Opinion Who is currently the best player in the AFL

[Orange crush]

I wouldn't expect the coaches to agree in a game where there were no standout performers, and there was an even spread of players on the day.

And in the event of an even spread, is it not a great result than 9 different players received between 1 and 5 votes.

So again, who were the howlers?

Did an unworthy player receive votes?

Or was there a standout who deserved more votes?

Ash deserved 10

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I wouldn't expect the coaches to agree in a game where there were no standout performers, and there was an even spread of players on the day.

And in the event of an even spread, is it not a great result than 9 different players received between 1 and 5 votes.

So again, who were the howlers?

Did an unworthy player receive votes?

Or was there a standout who deserved more votes?

By definition all 6 of the players must have been howlers if the other coach didn't have them in their top 5.

 

[Fadge]

Ash deserved 10

Really? Was he that much of a standout?

Because Player Ratings had him 4th, in a group of 15 players who rated between 13.1 and 17.4...

 

[Orange crush]

Really? Was he that much of a standout?

Because Player Ratings had him 4th, in a group of 15 players who rated between 13.1 and 17.4...

He won the game in the 4th …. He was massive

 

[Fadge]

He won the game in the 4th …. He was massive

Player Ratings also had 3 better players than him in the 4th quarter..

Can't have been that 'massive'. I mean, Player Ratings concludes he wasn't even as good as Kosi Pickett was in his 3 possession zero goal final quarter against West Coast...

 

[Orange crush]

Player Ratings also had 3 better players than him in the 4th quarter..

The Orange Crush eye-test says **** player ratings and **** Brad Scott and his search for relevance

 

[Fadge]

The Orange Crush eye-test says **** player ratings

Will never argue with that.

 

[Mr Meow]

Almost 1000 posts complaining abou an algorithm.

 

[Fadge]

By definition all 6 of the players must have been howlers if the other coach didn't have them in their top 5.

Huh?

 

[RCAB]

Also it is pretty obvious some coaches play favourites, which completely ruins the award. It only even sort of works if the coaches act impartial, and even then it is still suspect.

I still think it's an excellent guide, but yes it's not perfect. FWIW my model this week:

2026 only V6 top 25

Rank	Player	Team	Score	Move
1	Kysaiah Pickett	Melbourne	1.0835	0
2	Christian Petracca	Gold Coast	1.0542	+2
3	Marcus Bontempelli	Western Bulldogs	1.0537	0
4	Isaac Heeney	Sydney	1.0183	+1
5	Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera	St Kilda	1.0152	-3
6	Shai Bolton	Fremantle	0.9554	0
7	Justin McInerney	Sydney	0.9036	0
8	Bailey Smith	Geelong	0.8954	+1
9	Zac Bailey	Brisbane	0.8626	-1
10	Max Holmes	Geelong	0.8252	+1
11	Jason Horne-Francis	Port Adelaide	0.8156	-1
12	Luke Davies-Uniacke	North Melbourne	0.8126	+8
13	Nick Blakey	Sydney	0.8039	+3
14	Josh Treacy	Fremantle	0.7666	-2
15	Zak Butters	Port Adelaide	0.7421	+2
16	Nick Watson	Hawthorn	0.7414	-3
17	Nick Daicos	Collingwood	0.7316	-3
18	Luke Jackson	Fremantle	0.7096	+4
19	Charlie Cameron	Brisbane	0.7081	-4
20	Kade Chandler	Melbourne	0.6891	+37
21	Chad Warner	Sydney	0.6863	+2
22	Jeremy Cameron	Geelong	0.6799	-1
23	Josh Rachele	Adelaide	0.6718	+2
24	Max Gawn	Melbourne	0.6653	-5
25	Noah Anderson	Gold Coast	0.6652	+14

Main eyebrow-raiser: Kade Chandler rockets to 20th, which is the week’s little data grenade. LDU also jumps hard into 12th, while NWM drops from 2nd to 5th, not a collapse, just the top-end pack tightening.


Biggest notable risers

Player	New Rank	Move
Kade Chandler	20	+37
Izak Rankine	75	+101
Patrick Dangerfield	145	+132
Daniel Rioli	193	+130
George Hewett	202	+125
Oisin Mullin	227	+118
Michael Frederick	135	+112
Harry McKay	239	+104
Ryley Sanders	182	+99
Patrick Cripps	106	+50

Rolling 4.5 year V6 top 25

Rank	Player	Team	Rolling Score	Move
1	Marcus Bontempelli	Western Bulldogs	3.2950	0
2	Isaac Heeney	Sydney	3.0700	0
3	Jeremy Cameron	Geelong	2.6452	0
4	Kysaiah Pickett	Melbourne	2.6196	0
5	Christian Petracca	Gold Coast	2.6079	+1
6	Nick Daicos	Collingwood	2.5650	-1
7	Izak Rankine	Adelaide	2.4977	+3
8	Zach Merrett	Essendon	2.4928	-1
9	Noah Anderson	Gold Coast	2.4661	0
10	Chad Warner	Sydney	2.4515	-2
11	Jordan Dawson	Adelaide	2.4431	0
12	Zak Butters	Port Adelaide	2.3732	0
13	Toby Greene	Greater Western Sydney	2.3724	0
14	Ed Richards	Western Bulldogs	2.3420	0
15	Max Holmes	Geelong	2.2997	0
16	Jack Sinclair	St Kilda	2.2644	0
17	Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera	St Kilda	2.1628	+1
18	Jai Newcombe	Hawthorn	2.1236	-1
19	Jason Horne-Francis	Port Adelaide	2.1187	+1
20	Hugh McCluggage	Brisbane	2.1056	-1
21	Shai Bolton	Fremantle	2.0884	0
22	Nick Blakey	Sydney	2.0793	+1
23	Zac Bailey	Brisbane	2.0579	-1
24	Caleb Serong	Fremantle	2.0021	+2
25	Lachie Neale	Brisbane	1.9952	-1

 

[My Tilly]

Nicky and bont flat track bully based off of that

It's a good thing Bontempelli has already proved himself for over a decade isn't it.

 

[Rash]

It's a good thing Bontempelli has already proved himself for over a decade isn't it.

Yeah 100% not calling bont a flat track bully, just extracting what the data says.

 

[Righteo]

For me Petracca, Bontempelli, Daicos, Heeney and Luke Jackson

9

Luke Jackson

Age

24

Ht

199cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.3

2star

K

3.3

1star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

3star

G

0.3

3star

D

8.3

2star

K

3.3

1star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

2star

G

0.3

3star

D

8.3

3star

K

3.3

2star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

3star

G

0.3

3star

stand out above the rest. Kozzie is close and Rowell would be there if not for injury. in my very biased opinion nobody is impacting matches as much as Jackson is, but if we're including body of work I'd go with the Bont.

Honourable mentions to Noah Anderson

15

Noah Anderson

Age

25

Ht

192cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

2.0

2star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

6.0

3star

M

2.0

2star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

0.0

1star

CL

0.0

1star

, Rankine, Butters and NWM. Naz in particular is a bit of a freakshow and probably the guy I'd want the most at Freo. no you don't need to mention that we overlooked him.

 

[Fadge]

Looking forward to seeing Shaun Mannagh rocketing into the top 10 of the various 'Best Players in the AFL' lists!

 

[Arr0w]

Still the Bont, but there is a fair list of names directly behind him that will assume the mantle next year

 

[RCAB]

Is Nick Daicos the best Nick?


2026 season only: the Nickonomics deep dive

Qualified players: 505

Top 3 Nicks

Nick	Overall Rank	Position Rank	Score	Movement
Nick Blakey	13	#1 Gen Defender	0.804	+3
Nick Watson	16	#1 Gen Forward	0.741	-3
Nick Daicos	17	#12 Midfielder	0.732	-3

Watson and Daicos are basically separated by a couple fibres of cowhide leather: 0.0098 points.

1. Nick Blakey

22

Nick Blakey

Age

26

Ht

196cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.4

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

7.2

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.2

3star

, ranked 13th

Blakey is not ranking this high because he is secretly a forward or because the model got drunk on rebound 50s. He is ranking this high because he is giving Sydney huge territory, clean ball movement, and defensive value at the same time.

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Rebound 50s	1st	6.78
Metres Gained	4th	608.8
Equity Post-Clearance	10th	11.01
Metres Gained per Disposal	10th	24.46
Equity Ball Use	23rd	6.05
Goal Assists	27th	1.00
Coaches Votes Avg	32nd	2.44
Intercepts	37th	5.89

The model’s view

Blakey is a territory trebuchet. Every possession seems to have wheels, boosters, and a tiny angry motorbike engine.

His profile is unusually complete for a general defender:

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.80
Scoring	+0.50
Territory / threat	+1.56
Ball use / retention	+0.80
Contest / clearance	+0.13
Defence	+0.72

That is why he beats Watson and Daicos in the 2026 ranking. He does not have Daicos’ raw midfield stat volcano, but he has fewer soft spots. He advances the ball, starts attacks, defends, retains, rebounds, and still pops up with assists.

Why he is not higher

His actual scoring profile is modest:

Metric	League Rank	Value
Goals Avg	246th	0.33
Marks Inside 50	343rd	0.00
xThreat per Kick	373rd	19.96
xScore per Shot	379th	2.49

Summary: Blakey ranks 13th because he is elite in territory and rebound, strong in ball use, good defensively, and still damaging enough offensively. The model loves multi-phase players, and Blakey has more phases than a cursed moon.

2. Nick Watson, ranked 16th

Watson is the purest attacking Nick here. The model is basically saying: “Small forward? Yes. But this one is carrying a flamethrower.”

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Equity Ball Use	3rd	8.89
Equity Post-Clearance	3rd	12.08
Goals Avg	6th	2.56
Scoreboard Impact	9th	22.0
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19th	5.33
Coaches Votes Avg	30th	2.56
Goal Assists	42nd	0.89
xThreat per Kick	49th	32.56

The model’s view

Watson is ranking this high because his forward possessions are deadly. He is not just touching the ball. He is turning touches into goals, shots, assists, and post-clearance value.

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.82
Scoring	+1.75
Territory / threat	+0.74
Ball use / retention	+0.89
Contest / clearance	+0.45
Defence	-0.52

That scoring bucket is the key. Watson is top 10 for goals and scoreboard impact, and top 3 for both post-clearance equity and ball-use equity. That means the model sees him as a high-value finisher and connector, not just a highlights packet.

Why he is below Blakey

The defensive and retention side clips him.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
Rebound 50s	455th	0.00
xRetain per Kick	463rd	46.60
Retention Rating	277th	0.91
Threat Rating	308th	-0.06

Some of that is role-based. A small forward is not expected to be Nick Blakey

22

Nick Blakey

Age

26

Ht

196cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.4

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

7.2

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.2

3star

with a fake moustache. But the model still rewards defensive and ball-retention value, so Watson loses a little ground there.

Summary: Watson ranks 16th because his scoring and post-clearance attacking impact are elite. He is a forward-half damage pixie with receipts. The reason he is not higher is that his defensive/intercept/rebound profile is naturally thin, and his retention indicators are not as strong as his scoreboard punch.

3. Nick Daicos, ranked 17th

Daicos is the weird one, because his best numbers are utterly silly. Not “good midfielder” silly. More like “someone left the stat tap running overnight” silly.

Why he is still elite

Metric	League Rank	Value
Coaches Votes Avg	1st	6.25
Inside 50s	1st	7.63
Metres Gained	1st	674.6
Score Involvement %	2nd	34.78
Score Involvements	5th	8.00
SuperCoach Avg	15th	112.75
Centre Clearances	21st	2.75
Contested Possessions	28th	10.25

That is a brutal attacking midfield resume. Coaches votes alone are doing a lot of lifting, because the model's gives them the biggest single weight. He is also first in metres gained and inside 50s, which is a huge territory signal.

The model’s view

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+5.21
Scoring	+1.11
Territory / threat	+1.35
Ball use / retention	+0.12
Contest / clearance	+1.26
Defence	-0.49

The model absolutely knows he is elite. It is not missing him. It has a giant neon arrow saying “this Nick is extremely important.”

So why only 17th?

Because model does not only reward production volume. It asks: did that volume retain value, create threat efficiently, defend, intercept, and avoid waste?

That is where Daicos gets dragged back.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Threat Rating	424th	-4.50
Disposal Retention %	440th	62.81
Kick Inside 50 Retention %	382nd	33.33
Retention Rating	333rd	-1.76
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
One Percenters	468th	0.38
Spoils	437th	0.13

That is the Daicos debate in spreadsheet form.

He is producing enormous raw attack and territory. But the model is saying some of that value leaks out through retention, threat rating, and low defensive/intercept contribution.

So he is a stat volcano, but the model is checking whether the lava builds land or just makes everything shiny and terrifying.

Summary: Daicos ranks 17th because his top-end production is insane, especially coaches votes, metres gained, inside 50s, and score involvement. He is not top 5 because his retention, threat rating, and defensive categories are relatively poor compared with the other elite players.

overall summary

Player	Why they rank there
Blakey	Best overall balance of the three. Elite territory, rebound, ball-use value, and defensive contribution.
Watson	Elite forward impact. Huge scoreboard and post-clearance value, but thinner defensively.
Daicos	Massive raw production and coach recognition, but the model penalises retention/threat/defensive gaps.

The model is basically saying:

Which Nick will the 2026 season?

All Nick's ranked:

2026 only, qualified 3+ games

Rank	Player	Team	Pos	Matches	Score	Move
13	Nick Blakey	Sydney	Gen. Defender	9	0.804	+3
16	Nick Watson	Hawthorn	Gen. Forward	9	0.741	-3
17	Nick Daicos	Collingwood	Midfielder	8	0.732	-3
79	Nick Larkey	North Melbourne	Key Forward	9	0.375	-30
238	Nick Haynes	Carlton	Gen. Defender	5	0.016	-30
353	Nick Murray	Adelaide	Key Defender	8	-0.140	-19
398	Nick Vlastuin	Richmond	Gen. Defender	8	-0.194	-25

If including Nicholas Madden, he is ranked 401st.

 

[Fadge]

Is Nick Daicos the next Nick?


2026 season only: the Nickonomics deep dive

Qualified players: 505

Top 3 Nicks

Nick	Overall Rank	Position Rank	Score	Movement
Nick Blakey	13	#1 Gen Defender	0.804	+3
Nick Watson	16	#1 Gen Forward	0.741	-3
Nick Daicos	17	#12 Midfielder	0.732	-3

Watson and Daicos are basically separated by a couple fibres of cowhide leather: 0.0098 points.

1. Nick Blakey, ranked 13th

Blakey is not ranking this high because he is secretly a forward or because the model got drunk on rebound 50s. He is ranking this high because he is giving Sydney huge territory, clean ball movement, and defensive value at the same time.

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Rebound 50s	1st	6.78
Metres Gained	4th	608.8
Equity Post-Clearance	10th	11.01
Metres Gained per Disposal	10th	24.46
Equity Ball Use	23rd	6.05
Goal Assists	27th	1.00
Coaches Votes Avg	32nd	2.44
Intercepts	37th	5.89

The model’s view

Blakey is a territory trebuchet. Every possession seems to have wheels, boosters, and a tiny angry motorbike engine.

His profile is unusually complete for a general defender:

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.80
Scoring	+0.50
Territory / threat	+1.56
Ball use / retention	+0.80
Contest / clearance	+0.13
Defence	+0.72

That is why he beats Watson and Daicos in the 2026 ranking. He does not have Daicos’ raw midfield stat volcano, but he has fewer soft spots. He advances the ball, starts attacks, defends, retains, rebounds, and still pops up with assists.

Why he is not higher

His actual scoring profile is modest:

Metric	League Rank	Value
Goals Avg	246th	0.33
Marks Inside 50	343rd	0.00
xThreat per Kick	373rd	19.96
xScore per Shot	379th	2.49

Summary: Blakey ranks 13th because he is elite in territory and rebound, strong in ball use, good defensively, and still damaging enough offensively. The model loves multi-phase players, and Blakey has more phases than a cursed moon.

2. Nick Watson, ranked 16th

Watson is the purest attacking Nick here. The model is basically saying: “Small forward? Yes. But this one is carrying a flamethrower.”

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Equity Ball Use	3rd	8.89
Equity Post-Clearance	3rd	12.08
Goals Avg	6th	2.56
Scoreboard Impact	9th	22.0
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19th	5.33
Coaches Votes Avg	30th	2.56
Goal Assists	42nd	0.89
xThreat per Kick	49th	32.56

The model’s view

Watson is ranking this high because his forward possessions are deadly. He is not just touching the ball. He is turning touches into goals, shots, assists, and post-clearance value.

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.82
Scoring	+1.75
Territory / threat	+0.74
Ball use / retention	+0.89
Contest / clearance	+0.45
Defence	-0.52

That scoring bucket is the key. Watson is top 10 for goals and scoreboard impact, and top 3 for both post-clearance equity and ball-use equity. That means the model sees him as a high-value finisher and connector, not just a highlights packet.

Why he is below Blakey

The defensive and retention side clips him.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
Rebound 50s	455th	0.00
xRetain per Kick	463rd	46.60
Retention Rating	277th	0.91
Threat Rating	308th	-0.06

Some of that is role-based. A small forward is not expected to be Nick Blakey with a fake moustache. But the model still rewards defensive and ball-retention value, so Watson loses a little ground there.

Summary: Watson ranks 16th because his scoring and post-clearance attacking impact are elite. He is a forward-half damage pixie with receipts. The reason he is not higher is that his defensive/intercept/rebound profile is naturally thin, and his retention indicators are not as strong as his scoreboard punch.

3. Nick Daicos, ranked 17th

Daicos is the weird one, because his best numbers are utterly silly. Not “good midfielder” silly. More like “someone left the stat tap running overnight” silly.

Why he is still elite

Metric	League Rank	Value
Coaches Votes Avg	1st	6.25
Inside 50s	1st	7.63
Metres Gained	1st	674.6
Score Involvement %	2nd	34.78
Score Involvements	5th	8.00
SuperCoach Avg	15th	112.75
Centre Clearances	21st	2.75
Contested Possessions	28th	10.25

That is a brutal attacking midfield resume. Coaches votes alone are doing a lot of lifting, because the model's gives them the biggest single weight. He is also first in metres gained and inside 50s, which is a huge territory signal.

The model’s view

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+5.21
Scoring	+1.11
Territory / threat	+1.35
Ball use / retention	+0.12
Contest / clearance	+1.26
Defence	-0.49

The model absolutely knows he is elite. It is not missing him. It has a giant neon arrow saying “this Nick is extremely important.”

So why only 17th?

Because model does not only reward production volume. It asks: did that volume retain value, create threat efficiently, defend, intercept, and avoid waste?

That is where Daicos gets dragged back.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Threat Rating	424th	-4.50
Disposal Retention %	440th	62.81
Kick Inside 50 Retention %	382nd	33.33
Retention Rating	333rd	-1.76
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
One Percenters	468th	0.38
Spoils	437th	0.13

That is the Daicos debate in spreadsheet form.

He is producing enormous raw attack and territory. But the model is saying some of that value leaks out through retention, threat rating, and low defensive/intercept contribution.

So he is a stat volcano, but the model is checking whether the lava builds land or just makes everything shiny and terrifying.

Summary: Daicos ranks 17th because his top-end production is insane, especially coaches votes, metres gained, inside 50s, and score involvement. He is not top 5 because his retention, threat rating, and defensive categories are relatively poor compared with the other elite players.

overall summary

Player	Why they rank there
Blakey	Best overall balance of the three. Elite territory, rebound, ball-use value, and defensive contribution.
Watson	Elite forward impact. Huge scoreboard and post-clearance value, but thinner defensively.
Daicos	Massive raw production and coach recognition, but the model penalises retention/threat/defensive gaps.

The model is basically saying:



All Nick's ranked:

2026 only, qualified 3+ games

Rank	Player	Team	Pos	Matches	Score	Move
13	Nick Blakey	Sydney	Gen. Defender	9	0.804	+3
16	Nick Watson	Hawthorn	Gen. Forward	9	0.741	-3
17	Nick Daicos	Collingwood	Midfielder	8	0.732	-3
79	Nick Larkey	North Melbourne	Key Forward	9	0.375	-30
238	Nick Haynes	Carlton	Gen. Defender	5	0.016	-30
353	Nick Murray	Adelaide	Key Defender	8	-0.140	-19
398	Nick Vlastuin	Richmond	Gen. Defender	8	-0.194	-25

If including Nicholas Madden, he is ranked 401st.

I think 17th in the comp is still way too high for Daicos and your associated trolling.

You really need to cap more metrics that he excels in. I want to see a case where he's outside the top 50.

 

[Bigthirsty81]

Still the Bont, but there is a fair list of names directly behind him that will assume the mantle next year

Till he slots in to centre
half back and dominates

 

[RCAB]

Looking at my model's provisional rankings after last night's game, one player is probably making a nuclear jump into the top 15 after been outside the top 50. I think most will know who it is, I'm pretty sure Mr. Meow knows who it is.

 

[Mr Meow]

Looking at my model's provisional rankings after last night's game, one player is probably making a nuclear jump into the top 15 after been outside the top 50. I think most will know who it is, I'm pretty sure Mr. Meow knows who it is.

Ex-Collingwood player, tall, has a beard?

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Is Nick Daicos the best Nick?


2026 season only: the Nickonomics deep dive

Qualified players: 505

Top 3 Nicks

Nick	Overall Rank	Position Rank	Score	Movement
Nick Blakey	13	#1 Gen Defender	0.804	+3
Nick Watson	16	#1 Gen Forward	0.741	-3
Nick Daicos	17	#12 Midfielder	0.732	-3

Watson and Daicos are basically separated by a couple fibres of cowhide leather: 0.0098 points.

1. Nick Blakey, ranked 13th

Blakey is not ranking this high because he is secretly a forward or because the model got drunk on rebound 50s. He is ranking this high because he is giving Sydney huge territory, clean ball movement, and defensive value at the same time.

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Rebound 50s	1st	6.78
Metres Gained	4th	608.8
Equity Post-Clearance	10th	11.01
Metres Gained per Disposal	10th	24.46
Equity Ball Use	23rd	6.05
Goal Assists	27th	1.00
Coaches Votes Avg	32nd	2.44
Intercepts	37th	5.89

The model’s view

Blakey is a territory trebuchet. Every possession seems to have wheels, boosters, and a tiny angry motorbike engine.

His profile is unusually complete for a general defender:

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.80
Scoring	+0.50
Territory / threat	+1.56
Ball use / retention	+0.80
Contest / clearance	+0.13
Defence	+0.72

That is why he beats Watson and Daicos in the 2026 ranking. He does not have Daicos’ raw midfield stat volcano, but he has fewer soft spots. He advances the ball, starts attacks, defends, retains, rebounds, and still pops up with assists.

Why he is not higher

His actual scoring profile is modest:

Metric	League Rank	Value
Goals Avg	246th	0.33
Marks Inside 50	343rd	0.00
xThreat per Kick	373rd	19.96
xScore per Shot	379th	2.49

Summary: Blakey ranks 13th because he is elite in territory and rebound, strong in ball use, good defensively, and still damaging enough offensively. The model loves multi-phase players, and Blakey has more phases than a cursed moon.

2. Nick Watson, ranked 16th

Watson is the purest attacking Nick here. The model is basically saying: “Small forward? Yes. But this one is carrying a flamethrower.”

Why he is this high

Metric	League Rank	Value
Equity Ball Use	3rd	8.89
Equity Post-Clearance	3rd	12.08
Goals Avg	6th	2.56
Scoreboard Impact	9th	22.0
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19th	5.33
Coaches Votes Avg	30th	2.56
Goal Assists	42nd	0.89
xThreat per Kick	49th	32.56

The model’s view

Watson is ranking this high because his forward possessions are deadly. He is not just touching the ball. He is turning touches into goals, shots, assists, and post-clearance value.

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+1.82
Scoring	+1.75
Territory / threat	+0.74
Ball use / retention	+0.89
Contest / clearance	+0.45
Defence	-0.52

That scoring bucket is the key. Watson is top 10 for goals and scoreboard impact, and top 3 for both post-clearance equity and ball-use equity. That means the model sees him as a high-value finisher and connector, not just a highlights packet.

Why he is below Blakey

The defensive and retention side clips him.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
Rebound 50s	455th	0.00
xRetain per Kick	463rd	46.60
Retention Rating	277th	0.91
Threat Rating	308th	-0.06

Some of that is role-based. A small forward is not expected to be Nick Blakey with a fake moustache. But the model still rewards defensive and ball-retention value, so Watson loses a little ground there.

Summary: Watson ranks 16th because his scoring and post-clearance attacking impact are elite. He is a forward-half damage pixie with receipts. The reason he is not higher is that his defensive/intercept/rebound profile is naturally thin, and his retention indicators are not as strong as his scoreboard punch.

3. Nick Daicos, ranked 17th

Daicos is the weird one, because his best numbers are utterly silly. Not “good midfielder” silly. More like “someone left the stat tap running overnight” silly.

Why he is still elite

Metric	League Rank	Value
Coaches Votes Avg	1st	6.25
Inside 50s	1st	7.63
Metres Gained	1st	674.6
Score Involvement %	2nd	34.78
Score Involvements	5th	8.00
SuperCoach Avg	15th	112.75
Centre Clearances	21st	2.75
Contested Possessions	28th	10.25

That is a brutal attacking midfield resume. Coaches votes alone are doing a lot of lifting, because the model's gives them the biggest single weight. He is also first in metres gained and inside 50s, which is a huge territory signal.

The model’s view

Bucket	Approx Strength
Star proof	+5.21
Scoring	+1.11
Territory / threat	+1.35
Ball use / retention	+0.12
Contest / clearance	+1.26
Defence	-0.49

The model absolutely knows he is elite. It is not missing him. It has a giant neon arrow saying “this Nick is extremely important.”

So why only 17th?

Because model does not only reward production volume. It asks: did that volume retain value, create threat efficiently, defend, intercept, and avoid waste?

That is where Daicos gets dragged back.

Metric	League Rank	Value
Threat Rating	424th	-4.50
Disposal Retention %	440th	62.81
Kick Inside 50 Retention %	382nd	33.33
Retention Rating	333rd	-1.76
Intercept Marks	395th	0.00
One Percenters	468th	0.38
Spoils	437th	0.13

That is the Daicos debate in spreadsheet form.

He is producing enormous raw attack and territory. But the model is saying some of that value leaks out through retention, threat rating, and low defensive/intercept contribution.

So he is a stat volcano, but the model is checking whether the lava builds land or just makes everything shiny and terrifying.

Summary: Daicos ranks 17th because his top-end production is insane, especially coaches votes, metres gained, inside 50s, and score involvement. He is not top 5 because his retention, threat rating, and defensive categories are relatively poor compared with the other elite players.

overall summary

Player	Why they rank there
Blakey	Best overall balance of the three. Elite territory, rebound, ball-use value, and defensive contribution.
Watson	Elite forward impact. Huge scoreboard and post-clearance value, but thinner defensively.
Daicos	Massive raw production and coach recognition, but the model penalises retention/threat/defensive gaps.

The model is basically saying:




All Nick's ranked:

2026 only, qualified 3+ games

Rank	Player	Team	Pos	Matches	Score	Move
13	Nick Blakey	Sydney	Gen. Defender	9	0.804	+3
16	Nick Watson	Hawthorn	Gen. Forward	9	0.741	-3
17	Nick Daicos	Collingwood	Midfielder	8	0.732	-3
79	Nick Larkey	North Melbourne	Key Forward	9	0.375	-30
238	Nick Haynes	Carlton	Gen. Defender	5	0.016	-30
353	Nick Murray	Adelaide	Key Defender	8	-0.140	-19
398	Nick Vlastuin	Richmond	Gen. Defender	8	-0.194	-25

If including Nicholas Madden, he is ranked 401st.

Love this but my question would be why in Watsons case is rebounds even a comparison or discussion piece. Considering he’s not a defender so he’ll never be someone to be high for rebounding the ball?

My issue is not the data it’s what data is deemed important for someone’s role, and then making the decision on if this data is what’s important for a small forward, or a mid, or a defender half back. Then you need to look at the value of their rating v position, to rating generally. Some roles can be easier to produce in, and whatnot. The data itself is objective, how you use it is the subjective part in my opinion.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Tier A1 - Marcus Bontempelli

4

Marcus Bontempelli

Age

30

Ht

194cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.5

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

10.3

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.8

5star

CL

4.4

5star

D

18.4

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

8.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

4.1

5star

CL

4.0

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

1.8

4star

Tier A2 - Nick Daicos, Zak Butters

9

Zak Butters

Age

25

Ht

181cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.3

4star

K

7.7

3star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.8

3star

D

14.7

4star

K

8.9

4star

HB

5.9

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.1

3star

D

17.0

5star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.6

4star

CL

0.6

3star

, Isaac Heeney

5

Isaac Heeney

Age

30

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

4.9

5star

T

4.1

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

14.3

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.5

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.5

3star

CL

0.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.8

3star

Tier A3 - Bailey Smith

3

Bailey Smith

Age

25

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

, Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

33

Ht

177cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

, Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

34

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

, Kozzie Pickett, NWM, Caleb Serong

3

Caleb Serong

Age

25

Ht

180cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.0

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

5star

CL

2.6

4star

D

13.0

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

4star

CL

2.6

4star

D

13.0

4star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

5star

CL

2.6

5star

Then theres a huge amount under that. But its clearly Bont at the moment.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Tier A1 - Marcus Bontempelli
Tier A2 - Nick Daicos, Zak Butters, Isaac Heeney
Tier A3 - Bailey Smith, Lachie Neale, Max Gawn, Kozzie Pickett, NWM, Caleb Serong

Then theres a huge amount under that. But its clearly Bont at the moment.

I don’t have Serong in tier 3 tbh but fair

 

[EBERT THE KING]

I don’t have Serong in tier 3 tbh but fair

Understandable. Think he goes under the radar due to being in Perth.

He would be the best player at multiple big Victorian clubs

 

[Fadge]

Understandable. Think he goes under the radar due to being in Perth.

He would be the best player at multiple big Victorian clubs

Serong should be above Smith, Pickett and Nas, because he's been playing at the level for longer, despite having received much more opposition attention than all 3 of them over that time.