binman

@WheeloRatings Oh, sorry I completely missed that. Thanks so much. I was actually thinking in terms of week to week numbers to include in the stats file, but if it's not readily available don't worry. And as per my comments below may actually not be that relevant for us this season. But those tables are fascinating. What an amazing drop off in both stars, particularly post clearance possessions. Hardwick had always said post clearance contested possession is the most important stat. Well did when he coached the tigers. But I have to assume from those numbers that it is important for the forward half, territory model he developed and we adapted. We were number 1 for that stat in 21, 22 and 23. But are only 12th this year. Surely that's a reflection of our changed method? Curiously the blues, after getting the transition, turnover game working last year, have reverted to a forward half model. Ditto for hawks who i heard on christin.say on the espn pod they ste number one for ground ball gets this year by a mile. No coincidence the blues and hawks are one and two for pccp this year.

I asked in another thread @WheeloRatings, but you may not have seen it Are you able to get hold of the post clearance contested possession numbers?

You're right, the reason why the pressure rating was low in the second was the lack of stoppages and how often the ball was in motion with us hitting up leads etc. That's because of how they calculate the pressure rating which is: Pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. So with low low stoppages, ball in motion and lots of uncontested marks there is fewer opportunities for the pressure acts that really drives the number up - tackles, bumps, contested possessions etc But as you say it was definitely frenetic in that quuater. And it definitely didn't feel low pressure. I didn't realise the stoppage numbers were so low and you're right it's a good stat to consider when trying to explain anomalous pressure rating. Out of interest here is the pressure numbers for the dogs game, where we had 141 uncontested marks: Quarter For Against 1 175 166 2 171 164 3 195 162 4 167 155 Match 177 162 And from the cats game (117uncontested marks): Quarter For Against 1 183 173 2 161 158 3 171 165 4 193 181 Match 176 170

I occasionally look at the tracker data @Watson11. But in isolation I'm not sure what it's telling me and unlike you havent tracked it to see if there is pattern, or how one week compares to another or in aggregate. As i noted on the pod. I thought this data was really interesting. The top 5 players for speed in defence, which is defined as running when the opponents have the ball. It really gives a sense of how hard we work defensively and how much work our our all team defence demands. I think it also supports your point about how elite we are in term of running power.

That makes sense lh. It could be a combo of those three strategies - keep the ball live and in motion (an outcome of which is reducing stoppages) to sap them, nor feed their interceptors and trapping then inside our arc (which would also assist gassing them because to get out they have to chain the ball out rather than their preferred option of kicking long to a contest). I'm pretty confident we had a strategy to gas them using uncontested marks to keep the ball in motion. And as Rossmillon noted earlier in this thread: Stevens Mays post match interview on Fox footy was quite enlightening. He said when asked about the game plan in the first half that there was a strategy to take some uncontested marks and make them defend for longer to “take some energy out of their forwards”. We definitely ran the game out better - as we should given we had a ten day break into the game. One is our last quarter pressure was our highest for the game, a crazy good 193. Interestingly so was theres, but it was 12 less than ours - the biggest differential of any quarter. Another possible indicator is we kicked 5 straight. They kicked 3.2 - not miles off, but those 2 points were Cameron in front of goals and he looked completely cooked.

I don't think I did. Points from defensive half is the key metric I have been using all season as the key indicator in my red and blue print to assess if our new back half transtion and turnover method is on track In fact i also discussed how curious it was that so many of our scoring chains started from our d50 (as did the cats, who remarkably scored 44 of their 66 points from their defensive half)- almost twice our season average.

I meant to highlight the strategy you note in the first para, but forgot. It was such an unusual strategy for us under goody, and perhaps for that reason really stood out. My thought was how effective it was in denying Stewart, and others, the opportunity to take intercept marks - which is a huge part of both how the cats defend and how they set up scoring chains from their back half. I wonder if Stewart playing at half back was rhe cats way to try to get him to the game? As i noted on the pod im convinced goody had a plan to run them ragged and exploit our fitness advantage. But I hadn't considered patiently kick it around the arc could be part of the strategy to reduce stoppages to expoit our fitness advantage. Good call

Of course you are skuit. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Just as it is OK for me to think it odd, you, or anyone else, cares about posters on a footy forum knocking coverage of the team they support. I have to say though there is a fine line between expressing your befuddlement about why people choose to knock the media on here (which I respectfully tried to explain from my perspective) and belittling. Case in point, suggesting anyone who doesn't share your view as 'up in arms about something inconsequential after a win'. Inconsequential to YOU. You are applying your own judgement on others I've already explained why it is not inconsequential to me. And it's clearly not inconsequential to others. Indeed you may well be in the minority. And on a broader level how the media's cover individual clubs is FAR from inconsequential. There is zero doubt the way we were coveted in the 70s,80s, 90s and naughts (and continue to be covered) has had a huge impact on our membership numbers. And our financial bottom line. Hard to attract sponsors when the coverage you do get is derisive and you get basically no live coverage of games. Which in turn makes it exceedingly hard to grow the membership base- which had become the most critical income stream for clubs Why do you think that despite our incredible success and support in the 50s and 60s we are not one of the Victorian power clubs? We almost ceased to exist as a club because we were a financial basket case that could not attract sponsors or grow our membership base - in large part because of how we were coveted. We would almost ceased to exist a second time, and may have if not for Jimmy and his herculean fund-raising efforts. We struggled financially from at least 1975 all rhe way to Peter Jacksom starting to turn things around in 2017. We would We still see the impact in our membership numbers and bottom line. Just one real world example of the impact of how we have been covered is being forced to play so many games at kardinia Park. Why? Because the circular argument goes that, unlike the pies, blues,tigers and bombers (who have rarely have to play there) we don't have enough fans to warrant playing those games at the g. That one example embeds a significant structural disadvantage, not least because it is so hard to win there as evidenced by lis8ng 90% of those games. Meanwhile the blues, who benefited from saturation coverage in the 70s and 80s, but have been a basket case on field until recently, have a massive membership and have got a free hit for 20 years in terms of media coverage, marquee games and live coverage. Ditto Collingwood. Dtto bombers The effect has been compounded by the media being dominated by ex footballers, with their axes to grind and confirmation bias, from the power clubs. So unfair, unbalanced media coverage is far from inconsequential- in the now and into the future. Inconsequential to you obviously, but not to others and certainly not the club.

A lot riding on this game then.

Sure skuit. But why do you need to understand the motivations of posters who choose to knock the media? It's annoying? It brings the mood down? It perplexes you because you can't fathom it? And what harm do such posts do? I wasn't joking when I said I don't understand why they seem to annoy some people so much. Well, I do understand to an extent - we are all wired differently and one person's ambivalence is another's trigger. If you don't like such posts, don't read or engage with them. They are not offensive in any moral sense (for example like a homophobic) where it might be important to challenge the poster's perspective. They are just annoying - to you and some others. But clearly not all. Or even the majority. I mean it's not really as if they dominate the discussion post game or the site is actually 'full of complaints and nasty expressions'. The ratio is probably no greater than one on twenty. Tops. Take this post victory thread - there have been 610 posts and, what maybe 20-30 posts max knocking the media? Personally I agree there's no need to stoop to unpleasant invenctive. But such posts are even rarer. If your isssue is the negativity, what about the relentless, repetitive critisism about the club from some on here? Ironically many of those same posters are in the I don't understand why people pot the media camp. By the by, discussing Scott is a different matter to knocking the media. My issue was his poor sportsmanship and lack of class. He deserves the whacks he's copped on here.

Credit where it's due - the clubs media game has improved out of sight. Just watched the mcqualter video. Brilliant - mana from heaven for footy nuffies like me.

I understand your point skuit, it's one many other posters, some lots of times, have also made over the journey on my time on DL. Though i have to say, I'm no great fan of the 'people can post or care about what they want of course BUT....' negation. Who cares about the media's coverage of the dees? I do. Why? I obvioulsy can't speak for others but the context is I love the club and have been a passionate supporter of the club since 1975. As a kid in the 70s I didn't know a single dees fan, other than the family friends who made me a dees fan. Through the 70s and the 80s. I suffered through humiliating shellackings and multiple near winless seasons as I traipsed around Melbourne's suburban football grounds by myself. We were treated like a joke - from other fans and the media alike. Jokes about silver spoon and snow trips (which is the opposite of my experience growing up) AND being perennial wooden spooners and total dysfunction were par for the course I grew up desperate for any morsel of info about the dees. We were hardly ever one of the 2 replays shown on the weekend and instead had to make do with those weird one camera shots and fake crowd noise 'highlights'. Of course we were one of the clubs on the chopping block in the 80s. And of course the media's pumped up the narrative Don Scott saved us from extinction. We finally win a flag and are the most successful club since the start of 2021. A flag and three consecutive top 4 finishes and we're still derided - even by plenty of dees fans. So yeah, i get frustrated by how the media cover us. So much so that I've largely taken a DL posters' advice from a couple of seasons back to stop consuming media content (if it frustrates you that much, stop reading, listening and watching it). Personally what I find curious is for every post expressing frustration about the coverage of the dees there is a post like yours that express bemusement. And others taking pot shots at the snow flakes. I mean, you don't think it's ironic posters going to the effort of essentially critising other posters for critising the media? I mean, people can post what they want but I really don't get why they would get so annoyed as to go to the effort knocking another poster for knocking the media - particularly those that repeat their confusion, derision, bemusement multiple times a season. Seriously, who cares if a poster chooses to vent about the media? Each to their own I suppose. As to your question about what I would prefer re the media, my answer is I'd prefer that was professional, knowledgeable and helped me understand the game. I don't mind critiques that have a solid rationale, perhaps even based on some research and work. Instead we get feel based, lazy, largely incorrect analysis by bonehead ex footballers that is no better than the plonkers yelling just kick it at the footy. The media does what I think is the best team sport in the world a huge disservice.

Agree, it definitely a useful indicator. We have usually been in that so called premiership quadrant ever since they started using it (and on that graphic almost are now) It just gets a bit silly when the fox crew treat it like it is some sort of statistical Rosetta stone I mean, the sample size is small and for example we are marginally outside an arbitrary line. And because you have applied a level of analysis the fox crew haven’t, you have highlighted a possible explanation for say where we are located on the graph. I get the whole thing is about creating content and talking points and pretty graphics that lend some gravitas. But it just reinforces the scepticism about the use of stats and analytics to help understand the game

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/genuine-concern-fear-over-flag-fancy-as-afl-title-trend-points-to-two-clear-contenders/news-story/011a91fda6ea530d45d6fceb03dd108a

I love me my stats. But i like them only so far as they can used to help understand the game, not an end to themselves. Like medical symptoms they help with the diagnosis (of issues, method, results, strengths, weaknesses etc). And like medical symptoms, they are not that useful if looked at in isolation (ie not triangulating mutiple data points) or analysed (ie not taken at face value). Fox footy people routinely use champion data stays in a way that suggests they don't understand how to properly use data to inform their analysis. And it would appear fox have also gone all in on AI to write their 'articles'. Case in point (note: I'm not suggesting the data is of no value - bit comments like 'the premier has been in the premiership window at round 8...' are);