Stats Files - 2023

[Binmans PA 26,718]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:00 AM, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Brisbane (Round 18, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231806

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff
Disposal Efficiency	71.3	73.1	-1.8
Kicking Efficiency	59.4	67.8	-8.4
Metres Gained	6095	5907	+188
Inside 50s	51	56	-5
Shots At Goal	26	28	-2
Shots Per Inside 50	51.0	50.0	+1.0
Contested Possessions	146	125	+21
Ground Ball Gets	82	86	-4
Intercepts	66	72	-6
Intercept Marks	17	18	-1
Centre Clearances	17	12	+5
Stoppage Clearances	28	20	+8
Contested Marks	14	13	+1
Marks Inside 50	12	17	-5
Hitouts	47	34	+13
Hitouts To Advantage	22	8	+14
Tackles	56	53	+3
Tackles Inside 50	14	10	+4
Def One On One Loss %	26.9	9.1	+17.8

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Against
1	169	158
2	150	164
3	181	207
4	174	192
Match	168	180

Source: Herald Sun

Most Pressure Points

Note: pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. ( https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ )

Player	Pressure Acts	Pressure Points	Season Average*
Jack Viney	23	54	54.1
Kysaiah Pickett	21	43	43.0
Max Gawn	12	36	22.9
Christian Petracca	15	35	48.1
Alex Neal-Bullen	20	35	48.0
Tom Sparrow	17	32	42.6
Taj Woewodin	14	28	25.5
Lachie Hunter	13	28	23.9
Trent Rivers	11	28	23.7
Angus Brayshaw	15	27	30.3
Jake Lever	12	26	15.2
Steven May	10	26	15.0
James Jordon	13	24	20.3
Ed Langdon	8	19	27.2
Christian Salem	8	18	29.0
Ben Brown	8	15	12.2
Jake Melksham	5	14	14.6
Charlie Spargo	8	13	24.9
Jacob van Rooyen	8	13	23.8
Jake Bowey	7	11	20.4
Harrison Petty	7	10	19.4
Judd McVee	6	9	18.2
Joel Smith	3	7	21.0

* Pressure points for rounds 4 and 6 have not been able to be sourced from the Herald Sun. Pressure points for these matches have been estimated from the number of pressure acts for each player.

Source: Herald Sun

Time in Forward Half

Quarter	For	Against
1	47%	53%
2	50%	50%
3	40%	60%
4	64%	36%
Match	50%	50%

Source: Match total sourced from the Herald Sun; quarter values are my own calculations.

Score Sources

Summary

Score sources highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Category	For			Against			Diff
	G	B	T	G	B	T
Kick-in	0	0	0	0	0	0	+0
Centre Bounce	1	2	8	0	1	1	+7
Stoppage (Other)	7	4	46	6	0	36	+10
Turnover	8	3	51	10	7	67	-16

Category	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	0	2.6	0	2.4
Centre Bounce	8	10.7	1	6.7
Stoppage (Other)	46	23.2	36	21.6
Turnover	51	53.5	67	41.2

Chain start region

Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective. Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Brisbane.

Category	Region	For		Against
		Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	D50	0	2.6	0	2.4
Centre Bounce	Centre	8	10.7	1	6.7
Stoppage (Other)	D50	7	0.8	6	2.2
Stoppage (Other)	Centre	1	2.9	0	1.2
Stoppage (Other)	Wing	18	11.3	18	6.9
Stoppage (Other)	F50	20	8.2	12	11.3
Turnover	D50	6	10.2	19	6.1
Turnover	Centre	0	7.9	7	5.9
Turnover	Wing	32	28.6	34	21.2
Turnover	F50	13	6.6	7	8.0

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
D50	13	13.6	25	10.6
Centre	9	21.5	8	13.8
Wing	50	39.9	52	28.1
F50	33	14.9	19	19.3

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season
28	34.2	50	24.2

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
Set Position
Melbourne	15	8	4	52	53.3
Brisbane	15	9	5	59	60.0
General Play
Melbourne	11	8	2	50	72.7
Brisbane	13	7	2	44	53.8

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2023 %	2022 %
Max Gawn	32	91	52.5	65.5
Angus Brayshaw	28	80	25.6	16.0
Jack Viney	26	74	68.9	74.6
James Jordon	20	57	26.2	0.2
Christian Petracca	15	43	63.6	74.6
Tom Sparrow	11	31	46.6	32.2
Kysaiah Pickett	5	14	11.7	1.3
Jacob van Rooyen	3	9	5.7
Trent Rivers	0	0	4.2	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	3.1	3.5
Harrison Petty	0	0	0.9	0.0
Clayton Oliver			82.8	86.5
Brodie Grundy			55.7	83.7
James Harmes			27.8	14.6
Tom McDonald			5.4	0.0
Josh Schache			0.0	13.8

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2023 %	2022 %
Max Gawn	83	84	47.9	57.8
Jacob van Rooyen	15	15	10.0
Ben Brown	1	1	2.6	3.6
Harrison Petty	0	0	2.0	0.0
Steven May	0	0	0.1	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0.1	0.0
Christian Petracca	0	0	0.1	0.1
Brodie Grundy			49.5	77.4
Tom McDonald			8.9	7.0
Josh Schache			6.7	13.4
Clayton Oliver			0.0	0.0

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2023)	To Adv. % (2022)
Max Gawn	83	39	17	32.3	33.6
Jacob van Rooyen	15	7	5	27.0
Ben Brown	1	1	0	0.0	14.3
Harrison Petty	0	0	0	22.2
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0	0.0
Brodie Grundy				30.8	30.2
Tom McDonald				25.0	33.3
Josh Schache					33.3

Opposition hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.
Oscar McInerney	86	33	8
Joe Daniher	13	1	0

So we lost ground ball again. And our pressure rating is again instructive. We've still got a fortnight at least before I expect our pressure rating to start to meet the AFL average. Be an interesting watch. Thanks as always, Wheelo.

[Doug Reemer 1,024]

Here is some food for thought.

2023 Top 4 against each other (no double ups) after rd 18.

Port 2 W 1 L (Ws at H Lions Dees)
Lions 2 W 1 L (Ws at H v Pies Dees)
Pies 1 W 2 L (W at H v Port)
Dees 1 W 2 L (W at H v Pies)

So our win on Friday is not included.

Interestingly enough Not one Top 4 team has won away against another Top 4 club. 

Both interstate clubs have a home ground with a ground with shallow wings.

[binman 39,562]

Go redlegs

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by binman

[binman 39,562]

1 hour ago, binman said:

That's an interesting question, one I've been pondering since i saw that data yesterday and was also reflecting on after the blues game. Was planning on raising on the podcast (we discussed this a bit after the blues game).

My initial thoughts is that i think a factor in the low pressure numbers in this game, and the blues game, relates to how both of those teams played - and how we responded to their method.

Comparing the Lions game with the Pies King's Birthday game, both games felt high pressure watching, but perhaps on Friday night more in the sense that it was a tense, enthralling contest between two genuine contenders that finished in high drama?

But what were the differences in how the Pies and the Lions (and the blues) played and how we responded. And how might that impact the pressure numbers.  

These were the pressure numbers from the Pies game:

Q1: 176 - 180
Q2: 174 - 172
Q3: 201 - 206
Q4: 186 - 177
Tot: 183 - 186

The big difference in the way the two games were played is the Pies played their game against us and ran at us they way they like to do - chaining handballs until they find an outside kicker in space to take on a high risk kick to the corridor.  

We responded to that method by denying them time and space by:

• having our defensive zone set high to create density 
• take the corridor away from them and force them down the line
• really getting up in their grill as the Pies went forward with frontal pressure (ie dees players ahead of the ball peeling of their man and running at the ball carrier)
• Sweating on their mids and flankers sitting on the outside waiting for the ball to be fed out

From wheelo def, pressure points for players are the weighed sum of pressure acts. I assume the same true is of the team's pressure ratings (i also assume the teams' ratings is the players ratings aggregated?) 

Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2.

The way we responded to the Pies method by denying them time and space ticks all the above boxes in terms of how pressure points are accumulated.

But against the Lions and the Blues we didn't press up nearly as aggressively or apply the same level of pressure frontal pressure. And out zone wasn't set as high. 

The Lions came with a plan to use the width of the G to move our defensive zone around, i think to pull Lever and may apart to minimize their intercepting ability and to expose them one on one.

To that end, they switched more than any team against us since perhaps the first half of last season.  We let them do so, and never really pressed up. The blues did something similar, but more i think because they couldn't get through our zone going in straight line.

And now that i think about it, the saints also did something similar and tried to control possession of the ball - and the pressure numbers were low in that match too.

So, with the ball getting switched side to side, fewer opportunities to aggregate pressure points because there is less corralling, closing acts and chasing acts. And less contests. 

And added to that we went fast in the first and last quarters, with the ball in motion and lots of wave running that creates space around the and ahead of the ball. Very much how the Pies love to play. But unlike us against the Pies, the Lions didn't really look to deny us space, for example by pressing up or frontal pressure  - which meant fewer pressure acts like corralling, closing acts and chasing.

So, to your question about my analysis of the ‘pressure ratings’, i think they are really useful indicator as evidenced by the fact clubs use them during games (which surprised me), but like any stat only tell part of the tale. 

I've been looking at them all season, and my overall impression is, as a rule they pass the eye test in the sense they reflect my sense of the pressure in the game.

That was not necessarily the case in the blues and Lions games - or for that matter the Saints games - in the sense those games didn't feel low pressure as such.

That said the pressure numbers in those games do point to the strategies of switching and denying us the ball (though its not then really possible, unless you have intently watch the games, to compare say the lions game with a run in the mill actual low pressure game). 

Posted just now

Further to the post above the Lions got on top in the second dominated the second and really dominated the third quarter

Yes they were still switching in the third quarter, but the quarter was a more 'traditional' looking quarter, with the lions taking control, forcing more contests and stoppages (which is how the lions like it). And we struggled to get our run and carry game going the way we did in the first and last quarters. So more congestion and less space. 

I think that is reflected in the pressure ratings of both the dees and the lions in the third  (boith teams' highest rating quarters) and provides some evidence for my theory about the pressure numbers in the game being related to how the lions played and how we responded to their method:

Quarter	For	Against
1	169	158
2	150	164
3	181	207
4	174	192
Match	168	180

It's interesting that the Lions pressure was still really good in the last quarter (and better than us for the match).

Yes they ran out of legs a little bit bit, but they didn't wilt. And maybe when defensive late by dropping Gunston back (but i think that was the right play to be honest), but i don't think they went into their shells and tried to save the game the way many are suggesting.

I just think we controlled the tempo of the game (fast and ball in motion) in the last quarter and they couldn't wrest back momentum or get control of the tempo they way they did in the third quarter. As Fagan said, they just couldn't get their hands on the ball

[Deelightful Dee 152]

What a win on Fri night, so pumped to have been there to experience it and cheer the team home!

Just thought I'd update the expected scores data after the weekend. We equalled our best performance of the year from Round 3 vs Syd with 29 points more than expected (as per Champion Data's formula). This has only been bettered by the Crows when they kicked 33 points more than expected in Round 13 vs Eagles. Speaking of the Crows and coming up against them this week, they have the best differential between actual and expected score this season. This tends to be driven by them taking many very difficult shots and still converting them into goals. Given I haven't really watched them play so far this year, I'm not sure whether this is skill or luck (probably a combinated of both).

 

[Deelightful Dee 152]

Reviewing the Player Ratings from the win over the Lions and the team ratings continue to climb as we hoped, hitting our highest levels since our win over the Hawks in Round 9. The clear drivers of this were Gawn, Kozzie, Rivers, Bowey and Trac, whilst our worst performers were only slightly off their average. Also worth noting that Brisbane recorded an average rating of 9.9 (compared to our 10.1) per player and therefore played exceptionally well. This is the second highest rating that an opposition has managed against us this season (Bombers were the highest with 10.3 in Rd 5). 

Taking a closer look at Gawn's superb performance in the context of his career from a Player Ratings perspective and it was his second highest rated game (32.8), behind Round 23 2019 vs North at Blundstone Arena when we lost by 5 points (35.4). Interestingly it was better than his 2021 Prelim Final. His Supercoach score was higher than Rd 23 2019 though: 215 last week vs 212 in 2019.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Deelightful Dee

[RyanD 240]

25 minutes ago, Deelightful Dee said:

 

Once again, quality post and thanks for putting in the time. Love seeing some objective data.

Just throwing it out there, but would love to see some stats that 'stick out' when teams score above 70 points against us (regardless of result). Brisbane x 2, Essendon, Port, GC & Freo. The one that seems super obvious to me but isn't talked about as much is mark differential. In those games where we give up a decent score against, teams have a significant mark differential against us. The games we dominate, we seems to equal or beat the other team in marks. 

We could run a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA test) for the stats that stick out, to see if they are actually statistically significant. Often statistics that seem like they stick out, may just be to chance. Again, we would need to see what stats keep showing up in loses, then we can run the test. But I think the mark differential is one I have noticed. 

P.s. please confirm if it's an ANOVA, I made the assumption because we would be testing 3 or more groups (matches), but it's been a while since I did stats. 

 

[binman 39,562]

1 hour ago, RyanD said:

Once again, quality post and thanks for putting in the time. Love seeing some objective data.

Just throwing it out there, but would love to see some stats that 'stick out' when teams score above 70 points against us (regardless of result). Brisbane x 2, Essendon, Port, GC & Freo. The one that seems super obvious to me but isn't talked about as much is mark differential. In those games where we give up a decent score against, teams have a significant mark differential against us. The games we dominate, we seems to equal or beat the other team in marks. 

We could run a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA test) for the stats that stick out, to see if they are actually statistically significant. Often statistics that seem like they stick out, may just be to chance. Again, we would need to see what stats keep showing up in loses, then we can run the test. But I think the mark differential is one I have noticed. 

P.s. please confirm if it's an ANOVA, I made the assumption because we would be testing 3 or more groups (matches), but it's been a while since I did stats. 

 

That is fascinating observation about the correlation between oppo mark differential and score.

One of the questions for the podcast is what happened in the second and third quarter in terms of the lions getting on top.

I watched the replay with that question in mind, and part of my answer was that the Lions really stretched the G and used the switch more than in any game since i could recall since the first half of 2022 when teams were desperately looking for ways to get past our defence the first Port game being the best example.

Teams gave up on that model because it became very clear that going fast was the only way to consistently trouble our defence because it makes it hard for  it to get set. Credit to McRae because he obviously gerried to this before the rest of the comp and made fast ball movement the foundation of their method. 

But Brisbane used a variation of the slow ball movement and keepings off method teams use in the 2022.  They switched and chipped it around - which of course involves lots of uncontested marks. But they didn't go overboard on that and combined it with incisive 20 -30 metre kicks going forward to lead up players. Again lots of uncontested marks.

And we seemed to allow many of these kicks - partic the switch kicks (which we always do). Our defence was set deeper than against the Pies, in part becuase Danhiher dragged May back to goal. And unlike against the Blues and Pies we didn't seem to look create density and congestion, and didn't apply much frontal pressure, or close down space. So there was a lot of space - which the Lions took advantage of with lots of sharp passes.

My feeling is part of the strategy was to separate our key defenders to isolate May and Lever one out (because they are both vulnerable one on one i reckon, partic lever) and limit the ability of lever, may and Petty to intercept mark - which is key driver of our scoring.  

The strategy worked really well, as not only did it blunt May, Lever and petty and give their tall forwards good one on one looks, they were able to tic tac over our zone wit kicks and create overlap that way. The goal Ashcroft kick was the perfect example of what i mean.  I';; check the stats for our previous three games against the Lions, but my gut feel is their uncontested marks numbers would have bene high in those games too - and its worth noting they are one of the few teams who have been able to regularly open us up. 

Another interesting part of all that using uncontested marks is clearly as they they have used specifically for the dees. It is it likely the Pies would try and follow suit? I din think so becuase every person and their dog have them on a pedestal so their conceit would be they don't need to try such a strategy to beat us. 

 

 

 

 

[Binmans PA 26,718]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

That is fascinating observation about the correlation between oppo mark differential and score.

One of the questions for the podcast is what happened in the second and third quarter in terms of the lions getting on top.

I watched the replay with that question in mind, and part of my answer was that the Lions really stretched the G and used the switch more than in any game since i could recall since the first half of 2022 when teams were desperately looking for ways to get past our defence the first Port game being the best example.

Teams gave up on that model because it became very clear that going fast was the only way to consistently trouble our defence because it makes it hard for  it to get set. Credit to McRae because he obviously gerried to this before the rest of the comp and made fast ball movement the foundation of their method. 

But Brisbane used a variation of the slow ball movement and keepings off method teams use in the 2022.  They switched and chipped it around - which of course involves lots of uncontested marks. But they didn't go overboard on that and combined it with incisive 20 -30 metre kicks going forward to lead up players. Again lots of uncontested marks.

And we seemed to allow many of these kicks - partic the switch kicks (which we always do). Our defence was set deeper than against the Pies, in part becuase Danhiher dragged May back to goal. And unlike against the Blues and Pies we didn't seem to look create density and congestion, and didn't apply much frontal pressure, or close down space. So there was a lot of space - which the Lions took advantage of with lots of sharp passes.

My feeling is part of the strategy was to separate our key defenders to isolate May and Lever one out (because they are both vulnerable one on one i reckon, partic lever) and limit the ability of lever, may and Petty to intercept mark - which is key driver of our scoring.  

The strategy worked really well, as not only did it blunt May, Lever and petty and give their tall forwards good one on one looks, they were able to tic tac over our zone wit kicks and create overlap that way. The goal Ashcroft kick was the perfect example of what i mean.  I';; check the stats for our previous three games against the Lions, but my gut feel is their uncontested marks numbers would have bene high in those games too - and its worth noting they are one of the few teams who have been able to regularly open us up. 

Another interesting part of all that using uncontested marks is clearly as they they have used specifically for the dees. It is it likely the Pies would try and follow suit? I din think so becuase every person and their dog have them on a pedestal so their conceit would be they don't need to try such a strategy to beat us. 

 

 

 

 

We also didn't transition effectively and reset our zone backwards and forwards from either wing. We transitioned once and all it took was another switch back to the original spot to then have players out everywhere on the original side.

That's a focus and work rate thing from us. And good work rate and synergy from them.

At the end of the day, we need to play 4 quarters and we managed a half (if I'm being kind) against Brisbane. You can rarely get away with that against the very top sides. It's just we happened to spank them when we were on top and made the most of our chances.

Edited July 19, 2023 by A F

[binman 39,562]

2 minutes ago, A F said:

We also didn't transition effectively and reset our zone backwards and forwards from either wing. We transitioned once and all it took was another switch back to the original spot to then have players out everywhere on the original side.

That's a focus and work rate thing from us. And good work rate and synergy from them.

At the end of the day, we need to play 4 quarters and we managed a half (if I'm being kind) against Brisbane. You can rarely get away with that against the very top sides. It's just we happened to spank them when we were on top and made the most of our chances.

I have a different take. 

Our effort was first class the whole game. I don't think our work rate dropped much, if at all.

Def a four quarter effort. They are very good side, who also worked hard all game, and there is no chance we would have won that game if we only showed up for only half a game.

And really the game started turning our way half way thru the third. 

I don't think we are quite there yet with our collective running ability cover the ground quickly. Which impacts ability to get back and also cover off those short leads.

But we are def much closer to overall optimal fitness and I think have a fitness edge over tge lions. And used that edge to grind them into the ground

And as their energy fell away they had to abandon the short kicks because it takes a huge amount of energy for mutiple leads, most unrewarded that method requires.

We were doing something similar in the first few games.

[Engorged Onion 9,597]

5? 4? years of specific style of training under Burgess and Griffiths. 5 years of not just being fit at the start of the season but refining and exposing each athlete throughout each subsequent season to be able to perform under fatigue during the season, both from a physiological and a psychological perspective. Stress Innoculation. It's done this way, because the evidence is the list is Top 4 worthy.

So the 'poor form', the 'we're not contenders' narrative from those that need the immediate gratification of a win to not question a teams credentials, ultimately misses the point.

When the plateau in training load comes...  the ability to execute physiologically and consequently psychologically without the burden of the physiological stress, becomes far easier.

5 years of building on the base pre-season, and mid season, year after year after year and for some of those athletes in the 23-27 year old range, the will reap the rewards.

It'd be different if we ranked the list at 18-11, we'd be operating the fitness cycle quite differently. The incremental and cumulative affects should have been seen 2022 where many players were crocked.

I whole heartedly expect to see the rewards of this in the 2023 finals campaign.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Engorged Onion

[Binmans PA 26,718]

22 minutes ago, binman said:

I have a different take. 

Our effort was first class the whole game. I don't think our work rate dropped much, if at all.

Def a four quarter effort. They are very good side, who also worked hard all game, and there is no chance we would have won that game if we only showed up for only half a game.

And really the game started turning our way half way thru the third. 

I don't think we are quite there yet with our collective running ability cover the ground quickly. Which impacts ability to get back and also cover off those short leads.

But we are def much closer to overall optimal fitness and I think have a fitness edge over tge lions. And used that edge to grind them into the ground

And as their energy fell away they had to abandon the short kicks because it takes a huge amount of energy for mutiple leads, most unrewarded that method requires.

We were doing something similar in the first few games.

As it turned halfway through the first. I think we were really on top for the first 15-20 minutes of the first and for 5-10 minutes of the 3rd and all of the 4th.

I agree we're not there yet with our collective ability to cover the ground yet. I don't expect this until Round 20ish (ie the Richmond game).

And that's quite possible that the short kicking game had to be abandoned by the Lions as they tired.

It's not the short chipping game that's beaten us in the past though IMO. That's usually up one wing or through the corridor without switching. And our zone should protect against the switch, because it did on the first kick, but when the ball returned to the opposite side of the field, it was too easy for Brisbane to transition the ball without us touching an opponent.

To me that's a work rate thing, but we'll agree to disagree I guess.

[Boots and all 955]

On 7/16/2023 at 1:13 PM, binman said:

Posted just now

Further to the post above the Lions got on top in the second dominated the second and really dominated the third quarter

Yes they were still switching in the third quarter, but the quarter was a more 'traditional' looking quarter, with the lions taking control, forcing more contests and stoppages (which is how the lions like it). And we struggled to get our run and carry game going the way we did in the first and last quarters. So more congestion and less space. 

I think that is reflected in the pressure ratings of both the dees and the lions in the third  (boith teams' highest rating quarters) and provides some evidence for my theory about the pressure numbers in the game being related to how the lions played and how we responded to their method:

Quarter	For	Against
1	169	158
2	150	164
3	181	207
4	174	192
Match	168	180

It's interesting that the Lions pressure was still really good in the last quarter (and better than us for the match).

Yes they ran out of legs a little bit bit, but they didn't wilt. And maybe when defensive late by dropping Gunston back (but i think that was the right play to be honest), but i don't think they went into their shells and tried to save the game the way many are suggesting.

I just think we controlled the tempo of the game (fast and ball in motion) in the last quarter and they couldn't wrest back momentum or get control of the tempo they way they did in the third quarter. As Fagan said, they just couldn't get their hands on the ball

Hey Binman,

I find the pressure act data really interesting. Are you able to shed further light on when they are recorded? For example are the Dees pressure acts only recorded when the opposition has possession? I ask this because according to Fagan our boys dominated possession in the final quarter against the Lions but they still recorded our second highest pressure rating for the game. I'd love to know if there is any clear correlation between time in possession and overall pressure rating. 

 

 

 

[rpfc 27,692]

14 minutes ago, A F said:

As it turned halfway through the first. I think we were really on top for the first 15-20 minutes of the first and for 5-10 minutes of the 3rd and all of the 4th.

I agree we're not there yet with our collective ability to cover the ground yet. I don't expect this until Round 20ish (ie the Richmond game).

And that's quite possible that the short kicking game had to be abandoned by the Lions as they tired.

It's not the short chipping game that's beaten us in the past though IMO. That's usually up one wing or through the corridor without switching. And our zone should protect against the switch, because it did on the first kick, but when the ball returned to the opposite side of the field, it was too easy for Brisbane to transition the ball without us touching an opponent.

To me that's a work rate thing, but we'll agree to disagree I guess.

I definitely think it is a workrate thing but it’s also just base decision making - in the second and third I just saw the Lions switch and pull it back and make the ground bigger and find those gaps in the first and second line and then run from coleman and the Irish bloke and then you are over the top of our press.

I also don’t see the pressure numbers as a worry really, teams don’t want to play offensively through aggressive play that would invite pressure, they just want to avoid defensive turnovers with our press and so our games are a little more about possession and control.

That all changes in finals when grounds get smaller and pressure gets louder.

[Binmans PA 26,718]

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

I definitely think it is a workrate thing but it’s also just base decision making - in the second and third I just saw the Lions switch and pull it back and make the ground bigger and find those gaps in the first and second line and then run from coleman and the Irish bloke and then you are over the top of our press.

I also don’t see the pressure numbers as a worry really, teams don’t want to play offensively through aggressive play that would invite pressure, they just want to avoid defensive turnovers with our press and so our games are a little more about possession and control.

That all changes in finals when grounds get smaller and pressure gets louder.

But the majority of their back half chains in the third for example (4 of 5 goals from defensive half chains) seemed to start from stationary plays. So the press doesn't come into effect. The zone sits there, but there's no press. 

When Brisbane would gain possession in the back half, it seemed they were able to find a short option that the zone would then muzzle. The kicker or would switch back again, and Brisbane players would find themselves in metres and metres of space on the opposite wing.

They'd then move the ball along the wing without us getting anywhere near one of their players and certainly nowhere near the ball, and kick goals. Coast to coast. It happened more than once. We rarely give up in a coast to coast goal in a 10 game stretch these days, let alone 2 or 3 in the same quarter.

I'd be staggered if Chaplin and co were happy with our zone defence and our work rate in defensive transition for the majority of the second and third quarters.

[rpfc 27,692]

1 hour ago, A F said:

But the majority of their back half chains in the third for example (4 of 5 goals from defensive half chains) seemed to start from stationary plays. So the press doesn't come into effect. The zone sits there, but there's no press. 

When Brisbane would gain possession in the back half, it seemed they were able to find a short option that the zone would then muzzle. The kicker or would switch back again, and Brisbane players would find themselves in metres and metres of space on the opposite wing.

They'd then move the ball along the wing without us getting anywhere near one of their players and certainly nowhere near the ball, and kick goals. Coast to coast. It happened more than once. We rarely give up in a coast to coast goal in a 10 game stretch these days, let alone 2 or 3 in the same quarter.

I'd be staggered if Chaplin and co were happy with our zone defence and our work rate in defensive transition for the majority of the second and third quarters.

I think this zone vs press is a matter of tense - is the ball ‘in play’ or are they just sharing short kicks that we won’t ‘press’ up onto. 

What I saw on Kings Birthday was the Demon Press of Death but it was not aggressive in getting up to the half backs it was just allowing them no other option than to kick it long. They really struggled to do what they like doing - crowd the footy and share and drive to another contest where they outnumber and share and wave it forward.

My coaching head sees a zone as a fwd/mid structure from a kick in or turnover that ends at the first long kick that causes a contest, where as a press is the inclusion of the entire team marking space in an extended zone. To me it’s a press, whether they press ‘up’ or not. 

Anyway, I think we can agree that we were picked apart but that happens with these full team structures when 1 person screws up, when 2 people screw up you may as well just kick into their forward yourself… 

Edited July 19, 2023 by rpfc

[layzie 30,403]

The last 7 or 8 posts have been really insightful and I don't think anyone is wrong. Personally looking back at the replay I thought in the 2nd and 3rd quarters there was still a lot that we were doing right. We did make some poor decisions and at times there could have been a work rate issue but the Lions were really just that good. Some of their delivery into 50 was just pure silk and while people might be a bit mixed on whether our backline had a good game or not, I do wonder if many other backlines would have kept them to less than 104 with the footy they were producing. I gave our defence a B grading on the night. 

I think we took a lot out of this game learnings wise. Letting a team 'play in their own half' to use a Soccer term will work most times but they way they kept the ball in motion and pulled our zone around can be a trap. Plenty for Chaplin to take out of it. 

 

[binman 39,562]

1 hour ago, layzie said:

We did make some poor decisions and at times there could have been a work rate issue but the Lions were really just that good. Some of their delivery into 50 was just pure silk

A very good point. Their passing in that period was surgical. 

And i'd add that some of their kicking for goal in that period was also brilliant.

They go 50 50 for accuracy in that period and they don't look nearly as dominant.

The same is true for the first 20 minutes of the game with our crazy good accuracy, and to a lesser extent in the last with Melk's two beautiful shots at goal - particularly the one from the boundary which is easily forgotten given his match winner. On the boundary, on his non preferred leg and around the body from 40 metres. That was pure skill. 

The game was such a good example of the difference accuracy makes and how important it is to take chances.

There was some brilliant kicking for goal from both teams:

• Tracc's bomb from outside 50
• Bailey's set shot from an angle from the 50 metre arc
• BB's set shot from outside 50
• Woey and Ashcroft's goals from almost the same spot in the pocket at the Punt road end
• Fletcher's beautiful goal on the run after outpointing Hunter in the air
• Daniher's set shot goal from near the boundary at the end of the first q
• Kozzie's set shot from a similar spot at the opposite end of the ground in the first
• Gawn' clutch set shot from 40
• Tracc's clutch bannana (after a brilliant handball from kickett) soon after
• Viney's clutch snap under immense pressure on his non dominant foot
• And of course Melk's two match winners.

Firsts class football. 

It's worth noting in that context that we had one more scoring in the Pies game than we did Friday night - and scored 34  points less because of our inaccuracy. 

[binman 39,562]

13 hours ago, Boots and all said:

Hey Binman,

I find the pressure act data really interesting. Are you able to shed further light on when they are recorded? For example are the Dees pressure acts only recorded when the opposition has possession? I ask this because according to Fagan our boys dominated possession in the final quarter against the Lions but they still recorded our second highest pressure rating for the game. I'd love to know if there is any clear correlation between time in possession and overall pressure rating. 

 

 

 

That's a good question and really interesting observation - one i hadn't considered. Well not in terms of us having more of the ball decreasing our chances of accruing pressure points.

I don't know for certain, but ,my assumption is pressure points can only be accrued by the team without the ball in hand and/or when the ball is in dispute ie neither team has the  ball in hand. 

So logic suggests you are onto something ie if one team dominates possession the other team has more opportunities to accrue pressure points.

Somewhat surprisingly, in the final quarter possession % differential was only 5% (42 - 37, with i presume the ball in dispute 21% of the time) - the diff in pressure was aprox 10% in the last (174-192).

By the by the  numbers for the last 10 minutes of the game are fascinating - 24% for the dees and only 13% for the lioins. Show our domination in that period.

But i assume it also means the ball was in dispute for 63% of the time. That is a lot of contests and contested footy - which is exactly what we love; the dees DNA.

As goody loves to say we got the game looking like a Melbourne game - get it forward and back the players in to win the next contest.  

But it also shows the Lions kept scrapping and running hard, otherwise the numbers would have looked more like the tola game time in possession stats.  

 

[Binmans PA 26,718]

7 hours ago, layzie said:

The last 7 or 8 posts have been really insightful and I don't think anyone is wrong. Personally looking back at the replay I thought in the 2nd and 3rd quarters there was still a lot that we were doing right. We did make some poor decisions and at times there could have been a work rate issue but the Lions were really just that good. Some of their delivery into 50 was just pure silk and while people might be a bit mixed on whether our backline had a good game or not, I do wonder if many other backlines would have kept them to less than 104 with the footy they were producing. I gave our defence a B grading on the night. 

I think we took a lot out of this game learnings wise. Letting a team 'play in their own half' to use a Soccer term will work most times but they way they kept the ball in motion and pulled our zone around can be a trap. Plenty for Chaplin to take out of it. 

 

Yeah, I don't blame the defenders necessarily. I blame the mids and the half forwards frankly. I'm on record saying I felt our forward mix was off. What we gave to score, meant we almost gave up too many scores the other way.

May really struggled, but the rest of the defenders held up their end of the bargain and I expect May to be better this week.

If it's Round 20 or 21 or even better, a final, are we allowing those transition goals? Probably not and I would certainly hope not.

6 hours ago, binman said:

A very good point. Their passing in that period was surgical. 

And i'd add that some of their kicking for goal in that period was also brilliant.

They go 50 50 for accuracy in that period and they don't look nearly as dominant.

The same is true for the first 20 minutes of the game with our crazy good accuracy, and to a lesser extent in the last with Melk's two beautiful shots at goal - particularly the one from the boundary which is easily forgotten given his match winner. On the boundary, on his non preferred leg and around the body from 40 metres. That was pure skill. 

The game was such a good example of the difference accuracy makes and how important it is to take chances.

There was some brilliant kicking for goal from both teams:

• Tracc's bomb from outside 50
• Bailey's set shot from an angle from the 50 metre arc
• BB's set shot from outside 50
• Woey and Ashcroft's goals from almost the same spot in the pocket at the Punt road end
• Fletcher's beautiful goal on the run after outpointing Hunter in the air
• Daniher's set shot goal from near the boundary at the end of the first q
• Kozzie's set shot from a similar spot at the opposite end of the ground in the first
• Gawn' clutch set shot from 40
• Tracc's clutch bannana (after a brilliant handball from kickett) soon after
• Viney's clutch snap under immense pressure on his non dominant foot
• And of course Melk's two match winners.

Firsts class football. 

It's worth noting in that context that we had one more scoring in the Pies game than we did Friday night - and scored 34  points less because of our inaccuracy. 

I'd add Hipwood's goal late in the 3rd on the boundary too. Left footer remember.

There was definitely some brilliant goal kicking on display.

[Boots and all 955]

8 hours ago, binman said:

That's a good question and really interesting observation - one i hadn't considered. Well not in terms of us having more of the ball decreasing our chances of accruing pressure points.

I don't know for certain, but ,my assumption is pressure points can only be accrued by the team without the ball in hand and/or when the ball is in dispute ie neither team has the  ball in hand. 

So logic suggests you are onto something ie if one team dominates possession the other team has more opportunities to accrue pressure points.

Somewhat surprisingly, in the final quarter possession % differential was only 5% (42 - 37, with i presume the ball in dispute 21% of the time) - the diff in pressure was aprox 10% in the last (174-192).

By the by the  numbers for the last 10 minutes of the game are fascinating - 24% for the dees and only 13% for the lioins. Show our domination in that period.

But i assume it also means the ball was in dispute for 63% of the time. That is a lot of contests and contested footy - which is exactly what we love; the dees DNA.

As goody loves to say we got the game looking like a Melbourne game - get it forward and back the players in to win the next contest.  

But it also shows the Lions kept scrapping and running hard, otherwise the numbers would have looked more like the tola game time in possession stats.  

 

Thanks Binman. Yes there was certainly a ton of loose ball in that last 10 minutes, 63% in dispute is huge!! 

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,166]

Not sure if there a stat for our kick ins from FB but we have become a little less predictable than straight to Gawn to left half back/ wing.

Have gone right and even down the guts at times, it's refreshing to see!

[Deelightful Dee 152]

Looking forward to #AFLDeesCrows! Dees' contest is as strong as ever and attack is improving, however, intercepts and I50 diff have dropped off recently. Crows's pressure is their strength but can be exposed defensively and the attack has faded. Can the Dees continue rolling?

 

[WheeloRatings 1,028]

Melbourne v Adelaide (Round 19, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231906

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff
Disposal Efficiency	65.3	75.2	-9.9
Kicking Efficiency	58.6	68.8	-10.2
Metres Gained	6015	5880	+135
Inside 50s	52	54	-2
Shots At Goal	29	29	+0
Shots Per Inside 50	55.8	53.7	+2.1
Contested Possessions	149	128	+21
Ground Ball Gets	96	88	+8
Intercepts	64	66	-2
Intercept Marks	12	19	-7
Centre Clearances	15	13	+2
Stoppage Clearances	24	19	+5
Contested Marks	14	18	-4
Marks Inside 50	17	12	+5
Hitouts	43	28	+15
Hitouts To Advantage	11	9	+2
Tackles	47	69	-22
Tackles Inside 50	1	13	-12
Def One On One Loss %	33.3	25.0	+8.3

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Against
1	184	194
2	201	198
3	177	172
4	168	202
Match	183	191

Source: Herald Sun

Most Pressure Points

Note: pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. ( https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ )

Player	Pressure Acts	Pressure Points	Season Average*
Christian Petracca	26	63	48.9
Angus Brayshaw	25	62	32.1
James Jordon	27	58	23.0
Jack Viney	27	54	54.1
Kysaiah Pickett	20	44	43.1
Ed Langdon	16	35	27.7
Tom Sparrow	16	34	42.1
Christian Salem	14	33	29.4
Judd McVee	12	24	18.5
Alex Neal-Bullen	9	21	46.6
Kade Chandler	12	21	31.6
Jake Bowey	9	20	20.4
Taj Woewodin	9	19	23.3
Jacob van Rooyen	6	17	23.3
Max Gawn	7	17	22.5
Trent Rivers	8	15	23.2
Jake Lever	6	13	15.1
Ben Brown	6	13	12.3
Steven May	5	12	14.8
Adam Tomlinson	4	12	14.5
Jake Melksham	6	8	13.8
Lachie Hunter	5	6	22.9
Joel Smith	0	0	18.0

* Pressure points for rounds 4 and 6 have not been able to be sourced from the Herald Sun. Pressure points for these matches have been estimated from the number of pressure acts for each player.

Source: Herald Sun

Time in Forward Half

Quarter	For	Against
1	46%	54%
2	44%	56%
3	50%	50%
4	59%	41%
Match	51%	49%

Source: Match total sourced from the Herald Sun; quarter values are my own calculations.

Score Sources

Summary

Score sources highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Category	For			Against			Diff
	G	B	T	G	B	T
Kick-in	1	0	6	0	1	1	+5
Centre Bounce	2	1	13	1	2	8	+5
Stoppage (Other)	2	3	15	2	4	16	-1
Turnover	9	9	63	10	8	68	-5

Category	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	6	2.8	1	2.3
Centre Bounce	13	10.8	8	6.8
Stoppage (Other)	15	22.7	16	21.3
Turnover	63	54.0	68	42.7

Chain start region

Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective. Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Adelaide.

Category	Region	For		Against
		Match	Season	Match	Season
Kick-in	D50	6	2.8	1	2.3
Centre Bounce	Centre	13	10.8	8	6.8
Stoppage (Other)	D50	0	0.7	6	2.4
Stoppage (Other)	Centre	1	2.8	1	1.2
Stoppage (Other)	Wing	14	11.4	3	6.7
Stoppage (Other)	F50	0	7.8	6	11.0
Turnover	D50	31	11.4	9	6.2
Turnover	Centre	1	7.6	20	6.7
Turnover	Wing	29	28.7	32	21.8
Turnover	F50	2	6.4	7	7.9

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season
D50	37	14.9	16	10.9
Centre	15	21.2	29	14.7
Wing	43	40.1	35	28.5
F50	2	14.2	13	18.9

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season
66	36.0	43	25.2

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
Set Position
Melbourne	18	12	5	77	66.7
Adelaide	14	4	10	34	28.6
General Play
Melbourne	11	2	6	18	18.2
Adelaide	15	9	4	58	60.0

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2023 %	2022 %
Jack Viney	28	90	70.3	74.6
Max Gawn	27	87	55.3	65.5
Angus Brayshaw	19	61	27.9	16.0
Tom Sparrow	17	55	47.2	32.2
Christian Petracca	14	45	62.4	74.6
James Jordon	11	35	26.9	0.2
Kysaiah Pickett	4	13	11.8	1.3
Jacob van Rooyen	4	13	6.2
Trent Rivers	0	0	3.9	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	2.9	3.5
Clayton Oliver			82.8	86.5
Brodie Grundy			55.7	83.7
James Harmes			27.8	14.6
Tom McDonald			5.4	0.0
Harrison Petty			0.9	0.0
Josh Schache			0.0	13.8

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2023 %	2022 %
Max Gawn	69	80	50.0	57.8
Jacob van Rooyen	16	19	10.6
Joel Smith	1	1	0.2	0.0
Ben Brown	0	0	2.3	3.6
Steven May	0	0	0.1	0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0.1	0.0
Christian Petracca	0	0	0.1	0.1
Brodie Grundy			49.5	77.4
Tom McDonald			8.9	7.0
Josh Schache			6.7	13.4
Harrison Petty			2.0	0.0
Clayton Oliver			0.0	0.0

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2023)	To Adv. % (2022)
Max Gawn	69	38	11	31.9	33.6
Jacob van Rooyen	16	5	0	23.8
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0	0.0
Ben Brown	0	0	0	0.0	14.3
Brodie Grundy				30.8	30.2
Tom McDonald				25.0	33.3
Harrison Petty				22.2
Josh Schache					33.3

Opposition hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.
Reilly O'Brien	68	20	8
Riley Thilthorpe	18	8	1

 

Expected scores (Champion Data)

98 - 86

[layzie 30,403]

Adelaide pressure very high in that last quarter. Wonder how many teams we have left to play have the fitness to bring that late in the game?