Looking at the stats from yesterday, and after leaving Etihad seeing but not believing...

 

Top 5 clangers were:

1.Oliver                      5

2. McDonald - Tom   5

3.  Viney                    4 

4.Lewis                      3  

5. Tyson                    3

All the above are locks each and every week IMO.

Oh, and  McDonald - Oscar - ZERO.

All the above midfielders were fantastic inside yesterday as they usually are. Message to JoeBoy - start thinking about some of your 3 - worders before irrelevancy sets in mate.

Let's get off the turnover issue - nothing ventured nothing gained. Its just a sign of playing bravely IMO , and sometimes that sort of plah doesn't come off.

The Dees had 7 more critical errors than the Dogs, but won by 10 goals.  How does that work?

This has been covered to death.

36 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

This has been covered to death.

if "...covered to death..." is the measure for this website then by definition it should be empty.  My thoughts were specifically on the team yesterday making more critical errors  but still wining by a mile. Is this common?

 

Sheeesh!!!

Dom Tyson leads the team in clangers but only a fool would want him dropped.

Hes 5th in disposals, 4th in clearances, 5th in contested possession, 2nd for inside 50's, 8th in tackles, 

He makes a few silly errors each game, but more than makes up for it in other ways. 

I guess turnovers/clangers are going to be part and parcel of the brand of football that we play. As the OP stated the fact that we had more clangers but still won by 10 goals speaks volumes.

43 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Dom Tyson leads the team in clangers but only a fool would want him dropped.

Hes 5th in disposals, 4th in clearances, 5th in contested possession, 2nd for inside 50's, 8th in tackles, 

He makes a few silly errors each game, but more than makes up for it in other ways. 

How damaging are his disposals, clearances and inside 50's? What is the end result of them?

They are the important questions. Not the volume or number he is amassing.

They are the questions that should be asked for any player and it's the reason I don't particularly rate Tyson this year, (save for his game on the weekend). 

50 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

if "...covered to death..." is the measure for this website then by definition it should be empty.  My thoughts were specifically on the team yesterday making more critical errors  but still wining by a mile. Is this common?

 

Sheeesh!!!

We were more efficient in the end and made them pay on their turnovers due to our pressure.

Our pressure was still high even when we made errors and turned the ball over. We seemed to be able to win it straight back.

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by stevethemanjordan

Non issue for mine. If you're playing in the middle constantly under pressure OR a player trying to be creative it won't come off every single time. 

The more of the ball you get = the more total clangers you'll commit. 

 

The league leaders for Clangers are: 

1. Fyfe

2. Zorko 

3. Tom Mitchell

4. Dustin Martin 

5. Dangerfield

 

Dom Tyson needs to clean up his disposal though, he's going at 65% for someone who's more outside than in ... His kicking on the run is really average. 

 

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Dom Tyson leads the team in clangers but only a fool would want him dropped.

Dom "Holding the Ball" Tyson.

He's solid, but he's regressed from a few years ago.

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Dom "Holding the Ball" Tyson.

He's solid, but he's regressed from a few years ago.

Completely agree. His decision making is so slow - both in close (gets a couple of holding the balls a game) and on the outside (when he marks and takes forever to make a decision which kills our transitions). Is still a valuable player but definitely needs to work on that. 

I'm still not entirely certain on the definition of a clanger. Would a typo in a thread heading be considered an example?

Hibberd notched up 8 clangers and 10 coaches votes.

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'm still not entirely certain on the definition of a clanger. Would a typo in a thread heading be considered an example?

Love it

 

How long until someone mentions disposal efficiency? 

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Hibberd notched up 8 clangers and 10 coaches votes.

So that's 1.25 votes per clanger. Now we know the formula for success!

Tyson is the antithesis of Hannan in terms of speed of decision making

Both have a neat sidestep however although I think Hannan has him covered

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by TheCurseisBroken

15 hours ago, DirtyMike said:

 

 

Dom Tyson needs to clean up his disposal though, he's going at 65% for someone who's more outside than in ... His kicking on the run is really average. 

 

Dom Tyson does need to clean up his disposal - spot on. However Dom Tyson is more inside that out..

Clangers is a stat that is nearly always proportional to disposals.  Players who get it the most have the most opportunity to make a mistake with it.  It can't be used in isolation as a metric for quality of ball use.

4 hours ago, Nasher said:

Clangers is a stat that is nearly always proportional to disposals.  Players who get it the most have the most opportunity to make a mistake with it.  It can't be used in isolation as a metric for quality of ball use.

And importantly - where they get the ball - inside mids, in the heat, rushed to dispose, will generally have a higher clanger rate.

What is a clanger? An authoritative source defines a clanger as:

• Any disposal or deliberate knock-on that goes directly to an opposition player.
• Any free kick conceded
• Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
• 50 m penalties conceded conceded
• A Ball-Up Kick In (Stepping over the line when kicking in after a behind)

With our 8-6-4 structure a centre bounces, any hurried long kick into the forward line is a chance to be intercepted by an opposition player. If the players try to avoid a hurried kick and rely on quick handball transitions in the centre, they are berated for too much handball.

Dom Tyson often wins the ball in the centre and with no time or space kicks long into our forward line. Even if marked by one of them, I argue that this is a better outcome than losing possession in the centre (think of rugby or grid iron). And if it doesn't go directly to an opposition player but to a contest then it is not a clanger. A poor kick or handball does not seem to qualify.

The name of the game is to force the opposition to make more clangers than us and for us to be better able to take advantage. Turnover goals are a good proxy for measuring the overall effect of clangers on both teams.

 

On 2017-6-19 at 10:35 AM, Demon17 said:

Looking at the stats from yesterday, and after leaving Etihad seeing but not believing...

 

Top 5 clangers were:

1.Oliver                      5

2. McDonald - Tom   5

3.  Viney                    4 

4.Lewis                      3  

5. Tyson                    3

All the above are locks each and every week IMO.

Oh, and  McDonald - Oscar - ZERO.

All the above midfielders were fantastic inside yesterday as they usually are. Message to JoeBoy - start thinking about some of your 3 - worders before irrelevancy sets in mate.

Let's get off the turnover issue - nothing ventured nothing gained. Its just a sign of playing bravely IMO , and sometimes that sort of plah doesn't come off.

The Dees had 7 more critical errors than the Dogs, but won by 10 goals.  How does that work?

Like and agree mate.

I've found trying to discuss anything but the obvious on this site is a waste of time.

While there are a few quality posters on deeland the majority who love to over run threads with dribble cant see the forest from the trees.

I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about the opinions on D'land