Two interesting points from these stats. The huge difference between the top 15 teams i50 differential and the last 3 teams. We have a mountain to climb to get back into the other 15 teams. Interesting to see the teams that are much higher on the scorers ladder than the i50 ladder. Would be interesting to see stat's to see whether this differential is caused by those teams scoring more from the midfield or having stronger power forwards. Collingwood for instance has a much higher i50 rate than it's scoring rate. So having one of the premium power forwards in Cloke hasn't helped them. Perhaps because there is so little support around him. Would also be interesting to see a ladder of i50 targets and their teams. Would give an idea of how much some teams score on a spread and how some score going to power forwards. We are obviously going to be a team with 3 power forwards so you'd expect our stat's to be more concentrated than say even a Freo who really only has Pav as a power forward. Until they get Hogan, perhaps.

It's an interesting one - Collingwood's inside 50 rate is a product of the forward press, which emphasizes cutting off opponent's rebound efforts and firing the ball straight back in. Results in a lot of back and forth across the 50 line, and neither side gets clean breaks so much - it's disposal heavy, handball heavy, and results in a lot of snap shots on goal.

In that context, Cloke's 4.5 marks inside 50 a game are a priceless component, and in fact his (comparatively) accurate kicking at goal is about the only thing keeping their goal accuracy above 50%! It tells the story a bit that their next most 'prolific' goal scorer is #$%$ Jamie Elliot, who has a serious talent for putting through the opportunistic goals with surprising accuracy.

It's an interesting one - Collingwood's inside 50 rate is a product of the forward press, which emphasizes cutting off opponent's rebound efforts and firing the ball straight back in. Results in a lot of back and forth across the 50 line, and neither side gets clean breaks so much - it's disposal heavy, handball heavy, and results in a lot of snap shots on goal.

In that context, Cloke's 4.5 marks inside 50 a game are a priceless component, and in fact his (comparatively) accurate kicking at goal is about the only thing keeping their goal accuracy above 50%! It tells the story a bit that their next most 'prolific' goal scorer is #$%$ Jamie Elliot, who has a serious talent for putting through the opportunistic goals with surprising accuracy.

Very interesting. Just shows how stat's only tell part of the story. The understanding of them is everything. I love stat's and good un ya C & B for putting this thread up, not sure why people have to get so personal about the interpretation. It's all interesting as far as I'm concerned.

Two interesting points from these stats. The huge difference between the top 15 teams i50 differential and the last 3 teams. We have a mountain to climb to get back into the other 15 teams. Interesting to see the teams that are much higher on the scorers ladder than the i50 ladder. Would be interesting to see stat's to see whether this differential is caused by those teams scoring more from the midfield or having stronger power forwards. Collingwood for instance has a much higher i50 rate than it's scoring rate. So having one of the premium power forwards in Cloke hasn't helped them. Perhaps because there is so little support around him. Would also be interesting to see a ladder of i50 targets and their teams. Would give an idea of how much some teams score on a spread and how some score going to power forwards. We are obviously going to be a team with 3 power forwards so you'd expect our stat's to be more concentrated than say even a Freo who really only has Pav as a power forward. Until they get Hogan, perhaps.

I wouldnt have though that winning an extra 14 contested situations/stoppages and therefore going inside 50 an extra 14 times across a whole match is that big of a gulf

Very interesting. Just shows how stat's only tell part of the story. The understanding of them is everything. I love stat's and good un ya C & B for putting this thread up, not sure why people have to get so personal about the interpretation. It's all interesting as far as I'm concerned.

you see this stuie/goffy? this is how you discuss football on a forum

no amount of missing the point with pedantic nitpicking will change the fact that our matches WILL average in 2014 about 100-105 total inside 50s and if we up our portion of those from 40 to low-50s the same amount WILL logically 'fall off' our opponents and the match score will follow. Win more of the finite number of contests, get more of the finite number of disposals, get more of the finite number of i-50s, get more of the finite number of goals

no need to add anything else because the numbers will speak for themselves about 8 weeks from now

look forward to the backpedaling

you see this stuie/goffy? this is how you discuss football on a forum

no amount of missing the point with pedantic nitpicking will change the fact that our matches WILL average in 2014 about 100-105 total inside 50s and if we up our portion of those from 40 to low-50s the same amount WILL logically 'fall off' our opponents and the match score will follow. Win more of the finite number of contests, get more of the finite number of disposals, get more of the finite number of i-50s, get more of the finite number of goals

no need to add anything else because the numbers will speak for themselves about 8 weeks from now

look forward to the backpedaling

The average inside 50s count for our games in 2013 was 98.

So you're already wrong. Again.

And once again PLEASE understand that us getting more inside 50s does NOT mean the other team gets less. We may get 55 inside 50s but in that game there's 115 total.

NOT EVERY GAME GOES TO AVERAGE. THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED AN AVERAGE AND NOT A COMPLETELY RELIABLE OUTCOME FOR EVERY SINGLE GAME.

... if we up our portion of those from 40 to low-50s the same amount WILL logically 'fall off' our opponents and the match score will follow. Win more of the finite number of contests, get more of the finite number of disposals, get more of the finite number of i-50s, get more of the finite number of goals...

I just... I just... is this a joke?

It is almost in the realms of reverse causality. I'm going to try to explain it one more way and see if it helps -

The statistics of a game of football are fixed only at the END of the game.

I think I'm beginning to understand this . Say it often enough and it will become fact.

I just hope you are right C&B although it defies logic. You can make statistics provide any outcome if you manipulate them so I will be interested in the actual figures you use.LG and Stuie are correct The statistics of a game of football are fixed only at the END of the game. NOT EVERY GAME GOES TO AVERAGE. THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED AN AVERAGE AND NOT A COMPLETELY RELIABLE OUTCOME FOR EVERY SINGLE GAME.

But good luck I hope every time you state your theory you will find a response. I will be happy to concede when your theory is proven and we win.