binman

18 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

It’s heartening to see Geelong finally have some success after their tragic downfall and gruelling three-week rebuild. 

But maybe that does tell you something. Do I dare keep hope alive? 

It's so weird that the dees and the giants also had tragic downfalls at the same stage of the season as the cats, and also appear to be turning things around.

Just a crazy coincidence I guess.

14 minutes ago, sue said:

What will you say if we win? What will you say if we lose and it is clear the ruck wasn't the issue.  Why bother making these sort of statements?

Snap.

22 minutes ago, Demonsone said:

What will Goodwin reply be if we lose & get flogged in the ruck and not playing a back up ruck in Fullerton

What will your reply be if we win and break even in the ruck?

Admit you were wrong and give goody credit?

11 minutes ago, Purple77 said:

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1598733/vfl-rd16-team

Gee whiz, how is the chatGPT on this article?

 

It's funny you should say that.

I've been really crook with a cold for the last couple of days and been stuck on the couch.

In between reading a crime novel and watching dees games I've been scrolling news a aggregator sites etc on my phone.

Its insane how many 'articles' are clearly AI generated.

They have a weird, distinctive style with clunky phrases.

They read like a first year high school essay. 

It's funny how an author's name is always included.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition.

Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the  opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. 

Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

No, there is a disconnect here.

And it relates to how a team's total metres gained is calculated.

My understanding it is simply all the team's players metres gained added up to arrive at a total.

Tbe differential between the two teams is the difference between those two totals

Metres gained, or lost, are not added or subtracted from the opposition. They are completely independent of each other.

So let's say a player only has two possessions for the match.

The first he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres and kicks it 40 metres toward out goal he is credited with 50 metres gained.

The second he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres towards the opponents goal and kicks it 30 metres towards the opponents goal. He is credited with minus 40 metres.

His total metres gained for match is 10 metres.

And let's say hypothetically all 23 players do exactly the same ie 1 possession goes forward 50 metres and one goes backwards 40 metres.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x 10 = 230 metres gained.

And let's say the opponents 23 players also have two possessions, but the metres gained and lost are reversed.

That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x-10 = -230 metres gained.

Therefore the differential for the fitst team is +460.

Perhaps the confusion is I am talking about total, or net metres gained, not effective metres gained, which factor in turnover.

That's because net metres gained is what wheelo includes in his stats summary of each game.

And far as I'm.aware effective metres gained are not publicly available

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

@demosaw is actually almost spot on. In a hypothetical game where neither side kicks a goal or a point, and the ball happens to finish the end of every quarter in the centre circle, both sides will have identical metres gained regardless of how many inside 50s or how much time in fwd half they have.  Each time a side kicks a goal, they get an automatic 85-90m benefit based on the ground size. For each point a side kicks, they get a 10m benefit as the kickin side loses 10m.  Then depending on where the qtr ends there is an adjustment.

For points, the opposite applies to what you stated, as for every point kicked the side kicking out loses 10m gained no matter how far they kick it.

It’s a pretty meaningless team measure really and I’ve always wondered why it’s recorded for teams (I understand it’s meaningful for individual players).

If you want to check some big differentials, just go look at games with 20 goal margins like WC last year.  They lost metres gained by around 2000.

 

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but i don't think that is correct,

My understanding is as follows:

Each time a player gets the ball anwhere on the ground they can:

- get tackled and not move the ball anywhere: zero metres gained.

- run and carry toward their goal: metres gained = how far they run in a straight line towards their goal

- kick the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- handball the ball toward their goal. metres gained = length of the kick

- run and carry and kick or handball the ball towards their goal: metres gained combined measure 

BUT they also have metres lost if any of those actions go towards their opponents goal, ie backwards. 

Which is why you sometimes see a player with negative metres gained.

Players kick, run, and handball backwards all the time, and some teams do so more often than others.

For example the pies love to feed handballs backwards into space. 

My understanding is a team's total metres gained is simply each players' metres gained aggregated.

(I'm sure @WheeloRatings can clarfy).

If that's the case, and im not having a brain fade, then it's got nothing to do with goals or points kicked (other than the scenario where one team kicks way more points than their opponent because by defintion each kick has to go forward). 

And your hypothetical scenario doesn't hold.

Again, if my understanding of how the team total is calculated is correct, it is a arguably more useful stat than individual players metres gained as it helps in understanding a team's method.

For example, in 2020 to 2023 we were a forward half territory team that prioritised going forward with each possession. Consequently we always had high metres gained.

Whereas the Eagles 2018 team kicked the ball backwards all the time to keep possession and control the ball, and consequently were low low metres gained team.

Ditto for the cats under Scott until the last 3 seasons.

And it's also my understanding that winning metres gained differential strongly correlates with the likelihood of winning.

Which is why the territory game hardwick developed has become the template for footy.

23 minutes ago, DubDee said:

way to bring up stats that ‘conclusively’ prove your point, only for them to prove the opposite and then you still don’t back down 

nice work

Strange hill to die on - a young player at another club is improving I tells ya.

15 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

What's more tiresome is wasting 2017, 2019, 2020 & 2022 & wasting an outstanding list & continually trying strategies that have regularly failed.

Some of your best work cranky.

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Hi Prodee! 🖐

Zero chance they are Prodee.

That's an insult to my old sparring partner (who by the by is now posting as gator).

Just now, dice said:

Not sure what stats you are looking at. He is currently on track for more kicks, kicking efficiency, disposals inside 50, metres gained, ground ball gets, inside 50 marks, more shots on goal, goal assists, tackles, pressure acts, spoils, one percenters.

And again, 7 games to go. Sheesh

I'm looking at the stats you provided a link to.

And from those stats the best you can provide of evidence he has improved is kicks, kicking efficiency, disposals inside 50, metres gained, ground ball gets, inside 50 marks, more shots on goal, goal assists, tackles, pressure acts, spoils, one percenters?

The player ratings are by far the best measure of a players performance level.

His player rating has dropped significantly.

By the by, JVRs rating has also dropped this season, albeit only slightly - 7.3 on 2023 and 6.99 this season.

Anyway, whether Amiss had improved or not this season, he is a good young player who will become an excellent one. 

So not sure why you are feeling the need to argue.

Let's leave it here.

17 minutes ago, dice said:

Hasn't improved? He has missed 1 game this season! Freo are 3rd on the ladder. He is integral to that team.

And there are 7 games to go. Currently tracking improvement on lots of stats from last year:
https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_player_profile.html?ID=140bfb2

For pete's sake, did you even read those stats?

Sheesh.

Last season his player rating was 7.21 and this season it is 4.73. 

And there is barely a single stat he had improved.

For example his numbers for marks, contested marks and goals - stats I assume you agree are kpis for a KPF - are all down this season.

In fact based on his numbers you could make a case that not only had he not improved, hes gone backwards 

Feels like you are arguing for arguing sakes. 

3 minutes ago, dice said:

In your previous comment, you inferred Amiss hadn't improved.

And I brought up Petty as a side note to the relevance of this thread. My apologies

He hasn’t improved this season. His goal kicking accuracy has fallen off a cliff for example.

Agree he will improve. Plenty of upside.

Like jvr he's still a kid and development isn't linear. 

28 minutes ago, dice said:

Didn't Amiss kick 4 goals against us? 3rd year player. Pretty sure he'll keep improving.

P.S. Petty had 1 kick that day against Freo

And jvr kicked 4 last week. So what? 

Both are good young forwards, hence the comparison

And you'd hope a third year player would improve. 

Ditto for jvr - who is also a third year player.

Not sure what relevance petty's  performance against freo has vis a vis a discussion about the best young forwards.

44 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Hopefully SG considers this when deciding who should be primary ruck

 

 

 

Impressive number for roey.

Good evidence to support my opinion he is the best 21 and under key forward in the game.

And arguably the best young key forward full stop.

On that front, preseason i compared his numbers with Amiss, Logan McDonald and Ugle-Hagen. He had all covered at the same point in their career.

And of that group, jvr is the only one of that group who has subsequently improved.

It's totally nuts the amount of hand wringing on here about the non selection of a kid who is two years away from being AFL ready and an ex basketballer who could only manage 19 games accross 3 seasons at the lions, is not even the main ruck at VFL level (he only averages 11.6 hit outs - by way of contrast majak daw averaged 26) and has been in the best in the maggoos no more than 2-3 times.

2 hours ago, DemonOX said:

Looks like someone else has the same concerns as a few posters on here including myself. 
 

From sen article  

David King is concerned about this call, wondering if the Demons have already lost this game at the selection table.

Personally, David King wouldn’t be my go to guy to support a position i held.

But each to their own.

1 hour ago, demosaw said:

I would have thought difference in metres gained can only be due to 3 things:

Team goal difference - reset to centre

4 x random events - where the ball was at the end of the quarter relative to the centre.

Noise - measurement error, bias, not measuring straight up and down the ground, etc

Metres gained generally need to be lost by the other side?

Basically should correlate with goal difference and not add much?

With all due respect, all points in this post are off the mark.

A team's total metres gained is the aggregate metres gained by each of its players.

From the Champion data glossary the definition for metres gained by individual players is:

Metres Gained: Net metres gained with the ball by a player, by running, kicking or handballing, combining measures towards attacking goal and away from defensive goal.

That's to say metres gained in a straight line from the defensive goal to the attacking goal.

Normally when a team win metres gained comprehensively they invariably win inside 50s and time in forward half because that team has moved the ball towards their goal more than their opponents did.

One scenario where that might not be the case is when one team kicks a lot more points than their opponents.

That's because each kick out, by definition, goes forward towards their own goal (as opposed to say switching the ball laterally).

For example, Steve May takes a kick out, plays on, runs outside the square for 15 metres and kicks the ball 60 metres. In that scenario he is credited with 85 metres gained.

So, let's say a team kicks 10 more points than their opponent.

And for the sake of argument that opponent averages 50 metres gained per kick out.

That team basically gets an automatic 500 more metres gained than their opponents.

But that scenario doesn't apply in the Dees v Eagles game as both teams kicked the same number of points.

43 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

How about the theory that some Eagles players weren’t trying all that hard because they wanted Simpson out? Fits in with the events as they transpired after the game.

I think the Eagles' effort was actually pretty good.

But for the sake of argument let's say that's not the case, how would a lack of effort by Eagles' players explain us smashing them for metres gained yet inside 50s and time in forward half being basically dead even.

I mean if the Eagles effort was poor wouldn't that translate to also being smashed for inside 50s and time in forward half?

That's what usually happens when a team doesn’t turn up - ie they can't stop their opponent transitioning the ball end to end with ease.

By way of example our poorest performance this season was without question the freo loss. Whatever the cause, it appeared that many dees players weren't trying that hard.

The dockers smacked us for metres gained, in fact by a similar amount as we did to the Eagles.

And these were the inside 50 and time in forward half numbers:

Time in Forward Half:

15 minutes ago, Bowserpower said:

Big gamble to take on a VFL player.

Not sure I follow 

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

That's now your 19th post on Demonland ever, and I'd estimate 13 of them have been 'OMG I'm so oppressed'.

Join the conversation or don't, but turning up just to sulk is tedious for everyone else at the party.

22 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

My conclusion is he Must have looked ok in the VFL , best option available for basically no cost. He got to the club and has underwhelmed so not selected

Yep.

It's not rocket science.

26 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

Thanks @binman - loved the solo pod. Never enough dees content for my week, especially  after a win - a great listen 

Thanks DW. I listened back to the first 20 minutes and i thought it sounded like a footy version of the bbc shipping forecast.

I thought I might channel my inner cornes, get ansty and do a binman's rant segment.

5 minutes ago, Lexinator said:

Love how Goody got abused for being too safe. Another example of being creative - keeps playing the kids, positional changes and done so all season long through experimentation and necessity. Look forward to seeing how we go without Max, may be an early insight in a few years time.

Indeed.

And even his critics surely acknowledge he's got runs on the board this season with his left field selections.

Tmac in two weeks after ankle surgery. And selected as a defender at that.

Bbb of a limited preseason was a factor in a couple of early wins. 

Howes was excellent for rge first 8 weeks or so.

Turner as a forward and doing ok

Melk straight into the ones after 12 months out and being one of our best players.

The kolt not really left field I guess, but still it was yet another young player in the side.

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Why did we retain Schache as well?

Verrell aside, the other two aren’t in development mode. If they can’t fill a role when it’s clearly required, they should be delisted and make room for others who can. 

This is of course not on the players themselves, but on our list management. I understand the gamble on Fullarton, but the Schache retention as well makes no sense. Especially when we had Tomlinson stay on. 

Because we are paying Schache peanuts and need a key forward at Casey for structure and to help with Jefferson's development as jeffo gets the second best key defender.

And let's say we did cut Schache, it's not as if there is a pool of gun ruck forwards floating about who we pay peanuts and they do any better than Schache.

3 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I think Goody could have named Chandler in the ruck and you would have found a way to 100% see the logic. 😛

I resemble this comment.

But seriously, given spargs is about to have surgery on achilles I might struggle with the logic.

Unless of course it was just so crazy it might work.