deanox

I can correlate these numbers to what I've noticed, and in Max's case I think it has been his around the ground work and defensive work rather then his stoppage work that has gone off the boil from the opening rounds. Some stats below show how he has dropped off slightly in key areas. He is marking less, finding less ground ball and his DE% has dropped right off.

I do like the idea of access to Optus for training though.

I think ANB going at 48% DE has setting to do with it. He got involved a lot and generally played ok (7 clearances and 4 SIs) but also had 7 turnovers from his 25 disposals.

6 Oliver 5 Viney 4 Hunt 3 May 2 Lever 1 Brown Gawn unlucky for 1 vote. Petracca was very sloppy and turned it over too much to get a vote.

No I'm not saying that at all. I have explained it. Bing has explained it. At this point you are either sealioning, or you're really just incapable of understanding something quite simple. Either way that means I'm out. I'm sorry if you really just don't understand, in thatI'm not meaning to be disrespectful, but I've explained it as best I could.

Again, you are being dishonest on your interpretation. I have never claimed that if the Grand final was held with crowd tomorrow 3000 would die. That's ridiculous. My example was demonstrating that the death rate is not hyperbole. The example puts it in context to numbers people understand. Victoria has had about 21000 cases.and over 800 deaths, which is on line with that ratio. Similar mortality rates have been observed around the world. If covid was allowed to freely circulate in the community, then everyone would catch it, then that would be the death rate. Stop downplaying how dangerous it is.

This is a ridiculous statement. The mortality rate is about 3.5%. If covid is allowed to circulate freely, that is the mortality rate we will have, which is the equivalent of about 3,500 people per 100,000 people. I'm not saying that 3000 people will die at the Grand Final, I'm using that example as a way of demonstrating just how dangerous covid is on average. The reason we are doing lockdowns are to stop the case numbers from getting high enough to cause those sort of deaths. Allow the crowds and the case numbers will get so high that those deaths will happen. Right now you've lost the benefit of the doubt I gave you before. You are deliberately misunderstanding.

It doesn't assume that at all. It is an example of the actual mortality rate for the disease if it got out widespread on the population before vaccination. It is the actual death rate, not hyperbole.

Again, 1000 to 5000 of the Grand final crowd is not hyperbole it's a significant risk.

Thanks for clarifying! I hope we can all get through this together. There are going to be some tough times on the other side, but it will be worth it.

No, I can understand. I understand the damage caused by lockdown quite personally, I feel for everyone affected, and think the governments need to do more to help. So if you are empathising with their position, but understand it is dangerous, then say that. At the moment it feels like you might be advocating for them, but obviously that just could be the problem with interpreting text on the internet.

"Almost zero"? Fatality rate of covid seems to be 1-5% which is pretty high. Imagine 1,000-5,000 people dying at the MCG on grand final day. One thing that is very clear is that the fatality rate increases when hospitals are overloaded, which is why we are trying to keep cases low. But if you only look at fatality rates you are underestimating the issue. The personal (and economic) costs of covid is more than just the thousands who would die. It is the tens of thousands who would suffer covid symptoms for months, perhaps permanently, with "long covid". People in their 30s might not die, but there is a high chance they'll have long term respiratory system damage. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/long-covid This is why most people aren't being selfish, and are staying home as asked.

So it's clear we are big game players? :P

It's an excellent question and I didn't mean to not answer @Lord Nev there. There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it is that important: 1) Teams play their best ruck most of the time, and most team don't have 2 let alone 3 good rucks. The fact we have our 2 rucks in the top 21 of the comp for hit outs to advantage to me is pretty telling. 2) Total ruck contests for each team is going to be pretty similar at the end of the year, +/- scoring more goals or having more stoppages, it will sort of even out. 3) Personally I am more interested in hit out to advantage vs hit out to disadvantage differential, or perhaps hit out advantage vs opposition hit out to advantage differential, rather then "hit out advantage percentage". This is because I think if we get 10 hit outs to advantage per game and our opposition gets only 7, then we are doing better. I don't really care whether they won the % stat as a factor of their total hit outs, we still had more. @Lord Nevis right in saying that these stats may indicate that our midified isn't getting value for dominance (which may be true) but I'm not convinced that we have the right stats here to support that case. no one else has quoted this post from @binman but I think it is describes the missing analysis when looking at this issue: "quality of clearances".

All good, thanks for the chat. Im not just looking for an argument, I do fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of the stats, and surprisingly mostly for the reasons given: the stats are so general they are meaningless. I don't think we can draw positive or negative conclusions from them is all im saying.

If you kick the most goals you will win your games. Who cares how accurate you are at that point? But again, it's irrelevant because we only have one of the outputs - hit outs to advantage - and not information about whether the remaining hit outs are neutral or to disadvantage. Max is 1st in total hit outs, 2nd in total hit outs to advantage. The MFC ruck combo is also 2nd in total hit outs to advantage. Who cares that Max is 16th in hit out to advantage %? If we knew that Max was also 16th or lower on hit outs to disadvantage, we'd be able to assess his effectiveness.

It's as irrelevant as the original stat. Max gets more hit outs to advantage per game this year than any ruckman other than NicNat (he has had 174 for the year). For GWS Mumford and Flynn combine for 159, for Geelong Blicavs and Stanley combine for 100. NicNat and Vardy combine for 239. Given Jackson sits at 21 on the total list with 47, the Melbourne ruck duo combine for 221 hit outs to advantage, the 2nd most of any ruck combo. We get advantage on hit outs more than anyone except West Coast. We also win more hit outs than almost anyone else. What we don't know is whether the hit outs we won, that don't go to advantage, are neutral result or to disadvantage, because those stats aren't available. Basically, all of these stats are useless and don't illustrate anything because they are incomplete and don't tell the full picture. @binmannails it in their post.

Basically I think that the more important stat here is hit outs to disadvantage (exactly the same criteria as to advantage, but to the opposition gain) and it's missing. Without that stat were cannot assess if a ruckman is simply breaking even or gaining. In Gawns case, it is whether the "not to advantage" taps are neutral results or direct losses.

Ok so I found the stat. Gawn is 2nd in the comp for hit outs to advantage, with 174. Naitanui leads with 202, Grundy and Darcy are in the 170s, Goldstein has 155, but then it drops with O'Brien in 6th with only 137.

I'm not saying this isn't a big part of our issue but I would say the start is misleading. If Gawn wins more hit outs than anyone else, he might still be leading the total "hit outs to advantage" but be 16th in the % column. For example, Gawn has 100 hit outs with 10 to advantage, so 10% to advantage. Another ruck might have 50 hit outs and 6 to advantage, so 12% to advantage. Given Gawn leads the comp for hit outs (528) and the #16 ruck has only 215 hit outs (Blicavs), it is quite possible Gawn sits at least top 10 for total hit out to advantage.

IF the season was abandoned, I suspect they would consider awarding the minor premiership (the McClelland trophy) but not a premiership. I'd ruefully accept. It means nothing.

I think we beat the good teams with structure around the ground. They try to move it deliberately and or some wins. The poor teams, like Hawthorn did today, hack the ball around without the structure and then find the ball bobs up randomly and we can't defend as well in that chaos environment; we like order and control.

He covered the 3rd most ground for us tonight (5th most on ground). 32 disposals, 16 contested, and led us for metres gained and had a DE% of 75%. I'm not sure his work rate dropped off.

One of the few players who used the ball well for us today. 7 score involvements from 11 disposals: if we got the ball to him more often we'd have won.

6 Oliver 5 Fritsch 4 Spargo 3 Petty 2 Pickett 1 Brayshaw Apologies: VDB, Salem, Viney, Lever