Jump to content

Stats, Stats and damning stats


nutbean

Recommended Posts

I looked at the stats this morning and wasn't surprised that we were beaten in every key indicator (except marks).

I can see the possession count per quarter and there is no surprise that we won the second half. It is also no surprise that we lost all indicators for the entire match as we were very ordinary in first half - I would be very interested to see all the stats ( tackles, contested possessions, inside 50's) from the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter to the end of the game. I suspect we would have been ahead in all of them.

My point is that leading possessions ( especially contested), tackles, marks etc means little unless you take advantage of the supremacy by putting it on the scoreboard. What we did successfully is take advantage of leading the stats in that last part of the game - we took advantage by kicking goals. For the first 2 and half quarters - Essendon didn't.

Edited by nutbean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have, could have buried us early.

But when it's 1.2 to 3.9 you're not really out of it.

Port game - we led in final quarter and only out of it when they snagged a couple of late ones.

Pies QB - still in it 10 min mark final term.

Our last - only pasting - eagles game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely we won the smother count.

Saved a couple of goals?

Gave us a couple.

This stat mattered IMO.

Agree.

If you are pressuring hard enough to execute quite a few smothers it not only impacts that play but has the opposition rushing their next disposals because "the opposition are on, they are throwing themselves across our boots - better dispose a bit quicker"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

  • "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
  • has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

  • "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
  • has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

my brain hurts

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

  • "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
  • has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

Perhaps the distinction is "points against" (69) vs "goals against" (10.8).

69 points against could consist of 0 goals 69 behinds per week, while 10.8 goals against may REQUIRE 10 actual goals, but could equally consist of 10 goals 69 behinds (or any number of behinds, for that matter).

I'm just guessing though, because it's pretty confusing either way.

Edited by Chook
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

  • "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
  • has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

That bothered me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't comment on the fourth v fifth but I wonder of the distinction is in points conceded (which includes rushed behinds) versus opposition scores conceded. Average of 1 point per rushed behind each week sounds conceivable?

Edited by deanox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me the difference in the last two dot points in the blue box in this article?

It says:

  • "fifth best defence, conceding an average 69 points a game
  • has conceded 10.8 goals a game this year - the fourth fewest of any team"

So, we've conceded 69 points but only 10 goals 8 behinds (=68 points) per game or, alternatively if the 10.8 is metric (ie, 10 plus 8 tenths of a goal per game = 64.8 points per game). Either way 68 and 64.8 aren't the same as 69.

And have we conceded the fourth or the fifth fewest goals or points per game?

I think it is your second case, ie it means an average of just under 11 goals per game, not a score of 10.8 = 68 points. I don't see the contradiction; we are ranked fourth for goals against and fifth for overall score against, meaning it is slightly harder to score a goal against us than a point. If you like, we would have still won by a point on Sunday if Essendon had kicked 11.11 or 12.5 (or 9.23 :blink: ) instead of 10.17. All the same total of points, but different number of goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is your second case, ie it means an average of just under 11 goals per game, not a score of 10.8 = 68 points. I don't see the contradiction; we are ranked fourth for goals against and fifth for overall score against, meaning it is slightly harder to score a goal against us than a point. If you like, we would have still won by a point on Sunday if Essendon had kicked 11.11 or 12.5 (or 9.23 :blink: ) instead of 10.17. All the same total of points, but different number of goals.

If you're right (and I think you are), then I have another problem with the stats. If we've conceded an average of 10.8 goals per game (meaning more than 10 but fewer than 11 goals, rather than 10 goals and 8 behinds), then we have conceded an average of 64.8 points per game by way of goals. But if we're only conceding an average of 69 points per game, this would suggest teams are averaging 69 - 64.8 = 4.2 points by way of behinds. And this we know not to be true given the inaccuracy of our opponents.

My brain is now hurting even more. I wish I hadn't started thinking about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've conceded 130 goals in 12 games, which is an average of 10.8 goals a game.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=OA&year=2014&sby=4

As we've had on average a further 14.7 behinds a game kicked against us, making a total of 956 points at a average of 79.67 pts a game, I have no idea were the 69 points stat comes from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've conceded 130 goals in 12 games, which is an average of 10.8 goals a game.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/fts_team_rankings?type=OA&year=2014&sby=4

As we've had on average a further 14.7 behinds a game kicked against us, making a total of 956 points at a average of 79.67 pts a game, I have no idea were the 69 points stat comes from.

Probably a typo. You've answered everything, thanks.

And now my brain no longer has to hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a typo. You've answered everything, thanks.

And now my brain no longer has to hurt.

Glad to hear it. Just to round off mog's analysis (which is spot on IMHO), we have conceded a total of 956 points against, so with 130 goals, that means 956 - 780 = 176 points, or an average of 14,6 per game. So, if you can stand it, our average score against is 10.8 goals, 14.6 behinds total 79.6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


As long as our supporters don't get too upset/surprised when an finally opposition kicks straight and converts. It might get ugly. But 2 ugly games in over half a season we should be able to digest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as our supporters don't get too upset/surprised when an finally opposition kicks straight and converts. It might get ugly. But 2 ugly games in over half a season we should be able to digest.

Roos ethos of "make them kick at goal from difficult spots" has worked a treat. Besides the Eagles game I thought this failed against the dogs in that they did kick goals from difficult spots ! That was the difference at the end of the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    FROZEN by Whispering Jack

    Who would have thought?    Collingwood had a depleted side with several star players out injured, Max Gawn was in stellar form, Christian Petracca at the top of his game and Simon Goodwin was about to pull off a masterstroke in setting Alex Neal-Bullen onto him to do a fantastic job in subduing the Magpies' best player. Goody had his charges primed to respond robustly to the challenge of turning around their disappointing performance against Fremantle in Alice Springs. And if not that, t

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 7

    TURNAROUND by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons won their first game at home this year in the traditional King’s Birthday Weekend clash with Collingwood VFL on Sunday in a dramatic turnaround on recent form that breathed new life into the beleaguered club’s season. The Demons led from the start to record a 52-point victory. It was their highest score and biggest winning margin by far for the 2024 season. Under cloudy but calm conditions for Casey Fields, the home side, wearing the old Springvale guernsey as a mark of res

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    PREGAME: Rd 15 vs North Melbourne

    After two disappointing back to back losses the Demons have the bye in Round 14 and then face perennial cellar dweller North Melbourne at the MCG on Saturday night in Round 15. Who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 241

    PODCAST: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Tuesday, 11th June @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons loss at the MCG against the Magpies in the Round 13 on Kings Birthday. You questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human. L

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 36

    VOTES: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    Captain Max Gawn has a considerable lead over reigning champion Christian Petracca in the Demonland Player of the Year Award. Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jack Viney make up the Top 5. Your votes for the loss against the Magpies. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 41

    POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    Once again inaccuracy and inefficiency going inside 50 rears it's ugly head as the Demons suffered their second loss on the trot and their fourth loss in five games as they go down to the Pies by 38 points on Kings Birthday at the MCG.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 415

    GAMEDAY: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons are once again faced with a classic 8 point game against a traditional rival on King's Birthday at the MCG. A famous victory will see them reclaim a place in the Top 8 whereas a loss will be another blow for their finals credentials.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 941

    BOILED LOLLIES by The Oracle

    In the space of a month Melbourne has gone from chocolates to boiled lollies in terms of its standing as a candidate for the AFL premiership.  The club faces its moment of truth against a badly bruised up Collingwood at the MCG. A win will give it some respite but even then, it won’t be regarded particularly well being against an opponent carrying the burden of an injured playing list. A loss would be a disaster. The Demons have gone from a six/two win/loss ratio and a strong percentag

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews 3

    CLEAN HANDS by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons headed into town and up Sydney Road to take on the lowly Coburg Lions who have been perennial VFL easy beats and sitting on one win for the season. Last year, Casey beat them in a practice match when resting their AFL listed players. That’s how bad they were. Nobody respected them on Saturday and clearly not the Demons who came to the game with 22 players (ten MFC), but whether they came out to play is another matter because for the most part, their intensity was lacking an

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...