Preview Changes Round 9 vs Zak B

[Optimistic Dog]

Our first winnable game in 4 weeks. We put up a good fight but did not get over the line.

Bont must play for us to have a chance.

Ins Budarick , Baker, Jacques and Smith
Outs VDM inj. Dolan, Emmett, Davidson must all be dropped collectively cost us the game against dockers.

 

[BEaston]

They are the actual stats from each of those games for scores from stoppage. Actual damage caused from stoppage.

A hacked clearance from stoppage does not cause the damage as a hitout to a player on the move in space.

Statistical facts not argument show clearly that when English went down our hit outs at stoppage plumeted and we went from winning scores from stoppage to losing quite comfortably.. with English back it closed except for when he was not there and we lost hit outs 30 to 2

I understand what the stat is.

My point that you seem to be missing is that the ruck is just the start of the scoring chain? The ball then travels through x number of players hands to the goal. By losing half our team to injury, that affects every single follow on possession between the ruck contest and the eventual score. ie if Lobb/JOD is contesting the resultant F50 aerial contests instead of Gardner, does the chain still result in a goal... ? I'm saying you can't use it as some catchall stat for the rucking argument.

It's not really a definitive argument to say scoring from contests changed because English was out, when there are many, many other factors at play in the scoring chain. I understand your general argument for the ruck discussion - I just don't think the numbers you're using align with your premise. When you look at hit outs and clearances won (stats that are more closely aligned to the actual rucks performance) during the same period, it shows they were not really related at all - the difference in scoring indicates that we were just poorer all over the field across those weeks.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I understand what the stat is.

My point that you seem to be missing is that the ruck is just the start of the scoring chain? The ball then travels through x number of players hands to the goal. By losing half our team to injury, that affects every single follow on possession between the ruck contest and the eventual score. ie if Lobb/JOD is contesting the resultant F50 aerial contests instead of Gardner, does the chain still result in a goal... ? I'm saying you can't use it as some catchall stat for the rucking argument.

It's not really a definitive argument to say scoring from contests changed because English was out, when there are many, many other factors at play in the scoring chain. I understand your general argument for the ruck discussion - I just don't think the numbers you're using align with your premise. When you look at hit outs and clearances won (stats that are more closely aligned to the actual rucks performance) during the same period, it shows they were not really related at all - the difference in scoring indicates that we were just poorer all over the field across those weeks.

Yep.

The only stat we have is that we're clear rank 18 by a huge margin in contested marking differential - which would make a difference in scores for both teams from both stoppage and turnover.

It's the clear and most obvious weakness we need to address and yet Lachie Smith isn't going to make us any stronger as a contested marking team - he would make us weaker - than Emmett.

Smith has averaged less than 2 marks a game of all types since the start of 2025 in the VFL to go with his 1 mark in the 1 AFL game he played and 0 marks in the VFL game he played since. We're not going to lift ourselves off 18th on the contested marking ladder via more contested marks than the opposition because of Lachie Smith. Despite his key position height, he has shown zero ability whatsoever at any level of senior football an ability to positively influence how many contested marks either team gets.

 

[scratchie]

Have you watched his 4 games yet?

Kid needs 15kg before he’s ready

I ve said it before and l will say again - playing Emmett week after week is criminal. He needs VFL games to regain confidence and time to develop.

If you don’t want to play smith than Gardner can play second ruck.

 

[Palace03]

Emmett has to come out his week, its completely irresponsible to manage a young person in his first year of AFL this way, they are ruining him currently. Play Smith and let Emmett and Croft develop in the VFL. Dolan is also a mile off, send him back and let him build confidence also. Davidson and Gallagher were also poor but there isn't anyone else to bring in.

In: Smith, Baker, Buderick
Out: Emmett, VDM, Dolan

 

[BigFloppa]

Stop trying to make Smith happen. It isn't going to happen

 

[Foxman98]

Stop trying to make Smith happen. It isn't going to happen

Zac Walker in the ruck has to happen he took more marks then Smith

 

[lachy]

Zac Walker in the ruck has to happen he took more marks then Smith

More contested marks I would hope. You know those that have little to no impact on scores from stoppage which occur with space created and any marks are generally uncontested moving the ball cleanly away from stoppage

 

[BrisDog]

Zac Walker in the ruck has to happen he took more marks then Smith

Zac Walker is a prototype of Michael Sellwood - only taller.

His Mum is not a 12 though

 

[BEaston]

More contested marks I would hope. You know those that have little to no impact on scores from stoppage which occur with space created and any marks are generally uncontested moving the ball cleanly away from stoppage

Score source just means where the ball originated from in that scoring chain. You seem to think Stoppage scoring means it's when you get a score directly out of a stoppage that just occurred. No, there could be several contested marks in a chain which begun as a stoppage.

I would think contested marks are probably more likely to have an impact on a scoring chain with stoppage as the source, as opposed turnover or kick in. When you consider that a lot of first possession from stoppage is dirty, contested marking is probably more of a factor with quick kicks out of congestion.

It would make sense that contested marking is least likely to impact turnover scoring source as it can often catch teams out of defensive position which would result in relatively more uncontested marks.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Score source just means where the ball originated from in that scoring chain. You seem to think Stoppage scoring means it's when you get a score directly out of a stoppage that just occurred. No, there could be several contested marks in a chain which begun as a stoppage.

I would think contested marks are probably more likely to have an impact on a scoring chain with stoppage as the source, as opposed turnover or kick in. When you consider that a lot of first possession from stoppage is dirty, contested marking is probably more of a factor with quick kicks out of congestion.

It would make sense that contested marking is least likely to impact turnover scoring source as it can often catch teams out of defensive position which would result in relatively more uncontested marks.

I think contested marking impacts the turnover game more. Because clearance wins, when they occur clean, often aren't contests. For example, just short of 40% of a game's clearances are actually centre clearance - where the team that wins has a clean 6-6-6 where a pack forming is not that important. By definition, a 1st ruck's ability to influence the game in packs in the general flow of play cannot occur out of the 26 centre bounces a game, other than rare cases, for instance, in a ruck free kick where a midfielder mans the mark and the defensive ruck pushes back.

There are only 43 clearance situations a game this year that are not centre bounces - below last year's 51, with the new rule changes.

That means the ability of having a ruckman who is good at contested marking in pack situations (such as if you keep your 1st ruck a kick behind play with an attacking stoppage) is less important this year, than last year.

I would argue that a player like English' ability, relative to Smith, to influence pack marking situations is far more critical in the turnover game, where English often beats his direct ruck opponent to that pack, both offensively and defensively, when the ball is pinging back and forth via turnover.

 

[BEaston]

I think contested marking impacts the turnover game more. Because clearance wins, when they occur clean, often aren't contests. For example, just short of 40% of a game's clearances are actually centre clearance - where the team that wins has a clean 6-6-6 where a pack forming is not that important. By definition, a 1st ruck's ability to influence the game in packs in the general flow of play cannot occur out of the 26 centre bounces a game, other than rare cases, for instance, in a ruck free kick where a midfielder mans the mark and the defensive ruck pushes back.

There are only 43 clearance situations a game this year that are not centre bounces - below last year's 51, with the new rule changes.

That means the ability of having a ruckman who is good at contested marking in pack situations (such as if you keep your 1st ruck a kick behind play with an attacking stoppage) is less important this year, than last year.

I would argue that a player like English' ability, relative to Smith, to influence pack marking situations is far more critical in the turnover game, where English often beats his direct ruck opponent to that pack, both offensively and defensively, when the ball is pinging back and forth via turnover.

I'm not talking about rucks, just in general.

I could be wrong but in my mind scoring from turnover/sling shots is going to have a relatively less likelihood to include a contested mark as opposed to contested situations where defences have time to setup behind the ball.
Even if a clearance is clean, it's more likely the defender is in a position to defend enough to make a contest, rather than say a midfield turnover having defenders out of position and the attacking team running back towards goal in empty space.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm not talking about rucks, just in general.

I could be wrong but in my mind scoring from turnover/sling shots is going to have a relatively less likelihood to include a contested mark as opposed to contested situations where defences have time to setup behind the ball.

Not all turnovers are slingshots though. Plenty of them a game (like, as many as 15-20% of a team's kicks inside 50) are intercept marks. Clearly, other team's ability to move that possession into an eventual score the full length of the ground has involved that team contested outmarking us in the nature of that successful full length ground ball movement, not just "slingshotting it" via open space.

In fact, you can argue outside of the contested marking situation, we've been very good. For instance, or pressure on the opposition ball carrier outside of marking situations has been good, we apply the 2nd most pressure acts per disposal of any team in the league. It's just that when we apply that pressure, and then they're forced to kick to a contested marking situation because of that pressure (after a turnover), the other team are bailed out in that marking situation by outmarking us in a contested mark. And it's just not all that common via a clearance loss, because we are only losing around 25 clearances a game anyway (as opposed to around 70 turnovers a game).

As others have pointed out a lack of contested intercept marking via our style of defenders, who prefer to spoil, is a weakness. English covers for them, but it's also good to have a good 2nd ruck that covers for English when English is resting or needing to play forward so we fill the same structure.

 

[lachy]

Score source just means where the ball originated from in that scoring chain. You seem to think Stoppage scoring means it's when you get a score directly out of a stoppage that just occurred. No, there could be several contested marks in a chain which begun as a stoppage.

I would think contested marks are probably more likely to have an impact on a scoring chain with stoppage as the source, as opposed turnover or kick in. When you consider that a lot of first possession from stoppage is dirty, contested marking is probably more of a factor with quick kicks out of congestion.

It would make sense that contested marking is least likely to impact turnover scoring source as it can often catch teams out of defensive position which would result in relatively more uncontested marks.

Given I have actually been a stoppage coach at senior level I do have a pretty good idea as to how scores from stoppage work and why they are important as they are a result of being able to directly transition from the stoppage wherever it is, and is generally uncontested from spread and rarely from quick kicks out of stoppage.

We have been poor with turnover as we often chose the wrong option, lack movement or just pure skill error.

In last weeks game between the 2 teams there we 12 contested marks in total and 156 marks meaning 144 uncontested marks. If that does not demonstrate the absolute nonsense that contested marks have any impact at all from scores from stoppage when there were 16 goals 11 scored from stoppage I give up trying to explain how things actually work.

The only correlation from us winning to us losing was we went from winning scores from stoppage to losing them when we started to get hammered in ruck contests at stoppage. That doesn't mean we win if we turn that around, we just give ourselves a better chance

 

[Cookie]

There has to be some explanation for the drop off of Frejiah and West, and the stagnation of Dolan, Cleary, Hynes, and Davidson. I can't put my finger on it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Given I have actually been a stoppage coach at senior level I do have a pretty good idea as to how scores from stoppage work and why they are important as they are a result of being able to directly transition from the stoppage wherever it is, and is generally uncontested from spread and rarely from quick kicks out of stoppage.

We have been poor with turnover as we often chose the wrong option, lack movement or just pure skill error.

In last weeks game between the 2 teams there we 12 contested marks in total and 156 marks meaning 144 uncontested marks. If that does not demonstrate the absolute nonsense that contested marks have any impact at all from scores from stoppage when there were 16 goals 11 scored from stoppage I give up trying to explain how things actually work.

The only correlation from us winning to us losing was we went from winning scores from stoppage to losing them when we started to get hammered in ruck contests at stoppage. That doesn't mean we win if we turn that around, we just give ourselves a better chance

Ultimately though what we're trying to measure is the stoppage's importance on the game.

Scores from stoppages (either for or against) have caused 39% of the scores in our games - but that includes the fact that we haven't been able to ruck a fit English, Lobb or Darcy for a majority of the season.

That compared to the league average scores from stoppages of ... 38%

That suggests to me that provided that English is fit and firing (which he should be for the rest of the season), there is no particular evidence that stoppages are more important for us than the league in general.

The role of the player, whoever they are that is doing the second most rucking in a game beyond English be considered valuable or not by how they can influence contested marking situations generally on the field.

Smith isn't a contested marking player and his selection is not going to help us rise from that -5.5, rank 18 differential.

 

[lachy]

Ultimately though what we're trying to measure is the stoppage's importance on the game.

Scores from stoppages (either for or against) have caused 39% of the scores in our games - but that includes the fact that we haven't been able to ruck a fit English, Lobb or Darcy for a majority of the season.

That compared to the league average scores from stoppages of ... 38%

That suggests to me that provided that English is fit and firing (which he should be for the rest of the season), there is no particular evidence that stoppages are more important for us than the league in general.

The role of the player, whoever they are that is doing the second most rucking in a game beyond English be considered valuable or not by how they can influence contested marking situations generally on the field.

Smith isn't a contested marking player and his selection is not going to help us rise from that -5.5, rank 18 differential.

No its not at all. Certain facets of the game are controlled by dominance in a particular area. Hitout dominance at stoppage has a direct correlation to scores from stoppage, statistics clearly support this. When English went out we had the option to either move Lobb into the ruck, bring in Smith who is at least competitive in the area or Emmett who is no where near ready yet. We chose Emmett, and you only need to look at the period of time Lobb rucked against Hawthorn the importance of the role. The choice now to back up English is between Smith and no one, they don't exist unless you want to crucify Emmett instead of letting him go back to the VFL to develop into what looks like a very good KPP.

This rubbish about marking with the stand rule, last touch rule is a non issue given contested marking has dropped to around 10% of total marks taken. Those taking the most marks in the competition are those involved in chipping around the backline or intercept mark players. In fact only Wilkie and Allir average double figure marks a game.

The highest ranked key forward for total marks is Mitch Lewis in 10th. The next 2 are Jake Waterman and Josh Tracey at 20 and 21 respectively. The only other forward in the entire top 50 are Mitch Georgiadis at 29 and Jeremy Cameron at 30. Marking is now part of the uncontested game and is not the domain. The highest ranked ruckman is Peter Wright at 144 averaging 4.38 marks a game

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hitout dominance at stoppage has a direct correlation to scores from stoppage, statistics clearly support this.

Does it though?

The most groundbreaking research on the topic suggests otherwise (unless you have a player like Aaron Sandilands as your first ruck but that isn't true for all rucks in general)

https://www.rankingsoftware.com/research/MeasurementOfLuckInSport.pdf

The above graphic shows that there was a direct correlation to the greater resources put into investing into winning centre clearances, the less beneficial those centre clearances were (except for Fremantle, who via Sandilands didn't have to put much "effort" into winning the clearance).

Hawks also broke the trend because they were the only team in the league that were thinking about how to set up their centre clearance not as something that should have resources invested in to win, but rather, how you should set up your play if the umpire literally just flipped a coin and handed the ball to either ruck.

Part of the reason why the Hawks won the 2014 flag because they understood that centre clearances are generally luck that you can't control either way (except if you're Aaron Sandilands) and thus they had an advantage to all other teams in the league generally in being better at them in centre clearances.

 

[lachy]

Does it though?

The most groundbreaking research on the topic suggests otherwise (unless you have a player like Aaron Sandilands as your first ruck but that isn't true for all rucks in general)

https://www.rankingsoftware.com/research/MeasurementOfLuckInSport.pdf

The above graphic shows that there was a direct correlation to the greater resources put into investing into winning centre clearances, the less beneficial those centre clearances were (except for Fremantle, who via Sandilands didn't have to put much "effort" into winning the clearance).

Hawks also broke the trend because they were the only team in the league that were thinking about how to set up their centre clearance not as something that should have resources invested in to win, but rather, how you should set up your play if the umpire literally just flipped a coin and handed the ball to either ruck.

Part of the reason why the Hawks won the 2014 flag because they understood that centre clearances are generally luck that you can't control either way (except if you're Aaron Sandilands) and thus they had an advantage to all other teams in the league generally in being better at them in centre clearances.

You do understand that this discuasion is about stoppage. Centre bounce is around 25 to 30% at most of stoppage. In our game where both teams scored over 100 points there were 36 centre bounce stoppages 96 in total. The Adelaide game there was 26 centre bounce 106 in total.

The new rule only applies to the centre bounce so any past review on that metric would ne dubious.

Scores from centre bounce stoppage are actually percentage wise lower, or were. It is the contests after the centre bounce that can create greater opportunity.

We were very good in thos area when Darc rucked the forward line and English the back with help from Lobb when he did not have a match up.

There are always other factors but hardly ever does a team loses if they.score 2 goals plus more from stoppage. 0nly 1 team on weekend lost winning the score from stoppage. Port Adelaide who lost after the siren and won that stat by 8 points.

There is a reason all AFL teams, State League teams and top clubs in local football all have assistamt coaches who look after stoppage

 

[bresker]

The two AFL clubs turning ruck rule changes into gold

It comes as a surprise given these two sides don't possess top-tier ruckmen.

www.zerohanger.com

A breakdown of centre-ball up scores (points)​

	2026	2025	Difference
Brisbane	18.4 (1st)	8.3 (16th)	10.1
Carlton	16.9 (3nd)	11.2 (10th)	5.7
Sydney	15.3 (4th)	9.8 (14th)	5.5
St Kilda	15.0 (5th)	10 (13th)	5
West Coast	10.4 (14th)	6 (18th)	4.4
Essendon	12.4 (8th)	9.1 (15th)	3.3
Gold Coast	16.9 (2nd)	14.2 (3rd)	2.7
Geelong	14.9 (6th)	13.4 (4th)	1.5
Collingwood	12.1 (9th)	10.7 (12th)	1.4
Richmond	8.3 (18th)	7.2 (17th)	1.1
Adelaide	10.9 (12th)	10.8 (11th)	-0.1
Fremantle	11.7 (10th)	12 (8th)	-0.3
Port Adelaide	9.7 (17th)	11.6 (9th)	-1.9
Hawthorn	10.1 (16th)	13.1 (5th)	-2
GWS	10.6 (13th)	12.8 (6th)	-2.2
Melbourne	10.1 (15th)	12.3 (7th)	-2.2
Western Bulldogs	14.6 (7th)	17.2 (1st)	-2.6
North Melbourne	11.6 (11th)	14.7 (2nd)	-3.1

(Data provided by WheeloRatings)
The Western Bulldogs' fall from grace as the best centre bounce team last year to middle of the table is damning, but can be explained by Tim English's absence, as well as Tom Liberatore in recent weeks.
Not too mention the void left by Sam Darcy up forward.

 

[Frewy]

There has to be some explanation for the drop off of Frejiah and West, and the stagnation of Dolan, Cleary, Hynes, and Davidson. I can't put my finger on it.

Both Hynes and Dolan have actually elevated their game significantly at AFL level this season at almost double the output.

Freijah is pretty much on par from his output last year and West looked to be just lacking form and hopefully turned a corner against Freo.

For sure Davidson is not looking at his best right now, could be anything, injury niggle, team orders etc whilst Cleary seems to be operating more or less the same at VFL level which probably isn't enough to force his way in at the moment.

Baker in for Vandermeer and Budarick in if he gets up obviously. With the role players I'm not super invested in the changes be it 0 or 4 couldn't care less other than the obvious to say it's not ideal to be playing either Emmett or Smith and happy for Bevo to do something weird on that front if it holds another mid for backend run.

 

[TheScriptorWL]

Freijah is pretty much on par from his output last year

Makes sense. Freijah is fighting expectations this year; last year he was a sleeping revelation that came alive and surprised everyone. Fair or not, once you show your top-end game-breaking capacity, that's the standard you're held to from there on. He'll come good.

 

[lachy]

Thanks Bresker. Shows barely 2 goals a game a scored from centre stoppage. We scored 7 goals 5 and Freo scored 9 goals 6 from stoppage this weekend alone.

Shows the new centre bounce rule has been overated and if any team is scoring heavily from centre bounce what are your 3 best mids actually doing

 

[BEaston]

Given I have actually been a stoppage coach at senior level I do have a pretty good idea as to how scores from stoppage work and why they are important as they are a result of being able to directly transition from the stoppage wherever it is, and is generally uncontested from spread and rarely from quick kicks out of stoppage.

We have been poor with turnover as we often chose the wrong option, lack movement or just pure skill error.

In last weeks game between the 2 teams there we 12 contested marks in total and 156 marks meaning 144 uncontested marks. If that does not demonstrate the absolute nonsense that contested marks have any impact at all from scores from stoppage when there were 16 goals 11 scored from stoppage I give up trying to explain how things actually work.

The only correlation from us winning to us losing was we went from winning scores from stoppage to losing them when we started to get hammered in ruck contests at stoppage. That doesn't mean we win if we turn that around, we just give ourselves a better chance

apologies, the way you talked about it seemed otherwise.

1. Nobody is saying they're not important.
2. Of course there are a lot less contested than uncontested marks (nobody would argue otherwise). They are rare in the game so are going to have a lower volumetric impact - that is clear.
3. Your point was they were less impactful in scores from stoppage, relative to the other sources no? I've seen no points made (or data) that support that. You would need to breakdown each scoring chain with how many contested marks per type. Is this available? Or is your point that they're just not useful at all? It's hard to tell as often your points made can somewhat differ to your overarching argument.
4. If you're acknowledging that the ruck is only the start of the scoring chain, why are you placing such a high importance on the ruck contest which could be many possessions prior to the actual score in the chain?
5. Really, that was the only correlation you could find bewteen our wins and losses? I just had a quick look on wheelo and found heaps of stats which changed between our wins and losses this year. A common thread on a few of those stats was our transition defence which has fallen off a cliff.

I was actually with you in wanting Smith selected in the team (although wasn't going to die in a ditch over it), just find the arguments provided are not really coherent or potentially just false.

 

[lachy]

apologies, the way you talked about it seemed otherwise.

1. Nobody is saying they're not important.
2. Of course there are a lot less contested than uncontested marks (nobody would argue otherwise). They are rare in the game so are going to have a lower volumetric impact - that is clear.
3. Your point was they were less impactful in scores from stoppage, relative to the other sources no? I've seen no points made (or data) that support that. You would need to breakdown each scoring chain with how many contested marks per type. Is this available? Or is your point that they're just not useful at all? It's hard to tell as often your points made can somewhat differ to your overarching argument.
4. If you're acknowledging that the ruck is only the start of the scoring chain, why are you placing such a high importance on the ruck contest which could be many possessions prior to the actual score in the chain?
5. Really, that was the only correlation you could find bewteen our wins and losses? I just had a quick look on wheelo and found heaps of stats which changed between our wins and losses this year. A common thread on a few of those stats was our transition defence which has fallen off a cliff.

I was actually with you in wanting Smith selected in the team (although wasn't going to die in a ditch over it), just find the arguments provided are not really coherent or potentially just false.

I will start with 3.
The point is in total less than 10% of marks are now contested, and usually they are a get out kick. The volume as evidenced by 12 contested marks in an entire game where 16 goals 11 were scored from stoppage shows clearly they are relarely a part of scores from stoppage. For example 2 of our 3 contested marks were intercept marks by Coffield. Given we only had 1 more contested mark yet scored 7 goals 6 from stoppage, their is little to know impact

point 4. The ruck contest at stoppage is only effective if it is to advantage and creates spread which often leads to score from that stoppage. If you break even You have a chance, when smashed 28 to 2 as Emmett was or we have been since English is out, only then does it become critical.

Point 5. Our injuries are significant. I should have said that is the one correlation you can adjust. Dale being put of form, Budarick injured lack of movement forward of the ball requires multiple changes

I only want Smith selected and not Emmett for multiple reasons including Emmett's development and to get competetive where we have become very uncompetetive and it is effecting our results. I would prefer Lobb, Darcy and even a fit Croft to Smith this week but they are not available