Following last weeks debacle - in fact the first three games - all talk has been of how far back we have gone. It's been hard to see the positives. Talking to a tiger fan through this week he commented that when he saw the demons come out on to the field his initial response,'hell what a big team.' As the game progressed he became increasing concerned with the number of our talls taking significant marks, Jamar, Seller, Clark, Tom McDonald and Martin and throw in Howe's screamers, Garland, Rivers Frawley and Watts to create the illusion of big guys marking and his anxiety grew. Of course the first half was one story and the second another. I love a marker, but in this day and age we need balance and the tigers speed eventually over ran us. At least one dimesnion of our game may be developing

Well we are short of positives ATM so I'll take this as one....

Following last weeks debacle - in fact the first three games - all talk has been of how far back we have gone. It's been hard to see the positives. Talking to a tiger fan through this week he commented that when he saw the demons come out on to the field his initial response,'hell what a big team.' As the game progressed he became increasing concerned with the number of our talls taking significant marks, Jamar, Seller, Clark, Tom McDonald and Martin and throw in Howe's screamers, Garland, Rivers Frawley and Watts to create the illusion of big guys marking and his anxiety grew. Of course the first half was one story and the second another. I love a marker, but in this day and age we need balance and the tigers speed eventually over ran us. At least one dimesnion of our game may be developing

We were running short of Puff toward the end of Qtrs IMO, & as the game was wearing on, were getting to less & less contests, & chased less as I remember it.

A taller team puts more workload on the mids to run harder both ways, and IMO, we fall short in this area.

It's not a reflection of the talent necessarily, but of the endurance of our Mids & maybe they're desire for the workload?

Great point. My mate and I were following the contested mark tally and the Demons killed the Tigers in this category. I know it doesn't mean much on the scoreboard, but that's definitely one category you'd want to be leading in.

Howe, Watts and Clark, in particular, are strong, athletic and can take a contested mark - you can build a team around that.

3 matches is not enough data to make it meaningful for now but FWIW....

We're ranked 5th (on average) in Contested Marks so far versus the rest of the comp. In comparison to our other stats at the moment , then yep, at first glance we're looking pretty good here.

But one problem is, this stat doesn't tell you "where" those marks have been taken on the field. For example, we might be taking most of them in defense with our defense under such intense pressure every week, having a reasonable backline that defends ok with a fairly high percentage of our "contested mark" stats happening down back. Can't be sure of course. Watching the game with the naked eye i agree it does look like we're doing ok here.

The only stat that tells you where marks in general are taken at this point is "Marks Inside 50". And on that count we're ranked equal last with Gold Coast. Although Sydney aren't doing too badly so far this year and they're ranked equal 2nd last with GWS. So go figure.

Again, i think the source data, although probably quite accurate, isn't robust enough at this early stage. Might be best to revisit this after round 11 when most teams would have played each other at least once. Would be interesting to see along with a few other key stats.

Edited April 22, 201213 yr by Rusty Nails

Our marking is definitely a positive from this year, and has clearly been targetted pre-season, cos it was non-existent for the last 3 years. Brad Miller was our 'marking' player ffs. Now if we can just get more of the ball and not give it to the opposition.........