When Richmond tried to comeback, the Magpies only needed to avoid kicking as bad as the Tigers had done to keep the game under control.
During Q4, when Richmond's dominance was at its maximum, Collingwood had only one scoring shot more than the Tigers (19-18). The Magpies had been outcored 12-5 (+7). However, they were still holding a 21-point lead. Richmond got back 5 goals and 2 behinds with their 7 scores - which is respectable, but not enough to overcome the awful job they had done in the first half.
Richmond needed to have, at least, three more scoring shots than Collingwood to get a chance at winning - the same three scoring shots they had at the beginning but failed. The Tigers never could overcome their early mistakes. Their gameplan failed them with the season on the line.
It was just like watching the 2017 Port Adelaide team... Damn it!
CARN THE POWER!
---
Notes:
[1] On October 16th, Chad Wingard was traded. Port accepted losing Wingard (Hawthorn) and pick 6 (Brisbane); but, in return, the club got Ryan Burton and pick 15 (Hawthorn), and Sam Mayes and pick 5 (Brisbane). It was a fair trade for Port.
[2] Here is the see-saw for the match, followed by some game notes:
Richmond - Collingwood (58 - 97)
0.3 - 0.0 (R +3)
0.3 - 2.1 (C +10)
1.3 - 2.1 (C +4)
1.3 - 5.2 (C +23)
--- QT ---
1.3 - 8.3 (C +42)
1.5 - 8.3 (C +40)
1.5 - 10.4 (C +53)
2.8 - 10.4 (C +44)
--- HT ---
3.8 - 10.4 (C +38)
3.8 - 11.6 (C +46)
4.9 - 11.6 (C +39)
4.9 - 12.6 (C +45)
5.9 - 12.6 (C +39)
5.9 - 12.7 (C +40)
6.10 - 12.7 (C +33)
3.8 - 11.6 (C +46)
4.9 - 11.6 (C +39)
4.9 - 12.6 (C +45)
5.9 - 12.6 (C +39)
5.9 - 12.7 (C +40)
6.10 - 12.7 (C +33)
--- 3QT ---
8.10 - 12.7 (C +21)
8.10 - 15.7 (C +39)
--- FT ---
--- FT ---
Half-Time notes:
Collingwood kicked 6.2:38 - 0.0:0 at a certain point. Between Richmond's two goals, the Magpies kicked 8.3:51 - 0.5:5 (C +46). That's pure dominance, and the free count was 7-2 for Richmond during that streak (7-7 in HT).
It didn't help that during the Tigers scoring streaks, Richmond kicked 0.3:3, 0.2:2, and 1.3:9. The defending champions rely on field superiority, not goal-kicking skills, to win. In the first half, their lack of accuracy has hurt them.
Full-Time notes:
Richmond had finished Q2 in a kind of high note if not for its inaccuracy (1.3 - 0.0), and began Q3 extending its scoring streak with a goal. Collingwood responded right after though, with the consecutive scores - although not with many goals (1.2:8). After that, teams went even for most of Q3 - which was all that Collingwood needed anyway.
Richmond ultimately outscored the Magpies in Q3, but only 6 to 5 (4.2:26 - 2.3:15), reducing the 44-point HT marging by 11. In other words, the Tigers had reduced the difference by 1/4, but using 1/2 of the remaining time. The score may say otherwise, but Collingwood won the quarter.
The Tigers began Q4 as they had finished Q3, scoring the most points (19) in a streak: 1.1, in the end of Q3; 2.0, in the begining of Q4. The difference was down to 21, and most of Q4 was still in play.
Richmond had taken a bit more than 7' to complete their Q3 task, finally cutting the HT deficit in half. The score was back as it was in QT. When Higgins scored, the game had been actually leaning Richmond since the end of Q2: 7.5:47 - 2.3:15 (R +32).
Richmond was coming from a bye, and they might had fresher legs from that point on. Suddenly, a comeback was not that crazy of an idea anymore. The odds were still favoring the Magpies, but the end game could have been close enough for a classic.
But, no. After 3 minutes of no-scoring, Treloar kicked a goal, and the game was over. Collingwood even scored two more goals, while Richmond couldn't get a point of its own.
Full-Time notes:
Richmond had finished Q2 in a kind of high note if not for its inaccuracy (1.3 - 0.0), and began Q3 extending its scoring streak with a goal. Collingwood responded right after though, with the consecutive scores - although not with many goals (1.2:8). After that, teams went even for most of Q3 - which was all that Collingwood needed anyway.
Richmond ultimately outscored the Magpies in Q3, but only 6 to 5 (4.2:26 - 2.3:15), reducing the 44-point HT marging by 11. In other words, the Tigers had reduced the difference by 1/4, but using 1/2 of the remaining time. The score may say otherwise, but Collingwood won the quarter.
The Tigers began Q4 as they had finished Q3, scoring the most points (19) in a streak: 1.1, in the end of Q3; 2.0, in the begining of Q4. The difference was down to 21, and most of Q4 was still in play.
Richmond had taken a bit more than 7' to complete their Q3 task, finally cutting the HT deficit in half. The score was back as it was in QT. When Higgins scored, the game had been actually leaning Richmond since the end of Q2: 7.5:47 - 2.3:15 (R +32).
Richmond was coming from a bye, and they might had fresher legs from that point on. Suddenly, a comeback was not that crazy of an idea anymore. The odds were still favoring the Magpies, but the end game could have been close enough for a classic.
But, no. After 3 minutes of no-scoring, Treloar kicked a goal, and the game was over. Collingwood even scored two more goals, while Richmond couldn't get a point of its own.
Comments
Post a Comment