Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

I had the privilege of collaborating (in a small way) with Cody Atkinson on the following article regarding contested possessions. These guys regularly put out fantastic and insightful AFL articles for the ABC and are well worth a read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-19/afl-2024-premiership-importance-of-contested-possessions/104113954

 

The contested possession has increasingly gained prominence in recent years, with players, coaches, commentators and fans offering different opinions on its role in the AFL.

Star Sydney Swans midfielder Errol Gulden has described contested possessions as "a key indicator for success", but not everyone in the AFL is enamoured by the concept.

"Contested ball is just a fancy term for everyone in the media," Alastair Clarkson said in 2016.

"We don't give a toss about that … we've won five contested-ball contests in about two years, so we've still won lots of games of footy."

So how important are contested possessions?

And what even is a contested possession?

 

In accordance with the laws of the game, a contested possession is a possession achieved as a result of winning a contest. Includes hard ball gets, loose ball gets, contested marks, free kicks won in a contest, and contested knock-ons. I have no idea how important they are. Are they important? Or does it simply depend on your game style/plan, the type of players you have, your opposition on the day? 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

Have loose ball gets always been a contested possession? 

 
45 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I had the privilege of collaborating (in a small way) with Cody Atkinson on the following article regarding contested possessions. These guys regularly put out fantastic and insightful AFL articles for the ABC and are well worth a read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-19/afl-2024-premiership-importance-of-contested-possessions/104113954

 

The contested possession has increasingly gained prominence in recent years, with players, coaches, commentators and fans offering different opinions on its role in the AFL.

Star Sydney Swans midfielder Errol Gulden has described contested possessions as "a key indicator for success", but not everyone in the AFL is enamoured by the concept.

"Contested ball is just a fancy term for everyone in the media," Alastair Clarkson said in 2016.

"We don't give a toss about that … we've won five contested-ball contests in about two years, so we've still won lots of games of footy."

So how important are contested possessions?

And what even is a contested possession?

Great work wheelo.

So win cp by 1 to 10 = 70% win 

Win cp by 10 plus = 79% win

And a 'blow out' is 85% win

What's a blow out?

Edited by binman

4 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Have loose ball gets always been a contested possession? 

Not sure. But if they weren’t included, Nick Daicos would have zero contested possessions against his name (for the record, he has not taken a single contested mark in the AFL).

Edited by Ethan Tremblay


4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Not sure. But if they weren’t included, Nick Daicos would have zero contested possessions against his name (for the record, he has not taken a single contested mark in the AFL).

That is where I was heading. I feel the definition has changed and he is the main beneficiary.

Great article! Wish BT would read it. Maybe he could figure out what a clearance is while he's at it. I don't think there'd be another sport in the world where the 'experts' are as unwilling to develop an understanding of the statistical side of the game as ours. 

The biggest advantage if these things were more mainstream would be that those of us playing supercoach wouldn't have to suffer people complaining about Bontempelli scoring so well! We might as well rename the contested knock-on the Bont!

  • Author
15 minutes ago, binman said:

Great work wheelo.

So win cp by 1 to 10 = 70% win 

Win cp by 10% plus = 79% win

And a 'blow out' is 85% win

What's a blow out?

I don't know exactly how those figures were calculated, but my calculations are as follows:

Win CP by 1-6: 54% win
Win CP by 7-13: 64% win
Win CP by 14-21: 76% win
Win CP by 22+: 87% win

 

9 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

That is where I was heading. I feel the definition has changed and he is the main beneficiary.

My understanding is that the definition has not changed.

 
3 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I don't know exactly how those figures were calculated, but my calculations are as follows:

Win CP by 1-6: 54% win
Win CP by 7-13: 64% win
Win CP by 14-21: 76% win
Win CP by 22+: 87% win

 

My understanding is that the definition has not changed.

Did you run the numbers on the hard ball get in terms of win rate?

18 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

That is where I was heading. I feel the definition has changed and he is the main beneficiary.

Don't think it's changed, at least not recently. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago. Player picks up ball and makes effective disposal = brain happy point score high (too much supercoach)


  • Author
19 minutes ago, binman said:

Did you run the numbers on the hard ball get in terms of win rate?

It doesn't appear to be as significant (noting that the HBG differential is generally quite a bit lower than over CP diff)

Win HBG by 1-3: 54% win
Win HBG by 4-6: 58% win
Win HBG by 7-9: 67% win
Win HBG by 10+: 71% win

3 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

It doesn't appear to be as significant (noting that the HBG differential is generally quite a bit lower than over CP diff)

Win HBG by 1-3: 54% win
Win HBG by 4-6: 58% win
Win HBG by 7-9: 67% win
Win HBG by 10+: 71% win

To flip it on it's head, what about uncontested possessions?

Also, it would be interesting to see those CP numbers per team. I'm sure different teams have wildly different win %ages.

 

Perfect place to out this whacky graphic I found 20240719_162843.thumb.jpg.ca2cedb4d117f491ec490efcc059e108.jpg

 

A resounding yes!!

Especially at a reading of the will.

If your extended family are scumbags you'll understand .


Great talking point.

I reckon if you look back beyond 2000, when the game was much more often one-on-one, contested play was one player beating another player in a contest in the air, or on the ground. The only real marking packs were near the goals, and there were few ground packs because it was positional game play. A loose ball get on the wing with say Robbie Flower and Keith Greig both running for it was another form of the same thing.

It is the heart beat and foundation of our game and therefore has to be a key indicator. It is simple logic for me that to win games you first must win possession of the ball, and all other stats have meaning once the ball has been won. 

The added phrase "key indicator of success" becomes relative to individual teams based on game plan and personnel. For example, the Geelong teams 07, 09, 11 were highly skilled and so maybe they emphasised skill more than contest. Hawks 13,14,15 were system based with Clarko's cluster. Lions 01,02,03 were probably very much based on individual players beating their opponents so might rate contested ball more highly.

Players like Jack Viney, Scott West, Brett Ratten, Bobby Skilton, Kevin Murray, Paul Kelly - these are the payers all footy watchers love so much because they are elite at this central component.

17 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

I had the privilege of collaborating (in a small way) with Cody Atkinson on the following article regarding contested possessions. These guys regularly put out fantastic and insightful AFL articles for the ABC and are well worth a read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-19/afl-2024-premiership-importance-of-contested-possessions/104113954

Great article. I love the resources at Wheelo Ratings and these ABC articles with Cody Atkinson are some of the best things in the footy media landscape, so well done.

May I ask why the Sam Sturt intercept mark in the video in the article isn't considered a contested mark? What is the specific difference between a contested and uncontested mark, according to Champion Data?

If you don't win contested possessions, post clearance pressure is essential to cause enough turnovers/intercepts to go back the other way.

Clarkson and Chris Scott played this game for years. And this was part of our plan obviously in 2021-2023.


6 minutes ago, Dee man said:

Great article. I love the resources at Wheelo Ratings and these ABC articles with Cody Atkinson are some of the best things in the footy media landscape, so well done.

May I ask why the Sam Sturt intercept mark in the video in the article isn't considered a contested mark? What is the specific difference between a contested and uncontested mark, according to Champion Data?

From Champion Data:

Uncontested Mark: Marks taken under no physical pressure from an opponent. Includes marks taken on the lead and from opposition kicks.

Contested Mark: When a player takes a mark under physical pressure of an opponent or in a pack.

Nice article. Thanks for sharing. 
I never look at contested ball, just hb gets. I always thought loose ball should be put with uncontested marks as they are almost the same thing except inviting pressure. 

21 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

It doesn't appear to be as significant (noting that the HBG differential is generally quite a bit lower than over CP diff)

Win HBG by 1-3: 54% win
Win HBG by 4-6: 58% win
Win HBG by 7-9: 67% win
Win HBG by 10+: 71% win

How about win rate for winning the pressure ratings?

 
1 hour ago, binman said:

How about win rate for winning the pressure ratings?

This will be a tricky one.  MFC and Geelong were bottom 6 for pressure act difference in premiership years.  Pies must have been lucky to win last year as they were 8th while the deserved premiers (GWS or ourselves) were bottom 4. I guess when you have the ball more the opposing team has lots of opportunities to create pressure.

  • Author
1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

This will be a tricky one.  MFC and Geelong were bottom 6 for pressure act difference in premiership years.  Pies must have been lucky to win last year as they were 8th while the deserved premiers (GWS or ourselves) were bottom 4. I guess when you have the ball more the opposing team has lots of opportunities to create pressure.

Pressure act differential isn't a good measure as you're likely to rank low if you have the ball more often than the opposition. Pressure rating differential would be a better measure as it's based on average pressure per disposal. This is what @binman would have been referring to. Unfortunately, I don't have access to pressure rating data, other than Melbourne for the past two seasons.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

    • 170 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Like
    • 46 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

      • Thanks
    • 328 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 31 replies