14 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Thanks DD love these player ranking stats, how gratifying to see Max, Clayton, Tracc and Ed all upping the ante and seeing Bowsa and Kozzie rocketing up the charts, Salo, Riv, McVee back to their best as well as Lindsay, Langford and Windsor consolidating themselves in our top 18.

Yes, job well done to everyone getting so many to that level DZ eh. Long may it continue!

On 26/05/2025 at 10:44, binman said:

It's funny you say that SONS. I just posted this in another thread:

You can't underestimate the importance of the key forwards bringing the ball to ground (well, ot would appear some can).

Its really their most important metric - which by the by points to a weakness in the Champion Data player ratings system, ie it doesn't factor in things such as adherence to role and importance to structure.

Petty and AJ were both much more influential than their ratings suggests.

I include score involvements in my ratings, which i assume will capture this scenario (somewhat) assuming it ends up as a score and where that act sees the ball go to the eventual scorer in the chain (ie., in this case...knock ons or a HB from AJ to Sharp/Kozzy etc).

CD does not include this as part of their Player Rating metrics?

7 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

I include score involvements in my ratings, which i assume will capture this scenario (somewhat) assuming it ends up as a score and where that act sees the ball go to the eventual scorer in the chain (ie., in this case...knock ons or a HB from AJ to Sharp/Kozzy etc).

CD does not include this as part of their Player Rating metrics?

A knock on or handball counts as a score involvement and will contribute to the player ratings. A forward crashing the pack causing the ball to come to ground, or dropping a mark but still preventing the defender taking possession/mark, doesn't count as a score involvement nor does it contribute to the player ratings.

22 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

A knock on or handball counts as a score involvement and will contribute to the player ratings. A forward crashing the pack causing the ball to come to ground, or dropping a mark but still preventing the defender taking possession/mark, doesn't count as a score involvement nor does it contribute to the player ratings.

Which makes AJ's player rating of -2.7 even worse given it includes 2 score involvements (both goal assists i think) that im pretty sure were both from tap ons - one to set up a Sharp goal and the other Salem's goal.

Not wanting to bag AJ, but I noted in another thread that he only had one kick.

I watched the replay again last night (such a fun game to watch) - AJ's one kick was on the full (so therefore a turnover and clanger).

Edited Wednesday at 07:404 days by binman

2 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

A knock on or handball counts as a score involvement and will contribute to the player ratings. A forward crashing the pack causing the ball to come to ground, or dropping a mark but still preventing the defender taking possession/mark, doesn't count as a score involvement nor does it contribute to the player ratings.

Yes i figured that part wouldn't count Wheelo .... cheers

On 20/05/2025 at 09:45, Its Time for Another said:

Hey @WheeloRatings , thanks again for providing all these stats over the journey. Much appreciated.

I am wondering if it would be possible to get some stats on the players delivering the ball the most i50 and the result of their delivery. I read last week Trac has kicked the ball i50 this season 45 times and only one of those kicks has been marked. That's not my memory. I would be really interested to see which players kicks it most i50 in the team and what the mark/retention rate is for them. Thanks IT

By my calculations, across the first nine rounds Petracca had 47 kicks inside 50 with one resulting in a mark for a teammate. Through 11 rounds, he is three from 58 with two of his kicks against Brisbane being marked.

Here are the Melbourne players with 15+ kicks inside 50, sorted by mark percentage and then retention percentage.

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a mark, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Mark	%
2	Charlie Spargo	18	9	50.0%
12	Christian Salem	21	8	38.1%
20	Kysaiah Pickett	28	10	35.7%
36	Jake Melksham	25	8	32.0%
70	Trent Rivers	27	7	25.9%
74	Jack Viney	28	7	25.0%
86	Caleb Windsor	25	6	24.0%
103	Kade Chandler	27	6	22.2%
129	Harvey Langford	25	5	20.0%
164	Xavier Lindsay	18	3	16.7%
233	Clayton Oliver	27	3	11.1%
236	Ed Langdon	28	3	10.7%
249	Jake Bowey	24	2	8.3%
253	Max Gawn	27	2	7.4%
267	Christian Petracca	58	3	5.2%
269	Tom Sparrow	22	1	4.5%
275	Harrison Petty	15	0	0.0%

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Retained	%
28	Kysaiah Pickett	28	17	60.7%
30	Jake Melksham	25	15	60.0%
46	Kade Chandler	27	15	55.6%
46	Charlie Spargo	18	10	55.6%
78	Christian Salem	21	11	52.4%
87	Jake Bowey	24	12	50.0%
114	Max Gawn	27	13	48.1%
139	Ed Langdon	28	13	46.4%
162	Caleb Windsor	25	11	44.0%
162	Harvey Langford	25	11	44.0%
192	Tom Sparrow	22	9	40.9%
195	Trent Rivers	27	11	40.7%
206	Jack Viney	28	11	39.3%
240	Harrison Petty	15	5	33.3%
259	Christian Petracca	58	18	31.0%
261	Clayton Oliver	27	8	29.6%
275	Xavier Lindsay	18	4	22.2%

19 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

By my calculations, across the first nine rounds Petracca had 47 kicks inside 50 with one resulting in a mark for a teammate. Through 11 rounds, he is three from 58 with two of his kicks against Brisbane being marked.

Here are the Melbourne players with 15+ kicks inside 50, sorted by mark percentage and then retention percentage.

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a mark, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Mark	%
2	Charlie Spargo	18	9	50.0%
12	Christian Salem	21	8	38.1%
20	Kysaiah Pickett	28	10	35.7%
36	Jake Melksham	25	8	32.0%
70	Trent Rivers	27	7	25.9%
74	Jack Viney	28	7	25.0%
86	Caleb Windsor	25	6	24.0%
103	Kade Chandler	27	6	22.2%
129	Harvey Langford	25	5	20.0%
164	Xavier Lindsay	18	3	16.7%
233	Clayton Oliver	27	3	11.1%
236	Ed Langdon	28	3	10.7%
249	Jake Bowey	24	2	8.3%
253	Max Gawn	27	2	7.4%
267	Christian Petracca	58	3	5.2%
269	Tom Sparrow	22	1	4.5%
275	Harrison Petty	15	0	0.0%

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Retained	%
28	Kysaiah Pickett	28	17	60.7%
30	Jake Melksham	25	15	60.0%
46	Kade Chandler	27	15	55.6%
46	Charlie Spargo	18	10	55.6%
78	Christian Salem	21	11	52.4%
87	Jake Bowey	24	12	50.0%
114	Max Gawn	27	13	48.1%
139	Ed Langdon	28	13	46.4%
162	Caleb Windsor	25	11	44.0%
162	Harvey Langford	25	11	44.0%
192	Tom Sparrow	22	9	40.9%
195	Trent Rivers	27	11	40.7%
206	Jack Viney	28	11	39.3%
240	Harrison Petty	15	5	33.3%
259	Christian Petracca	58	18	31.0%
261	Clayton Oliver	27	8	29.6%
275	Xavier Lindsay	18	4	22.2%

And people wonder why Spargo is a best 22 lock.

Edited yesterday at 01:461 day by binman

7 minutes ago, binman said:

And people wonder how Spargi is a best 22 lock.

we are going to miss him

51 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

By my calculations, across the first nine rounds Petracca had 47 kicks inside 50 with one resulting in a mark for a teammate. Through 11 rounds, he is three from 58 with two of his kicks against Brisbane being marked.

Here are the Melbourne players with 15+ kicks inside 50, sorted by mark percentage and then retention percentage.

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a mark, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Mark	%
2	Charlie Spargo	18	9	50.0%
12	Christian Salem	21	8	38.1%
20	Kysaiah Pickett	28	10	35.7%
36	Jake Melksham	25	8	32.0%
70	Trent Rivers	27	7	25.9%
74	Jack Viney	28	7	25.0%
86	Caleb Windsor	25	6	24.0%
103	Kade Chandler	27	6	22.2%
129	Harvey Langford	25	5	20.0%
164	Xavier Lindsay	18	3	16.7%
233	Clayton Oliver	27	3	11.1%
236	Ed Langdon	28	3	10.7%
249	Jake Bowey	24	2	8.3%
253	Max Gawn	27	2	7.4%
267	Christian Petracca	58	3	5.2%
269	Tom Sparrow	22	1	4.5%
275	Harrison Petty	15	0	0.0%

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Retained	%
28	Kysaiah Pickett	28	17	60.7%
30	Jake Melksham	25	15	60.0%
46	Kade Chandler	27	15	55.6%
46	Charlie Spargo	18	10	55.6%
78	Christian Salem	21	11	52.4%
87	Jake Bowey	24	12	50.0%
114	Max Gawn	27	13	48.1%
139	Ed Langdon	28	13	46.4%
162	Caleb Windsor	25	11	44.0%
162	Harvey Langford	25	11	44.0%
192	Tom Sparrow	22	9	40.9%
195	Trent Rivers	27	11	40.7%
206	Jack Viney	28	11	39.3%
240	Harrison Petty	15	5	33.3%
259	Christian Petracca	58	18	31.0%
261	Clayton Oliver	27	8	29.6%
275	Xavier Lindsay	18	4	22.2%

This post should be pinned to the top of most threads.

12 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

By my calculations, across the first nine rounds Petracca had 47 kicks inside 50 with one resulting in a mark for a teammate. Through 11 rounds, he is three from 58 with two of his kicks against Brisbane being marked.

Here are the Melbourne players with 15+ kicks inside 50, sorted by mark percentage and then retention percentage.

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a mark, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Mark	%
2	Charlie Spargo	18	9	50.0%
12	Christian Salem	21	8	38.1%
20	Kysaiah Pickett	28	10	35.7%
36	Jake Melksham	25	8	32.0%
70	Trent Rivers	27	7	25.9%
74	Jack Viney	28	7	25.0%
86	Caleb Windsor	25	6	24.0%
103	Kade Chandler	27	6	22.2%
129	Harvey Langford	25	5	20.0%
164	Xavier Lindsay	18	3	16.7%
233	Clayton Oliver	27	3	11.1%
236	Ed Langdon	28	3	10.7%
249	Jake Bowey	24	2	8.3%
253	Max Gawn	27	2	7.4%
267	Christian Petracca	58	3	5.2%
269	Tom Sparrow	22	1	4.5%
275	Harrison Petty	15	0	0.0%

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Retained	%
28	Kysaiah Pickett	28	17	60.7%
30	Jake Melksham	25	15	60.0%
46	Kade Chandler	27	15	55.6%
46	Charlie Spargo	18	10	55.6%
78	Christian Salem	21	11	52.4%
87	Jake Bowey	24	12	50.0%
114	Max Gawn	27	13	48.1%
139	Ed Langdon	28	13	46.4%
162	Caleb Windsor	25	11	44.0%
162	Harvey Langford	25	11	44.0%
192	Tom Sparrow	22	9	40.9%
195	Trent Rivers	27	11	40.7%
206	Jack Viney	28	11	39.3%
240	Harrison Petty	15	5	33.3%
259	Christian Petracca	58	18	31.0%
261	Clayton Oliver	27	8	29.6%
275	Xavier Lindsay	18	4	22.2%

That Petracca stat is laughably pathetic. You want to know why Rds 1-5 happened - there’s your indication - he (and others) were dumping it in there, and we would have probably had players leading to spots that were rarely used due to the hangover of the territory game. Now we have a better sense for what we want to do and how we want to enter the 50.

33 minutes ago, rpfc said:

That Petracca stat is laughably pathetic. You want to know why Rds 1-5 happened - there’s your indication - he (and others) were dumping it in there, and we would have probably had players leading to spots that were rarely used due to the hangover of the territory game. Now we have a better sense for what we want to do and how we want to enter the 50.

Our senior mids were the culprits. Trac, Viney and Clarry. They all dump kicked repeatedly inside.

Now they're learning to give the hands or go shorter.

7 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Our senior mids were the culprits. Trac, Viney and Clarry. They all dump kicked repeatedly inside.

Now they're learning to give the hands or go shorter.

A good example is trac handballing sharp in the seans game to set a running goal rather than bombing for goal himself.

8 hours ago, rpfc said:

That Petracca stat is laughably pathetic. You want to know why Rds 1-5 happened - there’s your indication - he (and others) were dumping it in there, and we would have probably had players leading to spots that were rarely used due to the hangover of the territory game. Now we have a better sense for what we want to do and how we want to enter the 50.

It's funny you should mention the 'terrority game'.

Like the pies, we are still playing it in so far there us a clear emphasis on winning the territory, inside 50 battle this season.

The difference is the focus on, as you suggest, not always bombing it in (though we are still doing plenty of that) and bei g much less straight line.

It's interesting because in 2024, on the back of the pies 2023 flag win, it was all about scores from the back half and spring boarding from half half.

In 2025, whilst transition from the back half is still important, the pendulum has swung back a bit to territory, get it inside 50 and trap there, forward half turnover footy.

It's a shift that suits us.

The red and blue print.

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by binman

1 hour ago, binman said:

It's funny you should mention the 'terrority game'.

Like the pies, we are still playing it in so far there us a clear emphasis on winning the territory, inside 50 battle this season.

The difference is the focus on, as you suggest, not always bombing it in (though we are still doing plenty of that) and bei g much less straight line.

It's interesting because the pies in 2024, on the back of the pies 2023 flag win, it was all about scores from the back half and spring boarding from half half.

In 2025, whilst transition from.the back half is still important, the pendulum has swung back a bit to territory, get it inside 50 and trap there, forward half turnover footy.

It's a shift that suits us.

The red and blue print.

It’s this that gives me confidence. Our one wood might be contest and defence but our putter and most important club appears to be playing a front half territory game. One question I have is do we set up our defence further back to allow an exiting ball to also clear our F50 of the opposition?

8 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

It’s this that gives me confidence. Our one wood might be contest and defence but our putter and most important club appears to be playing a front half territory game. One question I have is do we set up our defence further back to allow an exiting ball to also clear our F50 of the opposition?

Front half game is dependent on contest and defence.

I don't think we are setting our D further back - we're certainly pushing up when we have the ball in our forward line (key to creating front half turnovers).

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by binman

2 hours ago, binman said:

A good example is trac handballing sharp in the seans game to set a running goal rather than bombing for goal himself.

How good was it seeing Trac just explode out of that stoppage to set Sharp up.

12 minutes ago, binman said:

Front half game is dependent on contest and defence.

I don't think we are setting our D further back - we're certainly pushing up when we have the ball in our forward line (key to creating front half turnovers).

Absolutely, I may of got my golf analogy a little off.

Our repeat forward entries appear less contested but I may be imagining that. It’s why I thought perhaps we’ve pulled our defence back to the defensive side of the wings. I also noted May and Salem took some marks back there when Sydney came out of our F 50. Just stretching the ground out so as to draw the swans out of our D50. It also seems we’re hitting the top of the goal square a lot more and with Kozz running around why not. Anyhoo I’ll take a closer look at KB as it’s harder to gauge on tv. I’m also someone who’s still getting into the subtler side of tactics and how we play. Our 21 style was really clear.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by Roost it far

2 hours ago, binman said:

It's funny you should mention the 'terrority game'.

Like the pies, we are still playing it in so far there us a clear emphasis on winning the territory, inside 50 battle this season.

The difference is the focus on, as you suggest, not always bombing it in (though we are still doing plenty of that) and bei g much less straight line.

It's interesting because the pies in 2024, on the back of the pies 2023 flag win, it was all about scores from the back half and spring boarding from half half.

In 2025, whilst transition from.the back half is still important, the pendulum has swung back a bit to territory, get it inside 50 and trap there, forward half turnover footy.

It's a shift that suits us.

The red and blue print.

Quite. The key to getting our front half defensive game going (the keeping territory part) is getting it in there without an immediate intercept. Having kicks that are to the benefit of your teammate - what a novel concept…

I am still amazed at that CP5 stat…

No wonder most think he and Clarrie can’t hit the side of a barn.

When you have Petracca and Clarry pepering it into the forward line all the time it makes sense to change the forward setup to stop intercept marks at all costs, bring the ball to ground and have Kozzie buzzing around causing chaos.

3 hours ago, binman said:

A good example is trac handballing sharp in the seans game to set a running goal rather than bombing for goal himself.

It's exactly this example that came to my mind too when Wheelo posted those stats again.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Quite. The key to getting our front half defensive game going (the keeping territory part) is getting it in there without an immediate intercept. Having kicks that are to the benefit of your teammate - what a novel concept…

I am still amazed at that CP5 stat…

No wonder most think he and Clarrie can’t hit the side of a barn.

I agree that we're kicking inside 50 better but really, as evidenced by our relatively low marks inside 50 numbers, were still oten bombimg it in to a contest.

I think the big difference to 2021 - 2024 is, on both first time and repeat entries, we're going around the arc more to spead the defenders so if we do kick to an aerial contest it's more often a one on one, which we're halving more often than not.

49 minutes ago, binman said:

I agree that we're kicking inside 50 better but really, as evidenced by our relatively low marks inside 50 numbers, were still oten bombimg it in to a contest.

I think the big difference to 2021 - 2024 is, on both first time and repeat entries, we're going around the arc more to spead the defenders so if we do kick to an aerial contest it's more often a one on one, which we're halving more often than not.

I think it's useful to get an average in AFL land.... so my interpretation of this data is...

that the Hawks currently sit around 1 mark every 3.5 entries and we are around 1 in every 5.

So (and not that it is as binary as this) - a question that will be asked in terms of the personnel on the field is - do you try to increase the mark rate when it does enter, or do you aim to increase the entry rate?

I'd say Goodwin's coaching career/philosophy in terms of attacking and how to best go about it - has been defined by a talented midfield than extract the ball, and so he banks on as many entries as possible per game as the data set to follow, as it would appear over the season, you are likely to come out on top, more often than not.

*Further to this - both Hawthorn and Melbourne are averaging around 53 Inside 50's a match - so thus far Hawthorn would take around 1 extra mark each quarter inside 50, if we went head to head, so to speak.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by Engorged Onion

4 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

I think it's useful to get an average in AFL land.... so my interpretation of this data is...

that the Hawks currently sit around 1 mark every 3.5 entries and we are around 1 in every 5.

So (and not that it is as binary as this) - a question that will be asked in terms of the personnel on the field is - do you try to increase the mark rate when it does enter, or do you aim to increase the entry rate?

I'd say Goodwin's coaching career/philosophy in terms of attacking and how to best go about it - has been defined by a talented midfield than extract the ball, and so he banks on as many entries as possible per game as the data set to follow, as it would appear over the season, you are likely to come out on top, more often than not.

Yep, agreed, history would suggest we'd bank on quantity over quality eventually leading to a higher score than the opposition in combination with strong defence behind the ball.

However, as we've started to change our list over the last two years, we've now got a greater spread of better ball users. Having McVee, Salem and Windsor behind the ball; Lindsay and Langford on our wings; and Spargo and Kozzy kicking it inside, we should improve this ability to convert more inside 50s into scores and need less inside 50s to kick winning scores.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by Adam The God

Melbourne v St Kilda (Round 12, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20251206

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Efficiency	72.9	76.4	-3.5	72.6
Kicking Efficiency	71.7	73.5	-1.7	66.2
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	63.2	36.8	+26.4
Inside 50s	57	40	+17
Shots At Goal	27	22	+5
Scores Per Inside 50	49.1	52.5	-3.4	44.9
Goals Per Inside 50	12.3	35.0	-22.7	23.8
Marks Inside 50	14	10	+4
Transition
Chain To Score %	28.4	21.0	+7.4	20.9
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	32.0	18.2	+13.8	22.9
Defensive 50 To Score %	20.0	14.5	+5.5	9.4
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	42.2	29.5	+12.7	31.3
Defensive Half To Score %	17.8	21.8	-4.0	13.0
Contest
Contested Possessions	117	116	+1
Ground Ball Gets	67	78	-11
Post Clearance Contested Poss	75	70	+5
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	44	50	-6
Contested Marks	14	12	+2
Clearance
Total Clearances	32	30	+2
Centre Clearances	9	11	-2
Stoppage Clearances	23	19	+4
First Possessions	31	36	-5
First Possession To Clearance %	74.2	69.4	+4.7	75.1
Defense
Intercepts	57	51	+6
Intercept Marks	16	15	+1
Tackles	56	52	+4
Tackles Inside 50	8	8	+0
Def One On One Loss %	27.3	23.5	+3.7	25.7
Ruck
Hitouts	32	25	+7
Hitouts To Advantage	7	6	+1

Transition stats measure how often chains result in a score or an inside 50. Chains include all kick-in chains, all clearances, and intercepts with at least one disposal in the chain.

• Chain To Score %: proportion of all chains that resulted in a score.

• Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %: proportion of all chains starting in the defensive 50 that resulted in an inside 50.

• Defensive 50 To Score %: proportion of all chains starting in the defensive 50 that resulted in a score.

• Defensive Half To Forward 50 %: proportion of all chains starting in the defensive half that resulted in an inside 50.

• Defensive Half To Score %: proportion of all chains starting in the defensive half that resulted in a score.

Player Ratings

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Match	TOG
Steven May	6.1	6.6	4.1	1.3	18.2	96%
Kysaiah Pickett	0.5	5.1	5.0	2.9	13.5	88%
Christian Petracca	0.4	6.9	3.2	2.7	13.2	87%
Harvey Langford	2.8	2.3	2.8	3.1	10.9	73%
Judd McVee	4.7	1.5	2.0	2.0	10.3	85%
Daniel Turner	4.1	1.2	4.5	−0.2	9.6	86%
Kade Chandler	1.1	6.9	0.4	0.6	9.0	80%
Max Gawn	0.2	1.8	3.0	3.8	8.8	87%
Jake Bowey	2.4	0.6	3.0	2.8	8.7	82%
Jake Melksham	3.6	1.0	2.1	1.8	8.5	75%
Bayley Fritsch	6.5	0.0	1.1	0.3	7.9	86%
Trent Rivers	1.4	2.4	1.7	0.8	6.3	75%
Ed Langdon	2.3	0.9	2.1	0.4	5.7	84%
Caleb Windsor	1.3	0.8	1.4	1.9	5.4	75%
Clayton Oliver	1.3	2.8	1.4	−0.4	5.1	78%
Harry Sharp	2.4	−1.3	0.0	2.9	4.0	71%
Jake Lever	−1.1	2.2	0.0	2.9	4.0	90%
Christian Salem	1.5	0.4	1.7	0.4	3.9	85%
Xavier Lindsay	2.4	0.4	0.4	−0.2	3.0	83%
Tom Sparrow	−0.3	1.5	−0.6	1.8	2.4	93%
Harrison Petty	−1.4	2.3	0.2	0.8	2.0	75%
Aidan Johnson	−2.4	1.5	1.4	0.0	0.5	46%
Bailey Laurie	0.0	0.0	0.0	−0.4	−0.4	20%

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	4	7	-3
Loose Ball Get	8	6	+2
Contested Mark	3	1	+2
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Contested Knock On	1	0	+1
Free For	1	2	-1
Total	17	17	0
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	6	2	+4
Loose Ball Get	6	10	-4
Contested Mark	3	4	-1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	1	0
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Contested Knock On	1	0	+1
Free For	4	7	-3
Total	21	25	-4
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	14	13	+1
Loose Ball Get	30	37	-7
Contested Mark	14	12	+2
Contested Knock On	3	0	+3
Free For	14	8	+6
Total	75	70	+5
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	7	11	-4
Loose Ball Get	16	17	-1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	6	2	+4
Gather From Hitout	7	6	+1
Free For	6	10	-4
Total	42	46	-4

• 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	xWin %	xMargin	Margin	Swing
Melbourne	83.8	63	53%	+1.4
St Kilda	82.4	91	47%		+28	+29.4

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	27	7.16 58	25.9%	80.8	−22.8	2.99	−0.84
St Kilda	22	14.6 90	63.6%	81.4	+8.6	3.70	+0.39
General Play
Melbourne	8	1.7 13	12.5%	21.5	−8.5	2.69	−1.06
St Kilda	9	6.3 39	66.7%	30.7	+8.3	3.41	+0.92
Set Position
Melbourne	19	6.9 45	31.6%	59.3	−14.3	3.12	−0.75
St Kilda	13	8.3 51	61.5%	50.6	+0.4	3.89	+0.03

• 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.

Territory (time in zones)

Region	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Match	Season
Half
Forward	55%	63%	64%	72%	63%	53%
Defensive	45%	37%	36%	28%	37%	47%
Region
Forward 50	29%	36%	35%	33%	33%	26%
Attacking Midfield	26%	26%	29%	39%	30%	27%
Defensive Midfield	23%	21%	21%	15%	20%	25%
Defensive 50	22%	17%	15%	13%	17%	22%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	0.2 2	2.1 13	-11
Centre Bounce	1.1 7	2.0 12	-5
Stoppage (Other)	1.4 10	0.3 3	+7
Turnover	5.14 44	10.3 63	-19

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	2	3.5	13	5.4
Centre Bounce	7	12.7	12	13.5
Stoppage (Other)	10	17.7	3	22.5
Turnover	44	45.5	63	49.2

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

Chain start region

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

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	10	11.2	33	18.6
Defensive midfield	8	14.5	34	23.8
Centre bounce	7	12.7	12	13.5
Attacking midfield	21	23.5	6	20.7
Forward 50	17	17.5	6	14.1

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

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
18	25.7	67	42.3

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

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2025 %	2024 %
Max Gawn	20	87%	84.8%	85.0%
Christian Petracca	20	87%	71.1%	55.8%
Kysaiah Pickett	18	78%	64.8%	33.0%
Clayton Oliver	16	70%	73.4%	70.7%
Trent Rivers	14	61%	27.1%	29.9%
Aidan Johnson	3	13%	13.9%
Harvey Langford	1	4%	18.7%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	11.3%	37.7%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	6.0%	0.7%
Christian Salem	0	0%	2.1%	12.3%
Kade Chandler	0	0%	2.1%	0.0%
Judd McVee	0	0%	1.2%	6.3%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.4%	0.3%
Jake Melksham	0	0%	0.4%	0.0%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	0.3%	7.5%
Bailey Laurie	0	0%	0.0%	11.0%
Jack Viney			71.7%	69.1%
Tom Fullarton			17.2%
Jacob van Rooyen			12.0%	17.8%
Charlie Spargo			0.0%	4.2%
Koltyn Tholstrup			0.0%	5.7%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2025 %	2024 %
Max Gawn	72	90%	82.8%	81.1%
Aidan Johnson	5	6%	15.6%
Harrison Petty	3	4%	0.8%	7.9%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.6%	3.1%
Clayton Oliver	0	0%	0.1%	0.0%
Tom Fullarton			20.5%
Jacob van Rooyen			12.5%	17.6%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2025)	To Adv. % (2024)
Melbourne
Max Gawn	72	30	7	26.5%	27.9%
Harrison Petty	3	1	0	66.7%	24.4%
Aidan Johnson	5	1	0	21.1%
Daniel Turner	0	0	0		50.4%
Tom Fullarton				43.8%
Jacob van Rooyen				37.5%	24.7%
Opposition
Rowan Marshall	69	22	5
Mitch Owens	11	3	1

Thanks Wheelo from those stats we should win but our lousy kicking says NO.