#4 Just a Kyle kind of Langford


The stat shows that astrology should be accounted for when drafting. Steer clear of Sagittariuses.


Against Brisbane 8 of his 19 possessions were contested.

That had him 6th for the team.

He was also 5th for clearances.


You are right. It’s boring.

Are you or your forum buddies guilty of the same? Is it fun when it’s someone else? I’ve seen others make new blitzers feel like ■■■■ because they take certain liberties.

I have said it before. Forum etiquette could be a lot better.


What about if we actually did the analysis? Can we then argue YOU’RE WRONG?


(source: all Essendon VFL/AFL players to play a game, ever. Feel free to find the data for those who didn’t play a game and prove my sample is biased.)


The above is the measurement that actually matters, given Langford is on the list and has played a game.

The different claim, that you’re arguing is the same, is shown below. A tad more credible but still half of bugger-all difference.



DJR with the statistical smackdown.


Agree with you thoughts in the first couple of paragraphs, and partly the last.

I don’t really think he gets worried off the ball, and I don’t by into what people say in that he is laconic. Smooth moving yes, Laconic no.

He just doesn’t have natural inside instincts, he gets beaten to the ball by better AFL mids as his cant read where the ball is going/situation quick enough, which leaves him chasing tail (has high tackle numbers in the VFL for example).

He has all the correct physical attributes to be a very good inside mid. But not the instincts, and instinctive things are very hard to teach.

His reading of the play outside the contest is great, as is his kicking and marking. He is best suited to a HFF or even a wing.

I think he is a best 22 player who could easily rack up 20 plus each week if played in his natural position.

I would love him to prove me wrong though as we badly need another big inside mid.


Just out of interest (if it’s easy), how does that look if you restrict it to say the last 30 years?


That’s definitely more relevant. Last 20 years would be better because the draft was a crapshoot before that


I was just thinking that people always talk about how in the old reserves system players were given longer to mature and such, so if there’s a tendency to dump players more quickly now, it might affect the numbers in terms of favouring physical maturity. Or not. I don’t know.




It looks like a much smaller and hence unreliable sample. Der!

I assessed those born from 1970 onwards, thereby entering ~30 years ago when the draft began.

Games played has May, February and November the best months.

Players recruited has 24 August babies and 10 April babies.

It’s a noisy mess.


AFLtables doesn’t appear to have an all-team all-time player list, and I can’t be stuffed copying from 19 different pages to boost the sample to a reasonable size.


As I said somewhere earlier in this thread, it’s an interesting discussion but the amount of work to take into account mature age recruits, father/sons, different age rules in different states, different age requirements for drafting over time, etc, is way beyond my level of giving a ■■■■. Maybe if someone just exposed the raw database. Maybe, but probably not.


That’s ~10% difference from early in year birth to late in year? Not life-changing, but significant.
Thanks for crunching the numbers. All this stuff is actually very interesting to me.


I don’t really cop “instinct”. It’s a skill and a decision, it can be taught.

there’s been times where other, slower guys have really committed to going hard at a ground ball, and he’s been sort-of going for it. Call it what you will. He needs to get physically and mentally harder at those contests.

I suspect he could get a lot better at that. If I can see it and you can see it, I’m sure the coaches do.


But conversely a lot of guys were recruited in their twenties from lower leagues, ready to go. (Just to throw a spanner)

(Side note @theDJR: Should all this be split into the stats nerds thread?)


If Langford is to develop into an AFL player he needs AFL game time and that for me puts him ahead of Myers.


Thought he showed a bit as a FORWARD tonight. Strong hands overhead


my thoughts exactly, just looked fkg strong when marking the ball