TURNOVERS

[Bobby McKenzie 2,385]

This football term is relatively new. It stems from American basketball where a turnover resulted from a poor pass. One would think that it would be easier toTHROW a ball without being able to be tackled than an AFL footballer KICKING under immense pressure. In the first half of last night's game there were 35 so called turnovers fairly evenly  shared between Port and Eagles. Why? Immense pressure forcing hurried disposal. Thus, a real turnover should only be one when a player kicks the ball under no pressure and fails to find his target and finding the opposition instead. I compare it to pro tennis and the term UNFORCED ERROR. A player near the net runs back to reach a deep lob but fails to return it. Surely this is a FORCED ERROR. Therefore when we criticise our own team next time consider whether or not they had a real opportunity to dispose the ball accurately.  You will find that there is a huge reduction in so called turnovers. A perfect pass to a teammate is brilliantly spoiled by an opponent. Many here would blame the kicker. What do others think? 

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,239]

Interesting comments BM.

[Little Goffy 14,524]

Layers of language difference I guess. What American football calls a turnover or tennis calls an unforced error, we might call a clanger. What we call a turnover, tennis would call a forced error and American football would call "aw geez that's too hard let's take a five minute break and have another go with everyone back at their favourite spots, after a bit of a cheer routine and maybe a marching band, a group hug and a prayer circle".

I believe with Disposal Efficiency there are some caveats, especially with long kicks. A long kick to the advantage of a teammate is good enough to be counted 'effective' even if possession isn't retained, recognising that it was the other guy who stuffed it up, not the kicker.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,385]

15 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Layers of language difference I guess. What American football calls a turnover or tennis calls an unforced error, we might call a clanger. What we call a turnover, tennis would call a forced error and American football would call "aw geez that's too hard let's take a five minute break and have another go with everyone back at their favourite spots, after a bit of a cheer routine and maybe a marching band, a group hug and a prayer circle".

I believe with Disposal Efficiency there are some caveats, especially with long kicks. A long kick to the advantage of a teammate is good enough to be counted 'effective' even if possession isn't retained, recognising that it was the other guy who stuffed it up, not the kicker.

Very thoughtful response Little Goffy. 

[binman 42,906]

3 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

This football term is relatively new. It stems from American basketball where a turnover resulted from a poor pass. One would think that it would be easier toTHROW a ball without being able to be tackled than an AFL footballer KICKING under immense pressure. In the first half of last night's game there were 35 so called turnovers fairly evenly  shared between Port and Eagles. Why? Immense pressure forcing hurried disposal. Thus, a real turnover should only be one when a player kicks the ball under no pressure and fails to find his target and finding the opposition instead. I compare it to pro tennis and the term UNFORCED ERROR. A player near the net runs back to reach a deep lob but fails to return it. Surely this is a FORCED ERROR. Therefore when we criticise our own team next time consider whether or not they had a real opportunity to dispose the ball accurately.  You will find that there is a huge reduction in so called turnovers. A perfect pass to a teammate is brilliantly spoiled by an opponent. Many here would blame the kicker. What do others think? 

Some good points. but in terms of our team we have way too many clangers - ie kicks under little pressure that miss their target. 

But those clangers are exacerbated by the fact that we have many players with poor technique and poor technique is exposed under pressure. Dom Tyson is a good example. A big part of his problem is that as an inside mid he is often kicking under pressure. He has a really poor technique, dropping it miles from his foot and under pressure this leads to turnovers. unfortunately Viney is not dissimilar. in fact i would say the majority of MFC players have poor technique. 

Compare him to Dusty Martin - or Selwood and Dangerfiled-   who has a terrific technique and even under pressure usually executes. 

[monoccular 17,426]

All interesting observations on semantics.

Not quite sure however how it helps us in the quest for the Holy Grail. 

But then, I love semantics so keep them coming. 

[Bobby McKenzie 2,385]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Some good points. but in terms of our team we have way too many clangers - ie kicks under little pressure that miss their target. 

But those clangers are exacerbated by the fact that we have many players with poor technique and poor technique is exposed under pressure. Dom Tyson is a good example. A big part of his problem is that as an inside mid he is often kicking under pressure. He has a really poor technique, dropping it miles from his foot and under pressure this leads to turnovers. unfortunately Viney is not dissimilar. in fact i would say the majority of MFC players have poor technique. 

Compare him to Dusty Martin - or Selwood and Dangerfiled-   who has a terrific technique and even under pressure usually executes. 

Interestingly, I read just recently that Dangerfield and Martin are high up on the clangers list for the season. How is that possible?

[deelete my account 1,194]

5 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Interestingly, I read just recently that Dangerfield and Martin are high up on the clangers list for the season. How is that possible?

Is there a Clangers per possession stat? Because a bloke that gets 10 possies and 2 clangers is far worse than one that gets 30 and 3.

[binman 42,906]

8 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Interestingly, I read just recently that Dangerfield and Martin are high up on the clangers list for the season. How is that possible?

Because both get so many of their possessions under extreme pressure and both often have a hard tag. So whilst they have good technique they are still going to turn the ball over than say gaff who get so many of their possessions on the outside. Without having seen the clanger list i would be guessing that it is dominated by inside mids. 

[Bobby McKenzie 2,385]

4 hours ago, binman said:

Because both get so many of their possessions under extreme pressure and both often have a hard tag. So whilst they have good technique they are still going to turn the ball over than say gaff who get so many of their possessions on the outside. Without having seen the clanger list i would be guessing that it is dominated by inside mids. 

Top clanger scores for 2017

Dustin Martin 23 games/ 118 clangers

Luke Parker 23/103

Patrick Dangerfield 22/100 ( 9 against Richmond at the weekend)

Tom Mitchell 22/99

Taylor Adams 22/96

Sam Powell-Pepper 22/94

Dayne Zorko 21/92

Nathan Fyfe 21/89

Trent Cotchin 23/88

Top demon Dom Tyson 19/ 81

[jackaub 1,402]

7 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Top clanger scores for 2017

Dustin Martin 23 games/ 118 clangers

Luke Parker 23/103

Patrick Dangerfield 22/100 ( 9 against Richmond at the weekend)

Tom Mitchell 22/99

Taylor Adams 22/96

Sam Powell-Pepper 22/94

Dayne Zorko 21/92

Nathan Fyfe 21/89

Trent Cotchin 23/88

Top demon Dom Tyson 19/ 81

Says it all really

Edited September 10, 2017 by jackaub

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

12 hours ago, Wrecked Owl Dees Function said:

Is there a Clangers per possession stat? Because a bloke that gets 10 possies and 2 clangers is far worse than one that gets 30 and 3.

Don't say that because you put Dom Tyson in an awkward position and some demonlanders hate that and refuse to believe it.

Let's just keep it as "Dangerfield, Martin and Fyfe all have high clanger counts too-ooooo, so ultimately Dom and them are the same players yeh? Yeh!"

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[binman 42,906]

38 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Don't say that because because you put Dom Tyson in an awkward position and some demonlanders hate that and refuse to believe it.

Let's just keep it as "Dangerfield, Martin and Fyfe all have high clanger counts too-ooooo, so ultimately Dom and them are the same players yeh? Yeh!"

 

Well actually steve i suspect that in fact tysons disposal numbers would be very similar to martin and danger. Including his ratio of contested to uncontested possesions. So comparable positions.

And therefore his clanger ratio is actuallt better than those two players. Which of course is not to say he is a better kick. Tyson rarely has a hard tag. And no doubt his de is not as good. But none the less it put his number of clangers into some perspective.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

22 minutes ago, binman said:

Well actually steve i suspect that in fact tysons disposal numbers would be very similar to martin and danger. Including his ratio of contested to uncontested possesions. So comparable positions.

And therefore his clanger ratio is actuallt better than those two players. Which of course is not to say he is a better kick. Tyson rarely has a hard tag. And no doubt his de is not as good. But none the less it put his number of clangers into some perspective.

Umm no.

Tyson's disposal numbers would be nowhere near Martin or Dangerfield. Nowhere near. 

He also cops nowhere near the attention that those two do.

So given those two facts, it's giggle-worthy that some try and somehow conclude that Tyson isn't that bad with ball in hand.

To think you'd believe that their disposal numbers would be similar only confirms my view of the bias you hold for our players. Either that or you simply don't watch the opposition anywhere near enough.

Edited September 10, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[binman 42,906]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Umm no.

Tyson's disposal numbers would be nowhere near Martin or Dangerfield. Nowhere near. 

He also cops nowhere near the attention that those two do.

So given those two facts, it's giggle-worthy that some try and somehow conclude that Tyson isn't that bad with ball in hand.

To think you'd believe that their disposal numbers would be similar only confirms my view of the bias you hold for our players. Either that or you simply don't watch the opposition anywhere near enough.

You have a serious comprehension issue steve. I never said tyson isn't that bad with ball in hand and i made clear Martin and Danger get more attention. I would have thought that was evident by this comment i made in the post you quoted:

'Which of course is not to say he is a better kick. Tyson rarely has a hard tag'

And for you to make a comment about confirmation bias is laughable in its  hypocrisy and shows you have very little insight into your own posting. 

By the by define 'nowhere near' the same disposal numbers. Here are some of the Tyson (on the left) v Martin averages  for their career.  The table below is Tyson v Dangerfield average disposals over their career. Again Tyson is on the left.

This season both danger and martin are averaging a touch under 5 more disposals a game, which is hardly nowhere near. But Tyson had an injury interrupted season and career averages are a much more accurate way to compare players, assuming both have played at least say 5 seasons.                

Source: https://www.footywire.com/

Unless your comprehension again fails you as you can see from the tables my comment that  'i suspect that in fact Tyson's disposal numbers would be very similar to martin and danger' was correct as was my assertion that their 'ratio of contested to uncontested possessions' were similar. The only thing i was incorrect about ironically enough was that Tyson's DE is 'no doubt not as good''.

22.8

Disposals Per Game

25.3

9.1	Contested Possessions Per Game	9.6
14.2	Uncontested Possessions Per Game	15.7
16.1	Effective Disposals Per Game	17.2
70.6%	Disposal Efficiency % Per Game	68%
3.3	Clangers Per Game	3.8

 

 

22.8

Disposals Per Game

23.4

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by binman

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

2 hours ago, binman said:

 

Well what point were you trying to make? You said that it puts his number of clangers into some perspective? What perspective exactly?

What point are posters trying to make when comparing Dom's clanger count to genuine champion players of the game?

Posters are singling out one stupid stat and taking it out of its context - (which is the most important part in the actual comparison) in order to defend the criticism Tyson gets for his ball use. 

I don't even know where to begin with your post. Why are you even attempting to compare career averages for Tyson and Dangerfield or Martin? Do you realise both are mid/forwards which is yet another variable you conveniently left out when comparing their disposal counts etc?  How on earth is it a "much more accurate way to compare players". Also interesting that you opted with the "injury-interrupted pre-season" excuse but left out the fact that Danger and Martin both played through injury this year. Do you see what I mean by bias? 

They're incomparable. 

The disposal count averages I was referring to were for this season and whilst I agree I exaggerated the "nowhere near" comment, I still maintain that averaging five disposals more per game for two players who play forward as well as midfield is still significantly more when viewed in that context.

Here's some more context too: Tyson won 30 disposals or more on three occasions this year playing solely through the midfield in the AFL's highest disposal getting team.

Dangerfield and Martin won 30 or more disposals 14 times playing as a mid/forwards. Both recorded 40+ disposal games with Martin doing it twice. (They also win games for their clubs off their own boot just quietly).

Tyson averaged five more uncontested possessions more than contested for the season. Dangerfield averaged six more contested possessions than uncontested and Martin averaged almost a perfect split. How's that clanger/DE looking now?

I could go on, but I genuinely can't be bothered.

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[binman 42,906]

That is your response? Sheesh.

Edited September 11, 2017 by binman
Unnessesary rudeness

[dimmy 1,307]

Gee, i wish there were more comparisons of Tyson and the "two wonder men" We certainly have high expectations of Dom which is probably a little hard on him.

At times when Dom gets time he lowers his eyes and really nails his disposal. However there are many times the hooray punt seems to be the option.

I too, was surprised at Dangerfield, Fyfe and Martin leading the clangers section because we have so much criticism of single mistakes our players make. I suppose their ( DF&F)  good bits over compensate their mistakes.  I am definitely not a tigers fan , but as soon as Guthrie went off last week Martin turned it into a clinic. That is how fine a line they tread on.

[deelete my account 1,194]

 

50 minutes ago, dimmy said:

At times when Dom gets time he lowers his eyes and really nails his disposal. However there are many times the hooray punt seems to be the option.

It seems like most of his kicks are dabbed at and end up like a chipped lob pass, even when he nails the. We desperately need another player with Petracca's boot that can do a 40-50m lace out pass that has the leather kicked out of it. Players with authorative kicks that assist players and lead them into positive spaces. Dangerfield may lead clangers, but his long passes are damaging and clear the ball from an area and change the complexion of the game. 

I think Hogan could get into the middle and chf more often and really develop into the Tex distributor as he gets his confidence up because we defintely only need TMAC kicking it after he's taken a mark and not in general play.

I think Salem suffers a little from over chipping too but he's less clangery.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Wrecked Owl Dees Function

[monoccular 17,426]

21 hours ago, binman said:

Because both get so many of their possessions under extreme pressure and both often have a hard tag. So whilst they have good technique they are still going to turn the ball over than say gaff who get so many of their possessions on the outside. Without having seen the clanger list i would be guessing that it is dominated by inside mids. 

Oliver is running 39th.  

[binman 42,906]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Oliver is running 39th.  

39th on the clanger list? I wonder if that is because he hanballs so often. He's actually a really good kick. Good technique. 

Agree with the owl that we need more penetrating kicks from our mids. Oliver has pretty good penetration who knows how to kick to advantage

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,239]

3 hours ago, binman said:

39th on the clanger list? I wonder if that is because he hanballs so often. He's actually a really good kick. Good technique. 

Agree with the owl that we need more penetrating kicks from our mids. Oliver has pretty good penetration who knows how to kick to advantage

I agree. Hope he decides to kick more next season.

[Skuit 10,031]

Now that we're drawing toward the season finale I'm waiting for the twist that stevethe/ and bin/ are really the same man . . .

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

7 hours ago, Skuit said:

Now that we're drawing toward the season finale I'm waiting for the twist that stevethe/ and bin/ are really the same man . . .

I hope not.

It will completely undermine my STMJ/Binman fanfic.

[binman 42,906]

26 minutes ago, Choke said:

I hope not.

It will completely undermine my STMJ/Binman fanfic.

It might be a better storyline. As far as a nemisis goes steve is more dr evil than dr no