Opportunity Cost

[quickstraw]

Actually it is right.
The opportunity cost is the quality of ball use. i.e. there is a trade-off between good ball use and not so good ball use.
We see it every week, how many times do you hear commentators talk about poor goal kicking costing teams?
For example: Tony Lockett can't take every kick for goal, but if you had to choose you would pick Tony Lockett to kick for goal.
Similarly if you had to choose between Sam Mitchell and Luke Ball delivering to your forward line you would pick Sam Mitchell every day of the week.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Not sure why so many are hung up and arguing the semantics of the true definition of opportunity cost?

 

[PowerForGood]

The problem is that the inequity in possession between an A grader and a B grader is often the opposition coaches tactics, in playing a defensive role on the A grader and less defensive on the B grader, the B grader will find more of the ball. It's not just a coach distributing possessions.

True opportunity cost analysis comes from the response to those tactics.
A) leave the situation as is and back your players (ala Scott Pendlebury)
B) have your A grader lock onto an opposition A grader, trying to shake the tag, then back your player in (what was suggested Cotchin should have done)
C) push your A grader up forward and see whether he can have a more immediate impact on the game with less touches (ala Dane Swan)

Which trade off A to B or A to C provides the benefit greater that the cost of losing your A grader's reduced possession count?
If neither trade off is a net positive, then you leave the situation as is (A)

 

[PowerForGood]

Here's an example.

4 players in the midfield going head to head.
Team A has players of quality A, B, C and D.
Team B has players of quality A+, B+, C+ and D+.

Put them head to head, in descending quality order, and Team B is better in all 4 match ups.

But what if Team A Coach sends player D to the top of the queue to play on player A+ in a tagging role, and everyone else slides down one.

Team A now is better in 3 of the 4 match ups (A vs B+, B vs C+, C vs D+)

The opportunity cost of sacrificing the best player playing in the most valuable position is the gain in relative value in 3 of the 4 match ups.

So what will Team B do in return? Etc etc.

 

[piedpiper32]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Not sure why so many are hung up and arguing the semantics of the true definition of opportunity cost?

OP:

Opportunity Cost should be the next buzz word in football.

You have chosen to make this thread about introducing "opportunity cost" as the next buzz word, others have pointed out your use of it is incorrect then you claim there is a focus on semantics

 

[quickstraw]

Any one watch last night's Port v Eagles game?

If anyone is under any illusion as to what I'm talking about:

Scott Selwood played his perfect game. He didn't get 40 touches, he got 16. 16 >>>>>> 40. Selwood, whilst a gut runner and a guy capable of accumulating ball is fumbly and has questionable ball use skills (a combo of decision making and disposal skills). These are the guys that you don't want getting 30+ touches. As a result of Selwood's game, Boak was largely ineffective.

On the other hand we had this happen:

Matt Priddis1122333010601 (that says 33 touches, not his social security number)

Whilst he had a better than usual game and dished out some good ball, he kills us. You can't win flags when B-graders consistently get 30+ touches. Priddis would be good if he got 15-20 good touches each week around the stoppages.....

 

[quickstraw]

OP:
You have chosen to make this thread about introducing "opportunity cost" as the next buzz word, others have pointed out your use of it is incorrect then you claim there is a focus on semantics

Cool story bro.

 

[nineteen eighty]

You are basing this on the assumption that B grader getting the ball is costing A grader an opportunity. This may be true at times, but in many cases is not. Often the A grader never even had the opportunity that was open to a B grader so there is no "opportunity cost". It only applies if you have foregone the opportunity to have A handling it over B and you cannot say that applies all the time.

And the stereotype of a typical Pies supporter is further diminished with this post. Well said.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I think it has just our team has developed to having more users in the midfield than just Watson and Stanton, we have a much more formidable midfield than we did a couple years back, Longergan and Welsh used to get hardly any possessions same with Hocking (still doesn't but is a tagger) but now we have Zaharackis, Heppell, Howlett, Goddard etc to pick up the slack and share possession more.

This principle also applies to all teams and not just how you've described it with EFC (which I agree with). Every team looks to develop midfield depth. The key word there is depth. Now some teams have greater depth than others. That means there are greater opportunities to spread the workload around than have it concentrated on one or two players. Those teams with very good depth have more than one "A grader" in the team and the focus on the grunts is to get the ball to them. Just because a grunt happens to on occasion get 25+ possies does not mean a team is hindered by it. Every team looks to get the ball to the "right type" of mid. What is "right type". Good decision maker with good execution skills. It's just that some teams have to make do with what they have.

And one point re my team...I think Cotchin is made to do too much of the inside work and him having to go and get the ball and then try to do something with it is really hurting the team. He has little inside support and whilst I know the Tiges are working hard on getting him some support, they need to make this a priority. Cotchin is wasted having to go and get the hard ball and then look to do something with it. I'm ok with him being a hard ball winner such as a Diesel. He then shouldn't have to look to be a Gerard Healey. Those that can remember Healey and Diesel at the Swans will know what I'm talking about...the two complimented each other beautifully.

Every team looks to get the right balance between inside and outside mids. So it's not a case of how many possession's a mid gets but more so how they get those possessions and whether that's the role the coaches are having him play in the team.