Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Dannnnnnnnnn said:
Statistically.

Watch the game and his impact is poles apart.
Click to expand...

Hard Ball Get said:
Haven't we already discussed this on this thread?

Stats tell 1/2 a story generally. With a player like Bontempelli, they tell even less.
Click to expand...

Well, the Player Ranking Score listed at the bottom is an overall measure of influence, and that's relatively the same too. There's some areas of the game (particularly defensively) where he actually looks better than he did a couple of years ago.

The impact seems less and he isn't getting the hype and attention because the Dogs aren't winning (there was an element of overhype at play in 2016, too), and Jackson Macrae is putting up far sexier numbers than he comparitively did in 2016 too, now that he's spending more time on the ball than on the outside.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Well, the Player Ranking Score listed at the bottom is an overall measure of influence, and that's relatively the same too. There's some areas of the game (particularly defensively) where he actually looks better than he did a couple of years ago.

The impact seems less and he isn't getting the hype and attention because the Dogs aren't winning, and Jackson Macrae is putting up far sexier numbers than he comparitively did in 2016 too, now that he's spending more time on the ball than on the outside.
Click to expand...

You can't accurately measure influence with a ranking score.
 
Hard Ball Get said:
You can't accurately measure influence with a ranking score.
Click to expand...

Well obviously it's not perfect, but that's what the Champion Data Ranking Score aims to achieve, a measure of overall impact and influence within a game. That's why particular acts and the game situation in which they happen receive different weightings, and why some lower-possession, higher impact players (like Bontempelli) score better than accumulators (like Macrae prior to this year). It's not just a tally of disposals, marks, goals, etc. like AFL Fantasy (ex-Dream Team) is.

Nevertheless, Bontempelli doesn't appear to have "dropped off" in his output in any area. It's most of the team around him that has.

Now, whether people were expecting Bontempelli to have improved and improved more than he has, that's another issue. You could say it's been somewhat disappointing that he's basically remained around the same level for a few years, but IMO he's still got improvement in him, and development is never a direct upward trajectory. Him reaching a good level early in his career doesn't mean that he has more potential than anyone else though.
 
BattlerGM said:
North - Worst list - Playing very well
Collingwood - Average list - Playing very well.
GWS - Excellent list - playing average (injuries a factor).
StKilda - Reasonable list - playing poorly
Essendon Reasonable list - playing poorly.
Footscray - Good list - playing poorly.
Richmond - Excellent list, but not the leagues best - benchmark.
Click to expand...
North - list was underrated. Brown, Tarrant, Cunnington and Waite are all exceptional footballers. Higgins, Ziebell, Wright, Atley, Macmillan and Jacobs are all solid-good more mature players. Thompson, Anderson, McDonald, Clarke, Daw etc are playing above expectations. People overplayed how strongly they would focus on youth and downplayed the importance of the more experienced players (myself included). Not an exceptional list, but not a poor one either. Very well coached.

Collingwood - again, list was underrated. Grundy, Howe, Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Treloar all exceptional. Phillips, Crisp, Langdon, Scharenberg, De Goey, Hoskin-Elliott, Stephenson, Thomas and Murray offering more than was expected. Good collection of players in the "key" age bracket.

GWS - really, their depth is diabolically bad and/or not ready for senior footy. Couple this with injuries to key playmakers in vital areas of the ground for their gamestyle and (thus far) underwhelming coaching performance and struggles are understandable. Their top end is terrific but they've lost some depth and seniority in the back two-thirds of their list over the past few years to keep it. They're underperforming but when you look at the players filling slots 17-22 at the moment it's more explicable.

St Kilda - disagree their list is average. I think it's still quite poor. Lack genuinely good players in mature age brackets. Lack stars. Lack consistently impactful mids. Lack leadership. They have some young talent but not enough at present. Underperforming? Maybe - but I expected them to be around this level.

Essendon - certainly underperforming, but lacking in a crucial area of the ground - inside midfield. That was clear in the pre-season.

Western Bulldogs - youngest and least experienced team in the comp by a long way week in, week out. Extremely different team to what they were in 2016. Few players in key age brackets and those that are are underperforming or out of the side with injury. Unbalanced list skewed towards developing talls (we had seven in the VFL last week despite Redpath, Adams, Morris and Collins being injured and Boyd, Naughton and Cordy playing seniors). List lacks a bit of leadership and features too much poor disposal. Fluctuating between underperforming and overperforming for mine.

Richmond - playing extremely well. Maybe not the best list but it's up there. It's probably the best balanced list in the competition though for mine. Lots of players in key age brackets. Well drilled. They were underrated for mine.

I dunno, I think you have a point: I do think the ability of a playing list has less influence than maybe some believe - players in key age brackets, balance, coaching and game style also have a large part to play - but I also think it's borderline impossible to accurately judge how good a list is. Too many moving parts. The above is a bit of a devil's advocate position to take to illustrate the alternative view, but I don't think anything is particularly unreasonable.
 
Damon_3388 said:
Well obviously it's not perfect, but that's what the Champion Data Ranking Score aims to achieve, a measure of overall impact and influence within a game. That's why particular acts and the game situation in which they happen receive different weightings, and why some lower-possession, higher impact players (like Bontempelli) score better than accumulators (like Macrae prior to this year). It's not just a tally of disposals, marks, goals, etc. like AFL Fantasy (ex-Dream Team) is.

Nevertheless, Bontempelli doesn't appear to have "dropped off" in his output in any area. It's most of the team around him that has.

Now, whether people were expecting Bontempelli to have improved and improved more than he has, that's another issue. You could say it's been somewhat disappointing that he's basically remained around the same level for a few years, but IMO he's still got improvement in him, and development is never a direct upward trajectory. Him reaching a good level early in his career doesn't mean that he has more potential than anyone else though.
Click to expand...

I understand the champion data system, and acknowledge it has some terrific value. Despite this, there are areas that I think aren't great. This is one of them. It doesn't measure the intangibles in the game. The deft touches, the positioning, the decision making and a whole lot more. It's valuable but doesn't give an accurate measure of influence.

He's had a good year, but not 2016 level just yet. He's also had less midfield minutes, due largely to structures and his injured hip.
 
jatz14 said:
The alternative is people just saying, I thought he had a massive influence, followed by, What are you talking about, he didn't do anything?

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Of course, like I said, I acknowledge its use. I still don't think you can accurately measure it. It is not a knock on champion data, there is nothing that will measure it.
 
Hard Ball Get said:
I understand the champion data system, and acknowledge it has some terrific value. Despite this, there are areas that I think aren't great. This is one of them. It doesn't measure the intangibles in the game. The deft touches, the positioning, the decision making and a whole lot more. It's valuable but doesn't give an accurate measure of influence.

He's had a good year, but not 2016 level just yet. He's also had less midfield minutes, due largely to structures and his injured hip.
Click to expand...

I think the system does a better job of quantifying and affording value to intangibles and contested play than the eye test does. It's hard to recognise the true value of some stuff that goes on in and around the packs when just watching the game, especially at the ground.

If anything, the advent of the Ranking Score and advanced stats does lean towards overrating and overstating the value of contested play and some intangibles a bit, possibly as a means of addressing the imbalance that the eye test may provide.
 
Dannnnnnnnnn said:
North - list was underrated. Brown, Tarrant, Cunnington and Waite are all exceptional footballers. Higgins, Ziebell, Wright, Atley, Macmillan and Jacobs are all solid-good more mature players. Thompson, Anderson, McDonald, Clarke, Daw etc are playing above expectations. People overplayed how strongly they would focus on youth and downplayed the importance of the more experienced players (myself included). Not an exceptional list, but not a poor one either. Very well coached.

Collingwood - again, list was underrated. Grundy, Howe, Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Treloar all exceptional. Phillips, Crisp, Langdon, Scharenberg, De Goey, Hoskin-Elliott, Stephenson, Thomas and Murray offering more than was expected. Good collection of players in the "key" age bracket.

GWS - really, their depth is diabolically bad and/or not ready for senior footy. Couple this with injuries to key playmakers in vital areas of the ground for their gamestyle and (thus far) underwhelming coaching performance and struggles are understandable. Their top end is terrific but they've lost some depth and seniority in the back two-thirds of their list over the past few years to keep it. They're underperforming but when you look at the players filling slots 17-22 at the moment it's more explicable.

St Kilda - disagree their list is average. I think it's still quite poor. Lack genuinely good players in mature age brackets. Lack stars. Lack consistently impactful mids. Lack leadership. They have some young talent but not enough at present. Underperforming? Maybe - but I expected them to be around this level.

Essendon - certainly underperforming, but lacking in a crucial area of the ground - inside midfield. That was clear in the pre-season.

Western Bulldogs - youngest and least experienced team in the comp by a long way week in, week out. Extremely different team to what they were in 2016. Few players in key age brackets and those that are are underperforming or out of the side with injury. Unbalanced list skewed towards developing talls (we had seven in the VFL last week despite Redpath, Adams, Morris and Collins being injured and Boyd, Naughton and Cordy playing seniors). List lacks a bit of leadership and features too much poor disposal. Fluctuating between underperforming and overperforming for mine.

Richmond - playing extremely well. Maybe not the best list but it's up there. It's probably the best balanced list in the competition though for mine. Lots of players in key age brackets. Well drilled. They were underrated for mine.

I dunno, I think you have a point: I do think the ability of a playing list has less influence than maybe some believe - players in key age brackets, balance, coaching and game style also have a large part to play - but I also think it's borderline impossible to accurately judge how good a list is. Too many moving parts. The above is a bit of a devil's advocate position to take to illustrate the alternative view, but I don't think anything is particularly unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I tend towards the view that the best organised teams (coaching) are those that will succeed.

Second is the mental toughness of the players (or character).

After that comes the talent of your list. Looking at MTW yesterday, you would think he was a different player. How did he get so much faster during the week.


On a side note, I think Richmond have the best list by a fair margin.... but it helps that they are injury free and in their prime.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BattlerGM said:
Sure :)

North - Worst list - Playing very well
Collingwood - Average list - Playing very well.
GWS - Excellent list - playing average (injuries a factor).
StKilda - Reasonable list - playing poorly
Essendon Reasonable list - playing poorly.
Footscray - Good list - playing poorly.
Richmond - Excellent list, but not the leagues best - benchmark.

Don't get me wrong. A good list is important but I place much greater value on the mindset of the players, good coaches, development and culture. Based on the examples above, I don't think the correlation between having a good list and being a good team is that strong.

Only my opinion :)
Click to expand...
Maybe you're just a shit judge of a list.
 
Yamumluvsbigcox said:
There are too many victorian teams .

The league would be way better without at least 3

There would be better quality games because of better quality lists .

Also the vic teams will have to travel interstate more making the comp more even and fair

**** off at least 3 vic teams .
Click to expand...
Is there some kind of prize for being the 1,000th person to express this supposedly unpopular opinion?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

Similar threads

Cleric
List Mgmt. If you could change the AFLs team list structure, what would you do?
Replies
22
Views
626
hawkman
hawkman
iameviljez
What would you do to fix Trade Week?
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
dinnaz
dinnaz
austinnn
Which current players do you predict will have post-player media roles?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
hawkman
hawkman
Zevon
Opinion AFL 2024 Grand Final - Liked, Learnt, Hated
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
7K
BrainOfMorbius
B
LordLucifer
Opinion Number Of Players In A Team ......... How Would You Structure It ??
Replies
11
Views
486
kreuze_missile
kreuze_missile
RUNVS
  • Poll
What do you consider to be a 21st century player?
Replies
5
Views
336
Rotayjay
Rotayjay
Cleric
Opinion Which players would have been the best if not for injury?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
9K
Fluro Boots
Fluro Boots

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top