What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. The commentators aren't smart enough to use any of these stats in context. The more stats they have available, the more they just rattle them off. If I wanted to know live stats I'd just check the AFL app, focus on calling what is happening on the field and trying to explain why certain things are happening.

'West Coast are +30 for contested possession and +8 for clearances, but down -5 for inside 50s and -8 for pressure acts and...' - So? Who GAF? If you can't describe why a team is winning more of the ball but not getting it inside 50 or getting it inside 50 more but not converting etc. then you shouldn't be calling footy.
David King dislikes this
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Nope. The commentators aren't smart enough to use any of these stats in context. The more stats they have available, the more they just rattle them off. If I wanted to know live stats I'd just check the AFL app, focus on calling what is happening on the field and trying to explain why certain things are happening.

'West Coast are +30 for contested possession and +8 for clearances, but down -5 for inside 50s and -8 for pressure acts and...' - So? Who GAF? If you can't describe why a team is winning more of the ball but not getting it inside 50 or getting it inside 50 more but not converting etc. then you shouldn't be calling footy.
I think context matters for all stats, including the ones you've accepted as legitimate. I don't think there's anything wrong with a commentator saying "team x is really getting beaten in the middle, they're -15 for contested possessions this quarter" Observations backed up with evidence.
 
'West Coast are +30 for contested possession and +8 for clearances, but down -5 for inside 50s and -8 for pressure acts and...' - So? Who GAF? If you can't describe why a team is winning more of the ball but not getting it inside 50 or getting it inside 50 more but not converting etc. then you shouldn't be calling footy.
Starting to understand why you think Rance is overrated.
 
Bit random I know, but I've always thought neither Nick Riewoldt's or Jonathan Brown's famous running back with the flight of the ball marks were either that good or that courageous because they were actually both essentially charging forward at the time and could see what was coming. They were in fact much more likely to injure someone else rather than themselves given their momentum. Its more courageous when a defender has to go backwards with the flight not knowing whats coming behind and also knowing that if they get hit they will come off second best because they lack the momentum of a charging defender.
 
I think context matters for all stats, including the ones you've accepted as legitimate. I don't think there's anything wrong with a commentator saying "team x is really getting beaten in the middle, they're -15 for contested possessions this quarter" Observations backed up with evidence.
It's an observation backed up with evidence but still doesn't tell us much. What we really want to know is why. What's the difference between the first and second quarter, and not in stats, but in actual game play. Did someone's tagger go off injured? Is it because they've forced more stoppages? That's context.

Some of the predictive stats are just as bad - when team X gets Y number of I50s per game, they are 40% more likely to win. Well, that's nice, but what happens to give them a higher number of I50s? It is because their midfield gets more touches, do they have more tackles inside F50?

I love my stats, don't get me wrong, but their use is pretty superficial.
 
It's an observation backed up with evidence but still doesn't tell us much. What we really want to know is why. What's the difference between the first and second quarter, and not in stats, but in actual game play. Did someone's tagger go off injured? Is it because they've forced more stoppages? That's context.

Some of the predictive stats are just as bad - when team X gets Y number of I50s per game, they are 40% more likely to win. Well, that's nice, but what happens to give them a higher number of I50s? It is because their midfield gets more touches, do they have more tackles inside F50?

I love my stats, don't get me wrong, but their use is pretty superficial.
To be fair to commentators, and most commentators make me want to tear my hair out, it's difficult to know what tactics and strategy are helping and hurting a team at any time, given the game moves fairly quickly, and it's hard to analyse a team's structures without some inside knowledge on what they're doing. Often those things happen because of broader structural changes in the game, rather than the actions of a specific player.

I see analysis of football games done after the fact on internet sites, and they're far more in depth as the game moves slower, there's less players and tactics are more pronounced and varied. But even in football, I don't hear it during commentary. It seems difficult to do that whilst the game is going on. I think the only games where that happens is a) gridiron, where it's purely situational tactics of specific downs, which can be broken down by say a QB commentator between downs and b) cricket which is a slower game with less moving parts and a simpler strategy (try and bowl the opposition, or intimidate them with short pitched bowling).
 
Well that's, ummm, sad.

Exaggerating obviously. Don't stress, my fiance, my dogs, my footy club, study, work and good beer are all 'life' long before Supercoach. But a game centred around the stats of football making potentially uninteresting games interesting is bloody good fun all winter.
 
Am i the only person who thinks the AFL have got it completely wrong when they base suspensions on the extent of damage inflicted?

So many times I have seen hard heads get whacked...but because they are tough nothing happens.

And it makes the medical reports somewhat political.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The amount of airtime and attention the AFLW is getting. I do not give a crap about it, it angers me that it’s being shoved down my throat. Gill, AFL 360, On the Couch, news, radio, etc can go and get stuffed in the way they are trying to combine it in among the real stuff. It’s sport not a political statement!

Good on women playing footy/sport given all the benefits that go wth it but have another dedicated show or channel for those that are interested.
 
Am i the only person who thinks the AFL have got it completely wrong when they base suspensions on the extent of damage inflicted?

So many times I have seen hard heads get whacked...but because they are tough nothing happens.

And it makes the medical reports somewhat political.
Yes, penalise the action, not the largely out of control consequences. What are they going to do if a seccesion of sling tackles results in minor damage and minor penalties, then the next one, with exactly the same action results in brain damage. Especially if the small penalties lead to players being less careful.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 
Am i the only person who thinks the AFL have got it completely wrong when they base suspensions on the extent of damage inflicted?

So many times I have seen hard heads get whacked...but because they are tough nothing happens.

And it makes the medical reports somewhat political.

Completely agree!
 
The amount of airtime and attention the AFLW is getting. I do not give a crap about it, it angers me that it’s being shoved down my throat. Gill, AFL 360, On the Couch, news, radio, etc can go and get stuffed in the way they are trying to combine it in among the real stuff. It’s sport not a political statement!

Good on women playing footy/sport given all the benefits that go wth it but have another dedicated show or channel for those that are interested.

100%

The AFL women are not professionals. Put on women’s netball or soccer where they actually deserve the media attention.

AFL women should be required to do the same training as the men before they receive the same attention.

And, not my point, women should be required to play 5 sets in tennis to earn the same prize money.
 
wasting the appeals staffs time for one

Its an open and shut case. She already had a repremand over her head. Do the crime, do the time.


It’s certainly not open and shut as to whether there was a crime. It was an odd one to be picked up.
 
Am i the only person who thinks the AFL have got it completely wrong when they base suspensions on the extent of damage inflicted?

So many times I have seen hard heads get whacked...but because they are tough nothing happens.

And it makes the medical reports somewhat political.
I think this is or should be a popular opinion. There's such thing as attempted murder, the jail time isn't far off murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top