We're kidding ourselves!

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We are sub standard AFL defensively

 

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rubbish - we're not as good as the best teams but to say we are "sub-AFL standard" is just hand-wringing.

Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season.

Gonzo that graph actually supports SW's argument that we are defensively sub standard. If we take mid point as AFL average (eg, lets say up to par/pass mark) and lets just say the mid point for a pass/par Is 9th as we have an even number of teams.

The Demons are presently ranked 

 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

*presently ranked.....13th defensively.

Even if we went more conservative and took the par/pass mark as 10th, we are still below/sub par defensively according to that graph.

*Phone drop out grrr!

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rubbish - we're not as good as the best teams but to say we are "sub-AFL standard" is just hand-wringing.

Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season.

Hand wringing i think not. 

3years of teaching and our defence leaks like a Holden HQ Tailgate

it is very concerning. Once the ball is in the hands of the opposition forward of the center circle it's party time for them

been happening all year

Edited May 31, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Hand wringing i think not. 

3years of teaching and defence leak like a Holden HQ Tailgate

it is very concerning. Once the ball is in the hands of the opposition forward of the center circle it's party time for them

been happening all year

For the last 2 years Roos taught the team HOW to play defensively.  Running both ways, pressure etc. 

Now he, and probably Goodwin, Rawlings etc, have changed the actual structure of how we play defensively, and we've found that transition difficult.  It's been more difficult than I think we anticipated, and add to that the change in how we go about our football offensively, and it's not worked out very well... yet.

I have no doubt that the club itself aren't panicking.  They see the problems and the difficulties and are no doubt tweaking and educating the players on what they can do differently to make sure that, over the next few years, that this works.

It might be concerning to you, SWYL, but I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.  If we're still playing like this at this point NEXT year, then I'll share you concerns.

[mo64 5,874]

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hand wringing i think not. 

3years of teaching and our defence leaks like a Holden HQ Tailgate

it is very concerning. Once the ball is in the hands of the opposition forward of the center circle it's party time for them

been happening all year

And we've yet to play 5 out of the top 7 highest scorers this year, aside from ourselves.

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

For the last 2 years Roos taught the team HOW to play defensively.  Running both ways, pressure etc. 

Now he, and probably Goodwin, Rawlings etc, have changed the actual structure of how we play defensively, and we've found that transition difficult.  It's been more difficult than I think we anticipated, and add to that the change in how we go about our football offensively, and it's not worked out very well... yet.

I have no doubt that the club itself aren't panicking.  They see the problems and the difficulties and are no doubt tweaking and educating the players on what they can do differently to make sure that, over the next few years, that this works.

It might be concerning to you, SWYL, but I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.  If we're still playing like this at this point NEXT year, then I'll share you concerns.

The bigger picture is the opposing teams we play. 

I do not see why this stuff cannot be learnt in pre season.

To be playing for Premiership points whilst trying to win membership numbers and $$'s and not have a defensive side to a gameplan is just beyond bizzare. 

Roosy has always backed in defence. 

There is something wrong

"i don't like it. I just don't like it"

(Mr Horse..Ren & Stimpy)

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

The bigger picture is the opposing teams we play. 

I do not see why this stuff cannot be learnt in pre season.

To be playing for Premiership points whilst trying to win membership numbers and $$'s and not have a defensive side to a gameplan is just beyond bizzare. 

Roosy has always backed in defence. 

There is something wrong

"i don't like it. I just don't like it"

(Mr Horse..Ren & Stimpy)

Why does it have to be learned in one pre-season?  Not everything works that way.  Not only have we changed how we play defensively, but that has also impacted on how we play offensively.  For two years we were defence first, second and third.  That's now changed and it's been a rocky start.  There is nothing wrong with that IF we can correct it.  As I said, if we are still struggling at this stage next year then yes, we have some problems.  But we are 10 rounds in to a new game plan.  Sometimes these things need time and, clearly, this is a case of that.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

For the last 2 years Roos taught the team HOW to play defensively.  Running both ways, pressure etc. 

Now he, and probably Goodwin, Rawlings etc, have changed the actual structure of how we play defensively, and we've found that transition difficult.  It's been more difficult than I think we anticipated, and add to that the change in how we go about our football offensively, and it's not worked out very well... yet.

I have no doubt that the club itself aren't panicking.  They see the problems and the difficulties and are no doubt tweaking and educating the players on what they can do differently to make sure that, over the next few years, that this works.

It might be concerning to you, SWYL, but I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.  If we're still playing like this at this point NEXT year, then I'll share you concerns.

I, SWYL and most others on here would rather choose to believe what you have articulated, but we have waited a long time.  Like I have said on other posts, are we that unique, that comparisons to other clubs, with similar lists, doesn't bear scrutiny?

No doubt, Roos inherited a basket case.  That's why the AFL drafted him into the club as coach.  I have no concerns at all with our coaching staff.  My concern is only that the players don't seem, at this stage, to want to buy in 100%.

Whose job is it to make sure that happens or are we going to just rely on a belief that the current list, which Roos has, is still not up to it?

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

Why does it have to be learned in one pre-season?  Not everything works that way.  Not only have we changed how we play defensively, but that has also impacted on how we play offensively.  For two years we were defence first, second and third.  That's now changed and it's been a rocky start.  There is nothing wrong with that IF we can correct it.  As I said, if we are still struggling at this stage next year then yes, we have some problems.  But we are 10 rounds in to a new game plan.  Sometimes these things need time and, clearly, this is a case of that.

Wish i shared your optimism Mr. Blood

this club has spent the last decade learning new gameplans of which none of them have been any good. 

I credit Roos with more ability than that. Something fundamental is not working at all and i will remain concerned because Roosy is out in 3 months and then we have another Rookie coach in charge of a team that leaks like no other club down back...

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

 

Gonzo that graph actually supports SW's argument that we are defensively sub standard. If we take mid point as AFL average (eg, lets say up to par/pass mark) and lets just say the mid point for a pass/par Is 9th as we have an even number of teams.

The Demons are presently ranked 

 

He said we were sub-AFL standard.  We may be sub-premiership standard  (which is the point of the graph) but we are not sub-AFL standard like we were in 2013.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

49 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Why does it have to be learned in one pre-season?  Not everything works that way.  Not only have we changed how we play defensively, but that has also impacted on how we play offensively.  For two years we were defence first, second and third.  That's now changed and it's been a rocky start.  There is nothing wrong with that IF we can correct it.  As I said, if we are still struggling at this stage next year then yes, we have some problems.  But we are 10 rounds in to a new game plan.  Sometimes these things need time and, clearly, this is a case of that.

10 rounds into a new game plan while blooding a number of kids (Petracca, Oliver, Hunt, Wagner as well as Harmes, Stretch and OMac who played a handful of games each last year) and incorporating two new guys in Bugg and Kennedy. That's a large chunk of the team that should have natural development as they grow personally and as a group.

[DemonWA 3,934]

Yep, we're still miles away from being where we'd like.

BUT we're closer than we have been.

Still plenty of frustrations ahead, but will be plenty of good days too

[titan_uranus 25,020]

4 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

*presently ranked.....13th defensively.

Even if we went more conservative and took the par/pass mark as 10th, we are still below/sub par defensively according to that graph.

*Phone drop out grrr!

Not that simple.

That's why there are quadrants. 

The bottom-right quadrant is the bad one - you're conceding a lot and not scoring enough yourself.

In the other three quadrants you can, feasibly, be doing fine. Sure, you might be conceding a lot, but if you're scoring more then you're winning. Same goes if you aren't putting a lot of points on the board. Not an issue if you happen to concede fewer.

Our numbers are something like 105 for and 90-odd against (just reading that graph, anyway). Hence, we have a percentage over 100%, meaning we outscore our opponents on average.

So the fact our defence is 13th on a points-against basis does not necessarily mean we are not good enough.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He said we were sub-AFL standard.  We may be sub-premiership standard  (which is the point of the graph) but we are not sub-AFL standard like we were in 2013.

Again you are mis-quoting him. SWY said we were "sub-standard AFL defensively".

A premiership is the aim of the entire game Gonzo. If we aren't aiming for one we shouldn't be in the AFL. Yes, the graph you presented is a "likely premiership window" graph but it is also an X/Y Defence/Attack variables/ranking/plot graph, which you used in support of where we were ranked offensively (quote "Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season") in your argument against SWY.

There was no mention of this graph (by you) of it being a solely "premiership standard" graph (only!) to support your argument and your reference to the graph highlighted where we are 'ranked' in attack. If  it can be used by you to highlight our 'offensive' (top tier) ranking then there is no reason why it can't equally be applied to highlight where we are ranked defensively. Again, the graph you supplied shows us as ranked 13th in defense which is Sub-standard (vs the rest of the AFL) 'defensively' and, as you argued, above standard or top tier (vs the rest of the AFL) offensively (ranked approx 3rd!).

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Again you are mis-quoting him. SWY said we were "sub-standard AFL defensively".

A premiership is the aim of the entire game Gonzo. If we aren't aiming for one we shouldn't be in the AFL. Yes, the graph you presented is a "likely premiership window" graph but it is also an X/Y Defence/Attack variables/ranking/plot graph, which you used in support of where we were ranked offensively (quote "Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season") in your argument against SWY.

There was no mention of this graph (by you) of it being a solely "premiership standard" graph (only!) to support your argument and your reference to the graph highlighted where we are 'ranked' in attack. If  it can be used by you to highlight our 'offensive' (top tier) ranking then there is no reason why it can't equally be applied to highlight where we are ranked defensively. Again, the graph you supplied shows us as ranked 13th in defense which is Sub-standard (vs the rest of the AFL) 'defensively' and, as you argued, above standard or top tier (vs the rest of the AFL) offensively (ranked approx 3rd!).

We are leaking far too many goals TOO EASILY that is why i say we are AFL sub standard. 

It is the way it is happening that worries me. It is almost like the back 6 are not on the ground. This cannot be any sort of gameplan. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

12 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Not that simple.

That's why there are quadrants. 

The bottom-right quadrant is the bad one - you're conceding a lot and not scoring enough yourself.

In the other three quadrants you can, feasibly, be doing fine. Sure, you might be conceding a lot, but if you're scoring more then you're winning. Same goes if you aren't putting a lot of points on the board. Not an issue if you happen to concede fewer.

Our numbers are something like 105 for and 90-odd against (just reading that graph, anyway). Hence, we have a percentage over 100%, meaning we outscore our opponents on average.

So the fact our defence is 13th on a points-against basis does not necessarily mean we are not good enough.

 

Thanks Titan, but I used it to highlight our defense ranking only (it was meant to remain simple!) as that is what the initial poster was arguing about with SWY and used the graph (that simply!) to highlight our "offensive ranking" in the "top tier" (quote).

Yes i realise it can also be used to plot where teams are at in terms of a "likely" premiership window with the quadrants of standard/not standard etc as you mentioned which is an overlay courtesy of Champion Data. In addition, if the exact numbers were available, you could give an exact differential or % as you say.

But it is/can also be used as a basic scatter plot (X/Y graph) using scoring (for and against) averages per match in any given period to show where teams are ranked vs one another as i did in my response to the poster (X or Y for rankings and/or X&Y together if using the Champion Data premiership window option as is the case with this overlay from Champion).

The nature in which this graph was used by another d'lander in his initial post (not mine) was for the purposes of ranking us offensively vs the rest of the AFL. I did the same but used it to rank our defence. The fact that i put a number on the ranking on the plot does not alter the fact that it can be used to determine our overall (% and/or premiership window) ranking as you say by combining/using both the axis.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

8 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Again you are mis-quoting him. SWY said we were "sub-standard AFL defensively".

A premiership is the aim of the entire game Gonzo. If we aren't aiming for one we shouldn't be in the AFL. Yes, the graph you presented is a "likely premiership window" graph but it is also an X/Y Defence/Attack variables/ranking/plot graph, which you used in support of where we were ranked offensively (quote "Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season") in your argument against SWY.

There was no mention of this graph (by you) of it being a solely "premiership standard" graph (only!) to support your argument and your reference to the graph highlighted where we are 'ranked' in attack. If  it can be used by you to highlight our 'offensive' (top tier) ranking then there is no reason why it can't equally be applied to highlight where we are ranked defensively. Again, the graph you supplied shows us as ranked 13th in defense which is Sub-standard (vs the rest of the AFL) 'defensively' and, as you argued, above standard or top tier (vs the rest of the AFL) offensively (ranked approx 3rd!).

The graph is poduced by Champion Data to show where teams rank in regards to the "premiership standard" (100 pts for, 86 pts against). Also known as the 186 graph which will send shivers down some spines here

We are below premiership standard defensively but we are not "sub-AFL standard" defensively. Of course the premiership is the aim but you have to be realistic too. We are not winning the flag this year and so where we have come from we are doing pretty well all things considered. Could we be doing better? Of course. But we are not sub-AFL standard defensively, if we were we would be plotted on the far right of the graph where Brisbane and Gold Coast are.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We are leaking far too many goals TOO EASILY that is why i say we are AFL sub standard. 

It is the way it is happening that worries me. It is almost like the back 6 are not on the ground. This cannot be any sort of gameplan. 

The plan is to stop or at the very least slow the opposition ball movement coming out of our forward line. Pinging from one end of the ground to the other in <10 seconds won't allow us to defend even if we do go man on man. The problem is with the pressure across half forward and the midfield. Even if the opposition are allowed to move it out of our forward line we should be holding them up on the mark to allow time to get back and defend. This requires a high workrate which we didn't exhibit on the weekend and hence got exposed out the back.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

8 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

The nature in which this graph was used by another d'lander in his initial post (not mine) was for the purposes of ranking us offensively vs the rest of the AFL.

No, I was using it to show where we ranked defensively. I merely commented that offensively it showed we were doing quite well. SWYL said we were sub-AFL standard - I don't take that to mean we are in the bottom half or quartile or whatever of teams but that we are far worse off than the rest of the competition (eg where we were at in 2013). The only real outliers on that graph that you could argue are close to being sub-AFL standard are Carlton, Freo, Essendon, GC & Brisbane. The rest fall within a variable range and while not dominating the competition are certainly performing to AFL standard.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The graph is poduced by Champion Data to show where teams rank in regards to the "premiership standard" (100 pts for, 86 pts against). Also known as the 186 graph which will send shivers down some spines here

We are below premiership standard defensively but we are not "sub-AFL standard" defensively. Of course the premiership is the aim but you have to be realistic too. We are not winning the flag this year and so where we have come from we are doing pretty well all things considered. Could we be doing better? Of course. But we are not sub-AFL standard defensively, if we were we would be plotted on the far right of the graph where Brisbane and Gold Coast are.

I know what the graph is and it is also referred to as the "Hot Plot" graph. It was produced by Champion Data and initially used by Foxtel to highlight where teams were at, supposedly in a premiership window sense. This side of the graph (premiership window champion data hot plot overlay) can also be argued against and has.....see link below....

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/05/19/debunking-the-afl-premiership-indicator/

You can dress it up as much as you like but the X Axis is a relative measure of our average points against per game. It doesn't matter that the data is presented in a Champion Data "Premiership Window" overlay showing the combination of Points Against (X)/Points For (Y) graph. It still contains data which you happily (and accurately) used to argue that a portion of that graph showed us in the top tier offensively (Y axis) ranked 3rd.

The X Axis showing 'average points against' per game clearly shows we are ranked 13th in front of Richmond, Essendon, Freemantle, Gold Coast and Brisbane who are further to the right (along the X axis) than us. If sub AFL standard is the average or mid point of those teams ie., 9th/10th then we are certainly below that mid point (standard).

If you can use the same graph to debunk SWY's theory that we are not Sub AFL standard defensively, and offensively we are in the 'top tier' (ie., singling out the Y axis part for 'average points for'), then it is also perfectly fine for someone to use the same graph to show that we are sub AFL standard (ie., below average/sub par @ 13th) defensively.

I refer back to my initial post countering your claim against SWY. He was in fact correct in his statement.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Rusty Nails

[mauriesy 7,298]

At the start of this season, I considered our side to be statistically young and inexperienced, but with some quality recent draft picks that would provide some very good players. Given the change in personnel and rotation of the list over the past three years, I considered advancing to consistent finals football to be about a three-year program.

My objectives for 2016 were:

• About 9-10 wins, an improvement of roughly 40-50% on 2015
• Improving our scoring capacity from its previous miserly sub-70 points
• No 100 point drubbings, maintain any blow-out losses to below 45-50 points
• Developing our very young players to make them AFL finals ready by building experience, fitness and skill
• Developing the pride and determination around the club so that the players enjoyed their football 

Tell me where I've been kidding myself.

[beelzebub 23,377]

Just now, mauriesy said:

At the start of this season, I considered our side to be statistically young and inexperienced, but with some quality recent draft picks that would provide some very good players. Given the change in personnel and rotation of the list over the past three years, I considered advancing to consistent finals football to be about a three-year program.

My objectives for 2016 were:

• About 9-10 wins, an improvement of roughly 40-50% on 2015
• Improving our scoring capacity from its previous miserly sub-70 points
• No 100 point drubbings, maintain any blow-out losses to below 45-50 points
• Developing our very young players to make them AFL finals ready by building experience, fitness and skill
• Developing the pride and determination around the club so that the players enjoyed their football 

Tell me where I've been kidding myself.

can I come back to you after the weekend ? 

[Chris 2,892]

14 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I, SWYL and most others on here would rather choose to believe what you have articulated, but we have waited a long time.  Like I have said on other posts, are we that unique, that comparisons to other clubs, with similar lists, doesn't bear scrutiny?

No doubt, Roos inherited a basket case.  That's why the AFL drafted him into the club as coach.  I have no concerns at all with our coaching staff.  My concern is only that the players don't seem, at this stage, to want to buy in 100%.

Whose job is it to make sure that happens or are we going to just rely on a belief that the current list, which Roos has, is still not up to it?

So then we would be comparing ourselves to the Lions, Saints and Suns who we are ahead of, and the Dogs and GWS who we are behind but they have both had a few more years of development under good development coaches. Out of those only the Lions have a younger and more inexperienced list, but in saying that the team that takes the field is actually older and more experienced than ours. 

[ManDee 7,149]

14 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

For the last 2 years Roos taught the team HOW to play defensively.  Running both ways, pressure etc. 

Now he, and probably Goodwin, Rawlings etc, have changed the actual structure of how we play defensively, and we've found that transition difficult.  It's been more difficult than I think we anticipated, and add to that the change in how we go about our football offensively, and it's not worked out very well... yet.

I have no doubt that the club itself aren't panicking.  They see the problems and the difficulties and are no doubt tweaking and educating the players on what they can do differently to make sure that, over the next few years, that this works.

It might be concerning to you, SWYL, but I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.  If we're still playing like this at this point NEXT year, then I'll share you concerns.

 

An example of problems encountered when going backwards and landing flat on ones defensive area. 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

3 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

At the start of this season, I considered our side to be statistically young and inexperienced, but with some quality recent draft picks that would provide some very good players. Given the change in personnel and rotation of the list over the past three years, I considered advancing to consistent finals football to be about a three-year program.

My objectives for 2016 were:

• About 9-10 wins, an improvement of roughly 40-50% on 2015
• Improving our scoring capacity from its previous miserly sub-70 points
• No 100 point drubbings, maintain any blow-out losses to below 45-50 points
• Developing our very young players to make them AFL finals ready by building experience, fitness and skill
• Developing the pride and determination around the club so that the players enjoyed their football 

Tell me where I've been kidding myself.

If those are your expectations, then clearly, from a subjective point of view - which is all we can be on here - then you are not kidding yourself.  I also share many of your expectations.  However, where we get beaten by sides such as Essendon, Saints and Port last week, by 45 points, then my expectations have not been met, as I consider we should be at least on a par with them.

In terms of 100 point drubbings, it has been a while since Mark Neeld was at the club.