According to SEN last night, Champion Data have a stat they have been collecting for 3 years on who wins and loses one-on-one contests.

Of 18 teams Geelong is best losing only 17% of one-on-ones.

We'ré next losing only 20%, or in other words when a Melb. player is up against an opponent by himself, in 2014 he wins 80%of the time. Ahead of 16 other teams.

Roos effect was Ox's conclusion and he expressed pride in the result as well as a proud former demon

According to SEN last night, Champion Data have a stat they have been collecting for 3 years on who wins and loses one-on-one contests.

Of 18 teams Geelong is best losing only 17% of one-on-ones.

We'ré next losing only 20%, or in other words when a Melb. player is up against an opponent by himself, in 2014 he wins 80%of the time. Ahead of 16 other teams.

Roos effect was Ox's conclusion and he expressed pride in the result as well as a proud former demon

Sorry, I need clarifcation on this.

They have been collecting htis data over the past 3 years? Given Roos is 9 games in to his tenure, I can't see that this boosted our averages up so much that we are "now" 2nd. Therefore, does this mean some kudos has to go to Neeld/Craig for laying these strong, contested foundations?

Also, I was interested to read that Ox is proud. Considering we have clearly improved, will he acknowledge that the decision makers made the right decision by not accepting his offer for help?

Ox is a former champion of the Club, who was cruelly struck down by injury, and sadly, we didn't get to see the player he should've been. He now works in the media, and pats us on the back when he feels like it, but will sink the boots in at other times. He will always be an ex-Melbourne champion, but he's also added "media personality" to his resume. Of all the "experts" in the media circles these days, I think there are only two people that have both those titles on their resume, and neither of them have been able to juggle both roles for the good of the MFC.

I think Demon17 meant that the stat has been kept annually for the past 3 years, but this particular year we are second. The stat re-sets every year.

According to SEN last night, Champion Data have a stat they have been collecting for 3 years on who wins and loses one-on-one contests.

Of 18 teams Geelong is best losing only 17% of one-on-ones.

We'ré next losing only 20%, or in other words when a Melb. player is up against an opponent by himself, in 2014 he wins 80%of the time. Ahead of 16 other teams.

Roos effect was Ox's conclusion and he expressed pride in the result as well as a proud former demon

Blatantly incorrect.

If you listened to what they said (and you didn't need to listen closely because they repeated it) the remaining 80% is made up of both contests won, and contests resulting in a stalemate, such as when the ball is fumbled out of bounds and the result is neutral.

And that would be one of the reasons for our high numbers - at almost every occasion possible, we go for the boundary, whether in possession, or tackling an opponent over the boundary.

It gives us the opportunity to reset our structures and make sure they hold strong, which is much harder to do in real time.

Yes, you could lose 20% of the time and only win 15% of the time.

I think this stat is just reflective of the style of game we're playing. It does indicate that our opposition is having trouble winning the ball, and that's great, but it doesn't give any indication about how much we are winning the ball.

. He now works in the media, and pats us on the back when he feels like it, but will sink the boots in at other times. He will always be an ex-Melbourne champion, but he's also added "media personality" to his resume. Of all the "experts" in the media circles these days, I think there are only two people that have both those titles on their resume, and neither of them have been able to juggle both roles for the good of the MFC.

No, he pats us on the back when we deserve it; and suggested we were a joke when we were.

What the hell is wrong with that?

What do you want? A bed-time story from Bev O'Connor?

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by TGR

Yes, you could lose 20% of the time and only win 15% of the time.

I think this stat is just reflective of the style of game we're playing. It does indicate that our opposition is having trouble winning the ball, and that's great, but it doesn't give any indication about how much we are winning the ball.

It's actually a similar ethos that we played to under Neeld. Kick long around the boundary and kill the ball over the boundary at every opportunity and re-set. The problem with this under Neeld was that we'd rarely win the throw in stoppage. A similar thing was happening earlier this season under Roos and I think our inability to win the throw in stoppages against GCS and the Swans was a major factor in those loses. Over the last three matches, I haven't seen the stats, but I would imagine that we've improved dramatically in this area. For this, a lot of credit has to go to Mark Jamar, who I had ridden off as finished. Stone and Roos have to take a lot of the credit, as well as the midfielders themselves.

* Damn it. My previously post was lost, but I think this is the crux of what I was saying.