Spiffing thread.

Gysberts is not Flag Core © though.

I think even from his three outings we can now say that he definitely is/will be.

I think even from his three outings we can now say that he definitely is/will be.

Yeah, I knew the first time he played against Carlton he would be what they wanted.

He's a Joel Corey clone from what I can see.

Yeah, I knew the first time he played against Carlton he would be what they wanted.

He's a Joel Corey clone from what I can see.

Good call. Hoping for the Pendlebury clone.

Just realised I did this arse-about; no-one goes to the inital page/post for the update so I will reply to the OP with the updated numbers

Round 1-3, 2011

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > 2.3

Syd: +34; Haw: -31; BL: +4

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -14

Syd: -4; Haw: -40; BL: +3

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -1.7

Syd: -6; Haw: -10; BL: +11

Turnover (Clanger) Differential

2010 >

2011 > +3

Syd: +3; Haw: +4; BL: +4

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 92.3

Syd: 84; Haw: 122; BL: 71

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 87.7

Average Flag Core © players per game

2010 > 7.4

2011 > 7.7

Syd: 6; Haw: 7; BL: 9

Green KPIs means that we are maintaining or improving in that area, red will indicate any slippage.

Done.

I'm unconvinced that clearances and I50s are absolute markers - it depends on our game-style. A clearance is often a bomb forward - we can set-up behind the ball to negate this. We might allow a lot of I50s but prevent conversion whereas we may have fewer I50s and convert at a much higher rate depending on the way we set-up and play. We could lose both these and still be on a winning model. I like relative contested possession more. I don't think it's sufficient to correlate these KPIs to wins across the league to prove their worth - as I say it depends on OUR game-style.

On that note, I think part of the reason we have such low I50s is that so often we have no one to kick to in the 50, so we hold the ball up and lose it outside of 50. I think that if we played a man deep all the time we would have many more I50s.

On that note, I think part of the reason we have such low I50s is that so often we have no one to kick to in the 50, so we hold the ball up and lose it outside of 50. I think that if we played a man deep all the time we would have many more I50s.

Yes, but the fans didn't want Hale.

And the fans know best...

Yes, but the fans didn't want Hale.

And the fans know best...

The only other KPI I would love to see is the tackle differential.

Time in possession rarely moves 5% off the 50% mark for each team.

How many tackles you have in my mind is great indicator of how hard you are prepared to work ( along with contested possessions).

It is rare you see a team with 80 tackles lose a game

Yes, but the fans didn't want Hale.

And the fans know best...

Hah.

(Just to pursue this point a little more, I'm not sure our forward structure would be much different with Hale, to be honest - we start our deepest forwards further out from goal than other teams, and whoever is there gets sucked up the ground).

Hah.

(Just to pursue this point a little more, I'm not sure our forward structure would be much different with Hale, to be honest - we start our deepest forwards further out from goal than other teams, and whoever is there gets sucked up the ground).

Ahhh. But isn't that part of the setup being used occassionally ?

I saw this quite a bit yesterday. Is it Pagan's paddock re-visited a little ?

Let Jurrah & Wonaeamirri run into space and weave a bit of magic. Get sucked up, out to the flanks and sprint back into 50 having turned their opponents around.... ?

Ahhh. But isn't that part of the setup being used occassionally ?

I saw this quite a bit yesterday. Is it Pagan's paddock re-visited a little ?

Let Jurrah & Wonaeamirri run into space and weave a bit of magic. Get sucked up, out to the flanks and sprint back into 50 having turned their opponents around.... ?

It's not used ocassionally, it's used most of the time. You've pointed out some (small number of) examples of when it works.

Sadly, most of the time it leads to us having trouble on two counts. One, trouble moving the ball through the middle since we've made it so congested by pushing up. Two, trouble keeping the footywhen we do have it in the middle, because we look forward, have no one to kick it to, and turn it over.

Off the top of my head, some examples of the latter: I think Sylvia might have bombed a ball forward to no one fairly early in the game, while Morton definitely kicked the ball forward to no one when he was on the southern side of the ground in the last, and Martin did it with more style when he kicked towards the City end, etc. There were also plenty of times per game where we simply handballed it around or kicked sideways because there was no one to kick to up the ground.

On that note, I think part of the reason we have such low I50s is that so often we have no one to kick to in the 50, so we hold the ball up and lose it outside of 50. I think that if we played a man deep all the time we would have many more I50s.

Thank God Rogue I thought I was the only one complaining about this little issue.

Please one or two people inside 50!

Leading into Sunday's game I've noticed that neither team have won a first quarter this season.

Our poor 1st quarter percentage of 54 looks pretty strong compared to their 15.96%.

Thank God Rogue I thought I was the only one complaining about this little issue.

Please one or two people inside 50!

Hah; there's a poster who's been posting about this pretty consistently - ie. every second or third post - for the last couple of years.

Off the top of my head, some examples of the latter: I think Sylvia might have bombed a ball forward to no one fairly early in the game, while Morton definitely kicked the ball forward to no one when he was on the southern side of the ground in the last, and Martin did it with more style when he kicked towards the Punt Rd end, etc. There were also plenty of times per game where we simply handballed it around or kicked sideways because there was no one to kick to up the ground.

I honestly don't know what Morton was thinking. There wasn't a Dee in cooee, if it's the one I'm thinking of when he kicked it on his left towards the city end, southern stand side, late.

I honestly don't know what Morton was thinking. There wasn't a Dee in cooee, if it's the one I'm thinking of when he kicked it on his left towards the city end, southern stand side, late.

You're on the money. Morton's kick was probably a poor option however we structured up, but it's an obvious one to point to.

Most examples are less obvious though - they're when you'll see a player streaming through the middle who suddenly - inexplicably, if you don't look down field - stops, props, and goes sideways or backwards.

You're on the money. Morton's kick was probably a poor option however we structured up, but it's an obvious one to point to.

Most examples are less obvious though - they're when you'll see a player streaming through the middle who suddenly - inexplicably, if you don't look down field - stops, props, and goes sideways or backwards.

Watts did this, but I can't say he was exactly streaming. I can understand this movement sometimes. They look up, everyone is either manned up, or not moving, presenting. Switch to the centre for a runner to open up the fat side inside 50. ie A Jurrah or Wonaeamirri, Dunn to run onto.

Watts did this, but I can't say he was exactly streaming. I can understand this movement sometimes. They look up, everyone is either manned up, or not moving, presenting. Switch to the centre for a runner to open up the fat side inside 50. ie A Jurrah or Wonaeamirri, Dunn to run onto.

What I'm concerned about is not the times when they look up and see everyone manned up, it's the times when we win the ball in the middle and the guy with the footy is virtually the closest to goal.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > 5.5

Syd: +34; Haw: -31; BL: +4; GC: +15

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -3.8

Syd: -4; Haw: -40; BL: +3; GC: +26

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > 0.5

Syd: -6; Haw: -10; BL: +11; GC: +7

Turnover (Clanger) Differential

2010 >

2011 > +3

Syd: +3; Haw: +4; BL: +4; GC: -1

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 86.5

Syd: 84; Haw: 122; BL: 71; GC: 69

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 116.2

Average Flag Core © players per game

2010 > 7.4

2011 > 8

Syd: 6; Haw: 7; BL: 9; GC: 9

Green KPIs means that we are maintaining or improving in that area, red will indicate any slippage.

Bit misleading this week but we were expected to dominate and we had it in our forward half quite a bit.

Range Rover's Measurement of 2011

Wins - 2

Draws - 1

Losses - 1

Range Rover's Measurement of 2011

Wins - 1

Draws - 1

Losses - 1

Well you've started poorly...

What have you got wrong?

Well you've started poorly...

What have you got wrong?

Corrected!

A simpler method for us stat-averse amongst us

Corrected!

A simpler method for us stat-averse amongst us

Well, they're all KPIs...

Wins and losses are legislatively important, but not to us this year.

We aren't going to make the top 4.

This will track improvement in key areas.

Well, they're all KPIs...

Wins and losses are legislatively important, but not to us this year.

We aren't going to make the top 4.

This will track improvement in key areas.

Adelaide won a flag from fifth. Chances are small, yes but stranger things have happened in sport ...

Under the new finals system, I believe only 2 teams from outside the top 4 have made a prelim, and none of them have made the GF.

That means that of the 44 teams to make a prelim since 2000, 42 of them have come from the top 4 and of the 22 teams to make a GF, 22 have come from the top 4.

It's a very difficult competition to win from outside the top 4 and a large part of that is that, obviously, the top 4 are the best teams going around.

Adelaide won a flag from fifth. Chances are small, yes but stranger things have happened in sport ...

Adelaide were thrashed in a Qualifying Final by a team you know quite well...

Old system.

New system, new rules.

Rules are as follows: If you want to win a flag, finish in the top 4.

That is all.