Why is Cyril Rioli so highly rated?

[Lord Eddard]

The website had this question in their FAQ. Their response:

Cyril Rioli (forward)Because of the high value of possession in the forward half of the ground and inside 50, efficient use of the ball forward of centre is highly rewarded. Cyril Rioli's kicking efficiency in the forward half of the ground in 2012 ranked ninth of the 142 players with 100 or more kicks. When Rioli kicked the ball into the forward line he found a mark 31% of the time – ranked third of the top-75 players for inside 50 kicks. Rioli ranked first in the competition for tackles laid inside the forward 50 of players to play five or more games in 2012 and ranked sixth for total pressure applied in the forward half of the same group.
To me that seems a bit wishy washy and doesnt make him the 5th best footballer in AFL but at least it's an explanation. It's based on their complex algorithms and what they've chosen to give weighting to and what not to give weighting to. If they chose to give weighting to indiscriminate kicks forward out of congestion Ryan Okeefe would be the best player of all time.

In real terms I agree with another poster that he's probably a 15-30 player in this league.

Ironically I believe his value lies in what cannot be quantified. Players like Rioli, Jetta, Goodes, Daisy can dominate a game in 15 disposals. I honestly believe that sometimes, 1 Goodes disposal is worth 4 <insert name> disposals. It's the ability to break a game open with laser like vision and execution.

 

[Jaeger]

Great skills but way to inconsistant to be anywhere near the top 10. He's not even the best small forward in the league !

Who was better before he went down?

 

[forwardflanker]

Just want to see why people rate him so highly, that's all. I think that people look at his skills too much and sometimes glance over his effort/output in the process. Thoughts?

His 2012 GF performance sold me

 

[Underdog]

Flicking through the ratings explained...looks too complicated for me to delve deeply into.

It looks a reasonable ranking but Rioli is clearly an outlier. Hurn at 37 would be too.

The points are also somewhat dependant on the performance of your teammates.

 

[jive]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-26/player-ratings-frequently-asked-questions

Read how Player Ratings work and figure why.

"Players accrue or lose points every time they are involved in a passage of play, and the score awarded to them each time they are in the play is determined by a complex algorithm formulated and refined over a number of years by Champion Data. Whether players accrue or lose points is based around whether they have a positive or negative impact on the passage of play."

Cyril may not be a big accumulator, but from this statement alone its pretty easy to decipher the reason why he is so highly ranked. Almost everytime he touches or goes near he must have a positive imapct on the passage of play. From this ranking system, it would suggest that Cyril is the most efficient player in the AFL. This is much more this than just "disposal efficiency", it probably considers turn-overs from tackles, scores from turnovers ect. All of which Cyril excels at, but is disregarded by people who base effectiveness by the basic stat sheets.

This isn't a Mike Sheehan's top 50 where he picks his favorite players from the list of disposal winners at the end of each game - there's obviously much more to this ranking system than basic stats.

 

[le dominateur]

Not even in Hawthorns top 5 players, so it defies belief that he is in the top 5 players in the league.

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Fair enough. The fact they only use certain statistics to create those lists really highlights how ineffective they are as an accurate way of ranking players. No defenders in there either further demonstrates that using selective stats isn't the best way of comparing players.

I agree. All the highest ranked defenders are rebounding defenders. Top 5 at the moment are Hurn, Enright, Burgoyne, Reilly and Shaw. Undervalues KPD way too much.

 

[Hawker81]

Was rated in the top 5 of the official AFL player ratings here:

http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-hub

Firstly, I'd like to point out to Hawthorn posters before they try and jump all over me that this isn't a troll thread simply because it's been started by a Geelong supporter. It's a genuine question I have.

Can't quite manage to put my finger on why so many footy fans (especially on BF) and those in the media rate him in their top 5/top 10. What exactly is the criteria people rate Rioli on?

I'm not discounting his skills or athleticism, which are some of the best in the competition. Just questioning why so many people think this is the be-all and end-all when it comes to rating him. His impact for large periods of games is suspect, especially when Hawthorn aren't travelling well, and bobs up quite a bit only when it's required or when the Hawks are firmly on top. In addition to this he only averages 18 touches a game, well behind most premier midfielders and top 10 players.

Just want to see why people rate him so highly, that's all. I think that people look at his skills too much and sometimes glance over his effort/output in the process. Thoughts?

Maybe have a read through this before asking why he is ranked before he is

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/PlayerRatings/PlayerRatings_HOW.pdf

Saying you are not a troll is like saying you are not a racist but....

 

[Hawker81]

Was rated in the top 5 of the official AFL player ratings here:

http://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ratings/ratings-hub

Firstly, I'd like to point out to Hawthorn posters before they try and jump all over me that this isn't a troll thread simply because it's been started by a Geelong supporter. It's a genuine question I have.

Can't quite manage to put my finger on why so many footy fans (especially on BF) and those in the media rate him in their top 5/top 10. What exactly is the criteria people rate Rioli on?

I'm not discounting his skills or athleticism, which are some of the best in the competition. Just questioning why so many people think this is the be-all and end-all when it comes to rating him. His impact for large periods of games is suspect, especially when Hawthorn aren't travelling well, and bobs up quite a bit only when it's required or when the Hawks are firmly on top. In addition to this he only averages 18 touches a game, well behind most premier midfielders and top 10 players.

Just want to see why people rate him so highly, that's all. I think that people look at his skills too much and sometimes glance over his effort/output in the process. Thoughts?

Maybe have a read through this before asking why he is ranked before he is

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/PlayerRatings/PlayerRatings_HOW.pdf

Saying you are not a troll is like saying you are not a racist but....

 

[Quivorir]

Put simply. Because he is black. Wouldn't see a white player getting over rated by Bruce like he is.

 

[Prudster]

I think the thing that gets Rioli rated so highly are the things that aren't as commonly highlighted. For example, people always say he is inconsistent because he doesn't get enough possessions/goals/etc., but unlike a lot of players, that doesn't mean he isn't having an impact on the game. Even discounting the statistics that aren't mentioned as much, but are still easily available (tackles, etc.) he still manages to have an impact. His defensive pressure, which many players are on record saying that it causes them to panic or rush their disposals, is amongst the best in the league.

If you put in his tackles, the impact of his disposals, his goals, and all the other widely used stats, it is certainly easy to see how he could be one of the best players in the league in terms of impact on a game. The problem is that impact is not something that is easy to measure. Using just possessions, or goals, or even all of the stats available on the AFL websites' stats page doesn't give a good indication. That is where Rioli often gets downplayed on BF, because there isn't a way to 'prove' his impact by way of readily available stats.

Is Rioli really a top 5 player? Perhaps not. But i would definitely put him up amongst the top 20, and maybe the top 10, in terms of impact. I'm not saying that the way these rankings were done is perfect, but there must be some statistical reason that Rioli is so far up the ratings.

 

[kickazz]

It's an interesting one, as suggested the quantity of his output might be a bit on the lowish side for such a high ranking.

To look at it through a Geelong lens, I think Rioli is comparable to what Max Rooke was for the cats in that:

High average stats getter? Not at all.
One of the first half-dozen selected week in, week out? You betcha!

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Living off his uncle's name

He probably gets hyped up a lot by commentators (looking at you Bruce) but he is a very good player regardless.

 

[Underdog]

I think the thing that gets Rioli rated so highly are the things that aren't as commonly highlighted. For example, people always say he is inconsistent because he doesn't get enough possessions/goals/etc., but unlike a lot of players, that doesn't mean he isn't having an impact on the game. Even discounting the statistics that aren't mentioned as much, but are still easily available (tackles, etc.) he still manages to have an impact. His defensive pressure, which many players are on record saying that it causes them to panic or rush their disposals, is amongst the best in the league.

If you put in his tackles, the impact of his disposals, his goals, and all the other widely used stats, it is certainly easy to see how he could be one of the best players in the league in terms of impact on a game. The problem is that impact is not something that is easy to measure. Using just possessions, or goals, or even all of the stats available on the AFL websites' stats page doesn't give a good indication. That is where Rioli often gets downplayed on BF, because there isn't a way to 'prove' his impact by way of readily available stats.

Very good post. It's the same issue that Naitanui faces.

However, as much as I love watching Rioli play, he simply isn't near the top 5 players in the league.

Likewise, Shannon Hurn is not even close to number 37 in the league. Him being that high is laughable.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Rarely beaten in contested situations, breaks lines, dangerous from anywhere from 60 meters our to goals and rarely makes a bad decision, Infact he;s incredibly dangerous with the ball and not only makes good players but usually reads stuff that nobody else on the field would even predict

Also he's a freak at tackling, he hardly gives away in the backs even if he's the type of player who often runs people from behind, he's so strong in turning players to their sides not to give away the free

Downside is weak hamstrings have stopped him from building the engine to be a midfielder. When hawthorn have been challanged he's gone into the midfield and won clearances in the rare occassions that Sewell/Mitchell are being beaten.

The inconsistant myth comes from people who don't watch him play and look at super coach points, The only thing he's inconsistant at is being moved from up the ground to gain more possessions to playing deep in attack

I think if he was a midfielder he would be just below Ablett JNR and the second best player in the game, He will have to settle with being the best small forward in the league...hopefully he can move into the midfield

 

[Kaiser Powser]

If he could play four quarters of consistent footy, most weeks, then yeah he'd be top 5. But he don't, so I have no idea how is he rated at 5.

 

[strauchanie59]

Was almost Worst on Ground in the 2012 Grand Final but the way some commentators go on about him in that game you'd think he'd almost won the Norm Smith...most hyped player, behind Buddy.

 

[Hodgepodge]

To look at it through a Geelong lens, I think Rioli is comparable to what Max Rooke was for the cats in that:

High average stats getter? Not at all.

I don't get this 'low stats' argument for Rioli, particularly when he's basically a permanent half-forward type player who's last four season averages have been between 17 and 19 disposals. I would've thought that was pretty normal for a player who operates in that position.

And the comparison with Rooke is a laugh.

Rooke averaged 11.8 disposals, 2.8 tackles and 0.4 goals.
Rioli averages 15.8 disposals, 4.8 tackles and 1.4 goals, and rising.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

This Thread

 

[Upgrayedd]

Was almost Worst on Ground in the 2012 Grand Final but the way some commentators go on about him in that game you'd think he'd almost won the Norm Smith...most hyped player, behind Buddy.

Psh, Worst on ground? at least he chased someone for a good 60 meters which is more then a few guys on our team did that game

 

[greennick]

He's just delicious, isn't he?

 

[Underdog]

If he could play four quarters of consistent footy, most weeks, then yeah he'd be top 5. But he don't, so I have no idea how is he rated at 5.

He's a small forward, how many play 4 consistent quarters?

Additionally, what is the obsession with consistent quarters? If he impacts a game in a quarter the same amount as a bloke getting 8 touches a quarter does in a game, that's OK. You wouldn't want 18 "inconsistent" performers just like you wouldn't want 18 "consistent" performers without the same spark Rioli has.

Additionally, your justification for being baffled shows you've made no effort to understand how the ratings work. It's not basd on "the vibe".

 

[Hodge is God]

His 2012 GF performance sold me

Yes, lets rate a player on one game.

 

[DangerSloane]

Not even in Hawthorns top 5 players, so it defies belief that he is in the top 5 players in the league.

I agree with this.
Franklin, Mitchell, Hodge, Birchall and Lewis are, at their best, all better than Rioli IMO.

 

[Bardo State]

It's a real shame about his hamstrings. Would certainly be a top 5 player if they weren't so troublesome.

Even so he is certainly a top 20 player for mine. Other posters have gone into why. His impact goes beyond X disposals and Y goals, which this ranking has probably over-accounted for, but certainly less so than those who brush him off as inconsistent flashes of brilliance.