Team's Lowest Statistical Rankings - Your views

[The Stigga 883]

I got these stats care of footywire.com:

1.  Ranked 15th in Marks Per Game - I've noticed that we do struggle with this, especially contested marking. Not sure if this is all up to the delivery or something that simply needs work?

2.  Ranked 17th in Rebound 50s Per Game - Is this due to our high centre bounce clearance work and inside 50's?

3. Ranked 18th in least Opponent Tackles Per Game - Are we being the hunted now?

4.  Ranked 17th in least Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game - I assume this has to do with point two?

5.  Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game Diff - as above?

P.S. im not sure if point 3-5 are actually good or not!?

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by The Stigga

[Gator 16,909]

18 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

I got these stats care of footywire.com:

1.  Ranked 15th in Marks Per Game - I've noticed that we do struggle with this, especially contested marking. Not sure if this is all up to the delivery or something that simply needs work?

In 2018 we were second in contested marks behind West Coast.

[Stretch Johnson 2,586]

2, 4 and 5 I would suggest are because we play the game in our half as you alluded to in your reply to 2.

Good stats.  Probably the only one that would be nice to improve is Stat 1.  The remainder are as a result of our ability to hold the ball in our forward half.

 

 

[hemingway 7,601]

3 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

2, 4 and 5 I would suggest are because we play the game in our half as you alluded to in your reply to 2.

Good stats.  Probably the only one that would be nice to improve is Stat 1.  The remainder are as a result of our ability to hold the ball in our forward half.

 

 

Thanks Stretch, glad some-one could explain it.

[The Stigga 883]

19 minutes ago, ProDee said:

In 2018 we were second in contested marks behind West Coast.

Interesting, I wonder what the percentage would be of contested marks, 'per contest' (if that makes sense)

Maybe its due to the sheer volume of kicks to said contests.

[The Stigga 883]

I also noticed we had the second highest amount of clangers, 1451, behind Collingwood (1476).

 

[Engorged Onion 9,411]

6 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

I also noticed we had the second highest amount of clangers, 1451, behind Collingwood (1476).

 

and 500 of those were ANB ?

[FarNorthernD 5,848]

20 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

and 500 of those were ANB ?

And the other 951 were Tyson’s 

[david_neitz_is_my_dad 3,937]

Non issue. It would be impossible to be ranked 1 in everything

[reynolds46 823]

57 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

I also noticed we had the second highest amount of clangers, 1451, behind Collingwood (1476).

 

that stat just lines up with the most disposals as Collingwood had most and we had second most

[Skuit 9,312]

3 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

2, 4 and 5 I would suggest are because we play the game in our half as you alluded to in your reply to 2.

Good stats.  Probably the only one that would be nice to improve is Stat 1.  The remainder are as a result of our ability to hold the ball in our forward half.

Number 3 Stretch? In a game of small margins it can't be good over the space of 25 weeks being the most tackled and dumped team. Although we have the ball the most and play the game in close so I'm hoping the high numbers just reflect a lot of stoppage wrap-ups. Still, it's usually one of our boys at the bottom of a stacks-on.

[DeeSpencer 23,313]

Overall I think they paint a picture of a team that plays an effective style of contested footy but needs to add in more uncontested play without diminishing our strong suit.

Eg:
When we win the ball let's get it to the outside freely so we aren't tackled with it.
When the quick play from half back isn't on let's play some kick/mark footy, switch and reset.

Goodwin and co made a number of in season and in game adjustments to our defensive work last year and the hope is May helps there. Becoming a more efficient team with the ball probably centres around Fritsch and KK in to the side, without upgrading personnel we were always going to have a hard time fixing the issue of flooding numbers around the ball instead of finding open space and bombing it forward.

[John Crow Batty 8,285]

Ranked number 1 or 18th for currently most consecutive seasons without a premiership.?Depends which way one wants to look at it.

Edited March 5, 2019 by america de cali

[Fanatique Demon 2,409]

DeeSpencer, you've summarised the need perfectly.

[radar 1,858]

Hawthorn were about 17 or 18 for tackle during three peat. Didn’t worry Clarko 

[ManDee 7,091]

28 minutes ago, radar said:

Hawthorn were about 17 or 18 for tackle during three peat. Didn’t worry Clarko 

If you have the ball all the time who do you tackle?

[Watson11 1,914]

On 3/5/2019 at 1:36 PM, The Stigga said:

I got these stats care of footywire.com:

1.  Ranked 15th in Marks Per Game - I've noticed that we do struggle with this, especially contested marking. Not sure if this is all up to the delivery or something that simply needs work?

2.  Ranked 17th in Rebound 50s Per Game - Is this due to our high centre bounce clearance work and inside 50's?

3. Ranked 18th in least Opponent Tackles Per Game - Are we being the hunted now?

4.  Ranked 17th in least Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game - I assume this has to do with point two?

5.  Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Rebound 50s Per Game Diff - as above?

P.S. im not sure if point 3-5 are actually good or not!?

 

A lot of times you need to look at the differentials as game style skews overall rankings.  ie For 1, we were ranked number 1 in contested mark differential, so it is the complete opposite of what you had assumed.  We just don't chip the ball around like other teams in the back half which is mostly a positive, as we were first for scoring from defensive 50.

For 3, we are 13th on tackle differential.  Magpies were 1st.  Our tackling can tend to go missing at times.  We know Goody would hate this stat, hence why not much patience with those who don't tackle.

More interesting stats that we have to be better at this year are:

1. Ranked 14th for disposal efficiency and 12th for disposal efficiency differential.  For a side that was 4th for most handballs and 11th for kicks that is pretty poor.

2. Ranked 9th from scores conceded from D50 entries.  9th flatters us, as we are 1% from being 16th but 6% from being top 4.

3. We rank 1st for centre clearance differential but 12th for stoppage clearance differential.  My view is we are at our worst in the forward half of the ground, especially when Max dropped a kick behind and we pinch hit.  Probably why Goody wants Max and Pruess to spend time in the forward half.

We ranked 5th for inside 50 scoring efficiency which surprised me.  Against top 8 teams this dropped to 39% which would have ranked us 17th.  We definitely need to improve our scoring efficiency against good teams.  I suspect some of this is we bomb, and are pretty good at creating stoppages, but we are lousy at defending stoppages in the F50.  I think our terrible F50 stoppage work is directly related to our leaking goals at the other end.

Most but not all of the issues above were fixed up in the last 5 weeks (save for the prelim).  But they are far more significant than the stats that we are 17th and 18th in.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Watson11

[DV8 2,271]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

If you have the ball all the time who do you tackle?

You don't. you block... and create space for teammates, who have the ball.

[Deemania since 56 6,205]

On 3/5/2019 at 2:27 PM, Engorged Onion said:

and 500 of those were ANB ?

There is that continuum-to-constant alarm with the Dees' passing and shorter footwork, resulting in so many uncertain retentions inside the 50m arc, and scoring at a higher percentage of entries 40m-or-so out from goal. Address this alongside the 'bombing'  and so many static forwards not prepared to find space by plan, and in realistic terms, the flag is ours. 

[Deemania since 56 6,205]

13 hours ago, DV8 said:

You don't. you block... and create space for teammates, who have the ball.

Absobloodylutely!!! 

[Engorged Onion 9,411]

1 minute ago, Deemania since 56 said:

There is that continuum-to-constant alarm with the Dees' passing and shorter footwork, resulting in so many uncertain retentions inside the 50m arc, and scoring at a higher percentage of entries 40m-or-so out from goal. Address this alongside the 'bombing'  and so many static forwards not prepared to find space by plan, and in realistic terms, the flag is ours. 

I'm a simple man @Deemania since 56- I got the last bit 'the flag is our'...and can you rejig what you were saying for me

[Deemania since 56 6,205]

1 minute ago, Engorged Onion said:

I'm a simple man @Deemania since 56- I got the last bit 'the flag is our'...and can you rejig what you were saying for me

I guess I meant that:

• we need more forward players to seek out space to run into (even directional changes) to receive the incoming ball as a clear mark
• it is so often 'guesswork' if we are going to take clear mark, and percentage-play for such a mark is low in our pack habits near goal
• our short passing is poor, unreliable and risky, at best
• we need 'eyes-up' entries via accurate passing and good leading into space from our midline and forwards - so that we have clean marking habits in the forward zone area 40 metres  or less from goal - so that we increase the percentage of goals that are kicked this way from 'close' range
• Other than just one or two particular forwards, most of our forwards have developed a 'crowding' habit near goal. More of our forwards need to be running, circling, mobile and anticipating opponent-free areas on the arrival of the ball coming into our scoring zone
• 'bombs' high with excessive ground clearance to a crowded pack, blindly delivered, hope-and-a-prayer executed are low percentage in terms of ball retention and should be  struck from our skillset.
•