Jayden Short | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Jayden Short

spook said:
My position on stats is well established: they're nonsense. You can use stats to argue Tom Mitchell is better than Trent Cotchin, that's how meaningless they are.

Rubbish. It's how you use the stats and combine them that's important. Clubs rely heavily on statistics, it is not nonsense. To use metres gained as an example, yes on its own it's meaningless. As you say you can kick out play on and kick it long down the line straight to an opposition player and get huge 'metres gained' advantages. But in the case of Short he also has very good disposal efficiency. You don't actually need the stats to see that, it is obvious. He is 4th currently for metres gained in the league and he does well in the efficiency stats. He is the chose one for kickouts. Why is that? You can argue that he gains an advantage in that stat because he kicks out but that translates to a true team advantage if that equates many times a game to a ball that ends up 80 or 90 metres away and to our advantage. Do not under-estimate the value of metres gained and a long penetrating kicker particularly in today's game of congesting parts of the ground to build walls. Very important player in our current setup is Short.
 
tigerlove said:
Rubbish. It's how you use the stats and combine them that's important. Clubs rely heavily on statistics, it is not nonsense. To use metres gained as an example, yes on its own it's meaningless. As you say you can kick out play on and kick it long down the line straight to an opposition player and get huge 'metres gained' advantages. But in the case of Short he also has very good disposal efficiency. You don't actually need the stats to see that, it is obvious. He is 4th currently for metres gained in the league and he does well in the efficiency stats. He is the chose one for kickouts. Why is that? You can argue that he gains an advantage in that stat because he kicks out but that translates to a true team advantage if that equates many times a game to a ball that ends up 80 or 90 metres away and to our advantage. Do not under-estimate the value of metres gained and a long penetrating kicker particularly in today's game of congesting parts of the ground to build walls. Very important player in our current setup is Short.

not to dispute your view on Short, but those who kick long have an advantage with disposal efficiency. from memory a kick to a contest over 40mtrs is effective. A kick under 40mtrs to contest is not. as Short kicks long often unless he actually turns the ball over he will be credited with an effective kick.
 
Brodders17 said:
not to dispute your view on Short, but those who kick long have an advantage with disposal efficiency. from memory a kick to a contest over 40mtrs is effective. A kick under 40mtrs to contest is not. as Short kicks long often unless he actually turns the ball over he will be credited with an effective kick.

Fair comment, I wasn't aware of that. Even so comparing Short's disposal efficiency to others in the top 10 for most metres gained compares favourably but then one can argue that others probably get more contested ball. My original point really was that in isolation stats can be quite meaningless but used together can provide very important information.
 
tigerlove said:
Fair comment, I wasn't aware of that. Even so comparing Short's disposal efficiency to others in the top 10 for most metres gained compares favourably but then one can argue that others probably get more contested ball. My original point really was that in isolation stats can be quite meaningless but used together can provide very important information.
 
spook said:
Menadue has played some very good footy off half-back this year. I would suggest he's never been given the chance in the ones because others were already in the role when he was fit and in-form. (And he's 6'2 and skinny, he's still filling out.) Still, if he hadn't had an interrupted pre-season there's a good chance he might have been given first crack at it this year and maybe you'd be talking about how we need to sign him asap (and I'd agree, along with Shai he's the priority re-signing for mine).

Anyway, as I said, we're asking more of Menadue by sticking him in the guts and he's responding beautifully. Six clearances yesterday. Another pre-season, another 5kg, and he will break AFL tackles and weave out of AFL packs the way he did yesterday.
My position on stats is well established: they're nonsense. You can use stats to argue Tom Mitchell is better than Trent Cotchin, that's how meaningless they are.

'Metres gained' is a stat invented by some nerd at Champion Data. It is inherently biased towards those who play with the field in front of them, especially those used as outlets from defence. Mine is just as valid and more representative of what is actually happening onfield. Short gets a long way forward (by instruction, no doubt) and midfielders run back harder than him in transition and cover for him. Another example from the Geelong game: last quarter, Higgins wins a free in the centre. Short runs behind him for the handball and kicks laterally to Ellis, who pops it to Conca, still inside the centre square. Conca wheels and kicks long to the hot-spot, ball is spoiled, turned over and Geelong rebounds. Conca sprints 80-odd metres, gets back to defensive 50 and spoils a Geelong marking attempt out of bounds. Short is still in the centre square. From the resultant throw-in, we get Sheds' line-breaking run and long bomb to George for the mid-air soccer goal. Thanks to Conca's defensive running and gutsy spoil while our half-back-flanker was jogging through the centre of the ground.

This is where we get to 'roles' and playing to individual strengths. Short rarely gets involved in contests, because he ain't much chop at them. He applies little defensive pressure. He doesn't run back hard in defensive transition because he ain't a great runner. But others are, and do, and he's a great kick. So that's his role. Kicking. We're maximising his strengths and covering his weaknesses. That's why we're so good - not why he is.
Dunno what you're talking about here. What generic football speak?
Wilson is a better player than Short. He's bigger, stronger, faster, just as good a kick (if not better), can win his own ball and get it back off the bad guys. He has line-breaking pace, Short doesn't. No one is offering pick 25 for Short. They just aren't.

Murray was a bizarre one. Looked good for a month or two (his stats are better than Short's, for the zero that's worth) but hasn't been seen since Round 9, despite Collingwood's long injury list. Again, he's very quick. And he's 187cm and 86kg; he has a presence. Short is 175cm (on tiptoes, I reckon) and a couple of saunas away from being a jumps jockey. Murray, pick 70 and Sydney's future 3rd rounder were traded for Collingwood's future 2nd - so roughly Murray, pick 50 and pick 70 for pick 35, the way things are looking.
Yep, plenty of guns play at half-back. Deledio and Houli two more. All these players have more strings to their bow than Short. They can win their own ball. Mark. Have genuine pace.
We traded pick 31 (ended up pick 36 after Academy bids were matched) and a future second-rounder we expected to be in the 30s (ended up pick 28 after our disastrous 2016) to get Yarran. Of course we value the role. Yarran was a far superior talent to Short. A fit and firing Yarran in our current side would be lauded as a superstar. If we had a fit and firing Yarran in our current side we would be even more dominant - we would be shredding teams.

I'm not bashing Short, I swear. I'm looking at his strengths and weaknesses objectively and rejecting the notion that he's irreplaceable and we should pay overs to keep him. He's trying to maximise his income, and fair enough. I just don't think he would look as good in any other side and can't see modern-day Richmond being held to ransom.

From what I can see Spook, you don't like using stats unless they suit your purpose.

I don't disagree that some stats become inflated in certain positions, (I've always found metres gained problematic, particularly in the absence of disposal efficiency), but you need to be consistent there.

But you can't say metres gained is meaningless because it's higher for running defenders, than eviscerate Shorty for being a low contested possession player which is clearly biased towards inside mids. Even within that, he has better contested possession averages this year than Ellis, Houli, Menadue, McIntosh, Grimes and Astbury (all of whom play similar roles in terms of either running or defending as Shorty). That's pretty impressive.

You've also called Short the 'worst runner at the club', when he covered the most distance of anyone in the team bar Lambert on Friday. How is that possible? 14.7 kms with a huge amount at high intensity. Now you might pick out an isolated example where a young player under 50 games experience finds himself gassed or out of position, but that is clearly not the norm. There was a great example in the most recent Adelaide game of him sprinting back into our defensive fifty one on one with an Adelaide forward, pushing him over, and running the ball back out again, so his running and one on one work is improving too.

By the way, I think you're underrating Shorty's kicking. 60 metres both feet accurately? You've said others are as good or better (Wilson? Menadue?) . I'm not sure that's true. Don't have the stats to back that up, but his kicking is as good as I've seen. Let alone the fact that he's fast, extremely clean and a very good decision maker.

That's what makes him a little unique and special. Some running backs are good kicks and play a role by carrying and distributing. Some actually create opportunities out of their own hands, vision and precision which results in goals that wouldn't be had otherwise. The difference between a pretty good kick (Houli) and a really good user (Short) is not the involvement in a good piece of play, it's the creation of it. And that is rare and valuable.

But I guess, in the end, I wouldn't be offering overs for him anyway. Because if Cotchy and Jack are on unders, then come on guys. But I would also consider Short rarer, more integral, and a higher priority than players like Shai, Conca, and a few other mid forward types we have cover for.

If you asked me whether I would let someone like Balta go to secure Short.... I would say I'm glad I'm not a list manager.
 
tigerlove said:
Fair comment, I wasn't aware of that. Even so comparing Short's disposal efficiency to others in the top 10 for most metres gained compares favourably but then one can argue that others probably get more contested ball. My original point really was that in isolation stats can be quite meaningless but used together can provide very important information.

Is showing some improvement in contested possessions, he averaged 2.75 a game last year and this season is averaging 5.5.

For mine, with our game style we don't really need or want him to be winning heaps of contested ball, we want him on the outside to set us up just like he does.
 
Some of the best balanced discussion with no personal b s in this thread right now. Good stuff. Really like the in depth analysis of what statistics mean.

I’m not sure if there is a stat beyond effectiveness that talks to the impact of the possession but To my naked eye, for the ones that are effective, I would have him just behind Edwards and Martin for the impact his possessions have. Often the possession is a goal or sets up a goal or turns a tough defensive position into one with offensive opportunities.

Pretty much something I’ve always lamented in the past that we kick it to the defenders advantage, he does not do, and puts his kicks to put our players to advantage when it is a contest. His work below his knees at pace can also at times be sublime.

Short high on my list of those we can least afford to lose and need to pay him close to market.
 
RoarEmotion said:
Short high on my list of those we can least afford to lose and need to pay him close to market.

Agree, he was a Rookie for two years getting paid unders. As a show of faith should he be offered a contract offering him slight offers?
 
RoarEmotion said:
Pretty much something I’ve always lamented in the past that we kick it to the defenders advantage, he does not do, and puts his kicks to put our players to advantage when it is a contest. His work below his knees at pace can also at times be sublime.

YES! This is a huge asset. If you're going to kick to a contest try at least give your team mate the advantage. The better disposers will often be able to pinpoint their kick to a contested situation more consistently.
 
Posters who know me and the discussions we have had on Shorty ( robust / respectful ) hopefully realise we may have to pay slightly overs ( market value ) for a previous rookie listed player deserving of extra $.

Short isn't a player I would be wanting to lose.
Makes our back 6/7 so much better!

Really happy for him. Would have been heartbreaking for him losing his spot last year after playing what 17 games.

Keep going kid.
 
spook said:
Wilson is a better player than Short. He's bigger, stronger, faster, just as good a kick (if not better), can win his own ball and get it back off the bad guys. He has line-breaking pace, Short doesn't. No one is offering pick 25 for Short. They just aren't.

Murray was a bizarre one. Looked good for a month or two (his stats are better than Short's, for the zero that's worth) but hasn't been seen since Round 9, despite Collingwood's long injury list. Again, he's very quick. And he's 187cm and 86kg; he has a presence. Short is 175cm (on tiptoes, I reckon) and a couple of saunas away from being a jumps jockey. Murray, pick 70 and Sydney's future 3rd rounder were traded for Collingwood's future 2nd - so roughly Murray, pick 50 and pick 70 for pick 35, the way things are looking.
Yep, plenty of guns play at half-back. Deledio and Houli two more. All these players have more strings to their bow than Short. They can win their own ball. Mark. Have genuine pace.
We traded pick 31 (ended up pick 36 after Academy bids were matched) and a future second-rounder we expected to be in the 30s (ended up pick 28 after our disastrous 2016) to get Yarran. Of course we value the role. Yarran was a far superior talent to Short. A fit and firing Yarran in our current side would be lauded as a superstar. If we had a fit and firing Yarran in our current side we would be even more dominant - we would be shredding teams.

Interesting comparison to Wilson. Funny that you say he is bigger, stronger, wins the ball back from the bad guys, but averages less contested possessions (which you seem to rate very highly), less tackles, less bounces, less score involvements than Shorty. The only stats he's better than Short at (bar the ones that are borderline between the 2) are TOG % (which being as Shorty gets more possessions suggest we are getting bang for our buck when he's on the park, 1%'s and marks per game. I'd say we are getting more out of Shorty than Freo are out of Wilson.

Even allowing for playing for a weaker team, I looked at Wilsons stats from last season and the same trend exists. Overall Wilson has played twice the number of games of Shorty so I know which I'd prefer.

In terms of Murray, he got slightly more disposals. Pretty similar in CP's, but where Shorty is better is a far better disposal efficiency, significantly lower clangers, higher rebound 50's, higher score involvements and much higher metres gained.

Also in terms of Yarran, at the same age Shorty is far far ahead of where Yarran was.

I think you massively under rate both the role that he plays in our gameplan and also how he performs that role.
 
As fine as he is playing now i tend to agree with Spook/Tigersnake that Jayden is being a little overrated on these boards

I think it's a little simpler than analysing his stats, which his are no doubt impressive.

We won a GF without Short and his accurate kick/hard running.

Therefore I don't see him as an integral part of our back-line and could be substituted reasonably easily.

By all means, lets sign him up and pay him what he is worth. Not sure what is reasonable in terms of $$ but he should be in the middle tier of player payments
 
BT Tiger said:
As fine as he is playing now i tend to agree with Spook/Tigersnake that Jayden is being a little overrated on these boards

I think it's a little simpler than analysing his stats, which his are no doubt impressive.

We won a GF without Short and his accurate kick/hard running.

Therefore I don't see him as an integral part of our back-line and could be substituted reasonably easily.

By all means, lets sign him up and pay him what he is worth. Not sure what is reasonable in terms of $$ but he should be in the middle tier of player payments

Understand what you are saying, but the way our team is playing is a bit different this year to last. Like it or not, we had massive reliance on Dusty last year, Short is one of a group that have really stepped up in Dusty's weaker performances and having that line breaking back, provides us with alternatives way to score and break out of our backline.

As you say he should be paid his worth but to me, he seems like he will be in that top end of half backs if he isn't there already.
 
BT Tiger said:
As fine as he is playing now i tend to agree with Spook/Tigersnake that Jayden is being a little overrated on these boards

I think it's a little simpler than analysing his stats, which his are no doubt impressive.

We won a GF without Short and his accurate kick/hard running.

Therefore I don't see him as an integral part of our back-line and could be substituted reasonably easily.

By all means, lets sign him up and pay him what he is worth. Not sure what is reasonable in terms of $$ but he should be in the middle tier of player payments

we need different avenues to goal this year. shorty provides a more classic approach than the default "blast chaos" we use as plan A.
 
Baron Samedi said:
we need different avenues to goal this year. shorty provides a more classic approach than the default "blast chaos" we use as plan A.

Yep, its working a treat in 2018 but would we really be in such a different position (form and ladder wise) if someone else was playing the loose half back role? I don't think it would make all that much difference. Hence I wouldn't be too worried if someone else wanted to pay him the big bucks and we were squeezed out.

mrposhman said:
Understand what you are saying, but the way our team is playing is a bit different this year to last. Like it or not, we had massive reliance on Dusty last year, Short is one of a group that have really stepped up in Dusty's weaker performances and having that line breaking back, provides us with alternatives way to score and break out of our backline.

As you say he should be paid his worth but to me, he seems like he will be in that top end of half backs if he isn't there already.

He has definitely stepped up, possibly as motivation after being overlooked in the GF last year

Good for him and the Tigers both as he is playing exceptionally well. I still stand by my point though that there are others that could do the same role.

But it is a nice change to be able to debate whether we can fit all of our talented players in the cap!
 
BT Tiger said:
As fine as he is playing now i tend to agree with Spook/Tigersnake that Jayden is being a little overrated on these boards

I think it's a little simpler than analysing his stats, which his are no doubt impressive.

We won a GF without Short and his accurate kick/hard running.

Therefore I don't see him as an integral part of our back-line and could be substituted reasonably easily.

By all means, lets sign him up and pay him what he is worth. Not sure what is reasonable in terms of $$ but he should be in the middle tier of player payments

He's made us a better side which, along with other player improvements, is why we sit on top of the ladder with a far superior percentage to anyone else despite having a hard draw this year, far harder than last year. I agree he'd be in the middle tier of player payments. I doubt too many would argue that. I don't agree that his type of role is easily substituted by someone else. He is integral now.
 
Coburgtiger said:
From what I can see Spook, you don't like using stats unless they suit your purpose.

I don't disagree that some stats become inflated in certain positions, (I've always found metres gained problematic, particularly in the absence of disposal efficiency), but you need to be consistent there.

But you can't say metres gained is meaningless because it's higher for running defenders, than eviscerate Shorty for being a low contested possession player which is clearly biased towards inside mids. Even within that, he has better contested possession averages this year than Ellis, Houli, Menadue, McIntosh, Grimes and Astbury (all of whom play similar roles in terms of either running or defending as Shorty). That's pretty impressive.

You've also called Short the 'worst runner at the club', when he covered the most distance of anyone in the team bar Lambert on Friday. How is that possible? 14.7 kms with a huge amount at high intensity. Now you might pick out an isolated example where a young player under 50 games experience finds himself gassed or out of position, but that is clearly not the norm. There was a great example in the most recent Adelaide game of him sprinting back into our defensive fifty one on one with an Adelaide forward, pushing him over, and running the ball back out again, so his running and one on one work is improving too.

By the way, I think you're underrating Shorty's kicking. 60 metres both feet accurately? You've said others are as good or better (Wilson? Menadue?) . I'm not sure that's true. Don't have the stats to back that up, but his kicking is as good as I've seen. Let alone the fact that he's fast, extremely clean and a very good decision maker.

That's what makes him a little unique and special. Some running backs are good kicks and play a role by carrying and distributing. Some actually create opportunities out of their own hands, vision and precision which results in goals that wouldn't be had otherwise. The difference between a pretty good kick (Houli) and a really good user (Short) is not the involvement in a good piece of play, it's the creation of it. And that is rare and valuable.

But I guess, in the end, I wouldn't be offering overs for him anyway. Because if Cotchy and Jack are on unders, then come on guys. But I would also consider Short rarer, more integral, and a higher priority than players like Shai, Conca, and a few other mid forward types we have cover for.

If you asked me whether I would let someone like Balta go to secure Short.... I would say I'm glad I'm not a list manager.

That's me. Well said.

mrposhman said:
Interesting comparison to Wilson. Funny that you say he is bigger, stronger, wins the ball back from the bad guys, but averages less contested possessions (which you seem to rate very highly), less tackles, less bounces, less score involvements than Shorty. The only stats he's better than Short at (bar the ones that are borderline between the 2) are TOG % (which being as Shorty gets more possessions suggest we are getting bang for our buck when he's on the park, 1%'s and marks per game. I'd say we are getting more out of Shorty than Freo are out of Wilson.

Even allowing for playing for a weaker team, I looked at Wilsons stats from last season and the same trend exists. Overall Wilson has played twice the number of games of Shorty so I know which I'd prefer.

In terms of Murray, he got slightly more disposals. Pretty similar in CP's, but where Shorty is better is a far better disposal efficiency, significantly lower clangers, higher rebound 50's, higher score involvements and much higher metres gained.

Also in terms of Yarran, at the same age Shorty is far far ahead of where Yarran was.

I think you massively under rate both the role that he plays in our gameplan and also how he performs that role.

Pick 25 is the price and it's totally fair. He compares to all.

tigerlove said:
He's made us a better side which, along with other player improvements, is why we sit on top of the ladder with a far superior percentage to anyone else despite having a hard draw this year, far harder than last year. I agree he'd be in the middle tier of player payments. I doubt too many would argue that. I don't agree that his type of role is easily substituted by someone else. He is integral now.

Made a flag side better. There's your value.
 
I do like Jayden Short but also believe he is only been as good as he is so far thanks to Rance,Grimes,Vlastuin,Broad,Astbury & Houli doing alot of the hard lifting and giving him the chance to be free and loose to be able to do what he has done

When i hear comments like the player owes the club for selecting them in the draft at picks #1 - #30 i think to myself he doesnt owe them Sh!t as the player was getting selected on his talents by another club anyway.

But when a player gets selected by a club as a Rookie and gets given 3 years of development and gifted games early on and been paid to be in a elite environment when it was extremely unlikely he would have been selected by another club and could have been playing VFL/WAFL/SANFL for 4/5 years and maybe never becoming the player he is now. He Owes the Club

Jayden Short - You Owe Richmond