What a bizarre article.

Is it missing half of it? 

All symptoms and no cause. 

No mention of all the hot topics of Demonland either!

• Loading
• Poor coaching
• Arrogance
• Mental Fragility

 

Ugh. I hate it when people just grab a few stats that have changed and say 'these stats have changed' and think their job is done.

Phoning it in, Twomey. Just phoning it in.

Imagine if someone who had access to all the detailed stats and play recordings really put some effort into the content they generated.

Interesting to note our goals per inside 50 rating has massively dropped compared to our set shot accuracy.

Many on Demonland seem to think if we 'kicked straight' we would have won more, but perhaps it's not as simple as that hey?

 

34 minutes ago, binman said:

What a bizarre article.

Is it missing half of it? 

All symptoms and no cause. 

I'm mean, sure, most of your comments on Demonland are 3 times as long, but thought the stats it raised were interesting... ;)

 

36 minutes ago, binman said:

What a bizarre article.

Is it missing half of it? 

All symptoms and no cause. 

Same problem the coaching staff have. 

I like the article's stats: the AFL doesn't scores from turnover (as far as I know, anyway), so it's interesting to see we're down 15.7 points per game on that metric.

Funnily enough, we're going to the boundary less from defensive 50 than we were earlier in the season. Doesn't really support the recent comments on here that we've become "more boring". 

18 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Interesting to note our goals per inside 50 rating has massively dropped compared to our set shot accuracy.

Many on Demonland seem to think if we 'kicked straight' we would have won more, but perhaps it's not as simple as that hey?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Our goal accuracy has dropped from 45.9% to 37.5%.

Doesn't that help explain why our goals per inside 50 have dropped from 23.6% to 17.8%?

Are you arguing that the relative drop (13th to 18th, compared with 7th to 17th) means there is more to it? If so, I'm not sure if that's the right conclusion to draw because our ranking is relative to other clubs, whose form is largely independent of ours.

Or have I missed something here?

Just now, titan_uranus said:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Our goal accuracy has dropped from 45.9% to 37.5%.

Doesn't that help explain why our goals per inside 50 have dropped from 23.6% to 17.8%?

Are you arguing that the relative drop (13th to 18th, compared with 7th to 17th) means there is more to it? If so, I'm not sure if that's the right conclusion to draw because our ranking is relative to other clubs, whose form is largely independent of ours.

Or have I missed something here?

I think goal accuracy as far as impact on results is better measured comparatively rather than from an overall percentage.

Sure, we've dropped off in set shot accuracy, absolutely no argument there that it's a big big problem, but as far as the league standard goes, the teams we play against weekly, it's not as bad as many fans seem to want to make it in how it's regressed as the year has gone on.

My suggestion is that saying things like 'kick straight and we win' are a gross over simplification of our forward issues. The big drops in kick retention rate and goal per inside 50 should also illustrate that the quality of the entries and opportunities is also a factor.

My personal belief is that we generally only have two types of inside 50 delivery at the moment:

Long to a pack deep inside 50.
Very wide to the pocket to a leading player.

The long packs are very rarely successful for us as we don't have that type of forward IMO, and the very wide marks inside 50 obviously result in a more difficult shot at goal. There's of course exceptions, but I'm talking generally.

For mine, the solution is looking more shallow inside 50 more often. Easy to say, I know, but we had shown good signs of that last year and early this year but it's dropped off in the second half of this year - about the same time we changed our midfield mix.

Players aren't all of a sudden going to change their technique, fix the yips etc this late in the year, so I think we need to work harder on easier opportunities.

There's a lot too it all, and a lot of different problems at the moment, but that's my opinion on the forward half issues as they stand.

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I think goal accuracy as far as impact on results is better measured comparatively rather than from an overall percentage.

Sure, we've dropped off in set shot accuracy, absolutely no argument there that it's a big big problem, but as far as the league standard goes, the teams we play against weekly, it's not as bad as many fans seem to want to make it in how it's regressed as the year has gone on.

My suggestion is that saying things like 'kick straight and we win' are a gross over simplification of our forward issues. The big drops in kick retention rate and goal per inside 50 should also illustrate that the quality of the entries and opportunities is also a factor.

My personal belief is that we generally only have two types of inside 50 delivery at the moment:

Long to a pack deep inside 50.
Very wide to the pocket to a leading player.

The long packs are very rarely successful for us as we don't have that type of forward IMO, and the very wide marks inside 50 obviously result in a more difficult shot at goal. There's of course exceptions, but I'm talking generally.

For mine, the solution is looking more shallow inside 50 more often. Easy to say, I know, but we had shown good signs of that last year and early this year but it's dropped off in the second half of this year - about the same time we changed our midfield mix.

Players aren't all of a sudden going to change their technique, fix the yips etc this late in the year, so I think we need to work harder on easier opportunities.

There's a lot too it all, and a lot of different problems at the moment, but that's my opinion on the forward half issues as they stand.

Really nicely put synopsis there @Lord Nev

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

I think goal accuracy as far as impact on results is better measured comparatively rather than from an overall percentage.

Sure, we've dropped off in set shot accuracy, absolutely no argument there that it's a big big problem, but as far as the league standard goes, the teams we play against weekly, it's not as bad as many fans seem to want to make it in how it's regressed as the year has gone on.

My suggestion is that saying things like 'kick straight and we win' are a gross over simplification of our forward issues. The big drops in kick retention rate and goal per inside 50 should also illustrate that the quality of the entries and opportunities is also a factor.

My personal belief is that we generally only have two types of inside 50 delivery at the moment:

Long to a pack deep inside 50.
Very wide to the pocket to a leading player.

The long packs are very rarely successful for us as we don't have that type of forward IMO, and the very wide marks inside 50 obviously result in a more difficult shot at goal. There's of course exceptions, but I'm talking generally.

For mine, the solution is looking more shallow inside 50 more often. Easy to say, I know, but we had shown good signs of that last year and early this year but it's dropped off in the second half of this year - about the same time we changed our midfield mix.

Players aren't all of a sudden going to change their technique, fix the yips etc this late in the year, so I think we need to work harder on easier opportunities.

There's a lot too it all, and a lot of different problems at the moment, but that's my opinion on the forward half issues as they stand.

I agree that there's more to it than straighter set shot kicking but our goal kicking is IMO the single biggest problem, and that's because we're missing enough easy shots per match, repeatedly, for it to be noticeable.

Brown's two easy misses on the weekend were just that: easy. He should have kicked both of them. So should Pickett in the first quarter (a snap from 25m on a slight angle). 

Really sad that Stats Insider hasn't updated its set shot charting since Round 6. If it was up to date we'd be able to get a sense of how many "easy" shots we're missing.

On the comparative metric, I understand what you're saying but what we know is that post-bye, in every game we've played we've had inferior goal kicking accuracy to our opponent in that game. That side may then kick inaccurately the following week but that doesn't impact us: what impacts us is our own accuracy vs our opponent's accuracy when we play them, and post-bye we've been far less accurate each game than our opposition.

Having said that, I agree with you that the way we deliver the ball inside 50 is a problem. We get it wrong too often - we go to the square when we shouldn't, then we go to the pocket when we should go to the square, etc. Part of it is that we have some average decision-makers doing the delivering (ANB, Harmes, Viney and Gawn all struggle with making the call on where to send the ball). Part of it is we fluff the kicks (e.g. Pickett had McDonald streaming into an open pocket but missed him).

I suspect part of it also is that having not settled on our preferred forward set up, TMac and Brown haven't yet gelled together and nor have our mids gelled with them. Pleasingly Brown was involved all match as a target, so that was an improvement, but then TMac went missing and that's no good.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree that there's more to it than straighter set shot kicking but our goal kicking is IMO the single biggest problem, and that's because we're missing enough easy shots per match, repeatedly, for it to be noticeable.

Brown's two easy misses on the weekend were just that: easy. He should have kicked both of them. So should Pickett in the first quarter (a snap from 25m on a slight angle). 

Really sad that Stats Insider hasn't updated its set shot charting since Round 6. If it was up to date we'd be able to get a sense of how many "easy" shots we're missing.

On the comparative metric, I understand what you're saying but what we know is that post-bye, in every game we've played we've had inferior goal kicking accuracy to our opponent in that game. That side may then kick inaccurately the following week but that doesn't impact us: what impacts us is our own accuracy vs our opponent's accuracy when we play them, and post-bye we've been far less accurate each game than our opposition.

Having said that, I agree with you that the way we deliver the ball inside 50 is a problem. We get it wrong too often - we go to the square when we shouldn't, then we go to the pocket when we should go to the square, etc. Part of it is that we have some average decision-makers doing the delivering (ANB, Harmes, Viney and Gawn all struggle with making the call on where to send the ball). Part of it is we fluff the kicks (e.g. Pickett had McDonald streaming into an open pocket but missed him).

I suspect part of it also is that having not settled on our preferred forward set up, TMac and Brown haven't yet gelled together and nor have our mids gelled with them. Pleasingly Brown was involved all match as a target, so that was an improvement, but then TMac went missing and that's no good.

I guess my long winded post was in a way saying - Yes, our set shot goal kicking is bad, but it was already pretty bad when we were undefeated. It's gotten worse obviously, but it's not gone from great to horrible, whereas some of our other forward key stats have.

There's a lot to it hey? So many factors, and that's just the forward line.

Frustrates me no end that we have all these 'pressure players' like Viney, Harmes and ANB, which should mean Spargo, Kozzy, Trac are doing more delivery forward; just isn't working like that. Just feels like everyone's role is purely pressure at the sacrifice of skill.

I guess the good news is that our problems aren't a mystery so the coaches can spend more time implementing the solution without a ton of analysis first.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

I'm mean, sure, most of your comments on Demonland are 3 times as long, but thought the stats it raised were interesting... ;)

 

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.

 

It’s nothing to do with anything the press is saying. The guys were enjoying their footy. They were having fun. Now they’re not. That’s all. Nothing else. Zilch. 
And they were doing it TOGETHER!!!

Edited July 26, 20213 yr by Antioch

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.

1 hour ago, Antioch said:

It’s nothing to do with anything the press is saying. The guys were enjoying their footy. They were having fun. Now they’re not. That’s all. Nothing else. Zilch. 
And they were doing it TOGETHER!!!

Antioch - can you pinpoint why the change?  Cause or effect??

Edited July 26, 20213 yr by monoccular

Someone posted that if we halved the difference between missed shots in the games we lost and drew,  a few points converted to goals, we would have won all of them comfortably.

That without playing any better. 

Interesting!

Edited July 26, 20213 yr by Redleg

Interesting- I did notice this stat on the weekend. Apparently we sucked against Collingwood and GWS in this area as well. 

Edited July 26, 20213 yr by CYB

I'd like to see the GPS figures. Think we have dropped off markedly here. Earlier in year we seemingly outnumbered the opposition everywhere but forward. Against the Bulldogs it appeared that if Oliver or Petracca didn't win the pill in the midfield we were stuffed! 

 

5 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

I'd like to see the GPS figures. Think we have dropped off markedly here. Earlier in year we seemingly outnumbered the opposition everywhere but forward. Against the Bulldogs it appeared that if Oliver or Petracca didn't win the pill in the midfield we were stuffed! 

 

Spot on.

The gps data would be brilliant and take a hell of a lot of guess work out of things.

The eyes say we are fatigued and not covering ground.

The gps numbers would conform or contradict that impression

Rd15 Dees 9.14 to Ess 8.9 (W)

Rd 16 Dees7.13 to GWS 9.10 (L)

Rd 17 Dees 12.14 to 8.7 (W)

Rd 18 Dees 11.13 to Haw 12.7 (D)

Rd 19 Dees 9.11 to WB 13.7 (L)

5 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

I'd like to see the GPS figures. Think we have dropped off markedly here. Earlier in year we seemingly outnumbered the opposition everywhere but forward. Against the Bulldogs it appeared that if Oliver or Petracca didn't win the pill in the midfield we were stuffed! 

 

Blueprint to beat us. 
1 - make our defenders accountable 

2- lock it in our d50 and create multiple stoppages.

We should be able to fix this.Surely.

in addition if we find some form in goal kicking accuracy which we are also 18th. not saying to  take these stats to top 4 but at least top half and we will back to winning ways. 

18 minutes ago, CYB said:

Interesting- I did notice this stat on the weekend. Apparently we sucked against Collingwood and GWS in this area as well. 

That’s what I said straight after the Bulldogs game. We got murdered in defensive 50 stoppages and above all other excuses that’s why we lost the game. 

 

Edited July 26, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

Interesting stat by On Th Couch.

 

1 hour 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.

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.