How many tackles should Dustin Martin have been awarded against Adelaide?

[JDavey]

This conversation spawned out of whether or not Dusty was KOTD weekend and got out of hand very quickly. My original post looking at Dusty's second half score is here:

I'm glad you asked about points, scaling and weighing. My exact argument is that Martin has been scaled up for no good reason, and it shows in his score.
Lets look at Dustys HT to FT SC scores.

1st Half: DT: 80, SC: 84
Stats: Kicks - 13, HB 4, MK 2, Tackle 3, Goals 3, CP 9, CL 6, Clanger 1, DE 70, FF -, FA 1

2nd Half: DT: 47, SC 76
Stats: Kicks - 6, HB 2, MK, 1, Tackle 4, Goals 2, CP 5, CL 1, Clanger 3, DE 87.5, FF -, FA 2

Supercoach 84 | 76
Disposals 17 | 8
Kicks 13 | 6
Handballs 4 | 2
Marks 2 | 1
Tackles 3 | 4
Goals 3 | 2
CP 9 | 5
Clearances 6 | 1
Clanger 1 | 3
DE 70 | 88
Free Against 1 | 2

Now lets go through each of those touches.

Q3. 5 Possessions - 29.5 SC points (should've been 21.5 SC points) - Tigers lose qtr by 10 points
Possession 1 (3 points)
Contested possession (intercepts crow handball) - 3 points
Kick to contest (short) (centre clearance) - 0 points

Possession 2 (9.5 points)
Uncontested handball receive - 1.5 points
Long effective kick to i50 - 5 points
Score assist - 3 points

Possession 3 (4.5 points)
Uncontested handball receive - 1.5 points
Effective kick (short) - 3 points

Tackle (4 points)
Watch the replay, they call this a tackle on CEY and its clearly not. Shouldn't have gotten points for this

Free Against (-4 points)

One Percenter/Turnover (8 points)
Tackle - 4 points - once again, this wasn't a tackle
Knock on to advantage - 4 points

Possession 4 (4.5 points)
Uncontested handball receive - 1.5 point
Effective kick (short) - 3 points

Q4. 5 Possessions - 40 SC points (should've been 32 SC points)- Tigers lose qtr by 14 points
Possession 5 (13 points)
Contested mark I50 - 4 points
Kick - 3 points
Goal - 6 points (Score after goal - 91 v 75)

Tackle (4 points)
Third non tackle he is given points for, he TOUCHES CEY's arm and that counts as a tackle apparently

Possession 6 (10.5 points)
Uncontested handball receive - 1.5 point
Kick - 3 points
Goal - 6 points (Score after goal - 91 v 82)

Possession 7 (3 points)
Uncontested handball receive - 1.5 point
Effective handball - 1.5 point

Tackle (4 points)
Fourth non-tackle award points, he touches CEY's hips as CEY handballs/falls to the ground

Free Against (0 points)
Hardball Get - 4 points
FA - -4 points

Possession 8 (5.5 points)
Looseball Get - 4 points
Effective handball - 1.5 point


Conclusion:
I can only seem to find 70 SC points for Dusty's second half according to the AFL statistics and their replays. Once you adjust for the four incorrect tackles it should've been 54 points. Yet amazingly he ended up with 76 points for the half!

Now sure, you can argue that the score of his first half contributed to the second half via scaling. And that is a legitimate argument, however, given he was also gifted 16 points from non-existent tackles in one half alone and the fact the Tigers got pumped by 36 and it doesn't appear his second half score had much scaling go the other way I don't buy it.

Remember he had a +33 DT/SC game differential, when other Tigers who had great first halves weren't scaled up by similarly crazy amounts (e.g. Nankervis +10 , Caddy -1). Match winners Josh Jenkins (+1 DT/SC) and Laird (-21 DT/SC) didn't receive super scaling, Dusty's direct opponent CEY copped it hard (-24 DT/SC).

So yes, a +22 SC point half on what he should've scored seems completely off, and that isn't even looking at the first half of the game.
Don't worry though, definitely all in my head and 100% NOT KOTD

And now for a review of Dusty's tackles:

 

[iDon]

You sir really need a shag.

 

[JDavey]

You sir really need a shag.

My first kids on the way but now you mention it I'm not sure if its mine?

 

[iDon]

My first kids on the way but now you mention it I'm not sure if its mine?

Probably dustys.

 

[JDavey]

Probably dustys.

Stiff armed again - 12 points

+4 tackle
+4 hardball get
+4 contested possession

 

[stevebbb]

Nice post, really shows how BS it is. Was it necessary though? I didn't follow the convo in the other thread, but don't we all know the big name players are KOTD?

CD score from the commentary more so than from watching the watch

Whenever they hear a "Ooohh look at that from Dusty" it's an immediate +5 points, even if that was just McAvaney accidentally turning his mic on when he ducks off to the toilet for some alone time

 

[JDavey]

Nice post, really shows how BS it is. Was it necessary though? I didn't follow the convo in the other thread, but don't we all know the big name players are KOTD?

CD score from the commentary more so than from watching the watch

Whenever they hear a "Ooohh look at that from Dusty" it's an immediate +5 points, even if that was just McAvaney accidentally turning his mic on when he ducks off to the toilet for some alone time

Isn't it on us as fans of the game and lovers of supercoach to keep them honest?

 

[atlas1]

0 tackles

 

[iobjectsir]

Out of those 7, only one I would seriously question is number #4, as Ellis-Yolmen retains possession of the ball. For all others, Martin causes either a direct turnover or neutral ball through his pressure acts. Champion data ranges pressure acts to different degrees, which attract different scoring levels:

"Weighted sum of pressure acts. Under the Champion Data pressure point scoring system physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing pressure acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing pressure acts are worth 1.50 points, and corralling pressure acts which are worth 1.20 points."

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/fec6e07372d94c646dc3d91f893fbb3f

Champion Data's definition of a "tackle" is ALOT different to that of the average spectator, which is where the confusion comes in scoring. I know it does look a bit KOTD, as some of Dusty's "tackles" are very questionable, but in theory, the majority of those 7 are physical acts of pressure which result in direct turnovers, hence why they are classified as tackles. The AFL's definition of tackle supports this:

"When a player stops an opposition player with possession of the ball from getting his kick or handball away in a legal manner, or reduces the effectiveness of the opposition's disposal. The tackler's action must change the course of play."

Something else to note is the SC scoring guide we are provided in the rules section is only an indicative guide, and is far from exhaustive. There are a number of other factors which aren't directly communicated to us which result in different scoring (ie. more points for possessions in fwd/def halves than midfield etc).

 

[Huttabito]

Isn't it on us as fans of the game and lovers of supercoach to keep them honest?

I agree, I remember something coming up last year about tackles or effective disposals there their reply was:


#1 - CEY handball straight to Greenwood
#2 - CEY handball to Nankervis (turnover) but think that was more Nank running through rather than Dusty holding is jumper
#3 - Gibbs trickle kicks goes to Edwards
#4 - Caused CEY to fumble, but regained possession
#5 - Sloane never really had possession (control maybe) and Dusty dived in from the side for a tap on
#6 - CEY handballed before Dusty had even laid a finger on him, direct turnover from pressure
#7 - CEY got it out to Gibbs but Cotchin dove in first, caused a direct turnover but that was all on Gibbs not going for it

A couple were direct turnovers, so you could classify that as affecting tackle resulting from pressure FWIW and under those conditions, you could argue 3/4 of them.

I'm just looking at above thinking poor CEY.

 

[JDavey]

I agree, I remember something coming up last year about tackles or effective disposals there their reply was:


#1 - CEY handball straight to Greenwood
#2 - CEY handball to Nankervis (turnover) but think that was more Nank running through rather than Dusty holding is jumper
#3 - Gibbs trickle kicks goes to Edwards
#4 - Caused CEY to fumble, but regained possession
#5 - Sloane never really had possession (control maybe) and Dusty dived in from the side for a tap on
#6 - CEY handballed before Dusty had even laid a finger on him, direct turnover from pressure
#7 - CEY got it out to Gibbs but Cotchin dove in first, caused a direct turnover but that was all on Gibbs not going for it

A couple were direct turnovers, so you could classify that as affecting tackle resulting from pressure FWIW and under those conditions, you could argue 3/4 of them.

I'm just looking at above thinking poor CEY.

I remember reading that too. And while some of these are in plays where turnovers happen I would argue none of what Dusty does is considered a tackle - harassing a person/touching the body isn't a tackle by AFL definition. So you have some examples where its both not a tackle and the disposal is clean and others where its not a tackle and the disposal is bad. None are tackles though.

 

[Sauras]

Maybe CD can go back and watch all the games again on slow- mo just in case they missed a shepherd somewhere.

What a s**t thread, can't believe I read it.

 

[iobjectsir]

I would argue none of what Dusty does is considered a tackle - harassing a person/touching the body isn't a tackle by AFL definition.

Yes, you are correct, but AFL definition of tackle ≠ Champion Data definition of tackle

 

[JDavey]

Out of those 7, only one I would seriously question is number #4, as Ellis-Yolmen retains possession of the ball. For all others, Martin causes either a direct turnover or neutral ball through his pressure acts. Champion data ranges pressure acts to different degrees, which attract different scoring levels:

"Weighted sum of pressure acts. Under the Champion Data pressure point scoring system physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing pressure acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing pressure acts are worth 1.50 points, and corralling pressure acts which are worth 1.20 points."

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/fec6e07372d94c646dc3d91f893fbb3f

Champion Data's definition of a "tackle" is ALOT different to that of the average spectator, which is where the confusion comes in scoring. I know it does look a bit KOTD, as some of Dusty's "tackles" are very questionable, but in theory, the majority of those 7 are physical acts of pressure which result in direct turnovers, hence why they are classified as tackles. The AFL's definition of tackle supports this:

"When a player stops an opposition player with possession of the ball from getting his kick or handball away in a legal manner, or reduces the effectiveness of the opposition's disposal. The tackler's action must change the course of play."

Something else to note is the SC scoring guide we are provided in the rules section is only an indicative guide, and is far from exhaustive. There are a number of other factors which aren't directly communicated to us which result in different scoring (ie. more points for possessions in fwd/def halves than midfield etc).

While I disagree that Dusty impacted the majority of possessions that still misses the point.

By the definition youve quoted a smother would count as a tackle. You need to also overlay what constitutes as a tackle. Simply touching an opponent doesnt make something a tackle even if they lose possession. These are pressure acts which are and should be classed differently.

 

[JDavey]

Yes, you are correct, but AFL definition of tackle ≠ Champion Data definition of tackle

Yes it is given that CD provides the AFL its stats.

 

[iobjectsir]

While I disagree that Dusty impacted the majority of possessions that still misses the point.

By the definition youve quoted a smother would count as a tackle. You need to also overlay what constitutes as a tackle. Simply touching an opponent doesnt make something a tackle even if they lose possession. These are pressure acts which are and should be classed differently.

And I guess that's the frustrating part, what one person considers as "impacting" a contest, is different to another's opinion. Champion Data and their statisticians are entrusted with getting it right, and for the most part I think they do their job pretty damn well. Of course there will be mistakes from time-to-time, but I think 99% of the time they get it right as the experts.

Agree completely with last statement, as this would cause less confusion, as it appears Champion data mix both ie. a tackle, whilst scored separately, is also classified as a pressure act? Similarly an attempted tackle is considered a pressure act, but is not rewarded accordingly in Supercoach. It would be great if Champion Data could offer in-depth access to their statistics but I believe this is not available to the general public.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

 

[King_Steele]

Put her away, she’s not done yet!

 

[Squiba]

Maybe get the equivalent footage for someone else from the same game and you can compare.

They aren't tackles, but pfft, it really only affects inconsequential statistics and computer games.

**queue outrage of supercoach board**

 

[JDavey]

Maybe get the equivalent footage for someone else from the same game and you can compare.

They aren't tackles, but pfft, it really only affects inconsequential statistics and computer games.

**queue outrage of supercoach board**

Such poor logic. It's Champion Datas job to track stats and they miss attributed seven tackles in one game to one player. That is absolutely awful.

'inconsequential statistics' - tackles is one of the key stats coaches and analysts track and use.
computer games - with 50k prize money and multiple cash leagues that ride on their stats.

 

[enobrien]

Someone needs to trade Dusty in asap

 

[Squiba]

Such poor logic. It's Champion Datas job to track stats and they miss attributed seven tackles in one game to one player. That is absolutely awful.

'inconsequential statistics' - tackles is one of the key stats coaches and analysts track and use.
computer games - with 50k prize money and multiple cash leagues that ride on their stats.

Don't take life too seriously cutie pie :*

 

[SterlingArcher]

Maybe CD can go back and watch all the games again on slow- mo just in case they missed a shepherd somewhere.

What a s**t thread, can't believe I read it.

What a s**t post, can't believe you made it.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Considering how much Champion Data spruiks their statistics and probably gets paid a fortune for them, don't think it's too much to ask for them to get it right - or at least consistent.

Is a tackle something that prevents a disposal or not? Two different answers in two different years. “never will count” yet it counted.

Sure it doesn't mean much in the scheme of life but I think that sort of attitude is pretty moronic considering you all post here to talk about a meaningless game of kicking a pig skin, no?

 

[Hai_Newman]

INB4LOCKED