2017 Best midfield and depth

[HairyO]

Goldstein if can rediscover his mojo after personal issues.

So it wasnt a season-long knee injury?

 

[Janus]

There is no way Adelaide have the best midfield. There are at least a few side better & we are the next rung down imo.

How do we have a soft defence? Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Laird, Brown & Cheney are hardly soft players.

Only agree that we are #1 in the forward line, but you only need to look at out goal scoring to work that out.

This is based on 2016 performance - your transition from defence to attack was the best in the competition and for some reason not many teams seemed to figure out how to cope with your game style.

As for defence - that relates to inside 50s conceded and points conceded. It's to do with midfield + defenders, not defenders by themselves.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This is based on 2016 performance - your transition from defence to attack was the best in the competition and for some reason not many teams seemed to figure out how to cope with your game style.

As for defence - that relates to inside 50s conceded and points conceded. It's to do with midfield + defenders, not defenders by themselves.

Sure, but you called our defence soft... when this has more to do with our game plan, which over-attacked at times, leaving defenders vulnerable on the counter.

Nothing to do with the players being soft!

 

[Janus]

Sure, but you called our defence soft... when this has more to do with our game plan, which over-attacked at times, leaving defenders vulnerable on the counter.

Nothing to do with the players being soft!

One way running then

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

One way running then

Would apply more to our so called #1 midfield, than our defenders, which is why the rankings make no sense.

Thommo was probably the biggest serial offender, so replacing Thompson, Lyons & Mackay with Knight, Hampton & Cameron in the midfield mix should hopefully address the 2 way running.

 

[Lsta062]

Ok - last revision:

A couple of things:

1. Adelaide's soft **** defensive side of the ball is what cost them a flag in 2016. Too much front running, not enough hard nuts.

2. Conversely, it is Sydney's defence that puts them in at 2 overall. Defence wins games in the modern era.

3. The Bulldogs won the flag because their midfield is better than Sydney's. Both teams have a poor attack efficiency (relatively speaking) and are similar with defensive efficiency.

4. Geelong, West Coast and GWS are pretty balanced sides that, if all things were equal, would be fighting for top four again this year. But West Coast needed 1031 hitouts to generate 828 clearances...and they don't have the ruck support in 2017. Similarly, Geelong gathered 832 clearances from the highest amount of 3rd man up attempts in the competition. Will be interesting to see if both those sides can replicate what they did in 2016.

P.S Port will still be a top five midfield this year.

While I agree that our attack and defence were both better than our points for and against suggested (the midfield was an issue last year), I am curious as to how you got Richmond at 8th in the "Best Attack" ranking.

Using only inside 50s numbers and goals scored/conceded from afltables.com, I got this:

Defence:


Attack:



Midfield:


Richmond is ranked 16th for midfield (expected), 11th for attack and 12th of defence. It think this is closer to the mark in terms of our 2016 output.

Yes, going with only raw numbers of inside 50s and goal is quite simplistic, but I think it is still a good way to assess the raw output of the forward line, the defence and the midfield. In the end, the point of the midfield is to drive the ball to the forward line while minimising the amount of times the ball goes to the defensive 50 (no matter how much clearances they do and contested possessions they have). The point of the forward line is to score goals with entry into the forward 50 and the point of the defence is to halt goals with every opposition entry into their defensive 50. As long as the numbers are correct and teams going back into the defensive 50 from the midfield through strategy is not counted as a "defensive 50 entry" then this is a good way to view things IMO.

Your analysis does add another dimension though. It really highlights the potential of each midfield/forward line/defence and which ones are underperforming so I personally am a fan of it. They are not that much different to this one that I have (e.g. Bulldogs are ranked low in attack for both).

 

[Janus]

While I agree that our attack and defence were both better than our points for and against suggested (the midfield was an issue last year), I am curious as to how you got Richmond at 8th in the "Best Attack" ranking.

Using only inside 50s numbers and goals scored/conceded from afltables.com, I got this:

Defence:
View attachment 332944

Attack:
View attachment 332946


Midfield:
View attachment 332940

Richmond is ranked 16th for midfield (expected), 11th for attack and 12th of defence. It think this is closer to the mark in terms of our 2016 output.

Yes, going with only raw numbers of inside 50s and goal is quite simplistic, but I think it is still a good way to assess the raw output of the forward line, the defence and the midfield. In the end, the point of the midfield is to drive the ball to the forward line while minimising the amount of times the ball goes to the defensive 50 (no matter how much clearances they do and contested possessions they have). The point of the forward line is to score goals with entry into the forward 50 and the point of the defence is to halt goals with every opposition entry into their defensive 50. As long as the numbers are correct and teams going back into the defensive 50 from the midfield through strategy is not counted as a "defensive 50 entry" then this is a good way to view things IMO.

Your analysis does add another dimension though. It really highlights the potential of each midfield/forward line/defence and which ones are underperforming so I personally am a fan of it. They are not that much different to this one that I have (e.g. Bulldogs are ranked low in attack for both).

Mine is points (how potent your midfield is)/(contested possessions (how good it is at winning back the ball)/(hitouts/clearances (how good at is at generating play)). I'm gonna tweak it a bit but I think it's a good overall measure of how well a midfield is performing (and not necessarily how good it actually is).

I'll have to look at the attack formula again...but I believe I added clearance numbers to it (because a team with higher clearances should be getting higher inside 50s - if they aren't it shows their attack is defficient through the midfield).

 

[blueiris]

Is Gawn really an elite Ruckman or did he have good season?

The last Ruckman I would call elite was Dean Cox that guy was seriously something special

 

[juss]

Is Gawn really an elite Ruckman or did he have good season?

The last Ruckman I would call elite was Dean Cox that guy was seriously something special

Gawn had an elite 2016. If he stays at that level, he's elite, will have to wait and see how he goes. I'm tipping he'll hold his form.

 

[Lsta062]

Mine is points (how potent your midfield is)/(contested possessions (how good it is at winning back the ball)/(hitouts/clearances (how good at is at generating play)). I'm gonna tweak it a bit but I think it's a good overall measure of how well a midfield is performing (and not necessarily how good it actually is).

I'll have to look at the attack formula again...but I believe I added clearance numbers to it (because a team with higher clearances should be getting higher inside 50s - if they aren't it shows their attack is defficient through the midfield).

Yeah, Adelaide's midfield did perform decently last year overall. It may not be the best midfield (as it is seen against some of the good midfields in the competition) but for the most part performed well.

I did notice Richmond and Brisbane's attack were more potent than the points for suggested as well so yours still makes sense to me.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Dogs & Giants are standouts.. But from the rest i like the Demons, Nathan Jones, Jordan Lewis, Bernie Vince, Christian Petracca, Jack Viney, Angus Brayshaw, Dom Tyson, Clayton Oliver, Thomas Bugg

 

[demondavey]

Western Bulldogs & Melbourne bat very deep. VFL performances were excellent. I'd expect Collingwood to improve in 2017 given their strong VFL efforts, along with Geelong and Essendon.

GWS and Sydney are up there, along with Adelaide and West Coast. Hawthorn and St Kilda might surprise next tier.

 

[Mofra]

Yes, going with only raw numbers of inside 50s and goal is quite simplistic, but I think it is still a good way to assess the raw output of the forward line, the defence and the midfield. In the end, the point of the midfield is to drive the ball to the forward line while minimising the amount of times the ball goes to the defensive 50 (no matter how much clearances they do and contested possessions they have). The point of the forward line is to score goals with entry into the forward 50 and the point of the defence is to halt goals with every opposition entry into their defensive 50. As long as the numbers are correct and teams going back into the defensive 50 from the midfield through strategy is not counted as a "defensive 50 entry" then this is a good way to view things IMO.

Your analysis does add another dimension though. It really highlights the potential of each midfield/forward line/defence and which ones are underperforming so I personally am a fan of it. They are not that much different to this one that I have (e.g. Bulldogs are ranked low in attack for both).

Trying to rank each team through statistics and come up with reliable metrics is incredibly difficult though.
To use the Bulldogs as an example, on most measures we feature high on the midfield rankings and low to mid table for forwardline yet we constantly had 2 of our midfield rotation playing forward at any one time last year, and at least one of our high forwards was running up the ground to become a virtual outside midfielder as well (Stevens early in the year, Caleb Daniel and Liam Picken late in the year).

A coach that constantly drops a player behind the ball would probably have a team that features highly in terms of defensive output but a defensive unit that is only six men that performs almost as well would be far more useful as it allows that extra player to impact the contest in another part of the ground.

Stats can provide a vaguely useful framework but the eyeball test is still going to be the most relevant.

 

[Lsta062]

Trying to rank each team through statistics and come up with reliable metrics is incredibly difficult though.
To use the Bulldogs as an example, on most measures we feature high on the midfield rankings and low to mid table for forwardline yet we constantly had 2 of our midfield rotation playing forward at any one time last year, and at least one of our high forwards was running up the ground to become a virtual outside midfielder as well (Stevens early in the year, Caleb Daniel and Liam Picken late in the year).

A coach that constantly drops a player behind the ball would probably have a team that features highly in terms of defensive output but a defensive unit that is only six men that performs almost as well would be far more useful as it allows that extra player to impact the contest in another part of the ground.

Stats can provide a vaguely useful framework but the eyeball test is still going to be the most relevant.

It is not easy to do so as statistics only tell a part of the story. I think what stats can do (like the ones that I posted) is just analyse how a particular team does in a specific part of the ground (the midfield, defensive 50 and offensive 50 for example). Yes, it won't take into account the composition of the types of players there (e.g. forwards, midfielders etc.) but it can give an idea on how the entire team of players together perform at a specific part of the ground.

To understand how the forward 6 as a forward group, the midfielders and the back 6 as a defensive group perform regardless of what part of the ground they are in, we may have to look at how each player in that division performs and assess the entire division on a cumulative basis. We can then rank that division against other teams. This would probably be a better way using statistics to analyse how each division performs relative to the competition rather than the method I mentioned above using inside 50s alone. It probably won't tell the full story but at least I think that it would be a decent insight.

 

[Trav 20]

Is Gawn really an elite Ruckman or did he have good season?

The last Ruckman I would call elite was Dean Cox that guy was seriously something special

He had an elite season, but he needs to back up again and again to be considered an elite player.

The best ruckman since Madden is obviously Cox and he's a different beast to Gawn, Sandilands and Goldstein.

Cox was more a Jimmy Stynes link man and possession gatherer, whereas Gawn and others average far more hitouts/hitouts to advantage, etc.

Cox's highest ever AFL player rating was 107 and Gawn achieved 106 this year. They did it in different ways, but Gawn's year was most certainly "elite".

The no TMU should only help him in 2017.

 

[Dan87]

Any calculation that suggests Adelaide's midfield is #1 is flawed IMO

 

[adammania9]

Adelaide have a 5-8 midfield I think, on paper it doesn't look very attractive but just watching them, you know they're much better than thy are given credit for. I see no short term decline on the horizon, so there isn't anything that says they can't improve on their 2016 I think, especially when that midfield is the poorest third of the field in the side. I'd say both their forward and back lines are top four in the comp.

 

[Bokonon_]

Adelaide have a 5-8 midfield I think, on paper it doesn't look very attractive but just watching them, you know they're much better than thy are given credit for. I see no short term decline on the horizon, so there isn't anything that says they can't improve on their 2016 I think, especially when that midfield is the poorest third of the field in the side. I'd say both their forward and back lines are top four in the comp.

Agreed. They look awesome outside when their game clicks ( as it did against us, damn).

 

[Janus]

Any calculation that suggests Adelaide's midfield is #1 is flawed IMO

Not #1, just the best performing midfield for the 2016 regular season. There's no denying that they exploited a lot of sides up until finals. Most of it isn't their midfield, it's the game plan - but that's a key component of any midfield. Too bad their game plan fell apart when it really mattered (and will always due to their shoddy defensive actions).

 

[WilloTree]

That bloke from North Melbourne goes okay.

I wouldnt put NicNat in the same league as him and Gawn. Clearly the 2 best ruck weve seen in a long time.

Not that long actually..

All Australian, Brownlow Votes, Hitouts
Sandilands 4 82 7468
Cox 6 71 6628
Naitanui 1 23 3534
Goldstein 1 53 5501
Gawn 1 20 1852

..mind you. I still recon Graham Moss was better than the lot of 'em... and so was Stephen Michael.

 

[Bokonon_]

Not that long actually..

All Australian, Brownlow Votes, Hitouts
Sandilands 4 82 7468
Cox 6 71 6628
Naitanui 1 23 3534
Goldstein 1 53 5501
Gawn 1 20 1852

..mind you. I still recon Graham Moss was better than the lot of 'em... and so was Stephen Michael.

I definitely take your point.
Natanui's stats would be affected by injury time more than some?
I stand to be corrected but from my recollection Sandilands has been pretty robust over his career. Last years injury was sickening and I hope he comes back well this year.