Round 19, 2025 MCG - Blues vs Demons

Can't recall Clarry getting much of it at all in that first half as he appeared to be playing some sort of tag on Cripps? Or was i mistaken?

Alternatively i may have been correct (or partially) and he starred somewhat in the 2nd half running off Cripps? Or did we hand over the role to another player which allowed Clarry to get off the leash?

Regardless, taking the number 1 mantle was very befitting on his 200th game.

It appears we batted ok down to T-Mac at No.11 but fell away badly thereafter?

Regardless that loss will go down as yet another horribilis no matter which way you try and spin it.

I'd seriously consider bringing in...

Kentfield for Jeffo

AJ for JVR

TC for Max. No point playing Max from here other than the odd token game. Too much risk imv. Put him in cotton wool and on an early extended break. Needs it imo. Physically struggling a tad and must be mentally spent.

Culley for the Kolt

Bill (last chance saloon) for Lindsey who seriously needs the break.

The Blues at AFL level scoring efficiency (24% of inside 50s into goals). Us dropping away from last week's impressive 34% result to a lowly 17% this week tells the tale. Another forward of centre fail four seasons running. Even worse, against a team in horrid form in the lead up.

Classic MFC, making a dud team (and/or oppp player/s) look like a polished [censored], while we go from chocolates the week before to crud the very next week. Add to that we had roughly one season's extra experience advantage (on average per player) over the Blues line up on the night.

> Subbed out TOG %

> Subbed in TOG %

Stats courtesy of footywire.com and wheeloratings.com

Edited July 22Jul 22 by Demon Dynasty

14 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Round 19, 2025 MCG - Blues vs Demons

Can't recall Clarry getting much of it at all in that first half as he appeared to be playing some sort of tag on Cripps? Or was i mistaken?

Alternatively i may have been correct (or partially) and he starred somewhat in the 2nd half running off Cripps? Or did we hand over the role to another player which allowed Clarry to get off the leash?

Regardless, taking the number 1 mantle was very befitting on his 200th game.

It appears we batted ok down to T-Mac at No.11 but fell away badly thereafter?

Regardless that loss will go down as yet another horribilis no matter which way you try and spin it.

I'd seriously consider bringing in...

Kentfield for Jeffo

AJ for JVR

TC for Max. No point playing Max from here other than the odd token game. Too much risk imv. Put him in cotton wool and on an early extended break. Needs it imo. Physically struggling a tad and must be mentally spent.

Culley for the Kolt

Bill (last chance saloon) for Lindsey who seriously needs the break.

The Blues at AFL level scoring efficiency (24% of inside 50s into goals). Us dropping away from last week's impressive 34% result to a lowly 17% this week tells the tale. Another forward of centre fail four seasons running. Even worse, against a team in horrid form in the lead up.

Classic MFC, making a dud team (and/or oppp player/s) look like a polished [censored], while we go from chocolates the week before to crud the very next week. Add to that we had roughly one season's extra experience advantage (on average per player) over the Blues line up on the night.

> Subbed out TOG %

> Subbed in TOG %

Stats courtesy of footywire.com and wheeloratings.com

Thanks DD very noticeable that all our youngsters were well down- Windsor, Langford, Turner, Rooey, Sharp, Lindsay, Kolt and Jeffo whilst Milkshake was at half his recent output, and Tracc as well. Can’t win with these poor numbers.

Interesting data Demon Dynasty. While clearly any ranking points system that didn’t have Pickett as by far the best player on the ground isn’t perfect, your system usually aligns pretty well with the eye test I think.

Despite some other posts I’ve seen on here to the contrary, I’d have had Oliver and Salem in our best few other than Pickett on the night. Thought their decision making and ball use was improved from their recent struggles and in Oliver’s case he seemed to have a bit of his off the ball gut running back (although obviously not directly adding to his points).

Our youngsters are clearly not yet consistent enough despite showing obvious talent. The rest of the year should be about their continued exposure to AFL pressure.

On 23/07/2025 at 13:30, 0livers Army said:

Interesting data Demon Dynasty. While clearly any ranking points system that didn’t have Pickett as by far the best player on the ground isn’t perfect, your system usually aligns pretty well with the eye test I think.

Despite some other posts I’ve seen on here to the contrary, I’d have had Oliver and Salem in our best few other than Pickett on the night. Thought their decision making and ball use was improved from their recent struggles and in Oliver’s case he seemed to have a bit of his off the ball gut running back (although obviously not directly adding to his points).

Our youngsters are clearly not yet consistent enough despite showing obvious talent. The rest of the year should be about their continued exposure to AFL pressure.

Thanks for the feedback OA. Yes i developed this rating system based on what i witnessed / studied over a six match sample back in 2016 / 17 with a view to having it produce something reasonably akin to what i was witnessing on the field / box in terms of aligning the ratings with each player's output / performance on the day.

While it's far from perfect, especially for anyone who might have played an 'effective' tagging role, i feel it usually holds up as a reasonable indicator / guide of where each player's performance sat on the day (bar heavy tagging roles as mentioned). That is provided you compare apples with apples... ie., One defender vs another. Genuine mid vs other genuine mid, medium / tall forwards vs other medium / tall forwards, small forwards vs other small forwards etc in a 'who performed well from those groupings' sense.

The aim was to produce a ratings system that generally wasn't way out of wack with what i was witnessing on the day based on multiple inclusions / exclusions of various stats and by also varying the weightings of same in order to arrive at the end ratings. This included multiple iterations thereof. I like to think of it as my amateur attempt at reverse engineering! And i wanted the ratings to (roughly) reflect what i was witnessing on the day. Not just produce a number for the sake of just spitting out a rating.

I don't always agree with my own No.1 / other ratings either in terms of what i saw on the day. I still rate performances (in the main) based on what i see and the impact players had in general on the day as no stat can take in all nuances / subtle aspects and player smarts, luck of the bounce etc.

I then look at the ratings afterwards just as a handy reference. Sometimes the eye gets lazy though and stats can highlight a stand out performance (or more!) that i might have missed on the day. Or even a poor one from someone i thought looked ok on the box but then on review realise he turned the ball over far too often etc.

And yes, pressure has been a major issue with our team for the last two to three seasons. Both in the bringing and the ability to perform under it.

Edited Thursday at 11:334 days by Demon Dynasty

Team & Player Ratings to Rnd 19, 2025 vs H&A Season 2024

* 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 when you view these team stats you can see more clearly what is happening within the team, Max is now No.1, Claz has dragged himself back up the rankings to 2nd, and Tracc 3rd where you would expect them but the most gratifying numbers are with our younger brigade and kids. Bowsa 4th, Kozzie 7th, Langford 12th (first year), Chin, Turner, McVee, Lindsay, Howes and Windsor all within the top 20. Let’s all hope that sparrow, van Rooyen, Petty, Kolt, Sharp and Jefferson can improve their rankings over the next five weeks.

Just wanted to find somewhere to post this.

In our 41 games since Opening Round last year, we are a combined 13-28 in first quarters.

We are behind at quarter time in more than two-thirds of our games.

Surely there's a link between constantly having to play catch-up footy and our poor forward half connection - harder to be composed, or calm, or confident, when we're always giving opponents a scoreboard head start.

• We've only had two matches this year where we've kicked more than 3 goals in the first quarter - Round 3 v North (4.5) and Round 7 v Fremantle (6.1)

• By contrast, we've had 7 matches this year where we've kicked 2 or fewer goals in the first quarter. The only one of them we've won was v West Coast (2.2 to their 0.5)

• We only had 6 matches in 2024 where we kicked more than 3 goals in the first quarter. We won all bar one of them (GWS, where we kicked 5.5 to their 1.2)

• We had 13 matches in 2024 where we kicked 2 or fewer goals in the first quarter. We only won two of them (Adelaide in Round 5 and Richmond in Round 8 - both bottom 4 sides last year)

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Just wanted to find somewhere to post this.

In our 41 games since Opening Round last year, we are a combined 13-28 in first quarters.

We are behind at quarter time in more than two-thirds of our games.

Surely there's a link between constantly having to play catch-up footy and our poor forward half connection - harder to be composed, or calm, or confident, when we're always giving opponents a scoreboard head start.

• We've only had two matches this year where we've kicked more than 3 goals in the first quarter - Round 3 v North (4.5) and Round 7 v Fremantle (6.1)

• By contrast, we've had 7 matches this year where we've kicked 2 or fewer goals in the first quarter. The only one of them we've won was v West Coast (2.2 to their 0.5)

• We only had 6 matches in 2024 where we kicked more than 3 goals in the first quarter. We won all bar one of them (GWS, where we kicked 5.5 to their 1.2)

• We had 13 matches in 2024 where we kicked 2 or fewer goals in the first quarter. We only won two of them (Adelaide in Round 5 and Richmond in Round 8 - both bottom 4 sides last year)

Thanks TA.

Imho this is likely to be mainly a motivational issue.

Surely the responsibility lies with the coaches and leaders?

You have to question the entire leadership structure and their effectiveness when you see results like this.

From the head coach down to the captain and the rest of the seniors leaders.

The other factor might be the ineffectiveness of our bottom 6 to 8 players in the last two seasons?

Doesn't pressure mean we get goal results from short passes to make the goal kicker closer...so we should get closer most of the time.

Melbourne v St Kilda (Round 20, 2025)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20252004

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Efficiency	76.4	76.1	+0.4	72.4
Kicking Efficiency	73.2	72.5	+0.6	65.8
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	58.3	41.7	+16.6
Inside 50s	52	43	+9
Shots At Goal	28	24	+4
Scores Per Inside 50	48.1	48.8	-0.8	44.4
Goals Per Inside 50	25.0	34.9	-9.9	23.6
Marks Inside 50	15	14	+1
Transition
Chain To Score %	23.8	20.0	+3.8	20.6
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	26.7	12.2	+14.5	22.8
Defensive 50 To Score %	23.3	4.9	+18.5	9.5
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	26.0	27.9	-1.9	31.1
Defensive Half To Score %	18.0	14.7	+3.3	12.8
Contest
Contested Possessions	124	124	+0
Ground Ball Gets	71	90	-19
Post Clearance Contested Poss	76	69	+7
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	49	50	-1
Contested Marks	13	6	+7
Clearance
Total Clearances	40	41	-1
Centre Clearances	13	11	+2
Stoppage Clearances	27	30	-3
First Possessions	39	47	-8
First Possession To Clearance %	79.5	74.5	+5.0	74.7
Defense
Intercepts	57	51	+6
Intercept Marks	18	5	+13
Tackles	76	60	+16
Tackles Inside 50	15	7	+8
Def One On One Loss %	50.0	54.5	-4.5	27.0
Ruck
Hitouts	58	32	+26
Hitouts To Advantage	18	12	+6

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
Kade Chandler	3.6	8.3	3.7	1.6	17.3	82%
Christian Petracca	6.7	8.6	0.2	1.8	17.3	82%
Max Gawn	4.3	9.3	1.6	2.0	17.2	89%
Jack Viney	6.0	2.0	4.3	1.5	13.9	83%
Jake Melksham	0.2	5.5	4.6	1.9	12.2	77%
Trent Rivers	2.7	0.9	2.5	4.7	10.8	80%
Kysaiah Pickett	2.8	−0.6	6.8	1.6	10.7	81%
Bayley Fritsch	8.8	−0.4	1.3	0.9	10.6	85%
Clayton Oliver	1.8	6.7	2.2	−1.1	9.6	76%
Harvey Langford	6.9	0.2	2.4	0.0	9.5	76%
Ed Langdon	0.6	3.4	3.4	1.4	8.8	86%
Caleb Windsor	3.1	2.6	2.0	0.3	7.9	61%
Christian Salem	2.0	−0.8	2.5	4.1	7.8	82%
Tom Sparrow	0.5	3.1	2.8	0.2	6.6	78%
Xavier Lindsay	2.9	1.6	0.4	0.6	5.5	73%
Harrison Petty	1.4	0.0	3.6	0.3	5.3	80%
Blake Howes	1.1	0.7	1.2	1.6	4.6	86%
Jake Bowey	2.8	0.2	0.0	1.4	4.4	73%
Daniel Turner	−0.2	1.7	2.4	0.6	4.4	97%
Tom McDonald	2.0	0.7	0.0	1.4	4.1	100%
Jacob van Rooyen	−0.7	0.5	0.0	4.0	3.8	69%
Judd McVee	−0.7	0.9	1.2	1.9	3.3	87%
Charlie Spargo	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.6	17%

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	3	1	+2
Loose Ball Get	10	8	+2
Contested Mark	2	2	0
Gather From Hitout	1	0	+1
Contested Knock On	1	1	0
Free For	0	1	-1
Total	17	13	+4
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	5	2	+3
Loose Ball Get	17	20	-3
Contested Mark	6	0	+6
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	1	0
Gather From Hitout	2	3	-1
Free For	1	5	-4
Total	32	31	+1
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	7	10	-3
Loose Ball Get	42	40	+2
Contested Mark	13	6	+7
Contested Knock On	4	2	+2
Free For	10	11	-1
Total	76	69	+7
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	6	9	-3
Loose Ball Get	16	31	-15
Ruck Hard Ball Get	4	1	+3
Gather From Hitout	13	11	+2
Contested Knock On	2	0	+2
Free For	7	3	+4
Total	48	55	-7

• 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	88.9	90	75%	+11.5
St Kilda	77.4	96	25%		+6	+17.5

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	28	13.10 88	46.4%	86.9	+1.1	3.10	+0.04
St Kilda	24	15.5 95	62.5%	76.4	+18.6	3.18	+0.78
General Play
Melbourne	11	5.1 31	45.5%	33.4	−2.4	3.04	−0.22
St Kilda	8	4.3 27	50.0%	19.0	+8.0	2.37	+1.00
Set Position
Melbourne	17	8.9 57	47.1%	53.5	+3.5	3.15	+0.21
St Kilda	16	11.2 68	68.8%	57.4	+10.6	3.59	+0.66

• 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	60%	66%	66%	41%	58%	52%
Defensive	40%	34%	34%	59%	42%	48%
Region
Forward 50	37%	35%	28%	22%	30%	25%
Attacking Midfield	23%	31%	38%	19%	28%	27%
Defensive Midfield	25%	20%	20%	24%	22%	25%
Defensive 50	16%	14%	14%	35%	20%	23%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	1.2 8	1.0 6	+2
Centre Bounce	2.2 14	3.1 19	-5
Stoppage (Other)	3.3 21	3.3 21	+0
Turnover	7.5 47	8.2 50	-3

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	8	3.5	6	4.9
Centre Bounce	14	12.3	19	14.9
Stoppage (Other)	21	20.3	21	21.2
Turnover	47	44.5	50	48.6

* 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	22	11.6	12	17.3
Defensive midfield	7	15.6	38	20.7
Centre bounce	14	12.3	19	14.9
Attacking midfield	22	24.8	25	25.3
Forward 50	25	16.3	2	11.5

* 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 *
29	27.2	50	37.9

* 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	28	93%	85.9%	85.0%
Kysaiah Pickett	24	80%	74.2%	33.0%
Jack Viney	23	77%	67.3%	69.1%
Clayton Oliver	19	63%	71.2%	70.7%
Christian Petracca	12	40%	73.1%	55.8%
Caleb Windsor	12	40%	2.9%	0.0%
Jacob van Rooyen	2	7%	12.4%	17.8%
Trent Rivers	0	0%	19.8%	29.9%
Harvey Langford	0	0%	11.8%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	7.5%	37.7%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	3.8%	0.7%
Christian Salem	0	0%	1.5%	12.3%
Kade Chandler	0	0%	1.3%	0.0%
Judd McVee	0	0%	0.6%	6.3%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	0.5%	7.5%
Xavier Lindsay	0	0%	0.4%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.2%	0.3%
Jake Melksham	0	0%	0.2%	0.0%
Charlie Spargo	0	0%	0.0%	4.2%
Tom Fullarton			17.2%
Aidan Johnson			13.9%
Matthew Jefferson			1.0%
Bailey Laurie			0.0%	11.0%
Koltyn Tholstrup			0.0%	5.7%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2025 %	2024 %
Max Gawn	79	72%	82.8%	81.1%
Jacob van Rooyen	22	20%	14.4%	17.6%
Harrison Petty	9	8%	1.5%	7.9%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.3%	3.1%
Clayton Oliver	0	0%	0.1%	0.0%
Tom Fullarton			20.5%
Aidan Johnson			15.6%
Matthew Jefferson			1.1%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2025)	To Adv. % (2024)
Melbourne
Max Gawn	79	45	14	27.2%	27.9%
Jacob van Rooyen	22	10	3	32.6%	24.7%
Harrison Petty	9	3	1	42.8%	24.4%
Daniel Turner	0	0	0		50.4%
Tom Fullarton				43.8%
Aidan Johnson				21.1%
Matthew Jefferson				0.0%
Opposition
Rowan Marshall	91	30	12
Anthony Caminiti	6	1	0
Mitch Owens	12	1	0
Cooper Sharman	1	0	0

Thanks for that - no one can say that at 3 qtr time it wasn’t on song to be a great win. The rest was a joke, an embarrassment and show how weak/fragile and how far back we really are.

@WheeloRatings is there any resource out there that does quarter by quarter stats? I know the AFL app does it for players but I would love to see these from the last quarter yesterday:

- Clearances

- Marks inside 50

- Inside 50s

- Total, uncont and cont disposals

Thanks Wheelo we had it in our fwd line 58% to their 42%, they kick 15.6, we kick 13.12 and allowed them to dominate the last quarter.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

@WheeloRatings is there any resource out there that does quarter by quarter stats? I know the AFL app does it for players but I would love to see these from the last quarter yesterday:

- Clearances

- Marks inside 50

- Inside 50s

- Total, uncont and cont disposals

I have access to the quarter-by-quarter stats, but they're not readily accessible. Here are the stats for the last quarter (first table) and the first three quarters combined (second table).

Quarter 4

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	67	95
Contested Possessions	26	32
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19	20
Uncontested Possessions	39	62
Clearances	6	9
Centre Clearances	1	6
Inside 50s	7	18
Marks Inside 50	2	9

Quarters 1-3

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	251	260
Contested Possessions	98	92
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	57	49
Uncontested Possessions	157	166
Clearances	34	32
Centre Clearances	12	5
Inside 50s	45	25
Marks Inside 50	13	5

12 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I have access to the quarter-by-quarter stats, but they're not readily accessible. Here are the stats for the last quarter (first table) and the first three quarters combined (second table).

Quarter 4

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	67	95
Contested Possessions	26	32
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19	20
Uncontested Possessions	39	62
Clearances	6	9
Centre Clearances	1	6
Inside 50s	7	18
Marks Inside 50	2	9

Quarters 1-3

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	251	260
Contested Possessions	98	92
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	57	49
Uncontested Possessions	157	166
Clearances	34	32
Centre Clearances	12	5
Inside 50s	45	25
Marks Inside 50	13	5

Much appreciated mate!

28 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I have access to the quarter-by-quarter stats, but they're not readily accessible. Here are the stats for the last quarter (first table) and the first three quarters combined (second table).

Quarter 4

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	67	95
Contested Possessions	26	32
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19	20
Uncontested Possessions	39	62
Clearances	6	9
Centre Clearances	1	6
Inside 50s	7	18
Marks Inside 50	2	9

Quarters 1-3

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	251	260
Contested Possessions	98	92
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	57	49
Uncontested Possessions	157	166
Clearances	34	32
Centre Clearances	12	5
Inside 50s	45	25
Marks Inside 50	13	5

Thanks @WheeloRatings … shows how the Dees gave it up in last quarter … that’s the story. @binman