binman

56 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Kicking efficiency is such a useless stat. It rewards 15m backwards kicks that are a far worse outcome than a kick to a lead inside 50 that falls short but still might result in a score.

If you want a meaningful stat, then Wheeloratings also has Kick Rating made up of Risk Rating and Retention Rating. It’s only available for teams from what I can tell. @WheeloRatings Are the individual player kick ratings available?

Our team retention rating is 5th in the AFL so it’s not too bad overall. I’d love to know where each of our players sit compared to other teams, as that would actually be useful.

I agree that KE can be misleading - another factor is that mid forwards kick under pressure more often than say defenders so their KE stats are skewed.

But it's not useless, partic when used in relation to mid/forwards, who unlike defenders don't actually do many chip it around and backward kicks (perhaps they should) and partic when compared to players in like roles.

That list is actually a pretty good reflection of our worst kicks amongst our mid forwards (perhaps not so much of the best on that list?).

Take Tracc. In mid-May, of players with 50 or more kicks inside 50 Tracc was the worst in the AFL for that kick being marked by a teammate. I think I'm right in saying of his 50 plus kicks inside 50 only two was marked by a demon. Oliver was not much better. Sure, that's not all on them but bottom line, both are poor kicks.

Perhaps the purest stat for kicking is accuracy at goal - Tracc has kicked 13.15 season, but i shudder to think what that percentage would look like if shanks on the on the full and not making the distance were included

By contrast Koz has kicked 27.19

51 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Kicking Efficiency out of the 183 midfielders or mid-forwards listed on Wheelo Ratings.

Ed Langdon 13th

Xavier Lindsay 20th

Harvey Langford 27th

Chandler 59th

Pickett 110th

Oliver 142nd

Viney  169th

Tracc 176th

When Ed Langdon is your most efficient mid/forward kick you know you're in a spot of bother kicking wise (note: I'm guessing Spargo isn't included on that list as he's not a mid?)

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Hmm.. He speaketh of bias... lampoons those that don't bow to the God 'Stats'

Fair dinkum I've yet to see anyone so blind they will not look with open eyes and understand that which befalls them.

No... one must stay glued to stats written in Braille.

The nutshell of our predicament is we play an incomplete style of football and do so without the requisite skill.

We are the epitome of hit and miss.

And the scoreboard backs that up.

As many others suggest throw away the data and just note how and when we score.

No so much a stat ( though i could see someone making it one ) but a come and go trend. Look how we've given teams headstarts. How often do teams score on rebounding our f@#!! up fwd entries ?? How often we go thin not fat or too fat and not straighten up in time.

We're trying to cook to recipe without all the ingredients.

No one needs a pencil and paper , or tablet, to understand us. Just watch. I'm sure that's all the opposition really does.

A picture paints a 1000 words... observation makes for squillions.

We play a game of footy of cheques we can't cash.

This needs to change.

Bin I beseech you good man. Step away from the numbers, just for a while.

That's just nonsense.

I was merely rebutting inaccuracies.

Like the narrative we are not good at moving the ball, when in fact the reality - quantitatively and qualitivity - is the opposite.

As I have pointed out on any number of occasions, ever since i started posting on dl some 11 years ago in fact, the issue is our kicking skills - our last kick inside 50 and our woeful inaccuracy being the two most obvious manifestation of that issue.

It an issue everyone acknowledges, and of course can clearly be seen - and equally obviously the issue manifests in the stats (eg traacs incrediblely low numbers of marks from his kicks inside 50 - back in may he had the worst ratio in the AFL and it hadn't improved since).

14 minutes ago, Nietaphart said:

There were many junk time last quarter scores when the game was lost that make these stats look inflated.

As for the ease and effectiveness of ball movement, the Suns had this in spades over us. The amount of times the Suns had players free and who provided easy targets was concerning. The Suns play with better method and have better skills.

My 👀’s don’t lie 😜.

Total rubbish (except them having better skills, that much is true).

One thing that doesn't lie is your confirmation bias

15 hours ago, Nietaphart said:

I’m just happy we moved the ball forward quicker than GC. The stats don’t lie ppls’s

No they don't.

We couldn't move the ball forward at pace in the first quarter - and scored a point

They were brilliant at doing so in the first quarter - and kicked 5 goals 7.

For the rest of the match we moved the ball more quickly and effectively than them - and outscored them and had 24 scoring shots to their 17.

Our ability to move the ball effectively from our back half is evidenced by this data (particularly impressive given we were so poor in the first quarter)

Points from defensive half

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Gold Coast.

50 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

windsor APPALLING lack of intensity - doesn't body line the ball attacking i50 and sees them easy transition to i50

That was a shocker- game was well and truly alive too

Blatant holding, or if nor HTB, throwing not paid. They goal

Billings again!

13 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I started reading this thread without knowing the Casey game was happening. I thought that Lurker had got a miraculous call up to the senior team.

Apologies- wrong thread

Craven attempt goal successfull - 11 points down

Just now, whatwhat say what said:

lever having a shocker

Snap

Lever is having an all time mare.

Good thing Billings is such an accurate kick at goal - one goal down now

Luker!!!!!

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

12:30? How am I supposed to get stuffed done?

Easy.

Take my approach today - do stuff all.

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

good mark and nice kick by kentfield to bring the margin back to 5 points

Sticky hands - excellent mark on the lead

Ricky Mentha the only player looking a class above. Positive signs.

Good lord, our kicking is just appalling.

Forget not VFL standard it's nor even local footy D grade standard.

20 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

I'm not confident at all. I know we've had 3 losses in a row and will look to bounce back, but so have the Suns and they'll be absolutely determined to not let this one slip.

I think Max King will get a hold of May unfortunately and he could be on the chopping block at next week's selection.

Suns by 37.

I'm the opposite.

I'm actually really confident about how well go today.

We'll be as fresh as we're ever going to be given we're coming of our bye.

Conversely, the AFL has done us a solid as the Suns are off a six day break and travel.

And the suns gws game, which I watched, was a very intense, high pressure game with lots of arc to arc running so will be no easy thing to back up from.

In terms of our method, we match up well against the suns I reckon.

They have a leg speed advantage but i think our selection has in part looked to negate that advantage.

I agree they will be desperate to win after 3 losses on the trot, but as you note so will we and I'm not convinced beng desperate to win nessarily translates to doing so (the Suns were desperate to win last week).

Dees by 17.

I'm having strong flashbacks of my Melbourne high footy career, such as it was:

• very early game, hours before the ones strut their stuff

• absolutely woeful standard

2 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

Don't let facts get in the way Binman

Sorry, I keep forgetting the eye test and the vibe trumps data.

2 minutes ago, binman said:

You want quicker movement of the half back hey.

Being the second quickest in the AFL behind the cats not good enough for you?

You think we should be number one?

AFL 2025 SPEED OF BALL NUMBERS AFTER ROUND 15 (Fastest to slowest)

1. Geelong: Speed 114, Time 115, Distance 109, DTG 103

2. Melbourne: Speed 114, Time 123, Distance 113, DTG 100

3. Western Bulldogs: Speed 109, Time 108, Distance 101, DTG 109

Fox Sports

Thanks to @roy11 for that article by the by - they posted it in the stats file thread.

My reply, which is relevant here, was:

As ive noted on the pod a few times, we are implementing a new method based on fast transition (ie the modern game plan).

And contrary to the views of some we are implementing that method, or at least the all important ball movement part of it, very effectively.

As montagna notes (in the article) our issue is how we enter inside 50, and of course our woeful accuracy. Improve those aspects of our game and the gap between us and the very best teams closes significantly.

Which is worth considering when assessing where we are at vis a vis the conversation on another thread about how woeful we supposedly are.

1 hour ago, demoniac said:

I just want to see quicker ball movement off half back. Players working into space being honoured by hand and foot. Players told that if they take the game and it doesnt work its ok because until we master faster ball movement we are not going to outscore many teams. Players who can't adjust and play slow when there are options to go fast can work on that at Casey.

You want quicker movement of the half back hey.

Being the second quickest in the AFL behind the cats not good enough for you?

You think we should be number one?

AFL 2025 SPEED OF BALL NUMBERS AFTER ROUND 15 (Fastest to slowest)

1. Geelong: Speed 114, Time 115, Distance 109, DTG 103

2. Melbourne: Speed 114, Time 123, Distance 113, DTG 100

3. Western Bulldogs: Speed 109, Time 108, Distance 101, DTG 109

Fox Sports

I hope Bergman is OK given he'll be a dee next year

38 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Fox Sports

I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

I can.

As ive noted on the pod a few times, we are implementing a new method based on fast transition (ie the modern game plan).

And contrary to the views of some we are implementing that method, or at least the all important ball movement part of it, very effectively.

As montagna notes our issue is how we enter inside 50, and of courseour woeful accuracy. Improve those aspects of our game and the gap between us and the very best teams closes significantly.

Which is worth considering when assessing where we are at vis a vis the conversation on another thread about how woeful we supposedly are.