1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

More from Ryan Buckland on KPD disposal efficency.....Rance quite a bit worse than TMac....and Frawley & Hurley ha ha!

DE stats are pretty raw with no context but interesting nonetheless. Frost clearly tries to take the game on and it doesn't always come off....

 

 

 

I wish more would note the issue with DE stats ( as with many others) 

Aliir intrigues me

Frost will just get better   We already have Tom's ceiling ( imho )  Sams ??   

 

We just need the Coulda Shoulda Woulda's   to become CAN, SHALL and WILL ....having DONE it !!

30 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I wish more would note the issue with DE stats ( as with many others) 

Aliir intrigues me

Frost will just get better   We already have Tom's ceiling ( imho )  Sams ??   

 

We just need the Coulda Shoulda Woulda's   to become CAN, SHALL and WILL ....having DONE it !!

That doesn't look like Disposal Efficiency  analysis to me, it looks like Turnover analysis,

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

That doesn't look like Disposal Efficiency  analysis to me, it looks like Turnover analysis,

Bloody hell.. 

Memo. Specsavers 

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

That doesn't look like Disposal Efficiency  analysis to me, it looks like Turnover analysis,

Aren't they effectively the same? If you dispose of the ball and the next possession is the opposition you get credited with a TO I believe...

Happy to be corrected if someone can confirm otherwise...

Edited May 11, 20178 yr by jnrmac

Just now, jnrmac said:

Aren't they effectively the same? If you dispose of the ball and the next possession is the opposition you get credited with a TO I believe...

Must admit i find them all dodgy in the main. A very subjective realm. I reckon the only folj who get any real value out of stats are the statisticians ( getting paid )

The eye often is a better judge as to the effectiveness of a passage of play , imho.

In wins Melbourne is taking 113 uncontested marks per game. In losses that number drops to 72.8. Their differential of 40.3 is the largest in the competition through seven rounds, ahead of the Saints on 28.2 and four times the average differential in wins and losses.

 

Yep boy have we missed Gawn and Spencer. Add to that Hogan our biggest marker, missing 3 games this year and it certainly explains a few things.

28 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

In wins Melbourne is taking 113 uncontested marks per game. In losses that number drops to 72.8. Their differential of 40.3 is the largest in the competition through seven rounds, ahead of the Saints on 28.2 and four times the average differential in wins and losses.

 

Yep boy have we missed Gawn and Spencer. Add to that Hogan our biggest marker, missing 3 games this year and it certainly explains a few things.

Not sure you're looking quite in the right place. The likes of Hogan, Gawn & Spencer would bump up our total marks but their biggest impact is on winning contested marks.

High uncontested marks are more a reflection on the side's ability to spread from the contest and to run hard to good positions to receive.
We'd have had a lot more uncontested marks on the weekend had we not burnt the ball so often. 

6 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

Not sure you're looking quite in the right place. The likes of Hogan, Gawn & Spencer would bump up our total marks but their biggest impact is on winning contested marks.

High uncontested marks are more a reflection on the side's ability to spread from the contest and to run hard to good positions to receive.
We'd have had a lot more uncontested marks on the weekend had we not burnt the ball so often. 

Thanks gtb

Haven't read the article, but one of the things which have killed our season so far are in game injuries early in games, which have left us out of legs late in games allowing teams/game I think we otherwise should have won over run us - think Geelong and Richmond (the inverse almost happened against Hawthorn).

 Part of the AFL's rational for the sub rule was so as not to leave a team in this position so exposed and I think the rule actually did serve that purpose quite well.  I'm not advocating a return to the sub rule as it was previously implemented, but what I think could work well in this situation is to allow one of the named emergencies to take the place of an player injured before half time.  Obviously such a provision could be open to exploitation, but I think a set of rules to reasonably control such abbuse are possible.

It was the coaches who whinged and moaned about in-game injuries harming their chances of winning.

They wanted to be able to replace an injured player. Stupid, they said, not to be allowed to. Huge disadvantage. Unfair.

Enter the sub rule.

Then the coaches whinged because their rotations were limited. Stupid, they said. Why have we got a player in a green vest just sitting there? Unfair.

Exit the sub rule.

Bottom line, the coaches don't know what they want, but they know they don't like it.

They are the last people on earth who should be listened to with regard to rule changes.

On 2017-5-10 at 5:24 PM, Robbie57 said:

Excellent the whole of 'land should read this. We are a puzzle piece or two and a few injuries away from having been 6 - 1. 

It explains why they were so keen on using Weed. 

I agree with this, stating we miss last year's all Australian ruckman is hardly worth mentioning it's so obvious but it's interesting that neither Hogan nor Watts are classic Josh Kennedy type mark-kick-goal forwards, especially when as the article points out we seem to look for the bail out kick to the top of the square so often, I think Weed is and the sooner he comes on (and in my opinion the more senior games he plays) the better. Smith was also trying to fill this role I think until he got injured.

 

Also watching O'Brien Sicily and to a lesser extent (Big boy) McEvoy (wow wee) take pack marks and generate goals was painful. 

 

I think we miss Gawns defensive marks, which he would average around 4 a game and also his offensive bail out marks which he probably gets at least 2, more than his tap work. We seem to be able to clear the ball, as this article also hints at, thanks to the genuinely special talent with elite numbers from 75% game time. Our players are now learning that when they see that red hair burry into a pack they can spread because most of the time he gets it out.

 

It will happen, it's a matter of when now not if...

Edited May 12, 20178 yr by Josh

5 hours ago, Josh said:

I agree with this, stating we miss last year's all Australian ruckman is hardly worth mentioning it's so obvious but it's interesting that neither Hogan nor Watts are classic Josh Kennedy type mark-kick-goal forwards, especially when as the article points out we seem to look for the bail out kick to the top of the square so often, I think Weed is and the sooner he comes on (and in my opinion the more senior games he plays) the better. Smith was also trying to fill this role I think until he got injured.

 

Also watching O'Brien Sicily and to a lesser extent (Big boy) McEvoy (wow wee) take pack marks and generate goals was painful. 

 

O'Brien has been a bust up until this point. Then he played on Oscar and the rest is history. We have an enviable record of spuds at other clubs having amazing games against us.

If You see Oscar at any point in tonights game on Tex we are in for a 20 goal thrashing.

I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I believe if max gawn hadn't been injured we'd be 6-1 

we are much better than 3-4 

49 minutes ago, Abe said:

I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I believe if max gawn hadn't been injured we'd be 6-1 

we are much better than 3-4 

I have a problem with that thinking..  not that we couldnt be 6-1  or 7-0  just that its about Max

If wed have bothered to play  4 qtrs of footy...ever...we'd win the game..we don't and we haven't

It's not really about Max, it's really about lacklustre qtrs or halves of footy

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

I have a problem with that thinking..  not that we couldnt be 6-1  or 7-0  just that its about Max

If wed have bothered to play  4 qtrs of footy...ever...we'd win the game..we don't and we haven't

It's not really about Max, it's really about lacklustre qtrs or halves of footy

My point was more to illustrate how big a loss he is bb, if we were 6-1 and playing horrible quarters in games I think that would show just how good we are/ will be. 

I also think lacking max dominance has probably played a big role in our inability to stop those run ons at times 

Abe, without doubt its worse without Max. We have both won and lost matches with him and with him dominant. 

What we dont do, hardly ever is play 4 qtrs of footy, hell often lucky to get 2 decent ones a game. 

Had we applied ourselves better in every loss this year they might have been wins.

Unforced errors kill us. Turnovers kill us, spoiling each other kills us.

Thats not Max...that all the other nuff nuffs forgetting basic Footy.

Coulda climbed into top spot on the ladder after last nights game - had we not dropped the Freo and Hawks games.

We are a seriously much better team than our ladder position suggests.

Make finals we could do some damage.

1 hour ago, McQueen said:

Coulda climbed into top spot on the ladder after last nights game - had we not dropped the Freo and Hawks games.

We are a seriously much better team than our ladder position suggests.

Make finals we could do some damage.

It's not the Hawks and Freo games that bite. We played poorly and then couldn't get the job done in the last. We didn't deserve the wins. But the Geelong and Richmond games where we played well and dominated the majority of the game but were overwhelmed by early key injuries. Incredibly unlucky and it hurts. Those as wins might have also helped with 'belief' in getting over the line in the matches where we struggled. Woulda also meant a clean-sweep against once fancied top-8 sides.