deanox

I noticed this too. They definitely had a mindset of stem the damage first then try to make the most of the chances.

If he can manage 287 disposals in the next 9 games (Ave 31.9) he'll beat Greg Williams (who I think was the fastest) to 4000 career disposals (139 games vs Williams's 140). That includes 17 shortened games in 2020. I know disposals don't tell the true story of a player, but this would be a pretty impressive feat.

I really don't understand why the AFL insist on keeping everything a secret. They don't actually make extra money out of selling data and vision to the media or clubs: the media companies would factor it in to the costs of their broadcast rights bids (the print media don't use the data) and the clubs funds come from the AFL anyway. The only advantage I can see is that it is an anticompetitive practice to "lock out" non accredited media/broadcasters, but it doesn't seem that the content is used well enough to provide them any advantage. It also really harms the overall AFL product. Better quality data and analysis, even by 3rd party and amateur commentators, would improve overall engagement in the product and make me much more interested in the non MFC games.

At home games I sit behind the goals on level 2 (redlegs reserved area) and really agree with the thoughts here. Although the far end can be difficult to view, the end to end view gives a fantastic perspective of both our attacking transition, movement and overlap, as well as our defensive zone shifting. When attacking, our decision to "change lanes" with 45 degree kicks, and use of the players on the wing is something that's really emphasized from this view. And seeing our zone from this angle , you can understand how we've gone 54 games without a team scoring 100 points against us. The zone shifts so quickly sideways to defend the switch, it's unreal. I was talking today about how great it is watching us shift from man on man at a stoppage to a zone defence/net. Really satisfying. You can't see that on tv, sorry Unfortunately I don't know where to get down the ground views. I seem to recall a long time ago Foxtel playing around with multiviews (ie push a red button to choose a single camera view) but I don't know if that's still a thing, sorry.

https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2022.html Now that full stats are up, just a reminder that even including Saturday's attendance we are still 2nd in the league for average attendance at home games. That might bump around a bit if there is a big crowd for Richmond or Hawthorns home game this weekend.

Compared to what? Compared to 2019 AFL crowds, it's a poor showing. But if it's compared to 2022 crowds to date, they were pretty good. After 5 rounds (45 games) our first two home games rank no. 3 and 7 for highest crowd of the season. Yeah they could have had bigger crowds, but they fit within the current climate. Do people expect that suddenly, with a flick of a switch, we'd be drawing Collingwood level crowds every week?

After 2 games I didn't see any threads about how we had the best supporters because we were 2nd in the comp for home attendance but after the third, against an interstate team on Easter weekend, we are crying foul. I really think that sums it up.

It is a beat up because our first two home games were in the top 6 attended games this year, and we were sitting 2nd on the home game attendance ladder (I'm ignoring away game because we played GCS and a struggling PA). So Melbourne supporters ARE turning up. Despite having an awkward Wednesday night game and an earlier than usual Friday night game, both which were harder than usual to attend. They just didn't turn up against GWS on Easter Saturday. And as Supermercado points out, the AFL clearly understood that they shouldn't expect big crowds this week. That's why this is a beat up. Let's come back after 15+ rounds and analyse properly.

https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2022.html This rounds figures aren't yet included (as the round isn't finished) but in the first 4 rounds this year: -Melbourne had the second highest average home game attendance (2nd to Carlton). Our two home games were both in the highest 6 attended games out of 36 in those 4 rounds. -Melbourne was 8th overall for home and away averages, including an away game against GCS (which got only 8000, the second lowest in the first 4 rounds) and away game against PA (which got 23000, the 9th lowest in the first 4 rounds) - Geelong only got 20500 against the lions at Kardinia, Collingwood v WC only got 25000, both much worse crowd imo. I'm not sure what the beat up is.

That's all I was looking for really: full on joke, dead serious, or wry mirth. Thanks.

I didn't, can you elaborate? I thought that our zone and positioning was fantastic tonight and we really set the trap well. No matter what they did, where they tried to shift, we had it covered. I felt that Lever probably had something to do with that. He positions well, directs players around him and knows how to read and drop into space. During the game I felt he was having an impact on our whole ground defence compared to last week..but it's hard to tell on the TV where don't get full views of the set up.

Lizzie (and Spargo) are not defensive liabilities up forward (at the moment at least). They chase, harrass, tackle, around the ground. Their efforts definitely make it harder for opposition players to rebound the ball by placing them under pressure. As long as this pressure is up, and they aren't missing easy shots, fumble or low on confidence, they will stay in the team. They are both opportunity players who strike when the opportunity is there, so if they didn't kick any one week they could always kick 3 the next.

Oh absolutely agree. That's what I was trying to convey with "just a comparison" ie that it doesn't mean much but is something to note. On second read I definitely wasn't clear. From memory an effective disposal includes a handball that is received, a short kick that is retained, or long Koch that goes to a 50/50 contrast or better ( based on numbers at the contest, not positioning). So I think the issue is that defenders tend to either give to the short safe option or lock as long as possible down the lines, whereas midfielders typical to short handball or long kick inside 50. Given loose players are normally in the D50 not the on the wing, it stands that a defenders long kick to the wing is more likely to get classified as effective than a midfielders long kick to a tall forward. Given they won't give us proper stats (a break down of different types of disposals and their retention %, and the reasons for losing possession ie didn't carry, fumble, spoil/pressure, intercept) perhaps there is a combo stat considering DE%, disposal type (kick v handball) and metres gained that might give a more accurate comparison? The number of i50 and rebound from D50s might be relevant too. Although this is starting to sound like some of those rubbish metrics champion data give us on the tv broadcast isn't it?

They are great stats (focussing on attacking stats) and Truck played a great game. But as a defender I reckon Bowey notched up some elite numbers, particularly the intercepts. 34 touches (@79%DE), 572 m gained, 16 intercept possessions, 7 rebounds from D50, 9 marks, from only 72% TOG(4th lowest for the dees) Just as a comparison, Truck had 21 effective disposals (40 @53%) vs Boweys 27 (34 @79%).

Glad to see Sparrow up there in the GCS game. He snuck into my votes but didn't see anyone else include him, even as a special mention. I actually had 6 of the top 7 points here, so pretty aligned somehow! 6 Bowey 5 Pettacca 4 Oliver 3 May 2 Jackson 1 Sparrow

6 Bowey 5 Pettacca 4 Oliver 3 May 2 Jackson 1 Sparrow Might be a bit controversial but Jackson was probably BOG in the first half but didn't touch it in the last. Sparrow played his role well with very few mistakes and stayed involved the whole time,and was involved in a lot of forward thrusts. Bowey though was sublime. 34 touches at 79%DE, 16 intercepts.

His father is a pretty funny comedian too!

This is one of the reasons that if I was North Melbourne, I'd be calling out Daicos not Horne-Francis. Collingwood have already committed, so it's a no risk. And Daicos will be a gun even if they do get stuck with him.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/coaches/melbourne.html I'm assuming you've got Chadwick ahead of him based on win %?

My understanding is that it is the same rule that was followed when it was a substitute before the introduction of the interchange (you got credited for the game whether on field or not), and that I think I heard the players were consulted on their thoughts. Surprisingly my biggest gripe is that is mucks up the "ave per game" statistic collumns.

I think if possible clubs should always force other clubs to upbid IF they are willing to take the player. If North would genuinely prefer Daicos or Darcy then they should bid. There is one other factor though: I think the no. 1 pick gets stuff (a share portfolio from NAB, maybe other things). Do NMFC want their player to get that, or Collingwoods player? Conversely, is it better to bid on others so that those players have the pressure of being number 1, and the NMFC player flies under the radar?

I don't understand why they didn't keep the NGA as is (discount and matching) for "after first round" (instead of top 20) and then for any "first round" bids, the academy club could still match the bid on the proviso that: a) there was no points discount; and b) if the bid came before the academy clubs first allocated pick (original pick based on ladder position and before trades) then the matching bid had to include a first round pick in the points. It is still worth developing players as you get a bite at them. Most clubs would only be jumping ahead a few picks in round one at expense of their round 2 pick. And the extreme scenario is a club will spend pick 18 to get pick 1 but also lose pick 36, 54, 72 and go nearly 1,300 points into deficit the following year (pick 12), effectively selling the farm for one player.

I wonder if the reason he is moving up in the ratings so rapidly is because of the impact that Jackson is having? Ie trying to get a very mobile tall ruck.

We effectively got around pick 30 for free in that trade. Great outcome.

Daniel had a lot of the ball, a lot of intercepts and a lot of turnovers. I felt like we were happy for him to be the one we let of the leash. I think we put a lot of work into a bunch of Dogs players, including Weightman, Liberatore, McCrae and Bailey Smith who were all kept much quieter than usual. Assuming we didn't put work into him, then I'm not sure that Goodwin could have him 3rd best on ground (because he did what he thought he would, and would probably rate our defensive efforts to stop key players a bit higher), so I think it has to be Bevo who gave him the votes Treloar is the other one we allowed to run around a bit.