Great stuff as always Ryan. Thanks for the link back to my piece yesterday as well!

What I find most fascinating as well is the Dogs’ team selection in relation to their tactics. Whilst a lot of teams emphasise a strong zone defence and winning the ground-ball (the latter being a favourite of the late Phil Walsh) not many teams actually pick the players for a balanced-medium sized team to increase their chances of suceeding in that. Irrespective of whether or not the Dogs can indeed go all the way this year it’s not outrageous to suggest that other teams will soon play similar styles of footy with similar selection policies to back it up.

Whilst there’s similarities there, the Dogs rely on forward pressure more than West Coast did last year, whilst their defenders are better attackers and worse one-on-one defensively than the Eagles. Whether that makes them more or less likely to beat the Hawks on the G – it’s hard to tell.

Whilst I appreciate there’s every chance Freo and the Saints won’t be thereabouts at the pointy end of the season, I also think you yourself are understating the remarkable nature of keeping a team under 40 points. As I said, they’ve conceded the least points through two rounds of the season for sixty years. That is mighty impressive irrespective of opponent or ground matches are being played at.

And in any case – I’m not commenting upon the likelihood of finding success with this system in the future (as Ryan will tomorrow), merely breaking down the reasons behind the defensive results so far to date. Whilst I agree that we will need to see how it holds up against the competition’s elite, that’s beyond the scope of this article.

Certainly the wide expanses of the G means that a zone is less compact, and easier to breach. The elimination final loss to Adelaide with multiple scoring chains sourced from the defensive half shows that.

Morris’ ability to go tall and small isn’t just valuable for his performance on the game, but his teammates’ as well, with his experience meaning he’s able to set up a zone and communicate with his teammates effectively.

I’m not surprised that you see the similarities with the Dogs’ and Hawks’ defence, after all Luke Beveridge was the Hawks’ defensive coach!

Cheers Ryan!

I’m still tweaking my pace of game efficiencies, with some adjustments to make, but you’ll most likely see it appear over the next few weeks!

Cheers Austrosaurus! It’s great you’ve read some of my stuff, but don’t shy away from reading the other great analysis here on The Roar!

There’s been a lot of coverage of the Dogs’ great record at Etihad – but the Hawks’ has been just as great in recent years. It will certainly be an interesting battle!

If other teams haven’t worked this out yet for the Dogs, well they’re not doing their jobs very well!

Great article as always Adrian.

A really good theme to use to summarise the round – maturity. It’s amazing to see how younger teams such as the Suns and the Dogs seem to have matured to begin the year, whilst others seem to have lost that, like Richmond.

A really well written piece.

Strange article, bundling the two clubs together.

The Tigers are fundamentally a big club with a large, vocal fan base with large historical but relatively little success – the Tigers haven’t won a final since 2001.
The Dogs are fundamentally a small club with a small fan base with neither historical or recent success, but have been closer to success in the last 25 years making 6 Prelims in that time.

Even in recent years their recruiting strategies have been completely different. Tigers have had in recent years the most recycled players in the league, the Dogs among least. Completely different.

I believe that after the failed rebuilds of the Wallace era, to appease the Tigers fans they rebuilt in such a way that improved their chances of making finals and was a direction away from their poor drafting record – hence the good depth or recycled players that got them into the finals.

The Dogs, on the other hand, were recovering from the 2005-2011 era where they made finals and were attempting to compete for a flag every year, they then found themselves at the bottom recruiting top-10 players rather than building through recycled players. They rebuilt in such a way to get those with opportunities to develop and shape, hence the lack of recycled players – the antitheses of Richmond.

Lastly, recruiting Champan would have been a ridiculous idea. A small mid/forward, a position that the Dogs have in bundles, and taking away games from young players when there was already enough veterans?

I’m not so sure I can agree with you on this Ryan.

Consider where a lot of their production comes from – their older players.

A lot those teams you listed had unexpected growth because a lot of their gun performances came from younger players who as a unit improved and pushed up the team with them.

On the other hand, look at St Kilda’s top disposal winners from last year and their ages:
Armitage (28)
Steven (25)
Montagna (32)
Newnes (about to turn 23)
Roberton (24)
Geary (27)
Dempster (32)

Not to mention that of all the players that kicked more than 20 goals, one was Nick Riewoldt.

It’s one thing to have a young team. It’s another to actually have majority of production from a team to be young.

Almost all the teams you listed had at least 2-3 players out of their top 7 disposal getters aged in the 20-22 range. It’s their collective improvement that dragged them into finals contention.

The Saints, plain and simple, don’t have the engine room players that will drag them into finals contention this year. There’s not that 3rd or 4th highest disposal getter entering into this third, fourth or fifth year that will take the step and become borderline elite because they haven’t last year. They still have to replace the declining performance of Montagna, Riewoldt and Dempster, Armitage had a career year that he’s unlikely to repeat, Steven is likely no to improve or regress either way. That “production” already being old is why they’re not going to push for finals this year. They don’t have the players in their top performers who will increase to that borderline elite level within a season.

I really see two holes in GWS’s list – small forward and key defence.

If Patfull and Davis don’t perform, or get injured or are simply past it with their age, they only have under-experienced players like Marchbank and Corr to fill the void.

Also, they’re lacking a small, dynamic “Eddie Betts” type small forward. Or a Luke Breust, or a Tory Dickson, or another player who you can be confident will kick a goal and a half, two goals a game whilst providing forward pressure. Pickett could turn into that player but with 0 games played he’s unproved. Ahern’s done his knee but even he’s more of a natural midfielder as is Jack Steele. Players like Rhys Palmer have played that role but again it’s not their natural position.

Another point of concern is their “balance” of midfield – players who can be both offensively- and defensively-minded midfielders as well as being inside-outside. Coniglio’s pretty much the only one. Whitfield’s played enough now that he should have added an inside element to his game, his tackle rate remained below 2 per game both the last two years and his contested possession percentage actually dropped (!!) from a tad over 25% in 2014 to a tad below 25% in 2015. Compare to somebody like Jackson Macrae from the same draft class who had their contested possession rate of 30% in 2014 and increased it to 39% in 2015.

As always, great article Ryan. Covers the issues very well.

Some other issues I’d like to see discussed when it comes to the negotiations:

Lowering the minimum cap level. Currently, at 95%, it’s at $540,000 below the 100% level of the cap. That means that a team at the theoretical minimum level and assuming no change to the team’s TPP the following year has less “cap room” than a lot of players (as you say, 13% are earning more than 500k). Teams with retiring players or traded out players could theoretically go from 100% to below 95%, more cap room for free agents whilst a bottom team could go from 95%-95% due to contract increases to rising players.

As others in the comments have mentioned – there’s too much power to the players. From no-trade veto power to the increased likelihood of a reduced free-agency power, clubs are very inflexible with how they manage lists. Alistair Clarkson said the other day in one of those Twitter Q&A’s that player movement is a lot easier because of fluid player movement. Maybe for him, coach of a top club, but with all power to the players it’s become extremely difficult for bottom clubs to manipulate the cap and their lists to rebuild earlier. There’s nothing wrong with FA so to speak, but it’s done to benefit the top clubs – look no further than James Frawley as an example.

Which is why I’d like to see the negotiations done in such a way, in that if the players get a larger portion of the kitty and/or a greater or fixed proportion of the revenue, they’re happy to give up some of their “power” when it comes to contracts. This could include better investment on draft picks (3 year deals on 1st round picks, or club options to extend the contract, something like that), salaries being published publicaly (and therefore perhaps having the knock-on effect of more players playing for bottom clubs to to earn more rather than to play to win), or the removal of veto power in trades in some or all circumstances.

I really think that this CBA will be the turning point for the AFL being branded as an entertainment product with much higher proportions of revenue – as you outline the numbers very well. Whilst the AFL has been professional for some time, many of the players earnt a salary that would put them at the higher end of a “professional”, educated worker of 100-300k range – not at the Amercian/European sports “entertainment” range of 500k+ or even $1 million+. As a result, even “philosophically”, the players attitude surely has to change – now all of a sudden they’re getting a heap more money, so they’ve got to accept more public scrutiny and they’ve got to accept less “control” of their place in the league merely because collectively they’re getting a lot more money.

All of this isn’t even touching on the potential changes to free agency, or changes to free agency structure (can there be such a thing as a salary kicker to count against the cap for top teams to make it harder for them to sign FA? Should teams be able to go over the cap to re-sign their own free agents, but not other teams’) which is an article in an of itself.

Again, a great article Ryan. Thanks for the read.

I reckon the loss of Dangerfield will be impactful with his position versatility as both an inside midfielder and player who is involved with the scoring/forward thrusts of the game.

For example, Dangerfield averaged 7.17 clearances and 4.96 Inside 50’s per game. There’s very few players who are versatile who can kick goals, thrust the ball forward but are also among the league’s elite in clearance/contested situations.

Bit of a strange article.

All it really says is that Roughead is injured and the Hawks are a good team that will be able to deal with it. Really doesn’t say anything.

If I were talking about the possibility of Hawthorn falling away, I’d look at whether or not teams are dealing with their game plan and their style of footy, rather than the impact of the injury of one player out of 22. Hawthorn have a system where every player understands their role and Roughead’s replacement, while perhaps a slightly inferior player, understands their role in the team and being part of their system – whether it be Sicily, O’Brien or somebody else.

Well written Adrian!

The problem with Richmond, I believe, is that I can’t see any players on their list that has played less than 20-30 games, but at the same time you can see them as a future elite player.

That means that I don’t think their rate of improvement from their “bottom six” (that are rated lowly) can outpace the gradual decline of some of their older stars.

Their chance of winning a flag needs to come soon while Rance and co are still at their peak because there’s unlikely to be a heap of players taking their mantle.

Cheers Adrian!

Did a quick search of the comments and found that only one person had Michael Beer in their team.

I know he’s a pretty terrible batsman and fielder, but for a bloke who has a career economy rate in T20 of under 6.3, and again had one of the best economies in the BBL, and is also a powerplay specialist (considering both Starc and Behrendorff, both who would have been powerplay bowlers, are injured), you’d think he’d be in a few more squads. He was pretty important for the Stars throughout the tournament. Not saying he’s a guarantee (and I probably wouldn’t have him in my squad again) but for only one person in the comments to have him in their team?

I’m sure the Hawks are happy to have Gibson! He’s very much a player that thrives under Clarkson’s system. But he isn’t a “first” defender, and he’s not a defender you can “structure” your defence around like a Rance or Jeremy McGovern. He’s certainly the best player in the league at what he does – as a second/third defender.

However, if the Hawks were so content with Gibson, why go out and recruit Lake and Frawley? Because they needed a bigger, taller defender who they could “structure” around.

That’s probably a fair enough statement for footy, traditionally – when a defender’s primary job was to beat his direct opponent.

Now, though, with zones, presses, and “structures”, a defender can influence the overall ability for his team to prevent the opposition for scoring, rather than just beating his direct opponent – look no further than some of Jeremy McGovern’s intercept marks!

Certainly some food for thought! Very interesting insights.

I wouldn’t pick Rance first either – but only because the definition of what a “best” player is!

Rance might contribute to wins above a league average player playing his position more than any other player in the league. That doesn’t make his skills the best, or him the best leader, or something you would want when picking a single player to be the “best” in the league. It’s all about the “process” toward scoring/not scoring toward a win. A tricky concept to grasp.

Even AFL Player Ratings points doesn’t measure defence perfectly – because it only measures what a player “does” – in that it only measures his “defensive efforts” (his spoils, intercept possessions etc.)

My argument is that Richmond are one of the best defensive teams in the league – at 10 goals allowed per game, they were the league’s best. The lack of goals kicked by Richmond’s opposition was largely due to Rance – and not just because of his “measurable” efforts, but how he impacts opposition decision making, and his overall contribution to the “structure” of the Richmond defence which is among the league’s best.

Does that contribute to wins more than a Fyfe? – it’s hard to know, because it’s hard to look at an abstract, intangible concept (preventing the opposition from scoring just by “being there” rather than doing something “measurable” on the game) against a tangible concept (Fyfe getting a clearance). But in any case, it does mean that I believe he’s underrated, as I certainly do have in him the top 10 in the league.

This is exactly why I made this article! It requires a little abstract thinking.

Fyfe and Ablett add more offensive “score” than any Port midfielder, as does Buddy or Kennedy for Schluz

I think that Rance is the best key defender in the league. Doe he prevent opposition offensive “score” above a Carlisle, to the equivalent amount that Fyfe does it above a Gray? (assuming for a second Carlisle and Gray both impact the games an equivalent amount, which isn’t true, obviously). If the answer is yes, that’s why Rance could be a better player than Fyfe.

I’m a Bulldogs supporter for what it’s worth, as well. I hate Richmond supporters as much as the next bloke!

Thanks for the lengthy reply Rick – you certainly raise some valid points!

When I talk about 50% of the game being defensive, I’m talking about it from a game theory perspective.

This is where it becomes extremely philosophical, but as you can see from the article, that’s just how I think about footy!

Take a game between two league average teams (in the most literal sense of the word – a team made up of league average players from top to bottom) – the average score per game last season was 86 points per game.

So therefore that match would finish 86-86.

A player who is a good “offensive” player but league average “defensively” might add a goal to that team, so his team wins by a goal, 92-86. It’s easier to “notice” this offensive production, because you can notice that player kicking an extra goal than the league-average player would.

Say the equivalent above average player is a good defensive player – like Rance – and adding him to this theoretical league-average team makes the score also a 6 point win – 86 to 80. But he achieves this equivalent “6 point” advantage not by doing anything extra, but by influencing opposition decision making, and preventing the accumulation of score throughout the whole game by things like spoils and good positioning. However, you’ll still “notice” the other team kicking 80 points, which it’s why it’s hard to give credit to a player who makes the other team kick a goal less than they typically would, rather than a good offensive player who helps his own team kick a goal more than they typically would.

It is true that you can’t win with “just” defence – it would be a 0-0 draw – but thankfully, there’s no team in the league that’s oriented toward defence that much.

For that reason it’s a lot easier to “realise” as you put it, optical offense – perhaps because you can control what they do, but you can’t control what the opposition does. And in any case, a perfect defence wouldn’t require key defenders – because if you turned it over, you’d get it back before it ever reached your defensive 50.

It’s a phenomena seen in NBA basketball – defensive centers get paid because they can always influence defence because they’re protecting the rim. But good defensive perimeter players don’t get paid much money (like Tony Allen) despite the fact that their defence is as good as the best player’s offence because you can always find a way to put the ball in your best offensive player’s hand at the offensive end, but the opposition run a play that avoids the player matched up to the good defensive player.

I’m not saying for a second it’s easier or harder to play CHB or CHF. I’m not saying the roles are easier or harder in defence or attack – in fact, I’d agree with you, which is why you find the best key forwards in the league are almost always top-10 picks in the draft, and the best key defenders int he league are drafted from all over the place. But that’s not the scope of my article – it’s merely about Rance being undervalued as a player by preventing the opposition from scoring he’s just as valuable as an offensive player who adds to his own team scoring by an equivalent amount.

Rance certainly is in the best 100 players in the league – even if you ignore this article and look at how he directly impacts on games with his direct impact. His 97 SuperCoach points in a game (a scoring system not tailored towards key defenders) has him comfortably in the top 100, and AFL Player Ratings Points has him as the 30th best player in the league. Both systems measure what he directly “does” on the field (spoils, one-on-one contests, offensive rebounding) before you even get into his overall defensive influence in structure as to why Richmond’s opponents only kicked 10 goals a game against them.