Welcome to Richmond - Jayden Short

[Coburgtiger]

I knew the metres gained stat would get a run. Nothing surer. It needs to be qualified with ball retention.

He's been a great addition to the middle and his kicking to targets has been a feature. Last night was the old launch to no one. Yeh it was wet and you want to minimise the handling but he made some poor decisions when he had time to maked a better one.

To argue the kick to Lynch was good is laughable. He had an early handball option he iognored, he had a guy to his left in 25m of space on his own and then kicked between him and Lynch directly to a carlton player. IIRC they got a goal out of the ensuing play?

And that stupid, predictable sheepdog effort around the back of Lambert did my head in. Lambert had a shot from 40, he is particularly good from there. Short is about 1 from 20 with that trick. He ended up shotting off balance and under pressure from outside 50. Dumb.

I think 4 score involvements from 16 i50's tells you what sort of delivery he provided.

Metres gained is a hugely important stat when it's raining like that. It goes from being a point to note, to a critical measure of success.

There's a reason they call it a Territory game in the wet.

You need to go back and watch that kick to Lynch again. It did not hit a Carlton player. Our forwards got confused, and Lynch pulled up. The ball hits the ground
If he attacks it, it's a chest mark.

And it's very simplistic to say he had handball options. He had two guys running next to him, who were not in better positions, nor better users. You can tell he considered it, but he's the designated kicker.

It was also the right option to take the kick from a hobbled Lambert who would have struggled with the distance. Lambo was looking for him straight away.

No, his night was not perfect. He could have, at times, guided the kick a little more surgically. But he was in full wet weather mode. Which is a big part of the reason that we won.

 

[MD Jazz]

Metres gained is a hugely important stat when it's raining like that. It goes from being a point to note, to a critical measure of success.

There's a reason they call it a Territory game in the wet.

You need to go back and watch that kick to Lynch again. It did not hit a Carlton player. Our forwards got confused, and Lynch pulled up. The ball hits the ground
If he attacks it, it's a chest mark.

And it's very simplistic to say he had handball options. He had two guys running next to him, who were not in better positions, nor better users. You can tell he considered it, but he's the designated kicker.

It was also the right option to take the kick from a hobbled Lambert who would have struggled with the distance. Lambo was looking for him straight away.

No, his night was not perfect. He could have, at times, guided the kick a little more surgically. But he was in full wet weather mode. Which is a big part of the reason that we won.

Now that's a rose coloured look, you come across a bit like carter trying to explain the nuances of football.

Referencing Short gaining nearly a kilometere as some sort of proof of a great game. Not very scientific.

He's having a good year, but he had a poor kicking game last night IMO. There's more sophisticated stats around that have been posted before showing him very low in score involvements and score launches for the amount of possession he had. (much more important measures than purely metres gained)

I think the move to the midfield is inspired, he is much more effective when he kicks shorter and at specific targets. It was maybe craig on this thread that noted it previously. Reckon he is on to something. I think Short can get carried away with launching it 60m to nowehere when in the backline.

And he shouldn't be taking the ball away from guys shooting from 40m out directly in front. Outside 50 I don't mind it.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Now that's a rose coloured look, you come across a bit like carter trying to explain the nuances of football.

Referencing Short gaining nearly a kilometere as some sort of proof of a great game. Not very scientific.

He's having a good year, but he had a poor kicking game last night IMO. There's more sophisticated stats around that have been posted before showing him very low in score involvements and score launches for the amount of possession he had. (much more important measures than purely metres gained)

I think the move to the midfield is inspired, he is much more effective when he kicks shorter and at specific targets. It was maybe craig on this thread that noted it previously. Reckon he is on to something. I think Short can get carried away with launching it 60m to nowehere when in the backline.

And he shouldn't be taking the ball away from guys shooting from 40m out directly in front. Outside 50 I don't mind it.

Agreed it wasn't his most accurate kicking game.

Agreed that him in the midfield is brilliant.

Completely disagree on literally everything else.

But I think we're fundamentally unable to agree if you are suggesting:

"he is much more effective when he kicks shorter and at specific targets."

would have been a good strategy last night.

Shorty was playing to instruction. All the Mids did.

Disposal efficiency for our mids:

Prestia: 67
Graham: 63
Short: 60
Pickett: 60
Nank: 57
Lambert: 57
Edwards: 50
Cotchin: 50

Get it forward was the instruction.

He did that the best.

But the way, this is the exact opposite of trying to explain the nuance of footy. I'm saying to ignore nuance.

 

[Scoop]

When we gave him 5 years, I thought it was excessive for a HBF and a possible bargain for a mid. Thrilled to see it's the latter.

My boy is a star. Midfielder that we didn't have and desperately needed.

David King made a great call last night "Baker, Short and Bolton are Richmond's top line weapons through the midfield, Prestia is the bull".

 

[French Tiger]

Great move to send him in the middle. Has been huge part of our recent form.

 

[Dyer'ere]

At half time Short had 45% disposal efficiency. 11 kicks for eight turnovers and a bungled goal shot. 9 receives. 0 clearances. 2 intercepts. 0 score involvements.

If you kick the ball 41m to three opponents that's an efficient disposal. Hence the 45% mirage.

He was busier after half time. And much better. 14 disposals for 5 turnovers. 4 score involvements. 2 clearances. 7 intercepts. Perfectly respectable numbers.

He was *smile* in the first half and he lifted.

 

[The Big Richo]

At half time Short had 45% disposal efficiency. 11 kicks for eight turnovers and a bungled goal shot. 9 receives. 0 clearances. 2 intercepts. 0 score involvements.

If you kick the ball 41m to three opponents that's an efficient disposal. Hence the 45% mirage.

Just a rider here Dyer'ere, I'm working from memory and for me that is fraught with risk and I stand to be corrected.

However, I don't think that is quite correct. An effective long kick has to travel 40 metres but end in a 50/50 contest or better. A turnover is also misunderstood, I think. For example, I think most people picture a turnover as one side having the ball and then kicking or handballing it to the opposition but it can be much more subtle.

For example, Short can kick the ball from the centre, 45 metres to Lynch who has a marking contest with an opponent and the ball spills out the back where a Carlton play is first to pick it up. That is an effective long kick to Short, but he also collects a turnover as the next disposal after his is Carltons. So in a game where you go long to packs in wet weather, you will have high turnover numbers because the opposition will have numbers back and often win the ball on the ground first, but the kicker isn't really making a mistake either. If you handball to a team mate who drops it and his opponent picks it up the handballer picks up a turnover.

In an instance where Short kicks the ball directly to a Carlton defender over 40 metres plus that is what CD call a clanger, and would also be a turnover but not an effective kick.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Just a rider here Dyer'ere, I'm working from memory and for me that is fraught with risk and I stand to be corrected.

However, I don't think that is quite correct. An effective long kick has to travel 40 metres but end in a 50/50 contest or better. A turnover is also misunderstood, I think. For example, I think most people picture a turnover as one side having the ball and then kicking or handballing it to the opposition but it can be much more subtle.

For example, Short can kick the ball from the centre, 45 metres to Lynch who has a marking contest with an opponent and the ball spills out the back where a Carlton play is first to pick it up. That is an effective long kick to Short, but he also collects a turnover as the next disposal after his is Carltons. So in a game where you go long to packs in wet weather, you will have high turnover numbers because the opposition will have numbers back and often win the ball on the ground first, but the kicker isn't really making a mistake either. If you handball to a team mate who drops it and his opponent picks it up the handballer picks up a turnover.

In an instance where Short kicks the ball directly to a Carlton defender over 40 metres plus that is what CD call a clanger, and would also be a turnover but not an effective kick.

Lies, lies and damned statistics, TBR! My memories are along the lines I mentioned but I have to be frank and admit that I never read disposal efficiency numbers. They're like a humanities number.

(Just checking in the room here... yeah, we think the 41m kick to three opponents is an effective kick. Metres gained rationale.)

On the metres gained theory, it is reasonable. In his hey day Dustin Fletcher could spoil a ball from behind, run onto the crumb 15m away, run 15m with the ball and kick it 60m. If he turned it over his mistake was a long way away. (90m play.)

I will have a closer look at a quarter to measure what was happening. Shorty was coughing it up relentlessly and did improve. If I get a chance I'll do the blow by blow.

 

[Butch67]

2 important intercept marks in the last couple of minutes need to be acknowledged

 

[The_Celebrant]

2 important intercept marks in the last couple of minutes need to be acknowledged

I acknowledge his important intercept marks - past, present and emerging.

 

[MD Jazz]

Agreed it wasn't his most accurate kicking game.

Agreed that him in the midfield is brilliant.

Completely disagree on literally everything else.

But I think we're fundamentally unable to agree if you are suggesting:

"he is much more effective when he kicks shorter and at specific targets."

would have been a good strategy last night.

Shorty was playing to instruction. All the Mids did.

Disposal efficiency for our mids:

Prestia: 67
Graham: 63
Short: 60
Pickett: 60
Nank: 57
Lambert: 57
Edwards: 50
Cotchin: 50

Get it forward was the instruction.

He did that the best.

But the way, this is the exact opposite of trying to explain the nuance of footy. I'm saying to ignore nuance.

Disposal Efficiency in isolation another very unscientific way to analyse disposal.

Players with higher UP numbers (most often defenders) always have better disp eff numbers. Short is a high UP gatherer (understandably) so should almost always have better eff numbers. It does get harder the further you move up the ground of course as you are more often kicking to contests.

Understand taking ground in the wet is important, but some of his blazing away to no one when not under immediate pressure was poor.



Short has been a revelation in the midfield for sure. But Thursday wasn't great IMO.

 

[Brodders17]

Just a rider here Dyer'ere, I'm working from memory and for me that is fraught with risk and I stand to be corrected.

However, I don't think that is quite correct. An effective long kick has to travel 40 metres but end in a 50/50 contest or better. A turnover is also misunderstood, I think. For example, I think most people picture a turnover as one side having the ball and then kicking or handballing it to the opposition but it can be much more subtle.

For example, Short can kick the ball from the centre, 45 metres to Lynch who has a marking contest with an opponent and the ball spills out the back where a Carlton play is first to pick it up. That is an effective long kick to Short, but he also collects a turnover as the next disposal after his is Carltons. So in a game where you go long to packs in wet weather, you will have high turnover numbers because the opposition will have numbers back and often win the ball on the ground first, but the kicker isn't really making a mistake either. If you handball to a team mate who drops it and his opponent picks it up the handballer picks up a turnover.

In an instance where Short kicks the ball directly to a Carlton defender over 40 metres plus that is what CD call a clanger, and would also be a turnover but not an effective kick.

yep- long kick to 50/50 contest is an effective kick. long kick to opposition is not.
short kick to 50/50 contest is not effective.

 

[Brodders17]

there is merit in CT's argument that Short was following instruction to kick long, that is the way we play, and the suits the conditions from Thursday.
the frustration with Short though, is when he chooses to blindly boot the ball long, when he has time to consider other options. he does this too often. similarly when he plays/ed defence he is/was prone to booting blindly high and straight, risking a dangerous turnover, rather than taking a tackle, or kicking toward the boundary.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Short is a quality player. He had an off night big deal he wasn't worse then Edwards

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Agreed it wasn't his most accurate kicking game.

Agreed that him in the midfield is brilliant.

Completely disagree on literally everything else.

But I think we're fundamentally unable to agree if you are suggesting:

"he is much more effective when he kicks shorter and at specific targets."

would have been a good strategy last night.

Shorty was playing to instruction. All the Mids did.

Disposal efficiency for our mids:

Prestia: 67
Graham: 63
Short: 60
Pickett: 60
Nank: 57
Lambert: 57
Edwards: 50
Cotchin: 50

Get it forward was the instruction.

He did that the best.

But the way, this is the exact opposite of trying to explain the nuance of footy. I'm saying to ignore nuance.

Just get it forward is our DNA. It’s won us 3 flags.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Disposal Efficiency in isolation another very unscientific way to analyse disposal.

Players with higher UP numbers (most often defenders) always have better disp eff numbers. Short is a high UP gatherer (understandably) so should almost always have better eff numbers. It does get harder the further you move up the ground of course as you are more often kicking to contests.

Understand taking ground in the wet is important, but some of his blazing away to no one when not under immediate pressure was poor.



Short has been a revelation in the midfield for sure. But Thursday wasn't great IMO.

All stats are unscientific. They're stats. They're statistical. I don't know why you keep using that word.

Do you genuinely think Short played poorly?

I'll be interested to see the coaches votes.

 

[MD Jazz]

All stats are unscientific. They're stats. They're statistical. I don't know why you keep using that word.

Do you genuinely think Short played poorly?

I'll be interested to see the coaches votes.

Yeh, should have said an unsophisticated use of a stat.

Yes I think he kicked poorly. That suggests he was below par IMO. I reckon he gets carried away with kicking the ball long to nowehere at times. And running around the back of guys with set shots and missing. I'd love to see his conversion rate when doing this. It would be poor.

I think the move to the middle has been great. I think he's much better when he's more deliberate with his kicking. Yeh Thurs night wasn't easy or the night for pinpoint passing but I thought he had too many turnovers/poor kicks to disadvantage especially when not under pressure.

 

[The Big Richo]

Had a discussion today about the most elite players in history to not be considered elite by their own supporters.

Short may well top the list.

 

[St Kevin]

Had a discussion today about the most elite players in history to not be considered elite by their own supporters.

Short may well top the list.

I've been admittedly been harsh on him (floated the idea of trading him), but he's been a gun HBF and is now turning into a gun midfielder.

 

[nikolasmia]

Short has won a best and fairest in a flag year

Now he is a revelation as genuine midfielder

Gun.