Damned lies and statistics

[Vicky Park]

When I'm at the footy, including today, I like to read the statistics posted at the end of each quarter. Sometimes I am surprised by the numbers, being a bit clueless in this regard, not having noticed what turns out to be some often significantly unequal numbers.

But todays stats are surprising. They can be seen here.

The Bombers had more tackles (Bombers 83, Pies 74), disposals (Bombers 420, Pies 338), kicks (Bombers 239, Pies 210), handballs (Bombers 181, Pies 128), marks inside 50 (Bombers 9, Pies 7), and similar hitouts (Bombers 32, Pies 31).

We beat them at contested possessions (Pies 165, Bombers 160), clearances (Pies 39, Bombers 30), stoppages (Pies 31, Bombers 22), and inside 50s (Pies 61, Bombers 57).

Oh, and they won the free kicks 22 to 20.

So, can someone who has more of a clue than me please shed some light on this? Was our edge in the contested possessions, clearances, stoppages and inside 50s the difference on the day? Why is the disposals statistic so meaningless? I am also surprised by the tackle count, as I thought we won that easily. Is it because of a perception (my perception) that our tackles were more effective, and made at critical junctures?

I suppose the question I am posing is this - how reliable are statistics as an indication of how well a team plays? Because quite simply I thought we were outstanding today, and I love the Pies.

 

[Laurie Holden]

They dicked around with it and got lots of cheap possessions (heppell I'm looking at you) they over possessed and tried to keep possession which made little sense given the conditions. We were direct and on the rebound went long and quick into the forward 50. Our focus on contested possessions and 'trying to transition quickly' really worked well today.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Disposals statistic is meaningless in this regard because our gameplan is to move the ball direct and as fast as we can up forward, to ensure the opposition don't get numbers behind the ball (I read or heard maybe Buckley discuss this somewhere).

I remember thinking countless times, thank goodness, Essendon would hold up the play down back, and chip it around, because it allowed us to quickly set up down back.

Honestly, I thought we had a little bit of lady luck on our side today.

We had a fair few "miraculous" goals, that easily could have missed. Dwyer, Elliott, Seedsman, Broomhead (?) are the ones that come to mind.

Tough day at the office, not many goals from simple mark inside 50, and a set shot goal.

 

[Snag Breac]

Disposals statistic is meaningless in this regard because our gameplan is to move the ball direct and as fast as we can up forward, to ensure the opposition don't get numbers behind the ball (I read or heard maybe Buckley discuss this somewhere).

I remember thinking countless times, thank goodness, Essendon would hold up the play down back, and chip it around, because it allowed us to quickly set up down back.

Honestly, I thought we had a little bit of lady luck on our side today.

We had a fair few "miraculous" goals, that easily could have missed. Dwyer, Elliott, Seedsman, Broomhead (?) are the ones that come to mind.

Tough day at the office, not many goals from simple mark inside 50, and a set shot goal.

The Footy Gods were with us for a change. Even they couldn't countenance the outrage of Hird winning on this sacred day.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

The fact that they had so many more possessions yet we had more inside 50s said it all. We set up in a way that was dynamic yet hard to penetrate. They failed. Their high possession numbers were just side to side and backwards, nothing kicks.

There is only one Seedsman. The Penetrator!

 

[Maggie5]

Wh

When I'm at the footy, including today, I like to read the statistics posted at the end of each quarter. Sometimes I am surprised by the numbers, being a bit clueless in this regard, not having noticed what turns out to be some often significantly unequal numbers.

But todays stats are surprising. They can be seen here.

The Bombers had more tackles (Bombers 83, Pies 74), disposals (Bombers 420, Pies 338), kicks (Bombers 239, Pies 210), handballs (Bombers 181, Pies 128), marks inside 50 (Bombers 9, Pies 7), and similar hitouts (Bombers 32, Pies 31).

We beat them at contested possessions (Pies 165, Bombers 160), clearances (Pies 39, Bombers 30), stoppages (Pies 31, Bombers 22), and inside 50s (Pies 61, Bombers 57).

Oh, and they won the free kicks 22 to 20.

So, can someone who has more of a clue than me please shed some light on this? Was our edge in the contested possessions, clearances, stoppages and inside 50s the difference on the day? Why is the disposals statistic so meaningless? I am also surprised by the tackle count, as I thought we won that easily. Is it because of a perception (my perception) that our tackles were more effective, and made at critical junctures?

I suppose the question I am posing is this - how reliable are statistics as an indication of how well a team plays? Because quite simply I thought we were outstanding today, and I love the Pies.

When I look at stats, the ones I like winning are stoppages, inside 50's and tackles. To get goals from stoppages is a big win .

 

[didaksrightfoot]

As others have said- we were happy to just let them keep the ball across half back, they werent doing anything damaging back there.

 

[DinoSoar]

It also shows how some statistics don't always give an accurate picture, with number of disposals a good example of this - it doesn't necessarily matter how many times you get the ball, it's how effective and what you do with it that counts. A chain of 6 handball gives and receives gaining 40 meters versus 2 or 3 40 meter kicks hitting targets gaining 80 - 120 meters. Essendon over used the ball and didn't do much with it when they did have it.

 

[ppoiter]

Im just stunned they had more tackles than us

 

[1eye]

When I'm at the footy, including today, I like to read the statistics posted at the end of each quarter. Sometimes I am surprised by the numbers, being a bit clueless in this regard, not having noticed what turns out to be some often significantly unequal numbers.

But todays stats are surprising. They can be seen here.

The Bombers had more tackles (Bombers 83, Pies 74), disposals (Bombers 420, Pies 338), kicks (Bombers 239, Pies 210), handballs (Bombers 181, Pies 128), marks inside 50 (Bombers 9, Pies 7), and similar hitouts (Bombers 32, Pies 31).

We beat them at contested possessions (Pies 165, Bombers 160), clearances (Pies 39, Bombers 30), stoppages (Pies 31, Bombers 22), and inside 50s (Pies 61, Bombers 57).

Oh, and they won the free kicks 22 to 20.

So, can someone who has more of a clue than me please shed some light on this? Was our edge in the contested possessions, clearances, stoppages and inside 50s the difference on the day? Why is the disposals statistic so meaningless? I am also surprised by the tackle count, as I thought we won that easily. Is it because of a perception (my perception) that our tackles were more effective, and made at critical junctures?

I suppose the question I am posing is this - how reliable are statistics as an indication of how well a team plays? Because quite simply I thought we were outstanding today, and I love the Pies.

You missed "the scoreboard statistic" that's the one that matters most in the end

 

[PepperFace]

I look at the important stat and the scoreboard has us winning this one by 20pts. Ead hird

 

[Shaneprice97]

Im just stunned they had more tackles than us

Ours were just more noticable. We tackled so hard today, especially in bursts.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Another stat is that Essendon had 34 infraction notices.

 

[PepperFace]

Another stat is that Essendon had 34 infraction notices.

32 more than us!

 

[Trickster]

When I'm at the footy, including today, I like to read the statistics posted at the end of each quarter. Sometimes I am surprised by the numbers, being a bit clueless in this regard, not having noticed what turns out to be some often significantly unequal numbers.

But todays stats are surprising. They can be seen here.

The Bombers had more tackles (Bombers 83, Pies 74), disposals (Bombers 420, Pies 338), kicks (Bombers 239, Pies 210), handballs (Bombers 181, Pies 128), marks inside 50 (Bombers 9, Pies 7), and similar hitouts (Bombers 32, Pies 31).

We beat them at contested possessions (Pies 165, Bombers 160), clearances (Pies 39, Bombers 30), stoppages (Pies 31, Bombers 22), and inside 50s (Pies 61, Bombers 57).

Oh, and they won the free kicks 22 to 20.

So, can someone who has more of a clue than me please shed some light on this? Was our edge in the contested possessions, clearances, stoppages and inside 50s the difference on the day? Why is the disposals statistic so meaningless? I am also surprised by the tackle count, as I thought we won that easily. Is it because of a perception (my perception) that our tackles were more effective, and made at critical junctures?

I suppose the question I am posing is this - how reliable are statistics as an indication of how well a team plays? Because quite simply I thought we were outstanding today, and I love the Pies.

I think metres gained is becoming more and more critical. Seedsman had 710 metres gained today which really gave us that penetration we normally lack particularly given the conditions.

Similarly Beams in R1 had 20 possessions by the third quarter and had only gained 20 metres (admittedly most were handballs but even his kicks went sideways and back).

So I think stats are still critical, I guess it's which ones become important over time and which become redundant.

 

[PepperFace]

I think metres gained is becoming more and more critical. Seedsman had 710 metres gained today which really gave us that penetration we normally lack particularly given the conditions.

Similarly Beams in R1 had 20 possessions by the third quarter and had only gained 20 metres (admittedly most were handballs but even his kicks went sideways and back).

So I think stats are still critical, I guess it's which ones become important over time and which become redundant.

Beams ended up -15m in round 1. That is significant because we forced him backwards. We all know how damaging he is in the front half.
I read somewhere after seeds today, hepple was next best with some 300m shy of the seed

 

[Mame]

Was funny how Hird pointed out how they failed to adjust to the conditions and over-posessed in the wet. That's a coaching issue.

 

[Scodog10]

It was an arm wrestle all day with each team owning the ball for lengthy periods. They play their style which leads to them owning the ball for long periods and we counter punch a lot.

What that meant was that there were a number of crunch moments that we won and that was the difference. Three that stood out were.

1. Williams wins 50/50 contest v Chappy in centre square. Result Collingwood goal.

2. Carlisle shank shot on goal early last quarter

3. Frost drops chest mark leaving their forward 50 open for Colyer who promptly puts it on Adams chest.

They were three of the more important ones and all throughout the day we won those little ones (aside from Fletcher's goal). At the end of the day possession gives you momentum, but winning moments takes that momentum away!

 

[Knightmare]

Statistics tell a lot of the story. But you have to have access to all the statistics and know at all times which are situationally the most relevant statistics, and the eye-test can help with that.

Essendon over-possessed it. We when we had it kicked longer and gained more meters with ball in hand - with Seedsman a big factor in both of these areas.

Also from a contested standpoint we were excellent. Swan playing forward particularly for so many minutes in the second half drove me nuts. But not having Macaffer through the midfield as a tagger. That helps to much!!!

As we're seeing with Fremantle who may be playing the best footy of any team in the game at the moment, or if not then very close to. They're really benefiting from not carrying a purely stopper like Crowley through the midfield and they're winning more contested ball and winning more clearances as a result which is what is helping them beat the better teams. Same story with us. With the re-introduction of the holding the ball rule and without having a tagger who can't win it through the midfield or get clearances in Macaffer, it's allowing our midfielders to do their thing and help us get back to playing winning footy. As a result of these two factors, we can be as good if not slightly better than last year, even with the losses of Beams, Lumumba, Ball and Maxwell.

 

[jasonwilde]

We let them dk around.

They were out-coached.

By Buckley.

 

[jjsmitty8]

In a nutshell they tried to play dry weather footy in wet conditions. They had no plan B, and we were happy to let them get as many uncontested possessions as they wanted because we had them covered down the field. Then when they slipped up, we were quick to pounce and punish them!

 

[Kappa]

When I'm at the footy, including today, I like to read the statistics posted at the end of each quarter. Sometimes I am surprised by the numbers, being a bit clueless in this regard, not having noticed what turns out to be some often significantly unequal numbers.

But todays stats are surprising. They can be seen here.

The Bombers had more tackles (Bombers 83, Pies 74), disposals (Bombers 420, Pies 338), kicks (Bombers 239, Pies 210), handballs (Bombers 181, Pies 128), marks inside 50 (Bombers 9, Pies 7), and similar hitouts (Bombers 32, Pies 31).

We beat them at contested possessions (Pies 165, Bombers 160), clearances (Pies 39, Bombers 30), stoppages (Pies 31, Bombers 22), and inside 50s (Pies 61, Bombers 57).

Oh, and they won the free kicks 22 to 20.

So, can someone who has more of a clue than me please shed some light on this? Was our edge in the contested possessions, clearances, stoppages and inside 50s the difference on the day? Why is the disposals statistic so meaningless? I am also surprised by the tackle count, as I thought we won that easily. Is it because of a perception (my perception) that our tackles were more effective, and made at critical junctures?

I suppose the question I am posing is this - how reliable are statistics as an indication of how well a team plays? Because quite simply I thought we were outstanding today, and I love the Pies.

Seedsmen gained more metres in his 30 touches than half the Essendon team did the whole game.

Heppell reminds me of Dayne Beams, when the pressure comes he just gets a few cheap handballs backwards and people laud how he has stood up..

 

[ThisIsJake]

Buckley knew that it's all about metres gained in those kinds of conditions, rather than time in possesion.

Hird, Heppel, Goddard, Stanton and Hibberd weren't as wise.

 

[Good_Old]

Disposal efficiency, meters gained and marking stats would help paint a better picture.
They kicked sideways and backwards a lot trying to set up an attack whereas we didn't.
They also kicked to a lot of 50/50's where we then won or forced a turnover.

 

[Old Spice]

Sideways kicking V direct kicking.