Welcome to another wonderful season...

I will do as I did, for those that don't like stats - they don't tell the whole story, but they are a decent comparison to other teams and I would like to use it to chart progress over time.

The previous thread illustrated starkly the decline under Bailey and was useful in pointing out how far back we had travelled in contested possessions and clearances.

As is my want I have changed this year's KPI slightly - I have removed the clanger differential in favour of a disposal efficiency total and differential (this will be in percentage terms), and have included a Marks inside 50 differential.

Neither is definitive but the former will allow a slight insight into how we are keeping the footy compared to the opposition (something supposedly important to Neeld from reports) and the latter providing a comparison of how we deliver the ball forward compared to our opponents.

I have added an analysis header so I can add my two cents and shape your thinking...

rpfc

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > 2

BL: 2

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -8

BL: -8

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -12

BL: -12

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 65 (-8)

BL: 65 (-8)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 5 (-10)

BL: 5 (-10)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 119

BL: 119

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 65.5

Analysis

And haven't we started well? Smashed in the clearances, I50s, Marks I50, and disposal efficiency. It was haphazard and meek at times. The only stat to bely that fact were the contested possessions being even.

Edited March 31, 201213 yr by rpfc

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -14.5

BL: 2; WCE: -31

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -26.5

BL: -8; WCE: -45

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -8.5

BL: -12; WCE: -5

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 68 (-7)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 4 (-9.5)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 142.5

BL: 119; WCE: 166

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 47.7

Analysis

Clark, Jones, and Magner. Everything else was pretty bad - contested possies and inside 50s especially 'noteworthy'...

Thanks for the effort mate, it is interesting (and disheartening) to see how badly we have started this season. Hopefully we get a win against the Tigers this week.

That contested possession differential stat is a poor one, considering it was our focus for the pre-season.

Can you also do one for tackles? David King has this theory that if you win the tackle count, the contested possessions and the disposal efficiency,

you win 96% of your matches.

Thanks rpfc but now i need a mercendol to quell the heartbreak of how the last 4-5 years did not work.

But training at the junction antique shop for 25 years is a large part of it, i have no doubt.

Thanks rpfc but now i need a mercendol to quell the heartbreak of how the last 4-5 years did not work.

But training at the junction antique shop for 25 years is a large part of it, i have no doubt.

Hmmm I dont think that is an excuse for our current list!!! They remind me of mice running around on their wheels!! Backwards.

Thanks for the depressing insight rpfc!!!! It breaks my heart everytime I think back to how competitive we were in 2010!!

Hmmm I dont think that is an excuse for our current list!!! They remind me of mice running around on their wheels!! Backwards.

Thanks for the depressing insight rpfc!!!! It breaks my heart everytime I think back to how competitive we were in 2010!!

It is not the total reason HG, but i still believe it put us right back years. Thankfully AAMI Park has been built along with Casey. But our senior list all grew up at the junction and i think it still shows today.

It is not the total reason HG, but i still believe it put us right back years. Thankfully AAMI Park has been built along with Casey. But our senior list all grew up at the junction and i think it still shows today.

Everything is just depressing isnt it. Why wouldnt the players take it among theirselves to do the extra work instead of using juction oval as an excuse. It drives me that this club is so weak!! I feel for you older generation who have witnessed more floggings than some of us, you are all strong people. How can a sport, a club, make me so angry!!!

Everything is just depressing isnt it. Why wouldnt the players take it among theirselves to do the extra work instead of using juction oval as an excuse. It drives me that this club is so weak!! I feel for you older generation who have witnessed more floggings than some of us, you are all strong people. How can a sport, a club, make me so angry!!!

Geelong found the fire in 2007 & burnt the Handbag. The MFC can do it too as long as we have not left it too late.

That is my biggest concern. Players need to seriously eyeball one another this year. Because if the 2 new teams (i refuse to call them clubs) overtake us then i fear the survival of the MFC.

I want the club to prove me wrong.

Geelong found the fire in 2007 & burnt the Handbag. The MFC can do it too as long as we have not left it too late.

That is my biggest concern. Players need to seriously eyeball one another this year. Because if the 2 new teams (i refuse to call them clubs) overtake us then i fear the survival of the MFC.

I want the club to prove me wrong.

Yeah but Geelong also put up a lot more sooner than we have - thats why its so frustrating to hear peoples excuses.

2004 - Made Wizard Cup grand final - finished 4th in AFL season - Made a pre-lim I think.

2005 - Finished 6th - Was it the pre-lim they lost to Sydney this year?

2006 - Finished 10th but won the NAB cup.

2007 - onwards the onslaught began.

I guess my point is they were well on their way before 2007 after their draft picks and after all of our top draft picks we are still at the bottom. Frustrating!

Edited April 9, 201213 yr by Hells Gates

Yeah but Geelong also put up a lot more sooner than we have - thats why its so frustrating to hear peoples excuses.

2004 - Made Wizard Cup grand final - finished 4th in AFL season - Made a pre-lim I think.

2005 - Finished 6th - Was it the pre-lim they lost to Sydney this year?

2006 - Finished 10th but won the NAB cup.

2007 - onwards the onslaught began.

I guess my point is they were well on their way before 2007 after their draft picks and after all of our top draft picks we are still at the bottom. Frustrating!

I don't expect miracles this year, but when James Magner is our best player 2 weeks running, that spells trouble. People will not attend matches if we are served rubbish. The cost of living is to high.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -14.3

BL: 2; WCE: -31; Rich: -14

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -29.3

BL: -8; WCE: -45; Rich: -35

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -11.7

BL: -12; WCE: -5; Rich: -18

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 67.3 (-8.3)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6); Rich: 66 (-11)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 6.3 (-7)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9); Rich: 14 (-2)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 139.3

BL: 119; WCE: 166; Rich: 133

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 50.2

Analysis

Ah, wow. In many respects Richmond tore us up more than WCE in Perth...

That must cause alarm surely?

The KPIs above illustrate a decline in Bailey's last year that was mild compared to what we are seeing now.

It takes a severely disinterested midfield to allow 30 more Inside 50s than their opponents...

BBBRPFC?

Awesome stuff rpfc. Clearly highlights just how bad the midfield group is performing, and in turn the pressure it puts on the backline and the lack of opportunity for the forwards. Our forwards seem to be converting opportunities when they get them. And considering how many times the ball is inside our backline the lads down there dont have much hope do they.theres been dramatic drop in midfield intensity from 2010 to 2012. This has to be addressed as priority.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -11.8

BL: 2; WCE: -31; Rich: -14; WB: -4

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -23

BL: -8; WCE: -45; Rich: -35; WB: -4

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -7

BL: -12; WCE: -5; Rich: -18; WB: 7

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 65.8 (-9.5)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6); Rich: 66 (-11); WB: 61 (-13)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 8 (-3.8)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9); Rich: 14 (-2); WB: 10 (6)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 126.5

BL: 119; WCE: 166; Rich: 133; WB: 88

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 54.7

Analysis

Ok, here we go. This was, statistically, a very good week.

In all areas bar one - disposal efficiency. 61% is abysmal and I understand that we kick it to contests more under Neeld but to me it means, with our low possession counts, that we kick it less and miss more targets - compounding our issues.

I think Neeld touched on this in his presser.

But the good signs are there, and I am happy to see improvement in this game on our average I50s and Contested Possies from last year, and a great effort in the clearances against a team that is just a midfield.

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -8.4

BL: 2; WCE: -31; Rich: -14; WB: -4; StK: 5

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -22.8

BL: -8; WCE: -45; Rich: -35; WB: -4; StK: -22

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -4

BL: -12; WCE: -5; Rich: -18; WB: 7; StK: 8

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 64.8 (-9.2)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6); Rich: 66 (-11); WB: 61 (-13); StK: 61 (-8)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 7 (-4.6)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9); Rich: 14 (-2); WB: 10 (6); StK: 3 (-8)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 118

BL: 119; WCE: 166; Rich: 133; WB: 88; StK: 84

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 55.3

Analysis

Well, we won the overall possies! Which, coupled with the low total (330) tells me Watters and Neeld have a very similar style of long kicks to cover ground.

However, this leads into an issue we have had for the whole year - our disposal efficiency looks awful. It is a misleading stat DE, but whatever measurement of kicking it critiques - we are well behind our opponents...

Clearances and contested footy were great the whole game but while being in front of the I50s at half time we let in 66 (19 apparently in the last qtr) and were beaten by 22!

So hit targets and keep up the defensive pressure ALL game and we won't be far off a win.

Not this week though, no one simply walks into Mordor and takes 4 points...

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -6.8

BL: 2; WCE: -31; Rich: -14; WB: -4; StK: 5; Geel: 1

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -21.7

BL: -8; WCE: -45; Rich: -35; WB: -4; StK: -22; Geel: -16

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -4.5

BL: -12; WCE: -5; Rich: -18; WB: 7; StK: 8; Geel: -7

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 66.2 (-9)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6); Rich: 66 (-11); WB: 61 (-13); StK: 61 (-8); Geel: 73 (-8)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 7.5 (-5.2)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9); Rich: 14 (-2); WB: 10 (6); StK: 3 (-8); Geel: 10 (-8)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 118.2

BL: 119; WCE: 166; Rich: 133; WB: 88; StK: 84; Geel: 119

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 59.1

Analysis

Ok, well a few on here didn't like what they saw down in Mordor but that is them putting aside the fact that we are not a very good team at the minute. Lost the clearances and the I50s, and were beaten with marks inside 50.

BUT we won the contested footy count against a very solid team in their stomping ground - not something to be sneezed at in our current plight.

For the record - we lost the contested possessions by 48 in THAT game last year...

rpfc, can I say I really enjoy seeing this statistical side of things each week. Thank you for the effort.

Really think we're going in the right direction.

To me at the moment, its one step back for a lot of steps forward hopefully.

I'm interested in these stats. Given the style we are playing we should win the contested possession count more often than not. The inside 50s are a result of the midfield.

I look forward to seeing how these stats progress over the season. Also, once we start winning a few games, to see how the stats look then.

Thanks rpfc.

Did Geelong really go at 81%?

Interesting to see all these stats. Disposal efficiency and it's differential. I'm hoping the team to finish on the positive side of the ledger soon !

At present all these important parameters confirm we're not a very good side.

Much work to do to make us the hardest side to play against. Should be satisfying to transform a team from the bottom up.

Good thread rpfc.

Thanks rpfc.

Did Geelong really go at 81%?

Yeah, but I don't know how they determine 'efficient disposal' but whatever the measure - we are behind everyone we play...

Maybe it is affected by the way we play - hitting more contests, kicking long, etc...

But we played a similar game to St Kilda under Watters and they still outshone us in DE.

The inside 50s are a result of the midfield.

Mids and forwards - we still have trouble keeping it in our half and the forwards have a role in this of course.

Edited May 6, 201213 yr by rpfc

KPI

Contested Possession Differential

2010 > -1.2

2011 > -5.5

2012 > -13.3

BL: 2; WCE: -31; Rich: -14; WB: -4; StK: 5; Geel: 1; Haw: -52

Inside 50 Differential

2010 > -7.2

2011 > -6.2

2012 > -22.6

BL: -8; WCE: -45; Rich: -35; WB: -4; StK: -22; Geel: -16; Haw: -28

Clearance Differential

2010 > -2

2011 > -2.8

2012 > -6.4

BL: -12; WCE: -5; Rich: -18; WB: 7; StK: 8; Geel: -7; Haw: -18

Disposal Efficiency (%) & Differential (%)

2011 > ???

2012 > 66.4 (-8.1)

BL: 65 (-8); WCE: 71 (-6); Rich: 66 (-11); WB: 61 (-13); StK: 61 (-8); Geel: 73 (-8); Haw: 68 (-3)

Marks Inside 50 Average & Differential

2011 > ???

2012 > 7.9 (-5.6)

BL: 5 (-10); WCE: 3 (-9); Rich: 14 (-2); WB: 10 (6); StK: 3 (-8); Geel: 10 (-8); Haw: 10 (-8)

Scores Against average

2010 > 89.6

2011 > 105

2012 > 117.7

BL: 119; WCE: 166; Rich: 133; WB: 88; StK: 84; Geel: 119; Haw: 115

Percentage

2010 > 94.5

2011 > 85.3

2012 > 56.8

Analysis

Horrible stuff in here. Horrible. Nearing the 186 levels of domination and helplessness.

Not much to say - smashed in all areas even with Hawthorn's DE being near ours.

An outlier game under Neeld?

I don't know? The stats don't tell the future...

The fun has completely been sucked out of following the MFC.

Every year we take a huge predictable backward step against Hawthorn.

Monotonous, uninspiring, boring and completely irrelevant. That's our club post '06. It's exhausting to be passionate about this mob.