That's like saying George W should be judged on decisions he made except for that rather large one he made in 2003...

The Geelong game happened, outlier or not, it should stand with all the other losses and wins.

Our players didn't try 100% against Geelong for reasons well-known to many here. So considering the purpose of these (very interesting) stats (thank you) is for analysis and prediction, they should reflect our best efforts. The stats from the Geelong game do not. Otherwise Hawthorn is a 9 - point better side than Gold Coast.

Thanks for the interesting thread.

Our players didn't try 100% against Geelong for reasons well-known to many here. So considering the purpose of these (very interesting) stats (thank you) is for analysis and prediction, they should reflect our best efforts. The stats from the Geelong game do not. Otherwise Hawthorn is a 9 - point better side than Gold Coast.

I disagree vehemently.

Our senior players may have been distracted with things that don't concern them but that is life at a footy club.

They were obviously distracted throughout the year if we look at naked performances - they were blasted by Haw, Geel, Coll, NM, Carl, WCE, and WB...

They don't get a 'pass' for the game that brought down their coach.

He didn't get any excuses, nor did he seek any, neither should the players.

It is on their shoulders even if their head was affected.

Dear RPFC.

Thanks for your efforts in putting this together. I think it has been really valauble and interesting, so PLEASE yes to next year - with 10/11/12 years.

Dear RPFC.

Thanks for your efforts in putting this together. I think it has been really valauble and interesting, so PLEASE yes to next year - with 10/11/12 years.

Thanks, I will see how I am feeling.

This was tough to read at times this year.

Harder to edit...

I disagree vehemently.

Our senior players may have been distracted with things that don't concern them but that is life at a footy club.

They were obviously distracted throughout the year if we look at naked performances - they were blasted by Haw, Geel, Coll, NM, Carl, WCE, and WB...

They don't get a 'pass' for the game that brought down their coach.

He didn't get any excuses, nor did he seek any, neither should the players.

It is on their shoulders even if their head was affected.

Your loyalty to the task is appreciated. However... a large group of our players did not try because they wanted a certain person sacked. The stats from that game do not convey our (variable) abilities and consistencies.

I haven't asked for other blow-outs to be excluded. We got smashed over and over again - and as you've previously stated - it's part of being a young side - no problem with that.

The Geelong game was different.

Love your work RFPC - not trying to pick an argument.

Your loyalty to the task is appreciated. However... a large group of our players did not try because they wanted a certain person sacked. The stats from that game do not convey our (variable) abilities and consistencies.

I haven't asked for other blow-outs to be excluded. We got smashed over and over again - and as you've previously stated - it's part of being a young side - no problem with that.

The Geelong game was different.

Love your work RFPC - not trying to pick an argument.

I know where you are coming from, but I still think that that was a AFL Premiership Match...

If 186 happened because select players wanted to make a stand, then each accomplice should've been swept out the door with Bailey. And I'd be completely indiscriminate about it.

If 186 happened because select players wanted to make a stand, then each accomplice should've been swept out the door with Bailey. And I'd be completely indiscriminate about it.

We wouldn't have a team

I know where you are coming from, but I still think that that was a AFL Premiership Match...

Fair enough - your show. And an enjoyable one at that.

RPFC this has been a fantastic thread and should continue. I am starting to feel optimistic about next year (maybe because I know I won't have to watch the dees serve up that garbage for 6 months)but I think we performed so far below what was expected for the majority of this year it will be hard to get worse.... In which case we should be improving(praying for a draw which sees us play Gold Coast and GWS twice each!) Overly optimistic and out of character for me but I think this thread should continue, if only to dash my hopes for improvement!

Damn this week has made the above post seem outdated, anyway, BUMP!!!!!!!! Finish it rpfc

Damn this week has made the above post seem outdated, anyway, BUMP!!!!!!!! Finish it rpfc

I will get to it.

And stop bumping it - you're annoying the hell out of Robbie F...

If 186 happened because select players wanted to make a stand, then each accomplice should've been swept out the door with Bailey. And I'd be completely indiscriminate about it.

Still livid in that regard.

+1 for an update rpfc, fantastic thread.

If 186 happened because select players wanted to make a stand, then each accomplice should've been swept out the door with Bailey. And I'd be completely indiscriminate about it.

Same.

Isn't it quite unbelievable that the exact same team that inflicted that embarrassment, also defeated the top team to the tune of 96 points (and were down at quarter time).

I will get to it.

And stop bumping it - you're annoying the hell out of Robbie F...

If you promise to incorporate the Skinometer (to show the progress of our skinny kids against the skinny kids at other clubs) I promise I won't be annoyed.

Bump away.

If you promise to incorporate the Skinometer (to show the progress of our skinny kids against the skinny kids at other clubs) I promise I won't be annoyed.

Bump away.

Yeah, but I am really struggling with the metrics and validation rules for the 'Skinometer.'

And the HUN rarely publishes skin-fold measurements week-to-week...

Next year I'd like to see you include "Flaf Core TOG average."

Next year I'd like to see you include "Flaf Core TOG average."

Yeah, I am keen to do a poll soon to establish who we see as that core group.

And the 'time on ground' stat isn't as readily accessible as one might think...

Edited September 15, 201114 yr by rpfc

I love a bit of TOG.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

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; WB: -5; PA: -13; Haw: -37; Gee: -48; Carl: -20; WCE: 17; Rich: 2; GC: -5; PA: 0.

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

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; WB: -10; PA: 9; Haw: -20; Gee: -37; Carl: -5; WCE: -16; Rich: -5; GC: 4; PA: 11.

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

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; WB: -3; PA: -8; Haw: -4; Gee: -21; Carl: -19; WCE: -3; Rich: -4; GC:-10; PA: -2.

Turnover (Clanger) Differential

2010 >

2011 > 2.1

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; WB: 6; PA: 5; Haw: -9; Gee: 7; Carl: 0; WCE: 18; Rich: 9; GC: -12; PA: 10.

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

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; WB: 127; PA: 92; Haw: 132; Gee: 233; Carl: 134; WCE: 110; Rich: 117; GC: 82; PA: 112.

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

Average Flag Core © players per game

2010 > 7.4

2011 > 8.1

Syd: 6; Haw: 7; BL: 9; GC: 9; WCE: 9; Adel: 8; NM: 6; St K: 7; Carl: 7; Ess: 9; Coll: 9; Freo: 9; Rich: 10; WB: 10; PA: 10; Haw: 7; Gee: 8; Carl: 7; WCE: 8

This KPI has been corrupted over the course of the season and it's usefulness is very little. Morton can't be considered Flag Core, and Scully has left.

I still feel it is valuable to track how many games we are getting into our talent but this can be considered a failed measurement from my perspective.

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

Here it is. To mark the new coach and the challenges in front of him.

Analyse away.

Please note that the comments on the Flag Core. Like the concept but having two of the ten fall out of said 'core' rendered it irrelevant data.

Contested possies a major concern.

Two of the ten - Warnock and $cully?

Here it is. To mark the new coach and the challenges in front of him.

Analyse away.

Please note that the comments on the Flag Core. Like the concept but having two of the ten fall out of said 'core' rendered it irrelevant data.

Contested possies a major concern.

Maybe you should send this to Mark Neeld - could be valuable.May save him some time....

Maybe you should send this to Mark Neeld - could be valuable.May save him some time....

I would like to think the club showed him these stats in the interview...

Not good reading...

Impressive message does Mark Neeld have though. Hope it gets through.