Pound for pound mvp

[Rusty12]

Hey Rusty - Is there a 'Pound for Pound' team 'threshold' we need to reach in order to win?

Obviously 230 is the highest achievable score...do we win every time we get > 150 for example? The last two weeks we have registered (I think) 120 vs the Bears and 106 vs the Crows. Obviously those numbers aren't getting 'it' done.

What number DOES get it done??

LOL. I was thinking about this last week, and I should get to work on that. Great question, and now I have the motivation to do it. I will come back to you.
The other one was, how many players with a 3 or less, regardless of who they were, Win Vs Loss.
106 Vs Crows was very top-heavy and a big fall away, 120 Vs Lions (Bears) saw a lot of blokes do their job, where we needed much more Vs that level of competition.

[Rusty12]

Hey Rusty - Is there a 'Pound for Pound' team 'threshold' we need to reach in order to win?

Obviously 230 is the highest achievable score...do we win every time we get > 150 for example? The last two weeks we have registered (I think) 120 vs the Bears and 106 vs the Crows. Obviously those numbers aren't getting 'it' done.

What number DOES get it done??

Averages. I use a top 10, not top 9 as some in the media suggest.
The Swans were in a GF, mostly the same list and will finish with a percentage close to 100.


image.png

[Rusty12]

With "Passengers"
This exercise has not improved my hopes one bit.........
We really are flat track bullies.........

image.png

[mjp]

With "Passengers"
This exercise has not improved my hopes one bit.........
We really are flat track bullies.........

I guess no-one is really surprised with the way these numbers came out but the differences are pretty stark.

I'm really not sure where to go from here or what to say...I still maintain we are 'close enough' that the time is now to take some swings and make some changes...

We know exactly what we are going to get with the mix 'as is' throughout the 2025 season...we have been consistently solid but also have consistently fallen "just" short against the top tier of contenders. If we have learned anything from the last two weeks it shouldn't be "We aren't quite good enough" - it SHOULD be "We need to make a couple of changes to get over the top"...

[jeemak]

I guess no-one is really surprised with the way these numbers came out but the differences are pretty stark.

I'm really not sure where to go from here or what to say...I still maintain we are 'close enough' that the time is now to take some swings and make some changes...

We know exactly what we are going to get with the mix 'as is' throughout the 2025 season...we have been consistently solid but also have consistently fallen "just" short against the top tier of contenders. If we have learned anything from the last two weeks it shouldn't be "We aren't quite good enough" - it SHOULD be "We need to make a couple of changes to get over the top"...

Like put Bont back to lead the defence and intercept, and JJ forward to add a little quality outside of West in the smalls department.........

[Bornadog]

Like put Bont back to lead the defence and intercept, and JJ forward to add a little quality outside of West in the smalls department.........

Where did I read that before, can't think

[jeemak]

Where did I read that before, can't think

I think it was in that thread I started calling out for different things to be done where everyone just said do the same thing but harder, but I can't be sure.......

[Rusty12]

ED has a handy gap now, and I think Dale gets his way to 2nd.
142 Game Rating, continuing the flat track bully narrative.
Only 2 Passengers.
Need a 132-136 Rating or 4 or less passengers at home to beat GWS.

AVG TOP 10	121.1
AVG BOTTOM 9	146.6667
AVG ALL	133.2105
AVG WIN	144.7273
AVG LOSS	117.375

image.png

[jeemak]

Hey Rusty, I've been loving these weekly updates. Thanks for the effort!

It maybe flippant usage of the language from you, however, I'm interested in the "flat track bully" narrative that permeates the media and generally when it comes to who we've beaten and who we haven't. Do you have a view on who above us, who we've not beaten, who should be quantitatively rated below us?

I've excluded the possible qualitative elements due to our injuries early in the year, where we've played the better teams early in the year, and then again playing both Hawthorn and Adelaide on "our deck" later in the season. It'd be a bit of a jumble so figured I'd start with the stats if you have them.

[Happy Days]

I know you thought Buss was bad but not giving him a rating seems mean

[Scott2016]

Very Generous on Baker, Poulter and Mcneil. Poulter had 8 possessions in 3rd qtr 11 for game? Baker had 0 in first qtr and 13 for game. Mcniel had 7 and layed 2 good tackles the others were jelly arms

[Rusty12]

I know you thought Buss was bad but not giving him a rating seems mean

My Bad, Happy Days, that was a bit harsh by me.
Buss was a 3.

[Rusty12]

Hey Rusty, I've been loving these weekly updates. Thanks for the effort!

It maybe flippant usage of the language from you, however, I'm interested in the "flat track bully" narrative that permeates the media and generally when it comes to who we've beaten and who we haven't. Do you have a view on who above us, who we've not beaten, who should be quantitatively rated below us?

I've excluded the possible qualitative elements due to our injuries early in the year, where we've played the better teams early in the year, and then again playing both Hawthorn and Adelaide on "our deck" later in the season. It'd be a bit of a jumble so figured I'd start with the stats if you have them.

Hey Mate,
I was mostly playing into the media narrative, a bit on tongue in cheek.

For the pound-for-pound ratings, MJP did suggest looking into what a winning number was, etc., which did identify Vs the top 10 teams we average 121 as a team, and Vs the bottom 9 we average 147, which is way too big of a gap, and leans into that narrative.

Of the 10 competitive teams (I include the swans, as they were in a GF last year, the list is still young, and they might get close to 100%.
We are either 9th or 10th in defending turnover or defensive transition, based only on playing those other top 10 teams.
The reason it is not hurting us as much as it should is that we still score going the other way, so if you dig into it based purely on defending, it is really poor. If you dig into it based on score differential from the same sources, we are still top 5-6.

We really are not far off.

[Rusty12]

Very Generous on Baker, Poulter and Mcneil. Poulter had 8 possessions in 3rd qtr 11 for game? Baker had 0 in first qtr and 13 for game. Mcniel had 7 and layed 2 good tackles the others were jelly arms

Scott, looking at how many possessions someone had, and what Q it happened in, might be how you view footy, which is fine.
I don't always agree with the ratings either, that's kinda the point.
The point of the ratings is to assess the whole game, the impact of the possessions, how they won them, and did they make costly mistakes.

Baker - 6 score involvements, 4 clearances, 6 contested - You get that from a outside mid, it is above average. 0 Turnovers, the very thing we are asking for.
McNeil - McNeil was assessed as below average, and got to his 4, mainly from his defensive game, ironically, the thing we don't do well, so maybe it should have been higher, not lower

Poulter, assessed at 5, doing his job. Kicked a goal, applied good pressure, won some tuff footy (3 X F50 ground balls), took 7 marks, forward of center and had 4 score involvements. For the last selected forward in the team, not to bad. I would say, he did his job.

[Rusty12]

Huge Win. In some ways, 0 passengers.
Often, the sub is a low number; VDM did his best to make sure it was in the negative.
Buss didn't have any work to do to build a rating.
Freijah didn't do a lot wrong; it just didn't come his way.

Just as I called, Dale will catch Libba, Libba bites back.

Naughton's recent period is off the charts.

image.png