Worrying Stats

[worldwideweb_demon 90]

52 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I just think you can't argue our defence doesn't have a glaring deficiency.

OMac may well become a good defender. I personally have my doubts. There is no doubt he has improved this year. But with him and Frost in the side we get monstered by the likes of BBrown, Buddy, Daniher and other tall fwds. Oscar also has Watts-like intensity which costs us regularly.

 

 

Haha poor JW! He's become an adjective for us.

Too little Wattage

[binman 37,991]

18 minutes ago, nutbean said:

This was your response to "Why not the midfield for not rolling back quicker and putting pressure on?".

I would counter that I am not expecting mids to win one on one defensive contests. I expect mids to roll back hard and pressure to try to ensure that the ball does not enter our defensive zone with any fluency. 

you will find that most team (unless they are really horrible by foot) will hit up a target if allowed to carry the ball through the centre of the unopposed. 

This pressure will help the stat of opposition scoring so often on entering of our defensive half but wont stop the losing the defensive one on ones. Frost and Omac are the best body on body footballers. TMac is better but still not his strength - he is better at intercept marking or coming over the top and spoiling. Nev is surprisingly good for someone his size and so is Hibberd.

Agree on all but the bolded bit.

From the bullies game to the port game our midfield pressure fell off a cliff, exposing our defence who actually held up pretty well all things considered. Conversely our scoring suffered witb last week being the first time we scored more than a 100 points since the dogs game. 

A large factor in how well the crows and the tigers defend is their awesome midfield pressure. Not coincdentally that also is a big factor in how damaging lever and rance are - hurried kicks under pressure into the forward 50 are manna from heaven for intercet players that can read the ball as well as those two. That midfield pressure is exactly why the lions had so many marks in our defensive 50.

If that midfield pressure drops off a side is in trouble just as richmond were against the cats in the periods where their pressure dropped off.

The bolded bit. If rhe midfield pressure drops off i4 mak2s it much easier to borh orchestrate mismatches (think brown v jetta x 3) or kick to a forwards advantage (think taylor v rance. Taylor monstered the best defender in rhe league and his 4 resulting goals were the diffetence between winning and losing).

One of the dees players said post match that they use a pressure gauge during matches to montor where they are at in terms of applying pressure. All teams probably do. Because if it drops off - as it did at certain points in the lions game - it is easier for the opposition to score. And when high it us harder foe the opposition to score and easier for your team.

With any analysis of statistics is important to take all the variables and possible causal factors into consideration. Not just one. Unless of  course you want to use those stats to prove a point you are trying to make.

[jnrmac 18,953]

56 minutes ago, nutbean said:

This was your response to "Why not the midfield for not rolling back quicker and putting pressure on?".

I would counter that I am not expecting mids to win one on one defensive contests. I expect mids to roll back hard and pressure to try to ensure that the ball does not enter our defensive zone with any fluency. 

you will find that most team (unless they are really horrible by foot) will hit up a target if allowed to carry the ball through the centre of the unopposed. 

This pressure will help the stat of opposition scoring so often on entering of our defensive half but wont stop the losing the defensive one on ones. Frost and Omac are the best body on body footballers. TMac is better but still not his strength - he is better at intercept marking or coming over the top and spoiling. Nev is surprisingly good for someone his size and so is Hibberd.

You are missing the point. I think we can all agree that this is desireable and expected. But when it doesn't happen we are the worst in the comp and defending. Its not that difficult to understand and thats what the stats show.

I expect my defenders to be able to defend. 

[binman 37,991]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Talk about credibility. What has Sam Weideman got to do with this?

Yes good point. my bad. A brain fade. 

Do we have a bet?

Should be in your favor really. Defenders who can't defend are not likely to get too many best and fairest votes.

How about you steve. Are you in?

Edited August 22, 2017 by binman

[jnrmac 18,953]

4 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes good point. my bad. A brain fade. 

Do we have a bet?

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion. The Bluey does show several things but the way it is voted on is unusual. Are you saying Matt Jones and Dean Terlich were good players? And Colin Sylvia wasn't? Would you pick Terlich over Sylvia?

If the coaches had zero expectations for OMac at the start of the year and he played a lot of games he would poll well because every player gets a vote. So the Bluey has to be measured against games played and expectations. 

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion. The Bluey does show several things but the way it is voted on is unusual. Are you saying Matt Jones and Dean Terlich were good players? And Colin Sylvia wasn't? Would you pick Terlich over Sylvia?

If the coaches had zero expectations for OMac at the start of the year and he played a lot of games he would poll well because every player gets a vote. So the Bluey has to be measured against games played and expectations. 

 

Oath.

Add into the equation that Jones, Viney, Hogan, Gawn have all been injured throughout the season with a host of others missing games.

@binman, it's a silly bet and it most certainly won't change my view if he does indeed finish 10th. (Which by the way I can't see happening let alone inside the top 10).

But i'll stop the Oscar talk for the rest of the year. (Unless he literally costs us a final).

 

[rjay 23,895]

21 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Facts are:

1. teams score 53% of the time they enter our fwd 50 - last in the AFL

Can you define this stat 'jnr'?

It doesn't read right to me...

[binman 37,991]

27 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Oath.

Add into the equation that Jones, Viney, Hogan, Gawn have all been injured throughout the season with a host of others missing games.

@binman, it's a silly bet and it most certainly won't change my view if he does indeed finish 10th. (Which by the way I can't see happening let alone inside the top 10).

But i'll stop the Oscar talk for the rest of the year. (Unless he literally costs us a final).

 

So that's a yes or no to the bet?

[binman 37,991]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion. The Bluey does show several things but the way it is voted on is unusual. Are you saying Matt Jones and Dean Terlich were good players? And Colin Sylvia wasn't? Would you pick Terlich over Sylvia?

If the coaches had zero expectations for OMac at the start of the year and he played a lot of games he would poll well because every player gets a vote. So the Bluey has to be measured against games played and expectations. 

 

Matt Jones and Terlich finished top 10 when we were putrid. We are playing finals and have a much, much better list.

Sylvia had ability, no doubt. All  the talent in the world. And played some fantastic individual games. But a good player? Good players players consistently play well and he didn't. Which is why he polled poorly in the bluey.

The bluey is not based on an assessment of how far above expectations a player performs. That would be manifestly silly. As i understand it votes are cast on performance and how well a player performed their assigned role in a given match.

Of course games played is a factor. Players not performing their role don't get picked. Those that do get the opportunity to accrue votes. As they should. Salem isn't accruing many atm. 

But lets say you are right. The fact remains that defenders who can't defend are not likely to get too many best and fairest votes..

Edited August 22, 2017 by binman

[jnrmac 18,953]

14 minutes ago, binman said:

Matt Jones and Terlich finished top 10 when we were putrid. We are playing finals and have a much, much better list.

Sylvia had ability, no doubt. All  the talent in the world. And played some fantastic individual games. But a good player? Good players players consistently play well and he didn't. Which is why he polled poorly in the bluey.

The bluey is not based on an assessment of how far above expectations a player performs. That would be manifestly silly. As i understand it votes are cast on performance and how well a player performed their assigned role in a given match.

Of course games played is a factor. Players not performing their role don't get picked. Those that do get the opportunity to accrue votes. As they should. Salem isn't accruing many atm. 

But lets say you are right. The fact remains that defenders who can't defend are not likely to get too many best and fairest votes..

Your first post on this subject where I can (mostly) agree

The bold bit is contradictory. Match performance vs role is critical. That is what I meant when I talked of expectations.

[jnrmac 18,953]

52 minutes ago, rjay said:

Can you define this stat 'jnr'?

It doesn't read right to me...

It's a champion data stat and I'm pretty sure it means that if an opposition enters our i50 100 times they will have a shot on goal 53 times (not 100% sure but believe it includes out on the full) and 47 times we clear the ball out of the 50m zone.

So 12 goals 3 behinds with 2 out on the full would be 17 shots on goal.

 

[rjay 23,895]

29 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It's a champion data stat and I'm pretty sure it means that if an opposition enters our i50 100 times they will have a shot on goal 53 times (not 100% sure but believe it includes out on the full) and 47 times we clear the ball out of the 50m zone.

So 12 goals 3 behinds with 2 out on the full would be 17 shots on goal.

 

...but to me our i50 means our forward half. That obviously isn't what they are meaning?

Looks like more lingo from some o/s games.

Another question though, do they have stats on the % of time we hold the ball in our forward half?

[binman 37,991]

46 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Your first post on this subject where I can (mostly) agree

The bold bit is contradictory. Match performance vs role is critical. That is what I meant when I talked of expectations.

Then i assume you would agree that the expectations of the coaching staff of Tmac's younger brother would be that he defends to a satisfactory standard.  

And that his key assigned role is defending.

And by extension if he did not meet these expectations or play his assigned role the match committee are not very likely to give him many votes.

So if your assessment of  tmac's younger brother's ability to defend is correct it follows that it is very unlikely he will vote well in the bluey. And therefore unlikely to be top 10. Of course the opposite is also true. Which i'm willing to bet is the case. 

By the by my from wiki the bluey voting system works as follows:

'The voting system as of the 2016 AFL season, consists of four members of the match committee giving each player a ranking out of ten after each game. Players can receive a maximum of 40 votes for a game.'

The match committee members are under no obligation to give any score should they believe a player does not deserve one. The process gives a pretty good indication of how a player is assessed by people who know what they are talking about. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by binman

[old55 21,287]

5 hours ago, binman said:

But I'll tell you what, i'll give you (and jnrmac if he wants to play) an opportunity.  An opportunity to put your money where your key board is. So to speak. Let's make a wager.

I bet that Tmac's younger brother will make top 10 in the best and fairest. You bet he doesn't. The winner of the bet can choose the avatar of the loser from the day after the best and fairest until after the second round.

Please don't give me any nonsense about a top 10 in the bluey not proving anything. The best and fairest and is judged by the match committee. Paid football professionals. It is not an encouragement award.

We are going to make the finals. No player with the many weaknesses you think no 28 has finishes top 10 in an AFL side that makes the finals. Perhaps in years gone past at the dees but not this year. A top 10 finish in the bluey would be irrefutable evidence he is considered by the match committee to be a good player. And with all due respect i value their assessment more than yours. 

So do we have a bet? (and Jnr mac happy to have a side bet)

 

I'm a fan of Oscar but I'd take that bet.  I'll be surprised if he finishes top 10 in the Bluey, but he will finish top 20 which is still a very good result for such a young player.

Oliver (runaway winner), Hibberd, Jones, Viney (even though both have missed matches), TMac, Petracca, Lewis, Jetta, Garlett - should all be locks for top 10.  That leaves a lot of competition for the 10th slot.

[binman 37,991]

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I'm a fan of Oscar but I'd take that bet.  I'll be surprised if he finishes top 10 in the Bluey, but he will finish top 20 which is still a very good result for such a young player.

Oliver (runaway winner), Hibberd, Jones, Viney (even though both have missed matches), TMac, Petracca, Lewis, Jetta, Garlett - should all be locks for top 10.  That leaves a lot of competition for the 10th slot.

Yes, very good points.

I agree with your list, though i'm not convinced trac will finish top 10 as there have been quite a few games where he has not done much. 

The bluey system rewards consistency (which is why you are probably right about Oliver winning it - how remarkable would that be!) and from the mid point of the year Tmac's younger brother has consistently done his job and will poll ok to well in every game. 

Betting with you 55 would not be nearly so much fun - and besides you don't really want Tmac's younger brother as your avatar!

[jnrmac 18,953]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

...but to me our i50 means our forward half. That obviously isn't what they are meaning?

Looks like more lingo from some o/s games.

Another question though, do they have stats on the % of time we hold the ball in our forward half?

Yep my mistake. The ball enters our defensive 50  100 times....

[jnrmac 18,953]

36 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes, very good points.

I agree with your list, though i'm not convinced trac will finish top 10 as there have been quite a few games where he has not done much. 

The bluey system rewards consistency (which is why you are probably right about Oliver winning it - how remarkable would that be!) and from the mid point of the year Tmac's younger brother has consistently done his job and will poll ok to well in every game. 

Betting with you 55 would not be nearly so much fun - and besides you don't really want Tmac's younger brother as your avatar!

I don't think it that simple. Particularly with a zone defence.

Eg If Oscar zones off and constantly leaves, say, Jetta matched up alone in the goal square with Joe Daniher, then that wouldn't be the plan you would assume and so Oscar would get marked down by the coaches even though it was Jetta that lost the one on one.

The club has the stats on all of the individual one on ones, the kms run each match, the defensive 1 per centers etc. PLus they know what the game plan is and the individual roles.

My original hypothesis was based on two simple stats. We are 18th in both. We aren't 5th or 9th or 13th, we are last. That is pretty damning. I use my own judgement watching the games and replays to assess individual performances. The general consensus you would agree is that Hibberd and Jetta are having potential AA years.

I do see that Ben Brown, Joe Daniher, Buddy, Tex and other large fwds monster our defence. Check out the goals scored in our losses. Its pretty obvious we have a glaring weakness in our defence and that is largely Frost and OMac.

You clearly love Oscar and I say good for you. But defending him blindly when it he is clearly undersized and lacking in intesity in contests won't change the fact our defence is poor in two critical areas.

 

 

[worldwideweb_demon 90]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

I'm a fan of Oscar but I'd take that bet.  I'll be surprised if he finishes top 10 in the Bluey, but he will finish top 20 which is still a very good result for such a young player.

Oliver (runaway winner), Hibberd, Jones, Viney (even though both have missed matches), TMac, Petracca, Lewis, Jetta, Garlett - should all be locks for top 10.  That leaves a lot of competition for the 10th slot.

Any chance for mr 'goal of the year' hunt?

[binman 37,991]

17 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't think it that simple. Particularly with a zone defence.

Eg If Oscar zones off and constantly leaves, say, Jetta matched up alone in the goal square with Joe Daniher, then that wouldn't be the plan you would assume and so Oscar would get marked down by the coaches even though it was Jetta that lost the one on one.

The club has the stats on all of the individual one on ones, the kms run each match, the defensive 1 per centers etc. PLus they know what the game plan is and the individual roles.

My original hypothesis was based on two simple stats. We are 18th in both. We aren't 5th or 9th or 13th, we are last. That is pretty damning. I use my own judgement watching the games and replays to assess individual performances. The general consensus you would agree is that Hibberd and Jetta are having potential AA years.

I do see that Ben Brown, Joe Daniher, Buddy, Tex and other large fwds monster our defence. Check out the goals scored in our losses. Its pretty obvious we have a glaring weakness in our defence and that is largely Frost and OMac.

You clearly love Oscar and I say good for you. But defending him blindly when it he is clearly undersized and lacking in intesity in contests won't change the fact our defence is poor in two critical areas.

 

 

I give up

[GoD's67 111]

1 hour ago, binman said:

I give up

Our defence breaks down in four major ways:

1. Against monster forwards (Oscar currently not strong enough, give him two more years, & Sam ocassionally thrown out of the way e.g. Charlie Dixon)

2. The quick break out of the centre (usually kicked to monster forwards)

3. Turnover the ball and it comes back quickly and we are out numbered

4. Team generally not running hard enough and ball almost gets carried with a free opposition player going into forward line

But if Jetta, Hibberd are AA prospects, Hunt is pretty good, T Mac very good and other flanker is usually okay, the problem is more often up the ground. OMac has improved significantly over the year and will get better as he matures, he is only 20/21 and played less than 50 games, don't crucify the guy.