deanox

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

Makes sense. This year our plan for defensive roles has typically been to negate the value of possessions, rather then to prevent them all together. Making sure that Mitchell's 30 dont hurt us is probably a stronger play than trying to try someone out of it.

Or Viney goes to negative/tagging midfielder, Jordan steps up minutes in modified rotation, and VDB becomes the rotation/spare parts player on HFF and midfield rotations? Harms played 69% TOG last week, our 6th lowest (Rivers at 62% everyone else >65%). The week before against GWS Harms was our 5th lowest TOG with 72%> Sparrow was the lowest with 55%, and again everyone else >65%.

https://afltables.com/afl/teams/melbourne/season.html This resource might help.

Is this the most "no change" we've had in a season?

In think his value has been recognised by demonland as demonstrated by his performance in the PotY: 151. Clayton Oliver 141. Christian Petracca 111. Christian Salem 87. Jake Lever 84. Max Gawn 69. Steven May 66. Tom McDonald 63. Ed Langdon 43. Luke Jackson 35. James Harmes 31. Kysiah Pickett Everyone has raved about May and Langdon, so for him to sit between them is a strong result. I think the strong performances of the top 3 make them a pretty clear top 3, but after that it is not much between the next 5. Edit: also I think this year to have 3 defenders in our top 6 is an anomaly compared to previous years, but we have definitely built our game plan on defence rather then attack, so it isn't a surprise that our first forward is down the list a little (and positions 7-11 include 3 forwards). In other years, our leading forward would probably be top 4 or 5.

I'm pretty sure I showed up on the old server around 2001/2(?) and remember the swap over, but thinking about that scares me a little! There are definitely a few familiar names still around. If we haven't gotten to Coach status or above in 20 years I guess we never will!

You're probably right. The AFL own 49% of Champion Data. The whole thing is a racket. These two bits of info make sense. Betting agencies won't be paying champion data to suppress the stats, it will be part of their sponsorship agreement.

I think Champion Data need to release this kind of stuff because they keep all their real info secret so they can sell it for big money. In American sports where lots of statistics are released, 3rd party analysts can find real and meaningful correlations, and the public can come up with their own personal key stats. Because the stats aren't available, they need to make up some kind of over complicated metrics to convince they are getting the info.

I think there would be uproar in this case. In 2019 competing clubs got an allocation of 17k for members. I can't imagine that more than 5-7k of those would be sold as GF Guarantee, it's too risky otherwise. So unless we are have capacity of 25k or less, I think we'll be fine.

Yeah fair call. I think there is a big gap between those clubs and the top 4, but under pressure some will come good. I do prefer our fixture of lower tables and top ranked teams. Although I wish one of Geelong or WCE was at the G.

Geelong have a pretty good run except from Freo in Freo, and us last round (they play middle tables teams like Saints, GWS and Richmond). I'd actually like to play them in the finals as I think they will be very beatable with our fitness. We've got a touch run with dogs, WCE and Geelong. Win 2 and we should finish on top I think, but results could really change it, it's tight at the top.

The Superintendent.

They would be a perfect fit for Clarkson.

Impossible task this week. 6 Petracca 5 Petty 4 Oliver 3 May 2 McDonald 1 Pickett Apologies to Hibberd, Gawn, Salem, who all could have had votes.

Mind boggling. Leave him to intercept like he does best.

I think there via setting to be said about playing a team that is trying to beat you vs playing a team that is trying to minimise damage. Sometimes the later can bring the game down to their level, while the former becomes a battle of skills and systems.

Is pressure points measured as actions that effectively apply pressure? While I agree that we have looked off with pressure, my question is "is it laziness or is it a structural/game plan thing"? What I mean is, early in the year our zone was dominating. Opposition players kept kicking to spots we were defending, so it was easy for our players to apply pressure, and thus earn pressure points. Adelaide beat us structurally by kicking a shallow kick to where May/Lever weren't, forcing them to move out of position and therefore the opposition created opportunities to score. This could look like a lack of pressure points on the stats sheet, because our players had less opportunity to apply pressure. I thought GWS played a game out of their D50 where they chipped short to the HB line before going long or cutting 45 back into the centre. This meant our players were regularly out of position, and therefore couldn't apply pressure. So is the issue that after 10 weeks the other teams have started to crack our structures in a way that means we can't apply pressure? Or are the players not working hard enough to apply the pressure? Or both?