9 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Dwyane Russell... that's your source? 😄

Yeah, he actually played the game

I'm surprised you and your mate here aren't still prattling on about 'Loading'

Shoved it down our throat on a daily basis then nothing

And now you've latched on to this quick ball movement stat

Edited Thursday at 05:575 days by Macca

11 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Dwyane Russell... that's your source? 😄

It never ceases to amaze me the stock people put on the 'eye test', and the extent to which they'll ignore contrary statistical evidence (or poo poo it). And it drives me buts when so called 'experts', who really should know better, like Derwayne, do this.

It goes without saying that looking at stats alone gives an inaccurate picture of say game style. It's equally inaccurate to base such assessments on observation alone.

Which is why of course coaches, and anyone seriously trying to understand the game, do neither - they use data AND observation

Coincidentally, back in mid Jan i responded to a similar conversation (ie we were a bomb it long team last season) thusly:

Agree with much of the above, except for the notion that our players would often bomb it long. We def turned it over a lot but we were not a bomb it long team.

There are plenty of stats that can be misleading - one such oft cited example is disposal efficiency (eg inside mids dispose of the ball under more pressure than say a half back flanker who get the opportunity to chip kick the ball around the back half under little pressure).

But some stats are less misleading, one being metres gained from kicks.

If in 2025 we were a team that often resorted to long bombs, you'd expect to see that reflected in the data - we'd be near the top of the table for metres gained per kick.

But we're not - in fact we were 12th in the AFL for metres gained per kick (26.2 metres gained per kick).

By way of contrast teams there are number of teams above us on that table that many would imagine don't bomb it long (eg Freo is second for most metres gained per kick, the Pies 5th, the Hawks 6th and the Crows 7th).

The premiers were 17th for metres gained per kick (25 metres - only 1.2 less metres gained per kick than us).

Interestingly, i think I'm right in saying that last season the average metres gained per kicks increased across the board from 2024 as teams started kicking longer to get over the top of zones, look to win the contest head of the ball and mitigate the impact of turnovers (ie better to turn it over in your forward half than miss a short kick at HB) - so perhaps we needed to bomb it long more often!

Edited February 26Feb 26 by binman

I think we are now being driven stat crazy.

I am content with one stat, highest score at the end of the game.

A hoofed kick that travels 50 metres takes about 4 or 5 seconds

Slick movement of the ball through the corridor using a string of handpasses & kicks can take up to 15 seconds (or longer) to cover the same amount of ground

So, Demonland, which was our preferred way of attacking in the last 4 seasons?

In some ways, it's a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious

Speed of ball movement is one thing, but what about quality of ball movement?

Last season - From half-back to half forward and beyond? 3/10

If King is able to attain an overall quick offense without the prominant use of long bombs, we might find ourselves being 7th or 8th on the overall speed meter

Not 2nd as a result of low time consuming hoofed kicks

Edited Thursday at 05:305 days by Macca

How do you stat structure? Because my (as some will claim as useless) naked eye, saw too many short sideways kicks and/or short kicks moving forward without a structured viable option (or plan) up ground. This led to long 50 meter bombs.

When we had the opportunity to move fast, we often did move fast, but options up forward into the 50 meter arc, or up ground, were not there. Often resulting in giving the ball to the opposition, or to an out numbered players.

Stats have a place, but then they don’t. Anyone can give me numbers, but the ultimate number says we were not good enough to win games to play finals.

Good structure and system produces wins. Not stats.