MFC: no great kicks, no terrible kicks

[Rollo2 64]

Pretty interesting stats piece from the AFL website: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-28/the-inquirer-just-for-kicks

I would have thought for sure we would have someone in the bottom threes. Guess the grass is always greener on the other side!

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

These articles are the biggest waste of time.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I also would have thought we'd have some butchers.

I'm actually pretty encouraged by this.

[Demon_JB 1,376]

We may not have the players who average the most butchered kicks in the league.. But I'd be pretty sure we would have a few players listed if the stats showed the # average of butchered kicks that resulted in a direct scoring shot.

[Ted Lasso 19,311]

Hooray for mediocrity

[Watts Jurrah Dunn? 735]

Garry Lyon said on Triple M recently he rates the Melbourne side as having 3 really good kicks by AFL standards.

Salem and Kent weren't in the side at the time so he named Watts, Vince and N Jones.

Spot on I thought.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Watts Jurrah Dunn?

[sue 9,096]

We may not have the players who average the most butchered kicks in the league.. But I'd be pretty sure we would have a few players listed if the stats showed the # average of butchered kicks that resulted in a direct scoring shot.

That reaction sounds like a case of MFCSS - a search for a negative twist on a vaguely positive stat (however meaningless). If we did score high on your 'resulted in a direct scoring shot' stat, most likely it would be because the ball is so rarely in our forward line so our defenders are swimming against the tide for most of the 120 minutes giving them more opportunities to butcher it. Would probably be the case even if they were the best defence in the league.

[stuie 7,374]

Yeah but what's our ratio of handballs to kicks? That would be doing us some favours.

Edit - We're last in the league for kicks per game. Wouldn't even bother with this article.

Edited August 28, 2015 by stuie

[Adam The God 30,129]

Garry Lyon said on Triple M recently he rates the Melbourne side as having 3 really good kicks by AFL standards.

Salem and Kent weren't in the side at the time so he named Watts, Vince and N Jones.

Spot on I thought.

Kent isn't a good kick. I've heard this so many times before on Demonland, but half the time he kicks floaters. Occasionally, he can kick beautifully long, but he struggles to do it consistently.

[rjay 24,887]

Kent isn't a good kick. I've heard this so many times before on Demonland, but half the time he kicks floaters. Occasionally, he can kick beautifully long, but he struggles to do it consistently.

Agee, he misses too many easy shots on goal and wastes the ball. There is nothing wrong with the mechanics of his kicking though and he is a long kick.

I would expect him to get a lot better and more consistent with experience.

[Damo 3,344]

Watts may be a great kick in general play but he is a bad set shot.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

These articles are the biggest waste of time.

Agreed. There are so many variables that aren't included in a pure statistical measure. For example, what if one team is playing a low risk game plan while the other a high risk strategy? The low risk plan might mean kicks are more accurate while the high risk strategy may result in more misses. Yet the high risk strategy may pay off more often than not.

Secondly, if there is ever a discussion on the quality of any player's kicking there are four types of kicks that should all be assessed before coming to a conclusion, being right foot/standing start; right foot/on the run; left foot/standing start; left foot/on the run. You could also include other variables such as short, medium and long distance; under pressure/not under pressure, etc.

But as a bare minimum, any player who cannot kick at least half decently on the non-preferred side is not, in my books, "a good kick" irrespective of how well they can kick on their preferred foot.

[Gorgoroth 12,924]

Most of our players don't get the ball enough to rank as poorly as they should.

[Dr. Mubutu 831]

Watts may be a great kick in general play but he is a bad set shot.

AFAIK, a kick for a behind is still an effective disposal.

So is a kick >40m? to a contest.

An effective disposal is not always what it seems.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Dr. Mubutu 831]

These articles are the biggest waste of time.

Come on now, they give people that know nothing about footy (or statistics) a chance to look like they know something!

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Let me guess, a kick to a contest is an 'effective disposal'? And we are the team who kicks down the line to contests more than any other, which is why we have a reliance on contested marks.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Let me guess, a kick to a contest is an 'effective disposal'? And we are the team who kicks down the line to contests more than any other, which is why we have a reliance on contested marks.

And is why, (correct me if I'm wrong) we are in the top three or so teams with the highest contested mark tally this season. Could even be first.

Cool stat.

Yay.

[Bang Bang Bang 5,802]

Watts may be a great kick in general play but he is a bad set shot.

Can't agree with that. Watts has a good technique and doesn't miss too many.

Agree with the gist of this thread, particularly Garry Lyon's comments. Melbourne don't have enough skilled distributors. Jones and Salem are excellent kicks, Watts and Vince are very good and Hogan's field kicking is impressive for a big guy. Brayshaw has depth of both feet and makes good decisions but is still a baby (and I still wouldn't call his kicking 'great'). Dunn and Lumumba are long kicks but not particularly accurate ones. The rest are all average or below average. It especially kills us having the likes of Howe, Garland, Cross, Grimes etc butchering the ball coming out of defence and Dawes/Garlett who often make clanger kicks forward of centre.

[praha 11,236]

Garry Lyon said on Triple M recently he rates the Melbourne side as having 3 really good kicks by AFL standards.

Salem and Kent weren't in the side at the time so he named Watts, Vince and N Jones.

Spot on I thought.

Jones isn't a "really good" kick. He has a penetrating kick but he's no better than half the side when he comes to direct passing. If he's a "really good kick" then so was Moloney. I'd replace him with Salem if you needed to pick top 3.

[Adam The God 30,129]

Watts may be a great kick in general play but he is a bad set shot.

Disagree. Generally, Watts is probably our best set shot for goal. I know that's not saying much, but he's usually really reliable. Over the last month, every Melbourne player has been abysmal in front of goal. Watts has missed a few, but equally he's kicked a few set shots too.

[Rollo2 64]

Jeez guys.

It's just an article. Way to keep it negative on DL!

For the record, the article didn't make it clear how the statistic was calculated, but it did say that the percentages were calculated 'relative to expectation'. At the bare minimum one would expect that would relate to part of the ground, pressure on kicker, and pressure on receiver, all of which can be easily measured with today's software capabilities. If even this minimum amount of variables were included in the analysis, then it renders the vast majority of your criticisms invalid.

So nyeh.

[CBDees 3,167]

Garry Lyon said on Triple M recently he rates the Melbourne side as having 3 really good kicks by AFL standards.

Salem and Kent weren't in the side at the time so he named Watts, Vince and N Jones.

Spot on I thought.

Yes, and by comparison, the player that many Demonlanders would have liked to have seen playing for us, Nic Natanui, is rated the second worst kick in the AFL.

[monoccular 17,413]

All too true

If Strauss or Maric were still on our lists they may have been high in the rankings.

They were recruited reputedly as "elite kicks": pity they didn't get the ball enough to show if they were

These articles are the biggest waste of time.

[Damo 3,344]

Disagree. Generally, Watts is probably our best set shot for goal. I know that's not saying much, but he's usually really reliable. Over the last month, every Melbourne player has been abysmal in front of goal. Watts has missed a few, but equally he's kicked a few set shots too.

Wrong.

I dont have stats, but he generally misses set shots. If I had to guess Id say Dawes then Hogan were better by far. I bring it up because many posters say that Watts best attribute is his kicking.

I think Dawes not only is most times a good set shot but is ready to contest hard for the ball. Watts never does this. They both fall short on contested marks, in my jaundiced view.

[What 18,810]

More like no great kicks and a lot of terrible kicks