Opinion Rank the AFL midfields

[38Rockliff38]

This is what I was getting at before - its pointless to compare these 2 based on stats

 

[Balony_pony16]

Still can't see how you are 6th. I am anti essendon as anyone on BF but how is Brisbanes midfeild better? Again with the comparaion - also > is greater than.

Watson > Rockcliff
Goddard > Reddan
Stanton = Rich
Zaharakis > Moloney
Heppell = Hanley
Hocking = Mayes

How are Brisbane 6th and Essendon 9th?

Rockliff > Goddard
Redden > Zaharakis
Hanley> Heppell
Watson> Mayes
moloney = Hocking

We win 3 to 1 (1 draw)

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

This is what I was getting at before - its pointless to compare these 2 based on stats

It's pointless to compare any two players based on stats. No player is the same, just like no effective clearance is exactly as effective as the next. KPIs give reasonable indicators of a player's, or a team's, form, but should never be used when comparing "who's better."

 

[38Rockliff38]

It's pointless to compare any two players based on stats. No player is the same, just like no effective clearance is exactly as effective as the next. KPIs give reasonable indicators of a player's, or a team's, form, but should never be used when comparing "who's better."

Some players are very similar. Rocky and cotchin for example. Both are inside/outside ball magnets with similar skill sets. Stats can be used to some extent to prove which one is better

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Some players are very similar. Rocky and cotchin for example. Both are inside/outside ball magnets with similar skill sets. Stats can be used to some extent to prove which one is better

No, not really.

If I tell you that Rockliff and Cotchin both had 30 disposals yesterday, can you tell me exactly how both played? Can you assume that they played exactly the same game, and at exactly the same level? Can you describe their overall impact? No. If I tell you that they both had disposal efficiencies of 68%, would you be able to deduce whose ball use was better? Could you realistically claim that they both played in exactly the same way and had equal impact? No. Comparing stats over the course of a year with no other information is no different to this. Rockliff could seagull 30 possessions and short-kick his way to an 80% disposal efficiency while Cotchin could bury himself deep in packs and have an 80% disposal efficiency through sheer skill and hard work and they'd both look like equals on the stat sheet (note: not making a statement about either player, just a hypothetical example).

From another angle on this argument, there will always be players who look excellent on the stats sheet but have only a small impact on the game (eg. Matthew Boyd, Matt Priddis at times), and there will always be players who don't necessarily look strong on the stats sheet but have a huge impact on the game (eg. Eddie Betts, Dale Morris).

Stats are excellent support for an opinion formed through extensive vision (and visual evidence of the qualities you're arguing for), but should never be used in isolation. Things like a player's vision and decision making can't be displayed on the stats sheet, yet they form a huge part of a player's ability levels.

 

[38Rockliff38]

No, not really.

If I tell you that Rockliff and Cotchin both had 30 disposals yesterday, can you tell me exactly how both played? Can you assume that they played exactly the same game, and at exactly the same level? Can you describe their overall impact? No. If I tell you that they both had disposal efficiencies of 68%, would you be able to deduce whose ball use was better? Could you realistically claim that they both played in exactly the same way and had equal impact? No. Comparing stats over the course of a year with no other information is no different to this. Rockliff could seagull 30 possessions and short-kick his way to an 80% disposal efficiency while Cotchin could bury himself deep in packs and have an 80% disposal efficiency through sheer skill and hard work and they'd both look like equals on the stat sheet (note: not making a statement about either player, just a hypothetical example).

From another angle on this argument, there will always be players who look excellent on the stats sheet but have only a small impact on the game (eg. Matthew Boyd, Matt Priddis at times), and there will always be players who don't necessarily look strong on the stats sheet but have a huge impact on the game (eg. Eddie Betts, Dale Morris).

Stats are excellent support for an opinion formed through extensive vision (and visual evidence of the qualities you're arguing for), but should never be used in isolation. Things like a player's vision and decision making can't be displayed on the stats sheet, yet they form a huge part of a player's ability levels.

I said stats can be used to some extent. Didnt say they would give you a definitive answer to whos better

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I said stats can be used to some extent. Nothing unreasonable about that

It was more the, "… to prove which one is better," that I disagreed with; I just don't think you can list a few stats of players that play similar roles (but aren't really similar players) and conclusively say that one is better than the other. Too many variables and too many facets of their games not accounted for.

Anyway, best to move back on topic now.

 

[Wild Bill]

It was more the, "… to prove which one is better," that I disagreed with; I just don't think you can list a few stats of players that play similar roles (but aren't really similar players) and conclusively say that one is better than the other. Too many variables and too many facets of their games not accounted for.

Anyway, best to move back on topic now.

Who would you prefer to be running out for the dogs in round 1 - Cotchin or Rockcliff?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Who would you prefer to be running out for the dogs in round 1 - Cotchin or Rockcliff?

Personally, Cotchin. While Cotchin's disposal isn't great, Rockliff often plays it too safe and it results in him stacking up the touches without having too much of an impact. He can be a damaging player, but he doesn't do it consistently enough. Against the Dogs in round 1 last year he had his usual 30+ touches in a team that was getting hammered yet, despite gathering them mostly in the midfield, hardly generated much of a push. I just think that, while Rockliff's disposal is safer, Cotchin does a lot more damage and contributes to his team's success more consistently than Rockliff does. I'd also much rather Cotchin's forward game to Rockliff's.

Both great young players though and I imagine pretty much any team would take either of them.

 

[38Rockliff38]

So if cotchin had 1 kick for the game - a 60 meter bullet out of congestion onto the chest of a forward, as opposed to rockliff having 30 decent possesipns, cotchin would be the better player? I think not. Stats do have a part in it

 

[Wild Bill]

Personally, Cotchin. While Cotchin's disposal isn't great, Rockliff often plays it too safe and it results in him stacking up the touches without having too much of an impact. He can be a damaging player, but he doesn't do it consistently enough. Against the Dogs in round 1 last year he had his usual 30+ touches in a team that was getting hammered yet, despite gathering them mostly in the midfield, hardly generated much of a push. I just think that, while Rockliff's disposal is safer, Cotchin does a lot more damage and contributes to his team's success more consistently than Rockliff does. I'd also much rather Cotchin's forward game to Rockliff's.

Both great young players though and I imagine pretty much any team would take either of them.

Agree - Hanley or Heppell?

 

[38Rockliff38]

Inb4 heppell cause he's on your side

 

[Wild Bill]

Inb4 heppell cause he's on your side

He plays for essendon - not North or the Dogs.

 

[38Rockliff38]

He plays for essendon - not North or the Dogs.

I meant YOUR side. He agrees with everything you say

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

So if cotchin had 1 kick for the game - a 60 meter bullet out of congestion onto the chest of a forward, as opposed to rockliff having 30 decent possesipns, cotchin would be the better player? I think not. Stats do have a part in it

Then you're judging whose game was better rather than who is the better player. There's a difference. Matt Shaw probably played a better game than Aaron Hall did last night but I can pretty easily tell you who the better player is.

Besides, I have no issue with stats being used to support an opinion - as I've said repeatedly, I just don't agree that stats can be used to 'prove who is better.'

Agree - Hanley or Heppell?

A bit of a tougher one as they're quite dissimilar players. I would probably say that Heppell is marginally the better player, but Hanley has attributes that the Dogs desperately need moreso than Heppell's, so in this case the, "Who would you prefer to start for the Dogs in round one?" question is probably a little misleading. I would take Heppell if I were starting a team from scratch, but for the Dogs probably Hanley. Very little in it though and a bit of an unfair comparison. Heppell probably gets it on account of being able to damage the opposition both inside and outside more consistently.

Inb4 heppell cause he's on your side

This is just being petty. I've said numerous times that I rate the players within Brisbane's midfield, we're just yet to see them gel consistently. There's nothing wrong with that and I imagine quite a few Brisbane supporters would tell you that I've been a keen follower of them for a few years now, and somebody that often drops into your board with supportive comments. I've got nothing against Brisbane and, trust me, I wouldn't side with Essendon if I didn't have to.

FWIW I said Heppell and he marked them equally so the point is moot anyway.

 

[Wild Bill]

I meant YOUR side. He agrees with everything you say

Well some people know more about the game than others.

 

[38Rockliff38]

I think your point abput heppell doing more damage consistently than Hanley is ridiculous. Hanley has him covered by a mile in that area - thats his main strength

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I think your point abput heppell doing more damage consistently than Hanley is ridiculous. Hanley has him covered by a mile in that area - thats his main strength

The key part of the quote was:

Heppell probably gets it on account of being able to damage the opposition both inside and outside more consistently.

Hanley wins a huge number of his disposals uncontested. Nothing wrong with that when you're as good at it and as damaging as Hanley is, but I'd be more inclined to side with a player that can do that damage consistently in both contested and uncontested situations. Hanley is more damaging on the outside, I agree with that. What gets Heppell (again, marginally) over the line is the fact that he can get more involved when there's little space and continue to impact the game effectively.

 

[38Rockliff38]

The key part of the quote was:

Hanley wins a huge number of his disposals uncontested. Nothing wrong with that when you're as good at it and as damaging as Hanley is, but I'd be more inclined to side with a player that can do that damage consistently in both contested and uncontested situations. Hanley is more damaging on the outside, I agree with that. What gets Heppell (again, marginally) over the line is the fact that he can get more involved when there's little space and continue to impact the game effectively.

I think you're underestimating hanleys inside ability. He often wins the ball and bursts through a pack. Supreme evasive skills in close

 

[Big Fresh]

38Rockliff38 who do you think is better: Tom Rockliff or Jobe Watson?

 

[38Rockliff38]

38Rockliff38 who do you think is better: Tom Rockliff or Jobe Watson?

At this stage Watson.
3 years from now when rocky hits his peak - he will be better than what Watson is today

 

[Big Fresh]

At this stage Watson.
3 years from now when rocky hits his peak - he will be better than what Watson is today

It's good to see you have some limits. You felt the need to qualify your statement, but still, it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I think you're underestimating hanleys inside ability. He often wins the ball and bursts through a pack. Supreme evasive skills in close

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that he's a mug inside the contest, simply that he doesn't win many possessions from a contest (and for the record, the stats support this opinion: apart from his first year where he gathered only 10 possessions in a single match, he hasn't averaged more than 28.6% - which is a very low percentage - of his disposals in a contest in his career). Heppell has that added ability to go inside and efficiently set up play without needing to get himself into space first, which puts him under less pressure and allows him to dispose of it more easily.

But at the end of the day, player ability (and especially comparison) is subjective - the above is just my opinion.

 

[38Rockliff38]

Hanley doesnt win an awful lot of contested ball because he plays predominantly on a wing/flank. IMO if he was playing the same role as Heppel you'd see him get huge numbers in those areas

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Hanley doesnt win an awful lot of contested ball because he plays predominantly on a wing/flank. IMO if he was playing the same role as Heppel you'd see him get huge numbers in those areas

Hence why I said it's not really a fair comparison. That said, Hanley did occasionally struggle with increased attention from taggers last year, which is a direct indicator that he doesn't cope particularly well when he's forced to perform with pressure. With most players it comes with time, but right now, I strongly disagree that he'd be as good as Heppell in this regard. A player as dynamic as Hanley playing inside the contest is a massive boost to any team (see: Ablett, Griffen, etc) - if he was capable of doing so consistently, he would be played there every single game.