Are statistics really telling us who our best AFL player are?

Exactly right in my opinion. Despite Sewell's impressive possession count I hardly noticed his influence on the game, and unfortunately had the Hawks won he probably would have won the Norm Smith. As I mention in the article no one wants to recognise the players who just "do their job" and as you say, commit or are intelligent in the way they do it. Need to start to look at how someone played thier particular role in the match rather than just who sat in the middle of the ground and got the ball the most.

For me the 2 most important areas are intelligence and commitment. I love players who do both and that's why the Swans won against the Hawks - a better game plan and the commitment to play it against what most neutral observers would regard as a more talented team. In that context maybe Malceski and Jetta should be up there with Hanneberry and O'Keefe. Whilst Buddy and Sewell showed amazing commitment, Buddy won against Teddy on talent alone and Sewell's possessions had little influence (this might be different if his 2 snaps in the final quarter had scored!) For intelligence and awareness look no further than Jetta's inboard kick to Jack and on to Kennedy for a goal, or Malceski's bullet from defence down the centre to Hanneberry then on to Reid for a goal. The Swans played the middle of the ground better and were rewarded by easier kicks at goal. Well done Horse! Similarly LRT did many intelligent things - he looks ungainly but how smart was he on the field. Great coaching and awareness by the Swans. Now how to measure intelligence and commitment..

Ian, I tend to agree with you about stats and efficiency. If a player gets it, and uses it, that's more valuable than someone getting forty touches and turning the ball over twenty-five times. It's one reason why I rate the Hawks Sam Mitchell as being, usually, more valuable than the Crows Scott Thompson. Thomo gets a heap of it but the end result is often missed targets - and if not missed entirely the ball is put too high, too low, too far behind the intended target which allows the opposition that little bit more time to get to that player and put him under pressure. We do live in a stats world though and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon. But, as you say, there's stats, and there's stats. Or, as someone else once said, "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

I agree,Commentators seem to have an infatuation with possessions,& will still be raving on about the number a losing team is getting,when it is patently obvious that most of these don't lead to goals,or even points. In the meantime,the other team is doing a lot more each time they get the ball.

Stat's need to take a back seat to direct football observation, the fact that Joel Selwood wasn't awarded a spot in this years AA team show that selectors main criteria is stats (similair criteria can be argued for Matthew Pavlich). His 26 possessions a game are almost constantly crucial to that contest. Was very surprised to see Joel Patfull to win the Lions B&F only because I mainly see Brisbane match wrap ups and stats without watching the actual match, but the fact he won shows the staff up there are willing to value team role even with relatively low stats above high stats accumulators (which is very refreshing to see). P.S Am I the only one who thinks Tom Lonergan was at least in the top 3 Best Players on Ground in the 2011 GF? Cloke threatened to win the game off his own boot there at one stage and Lonergan kept him near kickless for the rest of the match

Like most people here i agree with the sentiments from this article. I would only say stats are the simplest/easiest way of determining a players output. In the aftermath of a GF and all the emotion the game itself seems like a blur and it would be hard to pick a deserving winner. Using stats helps solve that problem, in that the player with more tackles, disposals, kicks, marks must logically be doing 'more'. Games are won on individual moments like Goodesy's goal yet medals will almost by their very nature be given to midfield types as due to their role...they have the most time on the ball as their job is to follow it up and down the park...rather than a Franklin type whose main job is to stay on the 50 line and mark and score. As a Swans supporter myself i thought Hannerbery was pretty close to best on ground (with even Mike Pyke in the top 5 of players) but i think what swung it in O'Keefe's favour was the tackle count. 15 is an extraordinary number in Aussie Rules, combined with his disposals and kicks. Three stats i would like to see used more often or at least feature prominently when deciding a players output are: 1. Time spent on ground - I think i heard something once from an announcer that Ted Richards plays the most minutes of anyone in the AFL in 2012. 2. K'ms run - How far are players running each game 3. Output for and against - this was touched on i think in an earlier comment. What if you have a half back who manages to restrict their opponent to no marks or like 2 or 3 possessions...is there a stat that measures that value???? It would come up on the opponent's stat sheet as 0 marks but credit should also go to the defender.

long service award?? are you joking ? it was his 4th season in the afl he hadnt even played a 100 games !!!

Hannerbery for me this year, and Amon Buchanan in 2005

The problem with total possession counts isn't the statistic itself but the over-importance the media places on it. Over recent years commentators place more and more unjustified emphasis on this as a way of measuring a player's output without looking at other factors. Yes they tell you how many times the player got the ball but they don't tell you that the 30 times they picked up the ball included 10 turnovers to the opposition or a kick or handball to a teammate who wasn't in the best position, that another 12 were picked up in the back line uncontested and that only the last 8 were in contested or other situations that could be deemed to have had a positive impact for their team which means in reality only 8 of those 30 possessions were of any benefit.

Such efforts are usually met with walls of whining about wanting first round picks instead of State League and club rejects ;) But two names that fit that are Ross Tungtalum - ex-St Kilda Tiwi Islander, bounced off a list due to immaturity, then played for the NT Thunder and occasionally for GWS reserves. He's kicked bags of goals for and against GWS :) Stephen Clifton - hard working midfielder. Low ceiling, bounced off GWS' list due to an injury ravaged season and too much competition, but if you need an honest midfielder, he's a good call

Archer's award seemed like a "long-service" award more than the job he did on the day. David Rhys-Jones' Norm Smith in 1987 is the best example I can think of. Just owning his one-on-one contest with Brereton.

Fair enough and each to their own. Have you considered putting your passion into trying to help some of the struggling clubs choose players that have been ignored by other clubs. You write as if you know a bit about team structures and plays, so a "moneyball" type roll might be a roll awaiting you. I always reckon there are at least 2-3 delisted players each year that might do OK at another club for a bargain basement price. Your suggested "exotic stats" might serve a roll here.

Macca Clone, Im interested in the game as a whole, and how it changes and develops. For example, GWS will probably end up playing some sort of Pagans Paddock style, with a packed defense based around a rolling scrum around the ball, and then a quick long kick to a hulking forward. In this style the success will be judged by the ability of the players to get the long kick away to the forward who has led into space and marked. On the other hand, Gold Coast will probably carry the ball forward at pace, to use the skills of the likes of Bennell, O'Meara and Martin. In this style, you'll need 90%+ accuracy by hand, and to count the number of bounces, and long kicking wont be as important. But yeah, Im a stats freak :)

Ian, What do you want these stats for exactly? If you are not on the coaching staff, I can't imagine what purpose you might want them for. It may sound harsh but why not simply watch the game and ignore the stats? I just can't see what you are going to do with a "mark off lead" stat. It has no use for fantasy football, you don't decide who goes in the team and you are not awarding medal votes, or as far as I know. Or is it a case that you are after stats for opposition teams so that you know what to expect in games your team is playing?

My problem isnt the use of stats - its the use of the wrong stats. Possessions by themselves arent that important. But high possessions plus high kicking efficiency is a sign a player is getting the ball and doing something useful with it. Likewise, it wiould be nice to have a formal stat for 'key blocks', where a player via a bump frees the player in possession to do something useful. I'd also stat 'big hits', because a bump or a tackle that forces an opponent to the bench disrupts all those carefully-planned rotations. I'd also like a 'mark off lead' stat to differentiate a created uncontested mark, as opposed to one from a player seagulling around halfback.

Only one more element you mentiond both hanneberry and Okeefe which is fine. However in my view Sewell was the best player on the ground ableit on the losing side and thats my issue. The best player does not always come from the winning team yet in overwhelming cases playing in a losing team takes away the gloss which isnt right. And by the way I am a collingwood supporter and have nothing against the two swans boys. Sewell being best is my opinion.

It might need to filter up through the clubs eg Crowley won Freo's B&F and S Selwood at WC. Clubs are best placed to award medals as they know their values and can immediately spot when a player does or doesn't execute on them. The umps need to be told and then they will do. They need to widen their vision and share the votes around more equitably.

The reference by Sheeks to an old boss is apt. The increased focus of stats in the game is symptomatic of sport becoming a business. In doing so it has taken on some of the traits of business. You can even hear it in the talk of coaches and players, who are regularly "moving forward" (a vacuous phrase far better left to the corporate world) and even referring to a player's KPIs. One of the pervasive catch-cries in the halls of business management is: 'If you can measure it, you can manage it'. Stats are the measurement, giving the coach a tool to manage. BTW Bon, I am likewise a die-hard Swans supporter and I too was flabbergasted about Judd's Norm Smith. But I watched a replay of '05 grannie before driving down to the MCG for the 2012 version and I tell you what, Juddy is hard to argue with.

I don't necessarily think players should be awarded praise simply because they play under an injury or something similar but in my opinion you are very right in saying that if someone only does half a dozen things in a match it may be more influential than a player who does a dozen. Interesting point you raise about Franklin though, in my opinion he almost won the flag off his own boot and that 65m goal in the third was timed perfectly in the context of bringing his team back in the game. Had the Hawks won would he have been awarded the Norm Smith? Probably not. I would have a guess and say Sewell would have most likely, his statistics were far more impressive.

Hannebery got one more disposal then O'Keefe, but statistically (inclusive of tackles, marks etc) O'Keefe appeared to be the most prominent Swan. Totally agree, shouldn't even have access to stats when making the decision.