thanks rpfc. as to yty i agree it's an improvement but still different degrees of pathetic

2014 is also a year of two halves, real promise in the first half, going backwards in the second half

anyway, for those interested i summarised your last 4 years stats side by side for an easier reading

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -12.1 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -41 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

thanks rpfc. as to yty i agree it's an improvement but still different degrees of pathetic

2014 is also a year of two halves, real promise in the first half, going backwards in the second half

anyway, for those interested i summarised your last 4 years stats side by side for an easier reading

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -12.1 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -41 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

You are more patient than me with doing that, well done.

As for what it all means - maybe not much, but the improvement that I saw in CP and UP are reflected in these stats and if they continue like this we might even be a middling team next year...

Edited December 16, 201410 yr by rpfc

You're saying that we shouldnt bother including 2011 and 2012 in the analaysis because the turnover has been too significant.

Yet, you (and Rfpc) are comparing 2013 and 2014. Whats the difference? Between 2013-14 there was a massive turnover of both coaches and players. By your argument we shouldnt even be discussing this topic.

to state the unbelievably obvious, with every additional year you go back in time you find a side that less resembles the current side, and its relevance to 2015 decreases accordingly. With certain 'jumps' such as a change of coach, there is a disproportionate, non-linear degree of change and a corresponding jump in irrelevance

if you are saying the difference between [MFC 2011 and MFC 2015] is the same as [MFC 2014 and MFC 2015] then we have nothing more to discuss

I would have thought it perfectly logical and self-explanatory that the OP and myself started an analysis with the beginning of Roos' tenure.. but I guess the response from some is typical of Pedantland

there are 13 players left from Bailey's 2011 side. 6 of them played under 10 games that year. If anyone argues that is even worth discussing from a 2015 perspective, then I give up

thanks rpfc. as to yty i agree it's an improvement but still different degrees of pathetic

2014 is also a year of two halves, real promise in the first half, going backwards in the second half

anyway, for those interested i summarised your last 4 years stats side by side for an easier reading

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -12.1 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -41 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

Sooooooooo ...

After falling in a massive hole in 2012 & 2013, we're roughly (very roughly) back to where we were in 2011.

I'll take that.

thanks rpfc. as to yty i agree it's an improvement but still different degrees of pathetic

2014 is also a year of two halves, real promise in the first half, going backwards in the second half

anyway, for those interested i summarised your last 4 years stats side by side for an easier reading

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -12.1 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -41 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

There is a mistake in 2012 - the CPs and UPs are swapped around.

thanks rpfc. as to yty i agree it's an improvement but still different degrees of pathetic

2014 is also a year of two halves, real promise in the first half, going backwards in the second half

anyway, for those interested i summarised your last 4 years stats side by side for an easier reading

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -12.1 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -41 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

Comparing 2011 (Bailey) with 2014 (Roos) and then looking at the two years when Neeld was involved it says more about Neeld than Roos.

There is a mistake in 2012 - the CPs and UPs are swapped around.

here is the updated table

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -41 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -12.1 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

to state the unbelievably obvious, with every additional year you go back in time you find a side that less resembles the current side, and its relevance to 2015 decreases accordingly. With certain 'jumps' such as a change of coach, there is a disproportionate, non-linear degree of change and a corresponding jump in irrelevance

if you are saying the difference between [MFC 2011 and MFC 2015] is the same as [MFC 2014 and MFC 2015] then we have nothing more to discuss

I would have thought it perfectly logical and self-explanatory that the OP and myself started an analysis with the beginning of Roos' tenure.. but I guess the response from some is typical of Pedantland

there are 13 players left from Bailey's 2011 side. 6 of them played under 10 games that year. If anyone argues that is even worth discussing from a 2015 perspective, then I give up

You seem to have taken my post very personally.

It was not intended that way and I understand after re-reading that it may have been interpreted that way. I'm sorry I should have worded it a bit better.

I can see your point. However I fail to see why you are jumping down people's throats in an off season discussion. If others want to talk about previous years then why stop them?

You can only compare one year from the last, even in business they only compare the current year with the last to show a loss or profit, there is no point in comparison for t more than that, because things in life change so much from one year to the next, so comparing the current year with three years ago is pointless.

So...I couldn't help myself, but got stuck into the stats as well. I'm looked at our 2014 comparison to the benchmark (Hawthorn) and how far off the mark we are. I then looked at the additions in players and picked a *rough* 22 and then did another comparison to see where any improvement has come from.

Stats looked at were: CP, I50s, Goals, Behinds

Best 22* used as the analysis in no particular order:

B: McDonald, Dunn, Garland, Grimes, Frost, Lumumba

C: Jamar, Jones, Tyson, Vince, Viney, Cross

F: Hogan**, Garlett, Watts, Salem***, Howe, Dawes

Int: Newton****, Kent, Jetta, Pederson

Melbourne as a whole list vs Hawthorn as a whole list in 2014 were:

CP: -12.6

I50: -14.9

G: -8.1

B: -2.6

By adding in Frost, Lumumba, Garlett, Newton and Hogan

Subtracting Frawley, Bail, M.Jones, JKH and Gawn

Using 2014 averages, predicted 2015 differential vs Hawthorn ends up being:

CP: -15.2

I50: -15.2

G: -6.9

B: -2.2

Analysis of results:

Going on goals and behinds alone, and although its an improvement, it still puts us 2nd last.

Now, if we focus on the CP. From 2013 to 2014, we closed in to Hawthorn by 5.9 CP. If we managed to continue this trend down from -12.6 (2014) to say -6.6 (hopefully 2015), this will have us sitting around 10th in the competition. CP is highly correlated to I50s (0.77) and I50s is highly correlated to Goals (0.88).

And to state the bleeding obvious, we need to increase our CPs.

Conclusion:

Again, stating the obvious, I think our fortunes for 2015 rests on our midfielders. We need to bridge the gap of the CPs. If our midfield is able to bridge that gap in CPs we'll see a huge improvement. Our hopes lie with Tyson, Vince, Viney, Cross, Jones, Salem, Newton, M.Jones, Toumpas, Brayshaw, Petracca, Riley.

For the statisticians out there, I didn't bother doing a regression or multiple regression, because well, I couldn't be bothered.

* Understand this 22 is a bit "top heavy". It is only an indicative.

** Jesse Hogan was assigned: 5.8 CP (best 22 avg), 2 I50s (stab in the dark), 2 Goals (stab in the dark) and 1 behind(stab in the dark).

*** Understand that Salem was sub for a lot of the games this year.

**** Newton 50/50 on whether he'll be in best 22.

Stats lies and Dam lies

Stats lies and Dam lies

5-10 years for Murdering of a Quote.

2 years with an early plea.

Stats are not the truth, but that is always subjective...

There is value in some stats and that is what we are discussing here; where the value lies.

You seem to have taken my post very personally.

It was not intended that way and I understand after re-reading that it may have been interpreted that way. I'm sorry I should have worded it a bit better.

I can see your point. However I fail to see why you are jumping down people's throats in an off season discussion. If others want to talk about previous years then why stop them?

It's all he's good at UTAH, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Cheers to those putting forward the stats - it gives us a bit more info and confirmation that we are heading back in the right direction after wandering around in the wilderness in '12 and '13. There is still plenty of hard work to be done, and it would be great to see some pluses to replace the negatives, but it's proof that Roos is turning things around.

That our (negative) average margin shrank so dramatically is obviously the story of the season.

That has been overshadowed a bit by the fact that we managed to go even lower with our own scoring.

But it is a testament to the new game style, and real progress, that the average score against us was almost exactly the overall average for AFL.

Teams wont come into games against us expecting to score freely. And in time, it means fans wont come into games against us talking about 'percentage boosters' every time.

here is the updated table

2011, 2012 2013, 2014 Differentials

Clearances: -2.3 -6.2 -9.7 -4.8

Inside 50s : -6.1 -11 -18 -11.6

UPs: -5.5 -41 -56.7 -6.5

CPs: -10.8 -12.1 -23.5 -1.5

Margin: -15.5 - 34.6 -56.2 -28.1

Qs won 30 23 20 30

The CP line is arguably the most interesting. For a 17th place side to almost break even in contested ball says a lot about the Roos brand.

Edited December 20, 201410 yr by P-man

to state the unbelievably obvious, with every additional year you go back in time you find a side that less resembles the current side, and its relevance to 2015 decreases accordingly. With certain 'jumps' such as a change of coach, there is a disproportionate, non-linear degree of change and a corresponding jump in irrelevance

if you are saying the difference between [MFC 2011 and MFC 2015] is the same as [MFC 2014 and MFC 2015] then we have nothing more to discuss

I would have thought it perfectly logical and self-explanatory that the OP and myself started an analysis with the beginning of Roos' tenure.. but I guess the response from some is typical of Pedantland

there are 13 players left from Bailey's 2011 side. 6 of them played under 10 games that year. If anyone argues that is even worth discussing from a 2015 perspective, then I give up

Hey C & B I like going back through the stat's to 2011.

I understand where you are coming from about them being irrelevant to the players in the team now but they do provide a direct comparison of how the team as a whole is going compared to the rest of the competition. This gives us a bit of a comparison of the regimes of Bailey, Neeld and Roos compared statistically to their place in the whole competition. What have the new coach and turnover in players done for the overall performance of the team.

It shows you statistically how badly they performed under Neeld and that against the rest of the Comp we aren't even back to where we were under Bailey. It's amazing to think that Bailey's mantra in 2011 was to fix the I50 differential and here we are 4 seasons later and the differential is still nearly twice as bad as when he said that.

The ground work is obviously being laid in that CP's are the best they've been. Hopefully next year with a further enhanced midfield and finally some forward targets in Hogan, a fit Dawes, maybe a competitive Fitzpatrick, Pedersen, Garlett, Petracca, maybe even Howe, etc etc they start to be able to utilise this to go into attack and fix the I50's differential. Interestingly Roosy said at some stage this year that I50's differentials are overrated. But that's coming from a fanatically defensive coach who's game plan blocks the effectiveness of opposition I50's.

Interesting thread rpfc