A Detailed Look At Who Played Well

[DownAtTheJunction]

I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5

Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5

[Sanctorum]

Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...

I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.

[Toy Saint]

Love the way you're thinking down at the Junction.

Typically I don't pay much attention to traditional statistics, rather I watch the games and make my own judgement who has the relevant impacts on the contest.

For what it's worth I agree with your top 6 players, however I was inclined to have Hunter Clark on top. Perhaps this was because I was so impressed the numerous times he found his way through congestion.

I've also watched the replays, as I tend to be more objective and less emotional than live. Nick Hind is the interesting one on your list, I also noticed more of his contribution the second time around.

[Secret Kiel]

Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...

I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.

Are you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?

[Toy Saint]

Worth comparing to the coaches votes:

5 Zak Jones (STK)
5 Hunter Clark (STK)
5 Jade Gresham (STK)
4 Dougal Howard (STK)
4 Darcy Byrne-Jones (PORT)
3 Paddy Ryder (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
1 Jack Steele (STK)

[DownAtTheJunction]

Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...

I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.

Are you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?

Thanks for your comments Secret Kiel and Sanctorum. True, this is very time consuming, but not so much if you love the club ( and a great win). I can't say I know Darren, or the context : (
I think Champion Data has a lot of merit, but I suspect it's done quickly. I think there would be errors, but no doubt respected.

[Goose is king]

They are very weird coaches votes.
I noticed Hind and Patton more when I watched the replay without the raw emotion.
Also with Membrey’s bicycle kick if you watch the replay the goal umpire thought it was touched, the field umpire actually gave the all clear with the one hand suggesting he thought it was a behind too. Is it possible the arc chimes in saying they want a quick look at it or the boundary umpires? But the field umpire and goal umpire definitely thought it was a behind

[Ghost Like]

I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5

Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5

Very interesting DATJ, I applaud your efforts. I'd like to know from those who have given input, whether the gradings rate with their views of the game.

My question, is there a break even figure or is that simply subjective?

[Moods]

Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.


Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa

[Secret Kiel]

Interesting analysis "DownAt", that must have taken you a lot of time! If stats are your skills set maybe you should offer the club your services - honorarily of course as they won't have the funds to pay for this...

I wonder how your process compares to that provided by Champion Data, which I imagine charges clubs for this data.

Are you familiar with Darren O'Shaughnessy?

Thanks for your comments Secret Kiel and Sanctorum. True, this is very time consuming, but not so much if you love the club ( and a great win). I can't say I know Darren, or the context : (
I think Champion Data has a lot of merit, but I suspect it's done quickly. I think there would be errors, but no doubt respected.

Darren, or DOS as he is known as is the clubs Senior Analyst and Brett Rattens right hand man. He bought him across from the Hawks and was Clarkos right hand man throughout their threepeat.
He has a background in physics and artificial intelligence and helped establish Champion Data.

[Goose is king]

Haha Sinclair

[DownAtTheJunction]

Love the way you're thinking down at the Junction.

Typically I don't pay much attention to traditional statistics, rather I watch the games and make my own judgement who has the relevant impacts on the contest.

For what it's worth I agree with your top 6 players, however I was inclined to have Hunter Clark on top. Perhaps this was because I was so impressed the numerous times he found his way through congestion.

I've also watched the replays, as I tend to be more objective and less emotional than live. Nick Hind is the interesting one on your list, I also noticed more of his contribution the second time around.

Thank you, Toy Saint! At the end of the day this is an opinion piece. It relies on the viewer being unbiased (which can be difficult). And putting weight on a specific act can be tricky. Certainly Hunter Clark played a classy game and was consistent throughout. He was not always where the ball was (unlike Marshall) and that likely impacted his score. As for Hind I would probably have sold him off, but this shows my recollections are likely wrong. Most of his work has to be keenly observed. He was great in close with tackles, bumps and intercepts. On the day I'd think he may well have been our #1 pressure player.
One other player of note was Butler. Much of his impact scoring did not come from the highlight reel. He is a bull at tackling - something I had not appreciated.

[DownAtTheJunction]

Worth comparing to the coaches votes:

5 Zak Jones (STK)
5 Hunter Clark (STK)
5 Jade Gresham (STK)
4 Dougal Howard (STK)
4 Darcy Byrne-Jones (PORT)
3 Paddy Ryder (STK)
3 Rowan Marshall (STK)
1 Jack Steele (STK)

Yes most definitely! I think the coaches are mostly like the rest of us. The game can be an inexact recollection by game's end.
And secondly they know the specific roles players are performing.

[Ghost Like]

Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.


Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa

There's a lot I can agree with but I certainly hope you rate Essendon players for him. If not, I'm happy to.

[DownAtTheJunction]

Very interesting DATJ, I applaud your efforts. I'd like to know from those who have given input, whether the gradings rate with their views of the game.

My question, is there a break even figure or is that simply subjective?
[/quote]
Thank you! I did do a median score for each quarter which I guess is a sort of 'break even'
Q1 median average was 4 (Steele shot out of the blocks with a score of 8.5, and set the game up. Next best Butler with 5.5)
Q2 median average was 3 (Jones was the man here with '8'; next best Hind with 6)
Q3 median average was 1.5 (Gresham had a wonderful second half. He and Marshall were our only players over 5!)
Q4 median average was 3 (Marshall was like a beacon in Q4 with the highest 'impact score' of the day with a 9).

Fortunately for us Port were unable to take advantage of a lower performance in Q3

[DownAtTheJunction]

Below is a summary from a mate who barracks for an opposition club. A little bit facetious in places but I find it interesting how opposition supporters view our team from an outsiders point of view.


Great win eagle.
Here are my thoughts which I know you’ve been awaiting.
Ryder - energetic, shame he can’t find it when not playing his old mob. V good tap ruckman still.
Jones - no star but always has a crack and gets footy. Can do the stupid tho every now and then.
Gresham - at least getting the footy more but not dangerous and if salary true, well overs.
Butler - v handy pickup.
Hind - didn’t thing ever good enough when in our twos but does some good things. Not too bad for fringe guy. Will be in and out.
Ross - ineffective and doesn’t hurt. Letting his cousin and uncle down.
Hill - Terrible. V fumbly. Looks overweight.
King - wow, will be a star. Great hands.
Howard - had the worst 15 mins of anyone this year. Jury out, glad we didn’t get him.
Parker - miles off the standard. Wish I could put money on him being dropped.
Marshall/Steele/Clarke - very good and all better than your big money earners.
Coffield - Ok, could be handy.
Sinclair - misses Steven.
Aa

For a first up game Sinclair did very well. He certainly kicks the ball well but not always to the best effect. He showed some outstanding vision on several occasions by exiting a disputed ball to a player in the clear. Few others did this. I suspect his TOG was managed.

[Sainter_Dad]

Player	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total
Marshall	5	5	6.5	9	25.5
Steele	8.5	4	2.5	6	21
Jones	4.5	8	4	2.5	19
Ryder	5	4	5	5	19
Gresham	1	3	7.5	6.5	18
Clark	4.5	4	4.5	4	17
Hind	4.5	6	1	5	16.5
Billings	5	4.5	2	3.5	15
Butler	5.5	3.5	0.5	5	14.5
Hill	4	3	1.5	4	12.5
Carlisle	4.5	2	3.5	1	11
Howard	4	5	-0.5	2.5	11
Paton	4	4	1.5	1.5	11
Sinclair	4.5	2.5	1	2	10
Kent	3.5	0	2.5	2.5	8.5
Ross	1.5	2.5	2.5	1.5	8
King	2.5	1.5	0.5	3.5	8
Geary	3	0.5	3	1	7.5
Membrey	1	3	1	2.5	7.5
Coffield	1	0.5	2.5	3	7
Wilkie	3	0	2.5	1.5	7
Parker	0.5	2	0	1	3.5

[DownAtTheJunction]

Player	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total
Marshall	5	5	6.5	9	25.5
Steele	8.5	4	2.5	6	21
Jones	4.5	8	4	2.5	19
Ryder	5	4	5	5	19
Gresham	1	3	7.5	6.5	18
Clark	4.5	4	4.5	4	17
Hind	4.5	6	1	5	16.5
Billings	5	4.5	2	3.5	15
Butler	5.5	3.5	0.5	5	14.5
Hill	4	3	1.5	4	12.5
Carlisle	4.5	2	3.5	1	11
Howard	4	5	-0.5	2.5	11
Paton	4	4	1.5	1.5	11
Sinclair	4.5	2.5	1	2	10
Kent	3.5	0	2.5	2.5	8.5
Ross	1.5	2.5	2.5	1.5	8
King	2.5	1.5	0.5	3.5	8
Geary	3	0.5	3	1	7.5
Membrey	1	3	1	2.5	7.5
Coffield	1	0.5	2.5	3	7
Wilkie	3	0	2.5	1.5	7
Parker	0.5	2	0	1	3.5

Now that looks grand! I'll just send the tables to you, Sainter_Dad and you can work the magic.

[George27]

A great job by Junction ! Subjective of course, but my only adverse comment is that I think you were a bit harsh on Dougs down back. His 3rd quarter wasn’t his finest , but I thought Q1, 2 and 4 were very good. I gave him a vote... but it is fine for great minds to disagree !


If you are happy to back up again next week and beyond, and with Sainter Dad’s acumen in presenting the table, this will be a welcome addition to this forum.

[DownAtTheJunction]

A great job by Junction ! Subjective of course, but my only adverse comment is that I think you were a bit harsh on Dougs down back. His 3rd quarter wasn’t his finest , but I thought Q1, 2 and 4 were very good. I gave him a vote... but it is fine for great minds to disagree !


If you are happy to back up again next week and beyond, and with Sainter Dad’s acumen in presenting the table, this will be a welcome addition to this forum.

Thanks George27 - what a great moniker for one of our favourite ever players. Alas Dougal had only two minor 'impacts' against one shocker and another minor clanger. But appreciate your perspective. He was certainly strong in the other quarters.

[skeptic]

Incredible job DATJ

Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched

Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.

[DownAtTheJunction]

Incredible job DATJ

Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched

Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.

That's very kind, Skeptic. I'll address the Hind situation first and come back about Wilkie tomorrow.
Interestingly Hind played near the least TOG with 68%. By comparison 12 players were on the ground for 85% or more. In this light his effort was outstanding. Much of his work is difficult to appreciate when watching live, as it is often the 1%s. I have never rated Hind but I have had to have a major rethink. Consistency may be his problem.

[skeptic]

Incredible job DATJ

Hind is a surprise packet, I liked his game but is what higher than I would have thought.
Kent is another that was higher than I thought. Impression was that he didn’t do a lot minus the goal after getting crunched

Shocked to see Wilkie at the bottom of the list... makes me wonder if your approach penalises the defenders a little but then the rest are a lot higher so maybe not.
SInclair too is lower than I thought.

That's very kind, Skeptic. I'll address the Hind situation first and come back about Wilkie tomorrow.
Interestingly Hind played near the least TOG with 68%. By comparison 12 players were on the ground for 85% or more. In this light his effort was outstanding. Much of his work is difficult to appreciate when watching live, as it is often the 1%s. I have never rated Hind but I have had to have a major rethink. Consistency may be his problem.

This is more thought provoking and interesting than any Herald Sun article I’ve read it 5 years at least, if not 10.

[CQ SAINT]

I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5

Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5

Very interesting DATJ. Out of interest, would Coffield score for placing himself between the line of the ball and Charlie Dixon, or would Howard get the point for a spoil from behind. Just wanted to gauge your opinion on that type of impact.

[Scollop]

I decided it worthwhile to do an in-depth review of our players after our great win over Port. This meant not only re-watching the match but looking at every piece of action, often several times.
I wanted to find players that impact, rather than raw statistics. To this end I allocated points (and half points) to actions that impacted our performance. What constitutes impact? This is quite subjective - it might be a tap on, a spoil, a handpass, a kick, a block etc. Some actions are worthy of higher points. These include more difficult goals, multiple efforts and higher level skills. Conversely deductions were made for ‘negative impacts’ - usually clangers.
It is worthy of note than not every kick (and mark) receives a score. A player has to show something or do something to score.
This form of rating is fallible as it’s reliant on what a camera shows (which in the main is significant).
I have broken player ratings down into quarters to show how players perform throughout a game. There is no account for the time the ball is in the player’s zone, nor is there any consideration for the time the player was off the field.
I hope it provides some insight into who truly played well. Often we are influenced by media votes, commentary, memory or fantasy stats to give our 3,2 and 1. This gives another perspective.
Sincere apologies for my inability to construct a table. (I did try to import, but failed!) And therefore I realise the following data is difficult to read.
Let's look at the first entry
It reads
Marshall: Q1 5 impact points; Q2 Marshall scored a further 5 impact points; he scored 6.5 in Q3 and a whopping 9 impact points in Q4. This gave him a total of 25.5

Marshall 5 / 5 / 6.5 / 9 = 25.5
Steele 8.5 / 4 / 2.5 / 6 = 21
Jones 4.5 / 8 / 4 / 2.5 = 19
Ryder 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 = 19
Gresham 1 / 3 / 7.5 / 6.5 = 18
Clark 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 17
Hind 4.5 / 6 / 1 / 5 = 16.5
Billings 5 / 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 = 15
Butler 5.5 / 3.5 / 0.5 / 5 = 14.5
Hill 4 / 3 / 1.5 / 4 = 12.5
Carlisle 4.5 / 2 / 3.5 / 1 = 11
Howard 4 / 5 / -0.5 / 2.5 = 11
Paton 4 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 11
Sinclair 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 2 = 10
Kent 3.5 / 0 / 2.5 / 2.5 = 8.5
Ross 1.5 / 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 8
King 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 3.5 = 8
Geary 3 / 0.5 / 3 / 1 = 7.5
Membrey 1 / 3 / 1 / 2.5 = 7.5
Coffield 1 / 0.5 / 2.5 / 3 = 7
Wilkie 3 / 0 / 2.5 / 1.5 = 7
Parker 0.5 / 2 / 0 / 1 = 3.5

Very interesting DATJ. Out of interest, would Coffield score for placing himself between the line of the ball and Charlie Dixon, or would Howard get the point for a spoil from behind. Just wanted to gauge your opinion on that type of impact.

Yes...I'd be interested in that too.

One other thing....I've highlighted a couple of sentences in the op....That's not fair on the defenders I thought Paton was brilliant when the heat was on in the second and third quarters