Toast The Renaissance of Ollie Wines

[Ah12]

There is no best and worst. He is always good. So far this season he has had far less opportunities that he did tonight.

This week 21 CBAs. Previous two weeks he had 12. Removing a player who was taking inside minutes has given him way more opportunity at what he is good at, which is contested ball clearance stuff.

By his own admission his 2023 was nowhere near his best. He definitely isn’t always good.

 

[Poo Eckert]

I loved some of his tackles. Men at full speed trying to break through and hitting a brick wall.

 

[Powerage]

A kick of less than 40m has to be retained by a teammate to be considered efficient.

A kick of greater than 40m is considered efficient if possession is retained by a teammate OR if its to a 50/50 contest.

And if it is 40m exactly?

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

By his own admission his 2023 was nowhere near his best. He definitely isn’t always good.

He was playing with a bung knee all of 2023.

 

[Powerage]

He was playing with a bung knee all of 2023.

It was more recovery from the knee operation and a very limited preseason. Also played out of position on the wing most of the time.

2022 bung knee and atrial fibrillation.

Clearances, contested possessions, tackling. Handballs out and linking up. That's his value. Geelong game was a perfect example. Even more evidence that Rozee should be spending more time up forward or on a wing. His pace, running power, evasive ability and decision making with ball in hand are his value.

 

[Chrizzt]

This isn't how it works.

The player ratings are derived based on how each act contributes to (expected) score. So if you have many 'safe' disposals which don't result in score then you will not get a good rating.

That is why Matt Crouch is not highly rated. Lots of safe sideways disposals.

Alternatively if you can execute risky plays which result in lots of score you will get a good rating.

That is why Zak Butters is rated off the charts.

Mead didn't 'play within himself', he was just good.

Yeah there are problems with player ratings. It undervalued defenders because what they do cannot be statistically captured.

But it is significantly better than most alternatives.

A big part of why Butters is rated elite by CD and Rozee isn't is because the algorithm places a large focus on the actual disposal and less context as to how it was won and the threat of the play created. I know it does capture for some of this in a crude way, e.g. pressure on the ball winner, score chain involvement - but this is more just trying to roughly quantify a qualitative event.

Rozee's disposals themselves may not be as penetrating or play-making as JHF or Butters, but it's ability to extract and hold position for a few seconds which release teammates to start running to attacking patterns that is extremely valuable. Rozee rarely just scoops the ball off to the closest teammate, but very regularly gets it off to someone in space who is ready to run and carry.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

A big part of why Butters is rated elite by CD and Rozee isn't is because the algorithm places a large focus on the actual disposal and less context as to how it was won and the threat of the play created. I know it does capture for some of this in a crude way, e.g. pressure on the ball winner, score chain involvement - but this is more just trying to roughly quantify a qualitative event.

Rozee's disposals themselves may not be as penetrating or play-making as JHF or Butters, but it's ability to extract and hold position for a few seconds which release teammates to start running to attacking patterns that is extremely valuable. Rozee rarely just scoops the ball off to the closest teammate, but very regularly gets it off to someone in space who is ready to run and carry.

I feel like I would describe this as something Butters does and not necessarily something Rozee does. Either way, it isn't really a valid criticism. As I said previously, the algorithm would quantify this.

The reason why it doesn't like Rozee (as.much as others) is because his disposals are mostly uncontested and his ball use is mostly just ok for a predominantly uncontested ball player.

What you could say is that his good is really, really good. When he has a good patch in a game he is more often than not the best player in the team. Unfortunately he is inconsistent and that ultimately drags his rating down.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

As I said a few times, I prefer my eyes to an algorithm.

The idea that the CD algorithm is the pure authority of footy is a bit weird to me.

The Champion Data algorithm is pretty good but it doesn't pick up nuances and even obvious things in game.

For example, I don't know how the algorithm rates free kicks. I assume that it is a negative stat and if someone can enlighten me, cool, but there are some free kicks that actually benefit your side, for instance, if the opposition is streaming to goal and you stop it with a free kick so it gives your midfield time to get back and fill in holes. That is quite an invaluable free kick. I noticed Collingwood are very good at that sort of thing. They are such an intelligent, efficient team.

 

[Powerage]

As I said a few times, I prefer my eyes to an algorithm.

The idea that the CD algorithm is the pure authority of footy is a bit weird to me.

The Champion Data algorithm is pretty good but it doesn't pick up nuances and even obvious things in game.

For example, I don't know how the algorithm rates free kicks. I assume that it is a negative stat and if someone can enlighten me, cool, but there are some free kicks that actually benefit your side, for instance, if the opposition is streaming to goal and you stop it with a free kick so it gives your midfield time to get back and fill in holes. That is quite an invaluable free kick. I noticed Collingwood are very good at that sort of thing. They are such an intelligent, efficient team.

Ask Luke Shuey whether free kicks are a negative stat.