2025 Rolling ALL-Australian Team

[Fadge]

That equates to 1 game and given how much fly likes to gift Nick extra votes is another backfire for you

You know you've lost when you have to pull out that pathetic argument.

 

[Foxman98]

You know you've lost when you have to pull out that pathetic argument.

Fadge I am a bit confused you won an extra 3 "big" games then us this year yet Nick only has 29/87 votes in those games,

Why isn't he 43 and substantially ahead like Anderson if he is such a big game impactor?

 

[Mr Meow]

29 of Nicks are against top 8 teams

32 of Dawsons are against top 8 teams

That equates to 1 game and given how much fly likes to gift Nick extra votes is another backfire for you

50-65% more against top 8 teams is another way to look at it. 18 is very low for an AA midfielder.

 

[Trav 20]

6 goals 15 vs 6 goals 6 …. I’d prefer Cameron

Your analysis is fingernail deep.

Congrats.

Especially when Gawn has comfortably beaten Cameron twice this year.

 

[RCAB]

As did Richards who led the league in Goal Assist and Score Involvements whilst also averaging a goal a game

Nick Daicos leads the league in SI%. Richards isn't even first at your club.

 

[Orange crush]

Your analysis is fingernail deep.

Congrats.

Especially when Gawn has comfortably beaten Cameron twice this year.

We’re talking about as a kick, yeah

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I hope people realise there's a pretty straightforward way to measure the impact of missing games in a wins/value above replacement sense.

A players value is what they can contribute over a replacement level player ie the 22nd player, usual reserves level player in your team.

That player would get about 5.0 player ratings points.

So for every game a player doesn't play you add a 5.0 to their total season score.

For instance, Nick Daicos played 23*15.09 = 347 player ratings points on the season. 0 games missed + 0
Marcus Bontempelli

4

Marcus Bontempelli

Age

30

Ht

194cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.5

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

10.3

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.8

5star

CL

4.4

5star

D

18.4

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

8.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

4.1

5star

CL

4.0

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

1.8

4star

played 18*19.79 = 356 player ratings points total. But ten you add 5*5 to make it 381.

If you apply this to every player in the league, Bontempelli is rank 5 in the league.

It's not a perfect system but it's a good frame of reference to highlight that Bontempelli has played so well that he's still produced All-Australian quality value over replacement level despite missing the 5 games.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Nick Daicos leads the league in SI%. Richards isn't even first at your club.

We're not doing it this way, surely?

 

[Fadge]

I hope people realise there's a pretty straightforward way to measure the impact of missing games in a wins/value above replacement sense.

A players value is what they can contribute over a replacement level player ie the 22nd player, usual reserves level player in your team.

That player would get about 5.0 player ratings points.

So for every game a player doesn't play you add a 5.0 to their total season score.

For instance, Nick Daicos played 23*15.09 = 347 player ratings points on the season. 0 games missed + 0
Marcus Bontempelli played 18*19.79 = 356 player ratings points total. But ten you add 5*5 to make it 381.

If you apply this to every player in the league, Bontempelli is rank 5 in the league.

It's not a perfect system but it's a good frame of reference to highlight that Bontempelli has played so well that he's still produced All-Australian quality value over replacement level despite missing the 5 games.

There's just one fundamental problem with this analysis...

You're using PlAyEr RaTiNgZ.

My view is that if you miss games, you get nothing to add to your 'season output'.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Madden could also go forward and do serious damage, and didn't spud his kicks like Gawn

You don't kick 575 goals being a dinosaur that was overrated.

 

[RCAB]

29 of Nicks are against top 8 teams

32 of Dawsons are against top 8 teams

That equates to 1 game and given how much fly likes to gift Nick extra votes is another backfire for you

You just backfired yourself in the same post. Amazing

 

[Foxman98]

You just backfired yourself in the same post. Amazing

How if we are so shit Richards should be nowhere near superstar Nick

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There's just one fundamental problem with this analysis...

You're using PlAyEr RaTiNgZ.

My view is that if you miss games, you get nothing to add to your 'season output'.

Putting player ratings aside.

I agree with you on not playing a game is adding nothing. Just that accounting for that nothing value by using totals is incorrect when comparing two players who played a different amount of games. Because a player's value when measured by statistics is not what they offer above zero, it's what they offer above what the statistics generated by the player that would have come in for him. Therefore in using raw totals, it slightly over-values the benefit of playing every game.

For example, Harvey Gallagher only started games for the Bulldogs in which Bontempelli didn't play. For the sake of argument lets call him Bontempelli's "replacement player" that came in to do the midfield role of Bont (he didn't but lets just use him for the sake of argument). He got player ratings scores of 4.0, 3.8 and 2.8, and only played because Bont didn't. Therefore we don't measure Bont's value-add against a score of 0, we measure it against Gallagher's average score of 3.5, the added-value over the fact that holding all things constant we can rely on Bont's scores of 19 and not Gallagher's scores of 3.5.

If Nick Daicos had done his ACL the day before the opening game of Round 0 the loss to Collingwood would have not been the loss of 672 disposals (for the sake of argument hold everything else in the team constant), the loss would be that you would expect a VFL level midfielder playing to replace him would get about 15 touches a game therefore the "loss" is 347 touches not 672. Not a hard concept to understand.

But not literally Gallagher's scores but the more value concept of the statistical output of a replacement player who scores about 5.0 on average. More of a concept. But I'm using a practical player to give the example.

In other words its slightly incorrect to use raw totals when using statistics as a proxy for player value when comparing players who played a different number of games and most notably slightly undervalues Bontempelli.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

FYI....

View attachment 2407844

Battle should be a shoe in for the team, has had an awesome year.

Has been defending at a high level against talls and smalls, whilst being strong aerially and on the rebound. This also being done in a top 3 defense.

 

[RCAB]

We're not doing it this way, surely?

Why not?

%: Score involvements / Total team scores IS A MUCH BTTER measure than overall score involvements.

 

[rye]

Battle should be a shoe in for the team, has had an awesome year.

Has been defending at a high level against talls and smalls, whilst being strong aerially and on the rebound. This also being done in a top 3 defense.

he was borderline to make the squad let alone a shoo in for the team

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why not?

%: Score involvements / Total team scores IS A MUCH BTTER measure than overall score involvements.

Because it says nothing about the literal direct contribution to the scores.

Ed Richards kicked more of the goal himself and from more difficult locations on the ground than Daicos, in addition to the one step removed element of it than Daicos. Surely that's a far better measurement of a good season purely from a midfielder contributing to score perpsecive than what you're coming up with. However you frame score involvement statistics its all context dependent, except for when you kick the bloody goals yourself (Richards did).

 

[RCAB]

How if we are so shit Richards should be nowhere near superstar Nick

He's not.. It's like comparing Messi and a Perth Glory player.

Richards has been very good this season but still isn't the difference like Daicos or Bont.

The eye tests for me said those players make a massive impact when their on the field, and SI% suggests that too.

 

[Unique Name]

What's Jordan Clark

6

Jordan Clark

Age

25

Ht

185cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.7

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

4.3

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.6

4star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.5

3star

K

8.5

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

2star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.2

3star

K

10.4

4star

HB

1.8

2star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.4

4star

's chances?

He's been great for us but I haven't watch enough neutral games to comment on AA selection.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

What's Jordan Clark's chances?

He's been great for us but I haven't watch enough neutral games to comment on AA selection.

That's not even how it works for the guys picking the team.

(I think he's Freo's best chance by the way).

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Intercept marking, stopping ball movement/transition, covering space, setting up scores, rebounding. Lots really.

He does that aswell

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That's not even how it works for the guys picking the team.

(I think he's Freo's best chance by the way).

I'm sure Kane Cornes sits down and watches 20 hours of footy every week, I don't know what you're on about.

 

[RCAB]

Because it says nothing about the literal direct contribution to the scores.

Team percentage score involvements says nothing about the "literal direct" (whatever that means) contribution of scores? Wow. Outstanding.

 

[Fadge]

Putting player ratings aside.

I agree with you on not playing a game is adding nothing. Just that accounting for that nothing value by using totals is incorrect when comparing two players who played a different amount of games. Because a player's value when measured by statistics is not what they offer above zero, it's what they offer above what the statistics generated by the player that would have come in for him. Therefore in using raw totals, it slightly over-values the benefit of playing every game.

For example, Harvey Gallagher only started games for the Bulldogs in which Bontempelli didn't play. For the sake of argument lets call him Bontempelli's "replacement player" that came in to do the midfield role of Bont (he didn't but lets just use him for the sake of argument). He got player ratings scores of 4.0, 3.8 and 2.8, and only played because Bont didn't. Therefore we don't measure Bont's value-add against a score of 0, we measure it against Gallagher's average score of 3.5, the added-value over the fact that holding all things constant we can rely on Bont's scores of 19 and not Gallagher's scores of 3.5.

If Nick Daicos had done his ACL the day before the opening game of Round 0 the loss to Collingwood would have not been the loss of 672 disposals (for the sake of argument hold everything else in the team constant), the loss would be that you would expect a VFL level midfielder playing to replace him would get about 15 touches a game therefore the "loss" is 347 touches not 672. Not a hard concept to understand.

But not literally Gallagher's scores but the more value concept of the statistical output of a replacement player who scores about 5.0 on average. More of a concept. But I'm using a practical player to give the example.

In other words its slightly incorrect to use raw totals when using statistics as a proxy for player value when comparing players who played a different number of games and most notably slightly undervalues Bontempelli.

I understand what you're saying, but I completely disagree with the concept.

If a player misses a game, or games, their output on that game is zero. Non existent.

Players who are durable, play through duress, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.

That's why Daicos in 2023, despite being comfortably ahead of every other player in every individual award before his injury, fell back to the pack (and was even overtaken by Bont by the end of the home and away season) because he literally delivered NOTHING to the team during his period of injury. I can't reward him for the efforts of Ned Long, or Will Parker, or Fin McCrae, and argue that he remained the best player leading into the finals due to the efforts of his replacements over the last 3 weeks....

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I understand what you're saying, but I completely disagree with the concept.

If a player misses a game, or games, their output on that game is zero. Non existent.

Players who are durable, play through duress, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.

I want the All-Australian team to at least to try and measure the value of performance toward winning across an entire season in a conceptual sense, not to give random bonus brownie points for being "durable" irrespective of how it relates to increasing your chance of winning games to win the flag.

Durability is important, but only in the context that it helps your team win more games in the season if you're a good player that plays more.

I can't agree with you there. Because by your logic you can "reward" players for any vague AFL skill that helps a team win.

If a player misses a game, or games, their output on that game is zero. Non existent.

Players who are durable, play through duress, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.

If a player chooses to not kick off their non-preferred, their output by kicking on their opposite foot is zero. Non existent.

Players who can kick off both feet, and play games where they kick off both feet, and continue to deliver, are the ones who should be rewarded.

See how stupid it is? Nobody is pushing up a player because they hit more targets on their non-preferred, just that it's part of the overall skillset that eventually leads to the end goal of winning contribution. Whether that's kicking on your non preferred or having the agility to get onto your preferred, the end result of executing a kick is the same.

Whether you miss a few games and play at the league-best level, or you play every game and play slightly less than the league-best level, the end result of contributing to overall season wins is the same.