Our midfield isn't as good as some here think but we have beaten the Pies the last 3 times we have played them. For them to be 1 and us 18th is just embarrasing for CData and does a lot of damage to their brand.

To rank the Swans midfield 5th is a joke as well. As for Richmond..... FFS they are taking the pizz.. did someone hack their account?

Just win more games and these ridiculous stats people will be out of a job

Edited December 10, 20168 yr by Sir Why You Little

1 hour ago, small but forward said:

An article like this should provide some fire in the belly for our guys to prove them all wrong. In a way, this is better result than over inflating their egos by announcing them as the best, and then wondering why they under achieved later on.

much happier to see this happen to Collingwood.

Please refer to Rd 22 last season against Carlton.

3 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

The head researcher referred to himself as Ted MacWire and had been downing vodka martinis and metho milk for the life of the study I believe.

Is he per chance related to Gyro Gearloose?

Weren't we third in clearances last year?

If the complex formula doesn't take that into account they're clearly not understanding the game.

Ok, I've had a little think, and more than a little giggle about this, and I'm thinking that the reason Richmond is so high is because they handball in circles 15 times, then lose it, and the opp does 2 handballs, one kick then goal. Rince and repeat.

A little bit like our backline under neeld. I'm sure our effective kicks looked great to CD. FB to a pocket to FB to the other pocket, to FB again, to the other pocket, then back to... oops.

A bunch to us. one to them. and we lose by 80.

Anyway bugger stats. I wanna see us smash both Collingwood and Richmond while their mids complain to the umps how we are worse, so how can it be so?

1 minute ago, Uncle Fester said:

Ok, I've had a little think, and more than a little giggle about this, and I'm thinking that the reason Richmond is so high is because they handball in circles 15 times, then lose it, and the opp does 2 handballs, one kick then goal. Rince and repeat.

A little bit like our backline under neeld. I'm sure our effective kicks looked great to CD. FB to a pocket to FB to the other pocket, to FB again, to the other pocket, then back to... oops.

A bunch to us. one to them. and we lose by 80.

Anyway bugger stats. I wanna see us smash both Collingwood and Richmond while their mids complain to the umps how we are worse, so how can it be so?

Exactly, it's a bit like how Cotchin racks up 30+ completely ineffective disposals every week. They interpret that data as "elite" for disposals, but they are nothing more than a hollow number because Cotchin, like many in Richmond's outfit, achieve absolutely nothing except fluffed up numbers.

2 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Exactly, it's a bit like how Cotchin racks up 30+ completely ineffective disposals every week. They interpret that data as "elite" for disposals, but they are nothing more than a hollow number because Cotchin, like many in Richmond's outfit, achieve absolutely nothing except fluffed up numbers.

Was almost going to edit to add him, but thought someone will do it. And here it is. Thanks.

There's not a coach in the league who'd prefer to have Richmond's or Collingwood's midfield over ours, Buckley and Hardwick included.

 

Going to be good gag source material next season. "Not bad for the worst midfield in the league" will see a bit of airtime.

I'd like to see real stats. Stats that win flags. like 'oh [censored] he's coming at me. I'd better handball to the other guy even if he's about to get killed'

Tough wins flags. Always has. Skills get you there but tough wins it. I'm still waiting for the Viney is close so I'm gonna kick it OOF stat.

you'd think champion data would at least run a sniff test down at the local before publishing this rubbish

They're stats. Enough said

out of interest what is the definition of mid field these days.

Seems to me you could easily argue that it is up to 13- 15 odd players

 

The corresponding article last year had Freo ranked 2nd and Bulldogs 10th

3 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

The corresponding article last year had Freo ranked 2nd and Bulldogs 10th

Good pickup, was going to post myself, on this occasion stats don't reflect the true picture

Hun article designed solely to sell newspapers to toothless readers, nothing to see here, move along 

The premise of this article is just wrong. If I were a statistician at Champion Data I'd be annoyed by the way the stats have been represented here.

I've got no doubt Scott Pendlebury is an elite player. Treloar is close. Wells (when fit) and Sidebottom are classy players. Close had a great year in 2015. But Wells has never played with those guys so there's no way of saying that group is the best midfield. How do they factor in players 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the midfield mix?

The Richmond example is even worse. Caddy and Prestia are good players but Martin's ability to play hero ball and have 40 touches might change with the new additions and Cotchin might improve or either he or maybe Caddy could end up marginalised and not getting as much ball.

Similarly the Dees midfield group is still coming together. They may improve quickly this year, particularly with Lewis' help, or they may not. But as a group of players they are clearly better than last over the last 2 years, yet alone how they rank for the future.

I don't mind the champion data player ratings even if they can overrate particular players. They rate good disposal and I think that's a fair point, disposal is vital. Where they probably fall down is they probably can't qualify the difference between a clearance and a line breaking powerful clearance, or a regulation tackle and a tackle that saves a goal. That's where Viney probably doesn't get full value.

More consistent ball movement across the team and better disposal will see our midfielders rise up the rankings pretty quickly.

Stats can be used to make sides look good or bad depends on how you present them. The clubs who finished below us have the so called superior mids then what led their team from finishing below us? Maybe champion data (crap) can rate all clubs in the forward and defence areas and the quality of the players on the bench,hairstyle of players to be included. It is time for another SHIRAZ.

Try ad be objective and not so defensive.

Seriously, we do not have an A-grader in our midfield. I love Jonesy and young Viney and there is loads of potential which I am Salivating at the prospect of seeing develop but at least Treloar and Pendlebury have the stats to back up Champion Data

15 minutes ago, doug williams said:

Try ad be objective and not so defensive.

Seriously, we do not have an A-grader in our midfield. I love Jonesy and young Viney and there is loads of potential which I am Salivating at the prospect of seeing develop but at least Treloar and Pendlebury have the stats to back up Champion Data

Viney has better inside stats - clearances, tackles, contested possessions. He's far better in the air as well.

A lot of Treloar's possessions are give and get handballs that rack up stats but aren't all that dangerous. He is a bit quicker and smoother running with the ball than Viney and get 2 more kicks per game, but that only balances him up with Jack's inside dominance.

I don't think Treloar works nearly as hard defensively nor do I think he knows how to be a balanced contributor at clearances working as a unit. Collingwood's midfield leaked like a sieve all year giving up huge games to opposition mids.

There's a reason why Pendlebury won the Pies B+F this year when so many thought Treloar would. Pendlebury is a proper elite player. There's more of a gap between him and Treloar than there is - if there is - between Treloar and Viney.

That article was pure rubbish. lies, damn lies and statistics.

1 hour ago, doug williams said:

Try ad be objective and not so defensive.

Seriously, we do not have an A-grader in our midfield. I love Jonesy and young Viney and there is loads of potential which I am Salivating at the prospect of seeing develop but at least Treloar and Pendlebury have the stats to back up Champion Data

Great first post, doug. Nothing suss there. Go Pies.

Melbourne's midfield was ranked 5th for clearances and 6th for contested possession. There's two of the key functions of any midfield where Melbourne was objectively in the top third. Only the most self hating supporter would think we're dead last.

Any system that rates Mitch Wallis as 'elite' and V.iney as 'average' is a broken system that clearly doesn't place sufficient weight on a player's last 12 months.

 

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Good pickup, was going to post myself, on this occasion stats don't reflect the true picture

seldom do..  A number needs a context and a correct  metric.. 

Only one stat actually matters...  its up on the scoreboard !!

1 hour ago, doug williams said:

Try ad be objective and not so defensive.

Seriously, we do not have an A-grader in our midfield. I love Jonesy and young Viney and there is loads of potential which I am Salivating at the prospect of seeing develop but at least Treloar and Pendlebury have the stats to back up Champion Data

quite odd that Collingwood finished under us.. yet they lead this...and we trail ?? ffs..its a joke