I know sometimes far too much can be read into stats, but here are some that I think go towards explaining our current plight.

We are LAST in disposals and handballs, tackles and clearances

Second last in contested possessions - tigers behind us.

Third last in one percenters, with Richmond next and surprisingly at least as a follow on from 2011, Collingwood.

Is we can't get the ball and won't tackle or clear no wonder we are in trouble. I am sure Neeld et al are well aware of this and working on it.

One stat I would be interested in but cannot find is goals per inside 50, which is what prompted me to search stats.......I would suspect that we are pretty well up the ladder on that, but don't know where to find it.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by monoccular

I know sometimes far too much can be read into stats, but here are some that I think go towards explaining our current plight.

We are LAST in disposals and handballs, tackles and clearances

Second last in contested possessions - tigers behind us.

Third last in one percenters, with Richmond next and surprisingly at least as a follow on from 2011, Collingwood.

Is we can't get the ball and won't tackle or clear no wonder we are in trouble. I am sure Neeld et al are well aware of this and working on it.

One stat I would be interested in but cannot find is goals per inside 50, which is what prompted me to search stats.......I would suspect that we are pretty well up the ladder on that, but don't know where to find it.

Is that supposed to be inside 50's per goal? Goals per inside 50's would be less than 0 and a lengthy decimal to boot.

Could you not just add up our inside 50s and divide by our number of goals?

Edit: 110 Inside 50s / 31 goals = 3.5484 inside 50s per goal.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by mrtwister

Thanks

I could do that if I could find the inside 50s, but I also thought that there was a site that had this specifically.

Is that supposed to be inside 50's per goal? Goals per inside 50's would be less than 0 and a lengthy decimal to boot.

Could you not just add up our inside 50s and divide by our number of goals?

No, Goals per inside 50 could not be less than 0. It could be (and is ) less than one (31/110= 0.28).

WCE - 199/69=2.884 per goal*

Carlton - 188/51=3.686 per goal

Swans - 177/44=4.023 per goal*

Essendon - 186/45=4.133 per goal*

St Kilda - 145/49=2.959 per goal*

Kangaroos - 194/63=3.079 per goal*

Hawks - 164/54=3.037 per goal

Crows - 171/42=4.071 per goal*

Top 8

* - played GCS or GWS

No, Goals per inside 50 could not be less than 0. It could be (and is ) less than one (31/110= 0.28).

LOL. That's what I meant to say. :wacko:

WCE - 199/69=2.884 per goal*

Carlton - 188/51=3.686 per goal

Swans - 177/44=4.023 per goal*

Essendon - 186/45=4.133 per goal*

St Kilda - 145/49=2.959 per goal*

Kangaroos - 194/63=3.079 per goal*

Hawks - 164/54=3.037 per goal

Crows - 171/42=4.071 per goal*

Top 8

* - played GCS or GWS

Thanks - where did you source this? And I did mean inside 50s per goal.

We presumably feature somewhere in the next ten?!

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by monoccular

Thanks

We presumably feature somewhere in the next ten?!

Sorry, that's the top 8 in terms of the ladder, not ranked by inside 50/goal ratio. I assume we would be up there as far as 'losing' teams go.

Bulldogs - 154/26=5.923 per goal.

Sorted by i50 below -- Sorted by GPi50

LP CLB i50 GS GPi50 -- LP CLB i50 GS GPi50

=================== -- ===================

01 WCE 199 69 (.35) -- 01 WCE 199 69 (.35)

06 KAN 194 63 (.32) -- 05 STK 145 49 (.34)

02 CAR 188 59 (.27) -- 07 HAW 164 54 (.33)

04 ESS 186 45 (.24) -- 06 KAN 194 63 (.32)

03 SYD 177 44 (.25) -- 11 GEE 162 45 (.28)

08 ADE 171 42 (.25) -- 12 PAD 134 38 (.28)

07 HAW 164 54 (.33) -- 17 MEL 110 31 (.28)

11 GEE 162 45 (.28) -- 02 CAR 188 59 (.27)

10 RCH 160 40 (.25) -- 14 BRS 117 31 (.26)

09 FRE 156 36 (.23) -- 13 COL 150 37 (.25)

15 WBD 154 26 (.17) -- 10 RCH 160 40 (.25)

13 COL 150 37 (.25) -- 03 SYD 177 44 (.25)

05 STK 145 49 (.34) -- 08 ADE 171 42 (.25)

12 PAD 134 38 (.28) -- 16 SUN 127 30 (.24)

16 SUN 127 30 (.24) -- 04 ESS 186 45 (.24)

14 BRS 117 31 (.26) -- 09 FRE 156 36 (.23)

18 GWS 114 23 (.20) -- 18 GWS 114 23 (.20)

17 MEL 110 31 (.28) -- 15 WBD 154 26 (.17)

Orders within groups on GPi50 sorting may not be accurate re manual rounding.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by Trident

Sorted by i50 below -- Sorted by GPi50

LP CLB i50 GS GPi50 -- LP CLB i50 GS GPi50

=================== -- ===================

01 WCE 199 69 (.35) -- 01 WCE 199 69 (.35)

06 KAN 194 63 (.32) -- 05 STK 145 49 (.34)

02 CAR 188 59 (.27) -- 07 HAW 164 54 (.33)

04 ESS 186 45 (.24) -- 06 KAN 194 63 (.32)

03 SYD 177 44 (.25) -- 11 GEE 162 45 (.28)

08 ADE 171 42 (.25) -- 12 PAD 134 38 (.28)

07 HAW 164 54 (.33) -- 17 MEL 110 31 (.28)

11 GEE 162 45 (.28) -- 02 CAR 188 59 (.27)

10 RCH 160 40 (.25) -- 14 BRS 117 31 (.26)

09 FRE 156 36 (.23) -- 13 COL 150 37 (.25)

15 WBD 154 26 (.17) -- 10 RCH 160 40 (.25)

13 COL 150 37 (.25) -- 03 SYD 177 44 (.25)

05 STK 145 49 (.34) -- 08 ADE 171 42 (.25)

12 PAD 134 38 (.28) -- 16 SUN 127 30 (.24)

16 SUN 127 30 (.24) -- 04 ESS 186 45 (.24)

14 BRS 117 31 (.26) -- 09 FRE 156 36 (.23)

18 GWS 114 23 (.20) -- 18 GWS 114 23 (.20)

17 MEL 110 31 (.28) -- 15 WBD 154 26 (.17)

Orders within groups on GPi50 sorting may not be accurate re manual rounding.

So it appears, surprise surprise, we dont have enough inside 50s. Gee who would have thought that

This season thus far, Dustin Fletcher has averaged a mere 2 less disposals a game than Trengove

Thanks - where did you source this? And I did mean inside 50s per goal.

We presumably feature somewhere in the next ten?!

I just added up the i50s and goals from the Match Centre on afl.com.au.........

Sorted by i50 below -- Sorted by GPi50

LP CLB i50 GS GPi50 -- LP CLB i50 GS GPi50

=================== -- ===================

01 WCE 199 69 (.35) -- 01 WCE 199 69 (.35)

06 KAN 194 63 (.32) -- 05 STK 145 49 (.34)

02 CAR 188 59 (.27) -- 07 HAW 164 54 (.33)

04 ESS 186 45 (.24) -- 06 KAN 194 63 (.32)

03 SYD 177 44 (.25) -- 11 GEE 162 45 (.28)

08 ADE 171 42 (.25) -- 12 PAD 134 38 (.28)

07 HAW 164 54 (.33) -- 17 MEL 110 31 (.28)

11 GEE 162 45 (.28) -- 02 CAR 188 59 (.27)

10 RCH 160 40 (.25) -- 14 BRS 117 31 (.26)

09 FRE 156 36 (.23) -- 13 COL 150 37 (.25)

15 WBD 154 26 (.17) -- 10 RCH 160 40 (.25)

13 COL 150 37 (.25) -- 03 SYD 177 44 (.25)

05 STK 145 49 (.34) -- 08 ADE 171 42 (.25)

12 PAD 134 38 (.28) -- 16 SUN 127 30 (.24)

16 SUN 127 30 (.24) -- 04 ESS 186 45 (.24)

14 BRS 117 31 (.26) -- 09 FRE 156 36 (.23)

18 GWS 114 23 (.20) -- 18 GWS 114 23 (.20)

17 MEL 110 31 (.28) -- 15 WBD 154 26 (.17)

Orders within groups on GPi50 sorting may not be accurate re manual rounding.

....but this seems much more professional.

I don't know where to find this stuff.

Edited April 18, 201213 yr by mrtwister

I don't know where to find this stuff.

I used the afl stats pages (http://www.afl.com.a....aspx#page=team) which has improved a bit over the years, then manually crunched the numbers. Be sure to click the More Stats option (to the right of the season, round and match drop-downs) to de/select the stats you dont/do want to see. Note that the maximum of 12 stats displayed is also the default number selected. Therefore you have to start by removing existing stats before you can add your own.

We are LAST in disposals and handballs, tackles and clearances

Second last in contested possessions - tigers behind us.

Not sure where that's coming from, according to http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/best-laid-plans-20120418-1x7n9.html, we have the highest contested possessions in the league (45.7%) - also, second highest kick:handball ratio, which is why overall possessions are down.

Do they still have that old "Distance gained per possession" stat? I'd be interested in seeing that.

I'd be interested to see some 'time in possession' stats.

Thanks to all who have helped here

My main poin of interest, at least at this stage, was that our conversion rate, per inside 50, is actually pretty good. Appears to be equal 5th in the competition, which may indicate that our forwards are performing up to par.

Now were the HBs and the mids to deliver more inside 50s then we may well be in with a chance.