Media coverage of football these days, particularly on television, seems to attract as much attention and debate as the game itself. And I know I'm as guilty as anyone on that score.
Much of it, sadly, comes from a place of frustration, usually about play-by-play commentary which is self-indulgent and inaccurate. And lately, some truly bizarre camerawork and direction, the quality of which, once upon a time, could be taken for granted.
The changing look of the game, and TV's failure to adapt despite its obvious advantage in technical resources these days, was written about brilliantly by journalist Russell Jackson three years ago. Significantly, nothing appears to have changed as a result.
The commentary equivalent of that poor visual status quo, however, in my view, is in game analysis, or what is known in the trade as "special comments" -- the former players who are meant to have the credibility and expertise to break down, interpret and, most importantly of all, to communicate to the audience why what is happening is happening.
It's a role which should have changed significantly over the last 20 years because of the greater depth of statistical analysis available thanks to Champion Data, which continues to do a great job mining and collating AFL football's statistical output.
That, however, is still reliant upon another party, ie. the game analysts, callers and producers, to ensure the audience can understand what the statistics mean and how trends this way or that should be interpreted. And sadly, these days, I often think some of those charged with that task are leaving the viewer more confused than helping them understand what's going on.
When I think of my preferred game analysts or special comments men, I think of three in particular -- Leigh Matthews, Jason Dunstall and Dermott Brereton -- coincidentally in this case, all Hawthorn greats.
Why them? Because in my view they never lose sight of their No.1 responsibility - to simplify things for the layperson. Matthews is a master of it, and it was the main reason he was such a great coach, because he did exactly that for his players.
Dunstall is in my view less prone than many of his peers to fall into the trap of using too much insider-type jargon. He knows his prime responsibility is to explain things to the viewer, not impress an AFL coach who'll be sitting there later watching edits in preparation for next week's game. And that's how it feels sometimes with a few others.
And while 'Dermie' cops a lot of flak for his wordiness (and yes, he is prone to using 1000 when a dozen will do) you can always at least feel his genuine passion for passing on his knowledge and expertise to the fans. And to talk about stuff not immediately obvious to anyone watching.
But the vast array of statistical areas now captured should make it easier for all of their peers to do similarly. So why do I hear regular punters so often complain about the game being over-complicated, not explained properly and being made to feel as though they're outsiders at some sort of exclusive club?
The use of stats 30-plus years ago was pretty much all just about kicks, marks and handballs. Maybe tackles as well.
In subsequent decades (remembering the forward arcs weren't actually painted on grounds until 1986) we came to grips with inside 50s, then clearances and contested and uncontested possession.
These days, we're hearing the analysts drill down far more on such key indicators as scores per inside 50, scores from turnovers and stoppages, and differentials for things like time in forward half and post-clearance contested possession.
How often, though, do we hear them explain to the viewer exactly what those things are and why they're important? Seriously, even among the hardest core AFL fans who pay for Kayo or Fox Footy, how many could explain (and it's hardly their fault) what a post-clearance contested ball win actually looks like?
And when we're shown figures like metres gained or pressure ratings, how often are we given context as to what sorts of numbers are good or bad, and how they compare to rivals, not only in a particular game, but across the competition?
I understand they're not always simple concepts to display visually, but I reckon our TV broadcasters could do a lot more to make the information digestible and easier to understand.
Decent graphics, something a bit more than several rows of numbers side by side with a good last year/bad this year flavour narrated by a triple premiership hero, would go a long way to helping audiences appreciate more the performances they're watching.
An example? This season, as part of a stats package I purchase from Champion Data, I've been using a "Premiership Standards" table. It not only identifies every team's ranking in no fewer than 38 different statistical indicators, it identifies which ones have proved more important over the past 10 years.
For instance, there are six categories -- points against, points against from turnovers, opposition points from the forward half, defensive to forward 50 transition, inside 50 differential and time in forward half differential -- in which every one of the past 10 premiers has ranked top six.
Some of these metrics sound more complex than they actually are.
For example defensive to forward 50 transition is simply the amount of times a team successfully carries the ball from the back line to the scoring zone.
Opposition points from the forward half is simply the points scored against a team once it loses possession in defence.
Differentials are merely the sum of a team's statistical "fors" and "againsts".
Interestingly, some of the more popularly-discussed markers, like contested possession and clearance differentials, haven't necessarily been part of the premiership profile in cent times, with only four of the last 10 premiers ranking top six in the first stat, and only three in the second case.
But the real beauty of the premiership standards table is that it breaks the ranking numbers into colours. A top six ranking in a statistic is in a green box, middle six is white, and bottom six is red.
What otherwise would be a huge mass of maybe indecipherable numbers is thus transformed into easily-recognisable patterns.
You can see in an instant that top side Collingwood is ranked top or middle six in all but one of the 38 categories. Its standout is its ball movement. If a team doesn't score going forward against the Pies, it will be scored against on the rebound.
Brisbane and Port Adelaide are the standout "territory" teams, meanwhile, and Melbourne and Geelong pretty good. Weaknesses? The Cats, while predominantly green for offence, are white/red for defence. Melbourne's poor ranking of 12th for scores per inside 50 stands out like a sore thumb among a sea of green both offensively and defensively.
The contrast for Adelaide, meanwhile, is more stark. Its offence is green, its defence red and white. The Crows are not even top eight for any of the four defensive measures, but are top four in three of four offensively. They're also 15th for opposition points from the forward half, one of those six measures in which every premier for the past 10 years has ranked top six.
The table itself and its colour coding is so useful it really has made me feel like I'm much more across what teams do both well and poorly quicker than ever before.
But that shouldn't be exclusive to me or any of the former stars turned analysts or the AFL club insiders working in coaching or game analysis. Shouldn't our great game be something in which we can all share and quite probably enjoy even more because we know how and why things we see are happening?
It could be if those charged with bringing football to us (both on and off screen) really decided to focus on the viewers more and impressing their mates with their own knowledge less.
You can read more of Rohan Connolly's work at FOOTYOLOGY.