Talk:2012 AFL season

A friendly reminder

...to use the commercial names when listing the venues for the 2012 season. For example, Bellerive Oval → Blundstone Arena, Sydney Showgrounds → Skoda Stadium, Kardinia Park → Simonds Stadium. Unless anything has changed since this discussion... IgnorantArmies 03:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

...and also, to keep Game Notes both notable and referenced. I intend to stick fairly closely to the guidelines that we tacitly agreed upon last year in this discussion. Aspirex (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm still uncomfortable about using the commercial names. The clubs only do it because those sponsors have paid them money. They haven't paid Wikipedia any money. (And we wouldn't take it anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Murdoch sources

This topic is obviously broader than this article, but I'm not sure where to take it.

Rupert Murdoch is promising a paywall for his newspaper websites. User Trex21 added a "Note" to Round 4 telling us that today's game was the 2,500th VFL/AFL match at the MCG. It's a good "fact", but I wondered how far back this went, and did it include the VFA days? I went to the source, Murdoch's Herald Sun, and bumped into a demand that I log in before I could see past the first two sentences. I won't log in, so I cannot check the source.

The Herald Sun has historically been one of our most frequent sources for AFL articles. What is our position on this? HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper citations don't strictly need a URL. If I bought the hard copy, I'd only cite by page number. It's the same as citing books.

If I look into my crystal ball, I'd suggest that all online newspapers will probably be behind paywalls within five years - and, the presence or absence of a paywall will probably become the yardstick by which a reference is judged as reputable or non-reputable. Aspirex (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true, one can buy the paper, or go to a library I guess. But I'd still like to sort out the VFA thing. Senior games were played at the MCG in the VFA up until 1896. That's when the VFL was created. So the games total probably includes VFA games, as well as VFL/AFL. I cannot check the source (at least at the moment). Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the note was added by User Merlin Wiese, not by me Trex21 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In all references I have ever seen, 'VFL/AFL' has the unambiguous meaning of senior premiership games in the league which commenced in 1897 as the VFL, and has been known as the AFL since 1990. Senior VFA games, minor grade VFL/AFL games, night series games, senior interstate games, senior intrastate games, senior state of origin games and international rules matches are all not counted under this definition. Double-checking this using the venue records at stats.rleague.com confirms that there were 2499 such games up to the end of last round. Aspirex (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Special award deserved there for effort. Interesting though. I went to the MCG museum not long ago, and they take great pride in having hosted top level football since the 1860s. I wonder why the line is drawn at 1896? HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a matter of how the statistic is defined. I'm sure the MCG maintains its own number of games inclusive of all forms of senior football, and when it reaches a milestone, that will be its own story. Aspirex (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Few Points: The 2,500th match accounts for all home and away matches plus finals from 1897 to the present (VFL/AFL). I would just refer to it as the 2,500th VFL/AFL match, as that is regarded by the AFL to include premiership and finals matches, the same for individual club matches. I probably should have used the stats.rleague as the source as this was where I confirmed this note - if it would be better to reference this source then I'm happy to change it. I would have used an article from the MCG/MCC websites though I didn't find one, and if there is another online article or news source that has the full article and doesn't require you to log on then you could reference that instead. Merlin_Wiese (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The AFL does it's utmost to ensure that the VFL history 1897 to 1989 and AFL history from 1990 to today is the only football history covered by default - ie the frequent use of the term "making their senior debut" when they mean AFL debut or ignoring the feats of Bonny Campbell, George Doig, Bernie Naylor, Austin Robertson, Jr. or Ken Farmer etc when they talk goal kicking records. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge other comps or players from the pre-national game era, so any current celebration/record unless clearly stated otherwise will be for VFL (1897-1989)/AFL (1990-2012) only. The problem with the stats.rleague table is that it isn't static. I've asked the guy who runs the site to add a "game number" column to the big tables such as http://stats.rleague.com/afl/venues/mcg_gm.html so that it will always be obvious which game was #2500. The-Pope (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ablett's 53 possessions

Number of possessions is a very recent statistic added to the game by the media. It's not in the same class as number of goals or behinds, or even number of marks. It's arbitrary, and hardly guaranteed to be accurate. I really don't believe we should be listing it as a significant item, and certainly not as any sort of record. I heard a radio comment this morning listing several old time players who had a lot more touches. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned, it's a much bigger statistical achievement than Buddy's 13. Possession count has been recorded for about 30 years, so I wouldn't exactly call it recent, and the record that was equalled was from 1989. No doubt there were probably some very high disposal performances pre-1980 that may have eclipsed Ablett and Diesel, but the equal most possessions in a game for the last 30 years is still a noteworthy achievement. Perhaps a note should be added that disposal count has only been recorded in the 'modern era', but it should definitely not be removed. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If we were debating whether or not it belongs on the overall AFL page or list of records page, I'd also want it heavily qualified. But to me the three notable things about Rd 10, 2012 were the number of upsets, given that top 9 played the bottom 9, Buddy and Ablett's 53 in a losing side. Maybe that needs to be highlighted more than the record? Something like Gary Ablett (Gold Coast) had a record-equalling 53 disposals in a game, but his team still lost by almost 100 points. That matches the angle on it that most of our references are taking. The-Pope (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thirty years may seem a long time to some, but it's about half the time I've been watching footy, and a much smaller fraction of the time footy has been played. The "achievement" needs to be put in that context. Rather than "record", we should say something like "highest number of possessions since records began in 19xx". And I still have my concerns about precision. Nobody will debate Buddy's 13 goals, but we cannot be so certain about possessions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, is there a precise definition of a possession? If so, what is it? (We don't have a Wikipedia page on it.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

See Glossary of Australian rules football#P, but yes I did just expand it. Simply, it's the sum of handballs and kicks. And it is a simple addition, but the uncertainty lies in what is considered a handball or a kick. Are those half handballs, half knocks on, half drops from packs counted as handballs? Smothered kicks? Misidentification of players in congested spaces? But like "verifiability over truth", these days, the official Champion Data/AFL website stats are taken as gospel, unlike previous eras when each radio/TV/print source would employ their own stats man and they'd all be a bit different. Regardless of the precision/accuracy of it, 53 is out there as a true extreme value and should be mentioned in some way. The-Pope (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a large number. May deserve a mention. But not as "a record". Even if recent counts have some authority (I still have my doubts), comparing it to something with much less authority from over 20 years ago is not statistically sensible. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the claim now has a tag on it seeking clarification on how long records have been kept, but does anyone else care about this somewhat sloppy claim being there? The issue of the quality of the statistic is also important. If there's no response to that tag soon, can I delete the claim? HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say not. AFL Tables is basically considered gospel on statistical matters in all other cases. Since Ablett equalled the highest on record, rather than broke it, he can't claim to have set a record, so I'd suggest the "highest since" wording rather than making any attempts to qualify the highest ever. That's what was done for Scott Thompson's 51, Dane Swan's 48 and Nathan Buckley's 46. But complete deletion of this item is not valid. Aspirex (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What's this "AFL Tables" of which you speak? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

http://stats.rleague.com Aspirex (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a fascinating url there, obviously proving that these aren't official figures kept by the AFL, so that weakens the claim. The earliest year that disposals are recorded is 1975, so that, at a minimum, must be mentioned. But I still have huge doubts about exactly what is being recorded, how, and by whom. Other things we call records have global or national bodies defining such things, with strict and very public standards on measurement and counting. This statistic seems to just be something that an anonymous someone in the crowd counts as the game proceeds. Is there any double checking? And we already have the acknowledgement above that exactly what is a possession is going to be quite unclear under the pressure of intense and crowded play. Ablett obviously did extremely well, but absolute comparisons like this worry me a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment, AFL Tables is endorsed as a reliable resource on the WikiProject Australian rules football project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football#Resources. I suggest if you want to discuss further, that this conversation should be taken to the project talk page, because any new consensus regarding the reliability of this as a source will have a much wider impact on Australian rules football articles than just Ablett's 53 disposals. Also, The-Pope indicated in the 'Murdoch sources' discussion above that he or she has communicated in the past with the operator of that site, so he or she should hopefully be able to provide an authoritative opinion on your specific concerns. Aspirex (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That really reads like running away from the issue. What do YOU think of the points I've made? HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My point on this specific issue of Ablett's 53 disposals is made three posts above and I'll not repeat it. But more philosophically, uncertainty is an inherent part of many sports statistics: but ultimately, it's someone's job to decide whether a batter reaches base from a hit or an error, it's someone's job to decide whether a goaltender is credited with a save or the shot is wide, and it's someone's job to decide whether a player's half-kick is credited or not; and much like I don't challenge an umpire for making a 50/50 decision, I'm also not going to challenge a statistician from a reputable source for making a 50/50 decision. Aspirex (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFL Tables transcribed stats from old newspapers. But that is irrelevant. There are plenty of reliable sources from the last week that state how many and how long since anyone else had that many. It is not our job to second guess or analyse it further. The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sheed's 900th was actually his 899th, he missed one in 2006 http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/a/O%27Donnell-to-steer-the-ship-in-Sheedy-absence/4796 251 games + 634 coach (Ess) + 14 (GWS)

This comment about Sheedy is incorrect. See the next section for explanation. Aspirex (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Sheedy milestones

I've just removed the following two items:

• In Round 15: "Kevin Sheedy (Greater Western Sydney) contested his 900th AFL match as a player and coach."
• And in Round 19: "Kevin Sheedy became the first person in VFL/AFL history to play and coach 1,000 VFL/AFL matches.", which was unreferenced.

An obvious inconsistency, I'm guessing the higher figure probably includes night series, or pre-season, or minor grades or state games or something like that. Even with an explanation, I don't think we should be including both comments, and I'd omit the 900th in preference of the 1000th. Aspirex (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a pretty good source for the 1000th. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

All of these include the missing one as outlined above, so it's really only 999. Better left out.

What missing one? HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned author is wrong. His or her implication is that the sources used for both the 900th match and the 1000th match have failed to discount a match in 2006 in which Gary O'Donnell served as gameday coach in Sheedy's absence. However, reconciling the 1000th game reference (which says the Port Adelaide game was his 652nd as coach) against AFL Tables, retrieved 4th August 2012, [1] (which says he had coached 651 games and was yet to be updated for that Port Adelaide game) makes it clear that the Gary O'Donnell game has already been removed. On that same page, you will note that Sheedy is credited with only 21 games coached in 2006, and that O'Donnell is himself credited with an AFL Tables coaching page for the one game he coached in. [2]. Aspirex (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

652 before Round 19 - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sheedys-1000-20120803-23l6c.html - should be 651.

For Sheedy's game totals, the 900th match in Round 15 was Premiership matches (home & away + finals). The 1000th in Round 19 was all matches (home & away, pre-season, finals, state of origin, international rules ect). If we want to keep the 900th match then put in that it was his 900th premiership match, the other as his 1000th AFL match. Regarding the issue with a missing game, this may well be correct and the AFL have jumped the gate. Regardless the AFL celebrated his 1000th game in Round 19 - players from both teams performed a guard of honour for Sheedy before the game and the Giants presented him with a shield commemorating his 1000th game in the rooms after the game. The media and players all talked about his 1000th game during the week and there are numerous news sites that have reported on this. The afl.com.au match also report gives numerous reference to his 1000th game - http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/143532/default.aspx. With the stats.rleague argument, it's a valid point and I myself use this site as a reference. They may well be correct, but personally I'd rather go with the official AFL references in this instance. Merlination (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A valid stance, but there's no compulsion for the article to include this stat. I contend, given its uncertain veracity, it's best left out. As an aside, has any one got a recent edition of the AFL Record Season Guide to see if O'Donnell's game has been noted?

The 2010 edition lists Sheedy as coaching 635 games, and doesn't mention O'Donnell. This either means that they made a mistake, or that his name was still on the official team list as coach and despite the fact he wasn't at the game, still gets it counted. Interestingly they do mention Chris Connolly as coaching 1 game for the Hawks, when Schwab was absent. But again, as I said above, we are not meant to do original research and prove the books wrong. We are meant to reflect the reliable sources that are out there. This is more of an issue with the 900 games, as they are "real games". Did anyone really check that Sheeds did make it to Shepperton for an pre-season scratch match in 89? (random example only, no need to prove me wrong) This "count them all" method is also used for the 300 game measurement that they use for AFL life membership. The-Pope (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Free Agents

I'm against the list of free agents in this article at the moment, and I think we should delete it immediately. All we have is a list of players who have stated an intention to leave their clubs, and they date they said this is the case, which is kind of irrelevant. We should wait until their destination is determined; then, if they find another club, include it in a 'Free Agency Signings' section of 2012 AFL Draft; and, if they don't find another club, list them under delistings/retirements in this page. Aspirex (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping it, at least for now, as it's the first ever set of free agents. I think that it will only ever be 5 to 15 players per year and they will all be notable. I'd much prefer to get rid of the rookie list players who never made their debut from the list of delisted players. The-Pope (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The "at least for now" comment highlights my point exactly. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a news service or AFL blog. Aspirex (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I agree with your side-point about the massive and massively useless list of delisted players. Perhaps there is merit in including a list of retiring/delisted players/officials who meet notability criteria (e.g. anyone with 200 games, the same criterion that gets someone into the Grand Final motorcade), but otherwise the team-by-team season pages, not the league-wide season page, is the places for it to go. Same goes for the debutants. Aspirex (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

the at least for now comment is because I don't knew how many there will be, how many will actually change clubs and how many will end up in the VFL/WAFL/Fevola leagues. Brent Moloney is very notable as the first person to declare that he will be a free agent. Each section should have a paragraph highlighting the key factors, people involved and then maybe the table of people. I think 200 games is too high, I'd be happy with 100 games our some thing notable, especially if it's a collapsed table. The-Pope (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Team Changes

I'd like to propose a few changes to this section:

Firstly, that for each of the tables (player changes, free agents and coach changes), these be made collapsable hidden tables as they previously were. At the very least make the player changes table collapsable hidden. The list is incredibly long and takes up a lot of space. I don't suggest removing it entirely or removing players from the list, that's for another discussion, but if the best and fairest winners and club leadership tables are collapsable hidden then I would argue that this should be too.

Secondly, that the format for the player free agents be changed so that it only includes players who have actually signed to a new club via free agency. I would suggest using a similar table to that on the 2012 AFL Draft#Trades page, except without having the status column. For this season page I would argue that we only need to include players who have actually moved clubs via free agency and not those that have declared themselves free agents or are seeking offers from other clubs. Merlination (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding collapsable sections, I wonder why we need to collapse anything at all. Manual of Style WP:COLLAPSE specifically says you shouldn't. If you feel its too long consider splitting into a sub-article. I think the free agents table doesn't really belong here and should be incorporated within 2012 AFL Draft. Perhaps that needs to be moved to a better name. Moondyne (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree that there is any need for a league-wide player changes section. Nobody cares which fringe or uncapped players were delisted from any team other than their own, so there is no need to compile them into one giant list. Trim it down to notable retirements (players with 200 games experience or something like that), include a column summarising those players' careers, and leave the unimportant players in the individual club season summaries (e.g. 2012 Carlton Football Club season, etc.). This is about putting the appropriate level of detail into the appropriate article.

As I mentioned above, remove Free Agents altogether from this article, and include it in 2012 AFL Draft as signings occur. Having a list of players who have announced their intention to move as free agents is making this page more like a news service than an encyclopedia. Aspirex (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this then:

Move/copy - all player changes, player free agents and coach changes to 2012 AFL season#Retirements, sackings and delistings. Currently this page is a redirect to the section on the season page. I don't believe that this list should be removed entirely as only 6 of 18 teams have their own 2012 season page. It's not worth listing every single player that got delisted on the 2012 AFL season page, so move them all to this new page. Maybe remove the free agents from this new page and have main article links on both to the 2012 AFL draft page.

Keep - player changes, but only list player retirements that meet any of the following criteria:

• 150 games (premiership matches - home & away + finals)
• 8 or more years of AFL service
• Brownlow medalist, Coleman medalist, Norm Smith medalist and/or Rising Star winner
• Premiership player (debatable)

I would argue that 200 games is too high of a criteria. A lot of retirements are due to long term injury and some players never get the chance to play that many games. Have the table with the following columns - Player, club, previous clubs, games, years, notes (reference and possibly reason of retirement). May want to still include players with certain circumstances i.e. sacked midway through season, died, anything unusual ect.

Keep - coach changes. They are notable enough to keep on the main page. Merlination (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Coach changes is fine, although which page a post-season coaching change belongs on is debatable. I would have included (for example) Malthouse replacing Ratten in the 2013 season rather than the 2012 season. I think your suggested criteria are fair and reasonable, except maybe the "8 or more years" one - a guy like Brad Fisher for example played eight seasons and managed 99 games, and I don't think he's really worthy of being on a list of notable retirements. Also agree that controversial sackings, deaths, and other obvious notable comments (e.g. Mike Pyke - first Canadian to play in the league — example only; he isn't retiring now) should be included, and I'm fine with including premiership players as well. We can also apply all of the same guidelines to umpires.

I still disagree that there is any need to maintain a list of all delistings; but, as was the conclusion of my heated discussion on a similar topic in Father-Son Rule, I'd be content to see it broken out into a separate article, rather than occupying an undue amount of space on this one. Aspirex (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Individual player milestones - notability

There is ongoing disagreement about what individual player milestones should be included in gamenotes on AFL season pages.

The current guideline, as given in Talk:2011 AFL season#Gamenotes - notability, is that only the 200th, 300th, 400th and a club-record breaking milestone is noted. This was based on a set of guidelines which I drew up in 2011 – and, let's face it, it was a long list, and nobody really had the energy to debate any of the finer points before. I'm not here to win this argument; let's get a consensus and update the guidelines accordingly. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My view on the whole issue is that the guidelines should be tighter than they currently are. I think only a player's 300th game, or a club-record breaking game, should be highlighted on the main season page. Part of this is because I have a strong preference to keep the number of gamenotes to a minimum; and part of this is because 300 has always been seen as the most significant milestone – we often hear about "the 300 club", but never "the 250 club".

It seems much more appropriate to me to have the "minor milestones" (anything divisible by 50) highlighted on the individual club season pages, e.g. 2012 Geelong Football Club season. Generally speaking, any milestone below 300 is of more significant relevance to the club than to the league as a whole. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the guidelines were WP:TLDR, but I agree with the concept of having guidelines. But if they are to be used, they need to be located in project space so that they can be modified, adjusted or edited as required. In this case, as the refs I included showed, 250 games are generally notable on a league level, equally or more so than 200 games. We are meant to provide information, not hide it for some arbitrary reason. Significant milestones should be included, and I think 200, 250, 300, 350 and team records fit that criteria. The-Pope (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The following compromise solution has been implemented. A new table is now at the bottom of the article to list player milestones from 200 games or 500 goals and up. This takes this voluminous information out of the game notes (where it simply doesn't fit, as there is no direct connection between a list of player milestones and a list of match results); but it remains in the article. Only the most special of milestones (of which I've selected two: Goodes breaking the club games record, and Sheedy's 1000th game which required a whole lot of explanation) remain in the gamenotes. Under this format, I'm entirely comfortable adding with the table being expanded to include 150 gamers, 100 gamers, etc. if anyone has the desire to add them.

That looks good, great alternative solution. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 AFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019233016/http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/146980/default.aspx to http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/146980/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)