If you hate Morts...

[guruminga]

Did you like my factoid about Fui and Serena sharing a birthday? 26 September.

But don't tell Eels Dude because he doesn't like stats.

:roll:

G

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Have you ever considered anger management classes

He has a point, why be such a c**k about it?

 

[TheRam]

Great stats post Poupou.

But the half is where all the action is. He is the one that guides the team around. Without a creative half in the team...well, you play like Parra did last year. The only exception to this rule are strong and creative 5/8th's like Marshall or Lockyer.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Great stats post Poupou.

But the half is where all the action is. He is the one that guides the team around. Without a creative half in the team...well, you play like Parra did last year. The only exception to this rule are strong and creative 5/8th's like Marshall or Lockyer.

You're right.

But we've got two choices - buy one or develop one. We tried to buy one so until next year we've got who we've got.

I don't think we'll score many points (again) this year but we could still make the 8. If one of the kids really steps up (including Morts) we could finish in the top 6.

We might also get the spoon but I think our forwards are too good for that.

 

[mrpwnd]

The question is, how long do you persevere with someone? Two... Three years? It's hard to tell how many opportunities you give for that player to perform. And the longer you do it the longer you're hampering the development of the next kid waiting in line for a shot. Tough job being a coach these days. Halfback is the most important position in the side. It's the link between the forwards and the backs. And you can't afford to persevere with a player in that position who just may not have what it takes.

That's a fair enough case there.
Personally, I'm strongly against persevering with underperforming players in the long term. Other clubs have done it with varying degrees of success.
At most I'd like for Kearney to give Morts a go in the 7 for a few games and if the results don't show up then he'd either be our long-term 6 after some performance evaluations or back down in Wenty. Just as you said, the halves aren't really a position we can afford to compromise in the long term.

I really hope our young guns get a good shot at a few games this year, I really wanted to see more of Humble and Mitchell who I feel were illogically left out for the better part of the season and could have 'possible' been vital for our season.

But considering Morts season and a half worth of experience, I'll try not to write the kid off yet, but I think the general consensus here is that 2011 is do or die for him in terms of cementing his position.

 

[lingard]

You persevere as long as you have no viable alternatives.

The coaching staff know who does and who doesn't have what it takes. It's just a matter of, as you say, how long it takes them to realise their potential.

With enough time Morts will be a first grader one day. But if he takes too long to develop we'll rightly replace him and he'll either end up at another club, or get a job and fade into park footy.

1. But honestly, he's got 'what it takes'. It's not a matter of if but when with Morts. Unfortunately the second tier comp isn't strong enough to develop young halves which is why there's so few good ones running around.

And that's why we're stuck with Morts. 2. But if there was someone better you can guarantee Anderson would've tried him out last year. If there's someone better this year I'm certain Kearney will give him a shot.

But really, you're asking the kinds of questions the coaching staff will be able to answer and we can only speculate about. And the halfback isn't the "link between the forwards and the backs". It's not f**king 1972.

There's three 'backs' in the centre of the field and there's two 'forwards' out wide. 'Backs' and 'forwards' is outdated terminology.

3. Even 'halfback' and 'five-eighth' don't really mean anything anymore. They're just halves. One wears 6 and one wears 7 and they play on different sides of the field.

Anyway, Morts could get the arse this year and never play again. Keep your fingers crossed.

1. For a guy that loves stats, you do make a lot of wholly subjective calls.
2. I believe there was someone better last year (Tom Humble) and Anderson did not replace Mortimer with him - which is one of my biggest gripes with Anderson.
3. I disagree. I know it`s not 1972 anymore, but I think there is still room in the game for a specialist five-eight, and I believe some teams still employ a specialist five-eight.

 

[lingard]

That's a fair enough case there.
Personally, I'm strongly against persevering with underperforming players in the long term. Other clubs have done it with varying degrees of success.
At most I'd like for Kearney to give Morts a go in the 7 for a few games and if the results don't show up then he'd either be our long-term 6 after some performance evaluations or back down in Wenty. Just as you said, the halves aren't really a position we can afford to compromise in the long term.

I really hope our young guns get a good shot at a few games this year, I really wanted to see more of Humble and Mitchell who I feel were illogically left out for the better part of the season and could have 'possible' been vital for our season.

But considering Morts season and a half worth of experience, I'll try not to write the kid off yet, but I think the general consensus here is that 2011 is do or die for him in terms of cementing his position.

I agree with you. As nice as it would be to give Daniel Mortimer all the time in the world to mature and develop into a solid NRL player, this is not the 'Daniel Mortimer Half-back School'. This is the Parramatta Rugby League Team, and we need to see some results pretty quickly. People talk about Pearce taking time to develop - and Sandow - but Easts had Anasta to support Pearce and Souths had Sutton as well as Isaac Luke to support Sandow. We don`t. We can`t afford to allow too much time for a half to develop. Especially when we might have better options (ie: Humble; Maguire in the short-term.) Sure, we might be able to buy a very good half next year, but is that any reason to waste this year on trying to develop Mortimer? I`m assuming, of course, that Mortimer will under-perform this year. He might not, though. He might come good. In which case the problem is solved. I wish him all the best (really), but I still think people under-estimate just how bad he was last year. He`s got a hell of a lot of ground to make up. And, in my opinion, he`s got to do it very quickly. I`d give him no more than six games.

 

[lingard]

Interestingly enough, that gets said a lot about Mortimer. In another thread I pointed out his average tackling efficiency rate was 75%ish - for a small bloke who makes 20-odd tackles a game. And he was partnered alongside Mateo last year.

Point is, he's no defensive slouch.

No offense, but 'average tackling efficiency rate'? Is this a joke? Now how on earth would you measure a player`s tackling efficiency rate? Is there a device that does this? No. Just a very subjective call by your man on the sideline "collecting the raw data" that is then compiled as 'stats'. I think this is a definite case of stats telling little white lies. As far as I`m concerned, Mortimer was little more than a speed hump last year. He just slowed opposition players down a bit so the rest of the defense could finish off the tackle. 'Average tackling efficiency rate'! That`s a beauty!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

1. For a guy that loves stats, you do make a lot of wholly subjective calls.

Going on the fact he's already played nearly 40 first grade games before the age of 22.

He's small, he's young, and he showed his talent in NYC. If he never signs another contract again after this one it'll be because he gave up.

And I don't see that happening.

Sure Parra might get sick of waiting for him to develop (as you say, the club's job is to win games first and develop juniors second) and punt him at the end of his contract but more likely he'd sign a reduced contract as a back-up in some club's top 25 and keep working hard.

Look at Robson. He'd played 6 first grade games before 2009.

2. I believe there was someone better last year (Tom Humble) and Anderson did not replace Mortimer with him - which is one of my biggest gripes with Anderson.

Humble might be The One. You could be right. He looks natural on his feet and I believe the foundation of a playmaker is his running game (anyone can learn to kick and pass).

But he did less than Morts this year. In 6 appearances he made 0 linebreaks, 0 linebreak assists and 0 try assists. He did score 2 tries, which is how he made his name in the Queensland Cup, but I think he's a fullback.

I dunno, the guy's definitely got talent. He was pretty good in the Cowboys' '08 NYC team, but he played fullback there as well. He showed some playmaking ability in NYC but last year he showed none.

3. I disagree. I know it`s not 1972 anymore, but I think there is still room in the game for a specialist five-eight, and I believe some teams still employ a specialist five-eight.

Some teams certainly do have a bloke who would consider himself a specialist five-eighth - the Sharks often tried to set up so that Barrett would be second receiver on shift plays but he also played plenty of first receiver.

And Tim Smith played a lot of second receiver. You can't plan where the overlap's going to show itself, which is why teams are moving toward interchangeable halves - all four grand final teams of the past two years played this way, for example.

You limit yourself by trying to set your halves up so that one's always second receiver - the best attacking opportunities come from centrefield play-the-balls which means you need a half on either side to keep the defence honest. In that case your second receiver is usually a wide back-rower or your fullback.

There's just no room for a five-eighth in that 'backline'.

 

[Mr Angry]

Daniel is short and has a small head...................

 

[Maroubra Eel]

I agree with you. As nice as it would be to give Daniel Mortimer all the time in the world to mature and develop into a solid NRL player, this is not the 'Daniel Mortimer Half-back School'. This is the Parramatta Rugby League Team, and we need to see some results pretty quickly. People talk about Pearce taking time to develop - and Sandow - but Easts had Anasta to support Pearce and Souths had Sutton as well as Isaac Luke to support Sandow. We don`t. We can`t afford to allow too much time for a half to develop. Especially when we might have better options (ie: Humble; Maguire in the short-term.) Sure, we might be able to buy a very good half next year, but is that any reason to waste this year on trying to develop Mortimer? I`m assuming, of course, that Mortimer will under-perform this year. He might not, though. He might come good. In which case the problem is solved. I wish him all the best (really), but I still think people under-estimate just how bad he was last year. He`s got a hell of a lot of ground to make up. And, in my opinion, he`s got to do it very quickly. I`d give him no more than six games.

This is exactly what I'm thinking.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No offense, but 'average tackling efficiency rate'? Is this a joke? Now how on earth would you measure a player`s tackling efficiency rate? Is there a device that does this? No. Just a very subjective call by your man on the sideline "collecting the raw data" that is then compiled as 'stats'. I think this is a definite case of stats telling little white lies. As far as I`m concerned, Mortimer was little more than a speed hump last year. He just slowed opposition players down a bit so the rest of the defense could finish off the tackle. 'Average tackling efficiency rate'! That`s a beauty!

Tackles made divided by tackles attempted (tackles + missed tackles) equals tackling efficiency.

Any statistician can tell a completed tackle from a missed tackle. There's also a stat for ineffective tackles, where the attacker got the ball away. Of course this doesn't tell the whole story.

Players who attempt diving cover tackles will miss more than the player who just watches the runner go by him. Some players miss a lot because they move up quickly but they also put on a lot of hits which have a serious disruptive effect on opposition momentum. Some players (like Morts) miss very few tackles but get dragged along by runners, and so aren't very good at defending on their line - most halfbacks fall into this category. Different defensive structures also lead to some teams gang tackling more than others and therefore minimising one-on-one tackles (which lead to more tackles missed). More on that later.

But generally, tackling efficiency is a great stat for seeing how good a defender is.

Have a look at this. Here's the stats for all halves in the NRL in 2010:

Tackles/game (missed tackles)
26.5 (2.8) Robson
24.3 (2.6) Hodkinson
23.2 (4.0) Mortimer
20.6 (2.0) Campese
20.6 (5.0) Kimmorley
20.5 (2.4) Finch
19.8 (3.9) Burns
19.8 (2.1) Keating
19.1 (3.0) Cronk
19.0 (2.5) Rovelli
18.8 (2.4) Sutton
18.1 (3.5) Wallace
17.6 (5.0) Maloney
17.4 (3.8) Pearce
17.3 (2.1) Anasta
16.7 (6.3) Sandow
16.6 (3.0) Carney
16.6 (2.7) Foran
16.1 (4.2) Seymour
15.8 (3.4) Lockyer
15.8 (3.0) Lui
15.3 (3.2) Mullen
14.8 (4.5) Bird
14.5 (1.8) Roberts
13.5 (3.3) Prince
13.5 (3.8) McCrone
12.9 (2.2) Hornby
12.7 (2.7) Barrett
11.9 (3.4) Thurston
11.8 (2.2) Smith
11.0 (3.5) Dureau
10.0 (2.5) Soward
9.7 (2.9) Marshall
9.7 (3.4) Walsh

So Morts had the third highest workrate of all halves in the NRL last year.

Now here's tackling efficiency for all NRL halves in 2010, with tackles/game (from the above table) included for reference:

Tackling efficiency % (Tackles per game)
%
91 (26.5) Robson
91 (20.6) Campese
90 (24.3) Hodkinson
90 (20.5) Finch
90 (19.8) Keating
89 (17.3) Anasta
89 (14.5) Roberts
88 (19.0) Rovelli
88 (18.8) Sutton
87 (19.1) Cronk
86 (16.6) Foran
85 (23.2) Mortimer
85 (16.6) Carney
85 (12.9) Hornby
84 (18.1) Wallace
84 (15.8) Lui
84 (11.8) Smith
83 (19.8) Burns
83 (15.3) Mullen
82 (17.4) Pearce
82 (15.8) Lockyer
82 (12.7) Barrett
80 (20.6) Kimmorley
80 (13.5) Prince
80 (10.0) Soward
79 (16.1) Seymour
78 (17.6) Maloney
78 (13.5) McCrone
78 (11.9) Thurston
77 (14.8) Bird
77 (9.7) Marshall
76 (11.0) Dureau
74 (9.7) Walsh
73 (16.7) Sandow

So as you can see Morts is better than average for missed tackles, and does more work than most other halves. If he could cut down on making so many tackles he'd be both stronger in the tackles he does make, missing even less, as well as having more juice for attack.

For an example of different defensive styles, have a look at how many tackles per game our halves made (with tackling efficiency):

Robson 26.5 (91%)
Mortimer 23.2 (85%)
Keating 19.8 (90%)

Now compare that with the premiers:

Hornby 12.9 (85%)
Soward 10.0 (80%)

The main reason for this is our slow-moving defence. It's a great defensive structure for not conceding linebreaks, since the line is more likely to stay straight as the team moves up together - defenders also make less one-on-one tackles, because they have their mates in line with them, so they miss less tackles (hence our halves having much higher tackle efficiency than the Dragons halves). It's also good for saving energy across the team (because everybody's not rushing up).

But it allows the opposition to move the ball laterally with ease, making it easier for them to target the halves in the first place, as shown by the huge numbers of tackles our little blokes had to make.

I'm hoping Kearney changes the way we defend.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Daniel is short and has a small head...................

Face not head; he's got a small face.

The size of the head is tangential.

 

[parra pete]

Face not head; he's got a small face.

The size of the head is tangential.

Love your work mate. You could be classed as a 'fanatic'.

 

[Mr Angry]

Hey I rate Morts, put him at 7 and give Humble the six, or even better release Tom to us, we love a parra man, considered not good enough for first grade.

Avenger is the only wanker.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Love your work mate. You could be classed as a 'fanatic'.

You want the stats for facial diameters? I've got them here somewhere...

 

[Eelementary]

No offense, but 'average tackling efficiency rate'? Is this a joke? Now how on earth would you measure a player`s tackling efficiency rate? Is there a device that does this? No. Just a very subjective call by your man on the sideline "collecting the raw data" that is then compiled as 'stats'. I think this is a definite case of stats telling little white lies. As far as I`m concerned, Mortimer was little more than a speed hump last year. He just slowed opposition players down a bit so the rest of the defense could finish off the tackle. 'Average tackling efficiency rate'! That`s a beauty!

It's not hard to understand, but I'll break it down into steps for you:

1. Take the total number of tackles completed

2. Divide it by the total number of tackles (including misses)

3. You know have a percentage of a completion rate of tackles.

Mortimer was averaging 20 tackles a game in 2010 and completing 75% of those. Defending next to Mateo.

Speed hump? That's a beauty!

 

[caylo]

Robson 26.5 (91%)
Mortimer 23.2 (85%)
Keating 19.8 (90%)

This to me is the most important stat, Mortimer is by far a worse defender then keating and Robson and those two arnt world beaters in D.

Last year Mortimer attacking football and kicking game were horrible, some of the worst football I can remember from one of ours halves (Thorman, Witt, Finch and Morris were better then him). I actually think Robson was the best of any of our halves last year, his atleast had an idea of what he was trying to achieve while Mortz look lost and Keating was all glory and no brains. Mortz defence was also sub par, he didnt do anything to justify keeping him in the NRL and that is the reason I was of the opinion that he should have started in Wenty.

If Mortz plays as bad as he did next year then I think he needs to be dropped for his and the team sake. This team isn't about developing Mortimer it is about winning games and if there are better players then they need to be chosen.

 

[Eelementary]

This to me is the most important stat, Mortimer is by far a worse defender then keating and Robson and those two arnt world beaters in D.

Last year Mortimer attacking football and kicking game were horrible, some of the worst football I can remember from one of ours halves (Thorman, Witt, Finch and Morris were better then him). I actually think Robson was the best of any of our halves last year, his atleast had an idea of what he was trying to achieve while Mortz look lost and Keating was all glory and no brains. Mortz defence was also sub par, he didnt do anything to justify keeping him in the NRL and that is the reason I was of the opinion that he should have started in Wenty.

If Mortz plays as bad as he did next year then I think he needs to be dropped for his and the team sake. This team isn't about developing Mortimer it is about winning games and if there are better players then they need to be chosen.

By far? He makes more tackles than Keating and is only 5% worse off. As for Robson, he's generally considered one of the NRL's top defensive halfbacks.

Again - he makes more than 20 tackles a game, completes 85% of them, weighs 70kg wet, defends next to Mateo...And he's sub par defensively?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

This to me is the most important stat, Mortimer is by far a worse defender then keating and Robson and those two arnt world beaters in D.

Actually they are. They're two of the best defensive halves in the game.

I'd say Robson is probably the best in the game.

Last year Mortimer attacking football and kicking game were horrible, some of the worst football I can remember from one of ours halves (Thorman, Witt, Finch and Morris were better then him). I actually think Robson was the best of any of our halves last year, his atleast had an idea of what he was trying to achieve while Mortz look lost and Keating was all glory and no brains.

Morts was the only one consistently looking to draw and pass. He was the only one trying to set up the unders line. That's not easy when you've got opposition back-rowers up in your face all game.

Robson would just tuck the ball under his arm and hit the line - it's easy to look decisive when all you're doing is dummy-and-go.

And Keating, as you say, was only interested in trying to beat his man on the outside. That's fine for a winger, and can look impressive for those players quick enough to pull it off, but it's not what you want from a playmaker every time he runs the ball.

Mortz defence was also sub par

What do you mean by par? He was better than the majority of NRL halves, and did more work than nearly all of them.

he didnt do anything to justify keeping him in the NRL

He was better than the alternatives. That alone is enough to keep a player in first grade.

If Mortz plays as bad as he did next year then I think he needs to be dropped for his and the team sake.

If we have someone better then I agree.

This team isn't about developing Mortimer it is about winning games and if there are better players then they need to be chosen.

That's a big if. I think there's better competition for spots this year, despite Keating being let go. Murray was even better than Morts in NYC but he has no NRL experience and he might not even be with the club. Humble might show Kearney something he didn't show Anderson, and Robson might play like he did in '09 (decent).