20 Disposals and a goal

[My Tilly]

Goal kicking mids are gold

It's why Collingwood don't need a gun forward line.
Not many teams have two midfielders who average over 20 disposals and kick almost a goal per game like Daicos & de Goey.
de Goey's second goal in the dying stages of last years grand final was arguably the difference in the game.

It is why Sydney should be a premiership favourite this season. Warner & Gulden, in addition to an emerging star-studded forward line, they'll be tough to crack.

 

[Mr Meow]

It's why Collingwood don't need a gun forward line.
Not many teams have two midfielders who average over 20 disposals and kick almost a goal per game like Daicos & de Goey.
de Goey's second goal in the dying stages of last years grand final was arguably the difference in the game.

It is why Sydney should be a premiership favourite this season. Warner & Gulden, in addition to an emerging star-studded forward line, they'll be tough to crack.

Was the same for Geelong 2007-2011 (although the 2008 limited forward line with Chappy/Stokes carrying knocks wasn't ideal and may have cost us). SJ and Chapman were outstanding flankers, Stokes/Varcoe solid help and Mooney without being a star did step up. But it wasn't a forward line built around two superstar KPFs. What made Geelong a scoring powerhouse though was that Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Ling, Selwood etc as a whole kicked and created bundles of goals.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It can be true that doing more with the ball is a good thing but your criteria of 20 disposals and 1 goal is still very arbitary.

For instance yes Bont only kicked 0.8 goals per game last year to Martin's 1.2, so Bont would not meet your criteria, but Bont had 250% more clearances than Martin in 2023, 350% more tackles, more disposals and more inside 50's too.

So Bontempelli does not meet your criteria even though he had a considerably better season than Martin, just because he didn't kick another 2 goals in the season.

This is right. 20 + 1 is not a reliable way of measuring the best players in the game. But it is a relatively simple way of measuring which of the best mids are hitting the scoreboard and which of the best forwards are doing more than just getting goals. There is very little doubt that in the current context at least, if you have a 20+1 season you are up around and amongst the top couple of players in each team during that season.

 

[Sphynx]

Does it though? Adding two fairly below average stats together does not make someone elite.

It is like those people on bigfooty who say "package up fringe player A and fringe player B and demand a top 10 pick". Adding two fringe players together does not mean clubs will want to pay a premium just because there are two of them.

I mean Buddy averaged 14.8 disposals and 3 goals per match over the course of his very long career. Yes he got 5.2 disposals lower than your criteria, but I would argue the extra 2 goals per game makes up for it and then some.

The disposals is not elite, but the goal kicking is, whereas 20 disposals and 1 goal is not elite in anything.

It does in this case.

Having the prerequisite of 20+ disposals pretty much removes all forwards and having the prerequisite of 1+ goals removes 99% of most midfielders, leaving pretty much only the most damaging goal kicking midfielders or the most high production half forwards.

It’s a good bench mark imo.

 

[H00t]

It does in this case.

Having the prerequisite of 20+ disposals pretty much removes all forwards and having the prerequisite of 1+ goals removes 99% of most midfielders, leaving pretty much only the most damaging goal kicking midfielders or the most high production half forwards.

It’s a good bench mark imo.

It’s a stat purely mainly for half forward flankers. It adds the odd midfielder who gets to spend time forward but generally it focuses on flankers.

It’s not like hitting this mythical 20 and 1 elevates a players game over someone going 19 and 3 or 30 and 0.8.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It’s a stat purely mainly for half forward flankers. It adds the odd midfielder who gets to spend time forward but generally it focuses on flankers.

It’s not like hitting this mythical 20 and 1 elevates a players game over someone going 19 and 3 or 30 and 0.8.

The trouble is nobody is going 19 and 3 or 30 and 0.8.

The 20 + 1 is not really the important bit here. There would be a whole range of equivalent benchmarks, eg 25 + 0.8 and 15 + 1.33 and so on. But the players achieving these benchmarks are just like the 20 + 1 cohort, they are right up there with the top couple of players in a team on average.

Then of course from there we have a host of modern stats available to help compare the players achieving these type of benchmarks with each other. How many goal assists, contested possessions, score involvements, tackles, pressure points and so on.

This is why the maligned player ratings are so useful, they take all of these things into account and they don't rely on arbitrary thresholds. Every positive action adds to your rating, every negative action subtracts from your rating.

 

[Grrr]

It's why Collingwood don't need a gun forward line.
Not many teams have two midfielders who average over 20 disposals and kick almost a goal per game like Daicos & de Goey.
de Goey's second goal in the dying stages of last years grand final was arguably the difference in the game.

It is why Sydney should be a premiership favourite this season. Warner & Gulden, in addition to an emerging star-studded forward line, they'll be tough to crack.

You make a good point about goal kicking mids, but there is another factor that you note but maybe don't place enough importance on, and certainly doesn't show up in stats, kicking goals when you need them/x-factor. Toby Green would be no.1 on that list, Martin in finals, De Goey as you mention, Bont seems to do, Gray another, and plenty more, they do it when their team needs them most at critical times. The really great players have that quality.

 

[Mr Meow]

The trouble is nobody is going 19 and 3 or 30 and 0.8.

The 20 + 1 is not really the important bit here. There would be a whole range of equivalent benchmarks, eg 25 + 0.8 and 15 + 1.25 and so on. But the players achieving these benchmarks are just like the 20 + 1 cohort, they are right up there with the top couple of players in a team on average.

Then of course from there we have a host of modern stats available to help compare the players achieving these type of benchmarks with each other. How many goal assists, contested possessions, score involvements, tackles, pressure points and so on.

This is why the maligned player ratings are so useful, they take all of these things into account and they don't rely on arbitrary thresholds. Every positive action adds to your rating, every negative action subtracts from your rating.

Player Ratings are awful and not the answer.

Your first idea loosely related about scaling goal/disposal ratios up or down at least made sense to a degree. It would still heavily favour hybrids over pure mids or forwards.

A midfielder who spends 40-50% time forward will always be favoured in these comparisons.

 

[Sphynx]

Player Ratings are awful and not the answer.

Your first idea loosely related about scaling goal/disposal ratios up or down at least made sense to a degree. It would still heavily favour hybrids over pure mids or forwards.

A midfielder who spends 40-50% time forward will always be favoured in these comparisons.

Im one of the few that actually doesn't mind player ratings.

No rating system is ever going to be perfect, it's not perfect in how it classifies players in their positions and thus judges players and rates them against others in this player pool.

But it uses advanced stats, attempts to rate like for like players and their relative values in that position and values the most valuable contested stats over all else.


Honestly 99% of football fans (including commentators) just look straight past everything and straight to the disposal column.

Player Ratings is better than most for at least cutting away 70% of the crap statistics and then its down to really diving into players within those ratings imo.

 

[Mr Meow]

Im one of the few that actually doesn't mind player ratings.

No rating system is ever going to be perfect, it's not perfect in how it classifies players in their positions and thus judges players and rates them against others in this player pool.

But it uses advanced stats, attempts to rate like for like players and their relative values in that position and values the most valuable contested stats over all else.


Honestly 99% of football fans (including commentators) just look straight past everything and straight to the disposal column.

Player Ratings is better than most for at least cutting away 70% of the crap statistics and then its down to really diving into players within those ratings imo.

I disagree based around how often the basic match ratings disagree with universal opinion each time. I'd trust even a random BF or Herald Sun reporters "best players" list more.

They generally are something fairly simple (apologies, not sure how else to word it) folk trumpet as a replacement for any actual analysis. If instead you used an aggregate of a few different rating systems? Well it'd be slightly better - if you also weighted in opponents rating.

When they are used without context as a be-all-end-all "flex" (admittedly I've only seen one person do this and they're not renowned for being very bright) it comes across as fairly flakey.

 

[H00t]

The trouble is nobody is going 19 and 3 or 30 and 0.8.

Not exactly but close enough

Nick Daicos 31 disposals and 0.86 goals

Toby Greene 17.75 disposals and 2.75 goals.

Tim Taranto 28.8 disposals 0.83 goals

Even Bont had 27.7 and 0.8 goals

So yeah nobody

 

[H00t]

Im one of the few that actually doesn't mind player ratings.

No rating system is ever going to be perfect, it's not perfect in how it classifies players in their positions and thus judges players and rates them against others in this player pool.

But it uses advanced stats, attempts to rate like for like players and their relative values in that position and values the most valuable contested stats over all else.


Honestly 99% of football fans (including commentators) just look straight past everything and straight to the disposal column.

Player Ratings is better than most for at least cutting away 70% of the crap statistics and then its down to really diving into players within those ratings imo.

It’s super coach scores with a lower rating for uncontested possessions and a harsher rating for clangers and turnovers.

The raw data is more valuable though than the mashed together number at the end. Because the raw data doesn’t get affected by the rating bias inherent in any weighting system.

It also has all the negatives of counting actions. Rather than judging on a whole.

 

[Sphynx]

I disagree based around how often the basic match ratings disagree with universal opinion each time. I'd trust even a random BF or Herald Sun reporters "best players" list more.

They generally are something fairly simple (apologies, not sure how else to word it) folk trumpet as a replacement for any actual analysis. If instead you used an aggregate of a few different rating systems? Well it'd be slightly better - if you also weighted in opponents rating.

When they are used without context as a be-all-end-all "flex" (admittedly I've only seen one person do this and they're not renowned for being very bright) it comes across as fairly flakey.

The Top 50 of 2023 looks fairly good to me, certainly no different to most objective lists:

 

[RUNVS]

The Top 50 of 2023 looks fairly good to me, certainly no different to most objective lists:

View attachment 1898906

Even those stats heavily favour midfielders. I think more points need to be given for goals and goal assists for forwards, and more points need to be given for winning one on one contests for defenders.

I remember sometimes Buddy would kick a bag for the Swans, be clearly the best player for the Swans and yet I looked at the supercoach points and saw statistically he was not the best player at the Swans and instead some midfielder who got 30+ touches was.

 

[Orange crush]

The Top 50 of 2023 looks fairly good to me, certainly no different to most objective lists:

View attachment 1898906

Trey Ruscoe?

 

[Cleansweep17]

Not exactly but close enough

Nick Daicos 31 disposals and 0.86 goals

Toby Greene 17.75 disposals and 2.75 goals.

Tim Taranto 28.8 disposals 0.83 goals

Even Bont had 27.7 and 0.8 goals

So yeah nobody

So pretty much the best handful of players of the season. 20 and 1 players were all AA squad/team quality as well. Not sure what the issue is, they are pretty good measures of elite mid/fwds. It’s mostly based on the time split between whether you get more disposals or more goals. But if you average it out they are also around the 20/25 and 1 mark.

 

[KissKiss]

Even those stats heavily favour midfielders. I think more points need to be given for goals and goal assists for forwards, and more points need to be given for winning one on one contests for defenders.

I remember sometimes Buddy would kick a bag for the Swans, be clearly the best player for the Swans and yet I looked at the supercoach points and saw statistically he was not the best player at the Swans and instead some midfielder who got 30+ touches was.

I mean at some level I do like its an attempt at a statistical ranking but the balance of it still doesn't seem right. I look at the 2 Grand Final Teams only having 4? in that top 50 and it doesnt seem right (ignoring champion versus team of champions thing).

So yeah you are right, like most people tend to do, its still way over-rating a lot of meaningless midfield touches and under-rating scoring. And yeah ranking of defenders is incredibly hard as so much of their most important work happens without the ball being near them

 

[Sphynx]

Trey Ruscoe?

He's played 1 game, if I changed the qualifier hed be gone

 

[RUNVS]

For midfielders I actually don't like disposals as a metric.

I think the two things midfielders should be considered on (not necessarily both, but at least one) is effective metres gained and clearances. Almost no other stat matters.

 

[Pistol Night]

For midfielders I actually don't like disposals as a metric.

I think the two things midfielders should be considered on (not necessarily both, but at least one) is effective metres gained and clearances. Almost no other stat matters.

Stoppage clearances that retain possession are enormous. DeGoeys prelim was massive

 

[KissKiss]

For midfielders I actually don't like disposals as a metric.

I think the two things midfielders should be considered on (not necessarily both, but at least one) is effective metres gained and clearances. Almost no other stat matters.

While clearance does cover getting the ball out it still doesnt differentiate if it was a good clearance or not.

I've always wanted to see something more like assisted metres gained covered more or building it into the scoring chain measure or delivering the ball inside 30 chain. ie people downgrade guys like Tom Mitchell for high disposals with low metres gained, but really if they are getting it out to someone like Daicos who delivers it inside 50 then they have done a great job

 

[PhatBoy]

If you play in the midfield and you ARENT incredibly slow, you have SOME game sense, and you ARENT being kind of tagged, you are going to get the ball a fair bit. That’s the bottom line.

It’s a stat like saying ‘such and such a rugby league half back had 500 kicking metres’ well yeah of course he f**king did. He handles the ball more than any player on the field aside from the dummy half and his job is to kick it on the last tackle so big deal.

WHERE did those kicks go? Did they find the turf? Did they turn the fullback around? Did they give his chasers time to get to the other end of the field?

The decisions made with the possessions, even down to who he gives them to: whether they are contested or not, are they a little give to a good user or a bad ball user, is it someone quick or someone who’s about to get picked off. You might be able to hit a teammate on the chest with a handball 20 metres away but if he’s going to get nailed, or f**k up his kick it’s pretty pointless so maybe you’re better off dumping it 50m down the line yourself. There are a million variables in what a ‘disposal’ means.

 

[RUNVS]

While clearance does cover getting the ball out it still doesnt differentiate if it was a good clearance or not.

I've always wanted to see something more like assisted metres gained covered more or building it into the scoring chain measure or delivering the ball inside 30 chain. ie people downgrade guys like Tom Mitchell for high disposals with low metres gained, but really if they are getting it out to someone like Daicos who delivers it inside 50 then they have done a great job

Yes I think assist metres gained on a clearance is a good one actually.

So

Effective metres gained

and

Assisted effective metres gained (from a clearance)

I think we can all agree though that "disposals" is a very 1980's way of looking at how effective a midfielder is and it should have been phased out a long time ago. The two stats above would actually tell us a lot more about the best midfielders, but unfortunately even though they could exist, neither stat actually exists, or if it does we do not have access to them.

 

[H00t]

So pretty much the best handful of players of the season. 20 and 1 players were all AA squad/team quality as well. Not sure what the issue is, they are pretty good measures of elite mid/fwds. It’s mostly based on the time split between whether you get more disposals or more goals. But if you average it out they are also around the 20/25 and 1 mark.

I got those names by moving away from the 20 and 1 criteria.

Some of those names are had vastly better years than the others.

Also worth noting between 20 and 1 and the names I came up with 3 of the 7 play for 1 team. Which suggests game plan comes into it a lot.

Missing from these lists are a vast majority of very good players this year.

It’s nice as a statistic but useless to compare players.

 

[KissKiss]

Yes I think assist metres gained on a clearance is a good one actually.

So

Effective metres gained

and

Assisted effective metres gained (from a clearance)

I think we can all agree though that "disposals" is a very 1980's way of looking at how effective a midfielder is and it should have been phased out a long time ago. The two stats above would actually tell us a lot more about the best midfielders, but unfortunately even though they could exist, neither stat actually exists, or if it does we do not have access to them.

I have seen the assisted metres gained stat quoted once by media or a Champion Data rep. So its clearly one of those special stats that they sell to clubs but hide from the public. It would elevate the conversation a lot but they really seem reluctant to do so except through their own special formulas