Review What Daniel Jackson Does

[_RT_]

I don't get the context of that stat. What's the point you're trying to make? Serious question.

Jacksons stat refer strictly to how often we managed to mark the ball from his I50 enteries. Beams' stats refer to how often the Pies managed to maintain possession, this means they could have marked it or crumbed the pack or simply picked up a loose ball.

In other words they are totally different stats and using them to compare how good or bad Jacksons & Beams' delievery inside 50 is well pointless.

 

[Barnzy]

Jacksons stat refer strictly to how often we managed to mark the ball from his I50 enteries.
Beams' stats refer to how often the Pies managed to maintain possession, this means they could have marked it or crumbed the pack or simply picked up a loose ball.

I see. You sure? I saw the quote posted somewhere from the Prospectus that made it seem like it was just talking about % of marks taken from kicks into the F50. I agree there's a difference. Regardless, 7% is still incredibly low and as I said backs up my thoughts on the quality of Jackson's F50's entries. I'm guessing he's in the lower echelon there. There's some other factors to take into consideration but would like to compare to our other midfielders.

 

[_RT_]

I see. You sure? I saw the quote posted somewhere from the Prospectus that made it seem like it was just talking about % of marks taken from kicks into the F50. I agree there's a difference. Regardless, 7% is still incredibly low and as I said backs up my thoughts on the quality of Jackson's F50's entries. I'm guessing he's in the lower echelon there. There's some other factors to take into consideration but would like to compare to our other midfielders.

Yep I'm sure about this one.

While 7% is low there is a valid reason, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we had 1 main target inside 50 to deliver to and that was Jack, we went to him 189 times, next best was Collins & Post with 18 each. Given that opposition defenders knew exactly where the ball was going it does make it quite easy to get there and spoil the delievery. AS a result I'd suggest that most of our players would have a pretty low % when it comes to marks taken from their I50 enteries.

As for the rest of our list the best I can come up with is the following:
- Edwards had the lowest retention rate when it came to maintaining possession from I50 enteries.
- 44% of Nasons I50 enteries resulted in a score. 46% of Whites I50 enteries resulted in a score.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

So you're aware that Beams and Jackson play different roles and yet you throw up a stat comparing their delivery into the F50. You would expect the more outside player to have much better delivery into the F50 seeing as they have a lot more time to steady and spot up an option than Jackson would given that he is playing predominately in heavy traffic and is more often than not having to bang the ball onto his boot blindly.

As for Jackson not being a negative tagging midfielder, given his role was to go head to head with the oppositions most prolific midfielder it would be fair to assume that his role was to negate their impact on the game.

RT I don't get it, you make this point which I incidentally agree with , yet you threw up disposal efficiency %, when agruing that Jackson is as good as Cotchin and Martin, yet both Cotchin and Martin had a larger % of contested possessions in 2010.

As you have pointed out the % of Jacksons posessions which where contested went from 26 % to 38.8 % in 2010, his 7th season.
Martins 1st and Cotchin 3rd seasons seen them running at 41% and 49%, respectively, so should we be comparing their efficiency when clearly a greater percentage of DM and TC's disposals are contested.

If you were to draw conclusions from stats, you'd say Jackson is an outside player, and that Martin and Cotchin , clearly have him covered in contested footy, despite their stage of development ?

 

[Dr Tigris]

Coming in late on this thread (In Sweden atm) I must say that the focus on jacko's kicking misses the point to me. His strengths are inside crunching, hard ball gets and run run run. Those defending his kicking are a bit dodgy to me. He kicks it long and beautifully, just inaccurately. But, he is an inside warrior, and all premiership teams are built around inside pressure. In the modern AFL a pure outside team will get smashed by pressure and hard bodies. Jackson is a true monster midfielder, and would fit into premiership teams. But he is a second string skills player. I love watching him get the hard ball and move it on, he'd really have fitted into the great Brisbane team under Matthew s. But they had real silk mids and two top quality KPFs. To me Jacko (or someone like him) is part of the puzzle for us to be a top team. But what we need is pure quality a la Lids, Cotch, Dusty to be consistently ripping it up with Jackson doing the run with role. You don't want to play (e.g.) Cotch as a run with player, he's too dmaging on his own.

On another issue comparing jackson to Kirk is a bit of a laugh. I rated Kirk as the best on field leader in the AFL. Jocko isn't that man. Kirk could virtually pull his team over the line time after time. i would love him (same age0 over Jacko), and I rate jacko highly. Jacko is good to very good inside and displaying leadership, Kirk was similar, perhaps better, as a similar style of footballer, but elite as leader.

 

[_RT_]

RT I don't get it, you make this point which I incidentally agree with , yet you threw up disposal efficiency %, when agruing that Jackson is as good as Cotchin and Martin, yet both Cotchin and Martin had a larger % of contested possessions in 2010.

As you have pointed out the % of Jacksons posessions which where contested went from 26 % to 38.8 % in 2010, his 7th season.
Martins 1st and Cotchin 3rd seasons seen them running at 41% and 49%, respectively, so should we be comparing their efficiency when clearly a greater percentage of DM and TC's disposals are contested.

If you were to draw conclusions from stats, you'd say Jackson is an outside player, and that Martin and Cotchin , clearly have him covered in contested footy, despite their stage of development ?

Percentages can be decieving, raw numbers show that there was 1.2 contested possessions between the 3 yet Jackson averaged 2.6 disposals per game more than Cotchin and 1.9 more than Martin.

Jackson averaged 22.1 disposals per game 8.6 were contested.
Cotchin averaged 19.5 disposals per game 9.7 were contested.
Martin averaged 20.2 disposals per game 8.5 were contested.

So what I'd suggest is that Jackson has a greater ability to get out in the open than what Cotchin and Martin do, and as Ray mentioned earlier, as Cotchins fitness increases and his ability to get open matches that you will no doubt find that his CP% will drop while his DE% will also likely increase.

A great example of this is Ablett, in 06 he averaged 16.9 disposals per game with 43.8 % contested with 72.3 DE%. In 2008 his disposals per game increased to 28.9 but his CP% fell to 35.6 but his average CP per game increased to 10.4 from the 7.3 he was winning in 06. His DE% also increased to 76.7%

 

[Rustof]

I know he isn't the only culprit as most of our mids are prone to do it but we really need to stop aimlessly booting the ball when we win a contest.
Rarely does a premiership contending side just boot the ball as far as they can, most nowadays handball and block out of traffic to find loose players who can run and then set up play. Hopefully with Batch at HB, Lids can move up the ground more to become more of an outside play-making mid along with Houli, Morton and Conca. Have these guys hovering around the contest whilst Jackson and Tuck solely focus on 'get ball and and handball' or 'tackle man with ball'. Ideally then Cotch, Martin and Foley will be the guys to break away from packs or if unable then they can at least handball out of danger instead of booting it as far as possible.

Ideally.

 

[santa claws]

Percentages can be decieving, raw numbers show that there was 1.2 contested possessions between the 3 yet Jackson averaged 2.6 disposals per game more than Cotchin and 1.9 more than Martin.



So what I'd suggest is that Jackson has a greater ability to get out in the open than what Cotchin and Martin do, and as Ray mentioned earlier, as Cotchins fitness increases and his ability to get open matches that you will no doubt find that his CP% will drop while his DE% will also likely increase.

A great example of this is Ablett, in 06 he averaged 16.9 disposals per game with 43.8 % contested with 72.3 DE%. In 2008 his disposals per game increased to 28.9 but his CP% fell to 35.6 but his average CP per game increased to 10.4 from the 7.3 he was winning in 06. His DE% also increased to 76.7%

i think with ablett up until and including 06 he played primarily as a forward.
when they missed finals in 06 the playing group threw down the challenge to him to work harder build up his motor so he could spend more time in the midfield.

as for beams stats or no stats the impression i get from watching collingwood is his kicking has been ordinary. the thing is beams will kick his fair share of goals.

for me the trouble is jackson out in the open. its here that hes terrible.either by foot or poor decision.i dont need stats to see this i see him every yr and week in week out.

i will say again apart from 09 jacksons other 6 seasons at the club have been ordinary. yes hes finding a bit more of the ball but hes finding it where you dont want him with it.

anyway ive made myself clear on this bloke i believe he with 8 or 9 other regulars is part of a problem that kills us. 7 yrs of the same thing and you just know after 7 yrs it wont change for me we have replaced him with martin there is no longer a need to play him. have to many like jackson in the 22 and we will go 0 and 9 again.

some argue hes our best tagger if thats the case play him as a tagger and let others with natural instincts and genuine skills do the kicking and decision making.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Is it possible that Cotchin and Lids were handballing to Jackson in the hope that he would give it back to them and then provide a block to allow them to kick with less pressure .Because IIRC I have seen Jacko burn them and smack it onto the boot .
IMO our top 3 decision makers would be Lids, Newman and Cotchin , who I believe are up there with the best in the competition , on face value if Cotchin or Lids where giving Jackson the footy I'd suggest he was the best option ?

No, they were specifically situations where they carried the ball into trouble looking for handball options just outside 50 instead of getting it by foot to a lead or at least a 1:1 contest, they were about to be claimed and had to buckpass to a static and marked Jackson instead. These things didn't happen often (as in 3-4 times every game), just too often if you know what I mean. I want to see those guys take responsibility for kicking the ball in that area between the forward edge of the centre square and the 50m arc, not be heavily focused with their eyes down looking for worse kicks via hand. None of them were fast-break situations, the defence was set, somebody had to hit a difficult target and it was their responsibility IMO.

Sure, all three of the players you mention are generally good decision makers, but they're hardly infallible like you sometimes seem to want to paint them. In that Swans game Newman kicks out 15m from full-back straight onto the chest of McGlynn at a very deflating moment of the contest, Deledio scrubs numerous kicks and takes poor options which bite us on the arse, Cotchin does the same - all players do, just some do it in an uglier and more memorable fashion, and sometimes even slightly more often.

SC rating lol.

Rates Jackson the better player despite the fact his style of game is disadvantaged by the ranking system, while Beams plays the ideal role to rank highly. Highly inconvenient given your opinion about each isn't it?

Pretty irrelevant stat considering what I was talking about (Jackson's long blind bombs into the F50 and his inability to spot up short- medium range targets which is crucial in the modern game with zones, etc.

Sorry to drag what *you* were talking about (which in the end is as irrelevant as me comparing Jackson's tackle stats to that of the lowest player in the league for tackles, i.e. why bother?) back to the thread topic, but the video of the Swans game shows Jackson several times being forced to 'long blind bomb' inside-50 as you put it, because he has no other decent attacking options.

If you want to argue otherwise, please be my guest, the opportunity for someone to jump in and say 'that long blind bomb he did at [x-time] was clearly the wrong option, look where [player-x] is, Jackson blew it' has been there with an open invitation for the entire thread, but it seems neither you or any of the other people who heavily criticise his ball use and decision making want to take video evidence from an actual game and spell out what he should have done different.

It's pretty obvious why those people are avoiding doing so.

...it was just a direct quote from the AFL prospectus...

You admit later in the thread that you just read it somewhere online, so it wasn't a direct quote from the prospectus at all, which perhaps explains why you got the stat significantly wrong?

I know he isn't the only culprit as most of our mids are prone to do it but we really need to stop aimlessly booting the ball when we win a contest.

If you watch the top sides and compare their midfields with ours, a massive difference is that their hacks forward from clearances end up going to a half-forward line capable of winning 1:1 contests. Our kicks look aimless when they get rebounded straight away, while the exact same hack forward from Pendlebury or Swan ends up looking fantastic because one of Collingwood's plethora of good forwards wins the ball and then does something with it.

It's been a hell of a long time since we had a half forward who can lay a tackle like King does in the clip at the beginning of the thread. A Jackson toe off the ground clearance won through sheer body strength to half-forward, great tackle from King, suddenly from not much we have a set kick 60m from goal with the opposition on the hop. To me, these are the kind of siezed half opportunities that premiership seasons are built on, Jackson and King are the kind of players who can sieze them and make something from nothing just the same as a player with sublime skills does.

 

[_RT_]

Is it possible that Cotchin and Lids were handballing to Jackson in the hope that he would give it back to them and then provide a block to allow them to kick with less pressure .Because IIRC I have seen Jacko burn them and smack it onto the boot .
IMO our top 3 decision makers would be Lids, Newman and Cotchin , who I believe are up there with the best in the competition , on face value if Cotchin or Lids where giving Jackson the footy I'd suggest he was the best option ?

You might be interested to learn that Newman turned the ball over 78 times last season, 34% of those led to an opposition score, the highest % of the top 10 tunrover players at the club.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

You might be interested to learn that Newman turned the ball over 78 times last season, 34% of those led to an opposition score, the highest % of the top 10 tunrover players at the club.

He does play in the defensive 50 , of a side that literally didnt have a half forward line .
So is Newman our worst disposal and decision maker at the club ?
Further reasoning why stats are BS , what percentage of his total possessions led to opposition score and what percentage of his total possessions led to turn overs !
By the stats you've provided it can be assumed that 26.52 possessions, not sure how you get .52 of a posession , of his possession led to opposition scores .
But to talk actually possessions and then to turn that into %'s to add to an argument is quite deceiving !

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Don't worry RT I've done the calculation .
Newman had 410 disposals for the year , meaning 18.72 % of his disposal led to turn overs inside our defensive 50.
6.24% of his disposals led to turn overs in our defensive 50 and led to opposition scores .
When you compare the stats, and yes I'm aware one relates to marking and the other doesn't , however I think I'd prefer Newmans 81.28 % efficiency from releasing outside of our defensive 50, over Jacksons 7% efficiency of having his kicks marked inside our attacking 50 , wouldn't you ?

 

[CallMeAl]

i think with ablett up until and including 06 he played primarily as a forward.
when they missed finals in 06 the playing group threw down the challenge to him to work harder build up his motor so he could spend more time in the midfield.

as for beams stats or no stats the impression i get from watching collingwood is his kicking has been ordinary. the thing is beams will kick his fair share of goals.

for me the trouble is jackson out in the open. its here that hes terrible.either by foot or poor decision.i dont need stats to see this i see him every yr and week in week out.

i will say again apart from 09 jacksons other 6 seasons at the club have been ordinary. yes hes finding a bit more of the ball but hes finding it where you dont want him with it.

anyway ive made myself clear on this bloke i believe he with 8 or 9 other regulars is part of a problem that kills us. 7 yrs of the same thing and you just know after 7 yrs it wont change for me we have replaced him with martin there is no longer a need to play him. have to many like jackson in the 22 and we will go 0 and 9 again.

some argue hes our best tagger if thats the case play him as a tagger and let others with natural instincts and genuine skills do the kicking and decision making.

This i agree with fully. I just cringe when I see Jackson run past to receive off a Delidio or Newman.

I do though, believe that right at this point in time he does have a important role to play in the side and until we have better skilled players who can perform the inside work he does he will continue to be one of the first picked each week.

 

[Barnzy]

This i agree with fully. I just cringe when I see Jackson run past to receive off a Delidio or Newman.

Yep. That's pretty much the problem here. Jackson should not be running past to handball receive and should not have the ball in open space delivering into F50 as much as he does. I also cringe when he demands the ball from the likes of Deledio, Newman, Cotchin, Martin, etc when they could take it on themselves. He should not be leading us on average per game for inside 50.

The coaching staff need to address this and reinvent him back into a full time defensive tagging inside midfielder who is also instructed to handball and give it off to others as much as possible. This is how he would be best utilised in the side, if at all.

 

[Haggard H]

Spot on RT, furthermore reasons why it's quite silly to be comparing the two, and also that stats don't paint the whole picture, wouldn't you think ?

This thread has shown quite clearly that stats aren't BS, they're just open to misinterpretation, agenda based deception, and obviously go well over the heads of many.

You can compare Jackson and Beams, but it makes no real sense to do so. It's just that Barnzy did it with the intention of showing Jackson's failure, but was then exposed as having manipulated the stats to get his desired result (and then subsequently thrown his hands in the air and claimed "I just saw it written somewhere" - after originally very clearly stating "AFL Prospectus" as if it was the word of God.)

We all pull out stats when they suit us, and if they don't suit us then we just bend them around a bit till they sound right.

 

[Barnzy]

It's just that Barnzy did it with the intention of showing Jackson's failure, but was then exposed as having manipulated the stats to get his desired result (and then subsequently thrown his hands in the air and claimed "I just saw it written somewhere" - after originally very clearly stating "AFL Prospectus" as if it was the word of God.)

Because someone posted the quote somewhere stating it was from the AFL prospectus and they had read it. They seemed pretty sure. I did not try to "manipulate the stats". How would I do that when I don't even have the book to "manipulate from"?

Was an innocent mistake. Why are you such a massive tool?

 

[Haggard H]

Because someone posted the quote somewhere stating it was from the AFL prospectus and they had read it. They seemed pretty sure. I did not try to "manipulate the stats". How would I do that when I don't even have the book to "manipulate from"?

Was an innocent mistake. Why are you such a massive tool?

Okay Barnzy, I apologise if I've made life hard for you. Just don't say you're quoting something if you're actually just referring to something that "someone posted ... somewhere", and you thought "they seemed pretty sure". Saying now that you don't even have the book isn't a defence, it's an admission of incompetence.

As for why I'm such a massive tool, I can't really say. But in the future I will refer to the guy who wanted to know "why I had such a massive tool". And I'll write "Barnzy" next to the quote - just to lend it a bit more authority.



(I'd insert a winking smiley face if I knew how)

 

[Barnzy]

Okay Barnzy, I apologise

Thanks.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Starting to strongly doubt Hardwick will ever play the old fashioned style of tagger again DD, he wants what Jackson is doing for us now and to me, it makes sense.

In the past it's been common to sacrifice one player's game to tag the opposition's best ball user and try to limit their effectiveness, what I think we're trying to do is prevent those best ball users from receiving as much ball by playing Jackson on the best extractor and being pretty confident that he can out-extract his opponent or wrap him up in a tackle most times when he does get first hands on the ball.

The theory behind this change in tactic appears to go something along the lines of:

If you try to tag a damaging ball user from a good midfield, the hard nut extractor(s) can and will prevent you being very effective at it by blocking and smashing your tagger, and/or the damaging ball user can just simply beat your tag. However, if you can take the hard nut extractor(s) out of the equation by limiting their ability to feed the outside players (by winning more of the the same ball they also need to win and/or tackling them well enough and often enough), then you're often interrupting the supply to multiple damaging ball users instead of one.

A good example of how effective that can be is in the last quarter from the clips where Jackson is so all over Kennedy in the tackle that the ball just spills free to Edwards and gives us our easiest I-50 of the day at the most crucial point of the match. If one of our 'gun ball user' mids had first hands on that ball it's extremely unlikely we could have got such a clean, effective clearance, while if we hadn't had our best tackler on their best extractor the ball may well have headed into their attack instead of ours.

Another way of explaining it would be that we'd play Jackson on Riskytelly over Ablett, dry up Risky's effective clearances to the other mids, prevent him blocking for Ablett because Jackson is racking up clearances, and make Ablett go and get his own ball as often as possible because he's less dangerous having to feed out to someone else than he is receiving the ball upright at full pace from someone like Risky.

We'll adapt it for individual teams of course, but I think we're far more likely to see Jackson playing the above role than tagging the out and out 'superstar' mids in the future, we'll just put our best mids head to head with those players I suspect.

Rayzor, if this is correct (and I am not doubting it at this point), then I have been lagging 5 years behind, and you have just dragged me into the current era.

I will be watching closely this aspect of our play in the early rounds. The role Jackson has been playing for 12 months sure has had me puzzled.

I must say, I came away from that Swans game saying, for 2-3 qtrs, it was the best football I had seen any Richmond side play for 20+ years. Our attitude and application saw us get first use of the ball, and in general, we had the ball in the hands of the guys we wanted it in. It stood out most, because of who the opposition was (as opposed to say the Eagles a few weeks earlier).

I certainly agree with Barnzy, in that our coaching staff need to ensure Jackson is not leading our average I50 count. His kicking when not under physical pressure is nowhere near the effectiveness of many others. In fact, if he has more possessions when on his feet than on his knees, we're in trouble
He should have more tackles than kicks in the clear per match

 

[_RT_]

He does play in the defensive 50 , of a side that literally didnt have a half forward line .
So is Newman our worst disposal and decision maker at the club ?
Further reasoning why stats are BS , what percentage of his total possessions led to opposition score and what percentage of his total possessions led to turn overs !
By the stats you've provided it can be assumed that 26.52 possessions, not sure how you get .52 of a posession , of his possession led to opposition scores .
But to talk actually possessions and then to turn that into %'s to add to an argument is quite deceiving !

I posted that stat for a reason, just to show how perceptions often don't match the facts. Most posters here, myself included, would agree that Newman is amongst our best decision makers, yet the facts show that he is also the player whose turnovers are the most costly.

Newman had 410 disposals for the year , meaning 18.72 % of his disposal led to turn overs inside our defensive 50.
6.24% of his disposals led to turn overs in our defensive 50 and led to opposition scores .
When you compare the stats, and yes I'm aware one relates to marking and the other doesn't , however I think I'd prefer Newmans 81.28 % efficiency from releasing outside of our defensive 50, over Jacksons 7% efficiency of having his kicks marked inside our attacking 50 , wouldn't you ?

When comparing Jackson and Newman you can't look at what Newman does good and then look at what Jackson doesn't do so well and say you prefer the good over the bad. To be fair you've got to look at what they both do badly. Jacksons poor stat is the 7% of his kicks I50 were marked. Newmans poor stat is 34% of his turnovers result in an opposition score.

Neither of those stats are acceptable IMO. Yet Jackson gets crucified by the majority here as being a worthless spud, while Newman gets excuses thrown up in his defence.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I posted that stat for a reason, just to show how perceptions often don't match the facts. Most posters here, myself included, would agree that Newman is amongst our best decision makers, yet the facts show that he is also the player whose turnovers are the most costly.



When comparing Jackson and Newman you can't look at what Newman does good and then look at what Jackson doesn't do so well and say you prefer the good over the bad. To be fair you've got to look at what they both do badly. Jacksons poor stat is the 7% of his kicks I50 were marked. Newmans poor stat is 34% of his turnovers result in an opposition score.

Neither of those stats are acceptable IMO. Yet Jackson gets crucified by the majority here as being a worthless spud, while Newman gets excuses thrown up in his defence.

RT those two stats are a fair way away from each other, one is based on how many of there possessions into a area don't reach there intended target, the other relates to how many times a players turn over results in a scoring opportunity by the other side direct from that possession. it's extremely common for a high percentage of turnovers in defensive 50's to result in scoring opportunities, most players can kick 50 metres hence the turnover is within scoring range ?
Its the old age question whats more costly, a turnover in your forward 50 which prevents a scoring opportunity, or a turnover which leads to a opposing scoring opportunity.
The interesting stat is that 6.24% of Newmans possessions in 2010 resulted in a scoring opportunity.
Under 1 possession per week on average, actually around .85 of a possession per week, it would be interesting to see how many of his other 18.67 , possession , on average, result in the next scoring opportunity being for us ,and the exact same stats calculated for Jackson ?
I suspect solely on face value, that it wouldn't shed Jackson in great light ?

 

[CallMeAl]

I posted that stat for a reason, just to show how perceptions often don't match the facts. Most posters here, myself included, would agree that Newman is amongst our best decision makers, yet the facts show that he is also the player whose turnovers are the most costly.

The wonderful world of statistics. you can manipulate them to say just about anything. In fact a wise man once said

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. "

They need used to be used in context, and to compare the result of Newman's turnovers you can only compare them to others that play mainly deep in defense.

It's pretty simple logic that the closer you play to the opposition goal line the more of your turnovers will result in a goal.

Just compare turnovers per game and add in % of contested posessions and then they start to have some meaning.


[/FONT]

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

RT those two stats are a fair way away from each other, one is based on how many of there possessions into a area don't reach there intended target, the other relates to how many times a players turn over results in a scoring opportunity by the other side direct from that possession. it's extremely common for a high percentage of turnovers in defensive 50's to result in scoring opportunities, most players can kick 50 metres hence the turnover is within scoring range ?
Its the old age question whats more costly, a turnover in your forward 50 which prevents a scoring opportunity, or a turnover which leads to a opposing scoring opportunity.
The interesting stat is that 6.24% of Newmans possessions in 2010 resulted in a scoring opportunity.
Under 1 possession per week on average, actually around .85 of a possession per week, it would be interesting to see how many of his other 18.67 , possession , on average, result in the next scoring opportunity being for us ,and the exact same stats calculated for Jackson ?
I suspect solely on face value, that it wouldn't shed Jackson in great light ?

Think of how often Jackson has the time Newman does when he has it though.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

This thread has shown quite clearly that stats aren't BS, they're just open to misinterpretation, agenda based deception, and obviously go well over the heads of many.

You can compare Jackson and Beams, but it makes no real sense to do so. It's just that Barnzy did it with the intention of showing Jackson's failure, but was then exposed as having manipulated the stats to get his desired result (and then subsequently thrown his hands in the air and claimed "I just saw it written somewhere" - after originally very clearly stating "AFL Prospectus" as if it was the word of God.)

We all pull out stats when they suit us, and if they don't suit us then we just bend them around a bit till they sound right.

Haggard, if you think 1 single stat taken from within games, provides a direct comparison for any facet or skill within the AFL game, good for you .

 

[_RT_]

RT those two stats are a fair way away from each other, one is based on how many of there possessions into a area don't reach there intended target, the other relates to how many times a players turn over results in a scoring opportunity by the other side direct from that possession. it's extremely common for a high percentage of turnovers in defensive 50's to result in scoring opportunities, most players can kick 50 metres hence the turnover is within scoring range ?
Its the old age question whats more costly, a turnover in your forward 50 which prevents a scoring opportunity, or a turnover which leads to a opposing scoring opportunity.
The interesting stat is that 6.24% of Newmans possessions in 2010 resulted in a scoring opportunity.
Under 1 possession per week on average, actually around .85 of a possession per week, it would be interesting to see how many of his other 18.67 , possession , on average, result in the next scoring opportunity being for us ,and the exact same stats calculated for Jackson ?
I suspect solely on face value, that it wouldn't shed Jackson in great light ?

Whats more costly you ask? IMO its the turnover in the backline that results in a scoring opportunity. If its turned over in our F50 at least we've got a better chance of getting the ball back, if we turn it over in our D50 odds are its going to be a score.