1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

@binman could you please explain more about the player ratings? If I remember correctly you mentioned champion data.

How is that related to NBA's +/-? If at all.

This fantastic post from @WheeloRatings provides a detailed explanation, with examples, of how player earn and lose rating points (equity points) that aggregated up over a game gives them their player rating (or equity points for sub elements like ball winning and ball losing)

The shorter version is player ratings are a measurement of the direct impact each player has on a game through their actions that affect either the ball or ball-carrier, expressed as scoreboard impact. To get this measurement three factors are considered for each action:

• The location of the ball on the ground before and after the action

• The situation before and after the action

• The difference in Next Expected Score (NES) value before and after each action

Actions that increase a player's team's chances of scoring next (e.g., taking possession, moving the ball forward) give positive ratings and actions that decrease those chances (e.g., turning it over, missing shots at goal) give negative ratings. The PR each player gets at the end of a game is the sum of these ratings.

The two most significant categories of points players can earn are:

• Ball Winning: points from winning possession of the ball.

• Ball Use: points from disposal, including shots at goal, and carrying the ball

I'm not sure how similar the Champion Data player ratings system is to that used in the NBA - from memory the NBA has a basic measure of how impactful a player is measured by how many more points their team scores than their opposition when they are on court (or less as the case may be).

If i'm right the NBA version is much simpler as it doesn't measure each individual action a player has in game (eg kick, mark, goal point, tackle, one percenter, shepherd, tap on, free for, free against, clanger etc etc - the post i link above has all the ay a player can earn or lose rating points)

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Very telling that only 5 players attended centre bounces (6 if you count the few the Petty rucked in)

Only four in fact. I discussed that on the pod actually. We had 11 against freo, so massive difference - surely tactical.

Melbourne v Essendon (Round 5, 2026)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260504

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	2026	2025	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Retention	67.7	75.5	-7.8	68.7	70.5	70.8
Disposal Efficiency	71.1	76.4	-5.3	70.2	73.2	73.5
Kicking Efficiency	65.0	71.7	-6.7	64.6	67.8	67.3
Kick Into Forward 50 Retention	38.6	52.3	-13.6	46.7	46.2	47.4
Metres Gained
Kick Metres Gained	5295	6369	-1074	5626.5	5545.5	5647.9
Kick Metres Gained / Kick	26.9	23.4	+3.5	26.8	26.2	26.3
Handball Metres Gained	340	66	+274	247.3	169.1	210.7
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	52.0	48.0	+4.1	52.4	51.4	50.0
Inside 50s	52	54	-2	57.6	52.8	53.5
Shots At Goal	20	28	-8	27.6	26.4	27.0
Scores / Inside 50	34.6	51.9	-17.2	42.4	45.1	45.9
Goals / Inside 50	19.2	31.5	-12.3	24.0	22.3	24.1
Marks Inside 50	9	11	-2	14.0	10.9	12.1
Transition
Chain To Score %	16.2	22.9	-6.7	21.8	21.5	21.8
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	18.9	23.1	-4.2	25.6	24.4	23.3
Defensive 50 To Score %	5.4	10.3	-4.9	11.8	9.7	9.8
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	31.7	34.2	-2.5	33.1	31.1	31.6
Defensive Half To Score %	12.7	16.4	-3.7	14.8	12.6	13.2
Contest
Contested Possessions	115	142	-27	125.8	135.2	128.7
Ground Ball Gets	72	99	-27	81.4	87.3	85.5
Post Clearance Contested Poss	69	88	-19	78.4	82.7	81.4
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	50	64	-14	57.8	56.7	57.6
Contested Marks	7	11	-4	8.8	10.5	8.6
Clearance
Total Clearances	32	40	-8	35.4	36.8	35.2
Centre Clearances	13	14	-1	14.8	12.8	12.9
Stoppage Clearances	19	26	-7	20.6	24.0	22.2
First Possessions	40	36	+4	40.4	42.3	38.2
First Possession To Clearance %	65.0	80.6	-15.6	70.3	72.3	74.1
Defense
Intercepts	66	72	-6	65.8	64.8	67.2
Intercept Marks	12	21	-9	15.4	16.3	14.1
Tackles	54	45	+9	58.4	57.2	55.8
Tackles Inside 50	6	10	-4	8.4	11.4	10.5
Def One On One Loss %	21.4	0.0	+21.4	37.3	27.9	26.4
Ruck
Ruck Contests	84	84	+0	90.6	92.2	87.5
Hitouts	39	21	+18	45.4	41.1	34.6
Hitouts To Advantage	11	8	+3	12.4	11.5	10.1
Equity Points
Pre Clearance	26.4	44.9	-18.5	36.5	33.3	32.4
Post Clearance	116.5	147.3	-30.9	129.0	115.9	123.7
Ball Winning	94.9	127.9	-33.0	110.0	112.5	110.8
Ball Use	53.1	67.1	-14.1	58.8	39.6	48.0

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.

Equity is the WheeloRatings implementation of the AFL Player Ratings.

• Ball Winning: Equity points from winning possession of the ball.

• Ball Use: Equity points from disposal, including shots at goal, and carrying the ball.

Player Ratings

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Match	TOG	Ball Win.	Ball Use
Max Gawn	6.3	5.3	0.9	8.8	21.3	85%	12.4	7.2
Harry Sharp	5.1	4.7	6.0	0.6	16.4	73%	4.8	10.0
Kysaiah Pickett	3.5	4.5	8.4	−3.0	13.4	81%	6.1	9.0
Harvey Langford	1.0	2.4	2.4	5.7	11.4	70%	3.1	6.8
Tom Sparrow	1.5	6.8	2.0	1.0	11.3	67%	4.5	3.3
Daniel Turner	−0.2	8.6	−1.5	3.9	10.8	96%	8.0	3.9
Jack Steele	5.1	0.0	4.4	1.1	10.5	75%	8.3	−1.9
Bayley Fritsch	5.6	2.7	0.2	2.0	10.4	83%	3.9	3.9
Ed Langdon	2.4	4.0	2.6	1.0	10.0	89%	2.1	5.9
Kade Chandler	2.6	3.7	2.3	0.6	9.2	73%	4.3	4.7
Xavier Lindsay	2.4	1.7	2.8	1.1	7.9	74%	3.9	2.6
Brody Mihocek	0.1	4.0	0.0	3.9	7.9	84%	3.2	5.6
Latrelle Pickett	6.0	−1.1	−0.2	2.1	6.8	73%	3.6	3.0
Christian Salem	3.5	2.5	0.4	0.0	6.4	51%	1.9	0.1
Koltyn Tholstrup	−0.2	1.1	1.8	3.3	6.0	85%	4.9	0.6
Tom McDonald	0.0	2.5	1.0	2.3	5.8	100%	2.5	1.3
Blake Howes	2.2	2.0	0.9	0.4	5.5	84%	2.1	1.2
Jake Lever	2.1	0.6	−2.2	1.2	1.8	84%	2.5	0.8
Caleb Windsor	0.1	−0.1	0.1	1.5	1.7	82%	0.9	−1.4
Jai Culley	0.6	−0.8	1.0	0.7	1.5	69%	2.8	−2.2
Harrison Petty	−0.2	0.2	0.6	−0.1	0.4	76%	4.3	−4.8
Jake Melksham	0.0	0.8	−0.6	−0.6	−0.4	73%	1.0	−2.2
Jacob van Rooyen	0.4	0.1	−3.2	0.0	−2.7	73%	3.8	−4.5

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	1	2	-1
Loose Ball Get	13	12	+1
Contested Mark	0	4	-4
Ruck Hard Ball Get	2	0	+2
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Contested Knock On	1	0	+1
Free For	5	2	+3
Total	22	21	+1
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	3	1	+2
Loose Ball Get	8	20	-12
Contested Mark	2	2	0
Ruck Hard Ball Get	2	0	+2
Gather From Hitout	0	1	-1
Free For	0	3	-3
Total	15	27	-12
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	14	12	+2
Loose Ball Get	36	52	-16
Contested Mark	7	11	-4
Contested Knock On	2	3	-1
Free For	10	10	0
Total	69	88	-19
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	8	8	0
Loose Ball Get	14	27	-13
Ruck Hard Ball Get	11	2	+9
Gather From Hitout	8	8	0
Contested Knock On	2	5	-3
Free For	3	4	-1
Total	46	54	-8

• 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	59.6	68	2%
Essendon	92.6	113	98%	+32.9	+45	+12.1

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-
Overall
Melbourne	20	10.6 66	50.0%	57.6	+8.4
Essendon	28	17.8 110	60.7%	90.6	+19.4
General Play
Melbourne	11	5.2 32	45.5%	28.1	+3.9
Essendon	12	6.4 40	50.0%	34.6	+5.4
Set Position
Melbourne	9	5.4 34	55.6%	29.5	+4.5
Essendon	16	11.4 70	68.8%	56.0	+14.0

• 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	53%	49%	62%	45%	52%	52%
Defensive	47%	51%	38%	55%	48%	48%
Region
Forward 50	18%	30%	30%	15%	23%	25%
Attacking Midfield	35%	20%	32%	30%	29%	28%
Defensive Midfield	28%	26%	18%	33%	26%	24%
Defensive 50	19%	25%	20%	23%	22%	23%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	xChainScore	Score	Diff
Melbourne
Kick-in	3.8	0.0 0	-3.8
Centre Bounce	12.1	0.2 2	-10.1
Stoppage (Other)	15.8	3.2 20	+4.2
Turnover	43.1	7.4 46	+2.9
Opposition
Kick-in	2.8	1.1 7	+4.2
Centre Bounce	13.1	3.2 20	+6.9
Stoppage (Other)	24.0	5.2 32	+8.0
Turnover	45.3	8.6 54	+8.7
Diff
Kick-in	+1.0	-7
Centre Bounce	-0.9	-18
Stoppage (Other)	-8.2	-12
Turnover	-2.2	-8

xChainScore: expected points scored based on the origin of a team’s chains, including clearances, turnovers, and kick-ins.

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	0	6.6	7	5.4
Centre Bounce	2	10.0	20	12.8
Stoppage (Other)	20	24.6	32	33.0
Turnover	46	52.2	54	49.6

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

Chain start region

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

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	7	18.6	19	20.2
Defensive midfield	26	19.8	28	21.0
Centre bounce	2	10.0	20	12.8
Attacking midfield	25	31.4	38	30.4
Forward 50	8	13.6	8	16.4

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

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
33	38.4	47	41.2

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

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2026 %	2025 %
Kysaiah Pickett	26	84%	70.6%	69.0%
Max Gawn	25	81%	83.1%	85.5%
Jack Steele	21	68%	73.1%	74.3%
Tom Sparrow	19	61%	50.6%	6.6%
Caleb Windsor	14	45%	55.0%	12.1%
Jai Culley	10	32%	10.0%	0.0%
Harrison Petty	3	10%	10.6%	0.4%
Jacob van Rooyen	3	10%	5.6%	13.4%
Kade Chandler	3	10%	3.8%	1.1%
Koltyn Tholstrup	0	0%	18.8%	0.0%
Harvey Langford	0	0%	5.0%	9.9%
Xavier Lindsay	0	0%	1.2%	0.4%
Christian Salem	0	0%	0.6%	1.5%
Brody Mihocek	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	0.0%	3.1%
Jake Melksham	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Trent Rivers			28.4%	19.9%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2026 %	2025 %
Max Gawn	69	82%	77.3%	81.5%
Harrison Petty	8	10%	9.5%	2.8%
Jacob van Rooyen	4	5%	9.5%	15.0%
Brody Mihocek	3	4%	2.4%	2.7%
Jai Culley	0	0%	1.3%	0.0%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2026)	To Adv. % (2025)
Melbourne
Max Gawn	69	34	10	29.3%	27.8%
Harrison Petty	8	3	1	22.2%	23.6%
Brody Mihocek	3	2	0	33.3%	45.4%
Jacob van Rooyen	4	0	0	6.7%	30.3%
Opposition
Peter Wright	61	14	5
Lachlan Blakiston	19	7	3
Ben McKay	1	0	0
Sullivan Robey	1	0	0
Zach Reid	2	0	0

3rd quarter CLEARANCE

DONS 11 DEES 1 they were simply hungrier and more determined for the footy @binman

Stoppage clearance 1/2 time Dees 12-9

Stoppage clearance 1/2 time Dons 20-13

Stoppage clearance end Dons 28-19

Dons destroyed us after half time

Archie Roberts 42 possessions as a quarterback half back playmaker

30 uncontested possessions @binman

King , the coaches and players were all asleep to how they tore us apart. Witches hat defence by the Dees this week @Demonland

Essendon had 128 uncontested marks v Dees. @binman

Shows how little pressure and our poor manning up

Melbourne v Essendon (Round 5, 2026)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260504

Quarter by Quarter Differential

	1	2	3	4
Disposals	-18	+3	-33	-61
Contested Possessions	-6	-1	-13	-7
Uncontested Possessions	-18	-2	-21	-58
Marks	-16	+2	-16	-31
Total Clearances	+5	-	-8	-5
Inside 50s	-	-4	+5	-3
Marks Inside 50	-1	+3	-	-4
Shots At Goal	-3	+3	-4	-4
Tackles	-3	+4	+5	+3
xScore	-6.3	+5.6	-15.9	-16.3
xChainScore	-2.3	-0.9	-0.9	-7.4
Equity Pre Clearance	+7.6	-5.6	-11.6	-8.9
Equity Post Clearance	-11.4	+12.7	-16.7	-15.6
Equity Possession	-11.5	-2.4	-11.0	-8.0
Equity Ball Use	+3.6	+9.7	-13.4	-13.9

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	159	161	-2
2	189	168	+21
3	168	163	+5
4	171	199	-28
Match	171	171	0

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
Tom Sparrow	24	62	52.8
Kysaiah Pickett	21	54	46.6
Jack Steele	21	50	55.8
Caleb Windsor	20	45	46.0
Xavier Lindsay	17	35	25.0
Jai Culley	17	34	30.0
Blake Howes	10	32	24.0
Harry Sharp	16	31	34.4
Bayley Fritsch	13	31	16.2
Harvey Langford	11	28	22.6
Kade Chandler	13	27	44.2
Harrison Petty	12	26	23.0
Tom McDonald	13	24	14.0
Daniel Turner	9	23	19.2
Ed Langdon	9	21	22.8
Christian Salem	9	21	22.6
Jake Lever	7	18	15.8
Koltyn Tholstrup	8	16	22.8
Jacob van Rooyen	9	16	16.6
Max Gawn	7	16	16.4
Latrelle Pickett	6	13	14.6
Jake Melksham	5	10	9.5
Brody Mihocek	4	8	15.2

Source: Herald Sun

1 hour ago, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Essendon (Round 5, 2026)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260504

Quarter by Quarter Differential

	1	2	3	4
Disposals	-18	+3	-33	-61
Contested Possessions	-6	-1	-13	-7
Uncontested Possessions	-18	-2	-21	-58
Marks	-16	+2	-16	-31
Total Clearances	+5	-	-8	-5
Inside 50s	-	-4	+5	-3
Marks Inside 50	-1	+3	-	-4
Shots At Goal	-3	+3	-4	-4
Tackles	-3	+4	+5	+3
xScore	-6.3	+5.6	-15.9	-16.3
xChainScore	-2.3	-0.9	-0.9	-7.4
Equity Pre Clearance	+7.6	-5.6	-11.6	-8.9
Equity Post Clearance	-11.4	+12.7	-16.7	-15.6
Equity Possession	-11.5	-2.4	-11.0	-8.0
Equity Ball Use	+3.6	+9.7	-13.4	-13.9

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	159	161	-2
2	189	168	+21
3	168	163	+5
4	171	199	-28
Match	171	171	0

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
Tom Sparrow	24	62	52.8
Kysaiah Pickett	21	54	46.6
Jack Steele	21	50	55.8
Caleb Windsor	20	45	46.0
Xavier Lindsay	17	35	25.0
Jai Culley	17	34	30.0
Blake Howes	10	32	24.0
Harry Sharp	16	31	34.4
Bayley Fritsch	13	31	16.2
Harvey Langford	11	28	22.6
Kade Chandler	13	27	44.2
Harrison Petty	12	26	23.0
Tom McDonald	13	24	14.0
Daniel Turner	9	23	19.2
Ed Langdon	9	21	22.8
Christian Salem	9	21	22.6
Jake Lever	7	18	15.8
Koltyn Tholstrup	8	16	22.8
Jacob van Rooyen	9	16	16.6
Max Gawn	7	16	16.4
Latrelle Pickett	6	13	14.6
Jake Melksham	5	10	9.5
Brody Mihocek	4	8	15.2

Source: Herald Sun

Thanks @WheeloRatings

The quarter by quarter stats are fascinating.

Rather than just looking at contested possessions and Clearancs as the measure I'm increasingly looking at a combo of cp and ball winning equity points to get a sense of how good our contest work was.

And I don't even bother looking at disposal or kicking efficiency as a measure of our skill level. I just look at ball use Equity points.

Both tell a tale in this match, particularly when you look at the quarter by quarter trends - particularly ball use, which collapsed relative to them from half time.

That said I was wondering if it's possible to include clangers in your weekly data - our clangers were off the charts yesterday and I reckon clangers are a good measure of where our kicking, intensity and even fatigue us at.

1 hour ago, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Essendon (Round 5, 2026)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260504

Quarter by Quarter Differential

	1	2	3	4
Disposals	-18	+3	-33	-61
Contested Possessions	-6	-1	-13	-7
Uncontested Possessions	-18	-2	-21	-58
Marks	-16	+2	-16	-31
Total Clearances	+5	-	-8	-5
Inside 50s	-	-4	+5	-3
Marks Inside 50	-1	+3	-	-4
Shots At Goal	-3	+3	-4	-4
Tackles	-3	+4	+5	+3
xScore	-6.3	+5.6	-15.9	-16.3
xChainScore	-2.3	-0.9	-0.9	-7.4
Equity Pre Clearance	+7.6	-5.6	-11.6	-8.9
Equity Post Clearance	-11.4	+12.7	-16.7	-15.6
Equity Possession	-11.5	-2.4	-11.0	-8.0
Equity Ball Use	+3.6	+9.7	-13.4	-13.9

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	159	161	-2
2	189	168	+21
3	168	163	+5
4	171	199	-28
Match	171	171	0

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
Tom Sparrow	24	62	52.8
Kysaiah Pickett	21	54	46.6
Jack Steele	21	50	55.8
Caleb Windsor	20	45	46.0
Xavier Lindsay	17	35	25.0
Jai Culley	17	34	30.0
Blake Howes	10	32	24.0
Harry Sharp	16	31	34.4
Bayley Fritsch	13	31	16.2
Harvey Langford	11	28	22.6
Kade Chandler	13	27	44.2
Harrison Petty	12	26	23.0
Tom McDonald	13	24	14.0
Daniel Turner	9	23	19.2
Ed Langdon	9	21	22.8
Christian Salem	9	21	22.6
Jake Lever	7	18	15.8
Koltyn Tholstrup	8	16	22.8
Jacob van Rooyen	9	16	16.6
Max Gawn	7	16	16.4
Latrelle Pickett	6	13	14.6
Jake Melksham	5	10	9.5
Brody Mihocek	4	8	15.2

Source: Herald Sun

God… I mean I watched and it was clear but this really displays how poor we were on almost every level. They either thought they were up to it and took the [censored] or all had the flu.

Equity Post Clearance - the only quarter where our pressure was at an acceptable level was the second.

Not surprisingly that was the only quarter we had a positive Post Clearance differential (+12). And the only quarter we outscored them.

Interestingly, we actually stil lost cp that quarter (and were down ball winning equity too) - shows that in that quarter with AFL level intensity we got great scoreboard impact from our possession won Post Clearance.

The second quarter was also by far our best quarter for ball use equity points (+9.7 - next best +3.6).

Our pressure fell away in the second half, there's went way up in the ladt (+22) and our points from ball use collapesed (-13.4 and -13.9).

There's obviously a risk of confusing correlation and causation but I think its reasonable to argue that our ball use is largely dependant on our pressure, contest and intensity - with ball winning equity points being a good measure of these aspects of our game.

Edited April 12Apr 12 by binman

Interested to know whether there have been fewer holding the balls paid this season than in previous seasons.

I have an inkling - that the stats may not bear out - that the AFL has decided to fix what is a disastrous holding the ball mess, where the rule and its sub rules are so complex that umpires can't possibly be consistent, by simply instructing umpires to really only pay the obvious ones. As I said, just a hunch, but an idiotic 'remedy' if real.

@WheeloRatings is there a way to see where the turnovers occur on the ground?

Actually the Chain start region chart probably gives a good feel for this?

11 hours ago, layzie said:

@WheeloRatings is there a way to see where the turnovers occur on the ground?

Actually the Chain start region chart probably gives a good feel for this?

The chain start region includes kick-ins, stoppages and turnovers, and is limited to scores only.

Here is the count of chains by location and type, with the resulting score. For example, the 23 "turnover" chains for Melbourne in D50 means that Melbourne gained possession in defensive 50 following an Essendon turnover. Melbourne scored 0 goals, 1 behind from those chains.

	Kick-in	Stoppage	Turnover
Essendon
Defensive 50	8 (1.1.7)	6 (0.0.0)	27 (2.0.12)
Defensive midfield		7 (2.1.13)	27 (2.3.15)
Centre bounce		14 (3.2.20)
Attacking midfield		8 (2.0.12)	16 (4.2.26)
Forward 50		5 (1.0.6)	2 (0.1.1)
Melbourne
Defensive 50	11 (0.0.0)	3 (1.0.6)	23 (0.1.1)
Defensive midfield		7 (1.0.6)	19 (3.2.20)
Centre bounce		13 (0.2.2)
Attacking midfield		7 (0.1.1)	20 (4.0.24)
Forward 50		2 (1.1.7)	2 (0.0.0)

Melbourne v Brisbane (Round 6, 2026)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260608

Key Team Stats

Stats in bold were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff	2026	2025	AFL
Disposal Efficiency
Disposal Retention	71.3	73.9	-2.6	69.1	70.5	70.8
Disposal Efficiency	77.1	73.7	+3.4	71.4	73.2	73.3
Kicking Efficiency	75.0	69.2	+5.8	66.3	67.8	67.1
Kick Into Forward 50 Retention	41.9	58.1	-16.3	45.9	46.2	47.2
Clangers	48	56	-8	55.5	56.9	57.9
Metres Gained
Kick Metres Gained	5429	5846	-417	5593.5	5545.5	5674.6
Kick Metres Gained / Kick	27.3	23.9	+3.4	26.8	26.2	26.4
Handball Metres Gained	372	163	+208	268.0	169.1	213.2
Territory/Attack
Time In Forward Half	49.4	50.6	-1.1	51.9	51.4	50.0
Inside 50s	54	52	+2	57.0	52.8	53.6
Shots At Goal	23	31	-8	26.8	26.4	27.2
Scores / Inside 50	44.4	51.9	-7.5	42.7	45.1	46.1
Goals / Inside 50	29.6	28.8	+0.8	24.9	22.3	24.2
Marks Inside 50	16	18	-2	14.3	10.9	12.2
Transition
Chain To Score %	22.1	25.5	-3.4	21.8	21.5	21.9
Defensive 50 To Forward 50 %	28.6	33.3	-4.8	26.1	24.4	22.8
Defensive 50 To Score %	17.1	16.7	+0.5	12.6	9.7	9.6
Defensive Half To Forward 50 %	36.1	41.0	-4.9	33.7	31.1	31.8
Defensive Half To Score %	16.7	21.3	-4.6	15.2	12.6	13.3
Contest
Contested Possessions	117	119	-2	124.3	135.2	128.8
Ground Ball Gets	76	84	-8	80.5	87.3	85.7
Post Clearance Contested Poss	75	75	+0	77.8	82.7	81.4
Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets	52	55	-3	56.8	56.7	57.5
Contested Marks	9	8	+1	8.8	10.5	8.7
Clearance
Total Clearances	30	35	-5	34.5	36.8	35.1
Centre Clearances	13	16	-3	14.5	12.8	13.0
Stoppage Clearances	17	19	-2	20.0	24.0	22.1
First Possessions	37	33	+4	39.8	42.3	38.4
First Possession To Clearance %	70.3	81.8	-11.5	70.3	72.3	74.0
Defense
Intercepts	62	65	-3	65.2	64.8	67.6
Intercept Marks	12	20	-8	14.8	16.3	14.6
Tackles	50	31	+19	57.0	57.2	56.9
Tackles Inside 50	9	5	+4	8.5	11.4	10.8
Def One On One Loss %	14.3	18.2	-3.9	34.5	27.9	25.6
Ruck
Ruck Contests	78	78	+0	88.5	92.2	88.0
Hitouts	34	29	+5	43.5	41.1	34.8
Hitouts To Advantage	9	9	+0	11.8	11.5	10.0
Equity Points
Pre Clearance	31.3	26.5	+4.7	35.6	33.3	32.2
Post Clearance	143.7	144.8	-1.1	131.4	115.9	124.8
Ball Winning	103.6	108.7	-5.1	109.0	112.5	111.3
Ball Use	74.1	63.7	+10.4	61.4	39.6	48.4

Quarter by Quarter Differential

	1	2	3	4
Disposals	-24	+8	-1	+4
Clangers	-2	+2	-7	-1
Contested Possessions	+1	+3	-8	+2
Uncontested Possessions	-28	+5	-2	-4
Marks	-22	-13	-3	-19
Total Clearances	-1	-3	-5	+4
Inside 50s	+2	+2	-2	-
Marks Inside 50	+2	-3	+2	-3
Shots At Goal	+1	-3	-2	-4
Tackles	+1	+6	+8	+4
xScore	+8.1	-9.8	-0.3	-10.0
xChainScore	-5.2	+4.4	-5.8	-3.1
Equity Pre Clearance	+3.7	-6.0	-2.4	+9.5
Equity Post Clearance	-2.1	-7.2	+21.8	-13.6
Equity Possession	+5.8	+0.3	-4.9	-6.3
Equity Ball Use	-2.7	-14.5	+23.8	+3.8

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.

Equity is the WheeloRatings implementation of the AFL Player Ratings.

• Ball Winning: Equity points from winning possession of the ball.

• Ball Use: Equity points from disposal, including shots at goal, and carrying the ball.

Player Ratings

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Match	TOG	Ball Win.	Ball Use
Harvey Langford	6.7	2.9	5.6	6.2	21.3	80%	6.6	14.6
Kysaiah Pickett	5.0	4.0	2.8	7.4	19.1	84%	4.8	14.8
Kade Chandler	1.4	3.8	6.2	7.0	18.5	88%	2.4	15.8
Max Gawn	3.8	4.8	4.3	3.4	16.3	79%	9.7	1.8
Jack Steele	5.2	2.3	3.5	3.9	14.9	82%	5.6	5.5
Brody Mihocek	2.4	3.6	8.1	0.2	14.3	80%	3.7	10.7
Daniel Turner	3.3	5.1	1.0	2.1	11.5	95%	7.8	2.8
Jai Culley	1.7	2.3	3.3	3.6	10.9	68%	6.6	2.1
Jacob van Rooyen	4.2	−0.9	1.3	5.7	10.3	87%	8.2	3.0
Koltyn Tholstrup	0.3	4.1	4.3	1.2	9.8	86%	7.5	−0.5
Caleb Windsor	4.3	1.5	2.7	1.0	9.4	74%	6.2	1.0
Ed Langdon	2.0	2.5	1.3	2.5	8.4	88%	4.1	1.5
Blake Howes	3.8	1.7	0.8	0.9	7.2	85%	4.6	2.0
Tom Sparrow	0.8	3.5	1.3	1.0	6.7	74%	3.5	−0.4
Harry Sharp	2.7	0.0	1.6	2.3	6.6	85%	1.7	4.6
Bayley Fritsch	2.5	−0.8	4.6	0.0	6.3	85%	0.8	3.7
Latrelle Pickett	1.1	0.9	1.9	1.7	5.6	72%	2.3	4.0
Xavier Taylor	0.9	0.7	2.2	0.0	3.9	63%	0.3	0.8
Harrison Petty	0.3	5.3	−2.0	0.0	3.7	73%	3.7	−1.8
Matthew Jefferson	−0.3	0.1	2.0	−0.3	1.6	88%	4.6	−2.6
Jake Lever	0.4	1.0	0.7	−0.6	1.6	88%	5.4	−3.8
Max Heath	0.8	−0.7	1.1	0.4	1.5	27%	0.9	−3.8
Bailey Laurie	0.9	−0.9	0.2	0.9	1.0	70%	2.7	−1.5

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	2	7	-5
Loose Ball Get	10	7	+3
Contested Mark	0	2	-2
Gather From Hitout	2	2	0
Contested Knock On	0	1	-1
Free For	3	2	+1
Total	17	21	-4
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	2	4	-2
Loose Ball Get	3	12	-9
Contested Mark	3	2	+1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	1	0
Gather From Hitout	1	1	0
Contested Knock On	0	2	-2
Free For	1	5	-4
Total	11	27	-16
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	12	14	-2
Loose Ball Get	40	41	-1
Contested Mark	9	8	+1
Contested Knock On	2	3	-1
Free For	12	9	+3
Total	75	75	0
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	6	9	-3
Loose Ball Get	18	20	-2
Ruck Hard Ball Get	5	2	+3
Gather From Hitout	8	9	-1
Contested Knock On	0	1	-1
Free For	5	3	+2
Total	42	44	-2

• 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	88.1	104	28%		+2	+12.1
Brisbane	98.2	102	72%	+10.1

	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-
Overall
Melbourne	23	16.4 100	69.6%	85.1	+14.9
Brisbane	31	15.10 100	48.4%	97.2	+2.8
General Play
Melbourne	6	2.4 16	33.3%	21.3	−5.3
Brisbane	12	5.4 34	41.7%	33.9	+0.1
Set Position
Melbourne	17	14.0 84	82.4%	63.8	+20.2
Brisbane	19	10.6 66	52.6%	63.3	+2.7

• 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.

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	160	180	-20
2	145	148	-3
3	157	136	+21
4	165	165	0
Match	157	156	+1

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
Jack Steele	20	44	53.8
Kysaiah Pickett	16	39	45.3
Jai Culley	15	38	31.3
Caleb Windsor	13	35	44.2
Tom Sparrow	13	28	48.7
Harry Sharp	11	28	33.3
Xavier Taylor	9	24	24.0
Matthew Jefferson	10	23	23.0
Kade Chandler	10	22	40.5
Max Gawn	7	22	17.3
Bailey Laurie	10	21	19.0
Brody Mihocek	10	18	15.7
Daniel Turner	6	15	18.4
Latrelle Pickett	10	15	14.7
Jacob van Rooyen	7	14	16.2
Ed Langdon	8	13	21.2
Harvey Langford	9	13	21.0
Harrison Petty	5	12	21.2
Jake Lever	4	11	15.0
Blake Howes	3	7	21.2
Max Heath	3	7	7.0
Koltyn Tholstrup	2	5	19.8
Bayley Fritsch	1	2	13.4

Source: Herald Sun

Territory (time in zones)

Region	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Match	Season
Half
Forward	59%	53%	42%	43%	49%	52%
Defensive	41%	47%	58%	57%	51%	48%
Region
Forward 50	30%	25%	17%	22%	23%	24%
Attacking Midfield	30%	28%	26%	21%	26%	28%
Defensive Midfield	23%	27%	24%	29%	26%	25%
Defensive 50	18%	20%	33%	29%	25%	23%

Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings.

Score Sources

Summary

Score Source	xChainScore	Score	Diff
Melbourne
Kick-in	4.2	0.2 2	-2.2
Centre Bounce	12.1	1.0 6	-6.1
Stoppage (Other)	13.1	6.3 39	+25.9
Turnover	39.0	9.3 57	+18.0
Opposition
Kick-in	2.8	0.0 0	-2.8
Centre Bounce	14.9	1.3 9	-5.9
Stoppage (Other)	13.1	2.1 13	-0.1
Turnover	48.0	12.8 80	+32.0
Diff
Kick-in	+1.4	+2
Centre Bounce	-2.8	-3
Stoppage (Other)	+0.0	+26
Turnover	-9.0	-23

xChainScore: expected points scored based on the origin of a team’s chains, including clearances, turnovers, and kick-ins.

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	2	5.8	0	4.5
Centre Bounce	6	9.3	9	12.2
Stoppage (Other)	39	27.0	13	29.7
Turnover	57	53.0	80	54.7

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

Chain start region

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

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	21	19.0	26	21.2
Defensive midfield	31	21.7	32	22.8
Centre bounce	6	9.3	9	12.2
Attacking midfield	44	33.5	17	28.2
Forward 50	2	11.7	18	16.7

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

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
52	40.7	58	44.0

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

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2026 %	2025 %
Jack Steele	28	80%	74.4%	74.3%
Tom Sparrow	28	80%	55.9%	6.6%
Kysaiah Pickett	27	77%	71.8%	69.0%
Max Gawn	26	74%	81.5%	85.5%
Caleb Windsor	17	49%	53.8%	12.1%
Max Heath	9	26%	25.7%	21.9%
Jai Culley	5	14%	10.8%	0.0%
Koltyn Tholstrup	0	0%	15.4%	0.0%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	8.7%	0.4%
Jacob van Rooyen	0	0%	4.6%	13.4%
Harvey Langford	0	0%	4.1%	9.9%
Kade Chandler	0	0%	3.1%	1.1%
Brody Mihocek	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Ed Langdon	0	0%	0.0%	3.1%
Matthew Jefferson	0	0%	0.0%	1.0%
Trent Rivers			28.4%	19.9%
Xavier Lindsay			1.2%	0.4%
Christian Salem			0.6%	1.5%
Jake Melksham			0.0%	0.2%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2026 %	2025 %
Max Gawn	53	68%	75.9%	81.5%
Max Heath	17	22%	21.8%	26.5%
Jacob van Rooyen	6	8%	9.2%	15.0%
Brody Mihocek	2	3%	2.4%	2.7%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	8.1%	2.8%
Jai Culley	0	0%	1.1%	0.0%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.0%	0.2%
Matthew Jefferson	0	0%	0.0%	1.1%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2026)	To Adv. % (2025)
Melbourne
Max Gawn	53	23	6	28.9%	27.8%
Max Heath	17	8	3	37.5%	28.6%
Jacob van Rooyen	6	3	0	5.6%	30.3%
Brody Mihocek	2	0	0	33.3%	45.4%
Harrison Petty	0	0	0	22.2%	23.6%
Matthew Jefferson	0	0	0		0.0%
Opposition
Sam Draper	61	23	9
Zane Zakostelsky	17	6	0

Thanks for adding clangers @WheeloRatings . And i love the quarter by quarter breakdown

Interesting we had 8 less clangers than them given their kicking skills. Notable too that the 48 clangers we had is well under the AFL average of 57.9 clangers per game.

Given we had fewer clangers than them, it's really curious they scored 80 points on turnover. That's crazy high number any way - 80% of their total score from turnovers - that's nuts.

From memory Freo smashed us on turnover last year, but outside of that i can't recall the last time we gave up as many as 80 points on turnover - and never anywhere near that close in win (normally, giving up 80 points on turnover would be recipe for a smashing).

That seems a really anomalous number - i wonder if King's tactics played a part and if yes what tactic?

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by binman

1 hour ago, binman said:

Thanks for adding clangers @WheeloRatings . And i love the quarter by quarter breakdown

Interesting we had 8 less clangers than them given their kicking skills. Notable too that the 48 clangers we had is well under the AFL average of 57.9 clangers per game.

Given we had fewer clangers than them, it's really curious they scored 80 points on turnover. That's crazy high number any way - 80% of their total score from turnovers - that's nuts.

From memory Freo smashed us on turnover last year, but outside of that i can't recall the last time we gave up as many as 80 points on turnover - and never anywhere near that close in win (normally, giving up 80 points on turnover would be recipe for a smashing).

That seems a really anomalous number - i wonder if King's tactics played a part and if yes what tactic?

We have only conceded 80+ points on turnover seven times since 2017:

14.6.90: R12 2024 v Frem
14.4.88: R2 2019 v Geel
13.7.85: R19 2024 v Frem
13.7.85: R19 2019 v St K
12.9.81: PF 2018 v WC
12.8.80: R6 2026 v Bris
12.8.80: R15 2018 v St K

Brisbane's xChainScore from turnovers was 47.4 points meaning they scored well above expectation based on the location and type of turnover.

The disposal clangers were 32 for Brisbane and 29 for Melbourne, with the other clangers being frees against and other errors. Melbourne had 20 kick clangers and 9 handball clangers, Brisbane had 24 kick clangers and 8 handball clangers.

30 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

We have only conceded 80+ points on turnover seven times since 2017:

14.6.90: R12 2024 v Frem
14.4.88: R2 2019 v Geel
13.7.85: R19 2024 v Frem
13.7.85: R19 2019 v St K
12.9.81: PF 2018 v WC
12.8.80: R6 2026 v Bris
12.8.80: R15 2018 v St K

Brisbane's xChainScore from turnovers was 47.4 points meaning they scored well above expectation based on the location and type of turnover.

The disposal clangers were 32 for Brisbane and 29 for Melbourne, with the other clangers being frees against and other errors. Melbourne had 20 kick clangers and 9 handball clangers, Brisbane had 24 kick clangers and 8 handball clangers.

Many thanks - am i right to assume we lost all of those games?