1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The track record is damning. You may not like the fact but no good team loses as much as we do to lower ranked teams.

Feel free to prove me wrong with evidence

2017. The tigers win their first of three flags. By any measure a really good team.

They lost seven games for the season. Three were against lower ranked teams  - Dogs (finished 10th), Freo (14th) and the Saints (11th). The saints flogged the tigers in round 16, 138 to 71. 

2019. Flag number two. They lost six games for the season. Three were against lower ranked teams - Dogs (8th), Crows (11th) and Roos (12th)

2020. Flag number 3. In a season they only played 17 home and away games, won 12 and lost 4. Half of those losses were against lower ranked teams - the hawks (15th) and GWS (10th)

 

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Just checked some stats

We are last for tackles in the whole comp

We are 16th in total clearances

That puts huge pressure on our defence to hold the fort. Its not sustainable.

That's really concerning re the tackle stats. Sides that are switched on and playing well usually are tackling well

So the answer is?

Increase tackle pressure all over the ground but particularly midfield and forward.

Accuracy in goal kicking

Break even or close to in stoppages/centre bounces.

Refresh the team?

No. 32, and others

5 minutes ago, binman said:

2017. The tigers win their first of three flags. By any measure a really good team.

They lost seven games for the season. Three were against lower ranked teams  - Dogs (finished 10th), Freo (14th) and the Saints (11th). The saints flogged the tigers in round 16, 138 to 71. 

2019. Flag number two. They lost six games for the season. Three were against lower ranked teams - Dogs (8th), Crows (11th) and Roos (12th)

2020. Flag number 3. In a season they only played 17 home and away games, won 12 and lost 4. Half of those losses were against lower ranked teams - the hawks (15th) and GWS (10th)

 

Is Brisbane a good team? Currently 5th on the ladder and three weeks ago were premiership favorites. So by most measures the answer would be yes. 

They have just lost two games in a row against lower ranked teams. One more and they will also have 3 losses against lower ranked teams. Just. Like. Us. 

How about the Swans. Are they a good team? Currently 6th on the ladder, but only a game and percentage outside the top 4. So by most measures the answer would be yes. A very similar age profile to the dees.

But hold on a minute. This year they have also lost 3 games against lower ranked teams, including a 38 point touch up on their own deck by the hawks.

I'm getting confused. I may not like it, but the evidence does not support the proposition good teams don't lose as much as we do to lower ranked teams.

 

20 minutes ago, deanox said:

All good, thanks for the chat. 

Im not just looking for an argument, I do fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of the stats, and surprisingly mostly for the reasons given: the stats are so general they are meaningless.

I don't think we can draw positive or negative conclusions from them is all im saying.

Guess that's the 'beauty' of stats hey? So much can still be left up for interpretation and creating context.

FWIW, I wasn't having a go at Gawn at all, more just looking at the disconnect in the middle that we seem to have this year.

Cheers!

5 minutes ago, binman said:

Is Brisbane a good team? Currently 5th on the ladder and three weeks ago were premiership favorites. So by most measures the answer would be yes. 

They have just lost two games in a row against lower ranked teams. One more and they will also have 3 losses against lower ranked teams. Just. Like. Us. 

How about the Swans. Are they a good team? Currently 6th on the ladder, but only a game and percentage outside the top 4. So by most measures the answer would be yes. A very similar age profile to the dees.

But hold on a minute. This year they have also lost 3 games against lower ranked teams, including a 38 point touch up on their own deck by the hawks.

I'm getting confused. I may not like it, but the evidence does not support the proposition good teams don't lose as much as we do to lower ranked teams.

 

Stop being so data driven, it is doing my data driven head in.

:D

I look at the Tigers - do I trust them more or us....probably better to ask a Tiger's supporter :D

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

Stop being so data driven, it is doing my data driven head in.

:D

I look at the Tigers - do I trust them more or us....probably better to ask a Tiger's supporter :D

You can't trust the Tigers.

Coz they are so mentally weak.

I know that to be true coz good teams don't get beaten by lower ranked teams as much as we do. Doesn't happen

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

But most of these stats were the same when we were 11-1.

We've been mid-table for hit outs to advantage and clearances all season, it's not like we were dominant and have fallen away.

So the two areas that are of real concern IMO are pressure and transition, and for mine pressure takes the cake - it's elite when we're the hunters, against a strong side, etc., but it's nowhere near as good when we're the hunted and our lesser opponent throws caution to the wind. I don't consider our ball movement to be a big concern - we're generating plenty of inside 50s, marks inside 50 and shots on goal, and if we were nailing our easier set shots we'd probably have beaten GWS and Hawthorn.

By leaving 10 out of 12 premiership points on the table vs Adelaide, Collingwood and Hawthorn, we're forcing ourselves to bring elite pressure every time we play a top 8 side, including again this week. I have faith we can do it, but one slip up vs the Dogs, West Coast or Geelong and we could well lose our top 4 spot.

And Sydney who are currently flying are now deemed to be a poor clearance team.

As I have said continuously teams back there structures and game style.  Clarko never worried about clearances in the 3 peat, regaining, maintaining possession and having good transition was his focus.

There is no right or wrong answer, do I have concerns yes, especially over the last 5 games. Are there reasons yes, I’m not making excuses the increased training load over the bye was discussed by Gawn and the media.

I also think the FD will be tweaking how we play to counter what teams are going to throw at us, because let’s face it we are not going to totally change the approach which got us to this position with finals this close. We are at that point now where the forward cohesion needs to click and the counter strategy to Salem, Lever, Langdon, May being targeted is identified and implemented.

Stats and media input can support any argument.

Leigh Montagna compares Vineys game on the weekend to Dangers similar return after the 4 games as a good sign, but those wanting to pot Viney disregard it. IMV Viney was best suited playing more forward but that is just MO, and his disposal inside 50 on the weekend was poor.

Last week all media experts were praising us after beating Port convincingly. Surprise surprise that’s changed and now we have been poor for 6 to 8 weeks, really? Do they actually review what they say

week 8 Dogs convincing win, dominant performance 

week 7 Lions convincing dominating second half

week 6 Pies really poor performance 

week 5 bye

week 4 Bombers did enough but areas of concern specifically with conversion and failing to capitalise on ruck dominance  but no issues with defensive structure or transition

week 3 Giants first warning sign of the plus 1 in the opposition midfield and exposed badly at the clearances, stoppages, delivery inside 50 poor and conversion again poor. 

week 2 Port pretty dominant all night, Port never really in it structure was very pronounced every time Port tried to transition 

week 1 Hawks poor conversion, pretty even in the clearances, but unlike Giants Hawks put pressure on us at every clearance and we went back to 2020/19 of Bombing it in. Hawks nullified May and Lever and put work into Salem. Rivers was poor and Hibberd was very dumbly causing 2 direct opposition goals with poor handball under pressure 

Basically I fully agree that we need to bring pressure, intensity and team first approach for the remainder of the H&A season, everything else falls into place after that and what will be will be.

My biggest concern is from the Giants game in regard to the Cats and Dogs having the players capable by foot of exposing us in similar fashion to Whitfield and Kelly. Sydney also have these players but the issue I see with them is they will utilise their foot skills transitioning from their defensive half and avoid getting into a stoppage game. If we play the Swans again we need to avoid being Bees to the honeypot and minimise turnovers in the forward half

For those that seek guidance, Brisbane will show us this week how to put the knife to the hawks…

3 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Just to add to yours @titan_uranus.

This fact is no different to the Dogs, Swans, Port, Brisbane and Geelong, who have all worse records against the top 8, and similar records against those outside the top 8. And there is no evidence that they do it in perpetuity either.

So why do we expect our team to operate outside the norms of whats realistic for a team in this competition? 

The concern I have isn't losing to teams outside the 8, it's specifically against the four clear bottom 4 sides of 2021: Adelaide, Collingwood, Hawthorn and North.

I can't off the top of my head think of any top 8 side with a record as poor as our 2-1-3 record against those four sides.

I'm not suggesting that good sides should never lose to bottom 10 sides: that's unrealistic. And ultimately if we're going to lose games it is less damaging to lose them to bottom sides than our competitors around us. But to be at less than 50% against bottom 4 sides says to me that we don't prepare for those particular games, where we are overwhelming favourites and there is an expectation we'll walk it in. 

39 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The concern I have isn't losing to teams outside the 8, it's specifically against the four clear bottom 4 sides of 2021: Adelaide, Collingwood, Hawthorn and North.

I can't off the top of my head think of any top 8 side with a record as poor as our 2-1-3 record against those four sides.

I'm not suggesting that good sides should never lose to bottom 10 sides: that's unrealistic. And ultimately if we're going to lose games it is less damaging to lose them to bottom sides than our competitors around us. But to be at less than 50% against bottom 4 sides says to me that we don't prepare for those particular games, where we are overwhelming favourites and there is an expectation we'll walk it in. 

Fair points.

My feeling is that it is really common for the top teams to drop down a gear or two against the bottom teams. For example the dogs versus the suns last week

But usually the best teams have the skill to make sure they take their chances and don't turn the ball over too much.

With better kicking skills we ay poorly in our three losses - but win because we kick regulation shots at goal. And we don't give it back as often.

And that issue is one that is a concern in any game we play.

Edited July 20, 20213 yr by binman

40 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

As I have said continuously teams back there structures and game style.  Clarko never worried about clearances in the 3 peat, regaining, maintaining possession and having good transition was his focus.

Yep, 100%

I can imagine that for the players, whilst a loss/draw is disappointing - here we are 18 rounds into the season and we sit on top, or at a minimum sit comfortably within the top 4 teams of the comp.

The evidence is overwhelming that our system works, and they will know it too. The also know that it's due to hard graft, and they also know not to get complacent (even though some draw the bow that losing to lower sides means just this).

I'd imagine Goodwin et al, would be suggesting that the evidence is that due to our system we get the scoring opportunities and that conversion only needs to be marginally better (in 2 losses and a draw, one point becomes one goal and we win). It's such small margins.

I also can't imagine that the team isn't doing everything possible to address scoring conversions (aside from the limitations of what the AFLPA put in).

 

I posted a stat here the other day that when a team has 24 scoring shots or less - winning is 50/50. 2 more scoring shots (26) and it only goes up to 60%

 

Scoring Shots by Team (in Modern Era)

Data: All games from 2000 to 2017

Topic: Relationship between Scoring Shot production and Winning Rate by Team

Points of Interest

• Only a handful of teams are able to win at a greater than 50% rate over a large number of games having registered only 24 Scoring Shots (Geelong, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda, and Sydney).
• Some register winning rates of over 60% with just 26 Scoring Shots (Adelaide, Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Sydney)
• Carlton's winning rate goes above 50% only when it registers 29 Scoring Shots

 

We back our system to have greater scoring opportunities than the opposition. An on eyeballing our games this year, this looks to be relevant (and also why we play the way we do with kicking to pockets in the F50, to reduce ease of exits).

 

R1 +7

R2 +13

R3 +14

R4 +10

R5 +15

R6 +4

R7 +5

R8 -1 (win against Sydney)

R9 +11

R10 +5 (loss to Adelaide)

R11 +3

R12 +7

R13 - 7 (loss to Collingwood)

R14 +6

R15 -1 (loss to GWS)

R16 +11

R17 +5 (draw to Hawthorn)

 

The other point to note is, again there is statistical evidence that essentially during late Autumn to Spring time, scoring drops - from an accuracy perspective. 

If I look at the first 5 rounds... this bodes very very well for our team.

 

 

I appreciate this discussion, especially with regard to Gawn and our stoppages. 

I reject it is a noose around our neck, but it is not a point of difference that it should be with Gawn and those three at his feet.

That is essentially the argument that Deanox and Lord Nev are having; the former correctly says if you look at the cumulative we are up their with the best rucks, and Lord Nev is saying that with the domination we should be far in front of the best rucks in the game.

We have obviously downplayed stoppages under Goodwin and co in favour of pressuring the disposal in the stoppage, thinking that good teams and miss will read Gawn. 

That bet makes sense to me but when we are not pressuring maniacally it compounds the issue of not concentrating on utilising Gawns dominance more.

Lastly, maybe we are not capable of leveraging his dominance. Our top end midfield is great but our 4th best mid doesn’t stack up. We don’t run deep.

3 minutes ago, rpfc said:

We have obviously downplayed stoppages under Goodwin and co in favour of pressuring the disposal in the stoppage, thinking that good teams and miss will read Gawn. 

That bet makes sense to me but when we are not pressuring maniacally it compounds the issue of not concentrating on utilising Gawns dominance more.

Lastly, maybe we are not capable of leveraging his dominance. Our top end midfield is great but our 4th best mid doesn’t stack up. We don’t run deep.

Really good points.

Like the tigers, we are exposed when we are not pressuring maniacally. All sorts of weaknesses are compounded, including not taking advantage of Gawns dominance. 

On the weekend an issue that that jumped out was our drop in pressure meant we could not win enough of the outnumbered stoppage contests or post clearance possessions/contests. Despite us winning the clearances they beat us in both, such was their intensity and our lack of it. When we di when clearances we forced into scrubby kicks forward. 

I agree that a really big issue that is exposed when our pressure is not where it needs to be is our midfield, which as you say does not run deep and is not a patch on the dog's midfield.  I am hoping vanders can go up level and address that issue a bit. 

5 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Yes but it's irrelevant to use totals unless they've all attended the same amount of ruck contests.

 

 

4 hours ago, deanox said:

It's as irrelevant as the original stat.

Max gets more hit outs to advantage per game this year than any ruckman other than NicNat (he has had 174 for the year).

For GWS Mumford and Flynn combine for 159, for Geelong Blicavs and Stanley combine for 100. 

NicNat and Vardy combine for 239.

Given Jackson sits at 21 on the total list with 47, the Melbourne ruck duo combine for 221 hit outs to advantage, the 2nd most of any ruck combo. 

 

We get advantage on hit outs more than anyone except West Coast. We also win more hit outs than almost anyone else.

What we don't know is whether the hit outs we won, that don't go to advantage, are neutral result or to disadvantage, because those stats aren't available.

I’m learning stuff at the rate of knots here so hope you don’t mind me asking questions. I was wondering why you didn’t address the point LN made about the number of ruck contests attended being factored in. 

2 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

And Sydney who are currently flying are now deemed to be a poor clearance team.

As I have said continuously teams back there structures and game style.  Clarko never worried about clearances in the 3 peat, regaining, maintaining possession and having good transition was his focus.

There is no right or wrong answer, do I have concerns yes, especially over the last 5 games. Are there reasons yes, I’m not making excuses the increased training load over the bye was discussed by Gawn and the media.

I also think the FD will be tweaking how we play to counter what teams are going to throw at us, because let’s face it we are not going to totally change the approach which got us to this position with finals this close. We are at that point now where the forward cohesion needs to click and the counter strategy to Salem, Lever, Langdon, May being targeted is identified and implemented.

Stats and media input can support any argument.

Leigh Montagna compares Vineys game on the weekend to Dangers similar return after the 4 games as a good sign, but those wanting to pot Viney disregard it. IMV Viney was best suited playing more forward but that is just MO, and his disposal inside 50 on the weekend was poor.

Last week all media experts were praising us after beating Port convincingly. Surprise surprise that’s changed and now we have been poor for 6 to 8 weeks, really? Do they actually review what they say

week 8 Dogs convincing win, dominant performance 

week 7 Lions convincing dominating second half

week 6 Pies really poor performance 

week 5 bye

week 4 Bombers did enough but areas of concern specifically with conversion and failing to capitalise on ruck dominance  but no issues with defensive structure or transition

week 3 Giants first warning sign of the plus 1 in the opposition midfield and exposed badly at the clearances, stoppages, delivery inside 50 poor and conversion again poor. 

week 2 Port pretty dominant all night, Port never really in it structure was very pronounced every time Port tried to transition 

week 1 Hawks poor conversion, pretty even in the clearances, but unlike Giants Hawks put pressure on us at every clearance and we went back to 2020/19 of Bombing it in. Hawks nullified May and Lever and put work into Salem. Rivers was poor and Hibberd was very dumbly causing 2 direct opposition goals with poor handball under pressure 

Basically I fully agree that we need to bring pressure, intensity and team first approach for the remainder of the H&A season, everything else falls into place after that and what will be will be.

My biggest concern is from the Giants game in regard to the Cats and Dogs having the players capable by foot of exposing us in similar fashion to Whitfield and Kelly. Sydney also have these players but the issue I see with them is they will utilise their foot skills transitioning from their defensive half and avoid getting into a stoppage game. If we play the Swans again we need to avoid being Bees to the honeypot and minimise turnovers in the forward half

Excellent post. 

Each point spot on.

The most realistic and unbiased/constructive assessment I've seen of our recent performances and the issues before us..

Edited July 20, 20213 yr by Lucifer's Hero

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Just checked some stats

We are last for tackles in the whole comp

We are 16th in total clearances

That puts huge pressure on our defence to hold the fort. Its not sustainable.

David King on SEN yesterday made exactly this point. Fix it and wer'e in with a chance but he believed the team strategy is designed to  allow the losses in clearances in the hope that the excellent defence will clean up and maintain possession to attack.

He thinks its flawed but fixable.

 

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

 

I’m learning stuff at the rate of knots here so hope you don’t mind me asking questions. I was wondering why you didn’t address the point LN made about the number of ruck contests attended being factored in. 

It's an excellent question and I didn't mean to not answer @Lord Nev there.

There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it is that important:

1) Teams play their best ruck most of the time, and most team don't have 2 let alone 3 good rucks. The fact we have our 2 rucks in the top 21 of the comp for hit outs to advantage to me is pretty telling.

2) Total ruck contests for each team is going to be pretty similar at the end of the year, +/- scoring more goals or having more stoppages, it will sort of even out.

3) Personally I am more interested in hit out to advantage vs hit out to disadvantage differential, or perhaps hit out advantage vs opposition hit out to advantage differential, rather then "hit out advantage percentage".

This is because I think if we get 10 hit outs to advantage per game and our opposition gets only 7, then we are doing better. I don't really care whether they won the % stat as a factor of their total hit outs, we still had more.

 

@Lord Nevis right in saying that these stats may indicate that our midified isn't getting value for dominance (which may be true) but I'm not convinced that we have the right stats here to support that case.

no one else has quoted this post from @binman but I think it is describes the missing analysis when looking at this issue: "quality of clearances".

 

 

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

It's an excellent question and I didn't mean to not answer @Lord Nev there.

There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it is that important:

1) Teams play their best ruck most of the time, and most team don't have 2 let alone 3 good rucks. The fact we have our 2 rucks in the top 21 of the comp for hit outs to advantage to me is pretty telling.

2) Total ruck contests for each team is going to be pretty similar at the end of the year, +/- scoring more goals or having more stoppages, it will sort of even out.

3) Personally I am more interested in hit out to advantage vs hit out to disadvantage differential, or perhaps hit out advantage vs opposition hit out to advantage differential, rather then "hit out advantage percentage".

This is because I think if we get 10 hit outs to advantage per game and our opposition gets only 7, then we are doing better. I don't really care whether they won the % stat as a factor of their total hit outs, we still had more.

 

@Lord Nevis right in saying that these stats may indicate that our midified isn't getting value for dominance (which may be true) but I'm not convinced that we have the right stats here to support that case.

no one else has quoted this post from @binman but I think it is describes the missing analysis when looking at this issue: "quality of clearances".

 

 

Thank you! SO well explained!

19 hours ago, Pates said:

the cattle we had out there should have been able to get the job done. 

So, nothing to do with the coaching then.

(agree with this of course).

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Just checked some stats

We are last for tackles in the whole comp

We are 16th in total clearances

That puts huge pressure on our defence to hold the fort. Its not sustainable.

We are also top of the ladder. The most important stat is winning.

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Just checked some stats

We are last for tackles in the whole comp

We are 16th in total clearances

That puts huge pressure on our defence to hold the fort. Its not sustainable.

Where did you see that?

Footywire has us 4th in the comp, at 61.8 tackles per game (GC, Sydney and St Kilda the three clubs above us). And we're 9th for team/opponent average differential of tackles, at +1.4 (i.e. we average 1.4 more tackles than our opponent each week).

We're 9th for average clearances per game, and 7th for team/opponent differential at +1.0 (i.e. we average 1 more clearance than our opponent each week).

Or were you referring to a recent period?

7 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Where did you see that?

Footywire has us 4th in the comp, at 61.8 tackles per game (GC, Sydney and St Kilda the three clubs above us). And we're 9th for team/opponent average differential of tackles, at +1.4 (i.e. we average 1.4 more tackles than our opponent each week).

We're 9th for average clearances per game, and 7th for team/opponent differential at +1.0 (i.e. we average 1 more clearance than our opponent each week).

Or were you referring to a recent period?

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/team-rankings?CompSeason=20&GameWeeks=-1#rankingstable

Last in tackles at 749 for the year. geelong are 1st on 1048

16th in total clearances with 480

 

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/team-rankings?CompSeason=20&GameWeeks=-1#rankingstable

Last in tackles at 749 for the year. geelong are 1st on 1048

16th in total clearances with 480

 

Those are last year's stats, @jnrmac. The menu at the top allows you to select a season and you've got it on 2020.

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/team-rankings?CompSeason=20&GameWeeks=-1#rankingstable

Last in tackles at 749 for the year. geelong are 1st on 1048

16th in total clearances with 480

 

I just checked your link and it had last year (2020) as the Season chosen. 

 

Here is this season for tackles and clearance.

Edited July 20, 20213 yr by DemonWorshipper
Duplicate post