Well technically the poached him from the team that poached him from the team that drafted and developed him…
Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2
- Thread starter Mordecai
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Well technically the poached him from the team that poached him from the team that drafted and developed him…
The best NFL punters average around 4.5 seconds hang time for a kick so I don't know where you're finding the other 10 seconds from this move.I think it's probably more like 10 seconds off the clock. plus a ball up will chew up 5. So 15 seconds in total I reckon. A behind helps the other team. It gives them the ball back to rebound from. And wished shot out of a pack is most likely going to end up in a behind. Time to sky it!I feel like this is the obvious play.
If you're inside the forward 50 you're always better off kicking to an open teammate or having a shot, rather than deliberately to kicking to a 50-50 contest.
AFL players kick at a minimum >37% from within the forward 50m arc, meaning you have at most a 63% chance of handing the ball over by taking a shot, which also gives players time to setup and defend a kickout (and chews up a few seconds for the goal umpire to signal). Kicking the ball to a contest results in either direct possession (without time to setup and defend transition from D50) or a ball-up, which also ultimately results in possession to either team.
Assuming both teams have a 50% shot of ultimately winning possession out of the marking contest/ball up, you're giving up the chance to effectively kill the game with a goal from the set shot and the chance to setup to defend D50 transition, to shave a few seconds off the clock and (at most) an extra 13% chance of not giving the opposition direct possession at a kick out.
It's not as bad but this suggestion reminds me a little of whoever that commentator was a number of years back who suggested a team concede a goal in order to get the ball back to the centre for a chance to relieve some defensive pressure.
(from https://www.researchgate.net/public...Performance_in_the_Australian_Football_League)
And I know you probably didn't want to say it as a Bagger so I'll do it for you, Sam Walsh was more impressive than the lot of them.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 12,611
- 10,918
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I love the research in your answer. It definitely makes me think. The only issue I have is the 37%. These are all set shot statistics. I'm saying if a player has the ball in general play in a contested situation. The odds of a goal would plummet significantly. maybe 10% or even less of slotting a goal. (I don't have the stats on this lol). Blazing away at goal will not allow the team any time to set up a zone and the risk of the slingshot goal for the opposition would then suddenly increase. The risk outweighs the reward. You don't need a goal or a point, you just don't need the other team to score.
The time I got was just an estimation but assuming the ball goes up, goes down, some scrubby ruckman drops the mark, ball hits the deck, guy gets tackled, ball comes out, next guy picks it up gets tackled, guys jump on, umpire waits a couple of seconds before calling ball up. Then umpire throws it up again, a ruckman gets a hitout , the ball hits the deck again and we're back to where we were when the player last had the ball. It's clock management and it's the right play imo. Basketballers think this way
I think we should give all of them some time before we make that judgement. They are only 4 games in.
Definitely
OK, I misread the original post as thinking you were referring to when taking a set shot rather than kicking a ball in open play. Certainly does reduce the likelihood of scoring a goal but I wouldn't have a clue by how much - probably a fair bit.I love the research in your answer. It definitely makes me think. The only issue I have is the 37%. These are all set shot statistics. I'm saying if a player has the ball in general play in a contested situation. The odds of a goal would plummet significantly. maybe 10% or even less of slotting a goal. (I don't have the stats on this lol). Blazing away at goal will not allow the team any time to set up a zone and the risk of the slingshot goal for the opposition would then suddenly increase. The risk outweighs the reward. You don't need a goal or a point, you just don't need the other team to score.
The time I got was just an estimation but assuming the ball goes up, goes down, some scrubby ruckman drops the mark, ball hits the deck, guy gets tackled, ball comes out, next guy picks it up gets tackled, guys jump on, umpire waits a couple of seconds before calling ball up. Then umpire throws it up again, a ruckman gets a hitout , the ball hits the deck again and we're back to where we were when the player last had the ball. It's clock management and it's the right play imo. Basketballers think this way
I still can't agree that it would be the better % play though, it's easy to suggest the ball coming down from height would result in a stoppage but I think it's equally likely to be marked or otherwise spoilt to space (and potentially allow a defensive rebound which would occur faster than a kickout). Also, if a player has time to boot a ball as high as they possibly can, they probably also have time to have a decent shot on goal (it's not easy to boot a ball super high with a rushed kick from the middle of a pack, at least not without being smothered).
AFLW is SHITE.
VFL should be the league where every game is televised and promoted accordingly.
VFL should be the league where every game is televised and promoted accordingly.
Quivorir
"Unhinged"
- Mar 29, 2010
- 58,767
- 77,644
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- LAL-MMA-Victory-CFC-Seahawks
And I think the VFL is shit. Now what? 
- Apr 5, 2016
- 7,703
- 17,386
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
I assume this would be a logistical nightmare due to the fans not wanting to travel 5-6 times a year to see their teams but here's an idea to ease the inequalities of the fixture.
Split the fixture into 6 + 17. Meaning you have 6 gather rounds or festivals of football in each state scattered throughout the season. You could have everyone play everyone else in 17 home and away rounds + a bye. (If you play a team home in 2023, you play them away in 2024). The remaining 6 rounds are all gather rounds - (1x SA, 1x WA, 1x Vic, 1x NSW, 1x QLD, 1x Tas) and are neutral games, you play derby's or showdowns when the games are in each of their respective states (Tas you would just do North v Hawthorn).
Split the fixture into 6 + 17. Meaning you have 6 gather rounds or festivals of football in each state scattered throughout the season. You could have everyone play everyone else in 17 home and away rounds + a bye. (If you play a team home in 2023, you play them away in 2024). The remaining 6 rounds are all gather rounds - (1x SA, 1x WA, 1x Vic, 1x NSW, 1x QLD, 1x Tas) and are neutral games, you play derby's or showdowns when the games are in each of their respective states (Tas you would just do North v Hawthorn).
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,410
- 21,782
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Have we considered the SPFL formula (not perfect without relegation in play)?
Phase 1 - First 17 rounds, everyone plays once.
Phase 2 - Split after 17 games: top six, middle six, bottom six. Can't drop below your division or move above your division in the remaining games. Three divisions play their final five games against each other
Final ladder positions are established based on top six's combined W/L record, then the middle six's combined W/L, then the bottom six.
In theory, top six are fighting for top four and a home qualifying final, middle six fighting for the last two spots in the eight, bottom six... oh well, you can't engineer nine blockbusters every round.
In practice, it wouldn't be that perfect, probably get a few teams in the middle six who are out of contention and the bottom six could be a real shit show, there'd also be the issue of lopsided numbers of home and away games (I.e. teams who only got eight of their first seventeen games at home who can't get three of their final five at home to even up, due to who ended up in their division and how many home games they had), but it could create several huge games every week in the last month and maybe an opportunity for the bottom six teams to get a few wins to build some enthusiasm with their supporters heading into the off-season.
Phase 1 - First 17 rounds, everyone plays once.
Phase 2 - Split after 17 games: top six, middle six, bottom six. Can't drop below your division or move above your division in the remaining games. Three divisions play their final five games against each other
Final ladder positions are established based on top six's combined W/L record, then the middle six's combined W/L, then the bottom six.
In theory, top six are fighting for top four and a home qualifying final, middle six fighting for the last two spots in the eight, bottom six... oh well, you can't engineer nine blockbusters every round.
In practice, it wouldn't be that perfect, probably get a few teams in the middle six who are out of contention and the bottom six could be a real shit show, there'd also be the issue of lopsided numbers of home and away games (I.e. teams who only got eight of their first seventeen games at home who can't get three of their final five at home to even up, due to who ended up in their division and how many home games they had), but it could create several huge games every week in the last month and maybe an opportunity for the bottom six teams to get a few wins to build some enthusiasm with their supporters heading into the off-season.
I like this idea and think it worth trying. Add in one extra rivalry double (eg Port vs Ade) up to get to 18+5 so everyone gets the same number home and away before the split, then play reverse fixtures after (would fit in gather round too)
nickcat0
Team Captain
What unpopular AFL opinion do I have? I believe the Brownlow Medal to be a worthless and pointless award (albeit one with a lot of tradition and history).
Being a regular watcher of the game for about 25 years, I wouldn't trust the Umpires to pick their nose, let alone pick the best player in the competiton.
Not only do I not trust them to award the votes correctly, I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be much better to ask them to stop worrying about who is playing well, but concern themseves with merely applying the rules correctly. You never know, they might start getting a few calls right.
If you want to award the Brownlow, and give it value, then have expert footy people (perhaps ex-coaches and ex-players) watch the games live, review them on film, and then award the votes accordingly.
Being a regular watcher of the game for about 25 years, I wouldn't trust the Umpires to pick their nose, let alone pick the best player in the competiton.
Not only do I not trust them to award the votes correctly, I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be much better to ask them to stop worrying about who is playing well, but concern themseves with merely applying the rules correctly. You never know, they might start getting a few calls right.
If you want to award the Brownlow, and give it value, then have expert footy people (perhaps ex-coaches and ex-players) watch the games live, review them on film, and then award the votes accordingly.
- Mar 24, 2012
- 1,379
- 3,804
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Patrick Cripps is overrated - he’s good but not in that top tier of mids
The average game from him is: flick around some handballs, win some clearances and have 2 or 3 flying shots at goal which just sneak in for a behind
Maybe I’m watching the wrong games but I don’t see why people go on about him compared with say Bont
The average game from him is: flick around some handballs, win some clearances and have 2 or 3 flying shots at goal which just sneak in for a behind
Maybe I’m watching the wrong games but I don’t see why people go on about him compared with say Bont
- May 5, 2016
- 44,466
- 49,482
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I am still unsure where I stand on it. It changes routinely.
Cricket is my main sport and I will always lean, in a man of the match type scenario, to the person who has put in the best performance of the match. If a bowler on one side takes 6-50 off 20 overs in the first innings, I consider that better than the guy to takes 3-12 in a spell on the last day that breaks open the game and swings it towards his team.
The guy who hits 250 has done more to earn the award than the guy who hits a run a ball 105* to win the game on the final day.
But football doesn’t always work like that for a lot of people and the player who has a memorable and crucial say in determining the outcome of the game often gets the plaudits.
An obvious example is Dustin Martin 2017. During the game I thought like many that Houli was the best player across 4 quarters and largely kept his team in the game. Yet without Martin who orchestrated most of the Tigers’ scoring when the game was truly up for grabs, they probably don’t win the flag.
So who was the best player? Who was the most valuable? It’s a very tough thing to lean between every game.
Even yesterday Jeremy Cameron and Tom Hawkins booted 8 goals between them in about 15 minutes of play and that’s what won Geelong the game but I’d be surprised to see either get a vote on BM night whereas Patrick Dangerfield who played a steady match without really determining the outcome too much will probably pick up 3 votes.
Then you have the result factored in: you get to the point where you determine from the winning team whether you favour the ‘best’ player or the one who played the biggest part in the result - but you have this guy from the other team who’s had 35 touches and kicked a couple of goals. Where does he fit in?
Sorry to use another Geelong example they just obviously stand out because I pay attention: is Cameron going to get 3 votes for 26 touches and 6 goals in a loss to Carlton? He was the best player on the field. But ultimately didn’t impact the result.
It’s not the award it should be but I do feel for the umpires who have to determine it
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,410
- 21,782
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Cameron's starting to get a bit of 'Can he win the Brownlow?' buzz and with no clear midfield Brownlow darling from Geelong, I think he absolutely could get votes for yesterday, possibly even three. And he absolutely, unequivocally doesn't deserve them for yesterday, I love the guy and four goals looks good on the sheet, but he did nothing of any consequence.
I saw he got 4 coaches votes too, for those who think that system's infallible, I bet all four came from Chris Scott and I don't think it'd be unusual for coaches to look at the big picture in a similar way when it comes time to give their votes after the game.
Edit: I just saw the Brownlow predictor has him down for two votes for yesterday. Again, I love the guy, but what on earth for?? That's classic modern era Brownlow voting if ever I've seen it.
- May 5, 2016
- 44,466
- 49,482
- AFL Club
- Geelong
He actually had a better game than I gave him credit for having just looked at the stats - 18 touches, 10 contested, 4.1, a few tackles, a goal assist. But you wouldn’t say he was any better than Jake Waterman who had 20 and 4 goals.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,410
- 21,782
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Wasn't better than Close or Hawkins who also had four. Wasn't better than Blicavs or Dangerfield. Wasn't better than Ratugolea considering how tight the contest was for most of the first quarter and what Esava produced in that term.
He wasn't terrible, he just kicked all four of his goals when we didn't particularly need them and it wasn't a great game from him.
Obvious? I was at the game, and though I was hoping Houli would win the Norm, his second half was not as good as his first. Unfortunately Bachar was probably second best on ground, like Prestia in 2019 and Shorty in 2020. The right player won all three Norms quite clearly in the end.
And to a Tiger supporter who rode ever moment of the match, Rance was the player who most kept his team in the game in that first half when it looked like the Crows were getting on top at stages. He would've got 1 vote had there been Brownlow votes that day.
I'm not sure why some opposition fans have so much trouble accepting Martin's dominance in these matches. And possibly some Tigers fans too.
- May 5, 2016
- 44,466
- 49,482
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And I’m not sure why so many Richmond fans think people ‘have a problem’ with it simply because they acknowledge the performances of other players.
I’m literally not even saying he shouldn’t have won it FFS. Find me where I’ve said it.
You DONT HAVE TO GO INTO BAT FOR SOMEONE WHO ISNT BEING ATTACKED.
‘He was the most decisive player in the result’ is not someone having a go at him mate.
It’s someone saying ‘he probably deserved the honour.’
FMD
A lot more to the concussion lawsuits than the bush lawyers in the comment sections would have you believe, there is definitely some liability there on the AFLs side and probably the NRL as well.
Beg to differ, as a semi-retired city (not bush) lawyer from what I've read of these claims (breach of duty and negligence) it's highly unlikely ANY will attain formal proceedings.
More likely the claims will simply be a good earner for the related legal counsels while providing some juicy headlines for the media - and a reminder that the AFL is yet to recieve ANY related documentation, LOI's etc. from former players legal entities for their 'impending' legal action..?
About the only indirect outcome I foresee from this excerise is an overhaul of current workers' compensation schemes, given professional sports people in Australia are exempt from coverage...
Yeah, with no relegation the bottom 6 may as well stop playing after 17 games.
Noah Balta does not actually have the rarest skillset in the AFL.
