Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

So I absolutely love Naughton and he is probably my fav Bulldogs player but I'm guessing these stats will surprise some of the last few posters here. They are 2021 stats.

Naughton vs Dixon

6 score involvements a game 6.3
0.5 goal assists 0.5
1.6 tackles 2.1
0.9 tackles inside 50 0.9
9.2 pressure acts 11.4
3.3 marks inside 50 1.8
2.7 Contested marks 2.5

Easier to rack up a few tackle/pressure numbers when you chop out in the ruck.

Naughton is 21 years old. At the same age it was no contest:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=14&playerStatus2=A&tid2=8&type=A&pid1=3612&pid2=6491&fid1=O&fid2=O

[josie]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

It’s easy to shoot down other team’s players. Dixon is a damn good forward and I like the way he takes marks around the ground as well as being a pretty accurate kick for goal. I’d take our Naughts over him every day of the week as Naughts is something else again - once in a generation marking, ground level, pressure, follow up efforts & excitement m/c every time even though Naughts at this early stage in his career may not be as good a goal kick, but Dixon is still a damn good forward.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Easier to rack up a few tackle/pressure numbers when you chop out in the ruck.

Naughton is 21 years old. At the same age it was no contest:
https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...&fid1=O&fid2=O

Hypothetical
You are needing to pick a player for the next game and 1 game ony.

You only have a choice of Naughton or Dixon.

You only have the stat sheet as your guide.

While I would take Naughton based on what I see, Dixon would have to get the nod from the stats.

[jazzadogs]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Hypothetical
You are needing to pick a player for the next game and 1 game ony.

You only have a choice of Naughton or Dixon.

You only have the stat sheet as your guide.

While I would take Naughton based on what I see, Dixon would have to get the nod from the stats.

Would he? I would take the guy who is averaging more marks inside 50.

[Topdog]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Would he? I would take the guy who is averaging more marks inside 50.

Even if they average less goals (yes its by 0.1 but it is less)?

It's pretty crazy how similar the numbers are for the 2 and I agree that Dixon is a good forward.

The fact that Naughton is 21 makes me very very happy.

[Happy Days]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

There’s simply no way you can argue Dixon is a better pressure forward than Naughton. Naughton also would create far more of his goals than Dixon does.

Those stats are very misleading to say the least.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

There’s simply no way you can argue Dixon is a better pressure forward than Naughton. Naughton also would create far more of his goals than Dixon does.

Those stats are very misleading to say the least.

Stats are designed to be misleading and always have been

I refer to the following quote from Benjamin Disraeli

There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Hypothetical
You are needing to pick a player for the next game and 1 game ony.

You only have a choice of Naughton or Dixon.

You only have the stat sheet as your guide.

While I would take Naughton based on what I see, Dixon would have to get the nod from the stats.

Naughton. His attack on the ball in the air is better and I prefer his pressure work when he doesn't have the ball.
Dixon is certainly a 'straightens them up' type forward and someone we were probably crying out for, for at least two decades. We're just lucky a generational forward landed in our lap by sheer dumb luck as an intercepting KPD with a dodgy kick.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Naughton. His attack on the ball in the air is better and I prefer his pressure work when he doesn't have the ball.
Dixon is certainly a 'straightens them up' type forward and someone we were probably crying out for, for at least two decades. We're just lucky a generational forward landed in our lap by sheer dumb luck as an intercepting KPD with a dodgy kick.

You haven't answered my hypothetical.

I agree with you from watching them, which also highlights the fallibility of stats.

However, the stats show Dixon has had a pretty good year. Our ability to assess him is coloured by his poor form against us.

I would also think that Naughton's averages have declined over the latter half with 2 games where he was subbed out and also him being below par for a few games on his return from the concussion.

[Topdog]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

There’s simply no way you can argue Dixon is a better pressure forward than Naughton. Naughton also would create far more of his goals than Dixon does.

Those stats are very misleading to say the least.

I don't think anyone is saying that more just highlighting the fact that Dixon has had a good year even though he was poor against us.

I suspect that Mofra is right and some of the defensive stats for Dixon are inflated because he is doing ruck work in the f50.

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

You haven't answered my hypothetical.

I agree with you from watching them, which also highlights the fallibility of stats.

However, the stats show Dixon has had a pretty good year. Our ability to assess him is coloured by his poor form against us.

I would also think that Naughton's averages have declined over the latter half with 2 games where he was subbed out and also him being below par for a few games on his return from the concussion.

I did with my first word - Naughton.
Dixon is a better body on body player but if our F50 entries rely on forwards' body on body work we're not playing the way we want and losing the game anyway (ball movement too slow).

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

I did with my first word - Naughton.
Dixon is a better body on body player but if our F50 entries rely on forwards' body on body work we're not playing the way we want and losing the game anyway (ball movement too slow).

My hypothetical was based on only having the stats and your choice of Naughton is based on what you see.

I would always choose Naughton based on what he brings, but you only get that from watching him play.

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

My hypothetical was based on only having the stats and your choice of Naughton is based on what you see.

I would always choose Naughton based on what he brings, but you only get that from watching him play.

Based on those stats, Naughton creams him for marks inside 50 and is close in the other areas.
Even ignoring the eyeball test Naughton would be ahead.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Based on those stats, Naughton creams him for marks inside 50 and is close in the other areas.
Even ignoring the eyeball test Naughton would be ahead.

Their stats are pretty close but Naughton trails in most of them for the season averages.

[Mofra]

Re: Is Charlie Dixon THAT Good?

Their stats are pretty close but Naughton trails in most of them for the season averages.

Marginally, except for contested marks where Naughton is marginally ahead. I think aerial prowess fits our forward needs better than someone who gets an extra kick a game.

You seem really adamant about this. Why would you take Dixon even if based only on stats?