WheeloRatings

This is such a non-issue. CD has confirmed it was CD that suggested this information is removed, not the umpires. They found they were often attributing the free kick to the wrong umpire because it wasn't clear which umpire actually paid the mark or it was multiple umpires making/confirming a decision. The discourse around team free kick totals is bad enough - I personally can't see any value in having umpire-specific data in the public domain.

Context does matter, and the equity for the two kickers in your example would be different. What the player who was the target of the kick did does not matter; how they receive the ball does. The equity change for a kick takes the following into account: Location of the kick; Inferred pressure on the kicker (e.g. set position following free/mark, hard ball get, handball receive, etc.) - note, CD's player ratings accounts for actual pressure on the kick itself, so physical, chasing, etc; Location of the kick result; Game state at the kick result (e.g. ground-level contest, marking contest, uncontested possession). The last point is important and would likely differentiate the two players in your example. Contested state If a player kicks to a contest (either there's a marking contest or ground-level contest, which includes any contested possession, spoil or stoppage), then it was assumed to be a 50/50 ball - each team is equally likely to win possession. The kicker's equity gained/lost is independent of the outcome of that contest. If the teammate takes a contested mark or wins a contested ball, they are credited with the change in equity from the 50/50 game state to having possession. Uncontested state If a player kicks to an uncontested possession (uncontested mark or gather, but not marks on lead), the kicker is credited with the change in equity from the kick to their teammate having possession and the player receiving the ball does not get any points for the uncontested possession. Mark on lead If a player kicks to a mark on the lead, both players are credited with half the change in equity from the kick to their teammate having possession. In your example, a kick being "centimetre perfect" doesn't matter. You could kick it nowhere near your intended target, but it could result in an uncontested mark and you'd be credited with the change in equity. Or it could be a centimetre perfect kick to a contest but to your teammate's advantage and it would still be considered a 50/50 ball, and the teammate would be credited with the ball winning equity.

My primary motivation for adding ball winning and ball use to the website, and subsequently here, was actually because Daniel Hoyne has spoken about a lot about them on his Full On Footy Analysis segment on SEN. They are also the two major contributors to the player rating and they help to better understand why a player was rated a certain way. I would agree that, generally speaking, they are better and more nuanced measures than disposal efficiency and possession counts. They don't reward uncontested possessions and chipping the ball around the backline. Ball use equity generally penalises or rewards behinds and goals a lot more than other kicks around the ground, which makes sense from a team score perspective, but may not truly reflect how good a player's ball use was given there is luck associated with goalkicking.

CD does not make available the equity breakdown. There are two event-based datasets with timestamps and locations of all possessions, disposals and several other events in each game. I have my own equity model that is based on the CD approach which I apply from first principles to calculate player equity points. It will not be the same as the CD model for multiple reasons. (1) I don't have access to all the data the goes into the CD model. (2) I have based my underlying equity model on 2021-2025 data but CD is based on pre ~2012 data and it is no doubt a slightly different approach to calculating equity.

Here is the Stats File post for the game:

Melbourne v Fremantle (Round 2, 2026)https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260205 Key Team StatsStats in bold were won by Melbourne. Stat For Against Diff 2026 2025 AFL Disposal Efficiency Disposal Retention 66.7 73.6 -7.0 70.0 70.5 71.0 Disposal Efficiency 68.8 73.4 -4.6 71.7 73.2 73.8 Kicking Efficiency 64.0 66.1 -2.1 65.4 67.8 67.4 Kick Into Forward 50 Retention 44.9 51.3 -6.4 55.8 46.2 47.5 Metres Gained Kick Metres Gained 5798 6197 -399 5803.5 5545.5 5760.5 Kick Metres Gained / Kick 26.1 27.7 -1.5 27.0 26.2 26.4 Handball Metres Gained 226 331 -105 228.6 169.1 241.2 Territory/Attack Time In Forward Half 49.0 51.0 -1.9 51.6 51.4 50.0 Inside 50s 56 58 -2 56.5 52.8 54.7 Shots At Goal 25 36 -11 30.5 26.4 28.3 Scores / Inside 50 35.7 56.9 -21.2 44.2 45.1 47.2 Goals / Inside 50 17.9 29.3 -11.5 24.8 22.3 25.0 Marks Inside 50 12 12 +0 15.5 10.9 11.6 Transition Chain To Score % 16.7 28.0 -11.3 22.4 21.5 22.7 Defensive 50 To Forward 50 % 28.3 33.3 -5.1 27.7 24.4 23.5 Defensive 50 To Score % 15.2 15.6 -0.3 15.7 9.7 10.2 Defensive Half To Forward 50 % 33.3 39.4 -6.1 34.3 31.1 31.9 Defensive Half To Score % 15.3 19.7 -4.4 17.2 12.6 13.9 Contest Contested Possessions 124 143 -19 121.5 135.2 128.4 Ground Ball Gets 82 101 -19 80.5 87.3 85.7 Post Clearance Contested Poss 90 99 -9 82.5 82.7 81.2 Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets 70 76 -6 62.5 56.7 57.4 Contested Marks 10 9 +1 10.0 10.5 8.2 Clearance Total Clearances 30 33 -3 33.0 36.8 35.8 Centre Clearances 15 12 +3 16.0 12.8 13.7 Stoppage Clearances 15 21 -6 17.0 24.0 22.1 First Possessions 27 43 -16 32.5 42.3 38.6 First Possession To Clearance % 77.8 67.4 +10.3 75.4 72.3 75.3 Defense Intercepts 76 77 -1 64.5 64.8 68.2 Intercept Marks 24 13 +11 18.5 16.3 14.1 Tackles 55 45 +10 48.5 57.2 53.6 Tackles Inside 50 8 9 -1 6.5 11.4 10.4 Def One On One Loss % 33.3 0.0 +33.3 33.3 27.9 26.3 Ruck Ruck Contests 77 77 +0 83.5 92.2 87.3 Hitouts 34 24 +10 39.0 41.1 34.1 Hitouts To Advantage 9 10 -1 9.5 11.5 9.6 Equity Points Pre Clearance 29.6 31.8 -2.2 31.5 33.3 33.9 Post Clearance 113.8 163.6 -49.9 134.9 115.9 128.7 Ball Winning 118.9 119.4 -0.4 113.8 112.5 111.8 Ball Use 26.9 71.3 -44.4 54.3 39.6 52.9 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 6.7 3.9 6.5 3.8 20.8 84% 16.7 2.5 Kade Chandler 3.3 2.9 3.5 6.2 15.9 83% 6.7 7.9 Kysaiah Pickett 3.4 6.2 0.6 3.1 13.3 88% 6.2 4.2 Harry Sharp 0.1 6.3 1.4 5.4 13.2 74% 3.7 8.2 Ed Langdon 6.8 1.9 1.1 3.2 13.0 89% 9.3 0.7 Bayley Fritsch 4.4 3.5 −0.9 5.8 12.8 90% 7.1 6.0 Jai Culley 2.6 4.1 1.2 3.6 11.6 82% 6.4 2.2 Jack Steele −0.2 5.4 5.3 1.1 11.6 72% 13.1 −4.1 Christian Salem 2.3 3.5 0.9 4.1 10.7 84% 6.3 0.3 Jake Lever −0.3 4.7 1.4 2.6 8.5 93% 5.7 1.8 Tom Sparrow 0.9 0.4 3.5 3.8 8.5 71% 3.5 3.7 Xavier Lindsay 1.6 2.3 2.7 0.9 7.5 68% 2.4 1.9 Daniel Turner 5.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 30% 3.1 0.8 Changkuoth Jiath 0.2 1.4 1.1 2.1 4.7 75% 3.0 −0.5 Harvey Langford 0.4 −0.1 2.9 1.3 4.6 73% 3.7 −1.0 Trent Rivers −1.5 2.0 −0.2 4.3 4.5 82% 4.1 0.2 Blake Howes 0.6 0.8 0.4 2.3 4.1 76% 1.9 0.7 Jacob van Rooyen −0.2 4.5 0.9 −1.2 3.9 84% 4.2 3.4 Caleb Windsor 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.4 2.9 67% 4.1 −4.4 Brody Mihocek −1.9 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 82% 1.1 −0.1 Koltyn Tholstrup −3.2 0.4 2.4 0.6 0.2 80% 0.5 −0.8 Harrison Petty −0.1 0.0 0.4 −1.0 −0.7 100% 4.6 −4.1 Latrelle Pickett 0.0 −1.5 −0.9 1.2 −1.2 70% 1.6 −2.6 Contested Possessions For Against Diff Melbourne's Defensive 50 Hard Ball Get 2 6 -4 Loose Ball Get 14 16 -2 Contested Mark 2 5 -3 Ruck Hard Ball Get 1 1 0 Gather From Hitout 1 0 +1 Contested Knock On 1 1 0 Free For 1 2 -1 Total 22 31 -9 Melbourne's Forward 50 Hard Ball Get 1 5 -4 Loose Ball Get 16 12 +4 Contested Mark 0 1 -1 Gather From Hitout 0 3 -3 Contested Knock On 2 0 +2 Free For 1 5 -4 Total 20 26 -6 Post clearance Hard Ball Get 11 20 -9 Loose Ball Get 59 56 +3 Contested Mark 10 9 +1 Contested Knock On 3 3 0 Free For 7 11 -4 Total 90 99 -9 Pre clearance Hard Ball Get 3 5 -2 Loose Ball Get 9 20 -11 Ruck Hard Ball Get 4 7 -3 Gather From Hitout 9 10 -1 Contested Knock On 3 2 +1 Free For 6 0 +6 Total 34 44 -10 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 70.2 70 1% Fremantle 113.4 118 99% +43.2 +48 +4.8 Shots Score Accuracy xScore +/- Overall Melbourne 25 10.9 69 40.0% 70.2 −1.2 Fremantle 36 17.13 115 47.2% 110.4 +4.6 General Play Melbourne 15 6.6 42 40.0% 38.6 +3.4 Fremantle 22 12.8 80 54.5% 58.4 +21.6 Set Position Melbourne 10 4.3 27 40.0% 31.6 −4.6 Fremantle 14 5.5 35 35.7% 52.0 −17.0 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. PressureTeam pressure Quarter For Agn Diff 1 175 174 +1 2 167 169 -2 3 175 161 +14 4 140 166 -26 Match 165 167 -2 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 25 62 44.5 Kysaiah Pickett 20 51 50.5 Tom Sparrow 18 49 44.5 Caleb Windsor 20 46 47.0 Jai Culley 18 40 34.0 Xavier Lindsay 15 38 29.5 Koltyn Tholstrup 13 33 27.0 Kade Chandler 15 32 36.0 Changkuoth Jiath 16 29 26.0 Harry Sharp 13 24 25.0 Harvey Langford 8 22 22.5 Jake Lever 10 22 20.0 Harrison Petty 10 21 26.0 Ed Langdon 11 20 22.5 Trent Rivers 10 16 25.5 Christian Salem 7 15 20.0 Max Gawn 8 12 16.5 Latrelle Pickett 8 12 7.0 Daniel Turner 6 11 20.5 Brody Mihocek 2 8 11.5 Blake Howes 4 8 7.0 Jacob van Rooyen 3 6 9.0 Bayley Fritsch 4 6 8.0 Source: Herald Sun Territory (time in zones)Region Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Match Season Half Forward 31% 59% 53% 54% 49% 52% Defensive 69% 41% 47% 46% 51% 48% Region Forward 50 12% 29% 21% 26% 22% 24% Attacking Midfield 18% 29% 32% 27% 27% 28% Defensive Midfield 26% 21% 28% 20% 24% 23% Defensive 50 43% 21% 19% 26% 27% 25% Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings. Score SourcesSummary Score Source xChainScore Score Diff Melbourne Kick-in 5.6 3.1 19 +13.4 Centre Bounce 14.0 0.0 0 -14.0 Stoppage (Other) 15.7 1.4 10 -5.7 Turnover 52.1 6.5 41 -11.1 Opposition Kick-in 3.5 1.2 8 +4.5 Centre Bounce 11.2 1.1 7 -4.2 Stoppage (Other) 17.6 4.5 29 +11.4 Turnover 56.6 11.8 74 +17.4 Diff Kick-in +2.1 +11 Centre Bounce +2.8 -7 Stoppage (Other) -2.0 -19 Turnover -4.5 -33 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 19 16.0 8 7.0 Centre Bounce 0 7.5 7 11.0 Stoppage (Other) 10 16.0 29 29.5 Turnover 41 55.5 74 65.0 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Fremantle. Chain start region Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective. Region For Against Match Season Match Season * Defensive 50 32 29.0 32 27.0 Defensive midfield 14 20.0 17 22.5 Centre bounce 0 7.5 7 11.0 Attacking midfield 15 27.0 33 28.0 Forward 50 9 11.5 29 24.0 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Fremantle. Points from defensive half For Against Match Season Match Season * 46 49.0 49 49.5 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Fremantle. Centre Bounce Attendances CBAs CBA % 2026 % 2025 % Max Gawn 25 81% 85.1% 85.5% Jack Steele 24 77% 68.7% 74.3% Koltyn Tholstrup 19 61% 41.8% 0.0% Caleb Windsor 16 52% 53.7% 12.1% Kysaiah Pickett 12 39% 53.7% 69.0% Tom Sparrow 12 39% 28.4% 6.6% Trent Rivers 3 10% 28.4% 19.9% Harrison Petty 3 10% 10.4% 0.4% Jai Culley 3 10% 4.5% 0.0% Kade Chandler 3 10% 4.5% 1.1% Jacob van Rooyen 2 6% 3.0% 13.4% Harvey Langford 1 3% 11.9% 9.9% Latrelle Pickett 1 3% 1.5% Xavier Lindsay 0 0% 3.0% 0.4% Christian Salem 0 0% 1.5% 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% Ruck Contests and HitoutsRuck Contests Ruck Contests RC % 2026 % 2025 % Max Gawn 57 74% 76.0% 81.5% Jacob van Rooyen 9 12% 11.4% 15.0% Jai Culley 6 8% 3.6% 0.0% Harrison Petty 4 5% 7.8% 2.8% Brody Mihocek 1 1% 1.2% 2.7% Daniel Turner 0 0% 0.0% 0.2% Hitouts Ruck Contests Hitouts To Adv. To Adv. % (2026) To Adv. % (2025) Melbourne Max Gawn 57 28 8 23.4% 27.8% Jacob van Rooyen 9 5 1 12.5% 30.3% Harrison Petty 4 1 0 50.0% 23.6% Brody Mihocek 1 0 0 45.4% Opposition Luke Jackson 37 13 7 Sean Darcy 40 11 3

If that was a hitout to advantage at a centre bounce (ball up), Max would only get about 0.6 points, Koz 5.4. The ruck gets two thirds of the change in equity from a hitout to advantage, and the player winning possession gets one third. BUT, the change in equity is only around 0.9 points because the likelihood of actually scoring a goal from that position in the centre of the ground is still low. If Koz kicks a goal with no other player involved, he would get around 5.1 points from his run and shot (the change in equity from 0.9 to 6.0) plus the 0.3 he got from the gather from the hitout. The example of a goal from a centre clearance is a simple example, but the equity value is constantly changing with every possession/disposal regardless of whether there is a score. Every shift in the equity is credited (or debited) to a player (or two).

He would get 6 points in that scenario.

The underlying model estimates the likelihood of each team scoring next based on (1) the location on the ground, and (2) the game state (i.e. set position, uncontested, hard ball, loose ball). An equity value is calculated based on the likelihood of each team scoring next, which will range between -6 (opponent is guaranteed to score a goal) and +6 (team is guaranteed to score a goal). When the ball is in a contested state (for example, a stoppage, prior to winning a contested possession, or there's a marking contest), equity values are calculated from each team's perspective if they were to win next possession, and then these are averaged. At a centre bounce, each team is as likely to score next as each other, so the equity is 0. A player's equity (or player rating) is calculated from the change in equity as a result of their involvement. An individual involvement will rarely be close to +6 or -6 - it's typically only a fraction of that. As an example, consider a goal from a centre bounce where the opposition had no involvement in the chain. The team's equity started at 0 and ended at +6 (i.e. they scored a goal), so the total change in equity was 6 points. Those 6 points are shared among all players involved in the play. Here is the breakdown of equity for the final goal in the third quarter of the 2021 GF, based on my model: Player Stat Equity Tim English Hitout +0.00 Jack Viney Ground Kick +1.76 Luke Jackson Gather +0.00 Luke Jackson Run +0.09 Luke Jackson Handball +0.30 Clayton Oliver Handball Received +0.00 Clayton Oliver Run +0.29 Clayton Oliver Kick +3.56 Total +6.00 Players gain/lose equity from taking possession of the ball, running with the ball, disposals, hitouts, spoils, smothers, applying pressure including tackles, giving away free kicks, dropping uncontested marks. There are also various instances where the change in equity is shared between two players. For example, the equity change from a hitout to advantage is shared between the ruck and player gaining possession; the equity change from a mark on lead is shared between the player kicking the ball and the player taking the mark. Chapters 5-8 in this thesis goes into detail on field equity and the player ratings methodology: https://figshare.swinburne.edu.au/articles/thesis/Assessing_player_performance_in_Australian_football_using_spatial_data/26294677?file=47661457 The data set I use for equity calculation is missing pressure, smothers, and hitouts sharked (I use hitouts to opposition as a proxy), so there are some differences in my model due to availability of data. The following table shows the average equity gained/lost per involvement in my model (for most involvement types) as a guide, but it can vary a lot for a given type of involvement: Category Total D50 Def. Mid Att. Mid F50 Disposal Goal 2.39 Ground Kick - Effective 1.26 1.32 1.25 1.27 1.19 Kick - Effective 0.30 0.15 0.22 0.49 1.19 Ground Kick - Ineffective 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.33 0.05 Handball - Effective 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.27 Ground Kick - Clanger -0.09 -0.10 -0.04 -0.06 -0.26 Kick - Ineffective -0.29 -0.36 -0.33 -0.24 -0.25 Handball - Ineffective -0.70 -0.62 -0.72 -0.70 -0.74 Handball - Clanger -0.71 -0.67 -0.73 -0.71 -0.72 Kick - Clanger -0.84 -0.74 -0.71 -0.82 -1.37 Behind -1.68 Contested Possession Contested Mark 1.58 1.94 1.24 1.24 2.03 Contested Knock On 1.06 1.11 1.07 1.02 1.07 Free For 0.74 0.82 0.64 0.67 1.01 Loose Ball Get 0.73 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.76 Hard Ball Get 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.53 Ruck Hard Ball Get 0.44 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.40 Gather From Hitout 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.19 Uncontested Possession Knock On 1.07 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.13 Uncontested Intercept Mark 0.80 0.84 0.73 0.77 1.21 Gather from Opposition 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.63 0.70 Mark On Lead 0.48 0.21 0.32 0.40 0.72 Gather 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Handball Received 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uncontested Mark 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hitout Hitout To Advantage 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.50 0.37 Hitout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hitout To Opposition -0.19 -0.14 -0.17 -0.21 -0.17 Spoil Spoil 0.35 0.65 0.19 0.16 -0.20 Debits Free Against -0.68 -0.76 -0.58 -0.61 -0.98 No Pressure Error -1.03 -0.93 -1.04 -0.99 -1.16 Mark Dropped -1.21 -0.78 -0.94 -1.00 -2.02

Thanks mate, and no problem at all! I have updated the format of the Key Team Stats table to include Melbourne's average for 2025 and 2026 with 2026 bolded to hopefully assist readability. If this becomes too overwhelming, I could look at including the key season summary stats in a separate table. Here is the updated table for round 1: Stat For Against Diff 2025 2026 AFL Disposal Efficiency Disposal Retention 73.4 75.4 -2.0 70.5 73.4 71.3 Disposal Efficiency 74.5 77.9 -3.4 73.2 74.5 74.1 Kicking Efficiency 67.0 71.8 -4.8 67.8 67.0 67.9 Kick Into Forward 50 Retention 67.4 56.8 +10.6 46.2 67.4 48.0 Metres Gained Kick Metres Gained 5809 6015 -206 5545.5 5808.9 5747.4 Kick Metres Gained / Kick 27.9 25.3 +2.7 26.2 27.9 26.3 Handball Metres Gained 231 10 +221 169.1 231.4 251.8 Territory/Attack Time In Forward Half 54.2 45.8 +8.4 51.4 54.2 50.0 Inside 50s 57 53 +4 52.8 57.0 54.7 Shots At Goal 36 33 +3 26.4 36.0 28.9 Scores / Inside 50 52.6 60.4 -7.7 45.1 52.6 48.3 Goals / Inside 50 31.6 28.3 +3.3 22.3 31.6 25.5 Marks Inside 50 19 20 -1 10.9 19.0 12.2 Transition Chain To Score % 29.1 29.9 -0.8 21.5 29.1 23.6 Defensive 50 To Forward 50 % 27.0 28.9 -1.9 24.4 27.0 24.3 Defensive 50 To Score % 16.2 18.4 -2.2 9.7 16.2 10.8 Defensive Half To Forward 50 % 35.5 36.9 -1.4 31.1 35.5 32.6 Defensive Half To Score % 19.4 23.1 -3.7 12.6 19.4 14.5 Contest Contested Possessions 119 129 -10 135.2 119.0 127.0 Ground Ball Gets 79 87 -8 87.3 79.0 84.9 Post Clearance Contested Poss 75 74 +1 82.7 75.0 79.7 Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets 55 52 +3 56.7 55.0 55.4 Contested Marks 10 11 -1 10.5 10.0 8.4 Clearance Total Clearances 36 41 -5 36.8 36.0 35.8 Centre Clearances 17 15 +2 12.8 17.0 14.1 Stoppage Clearances 19 26 -7 24.0 19.0 21.7 First Possessions 38 44 -6 42.3 38.0 38.4 First Possession To Clearance % 73.7 77.3 -3.6 72.3 73.7 75.2 Defense Intercepts 53 55 -2 64.8 53.0 66.4 Intercept Marks 13 13 +0 16.3 13.0 13.2 Tackles 42 41 +1 57.2 42.0 52.8 Tackles Inside 50 5 2 +3 11.4 5.0 10.1 Def One On One Loss % 33.3 50.0 -16.7 27.9 33.3 26.5 Ruck Ruck Contests 90 90 +0 92.2 90.0 86.5 Hitouts 44 25 +19 41.1 44.0 34.0 Hitouts To Advantage 10 8 +2 11.5 10.0 8.9 Equity Points Pre Clearance 33.5 38.0 -4.6 33.3 33.5 33.9 Post Clearance 156.0 142.5 +13.5 115.9 156.0 128.7 Ball Winning 108.6 112.8 -4.2 112.5 108.6 111.1 Ball Use 81.7 68.9 +12.8 39.6 81.7 54.0

Low pressure was typical across the whole round with only two teams averaging 180+ (the typical AFL average) so I agree that it will be the trend for the competition. Carl 170 - 173 Rich Ess 161 - 178 Haw Geel 178 - 173 Frem Coll 167 - 168 Adel WB 165 - 167 GWS Syd 168 - 163 Bris GC 178 - 182 WCE NM 180 - 172 Port Melb 165 - 172 St K Winning the post-clearance contested possession count doesn't correlate with winning as much in 2023-2025 (63-65%) as it did in 2021-2022 (73-75%). Probably still important, but not as much as it was.

Melbourne v St Kilda (Round 1, 2026)https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260108 PressureTeam pressure Quarter For Agn Diff 1 156 164 -8 2 162 171 -9 3 177 172 +5 4 166 179 -13 Match 165 172 -7 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 Kysaiah Pickett 19 50 50.0 Caleb Windsor 23 48 48.0 Kade Chandler 19 40 40.0 Tom Sparrow 20 40 40.0 Trent Rivers 16 35 35.0 Harrison Petty 15 31 31.0 Daniel Turner 15 30 30.0 Jai Culley 11 28 28.0 Jack Steele 13 27 27.0 Harry Sharp 11 26 26.0 Christian Salem 9 25 25.0 Ed Langdon 11 25 25.0 Harvey Langford 10 23 23.0 Changkuoth Jiath 12 23 23.0 Koltyn Tholstrup 9 21 21.0 Xavier Lindsay 10 21 21.0 Max Gawn 7 21 21.0 Jake Lever 11 18 18.0 Brody Mihocek 7 15 15.0 Jacob van Rooyen 6 12 12.0 Bayley Fritsch 3 10 10.0 Blake Howes 3 6 6.0 Latrelle Pickett 2 2 2.0 Source: Herald Sun

Yes, the team equity is an aggregate of (my estimate of) the player ratings. Ball winning and ball use equity are also in the Player Ratings table (last two columns). Joe Cordy wrote an article on these equity ratings on thisweekinfootball last week. While the total player ratings is not that useful at the team level as the difference between the two teams is basically the game margin, the split between pre- and post-clearance and ball winning and ball use can be much more useful. In 2025, teams that won the ball use equity won the game at a higher rate (86%) than teams that won the ball winning equity (71%). In 2021, this was the other way around (79% for winning ball use and 86% for winning ball winning equity) which illustrates the shift in game style.

@bing181 ...by half time.

Here's the Stats File post for the game.

The Stats File posts this season will include a few new stats, including: Retention of kicks into forward 50; Metres gained by kick and by handball; Equity points, including points from ball winning and points from ball use (my implementation of the AFL Player Ratings); xChainScore - expected points scored based on the origin of a team's chains, including clearances, turnovers and kick-ins. Melbourne v St Kilda (Round 1, 2026)https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20260108 Key Team StatsStats in bold were won by Melbourne. Stat For Against Diff AFL Disposal Efficiency Disposal Retention 73.4 75.4 -2.0 71.3 Disposal Efficiency 74.5 77.9 -3.4 74.1 Kicking Efficiency 67.0 71.8 -4.8 67.7 Kick Into Forward 50 Retention 67.4 56.8 +10.6 47.5 Metres Gained Kick Metres Gained 5809 6015 -206 Kick Metres Gained / Kick 27.9 25.3 +2.7 26.3 Handball Metres Gained 231 10 +221 Territory/Attack Time In Forward Half 54.2 45.8 +8.4 Inside 50s 57 53 +4 Shots At Goal 36 33 +3 Scores / Inside 50 52.6 60.4 -7.7 48.0 Goals / Inside 50 31.6 28.3 +3.3 25.1 Marks Inside 50 19 20 -1 Transition Chain To Score % 29.1 29.9 -0.8 23.4 Defensive 50 To Forward 50 % 27.0 28.9 -1.9 24.5 Defensive 50 To Score % 16.2 18.4 -2.2 10.6 Defensive Half To Forward 50 % 35.5 36.9 -1.4 32.5 Defensive Half To Score % 19.4 23.1 -3.7 14.1 Contest Contested Possessions 119 129 -10 Ground Ball Gets 79 87 -8 Post Clearance Contested Poss 75 74 +1 Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets 55 52 +3 Contested Marks 10 11 -1 Clearance Total Clearances 36 41 -5 Centre Clearances 17 15 +2 Stoppage Clearances 19 26 -7 First Possessions 38 44 -6 First Possession To Clearance % 73.7 77.3 -3.6 75.2 Defense Intercepts 53 55 -2 Intercept Marks 13 13 +0 Tackles 42 41 +1 Tackles Inside 50 5 2 +3 Def One On One Loss % 33.3 50.0 -16.7 27.2 Ruck Hitouts 44 25 +19 Hitouts To Advantage 10 8 +2 Equity Points Pre Clearance 33.5 38.0 -4.6 Post Clearance 156.0 142.5 +13.5 Ball Winning 108.6 112.8 -4.2 Ball Use 81.7 68.9 +12.8 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 Jacob van Rooyen 7.0 10.9 1.1 6.0 25.0 82% 6.1 15.8 Jack Steele 1.1 7.5 4.3 6.7 19.7 72% 6.2 9.6 Max Gawn 2.0 4.6 2.5 6.5 15.7 91% 12.0 2.8 Harry Sharp 1.3 2.3 −1.0 11.2 13.9 51% 5.7 5.2 Xavier Lindsay 0.8 2.7 9.2 0.7 13.4 76% 4.3 5.6 Caleb Windsor 7.2 −0.1 1.6 3.6 12.3 79% 4.5 4.4 Bayley Fritsch 1.5 3.6 3.7 2.8 11.6 81% 4.9 5.7 Kade Chandler 1.3 5.2 3.6 1.4 11.5 81% 3.8 4.0 Trent Rivers 2.9 4.2 3.5 0.9 11.4 58% 2.1 5.2 Harrison Petty 3.7 5.4 1.7 −0.3 10.6 86% 5.5 1.9 Daniel Turner 2.6 3.6 2.2 2.2 10.5 96% 4.4 2.1 Harvey Langford 2.2 4.5 3.3 0.2 10.2 72% 4.0 5.2 Blake Howes 1.6 2.9 3.3 2.4 10.1 82% 6.0 0.1 Koltyn Tholstrup −0.2 4.2 1.7 3.0 8.8 82% 3.4 3.8 Changkuoth Jiath 4.9 2.5 0.0 0.9 8.2 70% 2.9 2.4 Kysaiah Pickett 0.1 1.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 82% 6.7 −1.2 Jai Culley 2.0 −1.8 5.6 1.2 7.0 79% 4.2 2.5 Latrelle Pickett 1.6 3.9 1.6 −0.2 7.0 59% 2.6 5.5 Brody Mihocek −1.0 3.7 1.2 3.0 6.9 84% 6.3 −0.5 Christian Salem 1.5 1.4 2.2 1.2 6.3 80% 3.0 0.4 Jake Lever 0.3 −2.0 4.8 2.8 5.8 99% 5.0 −2.3 Tom Sparrow 0.7 2.3 2.5 −0.3 5.1 72% 2.1 2.1 Ed Langdon 1.7 −0.7 3.3 −0.2 4.2 89% 3.0 1.5 Contested Possessions For Against Diff Melbourne's Defensive 50 Hard Ball Get 3 4 -1 Loose Ball Get 13 9 +4 Contested Mark 3 3 0 Gather From Hitout 1 2 -1 Contested Knock On 1 0 +1 Free For 0 1 -1 Total 21 19 +2 Melbourne's Forward 50 Hard Ball Get 4 4 0 Loose Ball Get 10 12 -2 Contested Mark 2 3 -1 Ruck Hard Ball Get 1 1 0 Gather From Hitout 1 1 0 Contested Knock On 0 2 -2 Free For 2 2 0 Total 20 25 -5 Post clearance Hard Ball Get 12 8 +4 Loose Ball Get 43 44 -1 Contested Mark 10 11 -1 Contested Knock On 4 5 -1 Free For 6 6 0 Total 75 74 +1 Pre clearance Hard Ball Get 4 10 -6 Loose Ball Get 20 25 -5 Ruck Hard Ball Get 7 3 +4 Gather From Hitout 9 7 +2 Contested Knock On 3 2 +1 Free For 1 7 -6 Total 44 54 -10 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 122.5 120 77% +15.3 +13 St Kilda 107.2 107 23% +2.3 Shots Score Accuracy xScore +/- Overall Melbourne 36 18.11 119 50.0% 121.5 −2.5 St Kilda 33 15.13 103 45.5% 105.2 −2.2 General Play Melbourne 19 8.7 55 42.1% 62.1 −7.1 St Kilda 15 7.6 48 46.7% 41.8 +6.2 Set Position Melbourne 17 10.4 64 58.8% 59.4 +4.6 St Kilda 18 8.7 55 44.4% 63.5 −8.5 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 55% 60% 50% 52% 54% 54% Defensive 45% 40% 50% 48% 46% 46% Region Forward 50 25% 35% 21% 23% 26% 26% Attacking Midfield 30% 25% 29% 29% 28% 28% Defensive Midfield 23% 21% 21% 27% 23% 23% Defensive 50 23% 19% 29% 21% 23% 23% Source: Calculated by Wheelo Ratings. Score SourcesSummary Score Source xChainScore Score Diff Melbourne Kick-in 5.9 2.1 13 +7.1 Centre Bounce 15.9 2.3 15 -0.9 Stoppage (Other) 18.5 3.4 22 +3.5 Turnover 35.3 11.4 70 +34.7 Opposition Kick-in 4.2 1.0 6 +1.8 Centre Bounce 14.0 2.3 15 +1.0 Stoppage (Other) 22.5 4.6 30 +7.5 Turnover 38.7 8.8 56 +17.3 Diff Kick-in +1.7 +7 Centre Bounce +1.9 +0 Stoppage (Other) -4.0 -8 Turnover -3.4 +14 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 13 13.0 6 6.0 Centre Bounce 15 15.0 15 15.0 Stoppage (Other) 22 22.0 30 30.0 Turnover 70 70.0 56 56.0 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by St Kilda. Chain start region Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective. Region For Against Match Season Match Season * Defensive 50 26 26.0 22 22.0 Defensive midfield 26 26.0 28 28.0 Centre bounce 15 15.0 15 15.0 Attacking midfield 39 39.0 23 23.0 Forward 50 14 14.0 19 19.0 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by St Kilda. Points from defensive half For Against Match Season Match Season * 52 52.0 50 50.0 * Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by St Kilda. Centre Bounce Attendances CBAs CBA % 2026 % 2025 % Max Gawn 32 89% 88.9% 85.5% Kysaiah Pickett 24 67% 66.7% 69.0% Jack Steele 22 61% 61.1% 74.3% Caleb Windsor 20 56% 55.6% 12.1% Trent Rivers 16 44% 44.4% 19.9% Koltyn Tholstrup 9 25% 25.0% 0.0% Harvey Langford 7 19% 19.4% 9.9% Tom Sparrow 7 19% 19.4% 6.6% Harrison Petty 4 11% 11.1% 0.4% Xavier Lindsay 2 6% 5.6% 0.4% Christian Salem 1 3% 2.8% 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% Jacob van Rooyen 0 0% 0.0% 13.4% Kade Chandler 0 0% 0.0% 1.1% Ruck Contests and HitoutsRuck Contests Ruck Contests RC % 2026 % 2025 % Max Gawn 70 78% 77.8% 81.5% Jacob van Rooyen 10 11% 11.1% 15.0% Harrison Petty 9 10% 10.0% 2.8% Brody Mihocek 1 1% 1.1% 2.7% Daniel Turner 0 0% 0.0% 0.2% Hitouts Ruck Contests Hitouts To Adv. To Adv. % (2026) To Adv. % (2025) Melbourne Max Gawn 70 36 7 19.4% 27.8% Harrison Petty 9 5 3 60.0% 23.6% Jacob van Rooyen 10 3 0 0.0% 30.3% Brody Mihocek 1 0 0 45.4% Opposition Tom De Koning 67 20 6 Isaac Keeler 14 3 1 Mitch Owens 9 2 1

Cheers, and my pleasure! The Petracca stat was the number of his kicks inside 50 that were marked. By my calculations for the whole season, of his 98 kicks inside 50 this season excluding shots at goal, nine were marked (ranked 374th) and 37 were retained (ranked 331st). Petracca had 30 more non-shot kicks inside 50 this season than any other Melbourne player. The first table below shows the retention rate for all Melbourne players taking 15+ kicks inside 50, ordered by most kicks. The second table shows the average estimated equity gained/lost from kicks inside 50 which shows Langford clearly on top. This is a bit more nuanced than simply retained / not retained as it takes into account: how the kicker won possession (i.e. proxy for pressure); the location where the kick was taken; the location where the kick ended up; and who took next possession and how. The third and fourth tables are the AFL leaders with 50+ kicks for these two stats - Langford ranks third in the AFL for equity. Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, excluding shots at goal, 2025, 15+ kicks Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50. Player Kicks Retained % Rank Christian Petracca 98 37 37.8% 331 Kysaiah Pickett 68 36 52.9% 100 Clayton Oliver 67 30 44.8% 237 Trent Rivers 61 20 32.8% 366 Ed Langdon 59 31 52.5% 108 Jack Viney 58 23 39.7% 313 Harvey Langford 56 24 42.9% 270 Max Gawn 54 26 48.1% 167 Jake Melksham 51 30 58.8% 43 Kade Chandler 50 25 50.0% 125 Jake Bowey 48 23 47.9% 172 Christian Salem 43 27 62.8% 20 Tom Sparrow 42 17 40.5% 303 Caleb Windsor 41 18 43.9% 251 Bayley Fritsch 36 21 58.3% 48 Harrison Petty 26 12 46.2% 212 Xavier Lindsay 26 5 19.2% 395 Jacob van Rooyen 25 9 36.0% 347 Daniel Turner 20 7 35.0% 355 Charlie Spargo 19 11 57.9% 52 Judd McVee 17 8 47.1% 189 Harry Sharp 15 9 60.0% 32 Average equity gained from kicks inside 50, excluding shots at goal, 2025, 15+ kicks Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50. Player Kicks Equity Rank Harvey Langford 56 0.493 10 Bayley Fritsch 36 0.330 62 Charlie Spargo 19 0.328 67 Harry Sharp 15 0.327 71 Kysaiah Pickett 68 0.287 116 Jacob van Rooyen 25 0.283 119 Jake Melksham 51 0.275 132 Xavier Lindsay 26 0.270 136 Ed Langdon 59 0.229 173 Clayton Oliver 67 0.225 176 Christian Salem 43 0.216 184 Kade Chandler 50 0.202 199 Tom Sparrow 42 0.184 224 Caleb Windsor 41 0.180 232 Jake Bowey 48 0.151 256 Daniel Turner 20 0.142 267 Christian Petracca 98 0.141 269 Trent Rivers 61 0.115 289 Judd McVee 17 0.107 296 Jack Viney 58 0.051 336 Max Gawn 54 −0.004 356 Harrison Petty 26 −0.152 392 Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, excluding shots at goal, 2025, 50+ kicks Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50. Player Kicks Retained % Rank Tom Atkins 62 42 67.7% 1 Murphy Reid 63 42 66.7% 2 Patrick Lipinski 59 38 64.4% 3 Shaun Mannagh 95 57 60.0% 4 Ben Ainsworth 60 36 60.0% 4 Jake Melksham 51 30 58.8% 6 Gryan Miers 75 44 58.7% 7 Chad Warner 106 61 57.5% 8 Oliver Dempsey 61 35 57.4% 9 Karl Amon 82 47 57.3% 10 Lachie Whitfield 51 29 56.9% 11 Taylor Walker 60 34 56.7% 12 Matt Rowell 128 72 56.2% 13 Justin McInerney 51 28 54.9% 14 Marcus Windhager 73 40 54.8% 15 Average equity gained from kicks inside 50, excluding shots at goal, 2025, 50+ kicks Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50. Player Kicks Equity Rank Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera 78 0.546 1 Max Hall 55 0.536 2 Harvey Langford 56 0.493 3 Finn Callaghan 104 0.477 4 Murphy Reid 63 0.464 5 Marcus Bontempelli 97 0.463 6 Karl Amon 82 0.429 7 Ed Richards 118 0.427 8 Massimo D'Ambrosio 73 0.417 9 Max Holmes 135 0.399 10 Liam Ryan 55 0.397 11 Tom Green 90 0.388 12 Josh Ward 85 0.385 13 Shaun Mannagh 95 0.364 14 Justin McInerney 51 0.362 15

Not marks, but I have looked at the proportion of set shots taken from inside 45 degrees and Melbourne ranked 14th this season, which is an improvement from 17th/18th the prior four seasons. Proportion of set shots taken from inside 45 degrees (limited to set shots within 50 metres of goal) Team 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total St Kilda 71.9% 71.3% 79.0% 77.8% 77.6% 75.6% North Melbourne 71.8% 78.9% 80.3% 74.6% 72.8% 75.5% Greater Western Sydney 72.2% 75.1% 74.1% 78.7% 74.0% 75.0% Sydney 75.0% 74.6% 80.7% 74.7% 67.5% 74.5% Carlton 75.3% 69.5% 74.4% 78.0% 71.7% 73.8% Fremantle 70.4% 70.4% 74.3% 77.6% 75.2% 73.8% Gold Coast 70.9% 77.0% 73.1% 73.7% 71.7% 73.3% Adelaide 69.6% 75.0% 72.0% 68.3% 74.0% 71.9% Essendon 73.9% 72.8% 72.5% 68.1% 72.0% 71.8% Western Bulldogs 72.5% 68.3% 72.4% 73.5% 70.2% 71.4% Geelong 73.5% 68.8% 69.2% 72.9% 72.0% 71.3% Hawthorn 73.1% 79.7% 71.0% 67.0% 67.1% 70.9% Port Adelaide 74.5% 70.9% 71.3% 66.6% 68.6% 70.3% Richmond 69.5% 66.9% 73.5% 74.4% 66.2% 70.0% Brisbane 73.7% 73.4% 63.1% 69.7% 65.5% 68.8% Collingwood 75.7% 72.2% 65.9% 66.7% 63.9% 68.5% West Coast 62.7% 73.5% 65.9% 68.1% 64.0% 66.6% Melbourne 63.1% 62.9% 65.2% 63.4% 67.0% 64.3%

Yes I do. To determine distance, I have looked at the location of the first event after the kick-in (e.g. mark, spoil, out of bounds, etc) and the distance of that event from the defensive goal. I have grouped distance into 0-40 metres from defensive goal, 40-60 metres, and 60+ metres. Here is the proportion of Melbourne's kick-ins by distance and season, and the change from 2023 to 2024 is evident. There is in increased tendency for all teams to go short with the kick-in. Lastly, I have looked at this for each Melbourne player who has taken 10+ kick-ins in a season. MELBOURNE - Distance from defensive goal following a kick-in, by season Season 0 - 40m 40 - 60m 60+ m 2021 27.7 9.9 62.3 2022 31.5 7.8 60.7 2023 32.6 9.3 58.1 2024 48.1 16.6 35.3 2025 53.0 10.3 36.6 ALL TEAMS - Distance from defensive goal following a kick-in, by season Season 0 - 40m 40 - 60m 60+ m 2021 31.7 19.3 49.0 2022 34.6 18.0 47.4 2023 37.1 17.2 45.7 2024 39.2 19.4 41.4 2025 40.9 18.0 41.2 MELBOURNE - Distance from defensive goal following a kick-in, by season and player (10+ kick-ins for the season) Player Kick-Ins 0 - 40m 40 - 60m 60+ m 2021 Steven May 114 36.0 8.8 55.3 Christian Salem 47 14.9 10.6 74.5 Trent Rivers 15 0.0 26.7 73.3 2022 Steven May 151 31.8 5.3 62.9 Michael Hibberd 23 39.1 13.0 47.8 Christian Salem 17 35.3 11.8 52.9 Jake Bowey 10 20.0 30.0 50.0 2023 Steven May 124 34.7 12.1 53.2 Jake Bowey 44 34.1 4.5 61.4 Trent Rivers 20 20.0 15.0 65.0 Christian Salem 16 25.0 0.0 75.0 Adam Tomlinson 13 38.5 7.7 53.8 2024 Steven May 99 57.6 14.1 28.3 Judd McVee 54 51.9 16.7 31.5 Jake Bowey 29 51.7 6.9 41.4 Christian Salem 15 20.0 20.0 60.0 Tom McDonald 13 38.5 23.1 38.5 Trent Rivers 12 8.3 41.7 50.0 Adam Tomlinson 11 36.4 9.1 54.5 2025 Steven May 78 57.7 9.0 33.3 Jake Bowey 71 50.7 9.9 39.4 Christian Salem 51 60.8 11.8 27.5 Trent Rivers 19 31.6 15.8 52.6

No, they definitely do. Contested possessions, including contested marks, are generally worth quite a bit. That's where Max has the edge with post-clearance possessions.

Here are my estimated equity values for Gawn and Xerri which underestimates tackles and pressure in general, so the advantage to Xerri for tackles would be greater. Otherwise, the clear difference is ball use where Xerri is rated higher in shots at goal and disposals (both pre- and post-clearance). Category Max Gawn Tristan Xerri Diff Post-clearance possessions 7.18 2.54 -4.64 Pre-clearance possessions 4.72 6.29 +1.57 Hitouts 3.71 3.20 -0.51 Spoils 0.77 0.85 +0.08 Tackles 0.02 0.16 +0.14 Errors -0.45 -0.14 +0.31 Frees Against -1.15 -1.29 -0.14 Ball use -1.44 2.31 +3.75 Total 13.35 13.92 +0.57

The figures that @whatwhat say what posted are using the same rating system for 2023 and 2025. Ditto for the top 10 from @Fat Tony. CD did not change the "Player Ratings" system, they introduced a new additional "100X" rating system. The one that Daniel Hoyne pushes on SEN (the one which favours half backs) is the new 100X rating system. The 100X system attempts to remove any "Player Ratings" bias towards particular positions. Basically, the 100X system calculates how much above or below average a player is per 100 minutes compared to other players in that position. The two main problems with this is: It assumes that certain positions accumulate more points due to a bias in the ratings, rather than the fact that (arguably) the best or most impactful players are often midfielders. The positions used by CD are quite limited and two players in the same position may play very different roles. E.g lockdown general defenders and rebound defenders are both "general defenders" but the rebound defenders will accumulate a lot more rating points. As they get compared in the 100X system, the rebound defenders get a boost which may explain why they dominate the top 10 on SEN. While it has its flaws, the standard player ratings is better than the 100X system they have been pushing recently.

Here's a rough guide for where Clarry scored his rating points compared to his season average (and last week). This is based on my estimate of rating points which do not account for pressure. The absence of pressure information: underestimates the points from ball use if the player disposes of the ball under pressure; and ignores the points accumulated from the player applying pressure on the opposition ball carrier. Notwithstanding, it provides a rough guide for the breakdown of points. Clarry usually accumulates most of his points through contested possessions (which are generally worth quite a bit) - he only had five on Friday (=3rd worst of his career) and only two ground ball gets (equal worst of his career). 26 of his 31 possessions were uncontested and were worth 0 points. "Ball Use" includes shots at goal and I have calculated his missed shot at approximately -1.5 points. Clayton Oliver Category 2025 v Coll v Haw Possession 7.06 3.30 7.30 Ball Use 0.87 −0.38 2.94 Tackle 0.15 0.02 0.24 Spoil 0.04 0.00 0.53 Error −0.11 −1.17 0.00 Free Against −1.11 −0.90 −0.63 Total 6.90 0.87 10.39

Here is the Stats File post for the game: Also, that was our 11th loss of the season when winning the inside 50 count: