What’s Behind Our Form Slump

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 hours ago, binman said:

Yep, some of the stats are of interest. 

I thought it fascinating we are being more direct for instance (ie using the boudary line less). Seems counter intuitive.

But surely his job is to provide some context and analysis for the stats.

For example why are using the boundary less and the corridor more?

As i have posted in any number of my very long posts,  i suspect fatigue is the key factor in our slump.  And old mate cam doesn't even mention it!

And i reckon fatigue might be a factor in us using the corridor more. 

When we are up and about and transition it along the boundary line, it usually involves us running in waves and multiple players providing overlap options. 

As i noted in this (long) post , at our best that we generate a lot of our scoring from overlap run from half back, where we run in waves and swarm it forward, with lost of quick handballs. But atm only hunt and nibbler seems to be able to run and carry and offer overlap options. With no overlap running we are more static and more likely to kick from contest to contest more centrally. 

But yeah, some nice stats from cam. Perhaps he is doing a student placement.

 

To be fair, he at least used stats and data. I personally find "Cam" (better known as Callum) one of the best footy journos out there. Might be a bit 'dry' for some I suppose, but we can't have cracks at Dermie, Cornes and the like for their editorializing and then critique Cam for not doing it.

For me, I get more out of the stats type articles than the opinion ones.

I guess it's our job as fans to pull out the "I thought", "I reckon", "seems to be" kinda comments hey?

Edited July 26, 2021 by Lord Nev

[I'va Worn Smith 973]

For what is is worth, here is my take.

Like many of us - I suspect - I was rapt in the first two thirds of our season, but like most of us, I was just waiting for the wheels to fall off.

I posted on here on another topic, that the I could cop the Adelaide loss as an aberration.  But the Collingwood game I could not accept.  Our life member coach; Neale Daniher, who chose to make the Queens Birthday game as the marquee event for his charity for a health condition which will finally take him, should have been enough motivation for our team to overcome the "Buckley, last time as Collingwood Coach" motivation.  We then had the Pink Lady game, which is our franchise now.  Fraser Rosman's mum is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer and Oscar Baker lost his mum to the same insidious disease.  Motivation enough?

We then had a great win over Port and I thought, yesssss, we are back.  But then follows a draw to the lowly Hawthorn and a loss (honourable?) against the Dogs.  By the way, I am summarising here, so excuse me if it appears my timelines are somewhat skewed.

But the more recent form caused me to reflect.  We have a gun backline, but as Ross Lyon proved, you will never win a granny on defence alone.  Leigh Matthews, on the other hand, was always of the view that if you can score more than 15 goals a game, you will usually win.

That said and with the benefit of hindsight, our forward line has been, at best, makeshift.  Fritta is a 'cameo' forward, yet he attracts one of the best backs from the opposition.  TMac - whom I have a man crush on - is not a natural key forward.  Despite the fact he has done very well for much of the year, thus far, he has been worked out by opposition coaches. Kossie is still a lad, but now a target for the opposition, Spargo is still to show consistency, Dogga will be a gun, but as a big bloke, needs more time to develop and we have to establish a key role for him.  ANB???  I remember the ANZAC eve game against the Toigs, when he bent that goal  from the boundary line.  I thought, yeah, he's back.  He has done little since.  We then have Melksham, M Brown, the Weid and of course Benny Brown.  The latter 3 are lead up forwards, who need space to run into and mark.  None of them are going to sit on the opposition's shoulders and take a speccy.  So what to do with them?  Pagan's paddock?  If that were to work, I would think Benny Brown would be best suited, but I doubt it will happen.

So what is the alternative?  To me that is the worry.  Did we trade away draft picks for too many (and the wrong) trades.  Despite that the fact that Casey has been cruelled by the lack of game time, due to COVID, has given limited opportunities to assess the progress of the next tier of players.  Bar for Bowey, I can see little else, in terms of elevating new talent, other than recycling what we have already seen.  AKA, Melsham, Weid, Jones, M Brown and Jetta.  Other than that, I see little depth in the 2's.

To me this is our major worry going forward.

 

[binman 43,003]

39 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

To be fair, he at least used stats and data. I personally find "Cam" (better known as Callum) one of the best footy journos out there. Might be a bit 'dry' for some I suppose, but we can't have cracks at Dermie, Cornes and the like for their editorializing and then critique Cam for not doing it.

For me, I get more out of the stats type articles than the opinion ones.

I guess it's our job as fans to pull out the "I thought", "I reckon", "seems to be" kinda comments hey?

I actually don't mind callum twomey mind either.

He knows his stuff about draftees and the draft.

But nev, that article is hopeless. As you say he is a journalist. His job is to apply some rigour and analysis.

I agree, I much prefer articles that analyse stats than opinions. 

But regurgitating stats isn't journalism.

He might have well just copy and pasted the stats and not bothered with any linking paragraphs.

Not sure if you are having a crack with the I reckon, I thought comments, but what I want in an article written by a journalist is some I reckon. As in an attempt to try and provide some answers to the questions posed. Some critical thought.

To be fair, probably the critism should be for the editor.

Edited July 26, 2021 by binman

[Webber 10,468]

12 hours ago, Supermercado said:

Goalkicking accuracy is an overrated measure. Obviously you'd rather convert than miss because it banks an extra five points, but the overall stat is as simplistic as saying 'if they'd kicked 5.0 instead of 1.4' they'd have won.

After the first miss of a quarter, all the situations that cause subsequent misses only exist because you missed the first one. Otherwise the ball goes back to the middle and the game is played out differently. You could concede the next nine and be behind 1.0 to 9.0.

I'd rather look at a stat that shows how many goals are missed from a position where any player should be expected to kick them, and how many misses lead to easy exits from defence and/or opposition scoring chances.

Spot on. The swapping behinds for goals argument is spurious at best. There is however no doubt we are kicking poorly, but it’s at all points of the oval. Fatigue, confidence, who knows? One thing for sure, like yawning, it’s infectious. 

[old dee 23,792]

12 minutes ago, Webber said:

Spot on. The swapping behinds for goals argument is spurious at best. There is however no doubt we are kicking poorly, but it’s at all points of the oval. Fatigue, confidence, who knows? One thing for sure, like yawning, it’s infectious. 

Fatigue, we have been trying red hot since March and the biscuit supply is running low. That and again a crap reserves season where players have to be chosen without much form if you replace a senior player. E.G. if you rest Jackson who do you pick from a reserves squad that has not played for three weeks. While we all enjoyed the long no loss stretch it is biting us now. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by old dee

[binman 43,003]

12 hours ago, Supermercado said:

Goalkicking accuracy is an overrated measure. Obviously you'd rather convert than miss because it banks an extra five points, but the overall stat is as simplistic as saying 'if they'd kicked 5.0 instead of 1.4' they'd have won.

After the first miss of a quarter, all the situations that cause subsequent misses only exist because you missed the first one. Otherwise the ball goes back to the middle and the game is played out differently. You could concede the next nine and be behind 1.0 to 9.0.

I'd rather look at a stat that shows how many goals are missed from a position where any player should be expected to kick them, and how many misses lead to easy exits from defence and/or opposition scoring chances.

Yeah, nah.

Some good points super, but goal kicking accuracy is an important stat.

For one thing it is measure of kicking skill and technique. 

You could apply all the same arguments by in large to basketball. In fact in basket ball individual shots are less significant given a team might have 100 per game.

But in basketball, at all levels shooting percentages are part of the DNA of the sport. Percentages win over the long run

And it drives an approach to skill development and coaching that is all about building strong technique and stress testing it.

Shooting is the building block. 

Footy needs to take that same approach. 

Our kicking is woeful. And our inaccuracy is a measure of that.

One furphy is kicking from the pockets skews our percentages. Sure it is harder to score from closer to the boundary. But our poor technique makes it even harder. Similar to three point shots in basketball.

Ignoring the issue means it is not properly addressed. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

10 hours ago, binman said:

I actually don't mind callum twomey mind either.

He knows his stuff about draftees and the draft.

But nev, that article is hopeless. As you say he is a journalist. His job is to apply some rigour and analysis.

I agree, I much prefer articles that analyse stats than opinions. 

But regurgitating stats isn't journalism.

He might have well just copy and pasted the stats and not bothered with any linking paragraphs.

Not sure if you are having a crack with the I reckon, I thought comments, but what I want in an article written by a journalist is some I reckon. As in an attempt to try and provide some answers to the questions posed. Some critical thought.

To be fair, probably the critism should be for the editor.

Was just being a bit cheeky, not having a crack legend. Always love your work.

Just reckon you're being a bit harsh on old mate. He's not employed by MFC, would be writing articles on different clubs, players, potential draftees and stacks more every week, I thought there was enough in there given all that and it's certainly got us Dees fans talking about what's in it.

Gives us a bit more than 'Sliding Doors with Damo' anyways...

[In Harmes Way 7,783]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

When it happens once that may be true.

But across all our post-bye games we've been repeatedly missing shots.

It's true that the game plays out differently if a behind is a goal and vice versa, but we are consistently winning territory, moving the ball from the back half to the forward half, applying pressure, but missing shots.

My analogy for this is missing putts playing golf. It puts pressure on the rest of your game and decision making to try and hit the ball closer to the pin to make up for the critical part of your game that isn't working.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

15 minutes ago, binman said:

One furphy is kicking from the pockets skews our percentages. Sure it is harder to score from closer to the boundary. But our poor technique makes it even harder. Similar to three point shots in basketball.

If we're using the basketball analogy though - If you were a poor three point shooting team; you wouldn't set up a game plan where a lot of your scoring opportunities were three pointers. You would look for plays to get you some easier shots and make the most of your time in possession.

Sure, you would look to try and improve that weakness; but you wouldn't build your game plan around a weakness.

[Ollie fan 3,408]

On the main topic of this thread, I have said in other threads, I really believe that the drop in form of Christian Salem has been a massive issue. I don’t blame him at all, it is clear that he is carrying an injury, but I believe that he was setting up chains of movement of the ball which gave us good scoring opportunities. Now, he doesn’t seem to do that very much at all and so the ball comes out from our defence in a much more slow and undirected manner and, indeed, the other side are much more able to lock it in to our defence. Similarly with this, Langdon's form has also dropped off, although I couldn’t guess of the reason for that.

it seems to me that Hunt has been tasked with taking over this role and that is one reason why he is making those runs out of defence more often than previously. I love those runs, but unfortunately he is not a particularly good disposer.

I don’t know what the solution is. Perhaps either or both of them need a week off to get their bodies better. 

[BW511 2,669]

21 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

If we're using the basketball analogy though - If you were a poor three point shooting team; you wouldn't set up a game plan where a lot of your scoring opportunities were three pointers. You would look for plays to get you some easier shots and make the most of your time in possession.

Sure, you would look to try and improve that weakness; but you wouldn't build your game plan around a weakness.

This would be at the heart of a lot of supporter frustration. 

[Superunknown 4,217]

28 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

My analogy for this is missing putts playing golf. It puts pressure on the rest of your game and decision making to try and hit the ball closer to the pin to make up for the critical part of your game that isn't working.

Or snap hooking from the tee and constantly having to chip out/recover, getting more and more desperate. Poor Ian Baker-Finch.

[BW511 2,669]

3 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

On the main topic of this thread, I have said in other threads, I really believe that the drop in form of Christian Salem has been a massive issue. I don’t blame him at all, it is clear that he is carrying an injury, but I believe that he was setting up chains of movement of the ball which gave us good scoring opportunities. Now, he doesn’t seem to do that very much at all and so the ball comes out from our defence in a much more slow and undirected manner and, indeed, the other side are much more able to lock it in to our defence. Similarly with this, Langdon's form has also dropped off, although I couldn’t guess of the reason for that.

it seems to me that Hunt has been tasked with taking over this role and that is one reason why he is making those runs out of defence more often than previously. I love those runs, but unfortunately he is not a particularly good disposer.

I don’t know what the solution is. Perhaps either or both of them need a week off to get their bodies better. 

The last few weeks have shown if it isn't Salem, it's no one.

Pretty simple task for the opposition to lean on him and stop our game in it's tracks.

 

[binman 43,003]

13 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

If we're using the basketball analogy though - If you were a poor three point shooting team; you wouldn't set up a game plan where a lot of your scoring opportunities were three pointers. You would look for plays to get you some easier shots and make the most of your time in possession.

Sure, you would look to try and improve that weakness; but you wouldn't build your game plan around a weakness.

True.

To an extent. At the elite down to semi pro level in basketball every team takes a really high number of 3 points shots. And there is pretty much no poor three point teams at NBA, just some much better than others and osme who shoot really high volume.

In teams that don't have a range of good three point shooters they always have at least one or two guns and engineer it to get it in their hands.  Like Ingles at the Jazz.

Our equivalent should be Fritter who i'm guessing takes a really big percentage of our shots near the boundary line. If he could increase his percentages even a bit over the course of the season he might kick say 10 more goals. And we might win say one more game as a result. In the scheme of things that would be huge.

And poor three point shooting teams can mitigate that impact by having great rebounders and winning the ball back from the missed shot. And getting another crack at scoring 

Similarly  the other part of the puzzle for us, which super alluded to is that our model of going to the boundary line actually creates more scoring opportunities (ie we mark it, hits the ground and we rove it, we get a stoppage or force a dump kick out - win that and get a reentry) and is less likely to result in the opposition going coast to coast.  

So it is a winning tactic. But would be better still if we we more accurate. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

17 minutes ago, binman said:

True.

To an extent. At the elite down to semi pro level in basketball every team takes a really high number of 3 points shots. And there is pretty much no poor three point teams at NBA, just some much better than others and osme who shoot really high volume.

In teams that don't have a range of good three point shooters they always have at least one or two guns and engineer it to get it in their hands.  Like Ingles at the Jazz.

Our equivalent should be Fritter who i'm guessing takes a really big percentage of our shots near the boundary line. If he could increase his percentages even a bit over the course of the season he might kick say 10 more goals. And we might win say one more game as a result. In the scheme of things that would be huge.

And poor three point shooting teams can mitigate that impact by having great rebounders and winning the ball back from the missed shot. And getting another crack at scoring 

Similarly  the other part of the puzzle for us, which super alluded to is that our model of going to the boundary line actually creates more scoring opportunities (ie we mark it, hits the ground and we rove it, we get a stoppage or force a dump kick out - win that and get a reentry) and is less likely to result in the opposition going coast to coast.  

So it is a winning tactic. But would be better still if we we more accurate. 

The difference is though, in basketball you use the three point shot for two reasons:

- The extra point.
- Spreading the floor.

We don't get extra points for shots from the boundary, and because we're not looking into the middle enough it's not having the effect of spreading the space for us inside 50. It's like if you went to a 3 point shooter in the corner almost every play - difficult shot, easy to defend.

 

[binman 43,003]

Just now, Lord Nev said:

The difference is though, in basketball you use the three point shot for two reasons:

- The extra point.
- Spreading the floor.

We don't get extra points for shots from the boundary, and because we're not looking into the middle enough it's not having the effect of spreading the space for us inside 50. It's like if you went to a 3 point shooter in the corner almost every play - difficult shot, easy to defend.

 

We dont get extra point from a specific kick.

But WE DO get extra shots at goal in total (and the opposition less), so the effect is the same.

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Just now, binman said:

We dont get extra point from a specific kick.

But WE DO get extra shots at goal in total (and the opposition less), so the effect is the same.

That might be true of a team that isn't in such bad form for stoppage clearances and ranked poorly for tackles inside 50.

Do you have a stat to back up you assertion that we get extra shots at goal from boundary throw ins inside 50?

But you're kind of backing up my point mate, I'm saying we should be aiming for higher percentage shots, but you're seemingly saying we should go for harder shots so that we can keep trying to kick a goal from more difficult opportunities. It would seem, that's what we're doing at the moment and it's not working.

[Deesprate 1,324]

For those who watched on the couch I thought it was an excellent assessment. It is no doubt frustrating but we played a very good team and only lost by a handful of points. What we did wrong is fixable but won’t matter unless we win Saturday. What worries me is what we bring to the table against bottom teams like the Suns. If we play with the correct intensity we will win. This game is undoubtedly the most important of the year. Win where within touching distance of first four. Lose and we can kiss top four away. It     really does not matter if we are third or fourth you will still get a double chance and most likely a home final. 
 

I listened to last week podcast and agree it important to play your own game. However it seem Goody never want to react to what seem to be obvious. Team have worked out stop Salem and it damages us. It defies belief to me that we did not shut down Caleb Daniel. For a man of small stature he is a gun and surely he should have been locked down. Goody seem to super emphasise the plan at the expense of flexibility. This can be seen in the unwillingness to make changes week to week and certainly within games. For mine this represents stubbornness and may cost us in a final.

[Smokey 4,389]

Young teams get tired in the back half of the season. Add in the fact Burgo has a tendency to increase training loads around about the same time our form started to go down and I think the answer is clear enough. Lots of over-thinking happening in this thread in my view. We have 19-20 year olds in every part of the ground ... 

We rely on the likes of Pickett, Jackson, Jordan and Rivers more than some may appreciate. Their decline in output has had an effect on our results. 

It's not the worst problem to have ... as long as we resign them 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Smokey

[Lord Nev 13,512]

6 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Young teams get tired in the back half of the season. Add in the fact Burgo has a tendency to increase training loads around about the same time our form started to go down and I think the answer is clear enough. Lots of over-thinking happening in this thread in my view. We have 19-20 year olds in every part of the ground ... 

We rely on the likes of Pickett, Jackson, Jordan and Rivers more than some may appreciate. Their decline in output has had an effect on our results. 

It's not the worst problem to have ... as long as we resign them 

Agree the younger players may be struggling, but I believe our performance has been more influenced by senior players like Salem, Gawn, Petracca, Viney, Harmes, ANB, Brown, Hibberd, Langdon and TMac - for differing reasons.

In the context of the specific stats raised in the OP article, I don't reckon those young blokes have a massive impact in those particular areas comparatively.

[Smokey 4,389]

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Agree the younger players may be struggling, but I believe our performance has been more influenced by senior players like Salem, Gawn, Petracca, Viney, Harmes, ANB, Brown, Hibberd, Langdon and TMac - for differing reasons.

In the context of the specific stats raised in the OP article, I don't reckon those young blokes have a massive impact in those particular areas comparatively.

Perhaps not directly, but if the senior player's are having to worry about aspects of the game the young guys have previously been handling then perhaps they are indirectly affecting those areas. I can only speculate. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, Smokey said:

Perhaps not directly, but if the senior player's are having to worry about aspects of the game the young guys have previously been handling then perhaps they are indirectly affecting those areas. I can only speculate. 

Yeah, would definitely be having some kind of impact, agree on that 100%, just hard to tell how much given so many of the senior blokes have issues at the moment.

Jacko is the main one for me impact wise. Seems to be rucking less lately and IMO we really need him rucking more to give us a bit more unpredictability there, but that's also due to possibly the form of the stoppage crew. Tricky.

We'll see some kind of change with Jacko this week. He'll either have a rest or he'll ruck a lot more.

[The heart beats true 18,128]

15 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Interesting stat by On Th Couch.

 

Goodwin knew this in the post match interview and spoke to it.

Interesting world football statistics. They’ve become so relevant because the media needs to fill slots from Monday to Friday. It’s frustrating that nobody wants to talk about the only 2 stats from that game that really mattered.

1. Both teams had as many scoring shots, and one was much more efficient, and

2. The bulldogs got 3 times as many free kicks as their opponent across the first 3 quarters of the game. That’s 12 times the ball was in dispute and ended up going forward for them.

I think sometimes footy is that simple.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

18 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Goodwin knew this in the post match interview and spoke to it.

Interesting world football statistics. They’ve become so relevant because the media needs to fill slots from Monday to Friday. It’s frustrating that nobody wants to talk about the only 2 stats from that game that really mattered.

1. Both teams had as many scoring shots, and one was much more efficient, and

2. The bulldogs got 3 times as many free kicks as their opponent across the first 3 quarters of the game. That’s 12 times the ball was in dispute and ended up going forward for them.

I think sometimes footy is that simple.

It's not really that simple though.

We had more marks inside 50 (despite having less inside 50s). Where abouts? How hard were the shots on goal? Dogs got 6 goals from stoppages. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, if one of those scores is changed then the whole context of the next possession and all future possessions changes. So it doesn't add up to think that if some of those points were goals the game would be different.

Also, someone else might know for sure, but out of bounds on the full are counted as free kicks right? I reckon we had at least 6-7 of those during the game which skews that free kick count. The umpiring complaining from this game is so overdone. A few poor calls, but nowhere near the impact on the game some are making out.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Lord Nev

[The heart beats true 18,128]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

So it doesn't add up to think that if some of those points were goals the game would be different.

Sorry, what?

By its very literal definition the game would have been very different if some of those points were goals. So much so the result could have been different.

?