Player Watch Charlie Dixon Part 2

[Janus]

Dixon averages 7.4 one-on-one targets per game (including the Fremantle game).

Charlie Dixon

22

Charlie Dixon

Age

33

Ht

200cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.7

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

4.7

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.6

5star

D

10.5

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.5

2star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.5

2star

G

2.5

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.8

4star

had 10 one-on-ones against Fremantle and managed to win 2 of them. That reduced his one-on-one win rate to 35.1%

So this is easy to work out:

5 games at 7.4 per game = 37 contests at 35.1% = 13 contests won. Subtract the 10 contests and the two he won from the Fremantle game and you have 27 contests = 6.75 per game and 11 contests won = 40.7%.

Is targeting a guy who normally wins 4 out of every 10 contests (and most likely halves another 2 or 3 when not playing on a guy called Alex Pearce

25

Alex Pearce

Age

28

Ht

201cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

106.3

2star

No current season stats available

D

11.0

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

MG

103.2

2star

) really such a huge tactical blunder, especially when we do it 1-2 times per quarter? I wouldn't think so.

As for when he's not in a one on one - Dixon averages 2.8 contested marks per game (4th for key forwards). Port as a team averages 10.8 - meaning that Dixon accounts for about a quarter of our contested marks. Finlayson (who wasn't there) takes 1.3 per game (19th for key forwards) and Marshall takes 1 per game (equal 24th for key forwards).

He's doing his job, which is to play as the equivalent of the target man in association football, and will get rested as soon as Lord is available.

Target Man - an attacking player in a central position to whom other players kick long passes: His job as a target man is to hold up the ball long enough to bring his teammates into play.

We don't use him as a leading forward because his ankles are shot. He had surgery on them in 2015 with Gold Coat, then 2016 with Port, before breaking his leg and dislocating his ankle in 2018. 2017 was the last time you saw the best of Charlie Dixon

22

Charlie Dixon

Age

33

Ht

200cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.7

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

4.7

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.6

5star

D

10.5

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.5

2star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.5

2star

G

2.5

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.8

4star

- when he averaged 2.4 marks on a lead per game (5th in the entire competition). To put that into perspective, Hawkins averages around 2.3 marks on a lead every year.

Will we be better with a power forward that can actually lead up to the ball sometimes like Lord? Absolutely. But Lord is still learning the game, so I'm not going to s**t on Dixon for doing what he's being asked to do.

 

[The Hobo]

Delusional is thinking not many defenders beat Dixon.. Bonkers

Charlie may not win many contests, but he rarely gets beaten. More often than not, he neutralises the contest, which is great for our forward half game. As long as the opposition defender isn't outmarking him or playing off him, it's a win for us.

Against the Dockers, he got beaten and Pearce rebounded off him. What other time have you seen Dixon beaten like this?

 

[jakey]

And yet we went 0-5 when he missed the start of 2022.

Dixon is our best key forward. Anyone who believes otherwise is just deluded. Whether he is utilised well is another question but he can't not be in the team, it's an absurd notion.

The lack of Dixon didn't cause our midfield to be a complete fn shambles for 5 rounds.

 

[edgie]

He's still never reached the heights he did at gold coast when he kicked 41 goals in 16 games including a bag of 7. For a team that won 3 of those 16 and was basically not competitive.

At that stage it looked like he could dominate in a good side. Especially if we could get his ankles right.

Cue 8 years of bomb it to Charlie in wrestling match.

Ridiculous he was at one stage even with, if not a better prospect than Tom Lynch.

 

[Chewy316]

I didn't misinterpret anything

I never said solely inside 50 either

Then why conflate all of his targets (many of which were kick outs from defensive 50) with scoring results? It's a distortion of the stats.

 

[jackag24]

Then why conflate all of his targets (many of which were kick outs from defensive 50) with scoring results? It's a distortion of the stats.

I only cited two stats, goals and marks.

Charlie is allowed to take marks all over the ground you know?

 

[johnnysix]

We don't use him as a leading forward because his ankles are shot. He had surgery on them in 2015 with Gold Coat, then 2016 with Port, before breaking his leg and dislocating his ankle in 2018. 2017 was the last time you saw the best of Charlie Dixon - when he averaged 2.4 marks on a lead per game (5th in the entire competition). To put that into perspective, Hawkins averages around 2.3 marks on a lead

The point is, we don't need Dixon to be a lead up forward if the others are getting separation and we actually decide to use them. There's nothing wrong with Dixon doing what he does UNLESS it's the only thing we are doing up forward. If it was working people wouldn't be on here complaining. Also, how do you measure who we are targeting when there's at least 2 of our forwards in an area the size of a phone box?

 

[johnnysix]

Charlie may not win many contests, but he rarely gets beaten. More often than not, he neutralises the contest, which is great for our forward half game. As long as the opposition defender isn't outmarking him or playing off him, it's a win for us.

Against the Dockers, he got beaten and Pearce rebounded off him. What other time have you seen Dixon beaten like this?

So the guy whose job is is to mark and kick goals doesn't get our marked by the guy for whom marking the ball is a secondary consideration behind 'dont let the other guy mark it' AND who isn't the one being targeted by the kick?

 

[The Hobo]

So the guy whose job is is to mark and kick goals doesn't get our marked by the guy for whom marking the ball is a secondary consideration behind 'dont let the other guy mark it' AND who isn't the one being targeted by the kick?

Believe it or not, it happens in our game more often than you think.

My point is that it doesn't happen to Charlie very often.

 

[simba_]

just realised Dixon is our Joe Biden, it's just weird to see someone so past it still out there. but Hinkley is also our Joe Biden. how many do we really have?

 

[Bevoman]

Charlie may not win many contests, but he rarely gets beaten. More often than not, he neutralises the contest, which is great for our forward half game. As long as the opposition defender isn't outmarking him or playing off him, it's a win for us.

Against the Dockers, he got beaten and Pearce rebounded off him. What other time have you seen Dixon beaten like this?

Yes, Charlie was well beaten where he played on their best defender and still bagged a brace in a very low scoring game.
I'll take that any where, any time.

 

[Lefti93]

He's cooked. Standing up and taking a mark in the last few mins to bring us back into it was good. The other three quarters he was comprehensively beaten and our game plan of bombing long to him landed us in that hot mess. It was a completely avoidable situation had we lowered eyes to some leading forwards and used the ball better.

 

[The Hobo]

He's cooked. Standing up and taking a mark in the last few mins to bring us back into it was good. The other three quarters he was comprehensively beaten and our game plan of bombing long to him landed us in that hot mess. It was a completely avoidable situation had we lowered eyes to some leading forwards and used the ball better.

I think people don't understand his role to the team.

It's simple - we are a team that typically dominates stoppages. We have great success at forward stoppages in particular.

Kick high and long to Charlie. Best case, he clunks a mark. Next best case, he brings the ball to ground, where Rioli, SPP or DBJ get a goal. Next best case, the Riolo, SPP or DBJ (or McEntee) create a stoppage and hold the ball in. Worst case is the oppo marks the ball and rebounds, or gets the ball to ground and rebounds. Those two scenarios are not common based on our recent results over the past few years.

We then attempt to score from that stoppage.

It's a simple plan, and plays to our clearance strengths. Whilst it's not your typical plan of kicking to a leading forward, it tends to work - at least in the H&A season.

My criticism is that we need to have a plan B. When Dixon gets beaten repeatedly in a game (as I said, it's very rare he is unable to neutralise a contest) - we need to look at our leading forwards and use Dixon as a decoy.

 

[Lefti93]

I think people don't understand his role to the team.

It's simple - we are a team that typically dominates stoppages. We have great success at forward stoppages in particular.

Kick high and long to Charlie. Best case, he clunks a mark. Next best case, he brings the ball to ground, where Rioli, SPP or DBJ get a goal. Next best case, the Riolo, SPP or DBJ (or McEntee) create a stoppage and hold the ball in. Worst case is the oppo marks the ball and rebounds, or gets the ball to ground and rebounds. Those two scenarios are not common based on our recent results over the past few years.

We then attempt to score from that stoppage.

It's a simple plan, and plays to our clearance strengths. Whilst it's not your typical plan of kicking to a leading forward, it tends to work - at least in the H&A season.

My criticism is that we need to have a plan B. When Dixon gets beaten repeatedly in a game (as I said, it's very rare he is unable to neutralise a contest) - we need to look at our leading forwards and use Dixon as a decoy.

I completely understand it. It sucks, and he's cooked. The arguments against Jordon Sweet coming in are strong on this board and I get it, but if we bomb the ball to him 30 times a game the way we do to Dixon does he do any worse? He also offers more as a ruckman. Whatever the solution, Dixon is physically cooked and the gameplan is dumb.

 

[johnnysix]

My criticism

My criticism is that we need to have a plan B. When Dixon gets beaten repeatedly in a game (as I said, it's very rare he is unable to neutralise a contest) - we need to look at our leading forwards and use Dixon as a decoy.

Surely there needs to be a plan b for during the game AND the whole season?

 

[Schulzenfest]

I completely understand it. It sucks, and he's cooked. The arguments against Jordon Sweet coming in are strong on this board and I get it, but if we bomb the ball to him 30 times a game the way we do to Dixon does he do any worse?

Yes he absolutely does.

We change nothing else on the weekend except playing Sweet instead of Dixon, Sweet doesn't take either of the big contested mark and goals Charlie took, and we lose.

 

[Lefti93]

Yes he absolutely does.

We change nothing else on the weekend except playing Sweet instead of Dixon, Sweet doesn't take either of the big contested mark and goals Charlie took, and we lose.

If we are to manage Dixon as has been mentioned, who do we go with?

Edit: I missed the second part of your response.

 

[Schulzenfest]

If we are to manage Dixon as has been mentioned, who do we go with?

We don't. Dixon stays at least until Finlayson or Lord come back.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

There is no doubt that Dixon has the heart of a warrior but he is in pretty bad form for the year.

He's usually pretty easily beaten this year and Pearce had 5 scoring involvements from full back.

I don't even think his body has the capacity to lead anymore, he usually winces or breaks an ankle from marking contests and only easy set shots are going to be goals.

 

[Alberton Proud]

I think people don't understand his role to the team.

It's simple - we are a team that typically dominates stoppages. We have great success at forward stoppages in particular.

Kick high and long to Charlie. Best case, he clunks a mark. Next best case, he brings the ball to ground, where Rioli, SPP or DBJ get a goal. Next best case, the Riolo, SPP or DBJ (or McEntee) create a stoppage and hold the ball in. Worst case is the oppo marks the ball and rebounds, or gets the ball to ground and rebounds. Those two scenarios are not common based on our recent results over the past few years.

We then attempt to score from that stoppage.

It's a simple plan, and plays to our clearance strengths. Whilst it's not your typical plan of kicking to a leading forward, it tends to work - at least in the H&A season.

My criticism is that we need to have a plan B. When Dixon gets beaten repeatedly in a game (as I said, it's very rare he is unable to neutralise a contest) - we need to look at our leading forwards and use Dixon as a decoy.

What are Todd and Mitch supposed to do while this is all happening ?

 

[Lefti93]

We don't. Dixon stays at least until Finlayson or Lord come back.

I get the history of Jordon's role as a second ruck/forward have been poor at the dogs. Is it not worth giving it a go in a game at home that we should be winning regardless, say against the hawks in a few weeks? Who knows what situation we find ourselves in towards the end of the season with some injuries.

 

[Janus]

The point is, we don't need Dixon to be a lead up forward if the others are getting separation and we actually decide to use them. There's nothing wrong with Dixon doing what he does UNLESS it's the only thing we are doing up forward. If it was working people wouldn't be on here complaining. Also, how do you measure who we are targeting when there's at least 2 of our forwards in an area the size of a phone box?

Who says the others aren't doing different things?

Georgiades averages 2 marks on a lead per game (5th in the competition for key forwards, 6th overall)
Marshall averages 1.8 marks on a lead per game (7th in the competition for key forwards, 11th overall)
Finlayson averages 1 mark on a lead per game (equal 23rd in the competition for key forwards, 34th overall)

Our main issue is that we don't have any medium forwards that are leading up to the ball - Byrne-Jones is equal 20th in the comp for medium forwards averaging 0.6 per game, and he's our best at it. That's one of the main reasons why they want to play Mitch in that high forward role - he gives us that point of difference.

Our forward line setup vs Essendon minus McEntee and adding Powell-Pepper is our best setup for mine.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

Whether it be injuries, age or both, Charlie is on a downward trajectory. He can’t be thrown into the ruck anymore, he’s a non entity once the ball hits the ground, & he’s finding it harder & harder to even reach some marking contests due to his restricted mobility. His weaknesses aren’t as apparent against weaker opposition, but he has become a liability against the better sides of the competition.

We do this every single year, we look at the win/loss column & allow ourselves to get deceived into believing we are better than what we are. Despite the lucky win, the Freo game was another red flag that our current game plan will not hold up in Finals. There’s still time to change, but I won’t hold my breath.

 

[Powerade 08]

What are Todd and Mitch supposed to do while this is all happening ?

Take the 2nd and 4th amount of marks inside 50 out of every player in the competition

 

[The Hobo]

I completely understand it. It sucks, and he's cooked. The arguments against Jordon Sweet coming in are strong on this board and I get it, but if we bomb the ball to him 30 times a game the way we do to Dixon does he do any worse? He also offers more as a ruckman. Whatever the solution, Dixon is physically cooked and the gameplan is dumb.

As I said, Dixon rarely loses the contest. (yes, he lost it many times against Freo)

I haven't seen enough of Sweet to know better, but I doubt he would have the ability to neutralise contests like Charlie does. Infact, very few players do.

You only need to look at our defence and how often our three talls are currently outmarking their opponents.