Stats Files - 2023

[layzie 30,939]

32 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Howdy Bin

I've managed to fish out my response to same question from 2020.  Apologies for the length of that.  I do suffer from writer's dihorea at times.

In short (for me haha), these ratings  have nothing to do with Champions' or other ratings.  I would always disclose that if it were the case.

Merely an amature proprietary attempt to (very roughly) try and capture some of what we witness on game day using 10 wasted years of Fund Manager analysis experience back in the 90s as the idea/method behind it.

To cut a boring story short i just wanted a rating/score that roughly gave some resemblence of what i was witnessing when watching the game.

I felt at the time some of the Super Coach ratings etc were, in some instances, a fair way off what i had seen at the game / on TV and on occasions a long way off.

So i went back over 6 matches in 2017 and for want of a better term (and probably a very poor term to describe things), backward engineered a set of data to try to match, as closely as possible, the impact and performances of as many players as possible on the day.

The idea was to try and have the data mimic what happened on the field as best as possible, rather than just have the data spit something out the other end that may or may not be close to what i was seeing.

Of course like all things in life, nothing is perfect (with the exception of my kids, the 2021 premiership year, beating the Tigers on Anzac eve, a top notch pint etc) and the ratings i put up are no exception.  I would however argue they are a reasonable rough guide as to how a player is tracking if taken over a period of approx 4 to 5 matches of data or more.

The methodology is also very subjective as it was only my view of which players impacted / performed at a high / medium / sub par level in the 6 replays i covered.  Ideally you would want a panel of experts to give their feedback etc then backward engineer the data based on their ratings.

But who has the time, access and connections for such a venture!?  And who's to say that method is even a  sound one regardless.

Ideally you would also need to run a separate rating system for Backs, Forwards,  Mids & Followers but who has that time and besides, nowadays players rarely play in set positions. Champion might be capable but not possible for a solo amature.

As i always recommend, do yourself a favour and watch the match, like seriously watch it.  These tables are merely a rough guide and only include publicly available stats.  And whether publicly available or exclusive to champion data, some of them can be pretty diabolical and majorly flawed at their attempt to capture what's going on.

I'm sure most would agree, the eyes are often (but not in every case) your better judge of a player's / team's impact / performance and alot of the time stats fail to pick up the subtle nuances of what takes place on the field.  There's only so much you can capture with stats.

Hope this helps!

  On 8/8/2020 at 2:51 PM, Nascent said:

Apologies Rusty if this has already been explained but where are these numbers derived from? I could be a bit daft but I can't make any sense of these random numbers without context.

What stats combine to create a weighted score? Is it a combination of effective disposal, metres gained, score involvements etc...?

Yes correct Nascent.  Just a series of select weighted stats that are averaged as the weeks go by so that you can theoretically compare one player to another across a series of weeks,  months or even an entire season, regardless of how many games each player has played.  The score is therefore pretty relevant, regardless of whether the player has played say only 5 matches vs a fellow player who may have been lucky enough to play an entire season.

The first thing i will say is.... there is a huge danger in looking at any stats (these included) without having watched the game you are deriving the stats from.... intently and in conjunction with the weights and the overall outcome / Score.  So was there any testing done to ensure the scores were somewhat robust vs what was happening on the field?  Yes, albeit limited.  I watched replays of 6 matches in the second half of 2017 to ensure the player scores were, at the very least, "somewhat" reflective (to the best of my limited ability and the limited compromised data available) of how each of the players performed on match day.  Fair to say the rewind and fast forward buttons received a pummelling.  Obviously there are a myriad of inputs, flaws and subjective bias that goes into the end product and if a serious analyst got hold of this it would probably end up either in the bin or be given a major overhaul but there was some small but subjective back testing carried out over about 3 weeks.  Do i think the scores somewhat reflect the outcome on game day in most cases?  Not always for every player, but yes in most cases they would appear to (aside from the Maxy / ruckman hit outs to advantage issue / players given a lock down or forward pressure role etc)

What stats are being weighted?  Your assumption is accurate and certainly no rocket science involved.  Each stat is subjectively weighted and includes...

Effective disposals (the receiver actually receives the ball ie., there is some robustness in this one), Contested Marks (Maxy, Casboult, Kennedy et al), Marks inside 50 (forwards and mids pushing forward), 1%ers (a pretty dodgy stat but does cover all players, especially critical for defenders spoiling etc), Rebound 50s (covers defenders and mids running both ways to help out.  Even forwards on the odd occasion), Clearances (mostly mids, but also covers forwards, rucks and possibly the odd defender.  Basically anyone hitting in and getting the pill out), Inside 50s (very low weighting as anyone can bomb the ball in), tackles, score involvements, intercepts and goals.  Then i deduct a significant factor off the score of each player for any turnovers.  This last part is extremely arbitrary and something i have thought over for a while but my view is it is no good racking up 30 disposals if you just as easily gave back 10 of those straight to the opp.  And often after game day we will hear those complaints from fans "So and so got plenty but much of it was junk and went straight to the opp" etc etc.  This discount or deduction ensures that poor users of the ball are punished accordingly and the score is reflective of their poor use.  Meters gained is not presently covered but given it's supposed importance in the finals/GF success metrics i am considering adding this in 2021.

Is there a bench mark figure for what players should be attaining?

No but it could be done if you had the time and wherewithal.  If one could be bothered carving out the players that play a similar role or position and compare their relevant scores across the entire AFL then it could be possible but that's already covered and in a much more robust accurate way by AFL ratings.  The only issue i have with their ratings is it is very laggy as it is based on a player's last 40 matches and therefore doesn't cover players who have been out for quite a while injured or rookies etc.  Could i be bothered / do i have the time?  No lol.

Do i presently have any idea what a benchmark pass is by position or at all?  Not really and anything on this topic is purely subjective.  Also, in many ways you are only as good as your opponent and sometimes a benchmark or what i might consider a "good" score one week, might be off 20% the next but that same player might have played just as well on the day and/or have played a very good game, but, he did so playing on a better quality opponent / team and hence his score is off vs the previous week (usually the pressure factor).  Does that make sense?  This is why an average score over a minimum number of games (my guess is at least approx 5 or more) is obviously more robust than just one, two or three week scores.

Is it affected by position, i.e will mids will have a higher number due to overall possession numbers but dour defenders and pressure forwards score lower. For example would that mean a "good" score for a mid might be >3 where as a small forward >1?

A small pressure forward might be there to do just that and maybe score the odd goal.  His stats and therefore his weighted score will generally not look great vs say a mid racking up plenty of effective disposals by handball / boot or a defender chipping plenty of short kicks around the back half or even backwards on occasions (transferring pressure).  So then it comes down to comparing apples to apples while or after watching the game in question.  Unfortunately we don't have access to Champion data's best data.  Things like their 'kick rating' would be very handy as well as hit outs to advantage for ruckmen.  Maxy presently suffers in these tables with this aspect not being captured, albeit the rest of his game still sees him mostly always at or very near the top of the tables.  This would likely improve the robustness of the input data.  The old saying rubbish in rubbish out is a great starting point and in that instance these tables should only ever be considered as a very rough guide and only taken into consideration after having watched the match in its entirety.

What are the poor, average, good benchmarks for players and positions across the league and across and how do our players compare?

Having said all the above my gut feel generally is.... a 1.80 to 2.0 or better is a bare minimum pass mark in almost any role / position unless said player is playing a lock down type role eg; shoulder to shoulder defender a la an Oscar or May type role, a mid or even as a small pressure forward who might be tasked to shut down a dangerous play making rebounding defender etc.  In this instance a 1.30 (ish) to about 1.70 may well classify as a good pass if his opponent has had limited impact vs his usual impact.  I would also apply that lowish approx score to a rookie for a rough pass mark.

Looking at particular areas of the ground.  As a rough guide... Score pass mark i would expect to be generally lower up forward....roughly 1.80 ish.  Mids roughly a 2.5 to 3.0.  And defenders roughly 1.80ish and above.  Any player getting near a 3.0 or higher should (in theory) have had a good to quite good match or at least held his own on the day.  Over 3 to 5.0 is a very good game. Over 5 to 6.9 outstanding.  7.0 and above is off the charts.

Apologies again and I'm certainly don't expect you to do the leg work in some of those questions I asked, just trying to wrap my head around the theory behind the numbers.

 

 

I do like that a great analytical mind like yourself also has time for a good beer 🙂 great stuff DD!

[WheeloRatings 1,091]

2 hours ago, binman said:

@WheeloRatings

That is brilliant.

I actually checked the the stats for the roos game re time in forward half on your site on Sunday. And couldnt see it.

And checked then and still can't. 

Am i missing something or is this data yet to be added to the site and you have just (super helpfully) put them in this thread?

@binman The time in forward half and pressure stats are only available through the digital copy of the Herald Sun newspapers, so I actually need to manually transcribe them. I'm happy to do that here, for the Melbourne games, but it's probably a step too far to add it to my site without an automated process. It's unfortunate that it's provided to the media outlets but there's no way to download the data. I can go back and get the data for the first five games if you like.

The score source data need to be derived from a raw play-by-play AFL API data source, but I haven't incorporated this information into my website yet as this will take a bit of work. I may do that at some point, but in the meantime I will just manually add it to this thread.

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

37 minutes ago, layzie said:

I do like that a great analytical mind like yourself also has time for a good beer 🙂 great stuff DD!

Barely tugging on the coat tails of great analysts layzie but thanks!  A tinkerer at best.

Speaking of pints... if i don't end up over board after a few too many on the goodship P&O brewhouse in the next 2 weeks will try & catch up at the Burnley if you're up for it before one of our home games as discussed

[binman 40,485]

19 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

@binman The time in forward half and pressure stats are only available through the digital copy of the Herald Sun newspapers, so I actually need to manually transcribe them. I'm happy to do that here, for the Melbourne games, but it's probably a step too far to add it to my site without an automated process. It's unfortunate that it's provided to the media outlets but there's no way to download the data. I can go back and get the data for the first five games if you like.

The score source data need to be derived from a raw play-by-play AFL API data source, but I haven't incorporated this information into my website yet as this will take a bit of work. I may do that at some point, but in the meantime I will just manually add it to this thread.

@WheeloRatings

Thanks wheelo, that would be brilliant (adding that data manually to this thread). 

The pressure data for the roos game is interesting. 

The Roos were poor, but to my eye it was more about their system, particularly their defence, and of course their talent level, that was the issue not their effort.

And to that end, i was interested to hear Clarkson's comments basically saying the same thing in his post-match presser. 

The pressure ratings appear back this perspective up (dees first column):

Pressure

Q1: 189 - 185
Q2: 169 - 161
Q3: 168 - 160
Q4: 153 - 139
Tot: 169 - 163

[tiers 2,786]

24 minutes ago, binman said:

@WheeloRatings

 

Pressure

Q1: 189 - 185
 

The dees kicked 8 goals to one. And only 4 poi8nts between the teams on pressure?? What gives or are the pressure stats problematical?

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

17 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

backward engineered

Reverse engineered 🤦‍♂️ 😂

[binman 40,485]

17 hours ago, tiers said:

The dees kicked 8 goals to one. And only 4 poi8nts between the teams on pressure?? What gives or are the pressure stats problematical?

I think their pressure was not the issue.

Their defensive sytem was the issue. It was all over the shop.

They push up so high, a goal out the back is always a risk and there were holes everywhere when we entered our 50 hence.

As was their centre bounce and stoppages set up.

Just to easy for us to win quality clearances, too easy for us transition the ball and too many easy marks

[jnrmac 19,746]

Shots at goal

Set position
15.1.91 - 6.3.39

 

Our shots in goal this year have been outstanding. Such a change from a few years back.

Take  a bow Choco.

[binman 40,485]

34 minutes ago, binman said:

I think their pressure was not the issue.

Their defensive sytem was the issue. It was all over the shop.

They push up so high, a goal out the back is always a risk and there were holes everywhere when we entered our 50 hence.

As was their centre bounce and stoppages set up.

Just to easy for us to win quality clearances, too easy for us transition the ball and too many easy marks

All that said, I'm not sure how useful the so called pressure ratings are other than to give some sense of intensity.

Interestingly though clarkson said in the post match presser he thought their pressure was pretty good, which the stats seem to support (at least until the last quarter when they were cooked).

The accuracy noted in rhe poot above was obviously a big factor I the margin. We kick 10.6 instead and it's a 60 point win, which doesn't look so bad for the roos

[layzie 30,939]

Who would have thought good goalkicking would be the multiplier effect? 

[Little Goffy 13,484]

5 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Reverse engineered 🤦‍♂️ 😂

The terms are back-conflatible.

Has anyone already noted that Van Rooyen and Kade Chandler are the 1st and 2nd most accurate goal kickers in the AFL so far this season?

Fritsch also lurking in the top 10.

All three are yet to go a game goalless in 2023. (also Pickett & Brown, but they have missed games)

Edit:  Van Rooyen has surpassed Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett and many other luminaries in his streak from debut, and just needs... 60... more games to surpass record-holder Coleman himself.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Little Goffy

[spirit of norm smith 13,881]

Suns v Dees 

frustration and then relief in Dees 5 point win 

Suns won

contested possessions 149-123

clearances 42-36

marks 94-66

Dees won

tackles 66-44

inside 50s 61-45  (but low impact inside 50) 

Dees overhandballing again

Dees kicks 177 handballs 146  

Suns more effective with the footy

Suns 227 kicks 121 handballs 

 

[spirit of norm smith 13,881]

Tackles v Suns 66-44 

⭐️⭐️⭐️Pickett 7.  Sparrow 7. Viney 7 

⭐️⭐️ANB 6  ⭐️Gawn 5 

but others were lacking and work to do

1s. May. Lever , Bowey , Langdon. Riv. Chin. 

Fritsch 0 ☹️Hunter 0 ☹️

[WheeloRatings 1,091]

Melbourne v Gold Coast

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20230804

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 186 - 193
Q2: 179 - 178
Q3: 179 - 166
Q4: 191 - 172
Tot: 184 - 177

Most Pressure Points

Viney: 65
Sparrow: 62
Pickett: 53
Oliver: 44
Neal-Bullen: 42
Petracca: 38
Gawn: 37
van Rooyen: 36

Time in forward half

56% - 44%

Score sources

Centre bounce
1.3.9 - 0.0.0

Ball up
0.1.1 - 2.4.16

Throw in
1.2.8 - 4.1.25

Turnover
11.6.72 - 6.2.38

Kick-in
0.0.0 - 1.0.6

Shots at goal

Set position
5.5.35 - 8.4.52

General play
8.5.53 - 5.2.32

[binman 40,485]

The pressure data and turnover stats (a function of pressure) suggest our work rate and effort was good. 

And 56-44 time in forward half and plus 16 inside 50s shows a lot was working, the contested ball and clearance numbers notwithstanding.

Edited May 7, 2023 by binman

[DeeZone 8,421]

On 5/1/2023 at 1:55 PM, Demon Dynasty said:

Barely tugging on the coat tails of great analysts layzie but thanks!  A tinkerer at best.

Speaking of pints... if i don't end up over board after a few too many on the goodship P&O brewhouse in the next 2 weeks will try & catch up at the Burnley if you're up for it before one of our home games as discussed

DD are you providing the Stats this week, interested to see the change in player ratings.✅

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

7 hours ago, DeeZone said:

DD are you providing the Stats this week, interested to see the change in player ratings.✅

Bonjour Dz.

Presently sitting about 950 nautical miles off the coast of Oz in the bay of Lifou, New Caledonia.

Have internet but the French might describe it as cette putain de merde!

Something i cannot repeat in English within the hallowed halls of DL.

I also need my laptop which i didnt bring for obvious reasons.

So bottom line i will be putting the ratings against the GC together most likely just before the Hawks match then follow it up shortly after with that one.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

On 5/1/2023 at 12:39 PM, binman said:

Thanks so much DD for your thoughtful reply. 

I wonder it it's worth pinning this to top of this thread (i recall now that this info was on the first such thread)

 

Would need to spend three hours or more condensing that 2020 reponse into a few lines that the odd lander might be bothered reading on a good day Bin!

Even then maybe not a good idea to pin as i see this thread as a general place where anyone can drop anything remotely Demon/AFL stats related and general discussions thereof.

The other option is i could put a small para at the bottom of the tables giving a very brief background as to how they were concocted.

[DeeZone 8,421]

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Bonjour Dz.

Presently sitting about 950 nautical miles off the coast of Oz in the bay of Lifou, New Caledonia.

Have internet but the French might describe it as cette putain de merde!

Something i cannot repeat in English within the hallowed halls of DL.

I also need my laptop which i didnt bring for obvious reasons.

So bottom line i will be putting the ratings against the GC together most likely just before the Hawks match then follow it up shortly after with that one.

Thanks DD enjoy your cruise we did similar cruise back in 2008 with 4 of our best friends to celebrate our 30th and had a memorable time. Will keep my eye out for it later in the week.✅✅

[Gawndy the Great 8,240]

19 hours ago, binman said:

The pressure data and turnover stats (a function of pressure) suggest our work rate and effort was good. 

And 56-44 time in forward half and plus 16 inside 50s shows a lot was working, the contested ball and clearance numbers notwithstanding.

Turnover scores dried up last year if memory serves me right and is a good, reliable source of scoring as it is effort based, so glad to see that we have re-weaponised that.

[layzie 30,939]

16 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Would need to spend three hours or more condensing that 2020 reponse into a few lines that the odd lander might be bothered reading on a good day Bin!

Is this something ChatGPT can do? 😃

[binman 40,485]

18 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Turnover scores dried up last year if memory serves me right and is a good, reliable source of scoring as it is effort based, so glad to see that we have re-weaponised that.

It's interesting actually. 

Scoring from turnover is key to our game plan and how we score - it is for most teams.

Daniel Hoyle from Champion data said on SEN earlier this week (and has made this point a number of times) that teams are TWICE as likely to score from a turnover than a clearance, yet clearance numbers get a lot more attention. 

Apparently, the Pies were the best, or close to it, for scores from turnovers last year. And are 18th this season.

Hoyle made this point on SEN and the refrain from Gerard Healy and Kane Cornes was that was a scary stat because the Pies were still winning, and it showed how much upside and improvement they have.

That's one take.

Another is they are not applying enough pressure and it is a major red flag.

It's almost certainly a factor in their struggles to score. And why, despite having one more win, they have 17% less percentage than us.

After blitzing in rounds one and two (125 v cats and 135 v port) they have failed to break 100 points in the subsequent six rounds, averaging a paltry 73 points a game. In that same period we averaged 112 points - though to be fair that includes games games against the Eagles and the roos. 

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

Round 8, 2023 HBS - Suns vs Demons

Back from a brief getaway guys hence the delay on this.  A nice dose of covid for my troubles on the second last day courtesy of ye olde floating petri dish.

Didn't get a chance to see this match so any comments this week are purely from a stats perspective only.

First up... our worst Team Rating for the season so far after having our best the week before, albeit against the lowly ranked Kangas.  Is this something to do with how good GC were or did we have a bit of an off day?  Maybe a bit of both?

Clarry regains his No. 1 rating in this match after being pipped by Viney & Tracc in the previous two matches.

After having a few off games (statistically only, may still have played his role nicely etc) in Rnd 3 vs the Swans & Rnd 5 vs the Bombers, Gus has bounced back in his last three matches with top 10 rankings (top 5 the last two weeks!).

Of note is Max's results in the last two weeks.  While still a fair way off his best it's certainly a step up from his expected 'tentative' return from injury against the Tigers where he notched up a very low 1.500

Conversely, May had his worst rating result for the season with a miserly 1.150  That rating is low for anyone let alone May.  Wonder what's going on here?  If it's an ongoing niggle should we have managed him this week against the Hawks?

Sparrow just pipping Tracc!

Fritsch an all time howler?

Focussing on Clarry he had.... 22 effectives @ 78%, one 1%er, 6 clearances, 1 rebound, 5 inside 50s, 4 tackles, 9 score involvements (the most of either team on the night), 6 intercepts, 449 meters gained and 5 turnovers.

Top 5 meters gained.... Tracc 527, Hunter 474, Clarry 449, Brayshaw & Viney on 371 a piece.  Atkins from GC the best on the night with 637.

Player	Rating	Rank
C Oliver	5.175	1
A Brayshaw	4.475	2
Tom Sparrow	4.075	3
C Petracca	4.025	4
Jake Bowey	3.750	5
Max Gawn #	3.475	6
L Hunter	3.150	7
J Jordon	3.100	8
J McVee	3.050	9
Jack Viney	2.825	10
K Pickett	2.700	11
Trent Rivers	2.575	12
K Chandler	1.950	13
J V Rooyen #	1.750	14
Jake Lever	1.700	15
A N-Bullen	1.675	16
H Petty #	1.625	17
Ed Langdon	1.400	18
B Grundy #	1.350	19
Steven May	1.150	20
D Turner < 74%	1.075	21
J Harmes > 18%	1.050	22
B Fritsch	0.400	23
Team Score	57.10
Top 6	24.98
Bottom 6	7.65

# Hit outs to advantage not counted

< Subbed out / TOG %

> Subbed in / TOG %

Stats courtesy of footwire.com

Edited May 12, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[DeeZone 8,421]

Thanks DD welcome back to bad about Covid hope you are feeling better, stats look way down on a lot of players.!!

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

Weighted Average Ratings up to & including Rnd 8, 2023 vs H&A Season 2022

After 8 rounds we now have a meaningful data set for 2023.  Most players, bar a few, have either improved on their 2022 form (statistically) or matched that form.

The two stand outs that haven't...

Harmes:  We don't know the personal story here so i'm not going to speculate.  He also isn't that far off his 2022 form in the limited opportunity and TOG he's had (so far).  13% seems like a fair drop and no doubt hard for a player to turn around in the short term.  But given enough weeks to work on things at Casey & on the track / gym he should be able to claw back most of that at some stage.

I have faith he will get back to his prior levels at some point this season or next assuming any personal matters are now behind him.  A premiership player, a fabulous clubman and a lifelong Demon supporter.  He can also play and play well when he's on.  Happy to back him in.

May:  The biggest concern for mine.  Coming off two superb years and a flag was always going to be a difficult act to keep following up, especially given the age factor.  However a drop off of 25% doesn't explain this in my view.  10% or so?  Yep that would seem fair.

However, with an interrupted pre-season and start with a calf issue, one can only deduce he may still have some concerns here and that it's limiting his ability to go to his usual full tilt levels on the training track.  Which is then playing out on match day as one would expect.

Obviously a major cog that determines how well our defence holds up (and for that matter the fate of the team's success as a whole), May's drop off is, for mine, our biggest concern / problem at this point and going forward if we can't get him back to within about 5% - 10% of his 2021/2022 levels.

Wishing him all the best for his 200th today & great to have that at the G against Hawks.  Aside from that though, was there a chance to manage him in recent times to try and resolve any nagging issues?  Maybe there wasn't and there isn't and it's purely a form issue and/or everything's under control physically under supervision from the HPT.  If so all good.  But my footy radar tells me something's afoot here!

BBB & Macca:  Only my opinion but i think we need to get one of these fellas back and firing at some stage in the next 4 to 5 weeks if we're to go deep into September action.  If we can i would be sending Petty back to his usual role and use as occasional change up / chop out up forward as needed on occasions.

Player	2023 Rating	2023 Rank	2022 Rating	% Change vs 2022	2022 Rank	Change in Rank vs 2022
C Oliver	5.444	1	5.320	2.33	1	0
C Petracca	4.822	2	4.456	8.21	2	0
A Brayshaw	3.866	3	3.839	0.70	5	2
T Rivers	3.815	4	2.423	57.45	18	14
Jack Viney	3.714	5	3.971	-6.47	3	-2
J Jordon >	3.682	6	3.164	16.37	9	3
A Tomlinson	3.233	7	2.079	55.51	22	15
T Sparrow	3.206	8	2.665	20.30	16	8
Max Gawn # <	3.163	9	3.215	-1.62	8	-1
L Hunter	3.138	10	-	-	-	-
B Grundy #	3.078	11	-	-	-	-
K Pickett	3.021	12	2.118	42.63	21	9
Steven May	3.000	13	3.971	-24.45	3	-10
Jake Lever	2.986	14	2.703	10.47	14	0
Ed Langdon	2.963	15	3.109	-4.70	11	-4
M Hibberd	2.791	16	2.613	6.81	17	1
Jake Bowey	2.741	17	2.856	-4.03	13	-4
K Chandler	2.688	18	-	-	-	-
Alex N-Bullen	2.681	19	2.688	-0.26	15	-4
J Harmes	2.671	20	3.082	-13.34	12	-8
H Petty #	2.361	21	2.392	-1.30	19	-2
T McDonald #	2.344	22	1.939	20.89	26	4
J V Rooyen #	2.304	23	-	-	-	-
Judd McVee	2.247	24	-	-	-	-
B Fritsch	2.075	25	1.936	7.18	27	2
Ben Brown # <	2.033	26	1.759	15.58	29	3
C Spargo	1.935	27	1.981	-2.32	24	-3
J Melksham >	1.437	28	1.947	-26.19	25	-3
B Laurie < *	1.300	29	-	-	-	-
D Turner *	1.075	30	-	-	-	-
Team Rating	71.41		68.89	3.66

* Played less than two full matches (in total) - player rating compromised

# Hit outs to advantage not counted

< Subbed Out at least once or more

> Subbed In at least once or more

Stats courtesy of footwire.com

Edited May 13, 2023 by Demon Dynasty