binman

Watching him, Flower didn't really come to mind. Not as elegant or as smooth a mover (robbie is my all time favorite player by so far its not funny, covered the ground beautifully but never looked like he was exerting any energy). And doesn't really have the same way of feinting and avoiding contact that Robbie had where he looked like he wasn't actually moving. But as soon as i saw him play a proper game, Alan Johnson DID come to mind How about Alan Johnson gator?

Agree metres gained isn't in of itself a definite measure of a good game (I don't think any individual stat in isolation, except for perhaps goals kicked, are a good measure to assess overall performance. Triangulating multiple stats provides a much better picture of a players performance). For example, if one player does all the kick outs, as May has done in the previous 3 seasons his metres gained stats are of little value. For example in the 2021, 2023 and 2023 seasons May took 90% of our kicks outs, and most of them were sixty metre bombs to the half back flank. Meaning, given he usually played on, he'd be credited with 75 metres gained for each kick out. (by the by, we started tinkering with our kick out strategies late last year, but this year have moved from tinkering to radical change. I'd be guessing May has only taken something like 30% of kicks outs, with the rest shared by other defenders, the kick outs are no longer always going to the HB and we are not kicking to Maxy very often - which incidentally is great in terms off Maxy not getting smashed as much). And as you suggest, if say a long kick comes straight back because it went straight to an opposition player than those metres gained are of little value either - which is why as Andy suggests Effective Metres Gained data would be useful. So i agree that metres gained in of itself is that not that useful. Which is why i'd love to have access to the Metres Gained Assisted stats as it would address the issue you flag about weighting long kicks over handballs. Metres Gained Assisted is the total metres gained by a teammate that receives an uncontested possession from that players disposal. So, in your example Clarry had 14 handballs. Not much metres gained in those. But if many of those handballs set up good transition and/or helped us gain territory (eg Clarry handballs to Rivers who then runs and carries and kicks it 60 metres), as i suspect they did, his Metres Gained Assisted numbers would be very strong. Clarry had 589 metres gained. Impressive - and second only to Maysie (whose numbers were padded a bit by his kick outs). But if say he also had the most assisted Metres Gained (which wouldn't surprise me) then suddenly his game looks even stronger. And perhaps maysie also had great Metres gained assisted numbers. The coaches of course have access to all of Champion Data's data, and all would drill down on it. Clarry got the most coaches votes for against the dogs with 9 and maysie was second with 8. In all likelihood those votes were informed by an analysis of the full range of Champion Data and internal stats. But I'll bet my bottom dollar may doesn't get a Brownlow vote for this game because i doubt the the umpires drill down on the data at all and so go on what they have seen and perhaps the old school possession numbers. Just on Lever, and my point about using multiple data points to assess a players performance, he only had 170 metres gained (he had almost twice that against the Swans). From memory i highlighted on the pod his 8 score involvements and 17 possessions not his metres gained (though my memory ain't what it was, so i might have muddled that up) as evidence of him having a good game. Lever's score involvements suggest to me that his possessions were effective because to be involved in 8 scoring chains at least half of his possessions helped us move the ball forward and score. But drilling down a bit further, which is really easy to to on @WheeloRatings excellent website, you can triangulate other data to get a fuller picture of Lever's game. His Champion Data player's ratings (which i think is an excellent measure) for the Swan's game was 5.4, but in the dogs game it was 8.9. He had an equal match high 10 intercept possessions (rivers also had 10), which is excellent as intercept possessions are no doubt one of his KPIs (he only had 4 against the Swans). His disposal efficiency in the Dogs game was 82.4, suggesting he didn't miss many targets by foot. But he also had six clangers (an error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side), the second most behind Clarry, which surprised me but probably not @Damo as those clangers jumped out for him watching the game, whereas i didn't really notice them. (note: clangers are different to 'disposal clangers', which are defined as 'any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over' to an opponent). I cant see what his turnovers were for the game, but in his two games thus far he has averaged 3 turnovers, so unless he had none against the Swans he wasn't too bad for this stat against the dogs. A definite negative was he gave away 9 free kicks - the most by any player on the ground (Harmes and McNeil each away 3 and Salo and chandler gave away 2). That surprised me. He had 9 contested possessions (and weirdly 11 uncontested possessions - i say weird becuase he was only credited with 17 possessions in total) after only having one against the Swans. Perhaps my rating of 'terrific' was too positive given his clangers and frees he gave away but taken together those numbers still add up to a really good game i reckon. https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats_player.html?ID=2311a9&Season=2024

This is from the champion data glossary. I assume it applys to all stoppages, including centre bounce clearances (there is no definition for cbc) Clearance: Credited to the player who has the first effective disposal in a chain that clears the stoppage area, or an ineffective kick or clanger kick that clears the stoppage area. So, for example wuth our first goal against the Dogs, the one viney kicked, I assumed the clearance would have been credited to tracc. But I checked the replay and maxy actually gets the clearance as he won a contested possession and handballed it out to tracc.

Ah yes, right you are. That's like a weird version of dyslexia - FCD (football coach dyslexia). I hope for Fagan"s sake they have been flogging them on the track because twice now they have come our hard, got a lead and been swamped. By the by, 'm looking forward to seeing how goody matches up tactically against clarkson on Saturday.

Funny you should mention bails. He came to my mind too. I was thinking about the irony of roos saying, after the dees, coached by bails, ran up a cricket score against the swans at the g (iirc, Roos' biggest losing margin as coach?) that we were going to be a power team. I think I'm right in saying that roos sad that game was a factor in his decision to coach us. And roos gave us goody. So we have bails to thank for our flag! Bails was so unlucky to get sacked. I understand the impact of the 164 game, but that was 100% on the players and was a manifestation of our woeful, shambolic governance. And also a manifestation of our toxic culture in the playing group (anyone seriously knocking our culture now only need to think about that period to understand what a poor culture really looks like - and it's corrosive impact). Under bails, when on, we played exciting, attacking footy. Great to watch. But as you suggest the defensive issues (that bails would have addressed if given time) we also got opened up But we still had an outside chance of making finals when bails got sacked. Bails was the classic scapegoat an was treated appallingly by the club. And his players hung him out to dry with their pathetic display agains the cats. Still makes me furious.

Mysterious.

McAdams would be the option if fit. I wonder with bb playing the lead out full forward role if fritter could play a defensive forward role on Sicily. Fritter is a bit out of form and Sicily would take him to the ball. But Sicily wouldn't be able to take too many liberties with fritter either. A danger player to sag off and leave free.

Well, lions will be. They have a bye this week. Things I'd love to see: The saints roll the pies on Thursday night in knock down, physical scrap. And then, tired and sore, go to a hot, steamy gabba a week later and get blown away by the lions who will be fired up and coming of a ten day break. And, exhausted, fly back to Melbourne. Fly out a week or so later to play a HOME GAME at Adelaide oval on the Sunday (at 5pm) against a hawks team that runs them into the ground and beats the pies in a thriller. Meaning the pies, who have a bye in round 5 would winless coming into round six when they face port at the g.

I'm really interested in the approach Mitchell is taking at the Hawks. He is running with a very aggressive, fast ball movement game plan, and seems to be focusing less on sorting his defensive system out. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he is prioritizing offence and ball movement over developing a defensive system. It's a model that genuinely looked different to the way say we or the pies were playing. I heard Mitchel talk about his philosophy and paraphrasing he said rather than copying the model that is successful now he wants to devlep a model that is head of the curve and is successful in five years time. Se the agenda, not follow the leader. Goody had a focus on defence from the get go, whilst still being quite offensive in 2017 and 2018 (i reckon he used 2019 to get his defensive system how he wanted it). Longmuir, who i think is a very similar coach to Goody in style and philosophy, has gone the opposite way to Mitchell and focused on getting their defensive system sorted before moving to getting their offence right (with low scoring as a result). Which is really what Roos did too when he came to the dees. I had forgotten about Knights' tenure at the bombers, but you're right he went with attacking model similar in philosophy to what Mitchell is trying to implement. But Knights is a cautionary tale for Mitchell because as exciting as the occasional high scoring win is, fans quickly lose patience when their team consistently get opened up and lose by big margins. Knights was stiff, getting sacked after only two seasons, and with two seasons left on his contract. Turned out to be quite the decision as he was replaced by Hird. And the rest is history.

Fair enough. And good points well made. Semantics are important So it depends what is meant by tactical, tactics, sytems and strategic. Goody is not a game day tactition, more a developer of sytems and specific strategies that have tactical elements. If that makes sense. The weekend gone is a good example. Goody said they had planned, and no doubt, trained the strategy of controlling possession through lots of marks after analysing the history of early seaon games. As a result we had more uncontested marks than any game Goody has coached. Beveridge, a noted game day tactician, said in his presser they didn't have an effective response to our strategy. I would argue that was an example of tactical nous by Goody, but it is semantics to a degree. It's interesting that the previous most uncontested marks in a game goody had coached was round 2 2017, his second game as senior coach. Goody tried a number of quite radical strategies in his first two seasons. For example, whilst its true our defence was a weak link in 2018 its way too simplistic to suggest personell was the sole reason. A big factor was the really agressive high press and super fast ball movement method Goody employed that year. Once we got rolling we smashed teams below us - it was the teams above us, with their strong defences, that troubled us. He tweaked the method around two thirds into the season (and iirc started using a version of the goal keeper we implemented later) and we stopped leaking so many goals It was a method that didn't look a million miles from that of the pies under mcrae. And it was a method that got us to a prelim - with two of the great win at the g on the way (cats and hawks). I see your point about my use of the word template. Maybe that is overstating things (though id argue he set the bar for aeorobic fitness) But i think its reasonable to suggest hardwick created the templste fir how footy is played now. As much as I hate to say it, hardwick has a case for being the most influential coach of the modern era. His focus on territory, absorbing pressure in the back half, pressure and winning the contest is the template of the modern game.

Yep, good points.

Now known as Do make me enzo. Its a Champion data stat defined as: 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. A huge frustration of mine is that Champion Data lock up so much of their data (which is their right, but the AFL are the contractors and could make it a requirement all data is made available). @WheeloRatings So, for example in looking up the definition of metres gained i say this definition: Metres Gained (Assisted): Total metres gained by a teammate that receives an uncontested possession from your disposal. That would be fascinating data because it would give an insight into which players are critical to effective transition 9in the same way that say score involvements data gives an insight into which players are important in scoring chains and on transition). And it might also give an insight into he role of specific players and/or another data point to help asses how well they performed. For example, some thought Lever didn't have a great game. But he was involved in 8 score involvements which suggests he played an important role on transition. If he also had high Metres Gained (Assisted) numbers that would reinforce his importance to how we moved the ball forward.

No, you clearly don't get my point. And I'm confused as to what the disconnect is. It honestly feels as if you are arguing for arguing sakes jnr Of course the recruitment of lever and May wasn't a tactical innovation. I didn't say it was. It was a recruitment decision. And bringing in two AA quality players is hardly rocket science. His tactical innovation was developing an incredibly effective all team defensive sytem that is now the template, the Gold standard, in the AFL. A model the best teams are implementing (with tweaks), for example the giants and the blues. Carbon copies of our sytem (Note: I made clear goody didn't invent zone defence, or even all team defence, but it is unarguable he took both to a new level and developed a new and improved defensive system - one based on an incredible amount of all team running and demanding a new level of aerobic fitness. Which is why he brought Burgess in. His model doesn't work without that elite level fitness across the whole team. It is a model that has changed the way the game is played and is a big part of its evolution in the last 8 years - for example fitness is more important now than it has ever been. If you think otherwise then we are never going to agree on this topic. And we see the game very differently) That is a considerably more complex exercise than simply 'fixing our leaky defence' by recruiting two gun defenders (something that is as old as the game -ie recruiting good players). As i said port and the dogs have tried to fix their 'leaky defence' by bringing in Alir and Jones respectively. But neither Hinkley or Beveridge have also developed an innovative defensive system (though the dogs appear to be trying to implement a version of ours). And so despite attempting to fix their 'leaky defence' by recruiting guns, their defensive issues remain unresolved. Recruiting May and Lever, particularly Lever (no coincidence he was recruited first given how key intercept marking is to goody's system) enabled goody to fully realise his vision. They were targeted not merely because they were so good, but so they could be the foundation of his system. Both had to have the nous, and desire, to play the role goody needed them to play, They wouldn't have bene recruited if goody thought they didn't. By the by, i think the reason Tomo is not going to be a regular best 22 player (he'll come in for specific roles no doubt) is that he struggles with the complexities of the defensive system, in particular when to zone off and leave his man to impact a contest or intercept. If it was just about bringing in AA quality key defenders then goody wouldn't have waited three years after trading in Lever to get may. And yes, he has done other tactical innovations - though none so influential and impactful on how the game is played (which is why I picked it as an example). WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT - GOODY DOESN'T GET THE KUDOS HE DESERVES FOR HIS TACTICAL INNOVATIONS. I'm really not sure why this conversation has landed where it has - I would have thought the para above is pretty uncontroversial. But as you say, each to their own. Tapping out now.

Brilliant. Kinda makes my planned question at this year's AGM redundant but!

That was so bizarre. I mean, they couldn't have picked a more advantageous spot for the dogs. I would have been ropeable if they had scored a goal from that stoppage. It would have been another way for the dees to get screwed by a review.

It began with a review from Finland, and then ironically seemed it was never going to Finnish.

They would have been right.

It can be a cruel game.

Yep, you're right that is curious Sparrow with zero CBAs. I didn't clock that. Cant imagine he is carrying anything, otherwise surely he would have been subbed off. And his TOG was 77%, ahead (just) of similar players in Salo, Viney and Clarry, so they weren't managing him.

You've well and truly misunderstood me jnr. To be clear my point was Goody deserves a lot more credit for his tactical innovations than he gets. Full stop. As an example, as i said, whilst he didn't invent the all team defensive zone or the use of the zone off, third man intercepting defender (Hardwick deserves credit here) he has absolutely perfected the model. As i noted, he began working on it way back in 2016. The model is now the gold standard defensive system in the AFL. The proof is in the pudding - we have had the best defence for at least three season now. On the back of that we have won a flag and made top 4 three years in succession. Teams like the Port and the Dogs who have not developed something similar are going nowhere. The Lions might be the exception to prove the rule, but the fact remains they are yet to win a flag under Fagan. In addition to implementing a defensive system with key similarities to ours (with Moore playing the Lever role), albeit a more aggressive one, the Pies developed a ball movement method that was specifically designed to break down our defensive system, such is its brutal effectiveness, through fast ball movement. The Giants defensive system is almost a carbon copy of ours, and the Swans and saints employ very similar systems too. Ditto Freo and Blues. For the sake of argument, let's say you are right that 'blind freddy' could see that we needed better key defenders than Frost and Omac. How does that change the fact that Goody developed a sophisticated defensive system that has become the AFL template for defensive systems? Bringing in may and Lever would have changed little if they were not the cornerstone of the defensive system he was developing and implementing. Port brought in Alir, who is a star as it was obvious to Freddy they needed to do something about their defence. And he is a brilliant interceptor - perhaps the best in the AFL. But Port haven't implemented a sophisticated defensive system as evidenced by their woeful points against record under Hinkley. And so Alir hasn't moved the needle on their defensive issues. And if it was just about bringing in elite defenders, then Lever was not the player to target as he is average one on one. Tomlinson would have been a better target back then if all we needed were better key defenders. Again, many posters one here and plenty of media types knocked the dees at the time for spending so much capital on Lever given he was 'just an interceptor'. Plenty would have preferred we chased a gun forward. Or a pure lock down key defender. At that point only the Crows, tigers and dees had a specialist intercepting defenders, now every team does. Blind Freddy could also see the dogs needed to focus on sorting out their defensive system from 2018 and go out and target some elite defenders. But what have they done? Turn Naughton from a CHB into a KPF, draft JUH and Darcy and trade in Lobb. What have they done about their woeful defence? Well they finally got a interceptor in - Jones, a good player, but he's undersized and 33. Genius. So Blind Freddy might be able to point out decent players that could be replaced by even better, AA players, but Freddy seemingly ain't so good at seeing massive issues with team's game plans and methods.

For all thing post game the Stats File thread is the place to go. @Demon Dynasty does a weekly overview of the game just gone using his bespoke ratings system as foundation 9and @WheeloRatings provides a weekly wrap of the key stats for the game just gone, including CBAs This is wheelo's stats from the doggies game:

Sorry Jnr, not sure i follow. What history did i revise? You are correct that we had issues defensively - both in terms of personnel and system in 2018. My love child omac was preferred ahead of Lynden Dunn back in 2016 because unlike Dunn, Omac COULD play in a zone system and play the role the coach asked him to (Roos was coach, but goody was already working on implementing his zone defence system - which goes to my point about the kudos he deserves). Dunn couldn't - or wouldn't - adjust his game and just wanted to be a man on man defender and so we stopped playing him (much to the angst of many on here). It's no coincidence ahead of Goody's first year as senior coach (2017) we shipped Dunn to the Pies (where he was happy being an old school one on one defender playing in an old school one on one defensive system). In 2018 Goody was still developing his zone and all team defensive system. Frost continually pulled the defensive grid out of shape by running up the ground and doing random Frost stuff. Frost ball doesn't work in a zone defence, or at least not the one Goody designed. And so he was shipped too (in 2019). Goody, needing a quality interceptor for his system to work targeted Lever, trading him in at the end of his first season as senior coach (2017). Unfortunately, in the year you reference, 2018, Lever did his ACL half way through the year, and could only manage 8 games in 2019. You'll get no argument from me that Petty, who we picked up in the 2017 draft was by 2021 a better option than Omac. Petts looked like a star from the get go. But Omac was at the dees until the end of 2020 and played an important role in the evolution of the defensive system that Goody had started developing way back in 2016. As i said goody made it his number one priority to build an elite defensive system - a project that took 5 years, and yes the right personnel. And a key part of his strategy was using up A LOT of capital to bring in two A grade defenders in May and Lever. (by the by, on demonland there were many posters who argued we pulled the wrong rein with lever and paid overs/too much). Where's the revision?

At the risk of being overly argumentative, we traded him in BECAUSE he was an intercepting defender - the role he played at the crows (one of the few playing that role at the time - now every team needs one). Goody deserves a lot more credit for his tactical innovations. He didn't invent the all team defensive zone or the use of the zone off, third man intercepting defender. But he did perfect the model - and now most clubs, the successful ones, have copied him. And for good reason. Goody was happy (if that's the word) to trade out hoges if it meant he could bring in may. The combination of may and Lever is the foundation of our defensive sytem. And it's hard to imagine we would have been so successful if not for bringing both to the club. Yesterday was the perfect example of the wisdom of Goody focusing on building out from defence. I actually thought the dogs defence looked much better than the last few years. They have brought Liam Jones in to play the intercepting marking role, and he is a star. And it looked like their zone defence was in better shape. But they are behind the 8 ball. Naughton played at chb in his first 2 seasons, but then went forward. And they have loaded up on forwards since - JUH, lobb and Darcy. Which is fine, except their biggest weakness is their defence. We went the opposite way. Yesterday we were more attacking and aggressive and had a significantly different method. With one exception - our defensive system remained much the same (with some tweaks - may for instance got into a lot of really attacking positions).

How good is it to be super confident a player will hit a target by foot, or failing that at least not butcher it straight to an oppo player.

Sorry, not sure what you mean. They are screen shots from where?