binman

Brilliant stuff DD - welcome aboard. That's really interesting on a few levels. One is that our accuracy in the early rounds meant our winning margin was significantly higher than the expected score in several cases, in particular the Swans and Roos wins (we won both by 5 plus goal more than the expected score). My understanding is weather is not one of the (many) data points specifically factored in to arrive at the expected score. All of those games were played in perfect conditions. But from the ESPN podcast wheelo suggested (ta - really interesting though i could have done without revisiting 186!) my understanding is the historical data they use goes back to 2013, so weather should in theory be factored in in totality (ie the aggregated data of the 1000s of games played), if that makes sense. But i doubt the point in the season the game is played in is factored in. My contention is that in footy now, teams are at their fittest in the first say 8-9 rounds, drop off say rounds 11- 18 and on the back of increased loads through those middle rounds HOPEFULLY the fitness (as defined by running power - aerobic and pace) gets back to the in the early season levels. Another way of looking at that pattern is players are are their least fatigued rounds 1-8, most fatigued rounds 11-18 and if their program has worked and they don't have too many injuries, fatigue levels from rounds 18-19 are similar to rounds 1-8. I suspect this has only become a league wide phenomena in the last 1-2 seasons so it is not yet apparent in the modelling to arrive at expected score. Taking our example, less fatigue means much faster ball movement and less fatigue related skill errors (handball, ball handling, hitting targets by foot and accuracy for goal). Which correlates to higher scores because the fast ball movement means we run in waves and create more free options, one on ones and space inside 50 AND we turn it over less frequently so fewer scoring chains break down. And because our skills are less impacted by fatigue we can take more risks with our kicking, for example more changing lanes and use of the corridor. I texted a question for Daniel Hoyne from Champion data's slot on SEN asking what data could be used to get a sense of the relative fitness for each team. I meant publicly available data, but his answer was the GPS numbers, which CD doesn't have access to and is completely locked up by the clubs. The expected scores might be one data point to at least explore that issue - at least in terms of assessing say one teams fatigue levels over the course of the season. Looking at the chart, there seems to be less anomalous results in the middle part of the season than the first third of the season. I'll be interested to see if we see an uptick in higher real scores than expected scores for the dees as the season progresses. if we do, that might be an indicator our fitness levels are retuning to optinal levelks. (on the above, my gut feeling is last season we would have not had as many anomalous results in the first third of the season, but still above water to so to speak, and then a similar drop of in the middle part of the year. But i doubt there was an uptick for higher real scores than expected scores for the dees because we clearly never got back to the fitness levels of the first third of the season).

Chandler will come back in soon enough. Good management of a young player- something many posters were crying out for last year.

Bowey will not play forward. Ever.

We clearly have a different definition of 'underdogs'. Current betting odds for win: Melbourne 1.75 Brisbane 2.10

If i had of listened to that clip before the show, as I should have, I would have been more prepared to rebut Buckley with something other that flabbergasted exasperation. And I would have pointed out he should put his house on the lions if he is that confident they'll win and that we are do poor. Why? Because we are 1.75 favorites for pete's sake. And the lions are $2.10 outsiders. Go figure. I also would have pointed out that we beat a team only one spot below us on the ladder by 4 goals. Whereas the pies played a team six spots below them on the ladder and almost blew a healthy lead, achieved with one decent quarter of footy, to win by just 12 points.

Only if they get much fitter.

Continues to amaze me. I wrote him off as far back as 2021. I reckon he just about played his best footy this season. And he seems to have recovered his pace. I won't be writing him off any time soon

I think it is more likley Melksham will play a defensive role on Andrews. I don't think JVR gets run this week. One or two more weeks in the magoos for the kid, with the goal of being cherry ripe come finals.

No. The Pies and Port will finish one two - a toss up who finishes top The dees and lions will finish either 3rd or 4th - a toss up who finishes 3rd Fingers crossed we play the Pies week one.

The avenues to goal will sort itself once we start moving the ball more quickly. Ironically we saw a glimpse of what it will look like against the Saints (ironic becuase we are not yet at our running best yet - though i goes ironic isn't really the right word - unless you are Alanis Morrissette). A big factor in our accuracy in the first quarter - and the Saint's inaccuracy - was the fact that Saints dominated time in forward half. Meaning they had multiple, reentries into a crowded, chaotic forward zone. We got our goals on the counter, meaning we were entering a forward line with one on ones, space, leading lanes and the opportunity goals from the goal square. it was mirror of the entire game against the GWS

I know you're taking the [censored]. Such a funny running gag - comedy gold. But if this were a serious question and not a wind up, my best guess is it is almost finished. Actually to be accurate, i think the extra work has finished but we have another week where that additional work (ie extra work on top of the standard in season training loads) will impact our ability to cover the ground. This aligns with Selwyn Griffiths comments about what the training program will look like over the course of the season in the DL interview way back in March. Our pressure fell away to 158 in the last quarter against the Saints, a good indicator of fatigue - having not broken 180 for the match (180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite). Team pressure Quarter For Against 1 176 173 2 174 169 3 178 186 4 158 172 Match 172 175 No doubt how physically taxing the Alice game was, combined with the six day break, is a big factor, but my assumption is loading is also a factor (and by the by, also a big factor in the selection decisions over the last month or so). But we were looking to spread against the Saints more than we have since the Hawks win, which suggests to me we are getting close. We have another six day break into the Lions game (as do they fortunately), but I think we will be closer to optimal running power on Friday night. Unlike say the Pies or the Crows (who we play the following week), the Lions, with their chronic lack of leg speed (which i think is the key reason they struggle at the G) are not well placed to exploit any lack of run in our legs. But as noted, i think we are closer to our best shape and will look to spread and switch more than say against the Pies or Blues. And we will match them in the contest no problem. We then have nine days into the Crows game, with no travel this week or next week (unlike our two opponents). My prediction is we will be cherry ripe against the Burgess Crows (who are very well placed to exploit any lack of run) and will start playing our very best football, with the sort of overlap running, fast transition, switching lanes, using the corridor, more risk, high scoring footy we saw rounds 1-6. Giddy up.

1000%. Watch it live, with no external commentary at all, save that from other fans. Check stats an the end of each quarter. Win, radio on the way home. Get home and watch the full replay. Gold.

The infatuation with the pies adds a nice touch too

By the by, last night's game, and the data from our previous campaigns and the afl wide data, make a mockery of the rubbish the media has been spouting about our supposed connection, forward issues etc etc. I mean, for petes sake, the issue is accuracy (actually, i would contend accuracy us a symptom, not the issue per se). We had one less scoring shots last night, in perfect condition, than we did last week. We lost last week and everyone goes into hysterical abour some concocted scoring and connection drama. Our much maligned 'efficiency' was 36% last week - as defined by the afl as the percentage of shots on goal per inside 50 (the losing side in that match went at 26% efficiency). Last night our efficiency was 39%. We had less shots for goal this week, but win by four goals, and there us not a peep about connection and scoring issues - despite our efficiency barely improving. Did the saints have a connection issue last night (by the by their efficiency was almost rhe dame as ours - 40%)? Or an accuracy issue? Rhetorical question.

Indeed, that is exactly right. Which is why it is important when the media parrot some supposedly revelatory single data point to consider context and apply some critical thought - a point I made previously in tgis thread. For example, our accuracy falls off a cliff. The key questions might be how badly and why? To answer the first question, helpful data is afl wide accuracy in this same period to get a sense of how bug an issue it is. Instead the media just compare our, say rounds 13-19 accuracy with our own figures from rounds one 1-12. Which of course is useful data - but in isolation, only to a point, pardon the pun. The second question is also interesting. My take is the two key factors why there is a league wide drop off are likely to be weather and fatigue (both accumulative and loading realated). To test that hypothesis there are other data points that could be looked at to support, or contradict it - kms run at speed for instance.

Loss on expected scores - ironic. But also an accurate reflection of the game - the saints played well. I assume expected score is what lyon was referring to as score equity in his presser when he noted they won on score equity - and derided the media for not analysing with 'all your resources'

Thanks so much wheelo. Your key team stats has become a key part of my post match rituals - like buying the Sunday newspapers used to be back in the day - and a key element in gettimg my head around the game

Oh my God- a pattern! I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure the exact same thing happened kadtbyear too in that same period (woeful accuracy rounds 13-19, not the flag bit). So, three years in a row in EXACTLY the same phase of the season our accuracy is under water. That is not a coincidence.

Spot on. They are a good team - as you say 5th to our 4th on the ladder well past the halfway mark of the season. They would have taken our spot in the 4 if they'd won - classic eight point game. Excellent sytem that the players are fully invested in. And well coached and hard to score against - particularly at marvel, their home deck. Marshall was awesome - he is a star. As is Sinclair. And they have some real quality young players.

Don't like being challenged? What on earth you talking about? As any regular reader of DL over the last decade or so can attest, i love being challenged. Love to be challenged and love to debate - assuming it has some sound logical foundations, isn't an exercise in gotcha questions, doesn't involve circular arguments and most of all doesn't involve willful misinterpretation. As i said, you have clearly completely misunderstood what i wrote and the point i was making. And as i also said i'm not going to restate that point As you so pithily say - go back and read again. Or not.

Pace yourself newie

Ta. Doesn't change the analysis that there is only slight increase in the percentage of shots from the pockets in the last 4 games over our season average, and that therefore our inaccuracy in the last few weeks can't be explained by us taking a lot more difficult shots. In fact, the the cats game we had the second highest percentage of shots from dead in front 20-35 meters of any game his season (only behind the 30.3% of shots from from the corridor 20-35 meters in our mauling of the Swans in round 3)

What the hell is this? Are you responding to the right post? Or have you really misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what i wrote so wildly? Note: i don't really care which of the above it is, but if the latter save your legs, as i'm not going to go to the effort to explain why you have got it so wrong.

Fascinating data wheello. Contradicts somewhat the idea that out inaccuracy is caused by our entries ie that we are having heaps of difficult shots becuase we have been kicking to the pockets more An interesting stat from the last 4 games is the percentage of shots from the pocket but from 35 meters plus. It is those shots that are the most likely to miss the shots. There has been a slight increase it seems from our season average of such shots in the last 4 games. I think in part that could be explained by tow interacted elements: we are not moving the ball at speed and so are not creating free players inside 50 our territory and inside 50 dominance means the ball is trapped in our front half a lot, which creates a super congested forward area 9and few free players to spot up) and shots from near the 50 metre arc from intercepts marks from dump clearing kicks from oppo defenders When we start moving the ball quicker i expect there will be less kicks from the pockets and 35 plus metres out. On the data for the last four rounds, it is important to consider how wet it was in the cats and giants games.