1 hour ago, binman said:

I'm amazed our pressure was so low.

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

I double checked the Herald Sun and can confirm that's what's printed. While I don't have access to the underlying data to confirm it, a significantly higher proportion of Collingwood's possessions were uncontested compared to Melbourne. And 44% of their possessions in the last quarter were marks (which result a very low pressure rating).

Melbourne's attack on the ball was great which resulted in a contested possession win, but that means Melbourne's disposal is under more pressure. As the pressure rating is assigned to each disposal, if you don't win many contested possessions, your disposal is not under as much pressure.

Proportion of possessions which were marks

	Match	4th Qtr
Melbourne	23%	30%
Collingwood	32%	44%

Proportion of possessions which were uncontested

	Match	4th Qtr
Melbourne	55%	52%
Collingwood	68%	73%

8 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I double checked the Herald Sun and can confirm that's what's printed. While I don't have access to the underlying data to confirm it, a significantly higher proportion of Collingwood's possessions were uncontested compared to Melbourne. And 44% of their possessions in the last quarter were marks (which result a very low pressure rating).

Melbourne's attack on the ball was great which resulted in a contested possession win, but that means Melbourne's disposal is under more pressure. As the pressure rating is assigned to each disposal, if you don't win many contested possessions, your disposal is not under as much pressure.

Proportion of possessions which were marks

	Match	4th Qtr
Melbourne	23%	30%
Collingwood	32%	44%

Proportion of possessions which were uncontested

	Match	4th Qtr
Melbourne	55%	52%
Collingwood	68%	73%

Thanks @WheeloRatings

That would suggest we didn't push up on them hard (which accrues pressure points) after taking a mark.

Normally that would mean our pressure game was off but as you note we smashed them in contested possessions, which is an unusual combination- ie low pressure rating, high cp numbers.

I wonder if not pressing up was by design?

The pies are one of the best transition teams in the AFL - when they press go.

Daniel Hoyne has pointed out they are the slowest side in the AFL by some margin in Moving the ball from a mark or free (conversely we are one of the quickest).

Perhaps the strategy was to let them have those marks and use the time they give teams to set up our defensive grid and make it difficult to transition.

If so it was wildly successful- they only scored 28 points from their defensive half. For context on average we have conceded nearly 41 points from the back half this season (67 last week).

Keeping the pies, as noted a gun transition team, to only 28 points from their back half on what was essentially a dry day, is seriously impressive.

45 minutes ago, binman said:

Thanks @WheeloRatings

That would suggest we didn't push up on them hard (which accrues pressure points) after taking a mark.

Normally that would mean our pressure game was off but as you note we smashed them in contested possessions, which is an unusual combination- ie low pressure rating, high cp numbers.

I wonder if not pressing up was by design?

The pies are one of the best transition teams in the AFL - when they press go.

Daniel Hoyne has pointed out they are the slowest side in the AFL by some margin in Moving the ball from a mark or free (conversely we are one of the quickest).

Perhaps the strategy was to let them have those marks and use the time they give teams to set up our defensive grid and make it difficult to transition.

If so it was wildly successful- they only scored 28 points from their defensive half. For context on average we have conceded nearly 41 points from the back half this season (67 last week).

Keeping the pies, as noted a gun transition team, to only 28 points from their back half on what was essentially a dry day, is seriously impressive.

It also buys into the possibility that we’re setting up further back to allow our F50 to clear before we re enter. I thought we were great defensively yesterday. I’d love a few of those moments again, we all know the ones.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

It also buys into the possibility that we’re setting up further back to allow our F50 to clear before we re enter. I thought we were great defensively yesterday. I’d love a few of those moments again, we all know the ones.

Yes, great point. I suspect you're right.

2 hours ago, binman said:

That would suggest we didn't push up on them hard (which accrues pressure points) after taking a mark.

Just on this point, you only increase pressure points if the player who has taken the mark plays on. A kick from a set position (following a mark or free) is worth 75 pressure points (technically 0.75 points) if the player does not play on.

The scores per inside 50 are surprising in a way. We are transitioning the ball to an elite standard, but butchering our goalkicking. No surprises there. But very interesting to see this:

Scores Per Inside 50	38.9	37.8	+1.1	44.3
Goals Per Inside 50	18.5	24.4	-5.9	23.4

19 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.

Fascinating. If I've understood this correctly, fitness can still be the major factor for the inaccuracies in key games and almost certainly a key factor in our inaccuracy this year. I also wonder how much psychology comes into it.

Fritta has been up and down with accuracy, a player with a very solid technique. Even Melksham yesterday missing two he'd usually nail. Petty is totally a confidence player and can shoot the lights out (think that long bomb from way outside 50 against Freo) and then miss from everywhere. He needs an early goal.

It comes back to psychology and I also wonder how much comes down to game style. Melbourne plays a far more brutal game style (given our best players are contested beasts) than Collingwood (whose best players are silky, evasive, fantastic users). So you've got not just physical exhaustion, you've got mental exhaustion, and after using your body as a battering ram to tackle, or win the ball, or bring the ball to ground versus 2 or 3 opponents, by the time you get the shots on goal, the lactic acid is such that you're more likely to miss.

When we play our brutal contest game (like yesterday) we beat up teams around the ball like no other side in the comp. We generate more inside 50s than most sides. This, I think, goes some way to explaining this data.

Edited Tuesday at 06:545 days by Adam The God

5 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

Just on this point, you only increase pressure points if the player who has taken the mark plays on. A kick from a set position (following a mark or free) is worth 75 pressure points (technically 0.75 points) if the player does not play on.

So @WheeloRatings , i could be right, sort of:

• The pies chip it around their half back line, we DON'T close up hard and try and force a turnover (which if we did do so would accrues lots of pressure points, partic if it involves physical contact) - we don't accrue many pressure points

• The Pies don't play on very often from the marks that we are giving them therefore we don't accrue any pressure points for standing on the mark

Round 13, 2025 TIO Traeger Park - Demons vs Magpies

Bah. The day we beat this mob is the season we probably make our next PF and/or GF.

The Pies approx two seasons of experience ahead of ours on the day.

Their Team Rating a long way ahead of ours with the Pies having 7 of the top 10 rated players.

Turnover Kings...

8. Sparrow

   7. Langford, Rivers, Allan

      6. Quaynor, Sidebottom, Big Max

Stopped Nick but Josh got off the leash. Our highest rated player was Clazz...

Player & Team Ratings - Demons

> Subbed out TOG %

> Subbed in TOG %

Player & Team Ratings - Magpies

Combined Player Ratings

Stats courtesy of footywire.com and wheeloratings.com

Edited Wednesday at 13:434 days by Demon Dynasty

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 13, 2025 vs H&A Season 2024

Still marginally ahead of 2021 Team Rating but now dropping away vs 2022 & 2023

I've been saying it for a few seasons now and still the case... lacking a dangerous KF.

* 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

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 13, 2025 vs H&A Season 2024

Still marginally ahead of 2021 Team Rating but now dropping away vs 2022 & 2023

I've been saying it for a few seasons now and still the case... lacking a dangerous KF.

* 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

Thanks DD we beat them in all the main Kpi’s but their game style of chipping it around and racking up possessions to maintain possession makes them look superior statistically whereas we our game style is racking up ISFo’s, clearances and contested possessions. What a shame we couldn’t convert our superiority on the score board. How good were Josh Daicos, Sidebottom and Howe, in the end they were the difference.

30 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Thanks DD we beat them in all the main Kpi’s but their game style of chipping it around and racking up possessions to maintain possession makes them look superior statistically whereas we our game style is racking up ISFo’s, clearances and contested possessions. What a shame we couldn’t convert our superiority on the score board. How good were Josh Daicos, Sidebottom and Howe, in the end they were the difference.

I only saw the first half DZ so i'll take your word for it re Josh etc.

Certainly sounded like we kept kicking it in straight lines to the advantage of the likes of Howe & Moore.

Bringing it in in panic and in straight lines is one of my biggest irks when watching this team.

We occasionally show glimpses that we are getting it. Changing angles, lowering vision and hitting up leading or free targets but then too often revert back to the former.

Super frustrating that we're now past our third season of doing this and also still haven't found a dangerous tall KF.

As much as i admire the effort i'm just too frustrated to keep watching now. Generational waste of some super talent on this list and so many gettable / winnable games (finals opps) being wasted before our very eyes.

Edited Thursday at 08:053 days by Demon Dynasty

On 10/06/2025 at 16:24, Adam The God said:

The scores per inside 50 are surprising in a way. We are transitioning the ball to an elite standard, but butchering our goalkicking. No surprises there. But very interesting to see this:

Scores Per Inside 50	38.9	37.8	+1.1	44.3
Goals Per Inside 50	18.5	24.4	-5.9	23.4

@binman , thoughts on this given your comments on the podders last night about our failure to convert our stoppage dominance to scores.

I think we did a good job, because despite not probably scoring enough from centre stoppage, we gained territory, which meant it wasn't inside their 50. And we only won around the ground stoppages by 1.

We also had the same amount of scoring shots from turnover as Collingwood. They were just more accurate.

Turnover

4.6 30

7.3 45

-15

I think scores per inside 50 show that we actually moved the ball well and our field kicking was good, it was that our goalkicking mostly let us down.

As I mentioned in the chat room, Collingwood's DE was padded by a lot of uncontested possession at the back. Something we rarely reverted to ourselves this week.

They only beat us by 3 intercepts, which given the Daicos', Sidebottom, Houston and Pendlebury had 76 kicks between them, tells me their team field kicking was not that much better than ours.

IMO, it was lost by our goalkicking, not our field kicking.

Edited Thursday at 08:463 days by Adam The God

Melbourne v Port Adelaide (Round 14, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20251406

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Efficiency	74.6	76.7	-2.2	72.4
Kicking Efficiency	69.7	71.9	-2.3	65.9
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	53.6	46.4	+7.1
Inside 50s	54	48	+6
Shots At Goal	25	27	-2
Scores Per Inside 50	42.6	47.9	-5.3	44.3
Goals Per Inside 50	16.7	29.2	-12.5	23.3
Marks Inside 50	10	16	-6
Transition
Chain To Score %	21.7	20.6	+1.1	20.6
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	26.5	25.5	+0.9	22.6
Defensive 50 To Score %	5.9	12.8	-6.9	9.3
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	36.1	33.3	+2.7	31.0
Defensive Half To Score %	11.5	16.7	-5.2	12.8
Contest
Contested Possessions	139	112	+27
Ground Ball Gets	82	77	+5
Post Clearance Contested Poss	86	68	+18
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	48	45	+3
Contested Marks	19	14	+5
Clearance
Total Clearances	37	32	+5
Centre Clearances	11	9	+2
Stoppage Clearances	26	23	+3
First Possessions	43	28	+15
First Possession To Clearance %	74.4	78.6	-4.2	75.4
Defense
Intercepts	61	63	-2
Intercept Marks	16	18	-2
Tackles	61	61	+0
Tackles Inside 50	10	4	+6
Def One On One Loss %	35.3	25.0	+10.3	26.2
Ruck
Hitouts	38	35	+3
Hitouts To Advantage	10	6	+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
Kysaiah Pickett	11.8	10.7	−0.5	0.7	22.7	77%
Daniel Turner	3.0	3.5	6.8	3.2	16.6	78%
Harvey Langford	9.9	0.0	4.4	1.2	15.5	83%
Steven May	2.2	2.2	5.4	2.6	12.3	100%
Bayley Fritsch	4.0	0.9	7.5	−0.2	12.2	84%
Jake Bowey	1.9	1.1	3.1	4.7	10.8	79%
Christian Petracca	2.5	1.7	2.1	4.0	10.3	86%
Clayton Oliver	1.9	3.5	0.5	3.9	9.9	75%
Jake Lever	1.1	4.4	3.1	1.3	9.8	100%
Max Gawn	2.4	2.0	−1.7	6.8	9.5	88%
Ed Langdon	−1.2	4.2	1.6	3.4	8.0	78%
Jacob van Rooyen	6.4	−1.5	2.3	0.0	7.2	67%
Judd McVee	−0.4	2.7	3.5	1.2	6.9	78%
Tom Sparrow	4.3	0.8	−0.3	0.8	5.5	83%
Kade Chandler	1.7	0.8	2.0	0.7	5.3	80%
Jake Melksham	1.9	1.6	2.9	−1.1	5.3	79%
Blake Howes	0.4	0.4	1.3	3.1	5.1	77%
Caleb Windsor	−0.1	1.0	2.5	1.0	4.3	79%
Trent Rivers	3.3	−0.1	1.0	0.0	4.1	54%
Harrison Petty	0.8	0.0	−0.5	3.5	3.8	80%
Jack Viney	0.9	−0.2	−0.4	3.4	3.7	85%
Christian Salem	−0.3	1.6	0.6	1.5	3.4	86%
Xavier Lindsay	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	24%

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	0	2	-2
Loose Ball Get	12	3	+9
Contested Mark	3	3	0
Gather From Hitout	1	2	-1
Contested Knock On	1	0	+1
Free For	4	2	+2
Total	21	12	+9
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	2	4	-2
Loose Ball Get	9	19	-10
Contested Mark	4	4	0
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	1	0
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Contested Knock On	3	0	+3
Free For	1	2	-1
Total	20	31	-11
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	7	5	+2
Loose Ball Get	41	40	+1
Contested Mark	19	14	+5
Contested Knock On	4	4	0
Free For	15	5	+10
Total	86	68	+18
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	11	11	0
Loose Ball Get	23	21	+2
Ruck Hard Ball Get	3	2	+1
Gather From Hitout	10	6	+4
Contested Knock On	3	1	+2
Free For	3	3	0
Total	53	44	+9

• 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	85.0	68	19%
Port Adelaide	99.9	93	81%	+14.9	+25	+10.1

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	25	9.10 64	36.0%	83.0	−19.0	3.32	−0.76
Port Adelaide	27	14.8 92	51.9%	98.9	−6.9	3.66	−0.26
General Play
Melbourne	13	4.5 29	30.8%	40.2	−11.2	3.09	−0.86
Port Adelaide	5	0.3 3	0.0%	14.7	−11.7	2.95	−2.35
Set Position
Melbourne	12	5.5 35	41.7%	42.8	−7.8	3.57	−0.65
Port Adelaide	22	14.5 89	63.6%	84.2	+4.8	3.83	+0.22

• 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	51%	44%	64%	56%	54%	52%
Defensive	49%	56%	36%	44%	46%	48%
Region
Forward 50	28%	15%	35%	24%	25%	26%
Attacking Midfield	23%	29%	29%	32%	28%	27%
Defensive Midfield	22%	26%	21%	29%	25%	25%
Defensive 50	27%	30%	15%	15%	22%	22%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	0.1 1	0.1 1	+0
Centre Bounce	1.2 8	3.1 19	-11
Stoppage (Other)	4.4 28	2.1 13	+15
Turnover	4.7 31	9.6 60	-29

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	1	3.6	1	4.7
Centre Bounce	8	12.4	19	13.4
Stoppage (Other)	28	18.6	13	21.6
Turnover	31	43.4	60	49.6

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

Chain start region

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

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	2	10.4	26	18.2
Defensive midfield	20	15.2	16	22.8
Centre bounce	8	12.4	19	13.4
Attacking midfield	28	22.7	19	22.0
Forward 50	10	17.2	13	13.0

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

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
22	25.6	42	41.0

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

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2025 %	2024 %
Christian Petracca	20	87%	73.1%	55.8%
Kysaiah Pickett	20	87%	68.7%	33.0%
Max Gawn	19	83%	85.1%	85.0%
Jack Viney	17	74%	72.0%	69.1%
Clayton Oliver	9	39%	71.0%	70.7%
Jacob van Rooyen	4	17%	12.2%	17.8%
Trent Rivers	2	9%	27.4%	29.9%
Christian Salem	1	4%	2.1%	12.3%
Harvey Langford	0	0%	16.2%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	9.9%	37.7%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	5.2%	0.7%
Kade Chandler	0	0%	1.8%	0.0%
Judd McVee	0	0%	0.9%	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%
Tom Fullarton			17.2%
Aidan Johnson			13.9%
Bailey Laurie			0.0%	11.0%
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	66	80%	82.6%	81.1%
Jacob van Rooyen	17	20%	13.9%	17.6%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	0.7%	7.9%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.4%	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	66	36	10	26.5%	27.9%
Jacob van Rooyen	17	2	0	33.3%	24.7%
Harrison Petty	0	0	0	66.7%	24.4%
Daniel Turner	0	0	0		50.4%
Tom Fullarton				43.8%
Aidan Johnson				21.1%
Opposition
Jordon Sweet	41	24	4
Dante Visentini	42	11	2

Well any semblance of confidence I might have had left in the CD player ratings has just flown out the window. Georgiades after a 7 goal performance is the 22nd highest rated player on the ground and Gawn with 20 contested possessions, 8 marks including 5 contested and 10 hitouts to advantage is the 23rd highest rated. Old mate Hoyney has a bit of work to do on this dodgy system. If Georgiades wasn't best on I've never watched a game and it's an insult to Max to have rated anyone other than Kozzie's first half better than him from the Melbourne side.

We're getting absolutely smashed in the turnover game at the minute. We can't defend it and we just can't score from it either.

16 marks i50 to our 10, game set and match, they had 7 of the top 10 players. We won a lot of Kpi’s including territory but their uncontested game opened us up time and again.