Stats Files - 2024

[Whispering_Jack 28,853]

On 08/07/2024 at 12:38, binman said:

There are some very curious stats this week, but one in particular stands out.

We had more 1.1 km metres gained than the Eagles.

Which is incredible.

In previous seasons, with our forward half game that would not be that remarkable - but it is this year. I suspect it might be our biggest diff for metres gained all season.

Normally such a differential, for any club, but in seasons past  particularly us, would correlate with smashing the oppo for inside 50 and time in forward half.

But we were dead even for inside 50s and 49% to their 51% for time in forward half.

@Binmans PA, I wondered if one factor for these seemingly contradictory numbers might be related to the point you have made a few times about how deep our defence often sits this season - ie we often win the ball back deep in our defence, effectively lengthening the ground.

Thoughts?

Amy other theories?

How about the theory that some Eagles players weren’t trying all that hard because they wanted Simpson out? Fits in with the events as they transpired after the game.

[binman 41,788]

43 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

How about the theory that some Eagles players weren’t trying all that hard because they wanted Simpson out? Fits in with the events as they transpired after the game.

I think the Eagles' effort was actually pretty good.

But for the sake of argument let's say that's not the case, how would a lack of effort by Eagles' players explain us smashing them for metres gained yet inside 50s and time in forward half being basically dead even.

I mean if the Eagles effort was poor wouldn't that translate to also being smashed for inside 50s and time in forward half?

That's what usually happens when a team doesn’t turn up - ie they can't stop their opponent transitioning the ball end to end with ease.

By way of example our poorest performance this season was without question the freo loss. Whatever the cause, it appeared that many dees players weren't trying that hard.

The dockers smacked us for metres gained, in fact by a similar amount as we did to the Eagles.

And these were the inside 50 and time in forward half numbers:

Metres Gained	5268	6592	-1324
Inside 50s	37	68	-31

Time in Forward Half:

Quarter	For	Against
1	53%	47%
2	42%	58%
3	38%	62%
4	45%	55%
Match	43%	57%

Edited July 11 by binman

[demosaw 970]

18 minutes ago, binman said:

The dockers smacked us for metres gained, in fact by a similar amount as we did to the Eagles

I would have thought difference in metres gained can only be due to 3 things:

Team goal difference - reset to centre

4 x random events - where the ball was at the end of the quarter relative to the centre.

Noise - measurement error, bias, not measuring straight up and down the ground, etc

Metres gained generally need to be lost by the other side?

Basically should correlate with goal difference and not add much?

[binman 41,788]

1 hour ago, demosaw said:

I would have thought difference in metres gained can only be due to 3 things:

Team goal difference - reset to centre

4 x random events - where the ball was at the end of the quarter relative to the centre.

Noise - measurement error, bias, not measuring straight up and down the ground, etc

Metres gained generally need to be lost by the other side?

Basically should correlate with goal difference and not add much?

With all due respect, all points in this post are off the mark.

A team's total metres gained is the aggregate metres gained by each of its players.

From the Champion data glossary the definition for metres gained by individual players is:

Metres Gained: Net metres gained with the ball by a player, by running, kicking or handballing, combining measures towards attacking goal and away from defensive goal.

That's to say metres gained in a straight line from the defensive goal to the attacking goal.

Normally when a team win metres gained comprehensively they invariably win inside 50s and time in forward half because that team has moved the ball towards their goal more than their opponents did.

One scenario where that might not be the case is when one team kicks a lot more points than their opponents.

That's because each kick out, by definition, goes forward towards their own goal (as opposed to say switching the ball laterally).

For example, Steve May takes a kick out, plays on, runs outside the square for 15 metres and kicks the ball 60 metres. In that scenario he is credited with 85 metres gained.

So, let's say a team kicks 10 more points than their opponent.

And for the sake of argument that opponent averages 50 metres gained per kick out.

That team basically gets an automatic 500 more metres gained than their opponents.

But that scenario doesn't apply in the Dees v Eagles game as both teams kicked the same number of points.

Edited July 12 by binman

[Watson11 2,149]

9 hours ago, binman said:

With all due respect, all points in this post are off the mark.

A team's total metres gained is the aggregate metres gained by each of its players.

From the Champion data glossary the definition for metres gained by individual players is:

Metres Gained: Net metres gained with the ball by a player, by running, kicking or handballing, combining measures towards attacking goal and away from defensive goal.

That's to say metres gained in a straight line from the defensive goal to the attacking goal.

Normally when a team win metres gained comprehensively they invariably win inside 50s and time in forward half because that team has moved the ball towards their goal more than their opponents did.

One scenario where that might not be the case is when one team kicks a lot more points than their opponents.

That's because each kick out, by definition, goes forward towards their own goal (as opposed to say switching the ball laterally).

For example, Steve May takes a kick out, plays on, runs outside the square for 15 metres and kicks the ball 60 metres. In that scenario he is credited with 85 metres gained.

So, let's say a team kicks 10 more points than their opponent.

And for the sake of argument that opponent averages 50 metres gained per kick out.

That team basically gets an automatic 500 more metres gained than their opponents.

But that scenario doesn't apply in the Dees v Eagles game as both teams kicked the same number of points.

@demosaw is actually almost spot on. In a hypothetical game where neither side kicks a goal or a point, and the ball happens to finish the end of every quarter in the centre circle, both sides will have identical metres gained regardless of how many inside 50s or how much time in fwd half they have.  Each time a side kicks a goal, they get an automatic 85-90m benefit based on the ground size. For each point a side kicks, they get a 10m benefit as the kickin side loses 10m.  Then depending on where the qtr ends there is an adjustment.

For points, the opposite applies to what you stated, as for every point kicked the side kicking out loses 10m gained no matter how far they kick it.

It’s a pretty meaningless team measure really and I’ve always wondered why it’s recorded for teams (I understand it’s meaningful for individual players).

If you want to check some big differentials, just go look at games with 20 goal margins like WC last year.  They lost metres gained by around 2000.

 

[binman 41,788]

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

@demosaw is actually almost spot on. In a hypothetical game where neither side kicks a goal or a point, and the ball happens to finish the end of every quarter in the centre circle, both sides will have identical metres gained regardless of how many inside 50s or how much time in fwd half they have.  Each time a side kicks a goal, they get an automatic 85-90m benefit based on the ground size. For each point a side kicks, they get a 10m benefit as the kickin side loses 10m.  Then depending on where the qtr ends there is an adjustment.

For points, the opposite applies to what you stated, as for every point kicked the side kicking out loses 10m gained no matter how far they kick it.

It’s a pretty meaningless team measure really and I’ve always wondered why it’s recorded for teams (I understand it’s meaningful for individual players).

If you want to check some big differentials, just go look at games with 20 goal margins like WC last year.  They lost metres gained by around 2000.

 

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but i don't think that is correct,

My understanding is as follows:

Each time a player gets the ball anwhere on the ground they can:

- get tackled and not move the ball anywhere: zero metres gained.

- run and carry toward their goal: metres gained = how far they run in a straight line towards their goal

- kick the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- handball the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- run and carry and kick or handball the ball towards their goal: metres gained combined measure 

BUT they also have metres lost if any of those actions go towards their opponents goal, ie backwards. 

Which is why you sometimes see a player with negative metres gained.

Players kick, run, and handball backwards all the time, and some teams do so more often than others.

For example the pies love to feed handballs backwards into space. 

My understanding is a team's total metres gained is simply each players' metres gained aggregated.

(I'm sure @WheeloRatings can clarfy).

If that's the case, and im not having a brain fade, then it's got nothing to do with goals or points kicked (other than the scenario where one team kicks way more points than their opponent because by defintion each kick has to go forward). 

And your hypothetical scenario doesn't hold.

Again, if my understanding of how the team total is calculated is correct, it is a arguably more useful stat than individual players metres gained as it helps in understanding a team's method.

For example, in 2020 to 2023 we were a forward half territory team that prioritised going forward with each possession. Consequently we always had high metres gained.

Whereas the Eagles 2018 team kicked the ball backwards all the time to keep possession and control the ball, and consequently were low low metres gained team.

Ditto for the cats under Scott until the last 3 seasons.

And it's also my understanding that winning metres gained differential strongly correlates with the likelihood of winning.

Which is why the territory game hardwick developed has become the template for footy.

[titan_uranus 24,480]

3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

@demosaw is actually almost spot on. In a hypothetical game where neither side kicks a goal or a point, and the ball happens to finish the end of every quarter in the centre circle, both sides will have identical metres gained regardless of how many inside 50s or how much time in fwd half they have.  Each time a side kicks a goal, they get an automatic 85-90m benefit based on the ground size. For each point a side kicks, they get a 10m benefit as the kickin side loses 10m.  Then depending on where the qtr ends there is an adjustment.

For points, the opposite applies to what you stated, as for every point kicked the side kicking out loses 10m gained no matter how far they kick it.

It’s a pretty meaningless team measure really and I’ve always wondered why it’s recorded for teams (I understand it’s meaningful for individual players).

If you want to check some big differentials, just go look at games with 20 goal margins like WC last year.  They lost metres gained by around 2000.

 

36 minutes ago, binman said:

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but i don't think that is correct,

My understanding is as follows:

Each time a player gets the ball anwhere on the ground they can:

- get tackled and not move the ball anywhere: zero metres gained.

- run and carry toward their goal: metres gained = how far they run in a straight line towards their goal

- kick the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- handball the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- run and carry and kick or handball the ball towards their goal: metres gained combined measure 

BUT they also have metres lost if any of those actions go towards their opponents goal, ie backwards. 

Which is why you sometimes see a player with negative metres gained.

Players kick, run, and handball backwards all the time, and some teams do so more often than others.

For example the pies love to feed handballs backwards into space. 

My understanding is a team's total metres gained is simply each players' metres gained aggregated.

(I'm sure @WheeloRatings can clarfy).

If that's the case, and im not having a brain fade, then it's got nothing to do with goals or points kicked (other than the scenario where one team kicks way more points than their opponent because by defintion each kick has to go forward). 

And your hypothetical scenario doesn't hold.

Again, if my understanding of how the team total is calculated is correct, it is a arguably more useful stat than individual players metres gained as it helps in understanding a team's method.

For example, in 2020 to 2023 we were a forward half territory team that prioritised going forward with each possession. Consequently we always had high metres gained.

Whereas the Eagles 2018 team kicked the ball backwards all the time to keep possession and control the ball, and consequently were low low metres gained team.

Ditto for the cats under Scott until the last 3 seasons.

And it's also my understanding that winning metres gained differential strongly correlates with the likelihood of winning.

Which is why the territory game hardwick developed has become the template for footy.

I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition.

Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the  opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. 

Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

[Watson11 2,149]

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition.

Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the  opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. 

Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

That’s fair enough.  It’s pretty rare that backwards kicks are turned over so they are probably a minor factor, Also tap outs, spoils, knockons, throw ins etc make small differences.  But generally, as you point out, every metre made by a team is made back by the opposition until there is a score. So as far as metres gained differential goes, there is an extremely high correlation between winning and metres gained difference irrespective of game style.

Raw metres gained is different as game style will impact that.  A case in point is our Geelong game this year that had very few stoppages and very high 6294m v 6207m gained.

The raw metres gain stat tells you a bit about how the game was played but overall the differential barely tells you anything that the scoreboard doesn’t.

 

[binman 41,788]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition.

Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the  opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. 

Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

No, there is a disconnect here.

And it relates to how a team's total metres gained is calculated.

My understanding it is simply all the team's players metres gained added up to arrive at a total.

Tbe differential between the two teams is the difference between those two totals

Metres gained, or lost, are not added or subtracted from the opposition. They are completely independent of each other.

So let's say a player only has two possessions for the match.

The first he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres and kicks it 40 metres toward out goal he is credited with 50 metres gained.

The second he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres towards the opponents goal and kicks it 30 metres towards the opponents goal. He is credited with minus 40 metres.

His total metres gained for match is 10 metres.

And let's say hypothetically all 23 players do exactly the same ie 1 possession goes forward 50 metres and one goes backwards 40 metres.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x 10 = 230 metres gained.

And let's say the opponents 23 players also have two possessions, but the metres gained and lost are reversed.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x-10 = -230 metres gained.

Therefore the differential for the fitst team is +460.

Perhaps the confusion is I am talking about total, or net metres gained, not effective metres gained, which factor in turnover.

That's because net metres gained is what wheelo includes in his stats summary of each game.

And far as I'm.aware effective metres gained are not publicly available

Edited July 12 by binman

[Watson11 2,149]

57 minutes ago, binman said:

No, there is a disconnect here.

And it relates to how a team's total metres gained is calculated.

My understanding it is simply all the team's players metres gained added up to arrive at a total.

Tbe differential between the two teams is the difference between those two totals

Metres gained, or lost, are not added or subtracted from the opposition. They are completely independent of each other.

So let's say a player only has two possessions for the match.

The first he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres and kicks it 40 metres toward out goal he is credited with 50 metres gained.

The second he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres towards the opponents goal and kicks it 30 metres towards the opponents goal. He is credited with minus 40 metres.

His total metres gained for match is 10 metres.

And let's say hypothetically all 23 players do exactly the same ie 1 possession goes forward 50 metres and one goes backwards 40 metres.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x 10 = 230 metres gained.

And let's say the opponents 23 players also have two possessions, but the metres gained and lost are reversed.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x-10 = -230 metres gained.

Therefore the differential for the fitst team is +460.

Perhaps the confusion is I am talking about total, or net metres gained, not effective metres gained, which factor in turnover.

That's because net metres gained is what wheelo includes in his stats summary of each game.

And far as I'm.aware effective metres gained are not publicly available

You need to stop thinking about it from the individual player perspective.  When we watch the game the ball moves back and forth until a score.  So one side move the ball forward and add to their metres gained until the other side gets possession and moves it the other way and add to their metres gained.  It’s effectively a net zero game until a goal where the side that kicked it will effectively be +85m.  It then goes back to the centre and goes back and forth and if the same side kicks the next goal they have another +85m and are +170m up.  And so on and so on.  

As an example, our dreadful 25 goal bombers loss in 2013 had our metres gained difference as -2365m, which is mostly due to the 28 times it went through the Essendon goals and back to the centre to be repeated. After that happened 20x and Essendon were +1700m, can you tell me any plausible way we could have evened it up that day without scoring goals?  

[demosaw 970]

10 hours ago, binman said:

And it's also my understanding that winning metres gained differential strongly correlates with the likelihood of winning.

Yes we agree here. Unsurprisingly positive goal difference is also highly correlated with winning…

Maybe high metres gained correlates with using the boundary more (our older style) since longer metres gained due going wide against oppo going straight?

I’m just not sure as a team stat what insight we gain from it.

Edited July 12 by demosaw

[WheeloRatings 1,159]

Melbourne v Essendon (Round 18, 2024)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20241805

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff
Disposal Efficiency	67.5	71.5	-4.0
Kicking Efficiency	60.9	64.8	-3.9
Metres Gained	6008	5555	+453
Inside 50s	49	56	-7
Shots At Goal	21	22	-1
Shots Per Inside 50	42.9	39.3	+3.6
Contested Possessions	142	135	+7
Ground Ball Gets	109	94	+15
Intercepts	87	89	-2
Intercept Marks	19	17	+2
Centre Clearances	14	11	+3
Stoppage Clearances	30	21	+9
Contested Marks	4	7	-3
Marks Inside 50	8	13	-5
Hitouts	27	43	-16
Hitouts To Advantage	9	13	-4
Tackles	56	70	-14
Tackles Inside 50	10	7	+3
Def One On One Loss %	40.0	18.8	+21.2

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	4	6	-2
Loose Ball Get	14	6	+8
Gather From Hitout	1	0	+1
Contested Knock On	1	2	-1
Free For	1	1	0
Total	21	15	+6
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	5	3	+2
Loose Ball Get	10	17	-7
Contested Mark	1	5	-4
Ruck Hard Ball Get	0	2	-2
Gather From Hitout	1	0	+1
Contested Knock On	2	0	+2
Free For	2	2	0
Total	21	29	-8
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	15	17	-2
Loose Ball Get	58	62	-4
Contested Mark	4	7	-3
Contested Knock On	3	4	-1
Free For	12	9	+3
Total	92	99	-7
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	10	4	+6
Loose Ball Get	26	11	+15
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	4	-3
Gather From Hitout	8	10	-2
Contested Knock On	4	2	+2
Free For	1	5	-4
Total	50	36	+14

• Official data on pre- and post-clearance contested possessions are not available. These have been estimated by Wheelo Ratings and should be indicative.
• Ground ball gets are inclusive of hard ball gets and loose ball gets.
• 'Free For' does not include free kicks to advantage or free kicks while in possession of the ball as these are not counted as contested possessions.

Expected scores

	xScore	Score	Rushed	xWin %	xMargin	Margin	Swing
Melbourne	71.3	84	2	40%		+17	+21.2
Essendon	75.5	67	0	60%	+4.2

Team	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	21	13.4.82	61.9%	69.3	+12.7	3.30	+0.61
Essendon	22	10.7.67	45.5%	75.5	−8.5	3.43	−0.39
General Play
Melbourne	12	6.3.39	50.0%	36.6	+2.4	3.05	+0.20
Essendon	8	2.3.15	25.0%	22.7	−7.7	2.84	−0.97
Set Position
Melbourne	9	7.1.43	77.8%	32.7	+10.3	3.63	+1.15
Essendon	14	8.4.52	57.1%	52.8	−0.8	3.77	−0.06

• xWin %: win probability based on expected scores.
• Swing: difference between expected margin and actual margin.
• xScore: total expected score from all shots taken.
• +/-: total score above or below expected score.
• xSc. / Shot: average expected score per shot. This represents the average shot difficulty.
• Shot Rating: average score above or below expected score per shot at goal.

Notes: Expected scores are calculated by Wheelo Ratings. Each shot at goal is assigned an expected score based on the distance from goal, shot angle, and type of shot (e.g. set shot, general play following contested possession, general play following uncontested possession, ground kick, etc) as a proxy for pressure. The model does not take into account factors like the player, whether the ball was kicked with their preferred or non-preferred foot, and pressure on the player when taking the shot. Rushed behinds are excluded from actual and expected scores.

 

 

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	175	177	-2
2	199	201	-2
3	164	207	-43
4	168	167	+1
Match	176	190	-14

Source: Herald Sun

Most Pressure Points

Note: pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. ( https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ )

Player	Pressure Acts	Pressure Points	Season Average
Trent Rivers	19	52	28.3
Andy Moniz-Wakefield	19	48	37.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	22	47	53.1
Koltyn Tholstrup	18	43	38.8
Harrison Petty	20	43	28.9
Jack Viney	19	42	58.5
Clayton Oliver	19	42	44.1
Kade Chandler	22	40	45.1
Ed Langdon	19	37	31.2
Tom Sparrow	20	36	43.4
Kysaiah Pickett	17	33	40.4
Caleb Windsor	15	27	32.9
Tom McDonald	11	24	21.0
Jacob van Rooyen	11	24	17.3
Daniel Turner	9	22	14.3
Christian Salem	10	21	26.6
Steven May	9	20	9.9
Bayley Fritsch	10	19	15.6
Jake Melksham	7	17	11.0
Jake Lever	8	14	14.7
Jake Bowey	6	11	16.0
Judd McVee	5	11	14.7
Taj Woewodin	1	1	13.2

Source: Herald Sun

Time in Forward Half

Quarter	For	Against
1	47%	53%
2	60%	40%
3	51%	49%
4	41%	59%
Match	51%	49%

Source: Match total sourced from the Herald Sun; quarter values are my own calculations.

Score Sources

Summary

Category	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	1.0.6	0.0.0	+6
Centre Bounce	1.1.7	1.0.6	+1
Stoppage (Other)	3.3.21	1.2.8	+13
Turnover	8.2.50	8.5.53	-3

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	6	2.6	0	2.4
Centre Bounce	7	10.2	6	7.2
Stoppage (Other)	21	23.1	8	18.9
Turnover	50	43.5	53	46.8

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Essendon.

Chain start region

Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective.

Category	Region	For		Against
		Match	Season	Match	Season *
Centre Bounce	Centre	7	10.2	6	7.2
Kick-in	D50	6	2.6	0	2.4
Stoppage (Other)	D50	0	2.4	0	1.5
Stoppage (Other)	Centre	0	2.1	0	1.9
Stoppage (Other)	Wing	18	13.0	7	9.1
Stoppage (Other)	F50	3	5.6	1	6.5
Turnover	D50	6	8.6	0	7.2
Turnover	Centre	13	7.5	0	7.3
Turnover	Wing	19	21.0	52	25.8
Turnover	F50	12	6.4	1	6.5

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
D50	12	13.6	0	11.1
Centre	20	19.8	6	16.4
Wing	37	34.0	59	34.9
F50	15	12.1	2	12.9

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	12	13.6	0	11.1
Defensive midfield	12	18.6	32	18.6
Centre bounce	7	10.2	6	7.2
Attacking midfield	38	24.9	27	25.5
Forward 50	15	12.1	2	12.9

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Essendon.

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
24	32.3	32	29.7

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Essendon.

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2024 %	2023 %
Trent Rivers	21	78%	20.6%	3.0%
Clayton Oliver	18	67%	71.5%	81.4%
Kysaiah Pickett	17	63%	37.8%	11.2%
Jack Viney	16	59%	67.4%	72.1%
Jacob van Rooyen	15	56%	16.9%	7.6%
Harrison Petty	12	44%	6.9%	0.7%
Alex Neal-Bullen	9	33%	14.9%	2.1%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	36.4%	44.9%
Christian Salem	0	0%	14.8%	0.0%
Koltyn Tholstrup	0	0%	1.5%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.4%	0.0%
Tom McDonald	0	0%	0.0%	5.7%
Max Gawn			84.3%	64.9%
Christian Petracca			55.8%	61.1%
Josh Schache			8.3%	0.0%
Bailey Laurie			4.4%	0.0%
Charlie Spargo			4.2%	0.0%
Lachie Hunter			0.0%	0.2%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2024 %	2023 %
Jacob van Rooyen	48	49%	16.8%	13.1%
Harrison Petty	44	45%	7.9%	2.0%
Daniel Turner	6	6%	2.8%	0.0%
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0%	0.0%	0.0%
Clayton Oliver	0	0%	0.0%	0.1%
Steven May	0	0%	0.0%	0.0%
Tom McDonald	0	0%	0.0%	9.3%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	0.0%	0.0%
Max Gawn			81.4%	57.5%
Josh Schache			13.3%	4.1%
Ben Brown			0.2%	2.3%
Christian Petracca			0.0%	0.4%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2024)	To Adv. % (2023)
Jacob van Rooyen	48	17	6	26.8%	31.1%
Harrison Petty	44	10	3	31.2%	25.0%
Daniel Turner	6	0	0	50.0%
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0		0.0%
Tom McDonald	0	0	0		20.0%
Ben Brown				100.0%	0.0%
Josh Schache				100.0%	0.0%
Max Gawn				26.9%	30.1%
Christian Petracca					100.0%

Opposition hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.
Sam Draper	79	33	12
Peter Wright	11	7	1
Nik Cox	8	3	0

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

Round 18, 2024 MCG - Demons vs Bombers

Nothing better than a gutsy gritty win in the wet.  Probably too early but have we finally turned the corner in terms of wet weather play?

Great team effort.  If there was a major standout though i thought Linger's may have been our MVP on the night.  His highest rated game since Rnd 19, 2023 vs the Crows where he posted a 4.45

However, given the form of Merrett coming in to this match, i also thought that Nibbla's efforts where also equally as valuable to the team.  He took the No.1 ranked player from the Bombers win over the Pies the previous week to the 31st (overall) last night while also coming in in 14th place himself!

Stonewall May was also right up there.  An another outstanding game from young Windsor among a number of others.

Let's take a look at a few of the above...

Langdon:  23 effectives @ 74% (AFL average in the wet!), 1 one percenter, 4 clearances, 3 Rebounds, 2 Inside 50s, 5 Score Involvements, 5 Intercepts, 100% Game time, 332 Meters Gaines, 1 Goal and 6 Turnovers.

May:  20 effectives @ 83%, 10 One Percenters (the most on the night), 9 Rebounds (the most on the night), 2 Tackles, 3 Score Involvements, 9 Intercepts (4th behind McKay 17 / McVee 15 & Lever with 10), 355 Meters Gained & 4 Turnovers.

I felt the Demons defended better and just played more efficiently it seemed with the Bombers over using handball early before correcting somewhat in the 2nd half?  That's just observation, the numbers might tell a diff story.

The Bombers also went into a wet game with a very tall team.  On average they had 4cm over us which is not the usual differential between teams.  In most games this would usually average no more than roughly 1cm.  Something they will probably be regretting this morning.

Scoring Efficiency	Demons	Bombers
Disposals Per Goal	28.2	41.1
% In50s Goal	26.5	17.9
Conversion %	68.4	44.4

 

	Average Attributes
Melbourne	Attribute	Essendon
185.6cm	Height	189.6cm
85.1kg	Weight	88.2kg
25yr 4mth	Age	26yr 3mth
108.8	Games	115.8

 

Total Players By Games   Melbourne  Games  Essendon  7 Less than 50  3 5 50 to 99  9 2 100 to 149  4 5 150 to 200  3 4 200 or more  4
Player Rating Rank 2023 Season Rating % Change vs 2023 S May 4.775 1 3.213 48.6 Ed Langdon 4.175 2 3.057 36.6 J Lever 3.550 3 3.131 13.4 J McVee 3.350 4 2.320 44.4 K Pickett 3.300 5 2.101 57.1 A N-Bullen 3.200 6 2.532 26.4 C Windsor 3.075 7 - - T Rivers 3.050 8 3.696 -17.5 C Oliver 2.850 9 5.002 -43.0 T McDonald 2.825 10 2.054 37.5 J Melksham 2.725 11 1.599 70.4 K Chandler 2.350 12 2.265 3.8 B Fritsch 2.075 13 2.324 -10.7 Jack Viney 2.075 13 3.707 -44.0 J Bowey 2.050 15 2.820 -27.3 C Salem 1.900 16 2.993 -36.5 D Turner 1.900 16 1.825 4.1 J V Rooyen 1.850 18 2.170 -14.7 A M-Wakefield < 62% 1.525 19 - - K Tholstrup 1.525 19 - - H Petty 0.975 21 2.718 -64.1 T Sparrow 0.800 22 2.811 -71.5 T Woewodin > 17% 0.425 23 2.993 -85.8 Team Score 55.90   69.86 -20.0 Top 6 22.35   24.43 -8.5 Bottom 6 8.58   15.17 -43.5
< Subbed out TOG % > Subbed in TOG % Bombers Player Rating Rank N Martin 5.700 1 B McKay 5.675 2 J Ridley 5.050 3 D Shiel 4.900 4 J Caldwell 3.725 5 M Redman 3.575 6 D Heppell 3.425 7 S Durham 3.350 8 S Draper 2.975 9 X Duursma 2.925 10 A McGrath 2.325 11 H Jones 2.325 11 K Langford 2.300 13 J Kelly 2.200 14 J Gresham 2.100 15 Z Merrett 1.975 16 J Stringer 1.950 17 P Wright < 49% 1.900 18 A Perkins 1.800 19 N Cox 1.675 20 N Hind > 27% 1.275 21 M Guelfi 1.025 22 N Caddy 0.800 23 Team Rating 64.15   Top 6 28.63   Bottom 6 9.63     Combined Ratings Player Rating Rank N Martin 5.700 1 B McKay 5.675 2 J Ridley 5.050 3 D Shiel 4.900 4 S May 4.775 5 Ed Langdon 4.175 6 J Caldwell 3.725 7 M Redman 3.575 8 J Lever 3.550 9 D Heppell 3.425 10 S Durham 3.350 11 J McVee 3.350 11 K Pickett 3.300 13 A N-Bullen 3.200 14 C Windsor 3.075 15 T Rivers 3.050 16 S Draper 2.975 17 X Duursma 2.925 18 C Oliver 2.850 19 T McDonald 2.825 20 J Melksham 2.725 21 K Chandler 2.350 22 A McGrath 2.325 23 H Jones 2.325 23 K Langford 2.300 25 J Kelly 2.200 26 J Gresham 2.100 27 B Fritsch 2.075 28 Jack Viney 2.075 28 J Bowey 2.050 30 Z Merrett 1.975 31 J Stringer 1.950 32 P Wright < 49% 1.900 33 C Salem 1.900 33 D Turner 1.900 33 J V Rooyen 1.850 36 A Perkins 1.800 37 N Cox 1.675 38 A M-Wakefield < 62% 1.525 39 K Tholstrup 1.525 39 N Hind > 27% 1.275 41 M Guelfi 1.025 42 H Petty 0.975 43 T Sparrow 0.800 44 N Caddy 0.800 44 T Woewodin > 17% 0.425 46

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

Edited July 14 by Demon Dynasty

[DeeZone 8,865]

Jeez DD going by the stats they should have creamed us, Rivers stats don’t align with what I thought I witnessed. I had him as our best but his stats have him way down the pecking order?

[Adam The God 29,039]

My watch for the rest of the year is on our ground ball game. Another +15 result this week in ground ball gets. Our turnaround in form has coincided with starting to smash teams in this stat.

Interestingly, we won most of our games earlier in the year losing this stat consistently, but as a rule, across 2021-2023, ground ball gets were a really good indicator of victory.

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

2 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Jeez DD going by the stats they should have creamed us, Rivers stats don’t align with what I thought I witnessed. I had him as our best but his stats have him way down the pecking order?

Yes the Team Ratings suggest that should have been the case DZ.

This is where stats fail to tell a fair chunk of the story.  Much of the effectiveness on the night is how efficient teams are with ball in hand under such slippery conditions.

If the Bomber's over possessed the ball a bit, especially in the first half, does this help explain why their ratings were a fair way ahead of ours?  Effectively a false flag feeding into my ratings given the conditions?  They had 47 more effectives but i suspect much of those were extra shortish handballs.  30 more than us on the night.  They also had 15 more kicks.

If these extra disposals were mostly short or lateral HBs & kicks then maybe they falsely inflated a number of player ratings and hence their team rating?  It's worth noting they also had 10 more clangers than us.

With regard to Rivers i also felt he was influential and quite prolific, mainly in the first half.  He certainly got to plenty of contests and contributed positively in general play.

His problem from a ratings perspective was he also had a massive number of turnovers on the night and this system punishes turnovers and obviously rewards a player who is more clean with the ball.  Rivers was a turnover king on the night with 11.  Merrett not far behind on 9 which is a credit to ANB and no doubt others from a pressure POV.  Followed in equal 3rd spot by McVee & Draper with 7 a piece.  Obviously a tough night in the office.  Turnovers were always going to be on the high side for many, especially anyone running through the middle.

[DeeZone 8,865]

9 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yes the Team Ratings suggest that should have been the case DZ.

This is where stats fail to tell a fair chunk of the story.  Much of the effectiveness on the night is how efficient teams are with ball in hand under such slippery conditions.

If the Bomber's over possessed the ball a bit, especially in the first half, does this help explain why their ratings were a fair way ahead of ours?  Effectively a false flag feeding into my ratings given the conditions?  They had 47 more effectives but i suspect much of those were extra shortish handballs.  30 more than us on the night.  They also had 15 more kicks.

If these extra disposals were mostly short or lateral HBs & kicks then maybe they falsely inflated a number of player ratings and hence their team rating?  It's worth noting they also had 10 more clangers than us.

With regard to Rivers i also felt he was influential and quite prolific, mainly in the first half.  He certainly got to plenty of contests and contributed positively in general play.

His problem from a ratings perspective was he also had a massive number of turnovers on the night and this system punishes turnovers and obviously rewards a player who is more clean with the ball.  Rivers was a turnover king on the night with 11.  Merrett not far behind on 9 which is a credit to ANB and no doubt others from a pressure POV.  Followed in equal 3rd spot by McVee & Draper with 7 a piece.  Obviously a tough night in the office.  Turnovers were always going to be on the high side for many, especially anyone running through the middle.

Makes sense DD we were more direct and moved the ball quicker whilst they tended to kick the ball around in our forward 50 to try and draw us out.

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 18, 2024 vs H&A Season 2023

Player	2024 Rating	2024 Rank	2023 Rating	% Change vs 2023	2023 Rank	Change in Rank vs 2023
C Petracca	4.476	1	4.707	-4.9	2	1
Max Gawn <	4.170	2	3.350	24.5	7	5
Steven May	3.701	3	3.213	15.2	8	5
C Oliver	3.535	4	5.002	-29.3	1	-3
T Rivers	3.460	5	3.696	-6.4	5	0
Jake Lever <	3.398	6	3.131	8.5	9	3
C Salem <	3.354	7	2.993	12.1	12	5
Jack Viney	3.179	8	3.707	-14.2	4	-4
Ed Langdon	3.133	9	3.057	2.5	10	1
A N-Bullen	3.056	10	2.532	20.7	20	10
T McDonald	3.055	11	2.054	48.7	27	16
Judd McVee	2.976	12	2.320	28.3	22	10
A Tomlinson	2.915	13	2.915	0.0	14	1
K Pickett	2.603	14	2.101	23.9	26	12
J Bowey <	2.497	15	2.820	-11.5	15	0
T Woewodin < >	2.369	16	1.406	68.5	34	18
T Sparrow	2.360	17	2.811	-16.0	16	-1
B Howes	2.348	18	-	-	-	-
C Windsor <	2.325	19	-	-	-	-
J Melksham	2.300	20	1.599	43.8	32	12
M Hore	2.273	21	-	-	-	-
A M-Wakefield	2.233	22	-	-	-	-
J Billings < >	2.202	23	-	-	-	-
K Chandler	2.138	24	2.265	-5.6	23	-1
J V Rooyen	2.128	25	2.170	-1.9	25	0
B Fritsch	1.851	26	2.324	-20.4	21	-5
L Hunter* <	1.838	27	2.939	-37.5	13	-14
K Tholstrup	1.795	28	-	-	-	-
B Laurie* < >	1.605	29	2.235	-28.2	24	-5
S McAdam*	1.483	30	-	-	-	-
D Turner	1.458	31	1.825	-20.1	31	0
Ben Brown <	1.391	32	1.941	-28.3	28	-4
H Petty <	1.287	33	2.718	-52.6	19	-14
C Spargo*	1.200	34	1.886	-36.4	29	-5
J Schache*	0.700	35	1.525	-54.1	33	-2
K Brown* >	0.125	36	-	-	-	-
Team Rating	65.72		69.86	-5.9
Top 6	22.74		24.43	-6.9
Bottom 6	13.84		15.17	-8.8

* Played less than two full matches (in total)

< Subbed out at least once or more (player rating could be somewhat comprised)

> Subbed in at least once or more (player rating could be somewhat comprised)

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

[binman 41,788]

4 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

My watch for the rest of the year is on our ground ball game. Another +15 result this week in ground ball gets. Our turnaround in form has coincided with starting to smash teams in this stat.

Interestingly, we won most of our games earlier in the year losing this stat consistently, but as a rule, across 2021-2023, ground ball gets were a really good indicator of victory.

I saw the ground ball stat and refected on your point about going from losing the differential to winning it in the last few weeks.

In 2021-23 ground ball gets were one of key indicators.

Seemed to be less significant in a transition game as were winning games early this season despite handily losing ground ball.

Contest is key to both methods, and we really dialled up our attack on the ball.

It looked liked our best contest footy of 2021-23, but much better on transition 2024 style. 

That's the hybrid goody is trying to develop I reckon ie a blend of the territory and transition games.

I heard goody say the youth of the team is a factor in terms of how they want to play.

Which makes sense given even with no gus or smithy we still have a core of excellent senior players who are strong in the contest and hard at.

But also have young players like Mcvee, Windsor, Kolt, Bowey and AMW with good wheels we want out in space (though fortunately all are had at in the contest too).

That said, even with the hybrid model being perhaps less contest heavy games are still super taxing. Particularly for the young blokes.

Must be some challenge to get the program right.

Edited July 14 by binman

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

Player Rating Review (three quarter time) - Defenders

Judd McVee (Medium Defender  20yo  185cm)

Rnd 5 to Rnd 11 vs Rnd 12 to 18   +   H&A Season 2023 vs H&A Season 2024

Checking how our players are fairing, three quarters of the way through.

Comparing their six rounds from Rnd 5 to 11 to the last six rounds from Rnd 12 to 18 along with how they're season is stacking up vs season 2023.

I have excluded players that did not play in at least three rounds from either block of matches eg;  Salem who only played in Round 10 & 11.

#4  J McVee	Rnds 5 to 11	Rnds 12 to 18	% Change	2023	2024	% Change
Contested Poss	4.2	7.2	72.0	4.7	5.4	16.3
Uncontested Poss	8.0	9.3	16.7	8.5	8.6	1.3
Effective Disposals*	12.0	13.5	12.5	10.1	13.6	34.1
Disposal Effeciency %	77.1	79.5	2.4	77.6	80.6	3.0
Contested Marks*	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.3	0.2	-42.0
Marks inside 50*	0.0	0.0	-	0.1	0.0	-100.0
One Percenters*	2.5	2.7	6.7	2.4	2.4	-0.9
Clearances*	0.2	1.2	600.0	0.3	0.6	148.0
Rebound 50s*	3.0	3.7	22.2	2.4	3.9	64.8
Inside 50s*	0.8	0.8	0.0	1.0	0.8	-23.5
Tackles*	1.3	0.7	-50.0	1.4	0.8	-42.6
Score Involvements*	2.0	2.2	8.3	2.2	2.3	3.5
Meters Gained	218.7	238.7	9.1	182.7	269.2	47.3
Turnovers*	2.0	2.7	33.3	2.5	2.5	0.3
Intercepts*	5.7	6.7	17.6	5.3	6.0	12.2
Tackles Inside 50*	0.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-
Time On Ground %	80.3	81.0	0.7	78.9	80.5	1.7
Goals*	0.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-
Hit Outs to Adv*	0.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-
*DD's Player Rating	2.7	3.0	11.0	2.3	3.0	28.3

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

Player Rating Review (three quarter time) - Defenders

Trent Rivers (Medium Defender / Midfield  22yo  188cm)

Rnd 5 to Rnd 11 vs Rnd 12 to 18   +   H&A Season 2023 vs H&A Season 2024

Now this is an interesting one.  With Rivers playing roughly a half game against the Lions in the middle in Rnd 5 but of course the rest mostly as a HB.

Then pretty much switching to a full time mid role from roughly Rnd 16 vs the Lions.  So far so good!

#24  T Rivers	Rnds 5   to 11	Rnds 12 to 18	% Change	2023	2024	% Change
Contested Poss	3.5	8.5	142.9	6.3	5.9	-6.2
Uncontested Poss	14.3	16.2	12.8	13.5	14.4	6.3
Effective Disposals*	14.5	17.7	21.8	15.7	15.5	-1.5
Disposal Effeciency %	78.3	71.7	-6.6	76.8	74.3	-2.5
Contested Marks*	0.5	0.0	-100.0	0.7	0.2	-64.3
Marks inside 50*	0.0	0.0	-	0.2	0.0	-100.0
One Percenters*	1.7	2.5	50.0	2.2	1.9	-9.9
Clearances*	1.0	4.0	300.0	1.1	2.1	92.6
Rebound 50s*	2.7	3.8	43.8	4.0	3.5	-13.3
Inside 50s*	3.7	4.3	18.2	3.0	3.5	16.1
Tackles*	2.2	3.8	76.9	2.3	2.6	13.2
Score Involvements*	4.0	5.0	25.0	3.6	4.4	20.7
Meters Gained	415.3	491.7	18.4	393.9	419.5	6.5
Turnovers*	3.5	4.5	28.6	3.2	3.9	20.9
Intercepts*	4.2	3.8	-8.0	6.6	4.5	-30.9
Tackles Inside 50*	0.0	0.3	-	0.1	0.1	-10.8
Time On Ground %	79.5	74.2	-5.3	78.2	78.8	0.8
Goals*	0.0	0.2	-	0.1	0.1	-33.1
Hit Outs to Adv*	0.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-
*DD's Player Rating	3.1	4.1	30.8	3.7	3.5	-6.4

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

Player Rating Review (three quarter time) - Defenders

Jake Lever (Key Defender  28yo  194cm)

Rnd 5 to Rnd 9 vs Rnd 16 to 18   +   H&A Season 2023 vs H&A Season 2024

Obviously taking Jake a few matches to get back into some form and fitness.  Seemingly back to his best against the Bombers. 

Let's hope so anyway as he was on fire in the block of matches preceding his op.

#8  J Lever	Rnds 5  to 9	Rnds 16 to 18	% Change	2023	2024	% Change
Contested Poss	8.3	4.7	-43.4	5.6	5.8	2.8
Uncontested Poss	11.3	8.0	-28.9	8.7	9.3	6.5
Effective Disposals*	17.3	11.0	-36.2	12.4	12.3	-1.3
Disposal Effeciency %	83.9	87.6	3.7	86.6	82.2	-4.5
Contested Marks*	1.5	0.3	-77.8	0.7	0.8	22.2
Marks inside 50*	0.0	0.0	-	0.1	0.0	-100.0
One Percenters*	4.0	5.7	41.7	5.3	5.5	4.3
Clearances*	0.5	0.0	-100.0	0.2	0.3	37.5
Rebound 50s*	4.8	2.7	-43.9	3.3	3.9	19.7
Inside 50s*	1.5	1.0	-33.3	1.0	1.2	16.7
Tackles*	1.3	0.7	-46.7	1.1	1.5	32.0
Score Involvements*	4.8	3.3	-29.8	2.0	3.5	75.0
Meters Gained	348.8	147.3	-57.8	238.3	247.8	4.0
Turnovers*	3.5	1.3	-61.9	2.4	2.7	10.7
Intercepts*	11.8	8.0	-31.9	8.0	8.7	7.7
Tackles Inside 50*	0.3	0.0	-100.0	0.1	0.1	-8.3
Time On Ground %	97.3	89.3	-7.9	97.5	91.5	-6.0
Goals*	0.3	0.0	-100.0	0.0	0.1	-
Hit Outs to Adv*	0.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-
*DD's Player Rating	4.5	3.1	-30.1	3.1	3.4	8.5

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

Edited July 14 by Demon Dynasty

[Gawndy the Great 9,008]

Those Essendon junk time goals probably skew a few of the key stat areas as well, as we again appeared to run out of gas. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,051]

17 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Those Essendon junk time goals probably skew a few of the key stat areas as well, as we again appeared to run out of gas. 

Yes that'a a good point.  The last 15 minutes or so was pretty much all their way.

[layzie 32,554]

15 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

My watch for the rest of the year is on our ground ball game. Another +15 result this week in ground ball gets. Our turnaround in form has coincided with starting to smash teams in this stat.

Interestingly, we won most of our games earlier in the year losing this stat consistently, but as a rule, across 2021-2023, ground ball gets were a really good indicator of victory.

Absolutely true and the moment we took over in that stat was the moment we took control of the game.

 I'm going to do it too 🙂