At first glance, the question posed above might seem absolutely ludicrous.
Am I really suggesting that a player who played for a team that was embarrassed in the first week of finals and only received eight Brownlow votes last year could be the best player in the league – even better than Nat Fyfe?
There’s no doubt that Alex Rance is the best key defender in the AFL. Both the eye test, conventional statistics and advanced statistics rate him above the likes of Harry Taylor, Jeremy McGovern, Tom McDonald and Steven May.
Rance was ranked first in 2015 for one percenters, of which the vast majority are spoils, and with an average of 97 SuperCoach points per game, he also leads all key defenders. Advanced statistics, such as measuring defensive-one-on-one contests and the AFL Player Ratings Points system, also have him as the best key defender in the league.
How exactly, however, one might ask, does this impact on the game make him the best player in the league, and why could that make him a better player than someone like Nat Fyfe, who dominates games?
The short answer is that it doesn’t. In other words, Rance might be the best player in the league, but it isn’t because of what he does when he’s directly involved in the play. One might ask “isn’t that exactly what determines what makes a good player – what they do when they’re involved in the play”, and while that’s true to an extent, it doesn’t fully give appreciation to why Alex Rance is so good.
The logic behind Rance being the best player in the league despite having less direct impact on the game than other players requires some abstract thinking.
This begins at understanding how any given player might contribute to winning games. A team aims to score more points than their opposition, and they can achieve this both through attacking (trying to score more points) or defensive (preventing the opposition from scoring) means.
This is where a spectator’s fallacy comes in. It’s a lot easier to analyse who within a team contributes to scoring for their team. But 50 per cent of the game is preventing your opposition from scoring.
Richmond were one of the best defensive teams in the league last year. By allowing their opponents only 10 goals per home-and-away game (the best in the league), they were very successful defensively. There is an argument to be made that this is largely Rance’s doing.
To further understand Rance’s impact requires a further level of abstract thinking. As in all sport, it’s a lot harder to measure defensive impact than offensive impact.
Measuring offensive impact is easy. You can break down how points were produced in a multitude of ways – through the equity system within the AFL Player Ratings Points, looking at clearance numbers, or plain and simply which player kicks the goals. Coaches, for example, look at score sources (such as from stoppages, turnovers or kick-ins) to see the breakdown of how goals were kicked.
When looking at defensive impact, how players were defensively “involved” in the play is only part of the story. While Rance is the best player defensively in the league when he’s involved in the play – his elite defensive one-on-one contest numbers prove that – it’s his overall impact on the defensive structure that counts. This limited Richmond’s opposition to only ten goals a game that’s the main reason why he could very well be the best player in the league.
Combine that with some offensive ability (such as his rebounding statistics) and it’s not too absurd of a suggestion to suggest he’s the best player in the league.
The entire Richmond defence is built around Rance, and he prevents the opposition from scoring like no other single player does in the competition. It’s comparable to what Fyfe does in the midfield in helping Frematle score.
It’s hard to notice the lack of opposition scoring, because it’s not something that’s tangible. Noticing Fyfe win a clearance is easy, and visible. It’s hard to tangibly realise that Rance makes Richmond’s opposition score less than they usually do – although it impacts upon wins the exact same way.
The lack of something happening – the two or three goals less a game a team would kick without Rance – is not something you notice, as it’s hard to notice the lack of something rather than something happening. It’s harder to give credit to a player from preventing the opposition from being as good as they usually are.
This all points to Rance being a better player than he’s given credit for – and yes, all the way to being the best player in the league.
All it requires is a little abstract thinking.
Thomas Bugg
Guest
Considering that the maligned Jack Watts managed to towel Alex Rance, i would probably suggest that Rance is not quite the best player in the AFL, let alone the best key defender. The exploits of Robbie Tarrant this season and Tom McDonald have been much more remarkable and remind me of the feats of old Melbourne greats such as Nathan Carroll and Alastair Nicholson.
Dok
Roar Rookie
If Alex Rance could kick properly he would be superman.
Jack
Roar Pro
Rick, I disagree completely that defenders are the less talented players, and your evaluation of the position is ridiculous. Being a great defender requires effectiveness not only defensively but attacking as well, and this balance is more important than in any other position on the ground, in my opinion. The urge to lock down your opponent effectively and perfect an effective rebounding play and peeling off at just the right time is an art form that is often under-appreciated in the footy world, which is very similar to what Nick is trying to say regarding the attention going to the forwards and midfielders.
Ashley
Guest
Great article Nick! Wonderful insight. I also contend that he is arguably one of the most important and 'best' player in the league. I believe that we have such a high regard for midfielders, and almost expect them to be the 'best player'. For me that argument is ridiculous. Quoting an earlier comment, someone said who would I pick first in a school time. Well, if you analyse that, surely you would have to pick the player with the most influence. The player who would look to assert their dominance on that match. The ideology of footy is that the midfielders always have to and will be the best players. No one on that Richmond team last season had a more consistent influence on the team than Rance did. Yes, players like Martin, Deledio and Cotchin produced wonderful matches, but Rance was by far the most consistent, and most influential. I think the reason defenders like him are overlooked, is because of the lack of excitement that doing well in their position brings to the average audience. I would compare the effort to a Goalkeeper in Soccer/Football. Their antics and fantastic saves are often commended, but overlooked when it comes to looking for the best player in the league. Fantastic Insight, and I am very much inclined to agree with you! Keep up the good work!
ray
Guest
At first and last glance it is ridiculous and ludicrous. His influence on a game of footy or on his team does not match a dozen or more players headed by Fyfe, Abblett, Mitchell, both Kennedys and Harry Taylor
Tom M
Guest
Im sorry but the best key defender doesn't get mauled by Travis Cloke every time they match up. Best key back in the comp is Gibson by a romp
Brad
Guest
You keep using Gov as an example you do realise that you are comparing a 130+ game player to a 30+ game player? Not only that but Gov isn't even WCE best key defender.
Lamby
Roar Rookie
Anyone who saw Tex Walker destroy Rance last year won't think he is the best player in the league.
Nick Welch
Roar Rookie
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.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
You wouldn't replace any of those three with Rance?! The backline that conceded nearly 300 points more than Richmond in 2015. You must be in clowd cuckoo land.
Mocca
Guest
In the last three years, Josh Gibson has finished first, tenth (missed a third of the season) and first in the best and fairest voting for the best team in the competition. There's a compelling argument to say he's the best player in the best team. He's certainly the best defender in the team that had the best defence (points against) in the AFL last year. Alex Rance isn't even the best defender in the league - Josh Gibson is. By no definition can Rance be the league's best player.
Neil from Warrandyte
Guest
Awww Nick that hurts. We Richmond supporters really aren't bad people, just a little misunderstood.?
Nick Welch
Roar Rookie
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!
Spanner
Guest
Good article Nick - in simple terms though - a defender has never been and never will be, the best player in the league ! Even allowing for the changing of the game and the fact backmen are more attacking than ever, defenders are still a dime a dozen whereas strong marking, hard running, accurate kicking, key forwards are the cream of the crop. That's why there haven't been that many of them in our time. (Carey, Brereton, Reiwoldt and Kernahan are examples I would cite!) Keen to hear what others think.
Brad
Guest
I'm not even sure that he is the best KPD in the game let alone the best player in the game!
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Totally agree with you Rick. Look forward to your article.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Agree with most of that PD, but I'd like to touch on a few of your points, which actually relate to an article I've wanted to write for a while. "Luke Hodge regularly plays backline for Hawthorn" This is very interesting, because I've always classified the Hawks as an offensive team with a defensive midfield. The Cats on the other hand have always been an offensive team with an offensive midfield. What do I mean by that? Well, Luke Hodge and Sam Mitchell for a vast majority of their career have played primarily in the midfield, whilst rotating off the halfback line to either rest or drop the tag. Geelong were the exact opposite. In their prime we saw Bartel and Ablett primarily play as midfielders also, yet rotated both these players into their forward line. Interesting don't you think? Your points about the drive off the halfback line are valid, but most of those players you mentioned are primarily midfields, who now with age, are playing more in defence. Why? Well it's an important part of the game, especially having fast ball movement with smart players making the right decisions coming out of defence. The Hawks' backline may well be under valued, but no one can deny that it's the Hawks forwards that make them the lethal force everyone has feared in the AFL for the past 3 years. Just look at what Rioli did last year in the final - that's talent and something you are born with. Defence is extremely important no doubt, but you have to kick goals to win and it's easier to stop goals than to kick them. It's the same in ever sport around the world.
Nick Welch
Roar Rookie
Certainly some food for thought! Very interesting insights.
George
Roar Rookie
Same the AFL has never come up with a War or VoRP stat.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"I wouldn’t pick Rance first either – but only because the definition of what a “best” player is!" I think you have just answered the question yourself, but I'm a little confused by the end part. What has the definition of best got to do with it? I'm a competitive person, and when I pick team players, I base it on who's going to help me win, not the definition of what is best. More often than not, a superior midfielder or forward is going to help you achieve this goal in AFL - it's that simple. "It’s all about the “process” toward scoring/not scoring toward a win. A tricky concept to grasp." I understand the concept and the point you are trying to make, I just don't agree with it on average. However; I will say this, because I believe you are talking more about game-plans here rather than individual importance, so I'll try and construct a positive argument in favour of such a notion. It's possible Rance could be seen as the most valuable player in the competition, providing the team is geared more towards defence than offence relative to the league average points scored - which I believe the Tigers were last year. Go read my article to understand that. But...they would also need to be the premiers or close to it for Rance to be considered the best - in my opinion - which they were not Why? Well if Richmond's scores against were less than the league average score, then one can assume their defence is superior to the league average - surprise surprise hey. Therefore you could then break down what makes their defence so good i.e. Rance. The Swans in 2005 were one of the few teams over the past 20 years than have one with a defensive game plan. You could argue their best players were indeed in defence, which allowed the team as a whole to stay in the contest. I could also counter argue that the same superior defence that kept them in games didn't allow the forwards to flourish as much due to less open ball play. As a result these attacking players statistics pale in comparison to higher scoring teams, resulting in the Swans defenders looking much better relative to their peers in the backline. ...but on closer inspection, the Swans forwards despite scoring less had a far greater efficiency ratio due to capitalising on the limited opportunities given to them by the tight defensive game-plan being deployed by Roos. I understand the concept all too well and it's never that simple I'm afraid.