Elite decision makers

[dazzledavey36 49,355]

4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

How is that measured Jimmy and where are the stats?  Just interested because it doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

[whatwhat say what 19,715]

i believe that has to do with retention rates post-kick?

[Slartibartfast 16,021]

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

That doesn't tell me how the kick rating were judged Dazzle.  What are they measuring?  Who are the others in the top 20? 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Slartibartfast

[whatwhat say what 19,715]

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

That doesn't tell me how the kick rating were judged Dazzle.  What are they measuring?

i believe it's retention rate post kick

[old55 21,638]

8 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i believe it's retention rate post kick

Wow maybe something to do with the quality of forwards in receipt of the kicks and the ones missing injured?

[Binmans PA 26,494]

11 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i believe it's retention rate post kick

Which would make sense. And IMV speaks to the personnel issues we had forward of centre this year, which then has a flow on effect both strategically and ball movement wise.

But nah, let's just look at a very broad stat to justify an argument here.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Binmans PA

[old55 21,638]

27 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

We have three of the top 10 worst kicks in the game. 

Yes. 

 

Who do you want to get rid of, and who should replace them?

"Jimmy wants to trade Petracca, Oliver and Gawn" is on a par with the ridiculous "3 of the worst 10 kicks" line.

Edited September 25, 2023 by old55

[Fat Tony 4,533]

There are no perfect footballers.

Obviously we need better decision makers in our team. But we also need players with speed, height, toughness, strength and endurance. I would prefer Mark Blicavs than Greg Williams in today's game because transition running is so important.

With Petracca, Oliver, Viney and Gawn on our list, forward connection will always be an issue for us and so the territory game is really the best plan for us to win. (We could make some minor tweaks to the way we play but Goodwin's system is mostly correct.) 

So we need to recruit players to compliment our midfield, which generates quantity more than quality entries. That means better wingers and forwards who can win one-on-one contests and convert from tough distance/angles.

[rjay 24,046]

.

Edited September 25, 2023 by rjay

[DeeZone 7,950]

2 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

We'd have played Howes this year too, but for injury. He's a good ball user, so we can add him to the list. And indeed, if Salem doesn't improve form wise, his spot will ultimately come under threat.

Agree BPA Blake Howes needs to get himself into the side next year, his extra height (6’3”) and quality disposal across the half backline could be a weapon for the team, he could eventually play wing / half forward if he can build his core strength and speed.

[Gawndy the Great 7,713]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

JG is right. If Petracca took one or two more steps before dump kicking he’d see options. If Oliver hand balled out of the pack instead of dump kicking the game might just open up. If Gawn stopped grabbing the ball and dump kicking he might see a better placed handball option. This is where we lose it. We literally shoot ourselves in the foot time and again. Our patchwork forward line is largely ignored in favour of dump kicks. I’d right COMPOSURE on the board over summer.

Oliver was criticized by his over handballing earlier on his career. But agree we need to find an unpressured ball user. Whether it is getting the ball to the outside, a ball user off half back or bursting free of stoppage. The dump kick has to be the last option.

And the forward structure needs to create space, so if there is a pressured kick it is to space. It shouldn't be going to be the top of the goal square all the time either, but mix it up with various areas where there is deliberately manufactured space. The kicks need to have a lowered (not completely low) trajectory, so the forwards have a chance of marking the darn thing without it getting spoiled.

[Deemania since 56 6,240]

On 9/17/2023 at 8:01 PM, DeeSpencer said:

The big thing we need is to run and use the ball in to space.

Run creates run, space creates space. 

The windows to target forwards get far larger. 

It’s a small margin, really it’s probably 10-20% more running for and giving handballs.

Kicking gets all the attention but it’s run and handballing through the initial wave of pressure or from intercepts that create the chances for kicking the ball to space. 

Been bleating on about this obvious need for years ... so we can repeat 'bang, bang, bang' more often and control all aspects of play more frequently/effectively rather than observe another turnover. We are, in turn, beaten by teams who, in the second half of games, switch to running to space with reasonable kickers' delivery to another space to which the receiver can solely occupy. We have ourselves to blame - ignoring territory as the key means to positive ball progression.

 

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

1 hour ago, Binmans PA said:

Which would make sense. And IMV speaks to the personnel issues we had forward of centre this year, which then has a flow on effect both strategically and ball movement wise.

But nah, let's just look at a very broad stat to justify an argument here.

Haha.

Head in the sand.

I've been saying it for years, watching with my own eyes. And the evidence has also been pointed out by many within the media world. And plenty of footage has been shown to back it up. Not good enough for you? Still believe it to be a furphy?

Keep believing the earth is flat.

We have too many poor ball users in the one side. Fact. And that is what has been the difference in winning the close games and not imv.

Would you like to revisit Jack Viney's last effort on the wing against Carlton?

That moment symbolised all and everything that I'm talking about. But demonland doesn't want to talk about it.

We work so hard and have so much going for us all over the ground but we shoot ourselves in the foot, with our feet. More than any other top 8 side, consistently.

Keep arguing though.

Edited September 25, 2023 by JimmyGadson

[Roost it far 6,240]

51 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Which would make sense. And IMV speaks to the personnel issues we had forward of centre this year, which then has a flow on effect both strategically and ball movement wise.

But nah, let's just look at a very broad stat to justify an argument here.

C’mon, that’s rubbish. Our poor kicking can’t be blamed on other players 

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

It's hilarious listening to one poster talk about how well our forwardline functioned when we had both Fritsch and Petty out at one stage and then another use the excuse that we've had no forwards this year because of injury.

Which one is it?!

Outside of demonlanddddd, it is common knowledge that we butcher the footy far more than a team with this level of 'talent' should.

It's an unbalanced list, it needs addressing and so does our method.

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

53 minutes ago, old55 said:

Who do you want to get rid of, and who should replace them?

"Jimmy wants to trade Petracca, Oliver and Gawn" is on a par with the ridiculous "3 of the worst 10 kicks" line.

It must be a nice bubble that you're in Old!

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Collingwood:  Played twice, won by 4, lost by 7

Brisbane: Played twice, lost by 11, won by 1

Port: Played once, lost by 4

Carlton:  Played three times, won by 17, lost by 4, lost by 2

GWS:  Played once, lost by 2

 

We played the top 5 sides 9 times and lost 6 of those games by less than 2 goal.  Let's not pretend we are no good and a rabble.  We had Tmac, Brown, Petty and Fritta injured for long periods.  We had a second year key position forward show heaps. I don't think our forward line is the major issue and the concept that we "need to sell the farm" to get a gun KPF is flawed.

Who is saying we're no good?!

This is the thing about you lot! It's always the extreme! Criticise an element of our game and it's "Ah so we're rubbish are we?!" Haha! 

It's okayyyy to criticise an element of a team's game whilst acknowledging their strengths. How many times do I need to say that I think we have most of our game sorted?

Not only that, I would say almost all of those games you mentioned came down to either an inability to convert inside 50's into shots on goal orrrrr convert shots on goal into goals... Port game, Carlton, GWS...

Anyone notice a trend here?!?!

Joisus.

Edited September 25, 2023 by JimmyGadson

[Axis of Bob 10,379]

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

i believe it's retention rate post kick

It isn't that, it's kick rating which is a Champion Data stat which I've barely seen anyone use at all. It's theoretically the retention of the ball weighted on the difficulty of the kick. 

The fact that there are 3 star players from the same part of the field from the same team is pretty suspicious, and probably indicates a bias that makes the stat pretty inaccurate. The fact that I haven't seen a list of the top 5, 10 or whatever on this stat really does make it appear that the stat isn't very good. 

The only real time I've seen it used this year was an article after round 4, where the worst kick in the league (according to AFL Kick Rating) was Hugh McCluggage.

[Jjrogan 1,259]

28 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

It's hilarious listening to one poster talk about how well our forwardline functioned when we had both Fritsch and Petty out at one stage and then another use the excuse that we've had no forwards this year because of injury.

Which one is it?!

Outside of demonlanddddd, it is common knowledge that we butcher the footy far more than a team with this level of 'talent' should.

It's an unbalanced list, it needs addressing and so does our method.

 

Part I don't get is even if you believe it's just the forwards and our midfield is fine. Surely there has to be some doubt? None whatsoever? Really?

We've tried different forward set ups, kinda worked, kinda didnt??  Why didn't we even try some different midfield set ups by putting in for a quarter some better users. Put Clarry forward for a quarter to see if his generational ground ball game helped create chances.   Hmm maybe? Is our system sooo fragile that it would have fallen apart.  You're trying to make an AA ruckman a forward, but you cant have Salem, Bowey or McVee take a centre bounce and get on the end of a Trac forward handball. Lol. 

Carry on, same input, same result in the likely result here 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Jjrogan

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

5 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

It isn't that, it's kick rating which is a Champion Data stat which I've barely seen anyone use at all. It's theoretically the retention of the ball weighted on the difficulty of the kick. 

The fact that there are 3 star players from the same part of the field from the same team is pretty suspicious, and probably indicates a bias that makes the stat pretty inaccurate. The fact that I haven't seen a list of the top 5, 10 or whatever on this stat really does make it appear that the stat isn't very good. 

The only real time I've seen it used this year was an article after round 4, where the worst kick in the league (according to AFL Kick Rating) was Hugh McCluggage.

 

Haha. 

I could honestly pick the ten posters that would rebut this stat, and you're on the list. 

Out of interest, what is with the defensiveness to this stat? 

Has anyone actually thought about that? Where's it coming from?

"No we simply can't have a midfield stacked with players who butcher the footy too often! That's impossible and that stat is silly and must be wrong!"

 

Here's an exercise for everyone. 

Go back to all of our losses. Watch our dominant patches throughout those games. And watch what happens when we go inside 50 during those periods of dominance. How did we do? Report back on how we did comparatively to the other side who didn't have the same level of dominance through patches, but were able to kick easy goals, somehow. Remarkably.

How many of those games were of similar fashion and do you think we lost due to our inability to convert chances on goal or turn kicks inside 50 into chances at shots on goal?

I look forward to your responses.

[dazzledavey36 49,355]

21 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

It isn't that, it's kick rating which is a Champion Data stat which I've barely seen anyone use at all. It's theoretically the retention of the ball weighted on the difficulty of the kick. 

The fact that there are 3 star players from the same part of the field from the same team is pretty suspicious, and probably indicates a bias that makes the stat pretty inaccurate. The fact that I haven't seen a list of the top 5, 10 or whatever on this stat really does make it appear that the stat isn't very good. 

The only real time I've seen it used this year was an article after round 4, where the worst kick in the league (according to AFL Kick Rating) was Hugh McCluggage.

Bias from who exactly?

Nor sure you can rebuke a stat purely because you haven't sighted it yourself lol.  

The On The Couch crew showed it on their show last week as I provided. Most of their stats that are gathered are usually from champion data which is indeed not bias or inaccurate. 

[Binmans PA 26,494]

20 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

 

Part I don't get is even if you believe it's just the forwards and our midfield is fine. Surely there has to be some doubt? None whatsoever? Really?

We've tried different forward set ups, kinda worked, kinda didnt??  Why didn't we even try some different midfield set ups by putting in for a quarter some better users. Put Clarry forward for a quarter to see if his generational ground ball game helped create chances.   Hmm maybe? Is our system sooo fragile that it would have fallen apart.  You're trying to make an AA ruckman a forward, but you cant have Salem, Bowey or McVee take a centre bounce and get on the end of a Trac forward handball. Lol. 

Carry on, same input, same result in the likely result here 

 

Who said the midfield is fine?

It's this sort of extreme that Jimmy laments too, and then frames all his arguments in exactly those terms. Black and white. Extremes.

I said the midfield is great at winning contested ball, but their disposal isn't their strong suit. There are a number of factors for this, such as where and how they are winning it, and the forwardline that they're kicking into.

That doesn't mean they don't choose the wrong option from time to time, but that's the point I've been making. Our personnel forward of the ball dictates how aggressive or conservative we are with our ball movement.

[Jjrogan 1,259]

1 minute ago, Binmans PA said:

Who said the midfield is fine?

It's this sort of extreme that Jimmy laments too, and then frames all his arguments in exactly those terms. Black and white. Extremes.

I said the midfield is great at winning contested ball, but their disposal isn't their strong suit. There are a number of factors for this, such as where and how they are winning it, and the forwardline that they're kicking into.

That doesn't mean they don't choose the wrong option from time to time, but that's the point I've been making. Our personnel forward of the ball dictates how aggressive or conservative we are with our ball movement.

Various posters are saying the midfield are fine to the extent they are blanking JG on his suggestion that we try different personnel. 

Please don't label me an extremist, it's a ridiculous assertion given my post clearly was the exact opposite of that.  It literally spells out there must be doubt re personnel as much as there is doubt re personnel in the forward line. If we kept changing the midfield but not the forwards I would be equally perplexed as to the logic.

[Axis of Bob 10,379]

8 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

I could honestly pick the ten posters that would rebut this stat, and you're on the list. 

Out of interest, what is with the defensiveness to this stat? 

Has anyone actually thought about that? Where's it coming from?

"No we simply can't have a midfield stacked with players who butcher the footy too often! That's impossible and that stat is silly and must be wrong!"

How could I know if the stat is bad ... it never gets used! You referenced the only time I've seen it where it was still shown out of context.

I am someone who cares about the data and I try to use it whenever I can to tell a story about whatever it is I'm posting about. I try to use good sources and I don't know if this is a good source because there's no context around it with which to judge it. You said that we have 3 of the 10 worst kicks int he AFL. It's up to you to prove that this is the case and I don't know if the stat that you provided does that. 

There are several stats that could indicate poor disposal or poor decision making. For instance, you could talk about average turnovers as being a stat for this, which has Jack Viney as the 2nd worst in the league and Clayton Oliver as the 4th worst. That make sense to you ..... but the context is that Tim Kelly was the worst and Errol Gulden was 3rd worst, so it doesn't really pass the sniff test as a measure. 

Or you could use Disposal Efficiency %, which would make sense. However looking at the context for this data shows that all those with the lowest DE% are forwards and all of the highest are defenders (Melksham 3rd worst 50.5% vs Dougal Howard 4th best 88.8%), so that's clearly not a good measure as it's biased against forwards and towards defenders.

The stats that you use to measure something are important and each of them tells a different story. The AFL Kick Ratings stat is seldom used or reported upon, and when it is it done so without context, which makes it very difficult to trust as a proper measure. If we had more information about it and more data from it then perhaps it could mean something but it's difficult to trust as it is.

[Axis of Bob 10,379]

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bias from who exactly?

Nor sure you can rebuke a stat purely because you haven't sighted it yourself lol.  

I think you've misunderstood bias. 

Bias doesn't have to be from a person .... I'm not talking about falsifying data. Bias is that data skews one way or another based upon what you're measuring, who you're measuring and how you're measuring it. All data is biased in some way. I used the example of disposal efficiency above as an example of bias, but it could be for kicks (including/excluding kickouts, or the inside/outside balance of your game etc) or even wins (how easy was you draw, did other teams have more injuries etc.).

When people talk about lies, damned lies and statistics, this is what they're talking about. For instance, I could argue that Taj Woewodin is a better player than Steven May because Taj kicked 2 goals this year whilst May kicked zero. But it's obviously a bad argument because the context and methodology of the statistics matters.

I don't know how the AFL Kick Rating is biased because there's no decent information on it nor results. But I do know that it's biased because all statistics are. Having 3 of the top 7 (out of 200+) players coming from the same position on the same team is a massive red flag. I'd like to see the total rankings because I think it would tell us some very interesting stories.