Position Midfielder Discussion
- Thread starter IDIG
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,958
- Likes
- 126,622
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Having a look at Jack Steele 2019 vs. 2020
2019 numbers first.
D: 21.9 v 20.2
K: 9.8 v 9.6
H: 12.2 v 10.6
M: 4.0 v 4.6
G: 0.1 v 0.4
T: 8.2 v 6.4
CL: 4.3 v 3.2
CG: 3.2 v 1.8
FF: 1.1 v 2.2
SC: 95.0 v 117.6
Obviously there is 20% less game time this year but I'm finding it hard to see where Steele's scoring improvement has come from. The only significant stats I can see are less clangers and more frees for. Does anyone have any ideas how Steele has managed such a remarkable increase in his scoring this season?
2019 numbers first.
D: 21.9 v 20.2
K: 9.8 v 9.6
H: 12.2 v 10.6
M: 4.0 v 4.6
G: 0.1 v 0.4
T: 8.2 v 6.4
CL: 4.3 v 3.2
CG: 3.2 v 1.8
FF: 1.1 v 2.2
SC: 95.0 v 117.6
Obviously there is 20% less game time this year but I'm finding it hard to see where Steele's scoring improvement has come from. The only significant stats I can see are less clangers and more frees for. Does anyone have any ideas how Steele has managed such a remarkable increase in his scoring this season?
If he delivered exactly the same stats (in the same circumstances - ie same effective possession %, etc) that could lift his SC to 119, all else equal, because of the shortened games (2019 = 95 x 1.25 = 118.75). Ie just maintaining his stats is an excellent effort and justifies most if not all of the increase.
Other potential contributors would be an increase in the proportion of his possessions that were contested, or disposal efficiency.
Other potential contributors would be an increase in the proportion of his possessions that were contested, or disposal efficiency.
Bearing in mind that I'm not all that great with maths and you might be completely right, that logic doesn't entirely make sense to me. Otherwise shouldn't all players average x 1.25 their usual output? There are still only 3300 points allocated to each game so I don't believe this theory stands. I do appreciate your input though Darkie!
You're right in that there are only 3,300 points, although (at least theoretically), there should be 20% fewer kicks, handballs, marks and so on, because of the reduced TOG.
If that's the case, and Steele still contributes the same number as he did last year, his relative contribution has gone up (this being the key bit), so he gets a bigger share of the 3,300 pie.
If that's the case, and Steele still contributes the same number as he did last year, his relative contribution has gone up (this being the key bit), so he gets a bigger share of the 3,300 pie.
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,311
- Likes
- 31,152
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I find that extremely hard to believe. Yes Fyfe obviously had to play more forward in the second half to be a target as Lobb moved into the middle. But Fyfe played the entire second half within the forward 30, and that's being generous, he barely left the square. He played his normal midfield role in that first half, then not one CBA after half time (from what I recall), not even in the dying 2mins when there were two or three CBAs with the Saints on a bit of a run with a couple of goals. If he was fully fit as stated above, and it was purely tactical, I reckon we would've seen him chasing harder and looking to put on pressure as the Saints came out of the defensive 50. There was just none of that from Fyfey today.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,958
- Likes
- 126,622
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
