The only thing expected about our score is that we are below expected score.

21 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

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

Expected score says we win by 1 point.

Conceding 67 points from defensive half says we didn’t deserve to win because we didn’t apply pressure and didn’t work hard enough.

Melbourne v St Kilda (Round 12, 2025)

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

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	159	160	-1
2	174	152	+22
3	180	188	-8
4	132	161	-29
Match	162	167	-5

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	17	44	30.7
Xavier Lindsay	18	36	27.6
Christian Salem	13	36	21.2
Kade Chandler	14	32	33.2
Ed Langdon	13	31	31.2
Tom Sparrow	11	30	37.4
Clayton Oliver	9	26	52.1
Max Gawn	9	26	21.5
Aidan Johnson	10	24	28.8
Jake Bowey	9	23	28.7
Harvey Langford	13	23	21.3
Daniel Turner	12	23	16.2
Bayley Fritsch	9	22	20.5
Harry Sharp	11	22	19.8
Kysaiah Pickett	9	21	36.8
Harrison Petty	9	20	18.3
Jake Melksham	11	19	20.1
Caleb Windsor	8	17	23.4
Jake Lever	10	17	19.5
Christian Petracca	7	14	34.9
Judd McVee	5	10	16.8
Steven May	4	10	9.9
Bailey Laurie	4	6	6.0

Source: Herald Sun

@WheeloRatings can you please contextualise those numbers? How does our 162 rank this year and under Goodwin? And what about the fourth quarter 132?

@WheeloRatings I noticed the Saints only had 2 forward half scoring chains? Do you know if any team has ever had that few, let alone won the game?

14 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

@WheeloRatings can you please contextualise those numbers? How does our 162 rank this year and under Goodwin? And what about the fourth quarter 132?

They said on the fox coverage that:

• our lastquarter pressure rating wasr the lowest pressure rating in a quarter EVER under goody

• The average for the game the fith lowest under goody

By the by, I suspect that the majority of top 10 pressure rating under goody would be within two weeks either side of of our mid season bye.

Edited June 1Jun 1 by binman

On 31/05/2025 at 10:56, 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%

Thanks so much for doing this. Much appreciated. Really valuable information. I assume Goody and the team have this. Wonder what the worst culprits think of this and what if anything arw rhwy trying to do about it.

24 minutes ago, binman said:

They said on the fox coverage that:

• our lastquarter pressure rating wasr the lowest pressure rating in a quarter EVER under goody

• The average for the game the fith lowest under goody

By the by, I suspect that the majority of top 10 pressure rating under goody would be within two weeks either side of of our mid season bye.

I wonder what the mentality is here. Do they just know they have lost and have effectively just given up. It has become quite the pattern of late.

Uncontested possessions vs St Kilda - 177

Against Sydney - 244

Did we forget how to share the ball yesterday?

And the amount of wasted long kicks forward today was a reminder that old habits die hard. We kept handing the ball back to the Saints with rushed kicks forward

By contrast, the Saints often hung on to the ball until they saw an opening

17 more inside 50 entries against St Kilda, yet our goal kicking effiency was off the charts, woeful

There is barely a player who looks confident kicking for goal (when we're having a bad day) Other days we are fine. Jekyll and Hyde

We were outplayed today but we still could have won the game if we'd kicked straight

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Macca

Goals per qtr is the top row

As far as I could accurately count :P
Here is all our qtrs since Goodwin took over, 1 goal qtrs are well up this year, for me the interesting qtrs are the 3-4 goal qts, thats where you keep the scoreboard ticking and already having 7 games where we have score more points than goals is bad, but ironically he worst year was 21 when we won the flag, but that was also 3 more games.

Not sure if this is helpful, interesting etc
But maybe someone will enjoy it :)

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Gorgoroth

9 hours ago, Watson11 said:

@WheeloRatings I noticed the Saints only had 2 forward half scoring chains? Do you know if any team has ever had that few, let alone won the game?

I only have data from 2021 onwards, but in that time there have been four instances of two or fewer forward half scoring chains:

1.0 - St Kilda v Western Bulldogs, R10 2021
0.2 - GWS v Brisbane, R18 2022
1.1 - Essendon v GWS, R23 2023
2.0 - St Kilda v Melbourne, R12 2025

33 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I only have data from 2021 onwards, but in that time there have been four instances of two or fewer forward half scoring chains:

1.0 - St Kilda v Western Bulldogs, R10 2021
0.2 - GWS v Brisbane, R18 2022
1.1 - Essendon v GWS, R23 2023
2.0 - St Kilda v Melbourne, R12 2025

Wow. Those other three games resulted in an average losing margin of 92.3 points!

Round 12, 2025 TIO Traeger Park - Demons vs Saints

Not sure how you go from putting up your best statistical game in over 2 years last week, to absolute batshiiite bad the next! Yet here we are. Something in the water perhaps? Maybe too much bathing!

Alot of horror negative results vs 2024 Ratings. Remembering that 2024 wasn't exactly our finest hour to start with so anything significantly negative here should (for the most part with maybe a few exceptions eg; rookies) be considered a major horribilis performance both from an individual and team perspective.

Player & Team Ratings - Demons

> Subbed out TOG %

> Subbed in TOG %

Player & Team Ratings - Saints

Combined Player Ratings

Stats courtesy of footywire.com and wheeloratings.com

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Demon Dynasty

On 02/06/2025 at 11:29, Macca said:

Uncontested possessions vs St Kilda - 177

Against Sydney - 244

Did we forget how to share the ball yesterday?

And the amount of wasted long kicks forward today was a reminder that old habits die hard. We kept handing the ball back to the Saints with rushed kicks forward

By contrast, the Saints often hung on to the ball until they saw an opening

17 more inside 50 entries against St Kilda, yet our goal kicking effiency was off the charts, woeful

There is barely a player who looks confident kicking for goal (when we're having a bad day) Other days we are fine. Jekyll and Hyde

We were outplayed today but we still could have won the game if we'd kicked straight

Not putting this solely on this player and it was SG's choice to go down this route. Nonetheless, has OUR new game style (attempted and still a WIP) gone past Lever!??

T-Mac fitting into it beautifully imho. Lever doesn't really have the skill set to execute what is seemingly required under the new method / style? I'm not suggesting T-Mac is a long-term answer either. But for now, he is def the preferred one of the two IF we assume (rightly or wrongly) they're both vying for pretty much the same position / role in the team.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Demon Dynasty

2 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Round 12, 2025 TIO Traeger Park - Demons vs Saints

Not sure how you go from putting up your best statistical game in over 2 years last week, to absolute batshiiite bad the next! Yet here we are. Something in the water perhaps? Maybe too much bathing!

Alot of horror negative results vs 2024 Ratings. Remembering that 2024 wasn't exactly our finest hour to start with so anything significantly negative here should (for the most part with maybe a few exceptions eg; rookies) be considered a major horribilis performance both from an individual and team perspective.

Player & Team Ratings - Demons

> Subbed out TOG %

> Subbed in TOG %

Player & Team Ratings - Saints

Combined Player Ratings

Stats courtesy of footywire.com and wheeloratings.com

Thanks DD we were statistically as poor as we looked, we made the Saints look like a champion team and yet we could have still won the game had we kicked straight, how crazy is that.

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 12, 2025 vs H&A Season 2024

Even after dropping away on his prior few weeks ratings, Tracc just scrapes ahead of Bowey taking 3rd place after a few relatively quite games from the defender (vs earlier stellar form anyway).

Lever and Sparrow on the nose so far this season. Tracc still struggling to find and maintain the form he showed to this point last season. Albeit his performances are still a notch above many, even at lessor levels (for him), whilst occasionally blitzing or matching 2024 levels in some matches (so far).

I'd be getting T-Mac back in for Lever from this week. And consider trialing Sesto for Sparrow for at least a block of three matches post the bye.

* Played less than two full matches

< Subbed out at least once or more

> Subbed in at least once or more

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Demon Dynasty

On 04/06/2025 at 19:49, Demon Dynasty said:

Not putting this solely on this player and it was SG's choice to go down this route. Nonetheless, has OUR new game style (attempted and still a WIP) gone past Lever!??

T-Mac fitting into it beautifully imho. Lever doesn't really have the skill set to execute what is seemingly required under the new method / style? I'm not suggesting T-Mac is a long-term answer either. But for now, he is def the preferred one of the two IF we assume (rightly or wrongly) they're both vying for pretty much the same position / role in the team.

As a team, we were not switched on. A lack of teamwork around the stoppages and between the arcs

What we displayed against Freo, Lions & Swans wasn't on show in the Alice

I lost count of how many long kicks forward led to negligible results. And of course, our kicking for goal was woeful

Old habits die hard

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Macca

21 hours ago, Macca said:

As a team, we were not switched on. A lack of teamwork around the stoppages and between the arcs

What we displayed against Freo, Lions & Swans wasn't on show in the Alice

I lost count of how many long kicks forward led to negligible results. And of course, our kicking for goal was woeful

Old habits die hard

Yes but Lever is not just a regular player down back Macca.

He is effectively a key leader who is supposed to lead by example. It's going to look pretty contradictory and farcical for players looking on if he's yelling out instructions to do one thing while he's mostly bombing it up the line against general team 'preferred' requirements.

If i have a choice as coach, and Simon does, between T-Mac and Lever, in terms of setting examples and sticking to preferred ways i know which one i'm selecting if i hope to more successfully achieve the transition to the new game style.

Edited June 6Jun 6 by Demon Dynasty

1 minute ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yes but Lever is not just a regular player down back Macca.

He is effectively a key leader who is supposed to lead by example. It's going to look pretty contradictory and farcical for players looking on if he's yelling out instructions to do one thing while he's mostly bombing it up the line against general team 'preferred' requirements.

If i have a choice as coach, and Simon does, between T-Mac and Lever, in terms of setting examples and sticking to preferred ways i know which one i'm selecting if i hope to more successfully achieve the transition to the new game style.

I'm 100% more concerned with the whole team as a group and playing as a team

Changing one player or a few players is largely irrelevant if the whole team aren't all on the same page

In other words, if T-Mac had played instead of Lever it wouldn't have made much of a difference

Edited June 6Jun 6 by Macca

Melbourne v Collingwood (Round 13, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20251308

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Efficiency	66.9	76.8	-10.0	72.4
Kicking Efficiency	57.7	73.1	-15.4	66.0
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	50.6	49.4	+1.1
Inside 50s	54	45	+9
Shots At Goal	21	19	+2
Scores Per Inside 50	38.9	37.8	+1.1	44.3
Goals Per Inside 50	18.5	24.4	-5.9	23.4
Marks Inside 50	6	9	-3
Transition
Chain To Score %	17.2	15.0	+2.2	20.6
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	22.9	22.5	+0.4	22.6
Defensive 50 To Score %	11.4	2.5	+8.9	9.2
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	32.4	20.0	+12.4	31.0
Defensive Half To Score %	11.8	5.3	+6.4	12.7
Contest
Contested Possessions	143	115	+28
Ground Ball Gets	89	70	+19
Post Clearance Contested Poss	93	79	+14
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	61	50	+11
Contested Marks	15	9	+6
Clearance
Total Clearances	39	29	+10
Centre Clearances	16	7	+9
Stoppage Clearances	23	22	+1
First Possessions	35	33	+2
First Possession To Clearance %	88.6	69.7	+18.9	75.2
Defense
Intercepts	72	76	-4
Intercept Marks	20	20	+0
Tackles	59	59	+0
Tackles Inside 50	14	7	+7
Def One On One Loss %	42.9	23.5	+19.3	25.7
Ruck
Hitouts	47	21	+26
Hitouts To Advantage	12	8	+4

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
Christian Petracca	4.5	5.5	7.7	2.5	20.2	84%
Max Gawn	5.1	4.0	3.4	5.1	17.6	85%
Daniel Turner	4.5	2.3	4.0	4.0	14.9	87%
Tom Sparrow	5.1	5.3	2.7	1.9	14.9	77%
Bayley Fritsch	−1.8	3.5	2.1	10.5	14.3	92%
Clayton Oliver	4.9	−0.2	5.1	3.0	12.8	78%
Kysaiah Pickett	−0.5	11.6	0.4	−0.2	11.3	82%
Jake Bowey	1.8	5.5	1.1	2.7	11.0	85%
Trent Rivers	−0.5	5.8	1.9	3.6	10.8	73%
Steven May	5.6	0.7	1.3	2.6	10.2	97%
Jake Lever	4.5	1.9	3.1	0.4	9.9	95%
Jacob van Rooyen	0.5	3.2	1.1	2.8	7.5	60%
Kade Chandler	3.4	0.9	0.4	2.4	7.1	89%
Jake Melksham	0.4	−0.7	2.5	4.9	7.1	81%
Christian Salem	0.1	5.5	1.0	−0.3	6.2	89%
Koltyn Tholstrup	4.1	2.2	0.3	−0.7	6.0	66%
Harvey Langford	1.0	3.1	0.7	1.0	5.8	84%
Blake Howes	0.9	0.3	2.4	1.2	4.8	72%
Harrison Petty	3.1	−1.2	3.7	−1.3	4.3	74%
Caleb Windsor	0.0	0.0	1.9	1.4	3.3	29%
Judd McVee	−0.2	1.0	1.7	−0.4	2.0	75%
Ed Langdon	−0.3	2.7	−1.0	−0.8	0.6	87%
Xavier Lindsay	0.9	−2.5	0.0	0.0	−1.6	58%

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	4	1	+3
Loose Ball Get	11	5	+6
Contested Mark	4	1	+3
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	0	+1
Gather From Hitout	2	2	0
Contested Knock On	0	1	-1
Free For	3	2	+1
Total	25	12	+13
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	2	4	-2
Loose Ball Get	14	6	+8
Contested Mark	1	2	-1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	0	+1
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Contested Knock On	0	2	-2
Free For	3	4	-1
Total	21	19	+2
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	11	10	+1
Loose Ball Get	50	40	+10
Contested Mark	15	9	+6
Contested Knock On	3	4	-1
Free For	14	16	-2
Total	93	79	+14
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	7	6	+1
Loose Ball Get	21	14	+7
Ruck Hard Ball Get	5	0	+5
Gather From Hitout	12	5	+7
Contested Knock On	1	1	0
Free For	4	10	-6
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	xWin %	xMargin	Margin	Swing
Melbourne	75.0	71	73%	+9.1
Collingwood	65.9	72	27%		+1	+10.1

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	21	10.9 69	47.6%	73.0	−4.0	3.48	−0.19
Collingwood	19	11.4 70	57.9%	64.9	+5.1	3.42	+0.27
General Play
Melbourne	10	5.5 35	50.0%	28.7	+6.3	2.87	+0.63
Collingwood	6	4.1 25	66.7%	20.4	+4.6	3.39	+0.77
Set Position
Melbourne	11	5.4 34	45.5%	44.3	−10.3	4.03	−0.94
Collingwood	13	7.3 45	53.8%	44.6	+0.4	3.43	+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	41%	63%	51%	47%	51%	52%
Defensive	59%	37%	49%	53%	49%	48%
Region
Forward 50	16%	30%	23%	21%	23%	26%
Attacking Midfield	24%	33%	28%	26%	28%	27%
Defensive Midfield	32%	23%	33%	31%	30%	25%
Defensive 50	27%	14%	16%	22%	20%	22%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	1.1 7	0.0 0	+7
Centre Bounce	2.2 14	1.1 7	+7
Stoppage (Other)	3.2 20	3.2 20	+0
Turnover	4.6 30	7.3 45	-15

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	7	3.8	0	5.0
Centre Bounce	14	12.8	7	13.0
Stoppage (Other)	20	17.8	20	22.3
Turnover	30	44.3	45	48.8

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

Chain start region

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

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	9	11.0	6	17.6
Defensive midfield	19	14.8	18	23.3
Centre bounce	14	12.8	7	13.0
Attacking midfield	8	22.3	41	22.2
Forward 50	21	17.8	0	13.0

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

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
28	25.8	24	40.9

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

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2025 %	2024 %
Max Gawn	22	92%	85.3%	85.0%
Kysaiah Pickett	22	92%	67.2%	33.0%
Christian Petracca	21	88%	72.2%	55.8%
Clayton Oliver	17	71%	73.3%	70.7%
Trent Rivers	12	50%	28.6%	29.9%
Jacob van Rooyen	2	8%	11.5%	17.8%
Harvey Langford	0	0%	17.3%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	10.6%	37.7%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	5.6%	0.7%
Christian Salem	0	0%	1.9%	12.3%
Kade Chandler	0	0%	1.9%	0.0%
Judd McVee	0	0%	1.0%	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%
Koltyn Tholstrup	0	0%	0.0%	5.7%
Jack Viney			71.7%	69.1%
Tom Fullarton			17.2%
Aidan Johnson			13.9%
Bailey Laurie			0.0%	11.0%
Charlie Spargo			0.0%	4.2%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2025 %	2024 %
Max Gawn	70	82%	82.8%	81.1%
Jacob van Rooyen	14	16%	13.0%	17.6%
Harrison Petty	1	1%	0.8%	7.9%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.5%	3.1%
Clayton Oliver	0	0%	0.1%	0.0%
Tom Fullarton			20.5%
Aidan Johnson			15.6%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2025)	To Adv. % (2024)
Melbourne
Max Gawn	70	43	11	26.4%	27.9%
Jacob van Rooyen	14	4	1	35.7%	24.7%
Harrison Petty	1	0	0	66.8%	24.4%
Daniel Turner	0	0	0		50.4%
Tom Fullarton				43.8%
Aidan Johnson				21.1%
Opposition
Darcy Cameron	70	19	6
Brody Mihocek	2	1	1
Daniel McStay	12	1	1
Tim Membrey	1	0	0

Ah yes, another Steven May 'We should have smoked them' moral victory. So much more satisfying than actually winning...

I am good friends with an ex StKilda player and we usually see each other early Monday mornings in the Virgin lounge as we catch the early flights to our different work destinations for the week. We obviously talk football a bit.

The topic of MFC's terrible kicking came up and his conjecture is that all the players are in states of exhaustion at the time of kicking for goal because the game has sped up so much to when he played.

Then why is MFC worse and he thought that other sides were just fitter.

Several testable hypotheses immediately emerge and being that way inclined I sought out some data. Here is a graph that is quite interesting because it puts to bed several possible hypotheses.

It is the Goal/Behind Ratio from 1980 to the start of this week's round. It is calculated by dividing the total goals of sides each season by the total number of points. The Total net of MFC, just takes Melbourne's goals and behinds out of the overall aggregate.

The MFC ratio is that pertaining only to Melbourne since 1980.

The use of a ratio means that the length of the season, number of teams and other variations (like Covid-19) don't really influence the trend.

So:

1. Goal kicking accuracy overall improved then flatten out and since 2018 has been slightly improving - which negates on face value my friend's tiredness conjecture. The game has become faster over the course of this time series.

2. The variability of MFC's ratio would be replicated if I did the same analysis for other teams individually. The smoothness of the aggregate is just because some teams are better than others.

3. Since 2018 and up until this year, MFC was broadly tracking the aggregate, which puts to paid the idea that we have become worse over this period.

It doesn't however negate the conjecture that for key games poor kicking has cost us winning - like some of the finals in 2022 and 2023.

But over the season, our kicking accuracy has been broadly in line with the rest of the competition and improving.

4. This season something dramatic has happened at MFC that is not being replicated in the overall competition. MFC has dropped to its lowest ratio for this 45-year time span - down to 1.02, which means we are kicking as many points as goals.

The ratio in 2025 to date for the rest is 1.42.

MFCs average between 1980 and 2025 (to date) has been 1.36.

So while I don't think the explanation provided by my friend is satisfactory, something is amiss with MFC.

4 hours ago, William said:

I am good friends with an ex StKilda player and we usually see each other early Monday mornings in the Virgin lounge as we catch the early flights to our different work destinations for the week. We obviously talk football a bit.

The topic of MFC's terrible kicking came up and his conjecture is that all the players are in states of exhaustion at the time of kicking for goal because the game has sped up so much to when he played.

Then why is MFC worse and he thought that other sides were just fitter.

Several testable hypotheses immediately emerge and being that way inclined I sought out some data. Here is a graph that is quite interesting because it puts to bed several possible hypotheses.

It is the Goal/Behind Ratio from 1980 to the start of this week's round. It is calculated by dividing the total goals of sides each season by the total number of points. The Total net of MFC, just takes Melbourne's goals and behinds out of the overall aggregate.

The MFC ratio is that pertaining only to Melbourne since 1980.

The use of a ratio means that the length of the season, number of teams and other variations (like Covid-19) don't really influence the trend.

So:

1. Goal kicking accuracy overall improved then flatten out and since 2018 has been slightly improving - which negates on face value my friend's tiredness conjecture. The game has become faster over the course of this time series.

2. The variability of MFC's ratio would be replicated if I did the same analysis for other teams individually. The smoothness of the aggregate is just because some teams are better than others.

3. Since 2018 and up until this year, MFC was broadly tracking the aggregate, which puts to paid the idea that we have become worse over this period.

It doesn't however negate the conjecture that for key games poor kicking has cost us winning - like some of the finals in 2022 and 2023.

But over the season, our kicking accuracy has been broadly in line with the rest of the competition and improving.

4. This season something dramatic has happened at MFC that is not being replicated in the overall competition. MFC has dropped to its lowest ratio for this 45-year time span - down to 1.02, which means we are kicking as many points as goals.

The ratio in 2025 to date for the rest is 1.42.

MFCs average between 1980 and 2025 (to date) has been 1.36.

So while I don't think the explanation provided by my friend is satisfactory, something is amiss with MFC.

I think it’s clear as day now that ever since Burgess left, we have lost that edge. Selwyn may still be ok. But he is not Burgess. Fitness also won’t just improve in season you have to build up fitness over many seasons or you risk an Essendon with soft tissue injuries left and right. Just look at Adelaide. It’s year 3 under Burgess and they are humming.

With the new kids on the block, trac and Oliver nonsense, Windsor and Kolt short preseasons, Lever ankle and the new game plan, the collective fitness is just not good enough. I’d expect next year to be better but it wont be until ‘27 or ‘28 before we really know.

Melbourne v Collingwood (Round 13, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20251308

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	166	201	-35
2	170	184	-14
3	159	178	-19
4	146	183	-37
Match	161	186	-25

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
Clayton Oliver	23	54	52.2
Tom Sparrow	20	44	37.9
Kysaiah Pickett	21	40	37.1
Trent Rivers	15	35	31.0
Christian Petracca	14	34	34.8
Ed Langdon	12	33	31.3
Kade Chandler	13	26	32.6
Koltyn Tholstrup	10	25	26.0
Jake Bowey	11	24	28.3
Jake Lever	8	22	20.0
Daniel Turner	8	22	16.9
Xavier Lindsay	8	21	27.1
Harvey Langford	13	20	21.2
Harrison Petty	9	20	18.4
Christian Salem	8	16	20.8
Jacob van Rooyen	6	16	20.7
Blake Howes	8	15	15.2
Bayley Fritsch	7	13	19.8
Max Gawn	3	10	20.6
Caleb Windsor	4	8	22.0
Jake Melksham	4	8	18.8
Judd McVee	6	8	15.6
Steven May	2	3	9.2

Source: Herald Sun

11 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Collingwood (Round 13, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20251308

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	166	201	-35
2	170	184	-14
3	159	178	-19
4	146	183	-37
Match	161	186	-25

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
Clayton Oliver	23	54	52.2
Tom Sparrow	20	44	37.9
Kysaiah Pickett	21	40	37.1
Trent Rivers	15	35	31.0
Christian Petracca	14	34	34.8
Ed Langdon	12	33	31.3
Kade Chandler	13	26	32.6
Koltyn Tholstrup	10	25	26.0
Jake Bowey	11	24	28.3
Jake Lever	8	22	20.0
Daniel Turner	8	22	16.9
Xavier Lindsay	8	21	27.1
Harvey Langford	13	20	21.2
Harrison Petty	9	20	18.4
Christian Salem	8	16	20.8
Jacob van Rooyen	6	16	20.7
Blake Howes	8	15	15.2
Bayley Fritsch	7	13	19.8
Max Gawn	3	10	20.6
Caleb Windsor	4	8	22.0
Jake Melksham	4	8	18.8
Judd McVee	6	8	15.6
Steven May	2	3	9.2

Source: Herald Sun

I'm amazed our pressure was so low.

146 in the last quarter? That doesn't seem right,