binman

Yep, that's where it can be of some use, particularly KE. That said, even then it has limitations - eg statistically what's the meaningful difference between say an 80% or 81% fie say a half back flanker. Bur like most stats they are often not that useful in isolation, which is how they are often used. For example comparing a half back flanker whose role is to initiate transition triangulating say KE, score involvements and clangers would give a good sense of their skill set and a foundation for comparison to other like players.

Of course they do. And we all instinctively know it as in out day to day lives few of us make better decisions when tired and/or fatigued. We make more mistakes at work, we lose concentration when driving, we make sub optimal decisions, we take longer to work out stuff etc etc etc.

Like raw hitout totals, only useful as a guide, and then not a particulary useful one. The issue with DE and Kicking Efficiency is they don't differentiate between positions, for example a half back flanker has way more easy sideways chips than an inside mid, whose possessions are alwayss ndet pressure. Similary if one team us putting on a lot more pressure, lower DE might be a function of that pressure. Or not. Better measures to get a sense of realise kicking and hanballing skills are turnovers, scores from turnover, goal kicking accuracy and clangers.

This is the way.

Interesting wheelo - ta. On pressure, Clarry had one of his lowest ratings fir the season I suspect, accruing only 27 points against a season average of 49.7.

As ive noted before, personally I would have stuck fat with goody if the choice were mine. But, iassuming they have a new coach (*buckley*) 90% locked in, i also see the logic of some of the arguments for going another direction, in particular a reset and the benefit of a new voice. For me the last quarter highlighted the latter point. One of the challenges of implementing a new method is that method becoming instinctive. We played good transition footy for big chunks of the match, but under pressure in the last quarter many of our senior players reverted to elements of our previous method, in particular going for territory and kicking it long to a contest, which would have ok if we were winning them bur we weren't. Conversely, the pies leant into their transtion method. A reset and a new voice might help players, particularly senior players break that tendency to revert to the down the line, territory-based method when under pressure. A reset also creates the opportunity for the team, and individual players to change the mindset from what appears to be a fear of losing. The last quarter also exposed issues we have had all season - poor fitness, poor decision making, poor skills, panicking (the latter 4 impacted by the first) and outside of koz not having a gun who impacts the scoreboard when a clutch goal is needed and/or burst of sustained excellence that creates goals like Ed Richards against us (though, gee Langford wasnt far away from doing so - remarkably, given it was our final game of a long season, was our highest rated player). On our performance, as entertaining as it was in parts, i rgought it was pretty average - we were very lucky the pies were not accurate in the first quarter. I actually thought our performance was better last week against the Hawks, including in the first quarter. Both team's pressure was woeful all game and the pies defence, which was pushing up ridiculously high, and all team defence was pathetic. If, as looks likely, the pies finish top 4 they will be one of the weakest top 4 teams in recent memory. They'll almost certainly play the crows in Adelaide week one and get hammered and I reckon any team they then meet will be a better team (with the possible exception of freo if by some miracle they, one, make finals and two make the second week of finals)

I just saw that clarry only had 2 turnovers, so his involvements in the game must simply not have been that impactful, for example he only had 2 clearances.

Yep, same story all year. And I'll bet Oliver, given his rating, had his fair share of turnovers (the ratings measure scoreboard impact). Might explain River's rating too given he looked to have a great game.

Yep 100% agree. Which is why the trenchant criticism goody frequently received for selection criticism often reflected an ignorance about how AFL teams operate (which was the subtext of my comment).

Maybe, just maybe, our new coach thinks our effort was OK and was pleased we fought the game out and didn't get blown away, kicking 7 of the last 8 goals against a team that was in red hot form and has a real shot at winning the flag. By the by I love how posters are now criticising the 'club' for performance and selection decisions not the coach.

Hear hear.

#Goodwin myths

I'd do it in a heartbeat. Jackson heir apparent to Maxy White heir apparent to Jackson. That's our ruck position sorted for the next decade and a half.

#Goodwin myths

Jones and Radford, with Goody having input and veto power (that he'd use sparingly id be guessing as its not as simple as making a game day swap given the drill and practice they'd do on set ups ans structures)

Uggh

Goldy!!!!!! By jingos I love how she goes about her footy.

If one of tracc or claz goes I hope it's tracc. One we can actually get something for tracc. Two I honestly think Clarry is more suited to the way footy is being played atm. Sure teams no longer need multiple midfield in and under extractors- but they still need at least one and clarry still excels in that regard Three, quick hands are more important than ever to get the ball released and to the outside and clarry is getting back to his best in that regard. Claz could be our libba (or our clarry circa 2017 - 2023). Four, claz has more upside as he appears to be slowly getting fitter, trimmer and quicker whereas tracc looks closer to his optimal fitness. Five I reckon a new voice, and opportunity to reset, might be just what claz needs to get back to his best.

You're doing it all wrong. How about: Just one more bit of evidence that i was right all along - Goodwin was never the right guy. No chance White jnr signs with us if Goodwin was still coach.

To be honest I'm not really accross how the soft cap works, and tou may well be right.

That's an excellent point. In previous years the plsyers were so well drilled in terms of our defensive systems and structures that any new player could just slot into that sytem no drama. But that’s decidedly not the case now. And the other issue is a transition based game plan requires defenders with to who can get backnon turnover- which is why trialled Windsor back thete and whether went with Howes over Tmac for a few weeks (which even though I get the logic was still a completely stupid decision, one I know for a fact was not all on Goody). And that need for speed exposed Lever and in particular May. It also exposes Mat defensively in one in one contests because he's at his best when the ball comes in slow so he can get in a strength battle with the oppos forward gorilla. As we saw on the weekend when the ball comes in fast he not only struggles to go with a leading forward his loses his one wood - his ability to out muscle his opponent.

Yep. And it's one reason why I suspect they are keen on an experienced respected coach like Buckley because an untried coach would find it hard to enure their demands (eg veto on key hiring decisions) are met. The problem the board has created for itself is a million dollars of our soft cap is tied up in Goody, severely hampering out effort to get the best possible team of assistants etc around a new coach

Sure, though i seriously don't know what people expected given where both teams are currently at (i mean the line was 22 points so the market assessed the gap between the teams as nearly 4 goals). But, i wasn't arguing we should be filled with confidence or joy about the result - i was making the point the statement 'we need to be honest and say the main reason that wasn't a 10 plus goal blowout was because the Hawks missed so many gettable shots' is complete and utter rot. I mean it's simply not true - and there is an actual measure to evidence that it's a load of cobblers. The Hawks actual score was 92 against an expected score of 93.5 - which indicates the Hawks were almost bang on for average AFL accuracy. Our actual score was 56 against an expected score of 65.2 - which indicates we were once again below average AFL accuracy, a problem that has plagued us since 2022. (I'm not going to bother defending expected score as stat except to say it measures the AFL average for each shot on goal taken from that spot going back i think 20 years and has a hell of lot more rigour than the vibe test that leads someone to argue it wasn't a 10 plus goal blowout was because the Hawks missed so many gettable shots).

Total, absolute rot. Confirmation bias on steroids. In fact the opposite is true - if not for OUR inaccuracy the margin would have been under 5 goals. Expected scores xScore Score xWin % xMargin Margin Swing Melbourne 65.2 56 5% Hawthorn 93.5 92 95% +28.2

That's interesting ta. It's a good point about our defence, because strangely even some dees fans still think of the team being boring and stodgy this season in terms of ball movement, transtion and scores from the defensive half when in fact we are one of the best in the AFL. And that's despite how often we turn the ball over The irony is it's our defence, our one wood under goody, that has really let us down, in particular our inability to defend turnover. The added irony is under goody our other major strength has been our ability to win clearances an stoppages and we have really poor in that regard this season. It's worth noting in that context we have two new midfield and stoppages coaches (radcliff and jones) and defensive coach (Basset). Not much to put on their resumes when they look for their next gigs.