Rolling All Australian Team 2020
- Thread starter curnow inferno
- Start date
- Tagged users None
pineapple dee
Debutant
- Jun 23, 2016
- 104
- 173
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Yeah Zak Jones is a good player. But why was he dropped a couple of weeks ago?
- Oct 2, 2010
- 21,330
- 77,951
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
He wasnt. He was rested against Geelong due to the short turn arounds and his injury history.
pineapple dee
Debutant
- Jun 23, 2016
- 104
- 173
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Ok. I just noticed him out and wondered why.
- Aug 15, 2009
- 3,159
- 5,450
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I thought i would quote these stats, as I don’t think you have quoted them nearly enough.
try to get away from the stats and watch him play, the hawthorn game last night will give you enough of an idea of what’s going on.
Been dropped this year. But yeah put him in the squad.
- Banned
- #2,232
Get your head out of your ass and see some of the comments from others afterwards
I wouldn't put a player who spudded it up for a few rounds and then has been dropped into the AA team.
- Apr 6, 2015
- 758
- 990
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
So the only thing I said was about Supercoach. Happy to not comment on my other questions throughout the last 3 pages?
- Apr 6, 2015
- 758
- 990
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
This is the thing - I have watched him play! And that's why I'm asking cause I'm obviously missing something.
- Aug 15, 2009
- 3,159
- 5,450
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Ascendency ...you’re missing seeing the ascendency
if it was a stat, NN would do very well.
Alright, guess I'll bite the bullet to answer you.
I will preface my analysis that statistics must always be interpreted in their context because there are severe limitations to statistics.
That is to say, no two statistics in the same category should simply be considered as equal (unlike say how most fantasy football competitions treat them). A kick from one player may be more or less valuable than a kick from another player.
I'll give you an example over the last weekend. In our game against Hawthorn a total of 26 contested marks were taken for the game. Liam Ryan had three of them, as did Josh Kennedy.
Although these numbers, on paper, appear that Kennedy's game from a contested marking point of view was equal to Ryan's you only needed to see these six marks in context to know this wasn't the case. Kennedy's marks were taken in the second half and classified as "contested" by the statistician because his opponent had physical touch on him, however, the kicks coming in to him were substantially advantageous to him and he was the only player who had a play at the drop of the ball. Two of them resulted in goals.
Ryan's, by contrast, were on the back of two bewilderingly bad bombs from Gaff from the back of a scrimmage and one from a high ball from Ried where he had to jump on a player's back in order to bring down the mark. Here's a video of his final contested mark:
Importantly Ryan's two other contested marks resulted in goals to West Coast in the first quarter.
At quarter time we led by 22 points. A differential that the Hawks would ultimately not be able to overcome.
Now anyone watching this game would no doubt have an appreciation that Ryan's game was more important to West Coast's success than Kennedy (Ryan was given 2nd best on ground by both coaches), however, there is little separating these players when you look at the pure numbers.
The moral of this story is that statistics have context that make them more or less valuable than those we weigh up against them in a like-for-like comparison.
When it comes to ruckman the statistics that are really pertinent (as far as I consider them relevant) are as follows:
1. Hit outs to advantage (this is to be expected given their principal role is to give advantage to their team in ruck contests);
2. Hit out percentages won (this indicates the amount of time they beat their opponent);
3. Clearances (an extremely valuable contribution for any player at the scrimmage, rucks not excluded);
4. Contested Marks (this can often be in the form of an outlet relief down the wing or a flank mark that results in a goal scoring opportunity);
5. Goals (score board pressure is important for rucks, much like it is for midfielders); and
6. Score launchers (although this is the first year I've seen this stat so while I think it has a reflective value in theory I am always sceptical about new statistics for the sake of new statistics, particularly ones that are relatively unverifiable, see the "pressure gauge" for instance).
Statistics that I believe hold moderate to little value include contested possessions, inside 50s, tackles and intercepts.
Statistics that I believe hold little to no value include rebounds from 50, total possessions, uncontested marks and metres gained.
You may argue that this is a rather arbitrary list and, to some degree, you would be correct.
But, as with every position, there must be a preference for what that role entails.
I know that some other supporters value other things in a ruckman but, in my personal opinion, the above is a snapshot of the prototype ruckman's value in a game and to a team (still with limitations). This is why I prefer Naitanui as a ruckman than Cox, albeit that Cox had sustained brilliance that Naitanui, because of injuries, has not been able to have.
So let's compare Naitanui to Gawn and Goldstein in the critical categories (and these categories shouldn't be given the same value).
1. Hit-outs to advantage
Without context Gawn averages 10.2 HOs to advantage, Naitanui averages 9.27 HOs to advantage a game and Goldstein averages 8.08 HOs to advantage.
2. Hit-out percentages won
Without context Naitanui wins 61.8% of hit outs he competes in, Gawn wins 56.7% of hit outs he competes in and Goldstein wins 45.9% of hit outs he competes in.
3. Clearances
Without context Goldstein averages 6 clearances a game, Naitanui averages 5.36 clearances a game and Gawn averages 3.11 clearances a game.
4. Contested marks
Without context Gawn averages 2 contested marks a game, Goldstein averages 0.92 contested marks a game and Naitanui averages 0.36 contested marks a game.
5. Goals
Without context Goldstein has kicked 5 goals this year, Naitanui has kicked 3 goals this year, Gawn has kicked no goals this year.
6. Score launches
Without context Goldstein and Gawn average 3 a game and Naitanui averages 2.72 a game.
Is there anything that stands out from the above list?
Well, Naitanui averages less marks than the other two (approximately 1.5 less than Gawn a game and approximately 0.6 less than Goldstein a game).
Gawn hasn't hit the scoreboard at all this year.
I'm of the opinion that neither of these disparities are particularly relevant.
Goldstein kicking 5 goals more than Gawn doesn't automatically make him the All Australian ruckman. Maybe if he was kicking a goal a game it would be pertinent, but a 5 goal differential is minor in the grand scheme of things.
Similarly Naitanui averages less contested marks but still generates 1 i50 more than both Gawn and Goldstein.
So the more valuable type of contested mark (the target down the wing) may not be translating into forward 50 entries.
Or maybe it does, because Gawn or Goldstein hand off to a teammate who pumps the ball inside 50.
Yet such an act does not trigger a meaningful statistic beyond the single contested mark and effective handball that is attributed to the relevant player.
An example of further context I believe would be particularly relevant is how many clearances each of the above players has received from a free kick? By and large free kicks from ruck contests can be befuddling and very much a lottery. Goldstein has
9 more total free kicks that Gawn and 20 more total free kicks than Naitanui. Without context we don't know how many of the free kicks were actually legitimately payable and how many of those disposals are considered clearances from a statistical point of view.
The entirety of my post is to say that I don't think any of the meaningful statistics present that any one player should be selected ahead of the other. The statistics need to be explored in their context subjectively to measure their actual impact on the team (or potential impact). It is worth remembering that the difference between getting a score assist and a goal assist is the accuracy of your teammate's kick. Irrespective if you set him up at the top of the goal square or outside 50 the statistical importance of your play is completely dependent on your teammate's capacity to finish to the adequate standard. Similarly, a ruckman may win a hit out to advantage to a teammate that results in another stoppage (because your teammate failed to capitalise). An example of this would be a hit out that Naitanui made to Jack Redden to start the second quarter on Sunday:
This was a perfect palm down that Naitanui was correctly attributed a hit-out to advantage for.
However, because Redden was pushed off the kick (and could have legitimately been pinged by the umpire) this did not result in a direct inside 50 or goal scoring opportunity.
Naitanui absolutely did his job in this instance, but his impact was stunted because of his teammate's failure.
His only contribution in the stats column - a hit-out to advantage.
Contrast this with the start of the third quarter where Naitanui palms the ball down to Shuey, receives the handball back, kicks the ball forward and immediately follows up for the inside 50 for one of Kennedy's "contested marks". During this play Naitanui received a hit-out to advantage, two kicks, an inside 50 and a goal assist. Notably, despite Dwayne's commentary, he was not attributed a clearance, despite the fact that he had cleared the ball for all intents and purposes. This, in my mind, is much more valuable than a series of uncontested marks or even Naitanui's sole contested mark from earlier in the game. It is also more valuable than a free kick plucked out by the umpire and given to Goldstein. I'm sure you have examples of this that you could post regarding Gawn as well.
Despite having his most disposals for any game this year as well as the most hit-outs to advantage of any player this year (16) this was not in Naitanui's top 3 performances of 2020. Hence subjectively watching the play continues to prove to be more valuable than reading (and comparing) these players based on arbitrary statistics. A player's impact may be more (or less) than the sum total of the numbers that we view on the AFL website. Obviously we cannot simply dismiss biases that invariably effect a person's ability to properly contextualise, however, we should not for one make theoretical All Australian selections based on the limited picture that statistics alone provide.
Last edited:
- May 5, 2016
- 47,835
- 53,643
- AFL Club
- Geelong
lolllll.
yep ok.
what did he do in the 35 quarters of footy you fairly obviously haven’t watched him play this year?
- Apr 6, 2015
- 758
- 990
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
T
Thank. You.
I haven't been coming here to be a jerk and suggest Nic Nat is some middle of the road player. I genuinely have been watching a few WC games and agree he's a gun. I was just getting frustrated at being told to "just watch the game", or getting hit with the word "impact" again and again but no one would actually state in what ways when I asked. I just haven't been seeing this insanely dominant player people have been talking about.
I'll pay some more focus on a couple of the points you've noted above - I'm sure it'll help in my assessment of him. Cheers.
Alright, guess I'll bite the bullet to answer you.
I will preface my analysis that statistics must always be interpreted in their context because there are severe limitations to statistics.
That is to say, no two statistics in the same category should simply be considered as equal (unlike say how most fantasy football competitions treat them). A kick from one player may be more or less valuable than a kick from another player.
I'll give you an example over the last weekend. In our game against Hawthorn a total of 26 contested marks were taken for the game. Liam Ryan had three of them, as did Josh Kennedy.
Although these numbers, on paper, appear that Kennedy's game from a contested marking point of view was equal to Ryan's you only needed to see these six marks in context to know this wasn't the case. Kennedy's marks were taken in the second half and classified as "contested" by the statistician because his opponent had physical touch on him, however, the kicks coming in to him were substantially advantageous to him and he was the only player who had a play at the drop of the ball. Two of them resulted in goals.
Ryan's, by contrast, were on the back of two bewilderingly bad bombs from Gaff from the back of a scrimmage and one from a high ball from Ried where he had to jump on a player's back in order to bring down the mark. Here's a video of his final contested mark:
Importantly Ryan's two other contested marks resulted in goals to West Coast in the first quarter.
At quarter time we led by 22 points. A differential that the Hawks would ultimately not be able to overcome.
Now anyone watching this game would no doubt have an appreciation that Ryan's game was more important to West Coast's success than Kennedy (Ryan was given 2nd best on ground by both coaches), however, there is little separating these players when you look at the pure numbers.
The moral of this story is that statistics have context that make them more or less valuable than those we weigh up against them in a like-for-like comparison.
When it comes to ruckman the statistics that are really pertinent (as far as I consider them relevant) are as follows:
1. Hit outs to advantage (this is to be expected given their principal role is to give advantage to their team in ruck contests);
2. Hit out percentages won (this indicates the amount of time they beat their opponent);
3. Clearances (an extremely valuable contribution for any player at the scrimmage, rucks not excluded);
4. Contested Marks (this can often be in the form of an outlet relief down the wing or a flank mark that results in a goal scoring opportunity);
5. Goals (score board pressure is important for rucks, much like it is for midfielders); and
6. Score launchers (although this is the first year I've seen this stat so while I think it has a reflective value in theory I am always sceptical about new statistics for the sake of new statistics, particularly ones that are relatively unverifiable, see the "pressure gauge" for instance).
Statistics that I believe hold moderate to little value include contested possessions, inside 50s, tackles and intercepts.
Statistics that I believe hold little to no value include rebounds from 50, total possessions, uncontested marks and metres gained.
You may argue that this is a rather arbitrary list and, to some degree, you would be correct.
But, as with every position, there must be a preference for what that role entails.
I know that some other supporters value other things in a ruckman but, in my personal opinion, the above is a snapshot of the prototype ruckman's value in a game and to a team (still with limitations). This is why I prefer Naitanui as a ruckman than Cox, albeit that Cox had sustained brilliance that Naitanui, because of injuries, has not been able to have.
So let's compare Naitanui to Gawn and Goldstein in the critical categories (and these categories shouldn't be given the same value).
1. Hit-outs to advantage
Without context Gawn averages 10.2 HOs to advantage, Naitanui averages 9.27 HOs to advantage a game and Goldstein averages 8.08 HOs to advantage.
2. Hit-out percentages won
Without context Naitanui wins 61.8% of hit outs he competes in, Gawn wins 56.7% of hit outs he competes in and Goldstein wins 45.9% of hit outs he competes in.
3. Clearances
Without context Goldstein averages 6 clearances a game, Naitanui averages 5.36 clearances a game and Gawn averages 3.11 clearances a game.
4. Contested marks
Without context Gawn averages 2 contested marks a game, Goldstein averages 0.92 contested marks a game and Naitanui averages 0.36 contested marks a game.
5. Goals
Without context Goldstein has kicked 5 goals this year, Naitanui has kicked 3 goals this year, Gawn has kicked no goals this year.
6. Score launches
Without context Goldstein and Gawn average 3 a game and Naitanui averages 2.72 a game.
Is there anything that stands out from the above list?
Well, Naitanui averages less marks than the other two (approximately 1.5 less than Gawn a game and approximately 0.6 less than Goldstein a game).
Gawn hasn't hit the scoreboard at all this year.
I'm of the opinion that neither of these disparities are particularly relevant.
Goldstein kicking 5 goals more than Gawn doesn't automatically make him the All Australian ruckman. Maybe if he was kicking a goal a game it would be pertinent, but a 5 goal differential is minor in the grand scheme of things.
Similarly Naitanui averages less contested marks but still generates 1 i50 more than both Gawn and Goldstein.
So the more valuable type of contested mark (the target down the wing) may not be translating into forward 50 entries.
Or maybe it does, because Gawn or Goldstein hand off to a teammate who pumps the ball inside 50.
Yet such an act does not trigger a meaningful statistic beyond the single contested mark and effective handball that is attributed to the relevant player.
An example of further context I believe would be particularly relevant is how many clearances each of the above players has received from a free kick? By and large free kicks from ruck contests can be befuddling and very much a lottery. Goldstein has
9 more total free kicks that Gawn and 20 more total free kicks than Naitanui. Without context we don't know how many of the free kicks were actually legitimately payable and how many of those disposals are considered clearances from a statistical point of view.
The entirety of my post is to say that I don't think any of the meaningful statistics present that any one player should be selected ahead of the other. The statistics need to be explored in their context subjectively to measure their actual impact on the team (or potential impact). It is worth remembering that the difference between getting a score assist and a goal assist is the accuracy of your teammate's kick. Irrespective if you set him up at the top of the goal square or outside 50 the statistical importance of your play is completely dependent on your teammate's capacity to finish to the adequate standard. Similarly, a ruckman may win a hit out to advantage to a teammate that results in another stoppage (because your teammate failed to capitalise). An example of this would be a hit out that Naitanui made to Jack Redden to start the second quarter on Sunday:
This was a perfect palm down that Naitanui was correctly attributed a hit-out to advantage for.
However, because Redden was pushed off the kick (and could have legitimately been pinged by the umpire) this did not result in a direct inside 50 or goal scoring opportunity.
Naitanui absolutely did his job in this instance, but his impact was stunted because of his teammate's failure.
His only contribution in the stats column - a hit-out to advantage.
Contrast this with the start of the third quarter where Naitanui palms the ball down to Shuey, receives the handball back, kicks the ball forward and immediately follows up for the inside 50 for one of Kennedy's "contested marks". During this play Naitanui received a hit-out to advantage, two kicks, an inside 50 and a goal assist. Notably, despite Dwayne's commentary, he was not attributed a clearance, despite the fact that he had cleared the ball for all intents and purposes. This, in my mind, is much more valuable than a series of uncontested marks or even Naitanui's sole contested mark from earlier in the game. It is also more valuable than a free kick plucked out by the umpire and given to Goldstein. I'm sure you have examples of this that you could post regarding Gawn as well.
Despite having his most disposals for any game this year as well as the most hit-outs to advantage of any player this year (16) this was not in Naitanui's top 3 performances of 2020. Hence subjectively watching the play continues to prove to be more valuable than reading (and comparing) these players based on arbitrary statistics. A player's impact may be more (or less) than the sum total of the numbers that we view on the AFL website. Obviously we cannot simply dismiss biases that invariably effect a person's ability to properly contextualise, however, we should not for one make theoretical All Australian selections based on the limited picture that statistics alone provide.
Thank. You.
I haven't been coming here to be a jerk and suggest Nic Nat is some middle of the road player. I genuinely have been watching a few WC games and agree he's a gun. I was just getting frustrated at being told to "just watch the game", or getting hit with the word "impact" again and again but no one would actually state in what ways when I asked. I just haven't been seeing this insanely dominant player people have been talking about.
I'll pay some more focus on a couple of the points you've noted above - I'm sure it'll help in my assessment of him. Cheers.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 76,127
- 25,698
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
You're talking about everything but his actual job. You know... ruck work.
Which IMO is quite clearly the best in the country.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 108,356
- 150,386
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
That is certainly debatable.
Gawn and Grundy still a level up.
You mean the same 2 that got dominated by Nic when they played?
- Nov 14, 2013
- 1,560
- 5,939
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Colts, Raptors, Milan, FU Crabs
Started off pretty badly, so much so that he was dropped for 2 games. Essentially the first 4 games of the season he was either dropped or nowhere near AA.
Had a purple patch, with 4-5 top shelf games once he returned, a couple of Richmond fans vastly overreacted, but has regressed back to a good but not great level with sub 20 possessions over the last couple of weeks.
No player should get in off the back of one great month of football. If he recaptures that form over the last 5 games he might be a chance for the 40.
I wouldn’t bother, this guy is relentless in his animus towards the Eagles.
In every thread he’s calling us overrated or flat track bullies or insinuating that half of our players are overrated. It’s frankly bizarre.
You’d think an eagle attacked his pet Guinea Pig or perhaps more likely, his cat.
- Mar 23, 2009
- 5,296
- 4,946
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- San Antonio Spurs
No. If he finishes the season strongly he'd be a contender for the squad, altho not the team
- Banned
- #2,248
Nice to see some reasoned responses, board needs more of it
I'd have him nowhere near the AA because he is inconsistent and started slowly, but as an argument that he is better than some on here think, he has only played the last 5 weeks as a midfielder, before that forward, but up to round 11 he was the leading player in the league for inside 50's. The next were Dangerfield and Mcrae. So while we might not watch other teams, maybe some haven't been watching Richmond much either.
Last edited:
- Jun 19, 2006
- 11,698
- 23,672
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Not close to the squad. He was bad enough in the first 4 games that he was dropped for round 5.
He's been really good since returning but even then in the games according to the coaches votes he's twice been 2nd best on ground, a 4th best on ground, a 7th best in ground and 2 games outside the votes. I highly doubt he was in the votes last night.
4 really good games but none as BOG after 12 rounds doesn't get you in the squad unless you've been amazingly consistent. If you've been bad enough to be dropped after the first 4 games you're not realistically in the best 100 players for the season.
