i think the stats that are more worthwhile (although some what inter connected) would be how many changes to side we make per week (ie continuity in selected team) or average games per player at the end of the season?

OP nominated;

Scully, Trengove, Watts, Morton, Grimes, Sylvia, Frawley, Garland, Jurrah, McKenzie, and Gysberts.

For me i find it laugable that Gysberts is nominated as "core" after two (great) games yet Tapscott didnt make the list afetr one?, Watts and Morton make the cut based on their draft rank / "potential", and Jamie Bennell doesnt although he's showing similar or greater class/promise. I also find it harsh that Aaron Davey and Jamar/Moloney dont make the cut, becasue i have no doubts that if they continue to back up their consistant performances they'll hold their spots in the coming seasons. My point is that its such a subjective stat that i dont find it as worthwhile as the others

Fair enough. Quite reasonable. But it is not "garbage" as you originally described it. Everyone is entitled to make a contribution and not be held in contempt, especially those who try to contribute with original, thoughtful analysis.

Contested possies good, inside 50s a worry...

Analyse away.

Interesting inside 50 stat from this recent game. On AFL Insiders last night on Fox they stated Essendon had 20 inside 50's in the first quarter for the return of 4 goals. I'm yet to find how many we had in the first quarter and I would be interested to know. Also the breakdown of the inside 50 stat from the 2nd quarter onwards.

Interesting inside 50 stat from this recent game. On AFL Insiders last night on Fox they stated Essendon had 20 inside 50's in the first quarter for the return of 4 goals. I'm yet to find how many we had in the first quarter and I would be interested to know. Also the breakdown of the inside 50 stat from the 2nd quarter onwards.

They had 14 (?) in the third for the return of 1 point.

Thanks Riv et. al.

Interesting inside 50 stat from this recent game. On AFL Insiders last night on Fox they stated Essendon had 20 inside 50's in the first quarter for the return of 4 goals. I'm yet to find how many we had in the first quarter and I would be interested to know. Also the breakdown of the inside 50 stat from the 2nd quarter onwards.

From memory it was 20 to 8 at qtr time.

And it was return of 3.2 from 20 I50s.

Eventually, 10.8 from 60 I50s.

We had 15.11 from 45 I50s.

They can be misleading as we were better at keeping it in our 50 and they relied on their midfield to get it back in there.

Oddly enough, the 'we didn't have Watson' meme has to be questioned as they broke even in the clearances.

They had 14 (?) in the third for the return of 1 point.

Thanks Riv et. al.

Inside 50s don't discriminate between kicks to leads or contested marks and kicks to no-one. I think an opposition player kicking backwards also counts.

Inside 50s don't discriminate between kicks to leads or contested marks and kicks to no-one. I think an opposition player kicking backwards also counts.

No it doesn't count.

But you are right that they can misleading.

And 45 was thanking Riv et al. if you misread.

From memory it was 20 to 8 at qtr time.

And it was return of 3.2 from 20 I50s.

Eventually, 10.8 from 60 I50s.

We had 15.11 from 45 I50s.

They can be misleading as we were better at keeping it in our 50 and they relied on their midfield to get it back in there.

Oddly enough, the 'we didn't have Watson' meme has to be questioned as they broke even in the clearances.

Thanks. 3.2 - they may have said 4 scoring attempts (1 rushed ?)

So from quarter time onwards the inside 50 differential was -3.

We're more efficient when it comes to scoring in terms of entries. Would that be a fair conclusion to draw from this game ? (26-18)

From memory it was 20 to 8 at qtr time.

And it was return of 3.2 from 20 I50s.

Eventually, 10.8 from 60 I50s.

We had 15.11 from 45 I50s.

They can be misleading as we were better at keeping it in our 50 and they relied on their midfield to get it back in there.

Oddly enough, the 'we didn't have Watson' meme has to be questioned as they broke even in the clearances.

Any stats for %time I50 by team? Be good to compare this to plain I50 count

Also interesting to know %time I-FWD-Half

I am at peace with "some if the garbage we've served up this year."

We're a young team. Young teams put in those sorts of performances, no matter how much they disgust you.

They will happen again.

Even with Malthouse as coach they would happen.

You seem to expect some sort of football perfection from a group of inexperienced kids.

Your expectations are out of touch with reality.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree.

Our worst this year has been too bad. Worse than it should have been. And it's not just down to 'inexperienced kids'. It's a combination of youth, no leadership, mid-tier players not standing up (Petterd, Dunn, Bate, Warnock) and poor coaching.

Inconsistency is acceptable (and inherent in development). The extent to which we have been inconsistent has been unacceptable.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree.

Our worst this year has been too bad. Worse than it should have been. And it's not just down to 'inexperienced kids'. It's a combination of youth, no leadership, mid-tier players not standing up (Petterd, Dunn, Bate, Warnock) and poor coaching.

Inconsistency is acceptable (and inherent in development). The extent to which we have been inconsistent has been unacceptable.

I would say that is a fair summation.

The wild fluctuations can be seen in the KPIs - and whether it is youth (compounded due to injuries), leadership, mid-tier players, or poor coaching, it is the latter that will be held accountable one way or another in September.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -1.7

Syd: +34; Haw: -31; BL: +4; GC: +15; WCE: -15; Adel: 24; NM: -18; St K: 6; Carl: -26; Ess: 15; Coll: -45; Freo: 17

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.9

Syd: -4; Haw: -40; BL: +3; GC: +26; WCE: -29; Adel: 31; NM: -6; St K: -6; Carl: -15; Ess: -15; Coll: -40; Freo: 12

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > 0.75

Syd: -6; Haw: -10; BL: +11; GC: +7; WCE: -6; Adel: 14; NM: +8; St K: 10; Carl: -9; Ess: 0; Coll: -11; Freo: 1

Turnover (Clanger) Differential

2010 >

2011 > 1

Syd: +3; Haw: +4; BL: +4; GC: -1; WCE:19; Adel: -2; NM: 0; St K: 6; Carl: -3; Ess: -10; Coll: 6; Freo: -14

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 90.4

Syd: 84; Haw: 122; BL: 71; GC: 69; WCE: 106; Adel: 53; NM: 124; St K: 106; Carl: 93; Ess: 68; Coll: 129; Freo: 60

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 102.6

Average Flag Core © players per game

2010 > 7.4

2011 > 7.8

Syd: 6; Haw: 7; BL: 9; GC: 9; WCE: 9; Adel: 8; NM: 6; St K: 7; Carl: 7; Ess: 9; Coll: 9; Freo: 8

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

Didn't get around to doing it last week. Half busy, and half couldn't be ...

Quite the turnaround.

It's amazing though - the stats say we were destroyed more by Collingwood than we destroyed Freo - but it's still 15 goals...

Looking at that data, the contested possession differential is a pretty good indicator I reckon.

When you consider our effort in R1 against the Swans who are a top 6 team it was very good and also pretty good against St.Kilda, whereas against North and West Coast we were well down on what we could expect. No surprise that Collingwood, Carlton and Hawthorn out compete us at this stage of our development. The contested possession differential against Richmond will be a strong indicatior of the result.

The contested possession differential against Richmond will be a strong indicatior of the result.

Absolutely.

I noticed a clearance stat comparison between Melbourne and Richmond recently and Melbourne were surprisingly had a much better clearance record than Richmond. However, it's elsewhere where Richmond have been 'superior' such as less turnovers and better efficiency around the ground.

Contested possessions and tackles combined on Saturday will likely get the four points. It starts with right attitude. And it will require it for 4 quarters.

Absolutely.

I noticed a clearance stat comparison between Melbourne and Richmond recently and Melbourne were surprisingly had a much better clearance record than Richmond. However, it's elsewhere where Richmond have been 'superior' such as less turnovers and better efficiency around the ground.

Contested possessions and tackles combined on Saturday will likely get the four points. It starts with right attitude. And it will require it for 4 quarters.

I think that nearly all other stats can be discarded with contested possessions and tackles always being the two KPI's I look at and to my mind the true indicator of how hard the team is working ( this can be a little deceptive when you walk over a team quickly - a no contest. What I did find interesting is that there was a huge disparity in the tackle stats that went up on the scoreboard on Sunday as opposed to what i was seeing on AFL. livescoreboard

Looking at that data, the contested possession differential is a pretty good indicator I reckon.

When you consider our effort in R1 against the Swans who are a top 6 team it was very good and also pretty good against St.Kilda, whereas against North and West Coast we were well down on what we could expect. No surprise that Collingwood, Carlton and Hawthorn out compete us at this stage of our development. The contested possession differential against Richmond will be a strong indicatior of the result.

I think it's also pertinent to note that in only one match (Sydney) have we won the contested possession count but not had more inside 50s.

When we get on top in the contested ball, our midfield is more able to give our forwards a crack, and I think we've shown this year that our forward line, given decent supply, can do the job pretty well. Our issue has been getting it down there.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -0.8

Syd: +34; Haw: -31; BL: +4; GC: +15; WCE: -15; Adel: 24; NM: -18; St K: 6; Carl: -26; Ess: 15; Coll: -45; Freo: 17; Rich: 9

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -5.2

Syd: -4; Haw: -40; BL: +3; GC: +26; WCE: -29; Adel: 31; NM: -6; St K: -6; Carl: -15; Ess: -15; Coll: -40; Freo: 12; Rich: 16

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > 1

Syd: -6; Haw: -10; BL: +11; GC: +7; WCE: -6; Adel: 14; NM: +8; St K: 10; Carl: -9; Ess: 0; Coll: -11; Freo: 1; Rich: 4

Turnover (Clanger) Differential

2010 >

2011 > 1

Syd: +3; Haw: +4; BL: +4; GC: -1; WCE:19; Adel: -2; NM: 0; St K: 6; Carl: -3; Ess: -10; Coll: 6; Freo: -14; Rich: 0

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 90.5

Syd: 84; Haw: 122; BL: 71; GC: 69; WCE: 106; Adel: 53; NM: 124; St K: 106; Carl: 93; Ess: 68; Coll: 129; Freo: 60;Rich: 91

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 104.3

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

Consistency. Hazaah!

Edited June 30, 201114 yr by rpfc

Consistency. Hazaah!

Great job rpfc, minor note: isn't a contested possie differential of -0.8 better than last year?

I hate my nitpicking habit

Great job rpfc, minor note: isn't a contested possie differential of -0.8 better than last year?

I hate my nitpicking habit

I think you'll find that rpfc is never wrong so that cannot be.

Consistency. Hazaah!

Rich 91 - needs to be in green

Rich 91 - needs to be in green

I believe that is incorrect - it should be red - scores against, higher than average are undesirable.

Contested ball is tracking with match outcome.

Edited July 1, 201114 yr by old55

Rich 91 - needs to be in green

Old is right.

My red/green is determined by last years average.

Old is right.

Wait for it though ...

Always know sometimes think it's me, but you know I know and it's a dream.

I think I know of thee, ah yes, but it's all wrong.

That is I think I disagree.

Roger that. My misunderstanding.

Consistency at last.

Consistency. Hazaah!

BUMP

How are we after the Dogs & Port games ?

Bump.

i think people forget that we won 8 games last year. we have already got 7.5 wins this year, with 6 games to go. i call that improvement people