Jump to content

Posting Unsubstantiated Rumours on this Website is Strictly Forbidden
  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    Demonland has made the difficult decision to not permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, board elections, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials ...

    We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

    However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

    The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

    Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

    We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

    WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

    Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.



Recommended Posts

Wet game and we won the inside 50s by +32, lost. 

Wet game against GWS and we won the inside 50s by 40+, lost.

That is a huge sample size and tells me we are playing the wrong way in the wet. 

How on earth do we not have an understanding of why we are so poor in these games? You can't play the same game plan and let teams 'counter attack' with all that open space off the half back line. We didn't learn a thing. 

Can someone please put together our record in the wet with out total inside 50's for and against. 

Edited by RyanD
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RyanD said:

Wet game and we won the inside 50s by +32, lost. 

Wet game against GWS and we won the inside 50s by 40+, lost.

That is a huge sample size and tells me we are playing the wrong way in the wet. 

How on earth do we not have an understanding of why we are so poor in these games? You can't play the same game plan and let teams 'counter attack' with all that open space off the half back line. We didn't learn a thing. 

Can someone please put together our record in the wet with out total inside 50's for and against. 

It wasn’t even wet. It rained pre game and not a drop throughout. The ball and ground were only really soggy for maybe the first quarter. The wet is not why we lost. 
We lost because we can dominate time in half forward but we have absolutely nobody capable of scoring consistently. 
If Fritsch doesn’t kick a bag we are basically relying on random midfield goals to get us a score sufficient enough to win. We kept the Pies to 9 goals. That’s it. 9. And yet with 32 more entries we couldn’t manage 11 goals total. 
 

Edited by Jaded No More
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RyanD said:

Wet game and we won the inside 50s by +32, lost. 

Wet game against GWS and we won the inside 50s by 40+, lost.

That is a huge sample size and tells me we are playing the wrong way in the wet. 

How on earth do we not have an understanding of why we are so poor in these games? You can't play the same game plan and let teams 'counter attack' with all that open space off the half back line. We didn't learn a thing. 

Can someone please put together our record in the wet with out total inside 50's for and against. 

When we play in the wet, we can tend to play the percentages more, which means kicking long as our main mode of entry.

I think if we'd tried to chip the ball around more and found a shorter target around the arc or inside 50, we'd have been super vulnerable to slingshot goals on turnover.

Against Geelong for example, we constantly tried to chain out of contests by hand when we should have been more about getting territory. 

Tonight, we were more about getting territory. The problem with that in the modern game is you've got essentially the entire opposition camped in your attacking 50, which makes scoring tougher.

At the end of the day though, we're not having these conversations if TMac kicks his 35m directly in front one or Fritta at least scores from his 35m, slight angle kick, Langdon kicks the one from the goal square he took advantage on and the 6 other out on the fulls from our guys tonight.

Edited by Binmans PA
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

When we play in the wet, we can tend to play the percentages more, which means kicking long as our main mode of entry.

I think if we'd tried to chip the ball around more and found a shorter target around the arc or inside 50, we'd have been super vulnerable to slingshot goals on turnover.

Against Geelong for example, we constantly tried to chain out of contests by hand when we should have been more about getting territory. 

Tonight, we were more about getting territory. The problem with that in the modern game is you've got essentially the entire opposition camped in your attacking 50, which makes scoring tougher.

At the end of the day though, we're not having these conversations if TMac kicks his 35m directly in front one or Fritta at least scores from his 35m, slight angle kick, Langdon kicks the one from the goal square he took advantage on and the 6 other out on the fulls from our guys tonight.

That is exactly my point. Teams like Collingwood and GWS don't do that and still beat us. 240 minutes of football against GWS and Collingwood in similar conditions and we lose both games. Sure, you might be more vulnerable by playing a different way, but you are likely to also be more effective going forward. 

You are a stats man. Think about the sample size here, 240 minutes of football in the wet. We lose both games with +72 inside 50s. There is something fundamentally wrong there and I have not even included the Essendon game and I think there is another one I am missing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It wasn’t even wet. It rained pre game and not a drop throughout. The ball and ground were only really soggy for maybe the first quarter. The wet is not why we lost. 
We lost because we can dominate time in half forward but we have absolutely nobody capable of scoring consistently. 
If Fritsch doesn’t kick a bag we are basically relying on random midfield goals to get us a score sufficient enough to win. We kept the Pies to 9 goals. That’s it. 9. And yet with 32 more entries we couldn’t manage 11 goals total. 
 

I agree with some of that. But the ball was skidding still in the last Q, the ground was definitely wet. I just think we are atrociously skilled AT TIMES and the wet makes it worse. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melbourne v Collingwood (Finals Week 1, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20232501

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat For Against Diff
Disposal Efficiency 66.2 65.2 +1.0
Kicking Efficiency 59.0 63.2 -4.2
Metres Gained 6106 5704 +402
Inside 50s 69 37 +32
Shots At Goal 23 15 +8
Shots Per Inside 50 33.3 40.5 -7.2
Contested Possessions 153 139 +14
Ground Ball Gets 101 96 +5
Intercepts 80 84 -4
Intercept Marks 17 19 -2
Centre Clearances 12 7 +5
Stoppage Clearances 32 33 -1
Contested Marks 15 9 +6
Marks Inside 50 9 8 +1
Hitouts 33 48 -15
Hitouts To Advantage 11 11 +0
Tackles 61 62 -1
Tackles Inside 50 13 9 +4
Def One On One Loss % 15.8 42.9 -27.1

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter For Against
1 180 194
2 172 177
3 182 205
4 176 192
Match 178 192

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*
Clayton Oliver 26 61 59.8
Kysaiah Pickett 26 54 42.3
Alex Neal-Bullen 24 48 45.8
Christian Petracca 25 45 45.9
Tom Sparrow 16 38 43.6
Max Gawn 14 32 22.1
Jack Viney 16 31 55.5
Christian Salem 10 30 31.1
Bailey Laurie 13 27 16.6
Bayley Fritsch 9 22 19.0
Steven May 9 21 14.7
Trent Rivers 9 20 23.1
Jacob van Rooyen 8 20 22.1
Jake Bowey 9 20 22.0
Tom McDonald 11 19 24.8
Joel Smith 9 18 19.3
Ed Langdon 8 17 27.9
Judd McVee 10 16 18.0
Lachie Hunter 6 10 23.1
Jake Lever 5 10 14.9
Michael Hibberd 4 10 10.5
Kade Chandler 4 8 30.3
Angus Brayshaw 2 5 34.2

* 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 45% 55%
2 63% 37%
3 67% 33%
4 75% 25%
Match 61% 39%

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 1 1 0 0 0 +1
Centre Bounce 2 1 13 3 0 18 -5
Stoppage (Other) 2 2 14 0 2 2 +12
Turnover 3 7 25 6 4 40 -15
Category For Against
Match Season Match Season
Kick-in 1 2.4 0 2.3
Centre Bounce 13 11.1 18 8.7
Stoppage (Other) 14 23.4 2 19.7
Turnover 25 51.8 40 41.0

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 Collingwood.

Category Region For Against
Match Season Match Season
Kick-in D50 1 2.4 0 2.3
Centre Bounce Centre 13 11.1 18 8.7
Stoppage (Other) D50 0 0.5 0 1.9
Stoppage (Other) Centre 1 2.6 0 1.1
Stoppage (Other) Wing 7 12.2 1 6.4
Stoppage (Other) F50 6 8.0 1 10.3
Turnover D50 2 11.5 13 6.5
Turnover Centre 0 7.5 13 6.5
Turnover Wing 22 26.4 13 20.6
Turnover F50 1 6.5 1 7.5
Region For Against
Match Season Match Season
D50 3 14.5 13 10.7
Centre 14 21.2 31 16.2
Wing 29 38.6 14 27.0
F50 7 14.5 2 17.8

Points from defensive half

For Against
Match Season Match Season
16 33.1 26 24.2

Shots at goal

Team Shots G B T Acc.
General Play
Melbourne 9 3 3 21 33.3
Collingwood 4 2 2 14 50.0
Set Position
Melbourne 14 4 5 29 28.6
Collingwood 11 7 3 45 63.6

Centre Bounce Attendances

  CBAs CBA % 2023 % 2022 %
Max Gawn 19 95 63.9 65.5
Clayton Oliver 18 90 80.5 86.5
Jack Viney 15 75 71.7 74.6
Christian Petracca 15 75 61.4 74.6
Tom Sparrow 9 45 44.9 32.2
Angus Brayshaw 2 10 35.3 16.0
Kysaiah Pickett 1 5 11.3 1.3
Jacob van Rooyen 1 5 7.6  
Tom McDonald 0 0 4.8 0.0
Trent Rivers 0 0 3.1 0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 2.2 3.5
Lachie Hunter 0 0 0.2 0.0
Brodie Grundy     54.4 83.7
James Jordon     27.6 0.2
James Harmes     26.7 14.6
Harrison Petty     0.7 0.0
Josh Schache     0.0 13.8

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

  Ruck
Contests
RC % 2023 % 2022 %
Max Gawn 79 77 56.5 57.8
Jacob van Rooyen 15 15 13.1  
Tom McDonald 9 9 8.9 7.0
Joel Smith 0 0 0.9 0.0
Christian Petracca 0 0 0.2 0.1
Clayton Oliver 0 0 0.1 0.0
Steven May 0 0 0.1 0.0
Tom Sparrow 0 0 0.1 0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 0.0 0.0
Brodie Grundy     47.7 77.4
Josh Schache     6.2 13.4
Ben Brown     2.3 3.6
Harrison Petty     2.0 0.0

Hitouts

  Ruck
Contests
Hitouts To
Adv.
To Adv. %
(2023)
To Adv. %
(2022)
Max Gawn 79 31 11 31.0 33.6
Jacob van Rooyen 15 1 0 31.1  
Tom McDonald 9 1 0 22.2 33.3
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 0 0.0  
Joel Smith 0 0 0 0.0  
Brodie Grundy       30.4 30.2
Harrison Petty       25.0  
Ben Brown       0.0 14.3
Josh Schache       0.0 33.3

Opposition hitouts

  Ruck
Contests
Hitouts To
Adv.
Mason Cox 66 34 6
Darcy Cameron 34 14 5
Daniel McStay 3 0 0

 

Expected Scores (Champion Data)

70 - 55

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RyanD said:

That is exactly my point. Teams like Collingwood and GWS don't do that and still beat us. 240 minutes of football against GWS and Collingwood in similar conditions and we lose both games. Sure, you might be more vulnerable by playing a different way, but you are likely to also be more effective going forward. 

You are a stats man. Think about the sample size here, 240 minutes of football in the wet. We lose both games with +72 inside 50s. There is something fundamentally wrong there and I have not even included the Essendon game and I think there is another one I am missing. 

I see your point, but a sample size of 2 games is not enough.

I actually think the issue is not needing a different method in the wet per se. The issue is whenever we completey smash teams for inside 50s we struggle converting inside 50s into scores.

As BPA notes that is often a function means of very crowded inside 50 areas, in large part because so many of those inside 50s are rentries. 

When it's wet our ability to win more contests and stoppages than oppo invariably means a big inside 50 diff. Same is true when we play weaker teams who cant match us in the contest.

The same thing happened last night after quarter time. I think inside 50s were close to even at quarter time. So to have a 37 i50 diff by the end of the game us nuts.

So ironically the better we play in terms of our key metric of cp, the harder it is to have a decent inside 50 to score ratio.

I think it is a reasonable question if we need to adjust that method when we are smashing them for inside 50s, for example by setting the rebound wall further to the wing and creating more space for  oppo players to flood out of our 50.

If we hadn't dominated the game and i50s so much after quarter time maybe we might have had some more space inside 50 and some better looks.

But let's say we did that.

That might have translated to a better inside 50 to score ratio, for instance because there were more leading lanes and space.

But if we kicked as poorly for goal as we did last night it wouldnt have translated to a higher score.

Bottom line we lost that game because we were inaccurate. Exactly same issue against GWS.

That inaccuracy is only partially a function of pressure on the shots on goal from general play due to congestion that results from our method.

We missed plenty of very gettable set shots. We kick them we win. 

I really think the key issue in the wet is, as I have been banging on about for years, we are a terrible kicking sides. The wet exacerbates that issue.

The other factor is it negates the ability to play Max up forward, mnegates his marking and means he is gets few score involvements.

On that front, I think we pulled the wrong straw and shoul have gone with Grundy not tmac.

Edited by binman
  • Like 3
  • Clap 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Collingwood (Finals Week 1, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20232501

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat For Against Diff
Disposal Efficiency 66.2 65.2 +1.0
Kicking Efficiency 59.0 63.2 -4.2
Metres Gained 6106 5704 +402
Inside 50s 69 37 +32
Shots At Goal 23 15 +8
Shots Per Inside 50 33.3 40.5 -7.2
Contested Possessions 153 139 +14
Ground Ball Gets 101 96 +5
Intercepts 80 84 -4
Intercept Marks 17 19 -2
Centre Clearances 12 7 +5
Stoppage Clearances 32 33 -1
Contested Marks 15 9 +6
Marks Inside 50 9 8 +1
Hitouts 33 48 -15
Hitouts To Advantage 11 11 +0
Tackles 61 62 -1
Tackles Inside 50 13 9 +4
Def One On One Loss % 15.8 42.9 -27.1

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter For Against
1 180 194
2 172 177
3 182 205
4 176 192
Match 178 192

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*
Clayton Oliver 26 61 59.8
Kysaiah Pickett 26 54 42.3
Alex Neal-Bullen 24 48 45.8
Christian Petracca 25 45 45.9
Tom Sparrow 16 38 43.6
Max Gawn 14 32 22.1
Jack Viney 16 31 55.5
Christian Salem 10 30 31.1
Bailey Laurie 13 27 16.6
Bayley Fritsch 9 22 19.0
Steven May 9 21 14.7
Trent Rivers 9 20 23.1
Jacob van Rooyen 8 20 22.1
Jake Bowey 9 20 22.0
Tom McDonald 11 19 24.8
Joel Smith 9 18 19.3
Ed Langdon 8 17 27.9
Judd McVee 10 16 18.0
Lachie Hunter 6 10 23.1
Jake Lever 5 10 14.9
Michael Hibberd 4 10 10.5
Kade Chandler 4 8 30.3
Angus Brayshaw 2 5 34.2

* 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 45% 55%
2 63% 37%
3 67% 33%
4 75% 25%
Match 61% 39%

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 1 1 0 0 0 +1
Centre Bounce 2 1 13 3 0 18 -5
Stoppage (Other) 2 2 14 0 2 2 +12
Turnover 3 7 25 6 4 40 -15
Category For Against
Match Season Match Season
Kick-in 1 2.4 0 2.3
Centre Bounce 13 11.1 18 8.7
Stoppage (Other) 14 23.4 2 19.7
Turnover 25 51.8 40 41.0

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 Collingwood.

Category Region For Against
Match Season Match Season
Kick-in D50 1 2.4 0 2.3
Centre Bounce Centre 13 11.1 18 8.7
Stoppage (Other) D50 0 0.5 0 1.9
Stoppage (Other) Centre 1 2.6 0 1.1
Stoppage (Other) Wing 7 12.2 1 6.4
Stoppage (Other) F50 6 8.0 1 10.3
Turnover D50 2 11.5 13 6.5
Turnover Centre 0 7.5 13 6.5
Turnover Wing 22 26.4 13 20.6
Turnover F50 1 6.5 1 7.5
Region For Against
Match Season Match Season
D50 3 14.5 13 10.7
Centre 14 21.2 31 16.2
Wing 29 38.6 14 27.0
F50 7 14.5 2 17.8

Points from defensive half

For Against
Match Season Match Season
16 33.1 26 24.2

Shots at goal

Team Shots G B T Acc.
General Play
Melbourne 9 3 3 21 33.3
Collingwood 4 2 2 14 50.0
Set Position
Melbourne 14 4 5 29 28.6
Collingwood 11 7 3 45 63.6

Centre Bounce Attendances

  CBAs CBA % 2023 % 2022 %
Max Gawn 19 95 63.9 65.5
Clayton Oliver 18 90 80.5 86.5
Jack Viney 15 75 71.7 74.6
Christian Petracca 15 75 61.4 74.6
Tom Sparrow 9 45 44.9 32.2
Angus Brayshaw 2 10 35.3 16.0
Kysaiah Pickett 1 5 11.3 1.3
Jacob van Rooyen 1 5 7.6  
Tom McDonald 0 0 4.8 0.0
Trent Rivers 0 0 3.1 0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 2.2 3.5
Lachie Hunter 0 0 0.2 0.0
Brodie Grundy     54.4 83.7
James Jordon     27.6 0.2
James Harmes     26.7 14.6
Harrison Petty     0.7 0.0
Josh Schache     0.0 13.8

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

  Ruck
Contests
RC % 2023 % 2022 %
Max Gawn 79 77 56.5 57.8
Jacob van Rooyen 15 15 13.1  
Tom McDonald 9 9 8.9 7.0
Joel Smith 0 0 0.9 0.0
Christian Petracca 0 0 0.2 0.1
Clayton Oliver 0 0 0.1 0.0
Steven May 0 0 0.1 0.0
Tom Sparrow 0 0 0.1 0.0
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 0.0 0.0
Brodie Grundy     47.7 77.4
Josh Schache     6.2 13.4
Ben Brown     2.3 3.6
Harrison Petty     2.0 0.0

Hitouts

  Ruck
Contests
Hitouts To
Adv.
To Adv. %
(2023)
To Adv. %
(2022)
Max Gawn 79 31 11 31.0 33.6
Jacob van Rooyen 15 1 0 31.1  
Tom McDonald 9 1 0 22.2 33.3
Alex Neal-Bullen 0 0 0 0.0  
Joel Smith 0 0 0 0.0  
Brodie Grundy       30.4 30.2
Harrison Petty       25.0  
Ben Brown       0.0 14.3
Josh Schache       0.0 33.3

Opposition hitouts

  Ruck
Contests
Hitouts To
Adv.
Mason Cox 66 34 6
Darcy Cameron 34 14 5
Daniel McStay 3 0 0

 

Expected Scores (Champion Data)

70 - 55

 

 

 

Thanks for all this.  Validates the eye test. By and large, the game was played close to expectations. Both teams got the style they play but the difference in the end was our last kick either into 50 or for goal, which is always the deciding factor for mfc games. 

The goal kicking is an 'easier' fix as it's a bit of mean reversion.  The entry is the more significant 'problem'.  It all starts from how we generate scores which are from turnovers and specifically from the wing.   We rarely go back through the corridor so the entries are boundary line and easier to defend.   Of course, the coaches know all this and they'll say the plan is working and it's giving us the best shot to contend.  Struggling to see how any of this changes. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Thanks for all this.  Validates the eye test. By and large, the game was played close to expectations. Both teams got the style they play but the difference in the end was our last kick either into 50 or for goal, which is always the deciding factor for mfc games. 

The goal kicking is an 'easier' fix as it's a bit of mean reversion.  The entry is the more significant 'problem'.  It all starts from how we generate scores which are from turnovers and specifically from the wing.   We rarely go back through the corridor so the entries are boundary line and easier to defend.   Of course, the coaches know all this and they'll say the plan is working and it's giving us the best shot to contend.  Struggling to see how any of this changes. 

Good points.

A stat that stands out is scores from turnover.

We kept them to a reasonable score, but we could only generate half our season average with 25 points from turnover. 

Simarly we contained the pies pretty well on transition but we could only manage 16 points from our defensive half, against our season average of 33.

Our defence was brilliant, but so was the Pies defence. Arguably theirs was better, particularly early on with some damaging turnover marks that created scores. And they absorbed a huge number of contests inside their D50 thru the match.

Losing gus so early was a huge factor.

Apart from the fact that he has been in great form and is built for these sort of games, he does a huge amount of defensive running and gets to contests. Those actions are picked up in the team pressure ratings, and the Pies, it must be said, smashed us for pressure.

They were essentially down one of their key midfield rotations that they needed to cover for an entire match.

Which in turn meant they couldn't put Tracc forward as much as they would have planned to.

And it brought Laurie into the game really early. You'd have to say he struggled with the tempo early on, didn't play on ball or have much impact. We couldn't use him as intended to inject run and skills late in the third.

I also wonder what the psychological impact might have been on the team, at least for the rest of the quarter. I felt sick watching (still do), i can't imagine how his teamates would feel seeing Gus, of all players, go down with a heavy head knock. 

I hope he is ok.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of key things stand out to me from @WheeloRatings's stats:

1. Our set shot accuracy was the killer in the end. Scoring 4 goals from 14 shots isn't enough (compared to their 7 from 11). However, looking at where these shots were taken as per https://crowdatascience.shinyapps.io/interactive_xscore/ and we can see that all misses were from around 50m or more and the only behind that was greater than 50% chance of a goal was TMac's in the last quarter, but even then that was 52.5% chance. Unfortunately, I think our attacking efficiency issues aren't going to disappear quickly for us. It has been a common issue throughout the year (or longer) and our game style lends itself to it as @binman mentions above. At the end of the day though, I think this style is more conducive to consistent performance that stands up in big games / finals and is more aligned to the strengths of our list so I think the coaches have chosen the right game style for us. However, when we lose, it's invariably going to be because of this. Our last 5 losses (Coll, Carl, GWS, Gee, Freo) have all been due to poor forward conversion even though we had the upper hand defensively and / or in the contest. 

image.png.a2c234cf3d5a68df579d8cf375ba96cc.png

 

2. I'm blown away by the player ratings in the first quarter last night. Our starts have been average to poor since Rd 18 vs Bris (up by 17 at QT) and last night was our 3rd worst Q1 result for the year (behind -26 vs Kan in Rd 21 and -25 vs BL in Rd 2). But the player ratings in Q1 were terrible. Our total player ratings in Q1 were 25 less than the Pies and our only players with more than 3 were Bowey (4.2) and Gawn (3.5). By contrast, they had 11 players with more than 3 with Hill scoring 10.5 (more than 16 of our players for the entire game). Either something was off or the Pies were just really on. I would be surprised if we were off due to the concern of Brayshaw going off as we saw a similar drop off against the Lions in round 2 after Gawn went off with what looked like a serious knee injury. Maybe we have built a team that cares "too much" for each other and such situations negatively impact their ability to perform? In saying that, I'd probably prefer that than vice versa. Interesting to note though, we flipped the script in the last quarter and outscored the Pies by 22 player ratings points (and outscore them by 3 player ratings points by the end of the match). 

Edited by Deelightful Dee
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qualifying Final, 2023 MCG - Magpies vs Demons

How so many did not turn up in a crucial final is perplexing.  Worrying times. 

Only 10% of inside 50s resulted in a goal.  One in ten entries....my god.  That has to be some sort of record worst result for the club i would think.

Tracc 15% off his season average rating.  Viney a mare along with about 2/3rds of the team, some even worse than a mare whatever you call that.

Some positives, Gawn played his sox off (again), Clarry back towards his best and May topping his 2021 & 22 ratings!  Get Tomo back in and free Lever up FCS Goody.

The players that can hold there head up in these ratings (Gus forgiven of course)...

Clarry, Gawn, May, Bowey, Hibbo, Sparrow & Smith.  That is it fellow minions!  The rest were crud on the night.

That's it for me...the less said the better or i'll have to show myself out.

Demons

Scoring Efficiency  
Disposals Per Goal  46.43
% In50s Goal 10.10
Conversion %

38.90

Magpies

Scoring Efficiency

 
Disposals Per Goal  35.44
% In50s Goal 24.30
Conversion %

60.00

Collingwood about one season ahead on the experience front and only 1 rookie (sub 50 games) vs our 6...

Average Attributes  
Collingwood  Attribute  Melbourne 
188.6cm  Height  186.1cm
88.6kg  Weight  87.0kg
28yr 1mth  Age  26yr 5mth
150.2 Games  124.7

 

Collingwood  Games  Melbourne 
1 Less than 50  6
7 50 to 99  3
4 100 to 149  1
5 150 to 200  10
6 200 or more  3

 

Player Rating Rank Season Rating to Prior Rnd % Change vs Season Rating
C Oliver 5.700 1 5.002 13.95
Max Gawn 5.100 2 3.350 52.24
S May 4.150 3 3.213 29.16
C Petracca 3.975 4 4.707 -15.55
J Bowey 3.075 5 2.820 9.04
Ed Langdon 2.750 6 3.057 -10.04
M Hibberd 2.725 7 2.610 4.41
T Sparrow 2.725 8 2.811 -3.06
L Hunter 2.475 9 2.939 -15.79
Jake Lever 2.075 10 3.131 -33.73
Joel Smith 1.950 11 1.863 4.67
B Fritsch 1.675 12 2.324 -27.93
C Salem 1.650 13 2.993 -44.87
J McVee 1.650 14 2.320 -28.88
Jack Viney 1.650 15 3.707 -55.49
A N-Bullen 1.550 16 2.532 -38.78
T McDonald 1.400 17 2.054 -31.84
T Rivers 1.375 18 3.696 -62.80
K Pickett 1.300 19 2.101 -38.12
K Chandler 0.850 20 2.265 -62.47
B Laurie > 54% 0.750 21 2.235 -66.44
A Brayshaw < 13% 0.550 22 3.883 -85.84
J V Rooyen 0.525 23 2.170 -75.81
Team Rating 51.10   69.86 -26.85
Top 6 24.75   26.25 -5.71
Bottom 6 6.23   9.26 -32.78
   

< Subbed out / TOG %

> Subbed in / TOG %

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

   
     
     
     
     
Edited by Demon Dynasty
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Qualifying Final, 2023 MCG - Magpies vs Demons

How so many did not turn up in a crucial final is perplexing.  Worrying times. 

Only 10% of inside 50s resulted in a goal.  One in ten entries....my god.  That has to be some sort of record worst result for the club i would think.

Tracc 15% off his season average rating.  Viney a mare along with about 2/3rds of the team, some even worse than a mare whatever you call that.

Some positives, Gawn played his sox off (again), Clarry back towards his best and May topping his 2021 & 22 ratings!  Get Tomo back in and free Lever up FCS Goody.

The players that can hold there head up in these ratings (Gus forgiven of course)...

Clarry, Gawn, May, Bowey, Hibbo, Sparrow & Smith.  That is it fellow minions!  The rest were crud on the night.

That's it for me...the less said the better or i'll have to show myself out.

Demons

Scoring Efficiency  
Disposals Per Goal  46.43
% In50s Goal 10.10
Conversion %

38.90

Magpies

Scoring Efficiency

 
Disposals Per Goal  35.44
% In50s Goal 24.30
Conversion %

60.00

Collingwood about one season ahead on the experience front and only 1 rookie (sub 50 games) vs our 6...

Average Attributes  
Collingwood  Attribute  Melbourne 
188.6cm  Height  186.1cm
88.6kg  Weight  87.0kg
28yr 1mth  Age  26yr 5mth
150.2 Games  124.7

 

Collingwood  Games  Melbourne 
1 Less than 50  6
7 50 to 99  3
4 100 to 149  1
5 150 to 200  10
6 200 or more  3

 

Player Rating Rank Season Rating to Prior Rnd % Change vs Season Rating
C Oliver 5.700 1 5.002 13.95
Max Gawn 5.100 2 3.350 52.24
S May 4.150 3 3.213 29.16
C Petracca 3.975 4 4.707 -15.55
J Bowey 3.075 5 2.820 9.04
Ed Langdon 2.750 6 3.057 -10.04
M Hibberd 2.725 7 2.610 4.41
T Sparrow 2.725 8 2.811 -3.06
L Hunter 2.475 9 2.939 -15.79
Jake Lever 2.075 10 3.131 -33.73
Joel Smith 1.950 11 1.863 4.67
B Fritsch 1.675 12 2.324 -27.93
C Salem 1.650 13 2.993 -44.87
J McVee 1.650 14 2.320 -28.88
Jack Viney 1.650 15 3.707 -55.49
A N-Bullen 1.550 16 2.532 -38.78
T McDonald 1.400 17 2.054 -31.84
T Rivers 1.375 18 3.696 -62.80
K Pickett 1.300 19 2.101 -38.12
K Chandler 0.850 20 2.265 -62.47
B Laurie > 54% 0.750 21 2.235 -66.44
A Brayshaw < 13% 0.550 22 3.883 -85.84
J V Rooyen 0.525 23 2.170 -75.81
Team Rating 51.10   69.86 -26.85
Top 6 24.75   26.25 -5.71
Bottom 6 6.23   9.26 -32.78

 

   

< Subbed out / TOG %

> Subbed in / TOG %

Stats courtesy of footwire.com & wheeloratings.com

   
     
     

Lots of sub par performances in that list 

And even with that we should have won

Pies wont win the GF on Thursdays performance

   
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks DD so many players below par on Thursday night, nerves, anxiety spent their energy before the game and yet we were still in it right until the end. I was checking the team stats this morning and Blues / Swans teams ran an extra 20 kilometres during their game compared to Dees / Pies game. That seems a bit weird,ie 290 km vs 270km that seems a lot of K's.??

Crowd Noise.???

Edited by DeeZone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the biggest conundrum for me - where was our pressure? 
 

This is our pressure for the KB game. It’s not super high but I remember us all discussing that it felt higher and it was also period of loading for both teams):
IMG_5559.jpeg.c71ee60fcd9564b3ed2633a59f46a395.jpeg

Here’s pressure from Thursday. We didn’t win one quarter and we never got above 182, in a final after a bye!

IMG_5558.thumb.jpeg.93091825a9b0df8abe7f7480689864ff.jpeg
Our game style is built on pressure and finals demand high levels of pressure.   I can’t see how we can win if we can’t increase this from the start of the game. Thankfully this is something the team should be capable of rectifying for next week - only this (and some reversion to the mean on goal kicking) gives me hope. 

Edited by Nairobi_Demon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Thanks DD so many players below par on Thursday night, nerves, anxiety spent their energy before the game and yet we were still in it right until the end. I was checking the team stats this morning and Blues / Swans teams ran an extra 20 kilometres during their game compared to Dees / Pies game. That seems a bit weird,ie 290 km vs 270km that seems a lot of K's.??

Crowd Noise.???

Wish i knew DZ.

Something upstairs or maybe a training issue.  The Pies had a pretty big match sim the Thurs before i think but surely we're doing similar out at Casey.

Losing Gus after about 10 minutes obviously didn't help with our rotations.

Another great example of why we need a sin bin or a red card system imho.

So after decades and decades of players being ironed out we are still seeing this happen in finals yet the perpetrators are allowed to just play on as if nothing happened and their team gets a big advantage while they're at it.

Stupid game that allows this to be honest.

No wonder the filth were chanting.  Imagine if Maynard is sin binned for the remainder of the match.  Or the thought of being sent off was there prior to him commiting that piece of thuggery.   Does he do it?  Highly unlikely as his team mates / coaches will be super miffed and their team as disadvantaged as we were.

As it stands now though, they (and all their media mates) just laugh it off as "an unfortunate outcome from a football act" and benefit from an extra rotation for the remainder of the match.

Edited by Demon Dynasty
  • Like 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

This is the biggest conundrum for me - where was our pressure? 
 

This is our pressure for the KB game. It’s not super high but I remember us all discussing that it felt higher and it was also period of loading for both teams):
IMG_5559.jpeg.c71ee60fcd9564b3ed2633a59f46a395.jpeg

Here’s pressure from Thursday. We didn’t win one quarter and we never got above 182, in a final after a bye!

IMG_5558.thumb.jpeg.93091825a9b0df8abe7f7480689864ff.jpeg
Our game style is built on pressure and finals demand high levels of pressure.   I can’t see how we can win if we can’t increase this from the start of the game. Thankfully this is something the team should be capable of rectifying for next week - only this (and some reversion to the mean on goal kicking) gives me hope. 

Can you explain what your understanding is and what you mean by "a period of loading" please ND ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Can you explain what your understanding is and what you mean by "a period of loading" please ND ?

By period I mean a period of time, probably a block of a 3-4 weeks. By loading I mean additional blocks of mostly aerobic exercise between matches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

This is the biggest conundrum for me - where was our pressure? 
 

This is our pressure for the KB game. It’s not super high but I remember us all discussing that it felt higher and it was also period of loading for both teams):
IMG_5559.jpeg.c71ee60fcd9564b3ed2633a59f46a395.jpeg

Here’s pressure from Thursday. We didn’t win one quarter and we never got above 182, in a final after a bye!

IMG_5558.thumb.jpeg.93091825a9b0df8abe7f7480689864ff.jpeg
Our game style is built on pressure and finals demand high levels of pressure.   I can’t see how we can win if we can’t increase this from the start of the game. Thankfully this is something the team should be capable of rectifying for next week - only this (and some reversion to the mean on goal kicking) gives me hope. 

Yes, i had the same same query about our pressure.

Our pressure was not where it needed to be. It's curious becuase we were minus 10 for contested possession at quarter time and ended up winning it by plus 14 so out attack on the ball and toughness was great. 

I have theory as to what might be a big contributing factor, which i was planning on discussing on the podcast.

Teaser is it relates to Gus not playing almost the entire game and how the pressure ratings are calculated (note a 'physical pressure act is literally when a player touches an opponent, for instance tackles, bumps, wins a contested ball):

  • 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
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the relevant definitions of the pressure acts:

Pressure Act (Corralling):

The lowest form of pressure a player can apply, where they are simply occupying space in front of the ball carrier to prevent them moving forward, or have a run at them, but not quickly enough to record ‘closing’ pressure.         

Pressure Act (Closing):

A higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier (either from in front or the side) as he disposals of the ball. The key point of difference between this and corralling is that there will be imminent contact and the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately.

Pressure Act (Chasing):

Where a player applies pressure from behind an opponent by chasing. They must be gaining ground or applying pressure significant enough to hurry the ball carrier to dispose of the ball. If the chasing player is on the verge of making physical contact from behind, then closing pressure will be imminent.       

Pressure Act (Physical):

Applying direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball or effecting a tackle that prevents an effective disposal from the ball carrier.

Pressure Act (Implied):

Reducing an opponent’s decision making time without physical contact ‘via corralling, closing space or chasing from behind’.

Edited by binman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

This is the biggest conundrum for me - where was our pressure? 
 

This is our pressure for the KB game. It’s not super high but I remember us all discussing that it felt higher and it was also period of loading for both teams):
IMG_5559.jpeg.c71ee60fcd9564b3ed2633a59f46a395.jpeg

Here’s pressure from Thursday. We didn’t win one quarter and we never got above 182, in a final after a bye!

IMG_5558.thumb.jpeg.93091825a9b0df8abe7f7480689864ff.jpeg
Our game style is built on pressure and finals demand high levels of pressure.   I can’t see how we can win if we can’t increase this from the start of the game. Thankfully this is something the team should be capable of rectifying for next week - only this (and some reversion to the mean on goal kicking) gives me hope. 

Absolutely damning for the players that we've just played a final with that level of pressure. Everyone lamenting our F50 entries are still not ticking that it is pressure up the ground that causes turnovers that allow the ball to come in faster and more dangerously.

Fritsch, who's improved physicality in the 2021 finals was key has been called out for his softness on Thu by Luke Hodge.

I guess we might get a response on Fri night from the players...but it's scary that we have a whole game plan built around contest and pressure yet we can dish this up in 3 finals in a row.

Still just feels like when push comes to shove and things get really hard, our club is the one getting the shove. I think that given we are still prone to drop off in effort at this stage of the year, we're out of the hunt this season. But if we don't fix this next year, this era of our most gifted midfield and backline talent for 50 years might be defined by us just not being able to go hard enough for long enough.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, binman said:

Yes, i had the same same query about our pressure.

Our pressure was not where it needed to be. It's curious becuase we were minus 10 for contested possession at quarter time and ended up winning it by plus 14 so out attack on the ball and toughness was great. 

I have theory as to what might be a big contributing factor, which i was planning on discussing on the podcast.

Teaser is it relates to Gus not playing almost the entire game and how the pressure ratings are calculated (note a 'physical pressure act is literally when a player touches an opponent, for instance tackles, bumps, wins a contested ball):

  • 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

I really think "team pressure" is a weird stat that is named wrong.

The pressure score is not the total amount of pressure applied, but it is the average type of pressure when pressure is applied.

So every pressure act gets a score of 3.75, 2.25, 1.5, 1.2. All pressure acts are averaged. And then multiplied by 100 to give the pressure score.

So 180 means that the average score was 1.8, somewhere between closing and chasing.

I don't believe that "no pressure situations" count as 0 or similar. So the score will always be between 120 and 375.

 

Basically the "team pressure" stat is situational. For example, there are times when corralling is better than commiting to a tackle because it slows the player down and forces them to kick down the line. 

If an opposition plays tight in close we can get lots of tackles and our "team pressure" goes up. If they play wide and uncontested, we are more likely to coral and chase and our "team pressure" goes down 

So "team pressure" is more about game style and game situation. "Team pressure" is a measure of "is the average pressure situation more physical or less?". Not a measure of how much and how often pressure is applied.

 

I do think that "total pressure acts" and "sum of individual player pressure points" gives a better measure of pressure as a function of work rate for the game. But also, if the number of those acts are up versus average, then we probably don't have the ball.

 

 

Edited by deanox
  • Like 2
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2023 at 8:59 AM, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Collingwood (Finals Week 1, 2023)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20232501

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat For Against Diff
Disposal Efficiency 66.2 65.2 +1.0
Kicking Efficiency 59.0 63.2 -4.2
Metres Gained 6106 5704 +402
Inside 50s 69 37 +32
Shots At Goal 23 15 +8
Shots Per Inside 50 33.3 40.5 -7.2
Contested Possessions 153 139 +14
Ground Ball Gets 101 96 +5
Intercepts 80 84 -4
Intercept Marks 17 19 -2
Centre Clearances 12 7 +5
Stoppage Clearances 32 33 -1
Contested Marks 15 9 +6
Marks Inside 50 9 8 +1
Hitouts 33 48 -15
Hitouts To Advantage 11 11 +0
Tackles 61 62 -1
Tackles Inside 50 13 9 +4
Def One On One Loss % 15.8 42.9 -27.1

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter For Against
1 180 194
2 172 177
3 182 205
4 176 192
Match 178 192

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*
Clayton Oliver 26 61 59.8
Kysaiah Pickett 26 54 42.3
Alex Neal-Bullen 24 48 45.8
Christian Petracca 25 45 45.9
Tom Sparrow 16 38 43.6
Max Gawn 14 32 22.1
Jack Viney 16 31 55.5
Christian Salem 10 30 31.1
Bailey Laurie 13 27 16.6
Bayley Fritsch 9 22 19.0
Steven May 9 21 14.7
Trent Rivers 9 20 23.1
Jacob van Rooyen 8 20 22.1
Jake Bowey 9 20 22.0
Tom McDonald 11 19 24.8
Joel Smith 9 18 19.3
Ed Langdon 8 17 27.9
Judd McVee 10 16 18.0
Lachie Hunter 6 10 23.1
Jake Lever 5 10 14.9
Michael Hibberd 4 10 10.5
Kade Chandler 4 8 30.3
Angus Brayshaw 2 5 34.2

* 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 45% 55%
2 63% 37%
3 67% 33%
4 75% 25%
Match 61% 39%

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 1 1 0 0 0 +1
Centre Bounce 2 1 13 3 0 18 -5
Stoppage (Other) 2 2 14 0 2 2 +12
Turnover 3 7 25 6 4 40 -15
Category For Against
Match Season Match Season
Kick-in 1 2.4 0 2.3
Centre Bounce 13 11.1 18 8.7
Stoppage (Other) 14 23.4 2 19.7
Turnover 25 51.8 40 41.0

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 Collingwood.

Category Region For Against
Match