binman

Ta. That makes sense. Isn't a million miles away from their average rating so i've been using it in the right way. Sort of. Geez we had lot of players not meeting their predicted rating. Another question @WheeloRatings In the tables with for and against, (eg points from defensive half) does the SEASON column for our opponent refer to their season average or the average we concede for that stat So for example, the match column has the Pies scoring 26 points from their defensive half. The season column has 26 points - is that what the Pies average from the back half or what we concede on average against all teams from the back half?

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for Maynard if it only came out in the off season that he called gus to check if it was ok he came round to visit and apologize had gone and visited Gus. You know, keep it between the players, no need to big up myself for being a decent person who checks on the welfare of a fella i knocked out cold, no need to broadcast my decency to the world. But no, he visits in what appears unseemly haste like he is family or a teammate and the Pies make sure everyone knows about it. I mean seriously does anyone really believe that wasn't stage managed? And a bottle of wine? For a fella probably in a dark room avoiding all light with a raging headache. And he brings a bottle of wine? FMD.

Exactly. We actually defended them really well on transition. They are always going to get some goals out the back just as we are always going to scrounge goals from our bombs inside 50 As Binman's PA has pointed out we kept them below the season average we concede from points from turnover, and half of that was in the first quarter. The problem is we could only manage half our season average of 51 points from turnover. But again the devil is in the detail. We kicked 3 goals 7 from turnovers and they kicked 6 goals 4 from turnovers. If we had kicked 7. 3 instead of 3.7 from turnover we win that game And the other relevant, and interconnected, stat is we we kept them to 26 points from their back half (and only 13 points from their D50) just a tick over the season average of points we concede from the back half. But could only average 16 ourselves (because of inaccuracy and the fact the ball was camped in our forward half for 3 quarters) - less than half our season average of 33 points from the defensive half.

An interesting bit of that article is Horne suggesting Kornes was talking about kane with his never played bulltish. Not that it matters, but I thought kane played for meb uni and was instrumental in getting their women's team up and running. to be honest i reckon playing at the AFL level should just about disqualify anyone talking about it becuase so many ex footballers are so biased and see everything thru the lens of the player, and how they played in their prime. And again i'd point out many such commentators will almost certainly suffer from CTE, if they are no already, i wonder how much denial plays a part

I sat in M55 for the Pies game. i usually sit on level 2 (or 4 in the Ponsford) so not a huge fan of ground level seats. But i had a terrific view. I was in row S, which is reasonably well elevated (the first row is always A)

The bolded bit is true. Partly agree with the non bolded bit, but the pressure factor def gives a sense of how much pressure is applied. I don't think we closed down space enough and i think a big reason was losing Gus, which robbed us of: one of our key pressure players with the gut running he does to apply pressure midfield rotations - which impacted our all team defence and ability to cover space and close down space Together those impacts show up on the pressure factor numbers. They discuss the pressure rating and how they are defined etc in this ESPN footy podcast episode:

Brilliant article. Love this: ' “It’s understood Maynard is genuinely apologetic,” SEN reported. Apologetic for what, exactly? '

Lets say they are the right and there is nothing he could have done to avoid contact. So what? That's is not the issue, the issue is he decided to turn and bump. He had other options to protect himself (and Gus) from being hurt - for example putting his hands out and pushing gus in the chest with them. But he decided to turn and bump. If he had time to do that he had time for other options. Whether contact was inevitable or not is neither here nor there. It is a complete furphy as is the whole football act palaver. Once Koz left the ground to bump Smith, contact was inevitable but that didn't mean he got off when he chose to bump and got Smith in the head. The rules are clear - elect to bump and if you hit a player in the head you're gone.

Yes there is and that is that the game wasn't for all the marbles. We earned a double chance. We now have to use it.

@WheeloRatings what estimated player ratings mean? I had assumed it is their season average, but estimated implies something different.

Minus 10 i think - or at least that was what was on the board they show the players at quarter time. And 100% agree it can't happen again. I think this is where we lost the game actually. I'm convinced Gus going down was factor in this - the players were in shock.

I agree deanox. The term pressure is a bit misleading because it means different things to different people as it relates to a game of football. Few would think of corralling as applying pressure for example. It is actually called the Pressure factor, I assume to pick up your point deanox. I should start calling it that. I'm not sure if you are right that the score will always be between 120 and 375 as i think there are scenarios where no player is corralling, closing or chasing. But even if that's not the case there is a big difference between points for closing (2.25) and corralling (1.2) and chasing (1.5). Closing is a 'higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier' and 'the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately'. So chasing that bit harder, closing space harder, turning a corall into forcing the ball carrier to get rid of it. That is work rate. So, in some some ways it is a better measure of work rate than pressure. For example if players aren't gut running when chasing then it shows up on the pressure factor because that player only gets 1.5 points rather than 2.5 if they got close enough to force a rushed disposal. In the first quarter their pressure factor was higher, one because they won more contested balls (presumably some of those wins involved 'direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball' and so get 3.75 points) and two because I suspect they turned more chases into closing acts. Which I think partly explains some of our poor entries where we kicked to the defender's advantage and some of their clean entries. I also suspect not having Gus was a factor because that sort of work - closing, corralling, chasing and tackling is his one wood and he had the fitness to do it. Laurie only was only 50% time on ground and never did any midfield rotations. His pressure points weren't too bad actually, having the 9th most pressure acts (well ahead of of many senior players like langers, hunger, salo and hibbo). But Gus averages over 35 pressure points a game and has been incredible for pressure in the last month. For example, against the swans he he had the fourth most pressure acts and 48 pressure points (and has been top 5 for weeks). Apart from the psychological impact on the team of gus going down, we lost his run, ability to put pressure on the ball carrier and his defensive nous. And as the game wore on, we also lost tracc as a forward option because he covered Gus. By the by, on that latter point, I'm surprised goody didn't put Laurie on ball and put tracc forward at some point. Laurie played as a mid at Casey, so why not?

If it's any consolation, me too.

No, the dees were never favourite against the pies. We actually came in. I suspect the blues won't shorten a touch but we will still start clear favorites at around 1.75. Deserved too because we will win.

Good point. Get on it BPA. Actually don't. It will just blow my head up.

What the f is barret talking about with the sole intent nonsense. When kozzy launched at smith, his sole attempt was to lay a fair bump. He didn't and hit him in the head accidentally. And got two weeks. What's the difference? Oh, I know. Smith bounced up and played on, not hurt in the least. And when de Goey knocked out the young Eagles plsyer with a shoulder to the head (sound familiar?), it was a 'football act' and his sole intent was to Sheppard. But he accidentally hit the young bloke in the head. Two weeks. I don't understand how this scenario is any different.

Go redlegs. Top job.

I'll have a guess. The club don't see me as a forward option.

Category one.

Here is the relevant definitions of the pressure acts: Pressure Act (Corralling): The lowest form of pressure a player can apply, where they are simply occupying space in front of the ball carrier to prevent them moving forward, or have a run at them, but not quickly enough to record ‘closing’ pressure. Pressure Act (Closing): A higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier (either from in front or the side) as he disposals of the ball. The key point of difference between this and corralling is that there will be imminent contact and the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately. Pressure Act (Chasing): Where a player applies pressure from behind an opponent by chasing. They must be gaining ground or applying pressure significant enough to hurry the ball carrier to dispose of the ball. If the chasing player is on the verge of making physical contact from behind, then closing pressure will be imminent. Pressure Act (Physical): Applying direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball or effecting a tackle that prevents an effective disposal from the ball carrier. Pressure Act (Implied): Reducing an opponent’s decision making time without physical contact ‘via corralling, closing space or chasing from behind’.

Yes, i had the same same query about our pressure. Our pressure was not where it needed to be. It's curious becuase we were minus 10 for contested possession at quarter time and ended up winning it by plus 14 so out attack on the ball and toughness was great. I have theory as to what might be a big contributing factor, which i was planning on discussing on the podcast. Teaser is it relates to Gus not playing almost the entire game and how the pressure ratings are calculated (note a 'physical pressure act is literally when a player touches an opponent, for instance tackles, bumps, wins a contested ball): 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

I have no doubt that's the case dazzler. Hell that fear is hard to shake for me as a fan. It's human nature I hope they acknowledge it internally.

The other striking thing from that interview was tracc's evident distress when recalling the incident and aftermath. It's impossible to quantify the psychological impact on tracc and the rest of the team of seeing someone who tracc calls once of his best mates, a player with a terrible history of head knocks, knocked out cold 3 minutes into the game. They are not automatons. Sure you could argue the players should be able to compartmentalize, and i think they eventually did, but it is human nature for any group of players, let alone one so close they frequently express their love for teammates, to be impacted emotionally and psychologically by such an event in such a way that it impacts performance. And i think they were, just as they were when maxy went down against the Lions.

Strip away all the white noise and this is the critical point. Once you have elected to leave the ground you have a duty of care to any player you might cannon into as result of that choice. In fact once Maynard chose to bump the fact the action started as a smother becomes a furphy because a deliberate shoulder brace (which this was) that strikes the opponents head is still a head hit, no matter the lead up. I can't see how the fact he was allegedly jumping to smother is any different to choosing to jump off the ground to bump, or choosing to bump in any scenario for that matter - particularly in this scenario where even though it started as a smother it ended in a bump (by the by, on the smother, he got nowhere near it so in my book it was reckless form the get go). And as you note Jnr, it ended in a bump because that was the decision Maynard made. If he had time to turn his body and bump, he had time to make other choices. And it is hard to see how Maynard gets hurt making another choice like pirouetting out the way or continuing on chest on with arms out. Which takes away any argument he needed to bump protect himself - which will be the Pies main defence ie he had a split second to protect himself and it is instinct to do so (to which i'd also argue, if it is a natural instinct to turn and brace and bump in such scenarios then show me all the times a failed smother has resulted in that action or outcome. I cant think of any). Like smothering, bumping is a 'footy act'. An accepted footy act. Everyone loves a good bump. But it it is now understood by coaches, players and fans that if you elect to bump, again a 'footy act' which is fine to do, and hit the opponent in the head you will be suspended. EVEN IF HITTING THE OPPONENT WAS NOT YOUR INTENTION. How is electing to jump and smother, a 'footy act' which is also fine to do, and then choosing to bump and flushing a player in the head accidentally any different to electing to bump fairly but accidentally hitting the opponent in the head?

I'm going to back them now. I'll get a top price.