I was looking at the MFC site and from the named team you can  click through to the stats on the individual players, which I didn't realise you could do quite so easily. 

As they say, "velly"  interesting! A hot topic on here is disposal efficiency. Well I hate to [censored] the balloon, but a number of the "sinners" exposed on here in that direction are actually pretty good. 

As far as I can see from these stats the best in the side is Nev Jetta at 88% closely followed by OMAC at 80%. Most of the rest are in the 70's and 60's. 

Whilst I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, I think this exposes some of the vitriol regularly espoused by my fellow demonlanders on this subject. In this I fully recognise that those on ballers are likely to be under more pressure with the ball than others, but interesting stats nevertheless. 

Well worth a look.

35 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I was looking at the MFC site and from the named team you can  click through to the stats on the individual players, which I didn't realise you could do quite so easily. 

As they say, "velly"  interesting! A hot topic on here is disposal efficiency. Well I hate to [censored] the balloon, but a number of the "sinners" exposed on here in that direction are actually pretty good. 

As far as I can see from these stats the best in the side is Nev Jetta at 88% closely followed by OMAC at 80%. Most of the rest are in the 70's and 60's. 

Whilst I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, I think this exposes some of the vitriol regularly espoused by my fellow demonlanders on this subject. In this I fully recognise that those on ballers are likely to be under more pressure with the ball than others, but interesting stats nevertheless. 

Well worth a look.

How can you claim it means anything when you admit yourself that the back line players get the ball under less pressure than the midfielders?  You just made your own analysis redundant with that comment.

The joy of the disposal efficiency topic is that is has enough grey area for everyone to be right.

Defenders have good disposal efficiency ->  good disposal efficiency is a benchmark for defenders everywhere anyway -> the efficiency is a product of the circumstances getting it (open spaces, marks, defenders outnumbering forwards) -> good disposal efficiency is a product of the work rate of players running to present options -> we shouldn't look at DE% anyway, clangers are more important...

Round and round we can go. And we do!

From what I've observed, the biggest 'whipping boys' for disposal among the Demons are the McDonald brothers and Dom Tyson, and the three of them share the feature of sometimes delivering really terrible clangers, the kind of totally unnecessary turnover which catches everyone by surprise and turns a rebound into a panic scramble. These clangers have a big impact and, more than anything else, are highly memorable.

The couple of times a game that Tom McDonald mysteriously, absurdly, manages to kick directly to an opposition player on their own are the single factor preventing him from being an elite defender, but with them he is definitely not one. That's how much they matter and while I don't like the vitriol, the cause is reasonable.

3 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

The joy of the disposal efficiency topic is that is has enough grey area for everyone to be right.

Defenders have good disposal efficiency ->  good disposal efficiency is a benchmark for defenders everywhere anyway -> the efficiency is a product of the circumstances getting it (open spaces, marks, defenders outnumbering forwards) -> good disposal efficiency is a product of the work rate of players running to present options -> we shouldn't look at DE% anyway, clangers are more important...

Round and round we can go. And we do!

From what I've observed, the biggest 'whipping boys' for disposal among the Demons are the McDonald brothers and Dom Tyson, and the three of them share the feature of sometimes delivering really terrible clangers, the kind of totally unnecessary turnover which catches everyone by surprise and turns a rebound into a panic scramble. These clangers have a big impact and, more than anything else, are highly memorable.

The couple of times a game that Tom McDonald mysteriously, absurdly, manages to kick directly to an opposition player on their own are the single factor preventing him from being an elite defender, but with them he is definitely not one. That's how much they matter and while I don't like the vitriol, the cause is reasonable.

Yes, I agree about the McDonalds and Tyson. The latest player who seems to be in the crosshairs is Jayden Hunt. I admit it is somewhat annoying when you see him brilliantly run through the wing and into the forward 50 with no-one able to get near him because he is just so quick, and take a shot and more often than not miss. I think Hunt is someone though that certainly needs to be encouraged to play like that which I'm sure the coaches are doing. How you improve his accuracy though I guess is like anything - practises, and more practise. On one of the football shows they suggested a bit more steadying before kicking, I guess much like big Jack Watts did in his now famous QB last minute goal. That maybe could be a model for JH, an otherwise very admirable footballer and potentially a key part of the Dees future. 

3 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Yes, I agree about the McDonalds and Tyson. The latest player who seems to be in the crosshairs is Jayden Hunt. I admit it is somewhat annoying when you see him brilliantly run through the wing and into the forward 50 with no-one able to get near him because he is just so quick, and take a shot and more often than not miss. I think Hunt is someone though that certainly needs to be encouraged to play like that which I'm sure the coaches are doing. How you improve his accuracy though I guess is like anything - practises, and more practise. On one of the football shows they suggested a bit more steadying before kicking, I guess much like big Jack Watts did in his now famous QB last minute goal. That maybe could be a model for JH, an otherwise very admirable footballer and potentially a key part of the Dees future. 

Yeah very hard to kick the ball running at full tilt. He almost seems to be going too fast sometimes as he covers the distance so quickly he doesn't have time to bounce so has to throw it on his boot. 

If there was a medal for the most misleading stat within the AFL, this would be hot favourite.

It's easier for backmen running out of defence to hit a target than it is for an onballer running into attack. There is more space around the defender, more space for the defender to kick into, and more space free for players up the ground. (The defender can also kick backwards and switch, which are both reasonably safe kicks.) Unless you more the ball really fast, the player running across the centre is operating in heavier traffic as the opposition concentrate back into defence, and less space available to pinpoint the ball into a zone defence.

That's why we need a little more pace. When you have speedsters you can open up space ahead of the footy into the forward line.

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

If there was a medal for the most misleading stat within the AFL, this would be hot favourite.

It has a lot of competition though   but think you're right it's a winner

The efficiency of any disposal is really only ever qualified by what happens next.

Disposal to advantage is the true litmus

1 hour ago, Tony Tea said:

It's easier for backmen running out of defence to hit a target than it is for an onballer running into attack. There is more space around the defender, more space for the defender to kick into, and more space free for players up the ground. (The defender can also kick backwards and switch, which are both reasonably safe kicks.) Unless you more the ball really fast, the player running across the centre is operating in heavier traffic as the opposition concentrate back into defence, and less space available to pinpoint the ball into a zone defence.

That's why we need a little more pace. When you have speedsters you can open up space ahead of the footy into the forward line.

All good points TT and i'm in complete agreement with all the points.

What i'd add is we need to add a couple more 'elite' kicks, particularly players who deliver the ball into our forward 50 and pull the trigger and kick accurately into the corridor.  Both are critical elements in maximizing scoring opportunities.

I agree its easier for defenders to hit targets, for the reasons you point out. What i would say is that when a defender turns the ball over it it can look worse because it can lead to opposition goals or at the least a scoring opportunity. But acknowledging it is usually (but not always) a more difficult kick. a player who misses an easy target inside 50 or in the corridor will cost us a goal or scoring opportunity. The outcome of the turnovers is exactly the same - well almost as scoring creates momentum and being scored against can stop momentum or give it to the opposition. But despite the outcome being the same, psychology suggests we think a goal or scoring opportunity to the opposition is worse,  

Going forward we missed so many targets in the first half against the pies -as we always seem to in first half. It mad it impossible for us take advantage of our period of advantage. I was listening to the SEN details podcast, which is ok, and they were rabbiting on about the fact that don't turn up to play until half time. Which i reckon is wrong and certainly was against the pies. We were switched on and ready - we just turn the ball over too many times and wasted our scoring opportunities.

One kick that comes to mind is Hannan, under no pressure and after a terrific build up and ball movement, kicking to a player all by himself on the attacking edge of the center square. He kicked it over his head to a pies player who swept it down the ground as we were all pressed forward. it cost us a scoring opportunity and gifted them one - potentially a 12 pint swing. yet he cops little criticism. There were any number of similar turn overs. And much less defensive ones. 

Watching the dirge last night Jetta's kicking skills really stood out and i think ended up being the difference as WC wasted so many opportunities with poor kicking - both at goal but also field kicking. They dominated that match but only won by 13 because, like Melbourne, turned the ball over way too much

4 minutes ago, binman said:

One kick that comes to mind is Hannan, under no pressure and after a terrific build up and ball movement, kicking to a player all by himself on the attacking edge of the center square. He kicked it over his head to a pies player who swept it down the ground as we were all pressed forward.

That was to Lewis. Hannan absolutely drilled the ball over Lewis's head. I don't mind Hannan going the millionaire kick, but a little less oomph would have got the ball to Lewis, who was well clear, just as effectively.

How often did the Hawks, when they were in premiership mode, find easy targets in the forward line? It wasn't just their kicking ability, it was their forwards' ability to find clear space. Part of that is quickly turning zone defence into a potent attack. It is all very well to get players behind the ball, but it is just as important not to rob yourself of attacking options. Clarko was a master at getting players free forward of the ball.

That's why I'm wary of us starting 8 players in defence. Going forward short of options makes us bomb the ball too often. The more often you get extra players ahead of the ball, the less often you have to bomb it to a contest.

Is a misleading statistic. Does it mean getting rid of the ball or does it mean advancing the ball to the goals or does it mean delivering to a contest or does it mean delivering it lace out. Until it is defined, it is of limited value.

Midfielders often have to dispose of the ball under pressure in limited space with limited visio and moving the ball forward to a contest is a good outcome. Defenders often, but not always, have more time and space to select a target. Turnovers in these circumstances are disappointing but I am pleased that TMac and OMac at least look and try to pick out a target. The intent is good and they deliver well more often than is recognised in these columns

One feature that is overlooked in these discussions is the importance of players forward presenting to advantage to the player with the ball. Our forwards have been guilty over the years of standing still and waving rather than moving to space. The great teams of the recent past have had developed a playing style where the receiving player is both moving and clear of his opponent.

For all of his other limitations, Simon Godfrey was a running machine who ran to space to offer. The best current example is Jack Watts who, having run to good positions, is often overlooked or ignored when on his own in the forward line as the ball is kicked elsewhere. A seriously underused talent.

When commenting on this topic, please state your definition of DE.

Forgetting the very subjective formulation of this stat, the position played ( forward/back) and the role/style                   ( inside/outside, loose/floating/tight manning) will have a huge impact. This is the one area where your eyes absolutely tell you the truth - You want the ball in the hands of Salem/Watts. Of your mids, you would prefer the ball in the hands of Oliver/Jones than Viney/Tyson. Out of the back half Jetta/Hibberd use the ball better than the Mac's.

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Forgetting the very subjective formulation of this stat, the position played ( forward/back) and the role/style                   ( inside/outside, loose/floating/tight manning) will have a huge impact. This is the one area where your eyes absolutely tell you the truth - You want the ball in the hands of Salem/Watts. Of your mids, you would prefer the ball in the hands of Oliver/Jones than Viney/Tyson. Out of the back half Jetta/Hibberd use the ball better than the Mac's.

 

 

 

Yeah well said. I think that stat itself only paints some of the picture. Then we have a look further and see where the player is positioned, but I agree that the eyes don't lie. I - like many - watch most MFC games, and after a while it becomes evident who is/isn't a great kick. I think Neville Jetta's reading of 88% is a number that matches up well with that I actually see. We do have a lot of players that don't use the ball well though. Jetta certainly stands out as one that does use the ball well. What I would like to see is a DE under pressure statistic - especially across the midfield. That is an area where we could be more be efficient.

On 6/15/2017 at 10:21 PM, Dees2014 said:

I was looking at the MFC site and from the named team you can  click through to the stats on the individual players, which I didn't realise you could do quite so easily. 

As they say, "velly"  interesting! A hot topic on here is disposal efficiency. Well I hate to [censored] the balloon, but a number of the "sinners" exposed on here in that direction are actually pretty good. 

As far as I can see from these stats the best in the side is Nev Jetta at 88% closely followed by OMAC at 80%. Most of the rest are in the 70's and 60's. 

Whilst I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, I think this exposes some of the vitriol regularly espoused by my fellow demonlanders on this subject. In this I fully recognise that those on ballers are likely to be under more pressure with the ball than others, but interesting stats nevertheless. 

Well worth a look.

Have a look who is our 2nd worst player this season for  'disposal efficiency'. 

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tr-melbourne-demons?year=2018&rt=TA&st=EP

  Only the best kick in the team who sets up goals all game with his laser foot.   They need to find out another method to measure that stat. It is never reflective of what happens on the field.

 

 

I agree that the stat can be very misleading. 

Little sideways or backward chip kicks bolster the stat.  Or even handballs to a teammate under pressure.

The stat doesn't take into account just how bad a particular clanger can be. For example, if a player (e.g. Bugg or Tyson) turn the ball over very badly (under no pressure) costing 2 goals, the stats simply record 2 inefficient disposals. Some clangers are way worse than others. 

Where is there a definition of all the stats that are collected on footy.

For example, when is a possession "contested"? And why is it considered more worthy than an "uncontested" possession? How far back the chain is a "score involvement"? When is a disposal "effective"? What is a "clanger"?

It seems to me that there is a push to "statisfy" our great game, a game that is anarchic, frantic and chaotic at most times so that historical stats are worthless and where a single extraction from a pack and a long kick to advantage can be more valuable than a multitude of ring-a-ring-a--rosie short kicks or handballs that don't advance the ball forward.

We all know who the great and effective players are who both dominate and influence the outcomes of matches so does is matter how many possessions they have? Is 40 better than 30? Why? Why bother?

Our great game is not suited to stats and over-analysis. It is contested sport at its purest and finest. Leave it alone.

 

 

While I agree with Tier that these stats need definition, and that stats aren’t everything, but I also believe they can provide insight to how a player is travelling. Using Petracca as an example, I think the stats pretty much sum up his performances to date, and why, given his ability, we want so much more from him:

- top 5 for Clangers

- bottom 5 for disposal efficiency

- top 3 for turnovers

All the other stats he ranks average within the team. For a player of his potential, average is not good enough. The only stats he ranks in the top 5 are Clearances and Contested Possessions. 

I am hard on Petracca because he has so much potential, but he is yet to consistently stamp himself on a game. Maybe time for a wake up call.

The only insight that stats can provide is in comparing individual players performances over time. For example, do the number of possessions go up or down, number of tackles and similar actions.

Being generic and universally applied to all players, they are not useful for matching actual performance with potential. Maybe what we consider to be his "potential" is not the same as the coaches thoughts?

Tracca has never been a high possession, dynamic player like Gus or Clarry. His ball winning ability in close , his one-on-one marking and his long kicking into the forward line - stats that are not recorded - might be more valuable than some generic stats that might not measure his strengths.

I expect that the coaches know his value.