Sparrow's such an interesting one for mine. Currently I don't have him best 22, perhaps as sub. Post 21 I though the sky was the limit for him but he's kind of gone nowhere since. On the other hand he's a potential ANB replacement and if he can make that his role he may of just found himself a position in the side. I mean beyond that where does he fit now that Rivers, Langford and even Pickett have become mids? Time will tell.

Being a ‘good kick, but a bad decision maker’ is incongruous, especially for a mid who is in pressure and contested environments when distributing the footy. If you can’t be effective when you get it, and the team is better placed when you don’t get it - then you are not going to stay in the team.

34 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Stats say otherwise with Sparrows kicking.

Disposal efficiency is a truly terrible statistic for measuring kicking quality.

If they had a disposal accuracy stat (i.e. the kick or handball went straight to a team mate, maybe who was in space) it would be a more useful measure. 

Agree that Sparrow offers nothing more than a bigger contested body. He has no weapons to utilise.

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

Disposal efficiency is a truly terrible statistic for measuring kicking quality.

Terrible is a bit of a stretch..

It's not the full scale of measuring kicking quality efficiency, but its a good enough guide for AFL coaches to still lean on and pull data from which they do in today's game. Just ask Choco Williams, he is a lover and passionate for all things champion data.

In an era where AFL coaches put an absolute premium on stats for todays game they can only go off what the numbers and data say from AFL.com, Champion Data and @WheeloRatings. On that alone Sparrow is a below average kick, not average, but below average.. there is no way to sugar coat that or suggest otherwise. I'd give him leeway of he was still around the average mark but the fact that he's below that speaks volume.

On the naked eye it's evident anyway.

3 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Sparrow's such an interesting one for mine. Currently I don't have him best 22, perhaps as sub. Post 21 I though the sky was the limit for him but he's kind of gone nowhere since. On the other hand he's a potential ANB replacement and if he can make that his role he may of just found himself a position in the side. I mean beyond that where does he fit now that Rivers, Langford and even Pickett have become mids? Time will tell.

Those guys you mentioned, when up and going means Sparrow spends his days at Casey until an injury.

I think Chandler takes ANB role.

3 hours ago, kev martin said:

Perhaps, I see those beautiful long kicks of Sparrow, look through the rose coloured glasses and see something better. Maybe, the inside player has some, just get it away from contest/dump kicks. He did have a bad 2024 though. Thanks Dazzle.

He would want to impress early in 2025, if he gets picked, or his spot will go to another.

I agree Kev, I don't have him in my best 23 but I haven't for a number of years.

Him getting dropped at the back end of the year showed he's clearly on notice and imo he's not a walk up start as some think he is.

Guys like Sharp, Langford and Linsday coming in will only make it harder for him.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Those guys you mentioned, when up and going means Sparrow spends his days at Casey until an injury.

I think Chandler takes ANB role.

Chandler appears the front runner but if Pickett becomes a mid then surely Chandler is our crumbing forward. That’s the way I see Sparrow having his chance. Where’s he been training this off season?

1 minute ago, Roost it far said:

Chandler appears the front runner but if Pickett becomes a mid then surely Chandler is our crumbing forward. That’s the way I see Sparrow having his chance. Where’s he been training this off season?

Chandler isn't a natural crumbler IMV. Spargo is a much more natural crumber and better ball user and decision maker, but doesn't have Kade's pace, nor does he hit the scoreboard as much as Kade.

It's an interesting one.

I think we'll play games where we have Sharp, Chandler and Spargo in the same team. 

13 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Chandler isn't a natural crumbler IMV. Spargo is a much more natural crumber and better ball user and decision maker, but doesn't have Kade's pace, nor does he hit the scoreboard as much as Kade.

It's an interesting one.

I think we'll play games where we have Sharp, Chandler and Spargo in the same team. 

I actually like the idea of Sparrow playing ANB’s role. He’s toned down and can probably run all day. Spargo doesn’t hit the scoreboard nearly enough. He’s a link player with his beautiful kicking. Sharp remains an unknown quantity. Chandler appears the most likely option to replace Pickett as a crumbing forward, well unless Roy George makes his way to the list.

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I actually like the idea of Sparrow playing ANB’s role. He’s toned down and can probably run all day. Spargo doesn’t hit the scoreboard nearly enough. He’s a link player with his beautiful kicking. Sharp remains an unknown quantity. Chandler appears the most likely option to replace Pickett as a crumbing forward, well unless Roy George makes his way to the list.

Spargo is best 22 IMO.

1 minute ago, Adam The God said:

Spargo is best 22 IMO.

I agree but he’s coming from a long way back

1 hour ago, Adam The God said:

Chandler isn't a natural crumbler

Bryon Pickett was a Violent Crumbler.

36 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Bryon Pickett was a Violent Crumbler.

He was.

My mate Gianni used to be a Violet Crumbler on the 8th hole at Elsternwick Golf Course too. Used to always crumble his shot into the drink and Adam the God would mostly land it on the green.

Edited December 23, 2024Dec 23 by Adam The God

6 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Chandler isn't a natural crumbler IMV. Spargo is a much more natural crumber and better ball user and decision maker, but doesn't have Kade's pace, nor does he hit the scoreboard as much as Kade.

It's an interesting one.

I think we'll play games where we have Sharp, Chandler and Spargo in the same team. 

I agree.

Chandler gets to the fall of the ball maybe 3 or 4 times out of 10. He doesn't quite do enough with full or half chances like the best small crumbing forwards in the league do. But he's by no means terrible at it. He'd be in the mix for the pressure HFF role (I refuse to call it the Nibbler role)

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Terrible is a bit of a stretch..

It's not the full scale of measuring kicking quality efficiency, but its a good enough guide for AFL coaches to still lean on and pull data from which they do in today's game. Just ask Choco Williams, he is a lover and passionate for all things champion data.

In an era where AFL coaches put an absolute premium on stats for todays game they can only go off what the numbers and data say from AFL.com, Champion Data and @WheeloRatings. On that alone Sparrow is a below average kick, not average, but below average.. there is no way to sugar coat that or suggest otherwise. I'd give him leeway of he was still around the average mark but the fact that he's below that speaks volume.

On the naked eye it's evident anyway.

Especially considering an "effective kick" is one that goes to a 50/50 contest or better. So bombing it long to a 50/50 is an effective kick regardless of the outcome.

12 hours ago, layzie said:

I agree.

Chandler gets to the fall of the ball maybe 3 or 4 times out of 10. He doesn't quite do enough with full or half chances like the best small crumbing forwards in the league do. But he's by no means terrible at it. He'd be in the mix for the pressure HFF role (I refuse to call it the Nibbler role)

If we change our game style a bit, I'd actually hope we could use the running power of Langdon, Sharp, Chandler and Spargo to run teams off their feet and get on the end of easy shots at goal by outrunning opponents.

ANB got 27 in 2018 when we played the more attacking footy and Spargo got 14. In 2021, Spargo got 18, Langdon 13.

As long as we get goals out of those four guys, say roughly 15 each, it'd make us so hard to play against. They're all really good runners though. Sharp and Chandler quicker than the others, but Spargo's ball use is the best out of all of them.

It then enables us to play both Windsor and Lindsay behind the ball, and play Salem deeper, next to McVee and Bowey.

Suddenly, we have great ball use behind the ball and some hard runners to gut run back and forth, and get on the end of the precise kicking and ball movement from the back.

I'm really excited by the possibilities in 2025.

12 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Especially considering an "effective kick" is one that goes to a 50/50 contest or better. So bombing it long to a 50/50 is an effective kick regardless of the outcome.

It’s less about which kicks are effective and more about which kicks each player takes (mostly based around where they take them from).

A defender will either kick long to a contest in slow play or cop the ball short to an open player. Both are very easy kicks to make. A midfielder kicks often from stoppage, under pressure where kicks are often intercepted or don’t go far enough to be considered a long kick to a 50/50. Forward mostly kick to situations where the defenders far outnumber the forwards, so effective kicking is very difficult.

For 2024, the top 10 players for disposal efficiency (10 game min) are all key defenders, except Luke Ryan who is a third defender. In fact the highest ranked non-defender is Karl Amon, who is ranked 51st. By comparison, the 21 lowest ranked players for disposal efficiency were forwards or rucks. Disposal efficiency doesn’t measure kicking skill, it just tells us the situations in which they are being asked to kick.

Are we to believe that Jamarra Ugle-Hagan is the worst kick in the league whilst Ben McKay is the third best?

Disposal efficiency is a truly terrible statistic for measuring the ability to kick.

On 23/12/2024 at 12:10, dazzledavey36 said:

In an era where AFL coaches put an absolute premium on stats for todays game they can only go off what the numbers and data say from AFL.com, Champion Data and @WheeloRatings. On that alone Sparrow is a below average kick, not average, but below average.. there is no way to sugar coat that or suggest otherwise. I'd give him leeway of he was still around the average mark but the fact that he's below that speaks volume.

On the naked eye it's evident anyway.

Sparrow was below average in lots of things but his kicking efficiency was 59% and listed as “Average” in the stats you posted.

In 2023 there was a great article about kicking on the abc website, where they went beyond the normal kicking efficiency to the types of kicks taken and how every player compared that tries the same kicks.  The further to the right of the 0 vertical line the better you perform v peers and by that measure (2023 data), Sparrow was also right on average.

 

4 hours ago, Adam The God said:

If we change our game style a bit, I'd actually hope we could use the running power of Langdon, Sharp, Chandler and Spargo to run teams off their feet and get on the end of easy shots at goal by outrunning opponents.

ANB got 27 in 2018 when we played the more attacking footy and Spargo got 14. In 2021, Spargo got 18, Langdon 13.

As long as we get goals out of those four guys, say roughly 15 each, it'd make us so hard to play against. They're all really good runners though. Sharp and Chandler quicker than the others, but Spargo's ball use is the best out of all of them.

It then enables us to play both Windsor and Lindsay behind the ball, and play Salem deeper, next to McVee and Bowey.

Suddenly, we have great ball use behind the ball and some hard runners to gut run back and forth, and get on the end of the precise kicking and ball movement from the back.

I'm really excited by the possibilities in 2025.

That sounds very enticing

I wouldn't be worried by Sparrow's kicking.  He just doesn't do enough of anything.  Disposals, goals, etc.

9 minutes ago, Gator said:

I wouldn't be worried by Sparrow's kicking.  He just doesn't do enough of anything.  Disposals, goals, etc.

I have Tom as midfield/half forward depth. Injuries permitting, I think he'll be on the fringes this year unless he really starts to impact with accumulation and/or with ball in hand.

16 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

It’s less about which kicks are effective and more about which kicks each player takes (mostly based around where they take them from).

A defender will either kick long to a contest in slow play or cop the ball short to an open player. Both are very easy kicks to make. A midfielder kicks often from stoppage, under pressure where kicks are often intercepted or don’t go far enough to be considered a long kick to a 50/50. Forward mostly kick to situations where the defenders far outnumber the forwards, so effective kicking is very difficult.

For 2024, the top 10 players for disposal efficiency (10 game min) are all key defenders, except Luke Ryan who is a third defender. In fact the highest ranked non-defender is Karl Amon, who is ranked 51st. By comparison, the 21 lowest ranked players for disposal efficiency were forwards or rucks. Disposal efficiency doesn’t measure kicking skill, it just tells us the situations in which they are being asked to kick.

Are we to believe that Jamarra Ugle-Hagan is the worst kick in the league whilst Ben McKay is the third best?

Disposal efficiency is a truly terrible statistic for measuring the ability to kick.

Well how do you judge kicking then ? 
if a kick is disposed it is either good bad or in dispute.

Stop trying to complicate footy by a one dimensional approach. 

4 hours ago, 58er said:

Well how do you judge kicking then ? 
if a kick is disposed it is either good bad or in dispute.

Stop trying to complicate footy by a one dimensional approach. 

What you've just posted is quite simplistic and very much one dimensional...'Axis' is saying there are many shades of grey, far from one dimensional and I think his post makes sense.

For a stat like kicking efficiency to be worthwhile it needs to factor the circumstances 'Axix' mentions.