26 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Another solid episode thanks gents.

George highlighted the structural aspect with T-Mac down back & BBB up forward which helped straighten and right the ship from the week before.

T-Mac wld've also pleased the coach & Chaplin.  Hitting a number of sharp short passes exiting 50 vs Tommo's longer attempts and dumps that may have resulted in a few more turnovers & immediate slingshot rebounds / repeat entries the week before?

Also worth noting that, according to some scribes, the Swans tend to play a much higher press than the Doggies.  Is this correct?

If so, we need to take this into account when comparing why we didn't do so well the week before.

Not just rusty in implementing the new strat but could it partially be due to the Swans not allowing us to do so as a result of their  higher press? 

A higher press results in a more crowded defensive 50 and our defenders having more difficulty finding free short targets due to the extra pressure coming from more numbers around this part of the ground and their ability to close down space quicker due to closer proximity.

That in turn might (in theory) result in more turnovers closer to our goal and more scores / goals to the oppo from those turnovers sources yes?

It's only a theory but i think we need to at least consider this against teams that are looking to bring a higher press vs those that might not be (yet) such as the Doggies?

Great post. 

Total agreement on all points DD. 

Agree on the likely impact of the Swans press on our struggles to transition and be clean. I'd add that the SCG would have helped that cause considerably.

One of the things written on the message board for the players at the quarte time breaks on Sunday was 'defensive density'.

I presume that is reminder to for players to get back and clog up our defensive area - something we did to great effect i thought.

But it might also refer to density though the middle of the ground to hinder the dogs' transition. 

The Swans press, combined with the ridiculous dimensions of the SCG, would have created density further up the ground that made it hard for us to get through. Its worth noting that they also struggled with transition too, with lots of turnovers. The scores  were level at three quarter time after all.

We looked gassed in tjhe last quarter which would have mad it hard for us to maintain that density and all team defence, which is probably a big factor in why the Swans improved their transition in the last quarter - that and the brilliant kicks they have. 

4 hours ago, binman said:

Agree metres gained isn't in of itself a definite measure of a good game

(I don't think any individual stat in isolation, except for perhaps goals kicked, are a good measure to assess overall performance. Triangulating  multiple stats provides a much better picture of a players performance).

For example, if one player does all the kick outs, as May has done in the previous 3 seasons his metres gained stats are of little value.

For example in the 2021, 2023 and 2023 seasons May took 90% of our kicks outs, and most of them were sixty metre bombs to the half back flank. Meaning, given he usually played on, he'd be credited with 75 metres gained for each kick out. 

(by the by, we started tinkering with our kick out strategies late last year, but this year have moved from tinkering to radical change. I'd be guessing May has only taken something like 30% of kicks outs, with the rest shared by other defenders, the kick outs are no longer always going to the HB and we are not kicking to Maxy very often - which incidentally is great in terms off Maxy not getting smashed as much).

And as you suggest, if say a long kick comes straight back because it went straight to an opposition player than those metres gained are of little value either - which is why as Andy suggests Effective Metres Gained data would be useful.

So i agree that metres gained in of itself is that not that useful. Which is why i'd love to have access to the Metres Gained Assisted stats as it would address the issue you flag about weighting long kicks over handballs.

Metres Gained Assisted is the total metres gained by a teammate that receives an uncontested possession from that players disposal.

So, in your example Clarry had 14 handballs. Not much metres gained in those. But if many of those handballs set up good transition and/or helped us gain territory (eg Clarry handballs to Rivers  who then runs and carries and kicks it 60 metres), as i suspect they did, his Metres Gained Assisted numbers would be very strong.

Clarry had 589 metres gained. Impressive - and second only to Maysie (whose numbers were padded a bit by his kick outs). 

But if say he also had the most assisted Metres Gained (which wouldn't surprise me) then suddenly his game looks even stronger. And perhaps maysie also had great Metres gained assisted numbers.

The coaches of course have access to all of Champion Data's data, and all would drill down on it. Clarry got the most coaches votes for against the dogs with 9 and maysie was second with 8. 

In all likelihood those votes were informed by an analysis of the full range of Champion Data and internal stats. But I'll bet my bottom dollar may doesn't get a Brownlow vote for this game because i doubt the the umpires drill down on the data at all and so go on what they have seen and perhaps the old school possession numbers.

Just on Lever, and my point about using multiple data points to assess a players performance, he only had 170 metres gained (he had almost twice that against the Swans).

From memory i highlighted on the pod his 8 score involvements and 17 possessions not his metres gained (though my memory ain't what it was, so i might have muddled that up) as evidence of him having a good game.

Lever's score involvements suggest to me that his possessions were effective because to be involved in 8 scoring chains at least half of his possessions helped us move the ball forward and score.

But drilling down a bit further, which is really easy to to on @WheeloRatings excellent website, you can triangulate other data to get a fuller picture of Lever's game.

His Champion Data player's ratings (which i think is an excellent measure) for the Swan's game was 5.4, but in the dogs game it was 8.9.

He had an equal match high 10 intercept possessions (rivers also had 10), which is excellent as intercept possessions are no doubt one of his KPIs (he only had 4 against the Swans). 

His disposal efficiency in the Dogs game was 82.4, suggesting he didn't miss many targets by foot.

But he also had six clangers (an error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side), the second most behind Clarry, which surprised me but probably not @Damo as those clangers jumped out for him watching the game, whereas i didn't really notice them. 

(note: clangers are different to 'disposal clangers', which are defined as 'any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over' to an opponent).

I cant see what his turnovers were for the game, but in his two games thus far he has averaged 3 turnovers, so unless he had none against the Swans he wasn't too bad for this stat against the dogs. 

A definite negative was he gave away 9 free kicks - the most by any player on the ground (Harmes and McNeil each away 3 and Salo and chandler gave away 2). That surprised me.

He had 9 contested possessions (and weirdly 11 uncontested possessions - i say weird becuase he was only credited with 17 possessions in total) after only having one against the Swans.

Perhaps my rating of 'terrific' was too positive given his clangers and frees he gave away but taken together those numbers still add up to a really good game i reckon.

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats_player.html?ID=2311a9&Season=2024

That's an average turnover number so he also had a miserly 3 against the Swans Mr Bin.

Agree re meters gained which is why i don't use this in my player ratings.  If i had access to "Meters Gained Assisted" though i would be throwing this into the mix.  Plenty of other Champion stats i would use in preference to what i currently do if available as well but alas.

FWIW Lever also rated high in my weekly player ratings, coming in 5th and posting a 37% improvement on his season 2023 average rating on Sunday.

These composite ratings also include a weighted adjustment for turnovers on every player, which tends to boost the rating of those who are cleaner with their ball use (somewhat)...

Player	Rating	Rank	2023 Season Rating	% Change vs 2023
C Petracca	6.000	1	4.707	27.47
Max Gawn	5.275	2	3.350	57.46
J Billings	4.575	3	-	-
C Oliver	4.300	4	5.002	-14.03
J Lever	4.275	5	3.131	36.54
Jack Viney	4.100	6	3.707	10.60
T McDonald	3.950	7	2.054	92.31
C Salem	3.825	8	2.993	27.80
S May	3.750	9	3.213	16.71
Ed Langdon	3.475	10	3.057	13.67

2 hours ago, binman said:

 

The Swans press, combined with the ridiculous dimensions of the SCG, would have created density further up the ground that made it hard for us to get through. Its worth noting that they also struggled with transition too, with lots of turnovers. The scores were level at three quarter time after all.

Binny, why are you suggesting that the SCG has "ridiculous dimensions"?

From a total area perspective (set up for AFL) its middle of the road from all the grounds we play on. From a length perspective its only 5m shorter than the MCG (at 160m), but while it is the shortest of the main grounds we play on, it's only 1m shorter than the Gabba. In terms of width, there are only 3 grounds wider than it - with the MCG (at 141m) being 5m greater. It is actually only 2m less width than the Gabba, but 13m wider than the Adelaide Oval, and a massive 21m greater width than Kardinia Park.  It's approx the same size as the Gabba in length and width, and I cannot remember hearing any adverse comments about the "ridiculous dimensions" of the Gabba (although I could be wrong here). At 5m shorter and 5m less width than the MCG, the SCG therefore has similar proportions to the G - ie its exactly 96% of both its width and length - and therefore you wouldn't think it would affect the Dees too much.

If the MCG is the benchmark for length to width ratio - (L:W 1.13 : 1), then the Gabba at 1.13 : 1 and the SCG at 1.14 :1 are all very similar. With Docklands at 1.24 : 1, Bellerive at 1.29 : 1, Adelaide Oval at 1.36 : 1, and Kardinia Park at 1.48 : 1 bringing up the tail. 

All this perhaps begs the question, should the SCG be copping such flack about its "ridiculous dimension"? I also cannot think of another code of football that doesn't have same set dimensions at every ground it plays on. This, I believe, is a unique character of AFL, and therefore makes it more interesting in so many ways - to my eyes at least.

(dimensions taken from a 2022 ABC analysis article).