binman

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

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.

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

Some of your best work cranky.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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: Metres Gained 5268 6592 -1324 Inside 50s 37 68 -31 Time in Forward Half: Quarter For Against 1 53% 47% 2 42% 58% 3 38% 62% 4 45% 55% Match 43% 57%

Not sure I follow

Yep. It's not rocket science.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Verall because at some point we need to replace maxy, who by the by also spent a long time in the magoos. Fullers because he was on the market, in our price range and worth a gamble. It's on fulllers that he hasn't made it impossible to not select with a body of work in the VFL.

To tell the truth, i actually didn't in the end. I put you in my dl purgatory level - read the posts, no emojis and no quoting. I have enjoyed your posting and appreciated how balanced you were during the annual bye phase form drop off You're officially out of purgatory now that I have quoted you.

I can't say I thought we’d roll with no ruck, but 100% see the logic. Disco took as many centre bounces as roo last week, so as you say those two and Petty can share ruck duties. It's going to be a bit slippery, so that negates draper a bit. But also means less scoring and therefore less centre square bounces. We can go to work on sharking draper exactly the same way opponents do to maxy. And most of all, neither verell or the fella whose name I know will misspell and face the wrath of the pedants deserve a call up on form. Fullers has been underwhelming and if he was selected would likely offer not much more than running with petts, roo and disco. And verell, who I have a lot of time for and think will make it, is not ready yet. Picking him won't give us much and might be unhelpful for his development. And if either verell or fullers was picked disco probably comes out. There is an opportunity cost factor there, and goody has said he wants the three amigos in the team.

I guess selection this week shuts down the goody is too predictable thread