Goals not valued enough?

[RUNVS]

It is almost 3am but for some reason this annoys me.

Just looking at a random game, the North/Western Bulldogs game and I saw that Nick Larkey kicked 5.1 in the game, so 31 of Norths 97 points and yet according to Supercoach Larkey was only North Melbourne's 8th best player on the field.



and it gets even worse with AFL Fantasy as according to that Larkey, despite kicking almost 30% of North's points for the match was somehow rated as North's 15th best player.

Now this is not a dig at SuperCoach or AFL Fantasy as such, but more of a observation that the AFL just does not value goals as much as they should.

I would take Larkey's game over Corr's game every day of the week. Yes Corr's stats are pretty good, but he didn't kick 5 goals, Larkey did.

I think we fans, and especially the AFL media overvalue stats that midfielders get, getting huge stats in things like inside 50's, tackles, rebounds, clearances, things that good midfielders get a lot of, and we just don't value actual goals enough, you know, the thing that teams need to actually win games.

I think it is a problem with the Brownlow as well, umpires go for the midfielder who touched the ball 30 times, got 6 clearances and maybe a goal, but they ignore the forward who actually kicked a large amount of their teams score. Sure the big bags don't happen as much as they used to, but when a player kicks 5 goals in a match then that player should be seen as one of the best players on the field, not as the 8th, or the 15th best player, all because Larkey didn't get many inside 50's, tackles, or the other things the media or fantasy football like. What he got was goals, and that is surely more important.

No doubt the umpires won't be giving Larkey any Brownlow votes today either.

Does anyone else agree that the AFL just does not value goals enough?

 

[north_lad]

I'd take Corr's game....

...because it might get him dropped

 

[Rusty Brookes]

It's nothing new. Peter Hudson in 1971 kicked 7 or more goals 10 times in the H&A season. He was awarded votes in eight of the games and got the three in only four.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yep goals are not valued enough. We should make them worth 12 points and behinds worth 2 points to show we value them higher.

 

[HairyO]

OP is suggesting 8 goals is more important than 8 hard ball gets?

Crazy !!

 

[RUNVS]

OP is suggesting 8 goals is more important than 8 hard ball gets?

Crazy !!

Happened again yesterday. Despite kicking 4 goals Jesse Hogan was seen as GWS's 9th best player on the field, losing to Bedford who only got 13 disposals and 0 goals but also got 13 tackles in the game which means 13 tackles are worth more than 4 goals.

Or Amiss, who also got 4 goals but was somehow rated as Fremantle's 15th best player of the match.

 

[Headless]

We should make goals worth nine points instead.

We could call them "ZOOPER GOALS".

 

[RUNVS]

We should make goals worth nine points instead.

We could call them "ZOOPER GOALS".

More referring to how they are valued in the stats rather than the amount of points they are in a match.

 

[Headless]

More referring to how they are valued in the stats rather than the amount of points they are in a match.

We should make them worth 15 points in SuperCoach instead of nine.

We could call them "ZOOPER GOALS".

 

[RUNVS]

Also referring to it as a symptom of a greater issue, as the media does it too, they spend way too much time focusing on the midfielder who got 32 disposals and 7 inside 50's, maybe 5 clearances and they forget about the player who actually kicked 30 of their teams points.

 

[Cyclops]

More referring to how they are valued in the stats rather than the amount of points they are in a match.

Yes, stats are usually bulldust, and commentators often oversimplify the play.

Champion Data demonstrates this, they're trying to flog their stats packages as a scientific tool for punters, but they had the Pies losing most games in 22/23 on expected score.

They had to "tweak the algorithm" because, well, their system is bulldust. Stats are subjective: the only numbers that matter is the final score.

 

[The Terrible Thinker]

In terms of AFL award ceremonies, midfielders (Brownlow medal) & forwards (Coventry medal) both get recognized but not the defenders. Should there be an official award for the best defender?

In terms of fantasy stats, could goals per player be scaled up for multiple goals kicked?

 

[Breretonisahood]

It is almost 3am but for some reason this annoys me.

Just looking at a random game, the North/Western Bulldogs game and I saw that Nick Larkey kicked 5.1 in the game, so 31 of Norths 97 points and yet according to Supercoach Larkey was only North Melbourne's 8th best player on the field.

View attachment 2251164

and it gets even worse with AFL Fantasy as according to that Larkey, despite kicking almost 30% of North's points for the match was somehow rated as North's 15th best player.

Now this is not a dig at SuperCoach or AFL Fantasy as such, but more of a observation that the AFL just does not value goals as much as they should.

I would take Larkey's game over Corr's game every day of the week. Yes Corr's stats are pretty good, but he didn't kick 5 goals, Larkey did.

I think we fans, and especially the AFL media overvalue stats that midfielders get, getting huge stats in things like inside 50's, tackles, rebounds, clearances, things that good midfielders get a lot of, and we just don't value actual goals enough, you know, the thing that teams need to actually win games.

I think it is a problem with the Brownlow as well, umpires go for the midfielder who touched the ball 30 times, got 6 clearances and maybe a goal, but they ignore the forward who actually kicked a large amount of their teams score. Sure the big bags don't happen as much as they used to, but when a player kicks 5 goals in a match then that player should be seen as one of the best players on the field, not as the 8th, or the 15th best player, all because Larkey didn't get many inside 50's, tackles, or the other things the media or fantasy football like. What he got was goals, and that is surely more important.

No doubt the umpires won't be giving Larkey any Brownlow votes today either.

Does anyone else agree that the AFL just does not value goals enough?

As many others have noted it’s all Champion Data stats driven. A goal is a goal. But possessions can be sliced and diced down to all sorts of sub categories like “most contested possessions outside the forward 50 by players with a boil on they’re neck while the moon is in Uranus” so that the media can appear smart by drawing clever conclusions from it.

 

[Orange crush]

Happened again yesterday. Despite kicking 4 goals Jesse Hogan was seen as GWS's 9th best player on the field, losing to Bedford who only got 13 disposals and 0 goals but also got 13 tackles in the game which means 13 tackles are worth more than 4 goals.

Or Amiss, who also got 4 goals but was somehow rated as Fremantle's 15th best player of the match.

Didn’t Bedford kick 2 goals as well?

Amiss’ goals were also all in absolute junk time

 

[RUNVS]

Didn’t Bedford kick 2 goals as Les as well?

Amiss’ goals were also all in absolute junk time

Missed the Bedford goals on my phone so I stand corrected on that point.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Missed the Bedford goals on my phone so I stand corrected on that point.

You think all goals should attract equal points to the goal kicker in player ratings?

 

[RUNVS]

You think all goals should attract equal points to the goal kicker in player ratings?

I agree with an earlier poster that goals should get increased super coach points after every goal.

So

1 goal - 10 points
2 goals - 15 points
3 goals - 20 points
4 goals - 25 points
5 goals - 30 points

so a 5 goal haul is 100 points at a minimum.

I also think the media needs to pay more attention to players who kick goals. A poster was right that midfielders can compound their points and make their stats look way better.

What is a single kick, can also add to their stats as a clearance, an inside 50 and then a goal assist, so 1 kick can lead to 4 different kinds of points all adding up together.

Key Forwards don't get these sort of compound points.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I agree with an earlier poster that goals should get increased super coach points after every goal.

So

1 goal - 10 points
2 goals - 15 points
3 goals - 20 points
4 goals - 25 points
5 goals - 30 points

so a 5 goal haul is 100 points at a minimum.

I also think the media needs to pay more attention to players who kick goals. A poster was right that midfielders can compound their points and make their stats look way better.

What is a single kick, can also add to their stats as a clearance, an inside 50 and then a goal assist, so 1 kick can lead to 4 different kinds of points all adding up together.

Key Forwards don't get these sort of compound points.

So a Joe the goose goal that is the player’s 5th should attract 3x as many points as a great contested goal does if it is a player’s first?

 

[RUNVS]

So a Joe the goose goal that is the player’s 5th should attract 3x as many points as a great contested goal does if it is a player’s first?

Yes, as it is harder to kick 2 goals than 1, harder to kick 3 goals than 2, harder to kick 4 goals than 3 and so on.

I think you will agree that kicking 5 or more goals is harder than a midfielder getting 30+ disposals, and players who kick bags of goals should get rewarded in ways they do not right now.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes, as it is harder to kick 2 goals than 1, harder to kick 3 goals than 2, harder to kick 4 goals than 3 and so on.

I think you will agree that kicking 5 or more goals is harder than a midfielder getting 30+ disposals, and players who kick bags of goals should get rewarded in ways they do not right now.

By that logic wouldn’t it also be harder to get 30 disposals than 20, 5 tackles than 4 etc?

 

[RUNVS]

By that logic wouldn’t it also be harder to get 30 disposals than 20, 5 tackles than 4 etc?

So looking at the first post, do you agree Larkey should only be rated as the 8th best player for North that day, or 15th if you go by Fantasy Points?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So looking at the first post, do you agree Larkey should only be rated as the 8th best player for North that day, or 15th if you go by Fantasy Points?

I didn’t see most of the game, he looked to be playing well the bits I saw.

Thilthorpe was the highest rated player. 3 goals + 2 assists. 1 tackle 8 pressure acts. 2 contested marks. 6 contested possessions. 17 disposals 82% efficiency.

Larkey 5 goals 0 assists. 0 tackles 4 pressure acts. 1 contested mark 6 contested possessions. 11 disposals 73% efficiency.

What you are asking for is Larkey is rated higher than Thilthorpe here. I think that would likely not be right.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Happened again yesterday. Despite kicking 4 goals Jesse Hogan was seen as GWS's 9th best player on the field, losing to Bedford who only got 13 disposals and 0 goals but also got 13 tackles in the game which means 13 tackles are worth more than 4 goals.

Or Amiss, who also got 4 goals but was somehow rated as Fremantle's 15th best player of the match.

Amiss played possibly the worst 4 goal game of all time! Luckily he has a knack for getting shots on goal from minimal involvement.

 

[SC_Power]

As many others have noted it’s all Champion Data stats driven. A goal is a goal. But possessions can be sliced and diced down to all sorts of sub categories like “most contested possessions outside the forward 50 by players with a boil on they’re neck while the moon is in Uranus” so that the media can appear smart by drawing clever conclusions from it.

By “conclusions”, what that really is for the media is correlating the score with the stats that the winning team “won”. Virtually none as predictive, or even causal, mostly just correlation.

Last year, in successive weeks I heard from the expert Ch 7 commentary teams that “Port Adelaide won because they played their brand of football taking on kicks through the centre of the ground” and “Port Adelaide lost because they tried to play through the centre of the ground”.

 

[Mr Meow]

In terms of AFL award ceremonies, midfielders (Brownlow medal) & forwards (Coventry medal) both get recognized but not the defenders. Should there be an official award for the best defender?

In terms of fantasy stats, could goals per player be scaled up for multiple goals kicked?

A Brownlow style award but only for defenders would be interesting. Still a 3-2-1 system each game but you can only pick defenders. I imagine the most midfielder-like players - prolific rebounding back flankers - would dominate, but we'd end up with quite an interesting top 10 and 20 leaderboard.