Challenge to intelligent football followers

[pitchfork 181]

***First thread, long time 'ologist ***

I was struck when looking at Mike Sheehan's "top 50" by the challenge that preceded it.

"THE TASK: You are charged with listing the best 50 players in the competition, based on what they have done previously and what they might be expected to do this year, on the proviso they are fit and in form."

Unfortunately Mike's method is clearly subjective and comes up with some bizzare results.

MY Challenge: could someone out there please establish some decent statistical analysis tools for the great game. The people who talk about our game base their opinions primarily on what they see and misleading stats such as possessions, tackles, and arbitrary goal scoring numbers. What's happened is there's no real way to argue that player A is better than player B, or Team X is impressive in any particular area. It all just comes down to the most impassioned, loudest person.

PRIME EXAMPLE: Mike rated Fevola 6 last year, this year 30. Forgetting the fact that either no may be too high...Does anyone really think Fev is that much worse than last year?

Statistics need to be compiled for deflections, spoils, turnovers forced, contests involved in etc etc...then some maths wiz needs to find some reliable formulas.

I don't think statistics are THE way to analyse football, but another tool in the bag would be mighty helpful. The way we look at the game today is often half-witted and entirely subjective.

[Milesh 26]

It is possible Mike believed Fevola's rating would decline considerably with his new team and the make-up of their forward line.

[Chook 15,013]

It is possible Mike believed Fevola's rating would decline considerably with his new team and the make-up of their forward line.

It would be interesting then to see how he rated Eddie Betts, who's value would obviously have increased with Fev's departure.

But re the OP, not even people who are payed to do so can come up with good football analysis. How can you expect any of us to? I would say though that if you listed all the people who were directly involved in goal-scoring and goal-preventing passages of play, and added up who had the highest goal-scoring/preventing to goal-costing/missing ratios, then you would find what I would consider the best player in the AFL. How one could go about doing that would be, I guess to watch every second of every game and decide what constituted "involvement" in the above criteria.

[DeeSpencer 25,710]

Whatever system they use in Supercoach seems to get the best players with the best rankings. It does have a midfield bias (in terms of level of the scores) and the big exception is probably full backs as they are a unique breed. However if you look through it the best forwards score the most points and the class midfielders score the most points (led by G. Ablett). Here is players ranked by average score last year:

Best Mids - Ablett, Montagna, Swan, Hayes, Dal Santo, Goddard, Chapman, Goodes, Pendlebury, Davis, Sewell, Selwood, Bartel, Mitchell, Corey, Didak, Boyd, Priddis, Cross, Bolton, Watson, Pavlich, Kirk

Best key forwards – Riewoldt, Brown, Fevola, Petrie, Franklin, Roughead, Tippett

Best Rucks – Cox, Sandilands, Clark, Jolly, Fraser, McIntosh, Petrie, Ottens, Ryder, Jamar, Tippett

So I think Priddis and Davis get a bit over ranked due to racking up cheapies, Petrie is hard to judge as he plays games in both positions and Josh Fraser has done a 'Jeff White' crash course in cheap touches to get that high. But all in all if I was picking players in certain positions to sign for a once off game in round 22 last year (without tanking!) I'd pick in pretty much that order.

[e25 5]

It is possible Mike believed Fevola's rating would decline considerably with his new team and the make-up of their forward line.

Or that other players have simply improved and overtaken him.

[Whispering_Jack 30,136]

I don't think statistics are THE way to analyse football, but another tool in the bag would be mighty helpful. The way we look at the game today is often half-witted and entirely subjective.

Welcome pitchfork. It's an interesting subject and I can say from experience that it's not easy compiling lists like Mike's.

I've tried my hand at it in the past and I'm convinced that the only way they can be put together is by subjective choice. There is no other way when you're dealing with a competition that incorporates more than 700 players of different shapes and sizes who perform different roles at clubs. Statistics might assist in comparing one apple with another but how do you use stats to compare a medium sized midfielder with a 200cm plus ruckman. You ultimately have to go with your own instincts and feeling about a player's attributes i.e. make a subjective choice.

Looking at Sheahan's list this year, I think it's not hard to find agreement with his top 8 - 12 but after that you're always going to have massive disagreements between observers of the game.

On Fev's fall from grace in Mike's eyes over the summer it's understandable. His end of 2009 list was based on an assessment looking back on a year where he was injury free and the top banana in a forward line where he played in front of a classy midfield where he was the #1, 2 and 3 target week in week out. 

The new list out this week looks forward and Fev is now a year older and taking on a different role in a team whose attack is structured differently. He's still going to get good service from a handy midfield but he won't be the # 1 target. He's going to be playing his home games on a different ground which is subject to the elements much more than Etihad and we still don't know what might happen if he succumbs to his well documented weaknesses (a factor compounded by the AFL having him in the gun if he steps out of line). 

There's plenty of justification to judge him harshly at the start of a new season. I personally doubt that he's going to have the same influence that he had at Carlton but then again, that's my subjective opinion.