Axis of Bob

So that they can trade them.

I think you've misunderstood bias. Bias doesn't have to be from a person .... I'm not talking about falsifying data. Bias is that data skews one way or another based upon what you're measuring, who you're measuring and how you're measuring it. All data is biased in some way. I used the example of disposal efficiency above as an example of bias, but it could be for kicks (including/excluding kickouts, or the inside/outside balance of your game etc) or even wins (how easy was you draw, did other teams have more injuries etc.). When people talk about lies, damned lies and statistics, this is what they're talking about. For instance, I could argue that Taj Woewodin is a better player than Steven May because Taj kicked 2 goals this year whilst May kicked zero. But it's obviously a bad argument because the context and methodology of the statistics matters. I don't know how the AFL Kick Rating is biased because there's no decent information on it nor results. But I do know that it's biased because all statistics are. Having 3 of the top 7 (out of 200+) players coming from the same position on the same team is a massive red flag. I'd like to see the total rankings because I think it would tell us some very interesting stories.

How could I know if the stat is bad ... it never gets used! You referenced the only time I've seen it where it was still shown out of context. I am someone who cares about the data and I try to use it whenever I can to tell a story about whatever it is I'm posting about. I try to use good sources and I don't know if this is a good source because there's no context around it with which to judge it. You said that we have 3 of the 10 worst kicks int he AFL. It's up to you to prove that this is the case and I don't know if the stat that you provided does that. There are several stats that could indicate poor disposal or poor decision making. For instance, you could talk about average turnovers as being a stat for this, which has Jack Viney as the 2nd worst in the league and Clayton Oliver as the 4th worst. That make sense to you ..... but the context is that Tim Kelly was the worst and Errol Gulden was 3rd worst, so it doesn't really pass the sniff test as a measure. Or you could use Disposal Efficiency %, which would make sense. However looking at the context for this data shows that all those with the lowest DE% are forwards and all of the highest are defenders (Melksham 3rd worst 50.5% vs Dougal Howard 4th best 88.8%), so that's clearly not a good measure as it's biased against forwards and towards defenders. The stats that you use to measure something are important and each of them tells a different story. The AFL Kick Ratings stat is seldom used or reported upon, and when it is it done so without context, which makes it very difficult to trust as a proper measure. If we had more information about it and more data from it then perhaps it could mean something but it's difficult to trust as it is.

It isn't that, it's kick rating which is a Champion Data stat which I've barely seen anyone use at all. It's theoretically the retention of the ball weighted on the difficulty of the kick. The fact that there are 3 star players from the same part of the field from the same team is pretty suspicious, and probably indicates a bias that makes the stat pretty inaccurate. The fact that I haven't seen a list of the top 5, 10 or whatever on this stat really does make it appear that the stat isn't very good. The only real time I've seen it used this year was an article after round 4, where the worst kick in the league (according to AFL Kick Rating) was Hugh McCluggage.

Underweight key forward who does not have senior level running ability plays every game of the year (the most of any player in the VFL) and struggles in a final where his team is pummeled. Is that the issue? Am I getting that right? I think people significantly undervalue the difference between a professional AFL environment and schoolboy football, and the toll that takes on your body over a long season. This is particularly true for a player that was nowhere near senior running ability when he came to the club and the amount of stress that his body will be going through to adapt to the changes in workload. You could see in previous games that he was running on fumes at the end of a long season, as you can for a few other young players.

Having 5 players who are genuine aerial threats inside 50 whilst not losing speed is such an advantage. Being able to put a score on the board when you’re on top is so important in this competition.

Whilst everyone talks about his body, which is undeveloped at this early stage, he actually has very few problems influencing aerial contests in the VFL despite being underweight. I think the biggest issue for him at this point is just his ability to do AFL/VFL style running at the moment. The possessions he wins are the difficult types, where he outmarks 3 opponents or wins a hard ball on the ground when he's part of a contests. What he doesn't do enough of right now is get to those contests so that he can be a factor. He does the difficult stuff (the stuff he's supposed to do) really well right now despite his lack of weight, so his likelihood of being a good AFL player is actually really good, IMHO. He needs more AFL preseasons to get into AFL shape, which will take time.

I love that Freo has imploded and now we'll some unexpectedly good picks from Jackson leaving, but the talk about Jackson being anything other than a gun is just silly. He's obviously good, he's young, and Freo won't be crying about having 10 years of his services. From Freo's perspective, they just wish that they could have paid way unders for him by performing well, rather than just slight unders like they have by playing badly.

Was a player who ran at reasonably high pace for the whole game, which allowed him to cover a lot of ground at a decent clip (rather than having outright pace). He's lost the pace that he did have, which pushed him over the edge from 'quick enough for AFL' to 'not quick enough for AFL'. Since he's never been a contest winner and has always relied on his running, losing the ability to outrun his opponent has left him without any tricks to win the ball. The biggest indicator is his huge drop in contested possession which has seen a big drop. Having the game go past you happens all the time across the league but I still find it amazing how quickly it can happen sometimes.

He also played in a lower scoring era than Dunstall and Lockett, and also in an era where the goal kicking load was shared more evenly between players (not primarily the full forward). In the years Buddy has been active, the average team score was 87 points, whilst it was 99 (2 goals) more in the time of Dunstall and Lockett. Also, since Buddy has been active, he is the only player to have kicked 100 goal in a season. The only player to have even kicked 90 in that time was Fevola (the same year). Between 1983 and 1999, when Lockett was playing, there were only 4 years where a player didn't kick 100 goals (Beasley 1985 - 93 goal, John Longmire 1990 - 98 goals, Tony Modra 1997 - 81 goals, and Scott Cumming 1999 - 88 goals). Nobody has kicked more than 80 goals since 2009! During Lockett's 17 year career, there were 21 occasions where a player kicked 100 goals. Buddy is underrated as a potential GOAT. The nearest goalkicking rivals of his era have played about he same number of games (J Riewoldt and Hawkins) and still haven't even kicked 800 goals (779 and 772 - Buddy has 1061).

Really good game from our perspective. Got that solidity behind the ball back. Really good signs. Contested possession +29. inside 50s +20. clearances +9. Smashed them all over the ground. I don’t know what most people want from the team. Without looking, I assume it’s just groupthink from the Gameday thread.

It's difficult to trust your analysis and judgement when this is the key point that you've taken from my posts.

👍

OK, barring the evidence that I presented ..... ... I think Jefferson is a far more talented player than Van Rooyen. He's a better mark than JVR, particularly as a pack mark and certainly given with his currently slight frame. He is able to use his body really well with the ball in the air to use his long arms to take marks he has no right to take. He's an agile forward who wins the ball in multiple ways and turns those into scores. Jefferson has a lot of class with the ball and makes really good decisions with it. JVR is a blunt instrument whilst Jefferson has the ability to be a cut above that. I do find the idea of writing off a 195cm, 78kg key forward in his first half season pretty amusing, especially when you then compare him with Jonathan Brown from 25 years ago. Why not compare him to Tony Lockett in 1983, or maybe John Coleman in 1949?

So 18 year old 95kg man-child Jonathan Brown and 18 year old 95kg man-child Jacob Van Rooyen had 'presence' at a in their first year but developing 80kg tall forward Matt Jefferson won't make it because he doesn't have presence. Cool insights. Interestingly, in his first 8 games Van Rooyen had 54 disposals (7.1 per game) which included one game where he had 22 possessions (in a game where we kicked 177 points in a 110 point win), and 3 games where he didn't even have 6 touches. In that time he kicked 15 goals 6 behinds. He also got the freedom of playing part time ruck to pad some of those numbers. In his first 8 games, Jefferson had 64 disposals (8 per game) and kicked 10 goals 8 behinds. It backs up my thoughts that generally people are terrible at remembering the past. Jefferson is basically performing as well as Roo at this point of his career despite being far less developed. What I think is really interesting is that prior to Ben Brown coming into the VFL team in round 5, Jefferson averaged 10.5 disposals, 3.8 marks and 3.3 shots at goal per game. When he plays with Brown those numbers drop to 5.2 disposals, 2.6 marks and 1.2 shots at goal per game. Also interestingly, when we only played 2 recognised tall forwards (in rounds 2, 3, and 4), he kicked 7 goals.

That is 100% not true. Himmelberg likes to play away from body contact in marking contests and tries to get away from his man. He takes his contested marks from jumping at the ball when he doesn't have body pressure, rather than being able to stand under the ball. He's athletic and decent at ground level but he's not any sort of pack crasher unless he has an uninterrupted ran at the ball. He isn't a body on body player. Since 2020 in games that he's played as a forward, he's taken 0.9 contested marks per game. As a bit of context, the maligned Brown (1.3) and McDonald (1.1) have been better contested marks than him, and Roo is the same in his first 9 AFL games (0.9cmpg). And this is while being able to play as a second string forward whilst Hogan (2.1 cmpg in 2023) does the heavy lifting up forward. He's a different player to Brown and is an upgrade on McDonald as a mobile key forward. Our best tall forward for that role at the moment is probably Petty. Remember that we have a salary cap and only a certain amount of money to spend on our players. You think we should throw money at an expensive free agent who doesn't really solve any of our problems simply because he's a 'stop-gap' KPP for our window. What are we giving up by spending all our money on Himmelberg? Will we lose good players? Will we miss a player that we genuinely want? Will we be stuck with a forward line that is still not functioning in 5 years because we still have Himmelberg on the list, not really solving any issues? Isn't that what we've already got with Tomlinson?

So if you're 70m out, and they have 18 players inside 50 because we played slow 'tempo' footy to chip the ball up the field, we just do another short kick to a free option inside 50, right? With 18 defenders in a small space, that would be pretty tough to hit a free target, wouldn't it? My guess is that we are more likely to have that ball intercepted .... with lots of free space between that player and the opposition goals, which is a prime 'turnover goal' scenario. I think in that scenario you'd rather take a throw in in the pocket where you could score a goal from stoppage rather than a likely opposition score from a turnover at the top of the 50. Remember that we don't have to score a high number of points, we just have to score now than the opposition. There a reason why every other team also kicks the ball long to the pocket in that situation. We just need to be better at scoring from it.

What’s your plan in a slow play against a set defence? What is something else we could do?

I feel like a lot of people don't watch Himmelberg play. We don't need nice moving slightly undersized key forwards, we already have the likes of JVR and McDonald. Imagine that you bring in Himmelberg (along with Brown, McDonald/JVR) and that you're playing against a defence of May, Lever and Hibberd - then try to work out who plays on which forward. Unless you confidently say 'May has to go to Himmelberg' then what's the point of brining him in? If it were me, I'd probably play May on Brown, Lever on McDonald, and Hibberd on Himmelberg ... and if that's the case then what's the point? We need a big forward that the opposition has to pay respect to first against the long ball. We're fine when the ball moves quickly with our range of mobile forwards, which is more of Himmelberg's game. In other words, we're not lacking the skill that he brings so why bother chasing him (or a player like him)?

This thread tl;dr : "Goodwin needs to reward players that are playing well ..... Wait, no! Don't reward him! He only plays well at VFL level!"

Laurie was very good and is looking very comfortable around the ball at VFL level. I'm unsure whether he'll ever get the chance to be an AFL midfielder the way that he is currently playing at Casey (quite a Z Merrett style) but it's a good sign that he's finding the ball more easily. As a forward at AFL level he really would similar to Spargo in role, in that he doesn't have much pace but only needs the ball a dozen times to be extremely damaging. Super decision maker. Harmes was our best because he plays the game at a higher speed to his team mates. Won the ball but did so with power and carried the ball forward hard. Turner was excellent and extremely composed in defence. I think he'll be a quality AFL player when he gets his chance, with his decision making and composure under the high ball. Woey tries hard and his run is very good but I don't think his ceiling is higher than very fringe AFL. For a player of his type he really needs to be more damaging with the football when he gets a chance with it. I thought it was Jed Adams' best game so far. Had some good aerial contests and showed a little bit more confidence with the ball. I think he'll be a slow burn as a big defender but there are tools there with his athleticism and ranginess. Jefferson, by contrast, was quieter than previous games. Took a good grab and dish, but never really got into it. Sestan is a player that intrigues me. Is a heavy small forward with a questionable tank, which makes you think that he's got no chance at all. However he has moments in games where he shows genuine class at a higher level than nearly anyone on the field, where he'll hoover a tough contested ball off the ground and spin effortlessly into space before delivering with skill and composure. I think the range of outcomes for his career is so wide that it may take years before we really understand what we've got.

I think that the retirement of Mundy at the same time that Fyfe has stopped playing as a midfielder, has had a big impact on how Fremantle operates. Mundy and Fyfe are both around 6'4 (~192cm), so they are big midfielders, and are contest winners with Mundy consistently averaging over 10 contested possessions a game (9 last year) and Fyfe averaging closer to 15 before injury and form issues recently. What these bigger bodies do is take the load off and make it easier for the smaller midfielders in the contest. By comparison, their spot as the top contest winners in the engine room has been taken by Serong (5'10 - 178cm) and Brayshaw (6'0 - 183cm). They're both excellent players but they don't have the physical size to make the game easier for everyone else. Serong averages 13 cp/g this year and Brayshaw 10. The other midfielders are O'Meara (6'0), Aish (6'0) plus whatever's left, but none of them are big midfielders. Brodie helped a lot when he was in form at points last year but has been struggling (and dropped) this year, Fyfe and Mundy could always make the job of others easier around the ball but they can't anymore and now they just can't get any drive from the contests. It's a bit like the Neale, Zorko, Lyons midfielders from Brisbane, where they always struggled in the tough games because they got beaten up with size around the ball. They've picked up some big midfielders in the last few drafts (Johnson and Erasmus) but neither have shown so far that they're going to be the answer. They also struggled last year to get consistent contests in the forward line from their big guys, and with Lobb and Logue moving on they are getting almost no aerial contest inside 50. Taberner has always been more of a leading forward, Jackson isn't that sort of player and Amiss is a kid. Freo are going to have to learn how to turn slow inside 50s into scores, as that's how they're set up at the moment. They shouldn't be as bad as they are at the moment but they've got an oddly constructed list with some big gaps that they need to be filled with few resources to fill them. It'll be an interesting journey.

Our ability to put speed on the ball in transition and use the space available had been really noticeable. It's a good observation.

The location of the kick inside fifty (ie, boundary vs corridor) doesn't have anything to do with the kick inside 50, it's about the events that lead up to it. If the ball is moved really quickly and the kicker is confronted with free options or well spaced one on one options, then the probability of kicking a goal is very high from making an aggressive kick, usually deep or in the corridor. So you attack aggressively because you are so much more likely to kick a goal than of conceding from an opposition's counterattack. If the ball moves slowly, such as being held up by the defence or marking a kick from a stacked defence, then the odds of scoring a goal are really, really low. So low, in fact, that it's actually far more likely that the opposition will score on the counterattack using the corridor or the space on the far wing. In this situation a kick into the corridor is actually a bad move because you give the opponent such a big chance to score, despite the distance from goal. As an example, look at where the Dogs kicked to when they turned it over before Melksham kicked his goal. In this circumstance, you are more likely to outscore your opponent when you kick to the pocket because, whilst you have only a relatively small chance of scoring, conceding on a counterattack is almost impossible. You can score from the entry kick, you can score from a subsequent stoppage or you can score from turnover when the opposition kick out to your numbers. The aim of football isn't to kick goals, it's to kick more goals than the other team. Against a set defence you attack defensively but against an unset defence you attack aggressively.

KFW has competed hard in the ruck, which is all I wanted to see.