titan_uranus

Just now, binman said:

This is where x score is useful.

I have zero doubt goody would have used it at quarter and half time to reinforce that the scoreboard didn't reflect the relative performance levels, and certainly not the effort levels.

It shows their kicking for goal, particularly early was brilliant- but anomalous.

Their set shots from say 40 are 50-50 chances.

Credit to them for kicking them, but once kicking for goal there's nothing we can do about their chances of kicking the goal.

In most circumstances they are something like 3.2 or 2.3 at quarter time and the game looks very different.

And our accuracy was bang on average.

Like the lions game, it wasn't a game we threw away because of innacracy. The lions and blues won because of their accuracy

Yes, we could point to bad misses, Petty comes to mind. But take that miss. On average that goal is still only kicked perhaps 70-75% of the time. 

For me the issue in terms of our kicking was tge ladt kick inside 50, fior most of the match but particularly the first.

The game was actually pretty evenly balanced performance wise in the first 10 mins, but we butchered the ball going inside 50 - and credit to their defence, they were excellent- so had nothing to show for our efforts.

A couple of decent inside 50s and we get an early goal or two and the game looks different.

I agree with your interpretation of the stat but there’s no doubt we had some really bad misses (Petty as you say, but Fritsch before that and Chandler too) that cruelled our chances. That can be true despite what you day about xScore.

4 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I looked at it frame by frame last night with what was on the telly and said it wasn't clear enough. My gripe was more aimed at the dangerous tackle which was far more conclusive and the officiating in the first half.

So frustrating given they took a goal off us in the final last year. This time inconclusive, last time conclusive. 

There’s no doubt the dangerous tackle free was wrong. I don’t think Kemp staged, I just think his knee stuck in the turf. Either way, the tackle was fine and it was either holding the ball or play on.

2 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Yes that is what appeared to happen. But it wasn't an official score review so they just stick to the normal routine.

If we lose another game to stupid umpiring error(s) again, im done. I can handle being beaten fair and square by an opposition, but when its due to poor officiating, its a different feeling - being cheated doesn't sit well with me.

Is there any evidence floating around that May touched it? Has anyone gone back and looked at the footage? Sometimes people talk about it on Twitter/etc afterwards but I haven’t seen anything yet.  
 

At the ground you couldn’t see on the screen but it’s rare for a player to be that animated about a touch without actually touching it. 

9 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

To be fair the second half of the draw hasn’t been set yet, but I’m sure AFL darlings like Sydney and Collingwood will avoid those short breaks 🙄

7 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

If they haven't had one yet i can't see them having one, lets have a look when it all unfolds.

There won’t be any more Thursday night games in the rest of the fixture so the need for 5-day breaks will be reduced. 

I have a bit of a problem with some clubs getting two of them whilst others get zero. 

But unless the short break was a factor in our poor start I don’t think it was relevant otherwise. We ran the game out much better than they did.

58 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Spot on.

Demons have a poor percentage. A draw would have been as good as a win having regard to that.

Such a poor start to the match. Yes, good comeback but I can't help feeling disappointed. 

Huh? Our percentage is 121.%. It’s top 4 (only Sydney, Geelong and GWS are better).

Carlton’s is 109% by comparison.

16 minutes ago, Dodos Demons said:

Would be nice if we could kick that straight regularly. Other than the Port game, we never seem to be the team that is in the game because we have kicked straight. We are the team that keeps the opposition in the game because we don’t kick straight.  

That’s not really what tonight’s expected score says though. 

Our score was pretty much bang on expected. So whilst we missed easy shots, we also nailed harder ones. 

They were +20 though, which means they kicked above expectation. 

A bit incongruous because of our bad misses but tonight was more about them not missing almost any shots. That 6.0.36 start could have been 4.2.26 and the game would have felt different. 

7 minutes ago, layzie said:

At the end of the day while Carlton deserved the win and were great early on, I don't think they can play much better than that. Apart from Saad, Williams and Motlop that was pretty much a full strength team. 

We relied on Trac to keep us in it a lot. Plenty of underperformers that I can't see staying quiet next time round. And we still nearly won it! Yes we were 2nd best tonight in my opinion but I am encouraged.

Williams is part of the reason they’ve struggled to defend recently. Not sure he’s best 22. But Fogarty and Marchbank might be. 

Still, they got peak Weitering, Walsh and Cripps, Curnow found 2 goals on May, it rained, and they kicked straight all night. It’s a super effort to be as close as we were despite all that, but equally a reminder that they play so well against us.

6 - Petracca
5 - ANB
4 - Langdon
3 - May
2 - Rivers
1 - Windsor

Not sure Turner is the answer but not sure we have any better options available. 

Ditto Billings. 

Probably no change at this stage. 

Carlton are a top 4 side, match up brilliantly against us, and love playing us. And we suck in wet weather.

We started awfully. Being down 36-0 makes beating anyone hard, let alone a top 4 side. 

It was incredible to see us stem the tide and end up feeling like we could have won, so that is a clear positive. Ultimately their cleanliness in front of goal early and our four awful misses (Petty, Fritsch, Pickett, Chandler) cost us the win. The fact it came to that despite Walsh, Cripps and Weitering playing stellar football is remarkable.

Don’t give me “the umpiring cost us” though. [censored] me. We were gifted a goal from the non-mark call late in the third and there were a stack of calls that either went in our favour or were missed. Yes, the JVR tackle was a pathetic free, but we lost this game ourselves. 

We have a midfield problem though. All three losses are hallmarked by opposition mids dominating. I liked the different looks in there tonight with ANB but we are not capable of winning it this year if we keep having games where we’re beaten this badly in the middle. 

Woke up this morning feeling very nervous. Can’t shake the feeling of last year’s two losses to them and my overall view that they are a much better side than their 4-3 record suggests. 

Was surprised to come on here and see many in this thread sharing my view. I suppose it’s a byproduct of last year but I think also comes from us being favourites after winning last week. There’s a bit more pressure tonight and I’m feeling it. 

Can’t have a night like Sydney or Brisbane where we are belted in the middle - we won’t win if that happens. We also probably can’t afford to concede territory too much tonight either. But if we get enough ball in our forward half, I’m confident enough that we can hold them to a score we can beat.

7 hours ago, Demonland said:

This is a good table IMO.

Sydney at 26 players used, and 18 playing every game, is insane.

Far too much downplaying Carlton's ins for my liking.

McGovern and Kemp in the backline is an upgrade on Young and Williams. Martin's an upgrade on Fantasia, even if he's underdone (Fantasia may as well have been unfit given how little impact he's been having). And Hollands is probably an upgrade on Cuningham.

They are IMO a very good side, a legitimate flag contender despite their recent form slump. They are more than capable of beating us if they bring what they're capable of in the middle, and particularly now that they're stronger behind the ball with McGovern and Kemp. 

8 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

No it doesn’t. If the Crows didn’t get the answer they were hoping for, then it sounds like Petty’s manager called to say Petty is no longer interested in going to Adelaide. 

7 hours ago, Dee Boys said:

The "they" in the first tweet is Adelaide.

I think @Dee Boys might have it - I totally read the "they" as being Petty's camp but if it was Adelaide instead, they both make sense. 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not convinced about the "expected scores" stat because (apart from shots at goal after the siren at any quarter), the result of every kick for goal changes the next play. Every time a team kicks a behind, they give the ball back to the opposition.

A more impressive analysis would point out that Melbourne is still trying to work out what its best forward mix is while all the while having won 6 out of 8 games. (Credit where it's due: This was stated by David King after round 7, obviously when it was a 5 out of 7 score line). 

As @WheeloRatings says, you can use it to understand whether or not your misses were shots you should have taken or were just tough shots. That gives it value. It then gets mis- and over-used such as is the case by Fox in the discussed article. 

2 hours ago, Jeremy said:

2 hours ago, Jeremy said:

 

Bit confused by this.

The first tweet seems to suggest Adelaide have gone cold. The second seems to suggest Petty no longer wants to go.

1 hour ago, seventyfour said:

The 5 day break shouldn't be an issue. Stats show that it becomes an issue when you either have a significant difference to the break of your opponent, or when you're having multiple consectuvie short weeks.

Carlton will only get 1 extra day rest, and we had long breaks between the past two games, so it's not a factor nor an excuse.

It was a fair excuse for the loss to Brisbane. Repeat short turnarounds compounding.

After the Carlton game, we have breaks of 9 days, 7 days, 7 days, 8 days and then a bye. After the bye, there aren't many big games that would get scheduled for a Thursday or Friday, so we should avoid many more short turnarounds.

Pretty sure there won't be any more Thursday night matches in the remainder of the fixture (which I think is due to be released this week or next?). (Edit: plus we've already had two 5-day breaks which I believe is the maximum allowed for a side under the current CBA)

But we do have the following options for prime time:

1. Round 16 away vs Brisbane (we're on the Saturday night at home to North the week prior)
2. Round 18 home vs Essendon
3. Round 19 away vs Fremantle
4. Round 20 home vs GWS
5. Round 22 home vs Port
6. Round 24 home vs Collingwood

We've had four Thursday nights, ANZAC Eve and King's Birthday to Round 15, but no Friday nights, so I'd like to think that, given we'll be doing OK at the time they release the remaining fixture, we might be in line for a few more prime time matches from that slate.

Agree otherwise though that whilst the 5-day break this week is difficult, it hopefully won't hit as hard as the one leading into the Brisbane game did given the previous weeks.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I would agree the GF teams are likely to be higher in defence.  Which makes Freo interesting, making up the top 4 on the chart for defence with Syd, Geel and Dees.   In fact they rank higher than Syd and Geelong.  Our 2 games vs Freo will be very interesting.

Not their year but Freo are building.

Agree re Freo. They are dangerous and have played very well against us over the last few years. Not ideal to have them twice this year but such is the way the fixture works. 

49 minutes ago, deanox said:

That is such a lazy stat too.

It's simply top 6 in the points F and A. It's not even something like "within a set percentage of the leader". Meaning someone could be 7th, by 1 point, and they miss out, even though they are performing better than in previous years.

It also doesn’t take into account fixturing - particularly in assessing it at Round 8. So whilst Sydney and Geelong are top 6, Sydney has played 5 of the top 10 but Geelong has only played 2. 

It also of course doesn’t take into account injuries. I continue to believe Carlton’s defensive profile is impacted by the absences of Saad and McGovern, not sure they account for them being bottom 5 defensively but they would be better with the injured players back.

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That is what I said:  The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against.  It seemed to me the horizontal and vertical axes names were fairly obvious, altho the names are blurred on the chart I posted.

I can't be bothered going back to check but I think it is true that the top 2 at round 8 play off in the GF .  It was even true in 2021.  While the WBD came from 5th at the end of H&A games they were 2nd at round 8.

Reckon we would both agree the teams in the GF will come from the top 4 at seasons end (or even the top 3) - 2016 being the outlier.

Sorry, so you did. 

I think they said last night that the last three premiers were in the “window” at Round 8. 

I’d imagine that this years grand finalists will be at least top 6 in both, and likely higher in defence. I’d be hesitant to say top 3-4 though as I can see a world where we hover at the 4-6 mark for points for, which would suit us pretty well if we keep doing what we’re doing on defence. 

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I chuckled when I saw that as they all looked so chuffed!!

The ‘window’ simply reflects each team’s %, derived by ranking then plotting each team’s pts for/against.  And there is a small affect for the number of wins/losses.   So is it any wonder Geelong and Sydney sit in that quadrant. 

The chart is saying the top 2 teams at Round 8 play off in the grand final.  The chart makes it look clever but it is hardly an earth shattering observation. 

The year that didn’t hold true is 2022.  The top 2 teams at round 8 were Geelong and Melbourne. 

I am confident the top 2 teams won’t play off in this year’s GF.  Melbourne will be one of those teams. 

It’s even more basic than this. 

It’s just plotting points for (the horizontal axis) and points against (the vertical axis). That’s all. 

All they are saying is that premiers tend to be in the top 6 for both stats. Which, as you say, is hardly surprising!

8 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

A shame for them that they don’t hand out premierships at the start of May

True, but they have far and away the best record against the rest of the finals contenders so that has to stand them in good stead. 

Probably time to acknowledge Sydney in the top tier. 7-1 and 147%, have beaten the sides sitting 3rd, 4th and 5th, plus 9th and 10th.

8 hours ago, Swooper1987 said:

Good to see the Footy Show gave it to the HS today for failing to include Gawn in the best player list.  Their votes by the way went to Lever(9), May(8), Z. Guthrie(8) and Gawn(8).

Z Guthrie good but Holmes their best by far.

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Sure. On paper. But as a unit 

IT DOES NOT GET RESULTS 

how often have the Dogs been in the Top 4 over the last 8-9 years 

Isn’t this the point?

This list should be doing better than it is. Hence why Beveridge is under pressure?

Bevo has to be in trouble. Their list cannot be producing as poor football as they’re producing. Confusing selection, confusing messaging, it’s all a bit of a shambles. 

Meanwhile the 8 might almost be set? Collingwood in for Essendon might be the only change. GC, Dogs and St Kilda don’t look good enough, whilst I’m not sure Adelaide or Brisbane will win enough to claw their way past a side other than Essendon (Port? Freo?).