Sorry for shouting, but how many times do we hear this at the footy and on this site? Seems like a simple solution to our woes but of course it's not as simple as that, well that's what I thought untill I read this article.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/anal...561.html?page=1

By the way, I was only joking about how simple I thought it was, but it's an interesting article nevertheless.

Sorry for shouting, but how many times do we hear this at the footy and on this site? Seems like a simple solution to our woes but of course it's not as simple as that, well that's what I thought untill I read this article.

Actually, the analysis said the most important factor was long accurate kicking. That's definitely something we have lacked.

Interesting also the lack of importance given to ruck hitouts. Those who are calling for our first round pick to be spent on a 200cm monster should perhaps rethink. A Judd or Pavlich type would be much more profitable ... to either make or accept those accurate long kicks!

other than ruck contests being unimportant, tackling was listed too. Here we were all so very very happy about our teams improvement last season as the number one tackling side, but the analysis goes to show it doesn't have a valuable influence on the result.

I also found this distressing - "According to the research, each accurate long kick is worth almost one point (.99) to a team's winning margin. A kick to the opposition subtracts .62 of a point."

I wonder if our stats crew at Demonland can find out who's the worst in the league at kicking to opposition. I'd guess Melbourne would be in the top 3 clubs.

I'd love to hear CAC's thoughts on the evening.

yeah, i'm not so surprised abou the ruck taps. i remember in 2001, 2003 it seemed like we won almost every hitout, and probably did, but got killed at the clearances. even at the weekend, our meagre 16 hitouts got cleared at about 17% or something didn't they? guys that can read the tap are incredibly important, and also gifted. i was never able to read the tap!

how funny is that, 738 of 740 games? which two did they skimp on? after 1500 hours of footy whats another 4?

What matters most:

Accurate long-kicking, bounces, centre clearances, knock-ons.

What is not important:

Umpiring decisions, ruck contests, tackling.

It took someone to analyse the statistics of over 700 games to discover this?

FFS.

The problem that I have with this "research" is that they are purely talking about quantity and not quality. Yes, they mention "accurate long-kicking", but how do you define "accurate"? If you are kicking to a contest then that is accurate, you might not win the ball straight away but you are still accurate.

There's too much over-analysis IMO.

How enlightening...lol.. who would evre have thought that you win games by getting the ball out of the middle and advancing it to your goal !! its like a sporting epithany !! and yet its not..its just common bloody sense which someone has sieved from all the cr@p.

Collingwood went for years by sharking the oppos rucks...becuase the didnt realy have one thmeselves.

now lets apply some context to the findings ( which Im not arguing with btw ) . Bounces are positive..tackles not so much ?..well one surely goes with the other. if you allow the opposition to go forward by bouncing because you ARENT tackling..thensurely some similar ( but negative value ) is apoortioned to a non-tackle. On this basis I would still highly rate tackling. Of course what isnt illuminted is the type and occasion of the tackle. Some tackles cause turn overs, others result in a ball up.

Al lthis reminds me a lot of card counting...i.e assigning either a positve or a negative value to an outcome..and seeing what the current number is at any point of the game.

Football at the end of the day is not ally a complicated game. You aspire to have control ( possession ) of the ball to move it forward in a meaningful and guarded way until you are in a position to score at maximum advantage.

The article does however reveal some facets which often get over ananlysed. Tis better to recieve than to give !! and all paths must lead to goal.

As a n aside just watched a program that explained how despite the US winning all battles in Vietnam...they lost the war..High tech and complicated lost out to simple endeavor with passion.

Simple = kicking skills, marking skills and effective decision making. add to that playing with purpose.. all of which we dont possess ( individuals maybe..not as a team )...its quite simple really isnt it.

MFC ...play smart !! KISS !!

The coverage of the analysis of the what actually happens in a game is less than 50%. So there is much that is analysed.

For those of you that have read Moneyball a book on the use of statistics in US baseball. I think baseball is alot more easier to categorise than the randomness of Australian rules football.

Maurie is right long accurate kicking is important while a kick to the opposition from that is costly. I think that has been argued on this site before.

I am surprised the elements that may bring lead to a long accurate kick like a tackle or a good tap out dont get value. What about shepherds and smothers?

I would have thought how get possession and the frequency is as important as what you do with it when you get.

the problem i have with analysis such as this, is the ease at which it can be discredited by certain situations.

umpiring decisions are agued not to have a bearing on the game, yet a free kick in the goal square 2 seconds before the end of a match, obviously affects the bearing. just as ineffective long kicking but brilliant man on man checking, tackling and shepperding can win a game.

afl is a game of many parts and i have issue with dumbing it down to long kicks and bouncing. carroll had 3 bounces in the backline on sunday night, but it wasn't going to help us win, wasn't even going to help us kick a goal.

afl must be viewed holistically, without analyzing every individual part as though it is distint from the rest.

the problem i have with analysis such as this, is the ease at which it can be discredited by certain situations.

umpiring decisions are agued not to have a bearing on the game, yet a free kick in the goal square 2 seconds before the end of a match, obviously affects the bearing. just as ineffective long kicking but brilliant man on man checking, tackling and shepperding can win a game.

afl is a game of many parts and i have issue with dumbing it down to long kicks and bouncing. carroll had 3 bounces in the backline on sunday night, but it wasn't going to help us win, wasn't even going to help us kick a goal.

afl must be viewed holistically, without analyzing every individual part as though it is distint from the rest.

Free kick came about because of an action of a player in a team. And the question should be asked how did the ball get down there in the first place.

Free kick came about because of an action of a player in a team. And the question should be asked how did the ball get down there in the first place.

exactly, the whole play, and team play, should be brought into question when deliberating on how a team wins a match, not these generalistic ascertions that tackles don't matter.

but do you guys reckon games decided by less than a kick, if it has been close all day, should be included in these types of studies? given that generally, if its been close, the side that wins has not outplayed the other side, and even if they have more accurate long kicks, all that proves is that the other side are doing something else better to stay in touch.

For those of you that have read Moneyball a book on the use of statistics in US baseball. I think baseball is alot more easier to categorise than the randomness of Australian rules football.

youd be very much on the mark there for the most part. Much easier to assign 'outcomes' to anything that happens in Baseball as only so much can actually happen

now...who's on first ???

Actually, the analysis said the most important factor was long accurate kicking. That's definitely something we have lacked.

Interesting also the lack of importance given to ruck hitouts. Those who are calling for our first round pick to be spent on a 200cm monster should perhaps rethink. A Judd or Pavlich type would be much more profitable ... to either make or accept those accurate long kicks!

Or a Cox type, who can do the same thing, and can mark in a pack of players!!!

I am sure there is a lot more to this study to come to light. But just looking at what has been published in that article doesn't show the whole story.

For instance it doesn't take into account that the player who clears the ball and runs a way bouncing it usually ONLY got it because the ruckman tapped it where the player COULD get it. (So in my eyes this increases the value of a good tap ruckman and decreases the value of the player receiving the ball) Nor does it attribute a value to a player with the ability to take a mark in a contested situation: we all know these players have a real value in our game, same as those that are able to find 'space and time' to dispose of the ball well (TJ, Cousins et. al.) where most would hurry both their decision making and disposal.

FWIW. I read a couple of years ago that one of the 'stats' companies who provide stats and rankings for the papers rate 'long accurate kicking' as the highest points earner in their method of ranking players throughout a game. I don't think this new study is going to throw up too many things we don't already know.

Perhaps is might tell where we can recruit the right players from?

Go Dees