Could be wrong, but doesn't seem to take into account games of experience gained. 202 for Steele and 159 for Mihocek. We’ve also lost games through players who were hardly playing (e.g., Billings and Hore), so I’m not sure the ledger isn’t fairly even in real terms.

Edited December 4, 2025Dec 4 by bing181

It’s a bit scary if accurate but as mentioned doesn’t factor in experience gained.

It’s also a bit hard to differentiate between how many games lost compared to actual experience. For example; Goldstein was in the 300’s or similar, but really wouldn’t have as much impact on the game as much as Nat Fyfe.

I can't quite find or remember the quote but Shane Warne criticised another bowler of going through the motions just balling the same ball thousands of times, without ever learning from it. Number of games is a crude half-truth stat. There'd be some natural leaders in their second year leading more than some 300-gamers. And of course a player forced to play injured or now past it can't be much of a leader as a witches hat, even if their advice is brilliant. These articles are vaguely interesting but they're also only vaguely right. (I bet most teams' coaches are very aware when a lack of leadership (probably more important than number of games) needs to be addressed.)

Sorry... borderline 💩

So many varied contexts to this.

It's not the be all and end all. Not in mho.

We'll be fine

Journalism over-reach

16 minutes ago, Go Ds said:

I can't quite find or remember the quote but Shane Warne criticised another bowler of going through the motions just balling the same ball thousands of times, without ever learning from it. Number of games is a crude half-truth stat. There'd be some natural leaders in their second year leading more than some 300-gamers. And of course a player forced to play injured or now past it can't be much of a leader as a witches hat, even if their advice is brilliant. These articles are vaguely interesting but they're also only vaguely right. (I bet most teams' coaches are very aware when a lack of leadership (probably more important than number of games) needs to be addressed.)

Viney in his first year was a leader!

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Viney in his first year was a leader!

Cool. I was more hedging my bets. Crude statistics can easily miss what is essentially important.

Those numbers are so misleading.

stats, stats, and meaningless stats

Numbers might be off as I used google a.i. but close enough.

Oliver 205

Petracca 202

Billings 172

Spargo 108

McVee 65

Woewodin 21

Fullarton 21

Marty Hore 20

Brown 1

Verral 0

Sestan 0

815 games lost.

Steele 202

Mihocek 159

Jiath 76

Heath 4

414 games gained

2 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Those numbers are so misleading.

Yep, bloody stats! Obviously they can be extremely useful and coaches, and probably some good punters, know this . But in the wrong hands it's like a kid who's played a flight simulator on his comp ans now is trying to fly a jumbo. I'm sure it's not just Bruce McAvaney but my I'd roll my eyes when he'd say a team has been behind by 11 points or less at 3 quarter time 6 times this year and won 5 times as if this proves trailing is an advantage. So many times Ive heard BS like this.

I think Julia Gillard once said this not everything but it is something.

You could massively and easily add to the value of this stat by having a cross-reference with how many games the relevant players played in 2025.

For example;

Billings: 172 games total, 1 game in 2025.

Mihocek: 159 and 22.

Still, even then, it isn't all that informative.

1 hour ago, dpositive said:

I think Julia Gillard once said this not everything but it is something.

In her parting speech on 26 June Gillard made her own pronouncement. “It doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t explain nothing,” she said. “It explains some things and it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey.”

and she doesnt even support Melbourne Football Club .

We should nominate her for the Board.