Agreed. Albert Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible .... but not simpler"

There is a lot of 'simpler' happening here.

Yes there is. Massively, massively yes.

You can post your opinions. But your opinions are available for all to see, and comment on. If your opinions are stupid then people will call your opinions stupid. If you don't want your opinions criticised, start a blog and disable the comments.

Advice noted.

Just as your opinion is too.

If it's too hard to just say you don't agree with my stupid opinion without being a bunch of drama queens about it with claims of the human race being doomed and so on then maybe just find another topic to demonstrate your try-hard philosophical mumbo jumbo.

You can be as personal and insulting as you like with your criticisms but by doing so it just shows that you are nothing but a forum bully with a distinct stench of elitist self importance.

It's not that hard to simply disagree, provide some sort of rebuttal and move on.

Or is it?

I come on to this board fully accepting that my comments are for the consumption of everyone and, in turn, they can comment on what I say. In fact that is why I make them. I look forward to people disagreeing with me as much as agreeing with me. If everyone agreed with me then I'd get bored.

Also, I don't see how I was being insulting. I said that you were making things simpler than they should be. I deliberately didn't insult you because timD had already done so.

If you want more detail, I can give it. I will address the point specifically without making it personal. You can choose whether or not you take it personally.

I believe that your problem is that you don't understand the statistics or the concept that the statistics are being used in. You complain about the 20m sprint scores at draft camp and then make the erroneous judgement that players are drafted based on their performance in this test rather than as one piece of the puzzle, in conjunction with football ability and psychological testing. It's your misunderstanding of the use of data that leaves you confused and therefore wanting to condemn this incomprehensible data as simple 'overcomplication'. There are basic athletic standards that players need to be able to reach in order to function at AFL level. Generally speed is one. Slow footballers (aside from specific roles) are very rarely successful. But recruiters already know most of these things prior to draft camp, and often mention that draft camp is simply confirmation. They also often mention that the most important part of draft camp is the interviewing.

Did you see Jack Watts play under 18s? Are you saying that we just picked him because he ran a fast 20m sprint time? That is, as Einstein said, simpler than it should be.

I think this also applies to your understanding of the modern game. Because it is now more complicated (due to the full time nature and increased coaching emphasis), you struggle to see that the game has changed since the time (or standard) where you are most familiar with it. Teams of the 90s would be smashed today. Even teams of the early 2000s would be beaten easily. Why? Because the increased scrutiny has resulted in different tactics, which then need to be overcome. Plus the players are faster, fitter and more professional, which allows them to cover more territory and implement more complicated tactics. That's the modern game.

Your biggest gripe is not that the game is too complicated to work, it's that it's now too complicated for you to understand. Statistics are useful, if combined with the knowledge of what the statistics mean in a game sense. They help to confirm, or deny, key observations made or to alert you to something that you should be looking out for.

timD's point is that you have two ways to approach this problem of a lack of understanding. You can either:

a- take the time and effort to learn about the new situation and change, or

b- not change and then blame everybody else for your problems, leading to unnecessary hatred in the world.

timD is bemoaning that more people are now taking the second option which is the easy, yet destructive, way. This can be seen in the number of shock jocks/columnists that pander to these types.

AoB, I took your reference to my 'stupid' comment as disrespect. If that is not the case, I apologise for my misinterpretation.

As for my 'simplistic' ideas:

1. Has any recruiter ever changed their mind about a draftee based on their 30m sprint time? I doubt it. I can't foresee a recruiter watching a player on the footy field break clearances and accelerate away from opponents to then decide they aren't quick based on the testing and thus lose interest. Or vice versa. If that is in fact the case, why bother testing it?

2. I'm not saying all stats are useless but I would hope coaches are able to see who or what is lacking in performance without them. Let's face it, a lot of people on here are pretty astute at picking deficiencies without access to any of the data to go by. That's all I was suggesting.

3. It's not a lack if understanding, I just think there's a bit of saturation with numbers as opposed to observations.

AoB, I took your reference to my 'stupid' comment as disrespect. If that is not the case, I apologise for my misinterpretation.

As for my 'simplistic' ideas:

1. Has any recruiter ever changed their mind about a draftee based on their 30m sprint time? I doubt it. I can't foresee a recruiter watching a player on the footy field break clearances and accelerate away from opponents to then decide they aren't quick based on the testing and thus lose interest. Or vice versa. If that is in fact the case, why bother testing it?

2. I'm not saying all stats are useless but I would hope coaches are able to see who or what is lacking in performance without them. Let's face it, a lot of people on here are pretty astute at picking deficiencies without access to any of the data to go by. That's all I was suggesting.

3. It's not a lack if understanding, I just think there's a bit of saturation with numbers as opposed to observations.

I would suggest that coaches are able to see what is lacking in performance and it is further illuminated by statistics.

You may think that there is an oversaturation of statistic but if correct interpretation is given to them all it does is highlight what we are seeing. An example is inside 50's. We can all see we don't get the ball into the forward half enough. Stats will tell you that 30 inside 50's won't get the job done.Or if you have 80 inside 50's and kick 6 goals for the match your eyes will tell you that the forwards have been wasteful or you are bombing the ball into opposition backs. Stats may show the Watts got 20 disposals and nicholson got 30 disposals - but coaches would know what to place more value on and they would be looking at that in conjunction with disposal efficiency. If Nicholson got an 80% disposal efficiency you can bet that the stat for metres gained would be minimal as he would be chipping the ball backwards to very safe options.

I have no problem with statistics at all - coaches and educated watchers look at a stats and use them as a measuring tool against what they are seeing.

Where I have problem is where stats are used without reference to what we are seeing. I have stated the Frawley has taken the most marks for us and is 3rd in the league - what a fantastic achievement...but.. is he having a huge impact on either the scoreboard or the game itself ? I would say he has been handy. What our eyes are telling us is that he is not getting value for the marks he is taking. I will be critical in that he gets a load of marks outside 50 but either he is slow to react or players further forward dont give options - all he does is bomb forward to a pack.

So the same goes for recruiting - all stats do is give meat and measuring tools to what the recruiters are seeing.

Remember the old information continuum

Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom

May help your analysis