Player Watch Matt Crouch - Re-Signed to End of 2025

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Throw in any other names you think worth comparing and I'll update the table when I get the time. (Of course if they come out better than Bob I'll have to pretend I couldn't find the time )

Hate creating work for others... but Jarryd Lyons would be interesting given that he's been on the pine almost every game

 

[Sanders]

Brad is much the better player though, if you're making that comparison.

no slight on matt, but he is not an impact player like Brad and he doesn't see the field like big bro.

Brad is seriously special. and not like some posters are special

 

[headache1]

Brad is much the better player though, if you're making that comparison.

no slight on matt, but he is not an impact player like Brad and he doesn't see the field like big bro.

Brad is seriously special. and not like some posters are special

Matt doesn't have the burst pace that Brad does either.

 

[Allefgib]

This wasn't targeted at me, but there's a few things I don't like about the Player Ratings:

• Defenders aren't given much credit for shutdown work, hence why Gibson, Johnson and Hurley rate so highly while the shutdown defenders people often rate as better (eg. in AA contention) like Talia, Hooker, MacKenzie, etc. don't rate as highly.
• The rating of rucks is dubious as most people subjectively evaluate Naitanui (for example) as not as good a ruckman as Mumford, Lobbe, Minson, etc.
• I don't think many people rate Brent Harvey as the 6th best player over the past few years, above JPK, Franklin, Gray, Watson all of whom are subjectively better
• Key forwards ratings don't appear to be as highly rated to goals kicked as they should be. Hence why Westhoff is rated as a better forward than Hawkins, Schulz, Pavlich, Cameron, etc.

It's hard to tell what's wrong with their rating system without seeing it, but I would definitely tweak it somewhat.

Generally I think it does a decent job for a stats-based ranking for the top 50 or so players, bar the odd one. Below that, I don't think it's very accurate

Do you know how its worked out at all?

Effectively measures every 'incident' a player is involved with in a game and its impact on improving their teams chance to score. Looks at the state of play (location, amount of pressure, how the ball was gathered) to the state it was left in after the players involvement and then somehow measures the 'difference' in likelihood to have a goal scored.

e.g. Mick Doughty wins a loose ball at half back, and under no pressure turns and kicks it back to an unmarked player in the goal square - would pretty much get you no points. May even get you negative.
Little gives in tight to put a teammate under pressure will also do stuff all for your rating.

However, Nic Nat takes a ruck contest and with guys hanging off him bursts out of half back, runs 50m and then under duress laces out Josh Kennedy at the top of the square -> gets huge amount of points.

Harvey is probably a good example. The work he does 'apparently' goes a long way to increasing the likelihood his team should score. More so 'apparently' then the other names you listed. I think you'll find it treats Sloaney's efforts in the same way. Possibly also why Westhoff gets a good rating - he wins more ball further up the ground and brings it down into dangerous positions -> whereas the others are more stay at home. It also changes players 'position' based on where and how they win their footy as well - I'd agree he'd have to be an edge case.

Defenders who lock down so hard the ball doesn't get kicked to their opponent will be 'hard done by'. But winning contests, even spoiling to advantage I think are all accounted for. Even pressure acts get some rating points from recollection.

Highly recommend having a read.

 

[WAG]

The nice little bonus in all this is that his disposal efficiency (albeit a small sample size) is quite healthy at 75%. Seemed like all the pre-draft knocks on him was that he could get the pill, but tended to butcher it.

 

[Scorpus]

Do you know how its worked out at all?

Effectively measures every 'incident' a player is involved with in a game and its impact on improving their teams chance to score. Looks at the state of play (location, amount of pressure, how the ball was gathered) to the state it was left in after the players involvement and then somehow measures the 'difference' in likelihood to have a goal scored.

e.g. Mick Doughty wins a loose ball at half back, and under no pressure turns and kicks it back to an unmarked player in the goal square - would pretty much get you no points. May even get you negative.
Little gives in tight to put a teammate under pressure will also do stuff all for your rating.

However, Nic Nat takes a ruck contest and with guys hanging off him bursts out of half back, runs 50m and then under duress laces out Josh Kennedy at the top of the square -> gets huge amount of points.

Harvey is probably a good example. The work he does 'apparently' goes a long way to increasing the likelihood his team should score. More so 'apparently' then the other names you listed. I think you'll find it treats Sloaney's efforts in the same way. Possibly also why Westhoff gets a good rating - he wins more ball further up the ground and brings it down into dangerous positions -> whereas the others are more stay at home. It also changes players 'position' based on where and how they win their footy as well - I'd agree he'd have to be an edge case.

Defenders who lock down so hard the ball doesn't get kicked to their opponent will be 'hard done by'. But winning contests, even spoiling to advantage I think are all accounted for. Even pressure acts get some rating points from recollection.

Highly recommend having a read.

Yeah, I've read how it works, but I don't agree that every player on the field is there solely to improve the scoring of the team.

There are definitely some players, especially defenders and "coolers", whose job is to stop the opposition from scoring. I don't think that is accounted for as well as it should.

I also think they've made the weighting without properly considering the positions players play in. If you're a full forward type like Hawkins, who kicks bags of 3+ regularly and 'does their job' for the team, I think that should be weighted accordingly. Because you obviously can't have a team of players who just "improve the teams chance of scoring" without having players who actually do the scoring.

I do agree with the weighting of midfielders and down-rating players who don't use the ball well, but the algorithm needs work

 

[Bicks]

Brad is much the better player though, if you're making that comparison.

no slight on matt, but he is not an impact player like Brad and he doesn't see the field like big bro.

Brad is seriously special. and not like some posters are special

I'll tell one thing he is better at...kicking goals, has very special goal sense something that was very evident in his junior footy.

 

[hippyhippy]

Good thread

Priddis made his debut as a 21 year old too. Was a mature-ager and therefore ready to go.

So our guys are No 1 and 2 really

Where will you be when the Crouch Bros crack 80 disposals?

at home drinking a bear watching the 2016 grand final

 

[headache1]

at home drinking a bear watching the 2016 grand final

Yep, beer is for pussies. Bear is a real man's man drink.

 

[cmndstab]

What does the player rating system not cover for you 19th?

The player ranking system is garbage.

The AFL just decided who they thought the best players should be, and fit a linear model to give them that ranking. And then just figured they can roll it over from that point forward.

I'm not saying this stat is any better or worse, but let's not pretend the player ranking system is anything more than a crude approximation of popular opinion.

 

[Bicks]

The nice little bonus in all this is that his disposal efficiency (albeit a small sample size) is quite healthy at 75%. Seemed like all the pre-draft knocks on him was that he could get the pill, but tended to butcher it.

Actually a point Damien Hardwick made "On The Couch" last night is pertinent here, when discussing Cotchin he made the point that midfielders often get a bum rap when people quote their disposal efficiency when actually most of their disposals are hotly contested possessions in tight midfield situations, sometimes the ONLY option is to get it on the boot and hack it forward. In essence he said it was important for people to remember this and compare "apples with apples"...

 

[Redleg Crow]

Hate creating work for others... but Jarryd Lyons would be interesting given that he's been on the pine almost every game

Yep, will put up his and Grigg tomorrow

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

I think it's been mentiond by the club before that he need to improve his tank, but the green vest would have had an impact on his time on ground, most of these guys didn't have to worry about it

 

[headache1]

I'd also love to know this kid's too, be good to compare Jaeger and Brad considering they were one and two in the mini draft....

No Homo but this kid is sometime else...

O'Meara is included in the table in the first post.

 

[RodnyDangrfield]

O'Meara is included in the table in the first post.

Whoops, apologies.

 

[Allefgib]

The player ranking system is garbage.

The AFL just decided who they thought the best players should be, and fit a linear model to give them that ranking. And then just figured they can roll it over from that point forward.

I'm not saying this stat is any better or worse, but let's not pretend the player ranking system is anything more than a crude approximation of popular opinion.

Yet others are saying the exact opposite...

 

[Allefgib]

Yeah, I've read how it works, but I don't agree that every player on the field is there solely to improve the scoring of the team.

There are definitely some players, especially defenders and "coolers", whose job is to stop the opposition from scoring. I don't think that is accounted for as well as it should.

I also think they've made the weighting without properly considering the positions players play in. If you're a full forward type like Hawkins, who kicks bags of 3+ regularly and 'does their job' for the team, I think that should be weighted accordingly. Because you obviously can't have a team of players who just "improve the teams chance of scoring" without having players who actually do the scoring.

I do agree with the weighting of midfielders and down-rating players who don't use the ball well, but the algorithm needs work

Could definitely be improved.
I like the fact it's started something.

 

[AFC979810]

I actually think that because M Crouch has been sub so much assists him in this particular comparison.

I haven't done the statistical analysis, but it always seems that subs rack up between 7-15 possessions in a quarter and a half of football which averages out to over 25 touches a game.

In most cases the sub comes on fresh when the other players are tired and its easier to accumulate the ball.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Definitely knows how to find the ball however I would like him to improve his kick to handball ratio which will be difficult considering where he wins his footy

 

[lunacy]

Matt doesn't have the burst pace that Brad does either.

No, but he has the better foot skills. So they compliment each other.

 

[1970crow]

Throw in any other names you think worth comparing and I'll update the table when I get the time. (Of course if they come out better than Bob I'll have to pretend I couldn't find the time )

Lyons please.

 

[baldandbroke]

Great work here Redleg Crow - I love what Matt Crouch is becoming.

Brad is just about the epitome of what I love in the top rated footballers - he is smart and hard and clean. Matt seems to be flying under the radar a bit, but as you have shown will bring his own flavour of awesomeness that we will hopefully be enjoying for years to come.

 

[1970crow]

Very interesting comparisons.

He is defiantly in special company in his ability to find the ball.

I notice Thompson isn't on there, any reason why?

Thommo wouldn't be near the top. He was a slow starter in terms of getting a fair bit of football.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Nice work, we need more statistical analysis like this on this board and in the AFL in general.

I've always thought that we need a more sophisticated player ranking system in the AFL, the Player Ratings system they have on the AFL website doesn't quite cut it and they don't really release enough info of interest.

And regarding Matt Crouch I think that fitness is the major hurdle for him. Defensive work is also a weakness according to NikkiNoo. I reckon having his brother in the team would help that though, I'm sure B.Crouch wouldn't hesitate a second before screaming at his brother to get back

I read that his pressure stats in AFL games last year were up there with the best , it's his spread that the club has rightly been concerned about as a weakness but sometimes the good outweighs the bad and you just got to go with the good. No doubt he will become a fitness beast as the years roll in and his spread will improve

 

[rezagun]

Can see him being another priddis. Both left footers and both contested, in and under, heavy possesion midfielders. The kids a ripper.