AFL Power Rankings: Round 4

By Michael DiFabrizio / Expert

Often in the footy world, there’s too much emphasis put on the W and L columns. There’s a problem with that.

A win over Hawthorn or West Coast is worth four points, exactly the same as a win over Essendon or Carlton. This can, for obvious reasons, skew the real picture.

Performance can also be glossed over simply by getting the four points. A last-gasp victory in a scrappy, unconvincing game is worth the same as a 100-point demolition.

Bring these elements together and you’ll find that beating a strong team by 10 goals is on par with an after-the-siren win over the wooden spooners, in the world of Ws and Ls.

Is this the best way to gauge where a team is at? Is there really enough context?

What I set out to do with these Power Rankings has very little to do with wins and losses. It’s about performance (measured by points for and points against) weighted against quality of opponent (measured by the opponent’s performance).

The intention, to be clear, wasn’t to create an alternative to the ladder. You can see that here. It was to answer the question, where is each team at, right now? (Hence, the most recent games are weighted more heavily than games long gone.)

But there are of course times where the Power Rankings offer a sharp contrast to the ladder. This week is one such time.

North Melbourne are flying right now according to the measure of wins and losses. On top of the ladder, the sole undefeated team. What’s not to like?

Well, a closer inspection of their performances says they are a good team right now – but not a top tier team.

In round 2, the Roos beat the Brisbane Lions by 34 points. The same Lions side lost by more than 10 goals either side of that match (to teams ranked higher than North in these rankings). It was a good result, maybe, but not a great result.

The next week they were neck-and-neck with Melbourne all afternoon. The Dees remain a side deservedly ranked below North and were only just coming off a loss to Essendon. You wouldn’t classify this as a good result if you took the win out of the equation.

At the weekend, Fremantle stuck with North for three quarters before the Roos eventually got away from them late. Fremantle are winless this season. Given the final margin was 31 points, you might classify this as an OK result, but again, not a great one.

North obviously did have one win that looks pretty great right now, round 1 against Adelaide. That’s looking more impressive with each week.

But re-order the ladder by percentage and suddenly they rank eighth in the competition. Then throw in the fact three of the four sides they’ve faced are more likely to be holidaying in September than playing finals.

You can’t fault the fact North Melbourne haven’t lost. But should we be declaring them the most powerful team in the competition?

I don’t think we should.


+1 // Ladder: 3rd (3W, 1L)

The Swans didn’t get the four points after their clash with Adelaide. But they’ve held on to top spot because the overall picture is one of slightly greater strength. (The Crows’ other two wins were against Richmond and Port Adelaide, and wins over these teams have become less valuable.) A great game was played at Adelaide Oval, 11 lead changes and all. Lance Franklin again kicked four, Isaac Heeney joined him, Kurt Tippett had 35 hitouts with his two goals, Dan Hannebery had 38 disposals… there were many bright spots.

+1 // Ladder: 7th (3W, 1L)

A big win that solidified their place in the top tier conversation. Crucially, they stood up late, which was lacking in the round 1 loss to North Melbourne. How about Scott Thompson in his 250th? 27 touches, 10 tackles, six clearances. Eddie Betts was this week’s forward line star, but their many options will continue to confound opposition coaches.

+1 // Ladder: 2nd (3W, 1L)

After such a promising start, we can now insert injuries into the Western Bulldogs 2016 narrative. This time last week, Luke Beverage was expecting the worst news on Bob Murphy. This week he’s in the same position on fellow defender Jason Johannisen. Four months is the word on him. A shame after Johannisen’s ripper start to the season.

-3 // Ladder: 8th (3W, 1L)

“For two weeks in a row the better side probably lost,” Alastair Clarkson said after the game. He’s probably right. The Saints took it to the Hawks but maybe aren’t yet at the point developmentally to ice those games off. The narrowness of the last two wins has bumped the Hawks in the rankings, but it’s worth remembering they’re running out with seven players with less than 40 games experience at the moment.

No change // Ladder: 6th (3W, 1L)

Adam Simpson was wary of a Richmond side being given a timely interstate trip out of the Melbourne footy bubble. In the end, he needn’t have been. The Eagles dominated in points from turnovers, 72-15. And it’s no surprise they had plenty of turnovers to score from: the Tigers were held to just eight inside 50s the entire first half.

No change // Ladder: 4th (3W, 1L)

The Cats weren’t at their best in the 30-point win over Essendon. But the 9.18 scoreline told part of that story. It could’ve been a bigger win. Clearances may continue to linger as an issue for this side: Essendon won them 38-27.

+4 // Ladder: 9th (2W, 2L)

A pretty historic win in Canberra over Port Adelaide. The biggest win of the season so far (86 points) was also the Giants’ biggest ever win. They had 94 on the board by half time. Following the win over Geelong two weeks earlier, suddenly the Giants are firm part of the finals conversation.

No change // Ladder: 1st (4W, 0L)

A trip to play Gold Coast this week will be a chance to move up the rankings. (See intro for more on North Melbourne.)

+1 // Ladder: 5th (3W, 1L)

The bubble burst for the Suns in the QClash. I won’t bring up the fact there were a few criticisms of this team not being higher last week. I won’t bring that up at all. (Though those readers do actually get their wish: Port and Richmond’s crash was the Suns’ gain this week.) As for the fallout from the Lions loss, it’s probably safe for Steven May to go out and book a holiday for the next month.

+5 // Ladder: 10th (2W, 2L)

There’s been a fair bit of movement in the bottom half of the rankings and Melbourne were among the beneficiaries. A win over the Pies, a day out for Jack Watts and some impressive numbers out of the midfield unit (Jack Viney with 31 touches, 10 clearances and a goal, Tomas Bugg with 29 disposals and nine tackles). Sunday was a good day to be a Dees fan.

+5 // Ladder: 14th (1W, 3L)

The Lions had an OK-ish start to the year before slipping up against Geelong last week. What a way to respond with a win over the Suns. Pearce Hanley has got people talking and rightly so. Earned best-on honours with 28 touches, seven inside 50s and a pair of goals, including one crucial goal in the last quarter.

-5 // Ladder: 11th (2W, 2L)

There’s some big problems to work through at Alberton. The Power suffered the biggest loss of the season at the hands of the GWS Giants. Their two-win record suddenly looks very generous. Too many guys are underperforming. The Giants were six short of having double the inside 50s (75-41). Embarrassing.

-1 // Ladder: 17th (0W, 4L)

Fremantle kept pace with North Melbourne until the fourth quarter, much in the way they had a good half against West Coast a week earlier. But the fact is, better teams are kicking away from the Dockers right now.

-1 // Ladder: 12th (1W, 3L)

Sometimes the rankings spit out a number that’s a bit disappointing. This was one of those times. The Saints far from disgraced themselves against Hawthorn and most weeks here, they would be given something to show for it. Alas, Melbourne and Brisbane’s wins pushed them up higher instead. After this week’s game, Alastair Clarkson said the better team lost, which says a lot about how well the Saints played. It wasn’t a win, but there were plenty of positives. 10th-gamer Paddy McCartin had some good moments.

-6 // Ladder: 13th (1W, 3L)

Is it hot in here or is the footy blowtorch turned on? Richmond could’ve been granted a pass mark with a competitive loss to West Coast, but a 68-point drubbing was only ever going to add fuel to the fire. Especially when it could’ve easily been far worse: the Eagles kicked 18.17, the Tigers kicked 9.3. You can tell the playing group are feeling the pressure, which makes it harder to envision any sort of grand turnaround in the near future.

+1 // Ladder: 16th (1W, 3L)

There were a lot of fears heading into Season 2016 over how the Bombers would perform. The fears on the extreme, worst-case-scenario end of things have been put to bed. This is an outfit that can compete. So much has the narrative changed, the spotlight heading into Anzac Day is on the other mob.

+1 // Ladder: 17th (0W, 4L)

Brendon Bolton, as we all expected him to following his Hawthorn press conferences, is staying positive. And so he should. The Blues are 0-4 but they’ve competed and, against the Dogs, showed fight with their backs pushed right against the wall.

-4 // Ladder: 15th (1W, 3L)

Yep, it’s this bad. The Pies went into quarter time against Melbourne down by five goals and made efforts to pull their way back but were always rebuffed. It followed the loss to St Kilda last week and the 80-point opening round loss to the Swans. Yes, they beat the Tigers, but isn’t that result looking less impressive by the week?

The Crowd Says:

2016-04-21T01:36:36+00:00

Arky

Guest


One thing to say North can't be classed as the #1 team in the comp yet. Obviously. But another thing to rank Adelaide - who they beat- 7 spots above them. To rank a 2 and 2 GWS team (who lost to Melbourne) above them. I don't mind the Bulldogs above them but the Bulldogs have beaten exactly nobody of any value at all. Comparing the margin of North's win over Brisbane in Brisbane to the margin of other teams' wins over Brisbane away also smacks of someone just trying to justify a bad position. Finally, to have Sydney at #1 after they lost to Adelaide and after they've beaten... who? is just trolling. Hawks should be on top until proven otherwise. Adelaide and North have beaten quality teams without losing to bad teams. Geelong beat Hawthorn but also lost to GWS. Dogs, Eagles and Swans look good but haven't actually beaten a good team yet. That's your top 7 roughly in order. Then you can have teams like GWS, Melbourne and Saints who are up and down but have the capability to beat good teams. GWS above North. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

2016-04-20T07:14:42+00:00

Biggyd

Guest


THIS GUY GETS IT.

2016-04-20T02:57:46+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


Anthony North are coming off 2 consecutive preliminary finals. Each year we've started off slow and lost games we should have won. We start 4-0 by winning those games and we're still getting questioned?

2016-04-19T02:48:07+00:00

Peppsy

Roar Guru


Half of geelongs first half goals came from frees. Hardly helping hawthorn

2016-04-19T01:15:19+00:00

fair suck of the sav

Guest


Big test for the umps against the crows fri night. They crucified the crows in the 2012 prelim final 21-12 against with several decisions admitted by the director of umps to be wrong.

2016-04-18T23:10:05+00:00

While we're at it

Guest


Thanks Michael, makes sense ( I think), no doubt a larger sample period will make things clearer.

2016-04-18T22:19:14+00:00

Redb

Roar Guru


Indeed Macca.

2016-04-18T18:46:58+00:00

New York Hawk

Guest


Hmmm, some of your comments are interesting. Especially this one: "Dynasties are sometimes forged through suppression. This adversity is coming to an end thankfully". Your observation around the expansion team makes sense on the surface. Just don't scratch it or hold it up to the light to see how wafer thin it is. I presume you know this, but all the established teams were dealt exactly the same hand on this. Geelong was in the box seat with a first class list, but they didn't play it well. At all. The Pies even worse. The Hawks did. The question you need to ask yourself, RD, is "What needs to be done to have sustainable success on and off the field?" If you had asked that question yourself, you probably wouldn't have bothered to tell me what questions I should be asking myself about the Hawks. After all, you think about every word you pick your words very carefully and mean every one. The Hawks are far better placed than they were in the early 1990s as we are a professionally run club now. It doesn't mean we won't be down near the bottom of the ladder in the future, but it probably means we have a financial base and engagement model to avoid being put out of business or forced to relocate. We might choose to relocate, although I would be surprised. When I moved to the US I hated the use of the term "franchise" for sporting teams, But ultimately, I came to realize that in the global sporting marketplace that all sporting teams now exist (even the AFL), it is all about the actual competition, and then the teams within that. Where your grandparents lived in 1928 doesn't matter about who you support any more. Families move and evolve and allegiances change from one generation to the next. What you need is a well run club for survive and thrive in this new world. At the moment the Hawks are just that. Your comments about the Hawks in this context are just viewing the world as the VFL in the 1980s. You need to get with the times on this. As for bandwagon jumpers, they exist in all sports. I guess you could classify me as a bandwagon jumper as no one in my family followed Aussie Rules let alone the VFL. I grew up in rural NSW and happened to watch a Hawks vs Dogs game when I was 5 in 1984. From then on, I barracked for the Hawks, in part because I wanted to be Dermie and in part because they were winning. It didn't hurt that because of their winning, I got to watch a lot more of them play on TV than I would have otherwise. And so maybe this generation of bandwagon jumpers are the next generation of rusted-on supporters. Will we lose some? Sure we will. Will we be South Melbourne circa 1981. Highly unlikely. Now, as for being a bottom-feeding club, I find it rich that any supporter of Geelong would start throwing around accusations like that. With more top-notch Father-Son gifts than Sam Newman has jilted lovers, you have been the biggest beneficiaries of AFL/VFL welfare. You are old-school VFL in your success. Though I notice you have migrated to the new world of free agency after doing whatever it was you were doing when you blew pole position during your almost-dynasty. Having said that, it isn't like the Hawks have done very well in free agency (losing Buddy and gaining Frawley is about it) so we need to lift in that area too. I'm not sure if we are the best team ever in the AFL, but we are in the conversation. Importantly, there are only two teams in that conversation, and Geelong ain't one of them.

2016-04-18T11:41:19+00:00

Pumping Dougie

Roar Guru


Ok cheers Col

2016-04-18T10:19:42+00:00

Brian

Guest


I understand you can't please everyone all the time. Its just that this week has some bizarre outcomes. Adelaide in the top 2, Gold Coast moving up after losing to Brisbane. NM 8th, Melbourne, Brisbane, Port all ahead of St Kilda and even Essendon ahead of Collingwood. Its all about the now well the odds for ANZAC Day have Collingwood clear favorites. Hopefully I'll "get"it" better next week

2016-04-18T10:01:12+00:00

Ironmonger

Guest


Here here. The draw is not about quality games or fairness in fixtures, it's about ratings...and we are in a position where a number of big name, well followed teams are not performing. As a side note check out the bottom 5 from the 2005 season: Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Carlton.

2016-04-18T09:57:58+00:00

Josh

Expert


I'd say Adelaide's wins over Port, Richmond and Sydney are more impressive as a collective than Sydney's wins over Collingwood, Carlton and GWS. Some day Michael I'm sure you will give up and join the one true faith that is rating North ;)

2016-04-18T09:55:08+00:00

mattyb

Guest


Andy,I think blockbusters tend to look after themselves. Some teams draw more than others,and the ones that draw more get called blockbusters. I still don't agree with your comments regarding GWS and GC as they still sound Victorian centric,some people do actually support clubs outside the state they live in and some people just watch on TV so all sides should play Friday night. I don't think every young footballer worries about supplements at all and as a parent if my children make an error in judgement in the future I'm not going to blame some footballer,or rock star or tv personality,I would look closer at myself,I'm the parent. I actually don't even think the scandal was the biggest issue of last season and I'm disappointed some people pretend it was. I have never had to discuss the Essendon thing with them,,I'm pretty sure thet don't even know of its existence,we have discussed booing though and they were more aware of the reasons than some adults,and we have discussed that.

2016-04-18T09:53:01+00:00

Michael Huston

Guest


I agree. It's all good news for the Swans at the moment, but there are things in our game that would hurt us again if we came up against another side like Adelaide.

2016-04-18T09:40:15+00:00

Macca

Guest


Dougie - I am sure Murphy didn't come back. Col - Agree on Murphy and Gibbs but at least Gibbs had a big last quarter picking up 7 possessions, in previous years he wouldn't have fought his way back.

2016-04-18T09:22:13+00:00

Col from Brissie

Roar Guru


PD, pretty sure Murphy didn't come back after the head knock. Apparently he was physically ill at half time before the head knock but agree him and Gibbs had little effect on the game. Could have been Byrne you saw with the bandage on the head as he had a head cut as well.

2016-04-18T08:57:23+00:00

fairsuckofthesav

Guest


But you did get a 'call' or two go your way. The red hot holding ball in front of goal resulting in a Swan goal; the red hot deliberate out of bounds resulting in a Franklin shot on goal both in the 1st quarter. Then there was the blatant high tackle on Lynch not paid in the last quarter. Cuts both ways my friend.

AUTHOR

2016-04-18T08:28:51+00:00

Michael DiFabrizio

Expert


Thanks Ron, appreciate it. Top four call might be a big one. The Bulldogs' injuries are something of a red flag, but we'll see how they respond in time. You can make cases for the sides below there (West Coast, Geelong, even maybe GWS?). We shall see!

AUTHOR

2016-04-18T08:25:29+00:00

Michael DiFabrizio

Expert


Thanks for reading and responding andrew. I would suggest there's always a natural hype around undefeated sides. Just a minute or so before I typed this I heard on Fox Sports News in the background the P word being mentioned in relation to North Melbourne. So I think it was worth addressing that, particularly with them being noticeably low in these rankings relative to their ladder position. To answer your question, yes, the opponent ranking is updated each week when the new games are added in. So, in your example, North Melbourne's win over Adelaide becomes more important. But also remember, games also lose value with each week as well. A side's last game is worth more than its second last game, which is worth more than its third last game, etc. (If that makes sense!)

AUTHOR

2016-04-18T08:21:28+00:00

Michael DiFabrizio

Expert


Happy to hear that TomC, and thanks for the kind words. Home ground advantage is not something that comes into it yet. I could play around with it, but I can see it getting very messy very quickly. I'm not sure each home ground advantage is equal. Two MCG tenant clubs playing each other and Hawthorn playing in Launceston are two different propositions, for example. It would require some work. But you're right in that it could have real value. Especially with my disappointment that St Kilda's performance in Tassie wasn't reflected in their ranking position!

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar