Jump to content

rpfc's Measurement of 2011

Featured Replies

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.

 
  • Author

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.

 
  • Author

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.


  • Author

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.

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!


  • Author

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.


  • Author

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."

  • Author

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...

I love a bit of TOG.

  • Author

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.


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....

  • Author

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.

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 123 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

    • 381 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Like
    • 47 replies