55 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I'm not 100% sure of the stat they're looking at, but we are 3rd this year for proportion of all points scored from the defensive midfield. Score sources are usually reported as one of (a) points scored, (b) points conceded, or (c) differential, so I would ordinarily assume it would be one of those, but I did find the following article that refers to % of points conceded by zone. So I assume your interpretation is correct in that David King was referring to % of points scored from the defensive midfield zone.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/29699624/afl-understanding-geelong-incredible-team-defence-their-achilles-heel

Average points scored per match, 2024 (including the first two matches in round 8) by zone

Team	D50	Defensive Midfield	Centre Bounce	Attack Midfield	F50	Total	Def Mid %
St Kilda	16.0	24.6	8.1	14.9	9.4	73.0	33.7%
Gold Coast	11.3	22.6	12.0	20.0	18.9	84.7	26.6%
Melbourne	12.1	20.9	11.4	22.1	17.0	83.6	25.0%
Hawthorn	11.1	15.1	8.9	22.9	9.7	67.7	22.4%
Greater Western Sydney	21.3	23.3	13.1	28.1	21.4	107.3	21.7%
Collingwood	9.9	18.6	7.4	35.2	15.4	86.5	21.5%
Richmond	16.4	14.9	3.9	21.9	12.6	69.6	21.4%
Sydney	20.0	21.4	9.6	35.0	18.0	104.0	20.6%
Essendon	13.7	17.0	13.6	23.6	15.0	82.9	20.5%
Brisbane	14.4	13.9	8.6	25.1	11.9	73.9	18.8%
North Melbourne	13.0	13.1	11.1	22.6	10.7	70.6	18.6%
Geelong	20.3	18.3	17.0	24.3	19.1	99.0	18.5%
Western Bulldogs	17.9	16.7	12.7	20.3	23.6	91.1	18.3%
Fremantle	17.6	13.4	12.4	16.9	18.7	79.0	17.0%
Port Adelaide	16.1	14.8	14.5	26.8	17.8	89.9	16.4%
Carlton	14.0	15.6	12.1	36.0	19.9	97.6	16.0%
Adelaide	20.6	12.4	11.5	17.1	15.8	77.4	16.0%
West Coast	15.3	9.6	12.9	20.0	15.1	72.9	13.1%

Average points conceded per match, 2024 (including the first two matches in round 8) by zone

Opposition	D50	Defensive Midfield	Centre Bounce	Attack Midfield	F50	Total	Def Mid %
Gold Coast	14.1	11.9	8.7	22.7	26.4	83.9	14.1%
Sydney	9.9	12.7	9.3	23.7	14.9	70.4	18.1%
Melbourne	9.0	13.0	6.0	28.3	10.0	66.3	19.6%
Fremantle	12.0	13.4	8.9	20.3	16.1	70.7	19.0%
Adelaide	11.0	14.5	11.0	22.5	17.0	76.0	19.1%
Port Adelaide	19.1	14.5	9.8	26.5	9.6	79.5	18.2%
Geelong	12.0	14.6	10.7	21.6	14.3	73.1	19.9%
St Kilda	17.0	15.4	7.9	26.1	15.3	81.7	18.9%
West Coast	24.6	16.7	12.9	23.6	20.6	98.3	17.0%
Brisbane	14.3	16.9	9.6	22.1	15.6	78.4	21.5%
Essendon	18.4	17.3	11.9	23.4	17.4	88.4	19.5%
Carlton	17.8	19.8	11.5	20.4	19.5	88.9	22.2%
Western Bulldogs	14.7	19.9	13.1	18.7	13.0	79.4	25.0%
Greater Western Sydney	11.6	20.1	15.1	18.9	13.0	78.7	25.6%
North Melbourne	28.9	20.6	17.6	29.9	26.3	123.1	16.7%
Richmond	20.9	20.6	12.4	20.1	18.1	92.1	22.3%
Collingwood	15.9	20.6	9.9	32.4	8.6	87.4	23.6%
Hawthorn	9.6	22.6	15.1	33.4	16.1	96.9	23.3%

 

I have recently added some score source data to the website (on the match stats and team stats pages), outlined in the following post. cc @binman

 

 

@WheeloRatings thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.

I know you couldn't get the post clearance possessions last year.

Any chance of being able to get hold of them this year? Its a critical stat that i cant find anywhere.

For any posters who have not checked out wheelos site, as molly would say, do yourself a favour.

Brilliant site. And really easy and intuitive to use to compare a whole range of data.

One of the functions I love is comparing players. It's much better for that than footy wire, a site I really like too, because unlike footy  wire you can choose mutiple players and customise your stats fields for specific things of interest.

The team list function is great too because you can look at big range of data points about players on a teams overall lists. Like the player ratings for the last 20 matches I used to compare our list with the giants (which by the meant i knew that in wehr the giants were playing their 25th rated player over that period).

I use the site on the podcast to check data live when things come up. So easy to find things quickly once you are familiar with it - which doesn't take long.

Props and thanks to @WheeloRatings.

The site and the data he puts in the stats file thread directly informs how i see and understand the game and how we performance. 

On 04/05/2024 at 17:32, binman said:

@WheeloRatings thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.

I know you couldn't get the post clearance possessions last year.

Any chance of being able to get hold of them this year? Its a critical stat that i cant find anywhere.

For any posters who have not checked out wheelos site, as molly would say, do yourself a favour.

Brilliant site. And really easy and intuitive to use to compare a whole range of data.

One of the functions I love is comparing players. It's much better for that than footy wire, a site I really like too, because unlike footy  wire you can choose mutiple players and customise your stats fields for specific things of interest.

The team list function is great too because you can look at big range of data points about players on a teams overall lists. Like the player ratings for the last 20 matches I used to compare our list with the giants (which by the meant i knew that in wehr the giants were playing their 25th rated player over that period).

I use the site on the podcast to check data live when things come up. So easy to find things quickly once you are familiar with it - which doesn't take long.

Props and thanks to @WheeloRatings.

The site and the data he puts in the stats file thread directly informs how i see and understand the game and how we performance. 

Thanks @binman I appreciate it. I'm glad you like the new team lists page. I have just added to that page the players' matches and goals for the current season.

I can't source official stats on post-clearance contested possessions. I have just revisited the play-by-play dataset to see if I can calculate the post-clearance contested possessions. Clearances are not tagged in the dataset so I have attempted to determine clearances from disposals which "clear the stoppage area" as per the CD definition. From what Christian from CD has previously said on the ESPN Footy Podcast, the "stoppage area" is determined by the eye of the CD callers, so anything I calculate will only be approximate. The other issue is the limited publicly available data that I can use to validate my estimates.

I have found a handful of articles (e.g. link) and match timelines which refer to post-clearance contested possessions and my estimates seem to be in the ballpark, so these numbers should be indicative.

Estimated POST-clearance contested possession differential, 2021-2024 (after 7 matches of R8 2024)

Team	2021	2022	2023	2024
Carlton	−3.5	+8.1	+4.7	+8.5
Hawthorn	−4.6	−3.1	+1.1	+6.6
West Coast	−1.7	−9.9	−9.0	+5.8
Greater Western Sydney	+1.4	−3.4	+1.6	+5.4
Western Bulldogs	+4.6	+2.0	+1.0	+4.6
Gold Coast	−4.1	−1.7	−1.2	+2.6
Collingwood	−0.4	−1.9	+0.1	+2.0
Essendon	−1.3	−1.4	−2.0	+1.8
Geelong	+6.7	+5.3	+2.5	+1.5
Adelaide	−3.2	+1.3	+2.2	+1.4
Brisbane	+4.2	+3.3	+1.9	+1.3
Melbourne	+9.4	+9.6	+6.0	−0.5
Richmond	−2.7	−0.2	−0.2	−2.4
St Kilda	+0.5	+0.5	+2.8	−4.0
Fremantle	−2.0	−2.3	−2.2	−4.5
Sydney	−0.7	+1.7	−0.1	−5.8
Port Adelaide	+2.8	+0.8	−2.3	−6.5
North Melbourne	−9.4	−10.5	−8.5	−15.8

 

Estimated PRE-clearance contested possession differential, 2021-2024 (after 7 matches of R8 2024)

Team	2021	2022	2023	2024
Fremantle	+5.6	+3.2	−1.9	+8.2
Gold Coast	−5.7	+4.8	+3.6	+5.1
Port Adelaide	+2.5	−0.5	−2.1	+4.9
Brisbane	−1.3	−0.1	+2.5	+3.0
Essendon	−3.9	−2.1	−0.8	+2.8
Melbourne	+2.6	+4.9	+4.3	+2.8
Carlton	−3.7	+4.8	+4.5	+2.6
Sydney	−1.1	−0.4	−4.2	+2.6
St Kilda	−1.3	+2.1	+0.2	+2.4
North Melbourne	−1.5	+1.5	−0.8	−1.1
Hawthorn	−2.2	−6.0	+1.7	−1.1
Adelaide	+1.9	−0.3	−0.3	−2.0
Greater Western Sydney	+2.6	−2.1	−0.2	−3.2
Collingwood	+0.3	−7.6	+0.5	−3.5
West Coast	+1.5	−7.7	−9.3	−4.0
Western Bulldogs	+3.5	+6.0	+5.7	−4.0
Richmond	−5.0	−2.4	−1.8	−7.0
Geelong	+3.6	+2.0	−2.5	−8.0

@binman To add to the above, here are the pre- and post-clearance contested possession differentials by type of contested possessions. The most notable drop post clearance is in loose ball gets (disputed ball at ground level not under direct physical pressure that results in an opportunity to record a legal disposal).

	2021	2022	2023	2024
Post clearance
Contested Knock On	-25	-17	+11	-2
Contested Mark	+72	+35	+30	+25
Free For	+1	-4	+13	+4
Hard Ball Get	+33	+3	+11	-3
Hard Ball Get Crumb	-7	+47	+27	+5
Loose Ball Get	+26	+87	+2	-25
Loose Ball Get Crumb	+134	+78	+58	-8
Pre clearance
Contested Knock On	-14	-6	-3	+1
Free For	-21	+2	+5	-2
Gather From Hitout	+122	+43	+54	+21
Hard Ball Get	+14	+79	+16	+8
Loose Ball Get	-75	-27	-20	-30
Ruck Hard Ball Get	+40	+28	+54	+24

As you and @Binmans PA mentioned on the podcast thread, this may not be such an important stat for Melbourne this season.

13 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

@binman To add to the above, here are the pre- and post-clearance contested possession differentials by type of contested possessions. The most notable drop post clearance is in loose ball gets (disputed ball at ground level not under direct physical pressure that results in an opportunity to record a legal disposal).

	2021	2022	2023	2024
Post clearance
Contested Knock On	-25	-17	+11	-2
Contested Mark	+72	+35	+30	+25
Free For	+1	-4	+13	+4
Hard Ball Get	+33	+3	+11	-3
Hard Ball Get Crumb	-7	+47	+27	+5
Loose Ball Get	+26	+87	+2	-25
Loose Ball Get Crumb	+134	+78	+58	-8
Pre clearance
Contested Knock On	-14	-6	-3	+1
Free For	-21	+2	+5	-2
Gather From Hitout	+122	+43	+54	+21
Hard Ball Get	+14	+79	+16	+8
Loose Ball Get	-75	-27	-20	-30
Ruck Hard Ball Get	+40	+28	+54	+24

As you and @Binmans PA mentioned on the podcast thread, this may not be such an important stat for Melbourne this season.

Absolutely love your work Wheel-O!

I don't suppose there's any way to see these on a game by game format? 

14 minutes ago, layzie said:

Absolutely love your work Wheel-O!

I don't suppose there's any way to see these on a game by game format? 

Cheers layzie. Yes, I'll aim to post the game-by-game in the next couple of days.

I fear Jack Billings is about to become my first ever pet-hate player.

His stats looked okay enough in the Carlton game but what I kept seeing was Billings taking a mark on the wing or half back and then backing up like Ben Brown preparing a set shot, giving the opposition plenty of time to set up and ending the fast rebound movement which is supposed to be the core of our striking power this season. Even when he took handball receives he was stalling up. He then inevitably must bang it long to a contest and if that goes even slightly wrong or is done without a real target then it gets spoiled or marked by the like of Weitering or McGovern (18 intercepts between them) and comes strait back at us in our most vulnerably moment.

A particular irritation is the way the stats are calculated, the long kick to a contest is considered an effective disposal makes it look like players who do this (Billings is merely the burning effigy here) are doing well for both metres gained and disposal efficiency. Well, maybe not so much for Billings who despite doing this several times still only recorded 60% DE.

Billings needs to get to Casey with permission to enjoy it and reset his confidence and mindset with the ball. It would probably be quite helpful for Casey, too - Billings is not a rubbish player, he just isn't getting the best out of himself right now.

18 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I fear Jack Billings is about to become my first ever pet-hate player.

His stats looked okay enough in the Carlton game but what I kept seeing was Billings taking a mark on the wing or half back and then backing up like Ben Brown preparing a set shot, giving the opposition plenty of time to set up and ending the fast rebound movement which is supposed to be the core of our striking power this season. Even when he took handball receives he was stalling up.

I sometimes feel with JB that he might be playing a la The Saints and not the Dees style. Hope he picks up our tempo.

Last night was a good example of progress not being linear. We were ‘punched in the face’ and our plan quickly went back to dump kicks and boring movement. 

It’s a good thing to learn from and recommit to the plan but it can be frustrating…

We need to put away the Eagles though and stay out of our shells doing it.

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

Last night was a good example of progress not being linear. We were ‘punched in the face’ and our plan quickly went back to dump kicks and boring movement. 

It’s a good thing to learn from and recommit to the plan but it can be frustrating…

We need to put away the Eagles though and stay out of our shells doing it.

I disagree mate. I think we deliberately reverted to a forward half territory, long ball game because of the rain, and yes, partly because they started so strongly.

But in essence I agree with the premise that progress in not linear. I think we can still greatly improve our entries with a longer kicking and forward half half if that is what the conditions call for.

That said, one of the admirable things about Collingwood last year is that whatever the conditions, their method remained the same.

48 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

I disagree mate. I think we deliberately reverted to a forward half territory, long ball game because of the rain, and yes, partly because they started so strongly.

But in essence I agree with the premise that progress in not linear. I think we can still greatly improve our entries with a longer kicking and forward half half if that is what the conditions call for.

That said, one of the admirable things about Collingwood last year is that whatever the conditions, their method remained the same.

Fair enough. I am more thinking about the first quarter where I felt a level of inertia but I get your point. The pleasing point is when we needed 3 goals in 4 minutes we entered the forward so well for two of those - lowering eyes and hitting up the right option with confidence from up the ground. 

7 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Fair enough. I am more thinking about the first quarter where I felt a level of inertia but I get your point. The pleasing point is when we needed 3 goals in 4 minutes we entered the forward so well for two of those - lowering eyes and hitting up the right option with confidence from up the ground. 

I'm hoping come Rounds 15-16ish our more expansive, attacking method has become more instinctive as it did Collingwood in 2022.

I do think the most fascinating watch is our midfield. What did you think of our centre stoppage set ups last night? I felt they were far too aggressive for too long.

3 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

I'm hoping come Rounds 15-16ish our more expansive, attacking method has become more instinctive as it did Collingwood in 2022.

I do think the most fascinating watch is our midfield. What did you think of our centre stoppage set ups last night? I felt they were far too aggressive for too long.

I didn’t mind it because that’s the best midfield and we were 6-2… you don’t get any chance to test yourself if you move away from your sets and go defensive. I would do that in a final, but guys hate it because you spent all week preparing and then you get the call that ‘nah, let’s not bother’ - it sucks a bit of life out I feel.

In terms of our stoppages, I am ambivalent because the guys know they can get great clearances, chest facing goals, front of stoppage clearances, I just don’t think we put a great deal of focus on it because time is precious and I would prefer Clayton understand how he can use his endurance and smarts to get us going on defensive transition than do basketball like set plays that come off 4 times a game because that is life in the centre where a 208cm bloke has to palm it unseen into a slot for an ‘action’ (as the yanks would say) to be executed in a phone booth.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

....I would prefer Clayton understand how he can use his endurance and smarts to get us going on defensive transition than do basketball like set plays that come off 4 times a game....

Good call. Me too. If we can use his contest and ground ball game to release our slingshot from ground ball/contest situations in D50 that's utilising his skill set.

But then I'd prefer we then play ultra defensive from centre clearance, at least when things go against us. Our mids should stand up to stem the tide against and shift momentum back in our favour.

On 10/05/2024 at 08:38, layzie said:

Absolutely love your work Wheel-O!

I don't suppose there's any way to see these on a game by game format? 

Here is the game-by-game contested possessions for this season.

	0	1	2	3	4	5	7	8	9
Post clearance
Contested Knock On	-1	+1	0	+5	-4	+1	-2	-2	+2
Contested Mark	-5	+3	+7	-4	+9	+4	+3	+8	-3
Free For	+2	0	-1	+6	-6	-9	+7	+5	-4
Hard Ball Get	+5	-3	-2	0	-9	-2	+7	+1	-2
Hard Ball Get Crumb	+3	+2	-1	0	+5	-1	0	-3	-4
Loose Ball Get	+3	-12	-1	-9	+1	+4	-2	-9	+5
Loose Ball Get Crumb	-3	+4	-8	+7	+1	-3	-2	-4	+1
Total	+4	-5	-6	+5	-3	-6	+11	-4	-5
Pre clearance
Contested Knock On	-4	-4	+2	+1	+2	-1	+1	+4	0
Free For	0	+1	0	0	-2	-2	+2	-1	+1
Gather From Hitout	-4	+5	+3	+10	+8	+4	0	-5	0
Hard Ball Get	+4	+3	+5	+2	-7	-6	+4	+3	-3
Loose Ball Get	-1	-7	+6	-22	+6	-13	+1	0	+1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	0	+7	+2	+2	-2	+11	-2	+6	-2
Total	-5	+5	+18	-7	+5	-7	+6	+7	-3

 

https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/

Contested Knock-On: Using the hand to knock the ball to a teammate’s advantage rather than attempting to take possession from a contested situation.

Crumb: A type of groundball-gets that is won by a player at ground level after a marking contest. The players must not be involved in the original contest. Crumbing Possessions can be either hardball or looseball-gets.

Gather From Hitout: A possession gained from a teammate’s hitout-to-advantage. Counted as a contested possession.

19 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

I disagree mate. I think we deliberately reverted to a forward half territory, long ball game because of the rain, and yes, partly because they started so strongly.

But in essence I agree with the premise that progress in not linear. I think we can still greatly improve our entries with a longer kicking and forward half half if that is what the conditions call for.

That said, one of the admirable things about Collingwood last year is that whatever the conditions, their method remained the same.

I agree with the above except the last paragraph.

Sort off.

I agree they didn't change their method much according to the conditions.

But they definitely changed their method close to finals and during the finals. Whilst sill lookimg for scores from turnover, which we were too, they basically adopted our forward half game.

I take the point you made in another thread that they played a slingshot shot game against us in the final.

But not in the first quarter and after that it was a function of how utterly dominant we were.

We smashed them for territory and inside 50s but butchered ours chance. They were forced to rely on rebound goals but would have lost that game if not for their accuracy and our innacracy.