2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Geelong would have the best midfield in the competition on paper with Dangerfield, Selwood, Ablett and Duncan.

This thinking is the problem with they way champion data ranks teams. A midfield is more than just 4 players, to be an effective mid it’s really the combination of the 12-14 players that go through there and that is what these stats miss, as some of those players would on paper be named in the back and fwd half. 

Having 4 dominant players actually shows how weak the rest of these mid is the best mids will spread this load out

1 hour ago, Garbo said:

This thinking is the problem with they way champion data ranks teams. A midfield is more than just 4 players, to be an effective mid it’s really the combination of the 12-14 players that go through there and that is what these stats miss, as some of those players would on paper be named in the back and fwd half. 

Having 4 dominant players actually shows how weak the rest of these mid is the best mids will spread this load out

I think most teams keep a stable back 7 so it's really about 8-11 or so going through the middle. Zac Smith is a good ruckman, Blicavs a very handy utility 2nd ruck. Scott Selwood does a job as a tagger and Menegola is a handy 5th mid who can play inside or out. They might fall away with the last couple of spots but I think the addition of Ablett and some development of younger guys answers the depth questions a bit. 

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think most teams keep a stable back 7 so it's really about 8-11 or so going through the middle. Zac Smith is a good ruckman, Blicavs a very handy utility 2nd ruck. Scott Selwood does a job as a tagger and Menegola is a handy 5th mid who can play inside or out. They might fall away with the last couple of spots but I think the addition of Ablett and some development of younger guys answers the depth questions a bit. 

Gutherie also goes ok. 

 

28 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Gutherie also goes ok. 

 

 

St Kilda's a lol.

Who is there after Jack Steven and daylight?

Seb Ross is ok, but after that....Blake Acres.....um...Luke Dunstan, Tackles Steele and Hamstrings Freeman.

Good grief

10 hours ago, Demonland said:

But Richmond's is worse.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-champion-data-sydney-ranked-as-the-leagues-best-midfield-group-for-season-2018/news-story/f12fdceb85cb9c77cffe93dbe950ad9b

CHAMPION DATA’S 2018 MIDFIELD RATINGS

1. Sydney

2. GWS Giants

3. Collingwood

4. Western Bulldogs

5. Adelaide

6. Port Adelaide

7. Geelong

8. St Kilda

9. Hawthorn

10. Essendon

11. Melbourne *

12. Richmond

13. North Melbourne

14. Fremantle

15. West Coast

16. Brisbane

17. Gold Coast

18. Carlton

* We were 18th last year so we're on the rise.

 

Without showing bias + or - , having Collingwood ahead of Geelong shows just how meaningless this “analysis” remains. 

Whatever Champion Data do to interpret the stats they take... it doesn’t work.

Reigning premiership midfield with two Brownlow medalists sits 12th. That right there is proof enough they’re unarguably wrong. It’s all done to draw media attention and hype.

I’ll happily take our 11th placed midfield in 2018!

5 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

The only thing champion Data is good  for, is helping you pick your AFL fantasy team

You will never know what you dont know.

But yes, that is a by-product of their data -  has proved to be a commercial bonus. 

17 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Geelong would have the best midfield in the competition on paper with Dangerfield, Selwood, Ablett and Duncan.

Duncan is the 'Ringo' of that group    

the two Sydney teams have far superior midfields to Geelong imo.  Ablett will do well to play 12 games

They have got to give the filth some hope dont they an AFL directive no doubt.

On 20/02/2018 at 1:35 PM, old dee said:

Ancient history.

This time last year the statts were saying the Tigers had buggar all chance of winning the GF.

The statts that count will be the ones that we create this year

As we've often opined...stats are garbage. Scoreboards seldom lie.

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

As we've often opined...stats are garbage. Scoreboards seldom lie.

Except when they are influenced by inaccurate kicking and umpires

16 minutes ago, dworship said:

Except when they are influenced by inaccurate kicking and umpires

Possibly...but what is...IS

Stats have nothing to do with maggotry

BB, I had a long running discussion with an influential/ legendary coach in the Central Highlands (he also played a few games with the Doggies), he always said umpires don't determine the outcome of games. He said this right up to the time of his passing. I always knew what he meant, a team needs to be good enough to overcome ALL opposition and if that means defeating 2 oppositions, fate, karma and luck then so be it. That never stopped me from arguing that poor Umpiring decisions can sometimes defeat the best of teams in a close contest.   I've also said that the better you play the better the decisions seem to be. It's unconscious bias and as the umpiring becomes more professional I hope the decision making will also. 

On 2/20/2018 at 2:01 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Having read some of champion data's AFL prospectus I thought they'd ranked the Pies midfield 6th, not 3rd. Could be wrong though. They do have a decent top end of mids in Pendlebury, Sidebottom and Treloar.

It was actually 5th in the AFL Prospectus so not sure where this list came from.