Let's talk Ports!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,208
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
There's something to be said about great defenders playing in a non-Vic team that has a good team defense as a whole becoming obfuscated compared to a player who is virtually the sole man in defense for another Vic team. Its a bit like how easy it was to point to Nathan Jones as a good midfielder when he was really the only midfielder doing a damn thing in the Melbourne team during the Neeld circus.

The media tends to be a bit simple in that regard when it comes to who is the best at any given time. Hence why so often players become underrated (or even missed entirely) for the actual work they do, just because they happen to have competent/fit teammates to work with.

It makes it fairly pointless worrying about who the media thinks is the best, as we all have players to compare to in our own teams who we think at least stack up to the media's opinion, yet don't get a look in because they're not the fashionable or easily identifiable option.

FTFY
 
Again, I think the quality of the inside 50s is an issue. We had far more inside 50s against Sydney, but we couldn't hit a target to save our lives.

We're a counter attacking side. To use a soccer analogy, we're the kind of side that wins 3-1 despite having 38% possession and 50% of the game played in our own third. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It doesn't line up with what wins football games, historically, but our game is to force turnovers then break, with guys like Ebert, White and Boak running into space ahead of the ball and creating easy goals.

Yes, we need to lower the amount of I50s that we're conceding, but we need to change our thinking a bit about how important the I50 stat on it's own is. I'd say, not very. Effective I50s, Marks inside 50 and more specifically, where those marks are taken, are far more important. Our inside 50s are top quality, and we are able to force opposition teams to either slam it on the boot to contests or kick deep into the pocket. As soon as the ball is in dispute, we win it and we launch the slingshot.

We have one of the best all-round defences in the league. We win the ball, we move it out, we find our runners through the middle who have gotten into space. It's the perfect gameplan for the long and narrow Adelaide Oval.

Doesnt matter about quality of inside 50's with that stat. Its a stat which I'm sure over 16 years has had plenty of average quality inside 50's in that 131 examples and the dominate team has got up to win. The bottom line is we cant do it week in week out and expect to defy the odds. And the other thing to come out of it is we are too good to let this happen. No idea who the other side is but I dont think it was a bum team who defied the odds.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,208
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
At around 10:30 one of the analysist says

Since 1999, ie when Champion Data probably started Inside 50 stats, There has been 131 games when the inside differential has been - 29 or greater and only 3 teams have won. We have done it twice in the last 2 games. It's unsustainable especially away from AO.

It begs the question - why are out midfielders getting the votes then and not our defenders? From the coaches SNIP

What I didn't quite like about the interview was how they pointed out the repeat inside 50 entries, stating that we are 5th in that stat this year, but then still bang on about conceding a high inside 50 count. Granted, 5th is still not good enough for a team looking for a top 4 finish, but I think it says something about our mids still defending from clearances reasonably well.
z78kI6a.png

O693jqT.png

These are the heat maps of Boak and Gray during the Showdown, both have clear hotspots in defensive 50, Boak has more inside d50, probably due to stoppages, while Gray is more around the 50 mark, probably more as that first option out of clearance. I think it is this work done by the mids to block up the d50, while still running forward (and hitting the scoreboard too) which is what gives them the votes.
Carlile has been fantastic (along with the other KPDs) but the type of entries conceded against the Hawks and the Crows weren't conducive to marking forwards, they were 'chaos ball' type entries. Thus it's important to have the mids in there to clean them up.

EDIT: I should further clarify that I agree completely that this isn't sustainable, but I also don't quite think it's just been sheer luck that we've gotten away with it twice in a row when it had only been done once in 129 games before.
 
Sep 6, 2008
2,285
4,281
AFL Club
Adelaide

I was tempted to put that in, but the Edwardian in me decided not to. :p

I find it does extend to local media. I find the lines are extremely blurred between the amount of stupidity in the local media compared to what is uttered by the typical one-eyed fan.

I will always find a better array of opinions here that I can weigh up than what I expect from a majority of the media, local or Vic, who are, at least in what they often present, no better than any of us at not falling for the typical pitfalls when evaluating talent.
 

El_Scorcho

Hall of Famer
Aug 21, 2007
31,570
98,415
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Doesnt matter about quality of inside 50's with that stat. Its a stat which I'm sure over 16 years has had plenty of average quality inside 50's in that 131 examples and the dominate team has got up to win. The bottom line is we cant do it week in week out and expect to defy the odds. And the other thing to come out of it is we are too good to let this happen. No idea who the other side is but I dont think it was a bum team who defied the odds.

I think the stat has a vastly different connotation when you consider that in 1999, players basically played their positions. If you were a back, you played back, if you were a forward, you played forward, etc. In the age of team defence and zoning and flooding, crossing the 50m arc doesn't necessarily mean you are a good chance of scoring a goal.

In fact, i'd argue that some of our easiest goals come from the slingshot. We win the ball in defence, and if we have a chance to use it cleanly, we have Ebert, Boak, White, Mitchell et al breaking forward and they have all the space in the world to waltz into our forward 50, where we've got Schulz one out, or Westhoff running back with the flight, with 4 or 5 metres on his man.

If we put high pressure on the guy moving the ball inside 50, with our back 6 and how good they are at the contest and in traffic, we're a terrific chance of forcing a turnover or a shot from a poor position. As soon as that turnover happens, the opposition team probably has to force a contest at the next kick, because if we get it to the half back line, we've already got runners forward of their man another kick up the field and it's about to become a formality that we score.

The reason we concede repeat 50 entries is because it's our gameplan to move the ball very quickly out of defence. It might look like a tennis match with the net being our defensive 50 metre line sometimes, but as soon as it passes the half back line and we have control over the ball, we're almost certainly gonna score. Unfortunately, because we're trying to freewheel out of defence, we probably turn the ball over more than most teams, but when we do get through, they haven't had the chance to set up, and are basically relying on a brilliant individual piece of defending, or a stuff up on our behalf to stop us from goaling.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,208
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I think the stat has a vastly different connotation when you consider that in 1999, players basically played their positions. If you were a back, you played back, if you were a forward, you played forward, etc. In the age of team defence and zoning and flooding, crossing the 50m arc doesn't necessarily mean you are a good chance of scoring a goal.

In fact, i'd argue that some of our easiest goals come from the slingshot. We win the ball in defence, and if we have a chance to use it cleanly, we have Ebert, Boak, White, Mitchell et al breaking forward and they have all the space in the world to waltz into our forward 50, where we've got Schulz one out, or Westhoff running back with the flight, with 4 or 5 metres on his man.

If we put high pressure on the guy moving the ball inside 50, with our back 6 and how good they are at the contest and in traffic, we're a terrific chance of forcing a turnover or a shot from a poor position. As soon as that turnover happens, the opposition team probably has to force a contest at the next kick, because if we get it to the half back line, we've already got runners forward of their man another kick up the field and it's about to become a formality that we score.

The reason we concede repeat 50 entries is because it's our gameplan to move the ball very quickly out of defence. It might look like a tennis match with the net being our defensive 50 metre line sometimes, but as soon as it passes the half back line and we have control over the ball, we're almost certainly gonna score. Unfortunately, because we're trying to freewheel out of defence, we probably turn the ball over more than most teams, but when we do get through, they haven't had the chance to set up, and are basically relying on a brilliant individual piece of defending, or a stuff up on our behalf to stop us from goaling.

In 2001 the score % per inside 50 was 50.9%, while so far in 2015 it is 46.2%, that's not really a significant difference in 14 years.
But yes, the reason why we are scoring so well from our inside 50s is due to us 'slingshotting' the ball out of d50, and getting it into an uncrowded f50. Part of this slingshot play is to run in waves, but that unfortunately means a lot of our players need to start behind the ball, which means once we get the quick kick out, there's fewer of our guys there to pick it up and run.
If we try and run it out further before kicking, we risk getting caught HTB inside their 50 for a set shot on goal, hence our players would rather slam it on the boot and get it outside of defensive 50, in order to set up and repel another attack. This issue can be clarified once our players have a better awareness of how the main rebounders prefer to move the ball, and can get to the best areas to either receive the rebounding kick, or kill the contest over the boundary.
 
Jan 30, 2013
16,166
16,559
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
While we're talking about interesting stats and I hate to sidetrack the interesting conversation but I was thinking about this most of the week. The average losing margins for a team the week after travelling to QLD/WA is about 35 points. Teams are 1-6 from 7 games played and they accounted for:

definite upsets in:
Bulldogs beating Sydney
Richmond losing to Melbourne

What's looking like an upset in:
Collingwood losing to Adelaide

And most interestingly for us:
Sydney absolutely spanking us in the second half (scores level to nearly half time, noting also the 6 day break)

The only team to win after the week of travel? WCE last week against GWS. who subsequently, traveled for the 5th consecutive week. I'm generally not one that gets sucked into travel factors or stats from small sample sizes but that Sydney loss didn't sit well with me. Something was fishy from the get go in that game.
 

Jim Dixon

Club Legend
Aug 5, 2013
2,946
4,110
Canada
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
While we're talking about interesting stats and I hate to sidetrack the interesting conversation but I was thinking about this most of the week. The average losing margins for a team the week after travelling to QLD/WA is about 35 points. Teams are 1-6 from 7 games played and they accounted for:

definite upsets in:
Bulldogs beating Sydney
Richmond losing to Melbourne

What's looking like an upset in:
Collingwood losing to Adelaide

And most interestingly for us:
Sydney absolutely spanking us in the second half (scores level to nearly half time, noting also the 6 day break)

The only team to win after the week of travel? WCE last week against GWS. who subsequently, traveled for the 5th consecutive week. I'm generally not one that gets sucked into travel factors or stats from small sample sizes but that Sydney loss didn't sit well with me. Something was fishy from the get go in that game.

Never mind games against West Coast or Brisbane, keep an eye on what happens to clubs that go play Freo in Perth. Next up is Essendon. We busted our arse trying to beat Freo and nearly did it but were exhausted and got overwhelmed by the Swans the next week. They busted their arse trying to beat Freo and nearly did it but were exhausted and got beat by the Bulldogs.

Essendon get a six day break and they play North in Round 7 on Friday Night. I don't bet on the footy but if I did I'd be betting on North.

I'm not convinced that Richmond's loss to Melbourne was an upset; I watched them against Geelong last week and they were terrible. Collingwood.. maybe. But it's the trip West to play Freo that is the pattern I'm really going to watch for. We want to avoid going playing another final there.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,208
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Chrizzt They were saying we are 5th best for rebound from our defensive 50's.

Apologies fisting rick, I got confused with when they also said it was 5 more repeat i50 entries than any other club. Either way, it's still not good enough for a potential top 4 club. Our tackling pressure just needs to drop off a few percent and all of a sudden there's less pressure inside our d50 and opposition small forwards will be able to start crumbing more goals against us.
We clearly have some sort of a plan with this, probably due to us running in waves from behind the ball, but we just need to fine tune this plan a little more such that we can either stop the repeat entries at the source (killing rebound balls) or understand our structure/gameplan better so that when we rebound it goes to a 50/50 for us or better.
 
Apologies fisting rick, I got confused with when they also said it was 5 more repeat i50 entries than any other club. Either way, it's still not good enough for a potential top 4 club. Our tackling pressure just needs to drop off a few percent and all of a sudden there's less pressure inside our d50 and opposition small forwards will be able to start crumbing more goals against us.
We clearly have some sort of a plan with this, probably due to us running in waves from behind the ball, but we just need to fine tune this plan a little more such that we can either stop the repeat entries at the source (killing rebound balls) or understand our structure/gameplan better so that when we rebound it goes to a 50/50 for us or better.

Our tackling isn't up there either. It's a flood of numbers. I do believe the more I reflect on this, it is a system of design for some teams but not all teams. We have the tall stock to avoid a cluster of marks I50 and it does allow for open space for us to transition, so maybe, just maybe we are playing this for the high press zoning teams sucking them up the ground to make it easier to run through their zone on the rebound and stopping them collapsing back into our D50 of clogging the centre square.
 
Sep 3, 2002
28,579
37,617
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The inside 50's is a not an either / or case. We do force entries wide / shallow so teams keep coming back, but we also are not winning enough clearances, especially centre clearances. Our defense has been on fire since round 1, or forward line the last two weeks with Lobbe back has looked top notch, it needs Lobbe to get fully match fit and Ryder and the mids to develop a more instinctive understanding and our midfield should start clicking again. And when it does I expect regular god mode quarters.
 
I think it basically shows that our offensive play is of an all time great standard. We often concede inside 50 differentials that most teams would not be able to overcome yet we get away with it because our attacking game is so strong that when we do get inside 50 we are extremely likely to score.
 

El_Scorcho

Hall of Famer
Aug 21, 2007
31,570
98,415
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
I think it basically shows that our offensive play is of an all time great standard. We often concede inside 50 differentials that most teams would not be able to overcome yet we get away with it because our attacking game is so strong that when we do get inside 50 we are extremely likely to score.

Agree.

We're also, because of our rapid style, extremely likely to get the ball inside 50 when it's not particularly congested.

I'd love to see an inside 50 stat that where instead of getting 1 inside 50 for an inside 50, you get 1 point for every player on the ground who isn't inside the 50 you are kicking into, if that makes sense.

So any one of our 70 odd inside 50s against Sydney might have been worth 5-10 points.

But most of our inside 50s against the Crows might have been worth 30+ points.

It's obviously a lot more advantageous to get the ball into an open forward line than a closed one. This stat might give you 36 points for a bomb forward to nobody which is swept up by defenders, but it would still be interesting to see. I'd bet we'd have beaten the Crows in that stat
 
Sep 3, 2002
28,579
37,617
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Agree.

We're also, because of our rapid style, extremely likely to get the ball inside 50 when it's not particularly congested.

I'd love to see an inside 50 stat that where instead of getting 1 inside 50 for an inside 50, you get 1 point for every player on the ground who isn't inside the 50 you are kicking into, if that makes sense.

So any one of our 70 odd inside 50s against Sydney might have been worth 5-10 points.

But most of our inside 50s against the Crows might have been worth 30+ points.

It's obviously a lot more advantageous to get the ball into an open forward line than a closed one. This stat might give you 36 points for a bomb forward to nobody which is swept up by defenders, but it would still be interesting to see. I'd bet we'd have beaten the Crows in that stat
Needs variables for the weather, time of the game, did the opposition choose to kick against the wind and a Chaplin modifier. The latter is a scale from Troy to Bobby, in whether you're more likely to fall over and point at your teammates when your opponent gets a goal or just nullify your opponent.

Inside 50 base score = 100 - ((number of opposition players in 50) x 5) + 10 if raining + 10 if windy - 5 if opposition captain ****ed up coin toss + 17 if playing as away side + 6 if night game + 13 if McInerny is umpiring our game + 8 if player is winded by a cheap hit from a Hawks player + (20 x Chaplin constant).

It's not quite there all yet, but I'll have it finalised by mid-season then be able to retire and make a fortune picking nine winners every week.
 
I think the stat has a vastly different connotation when you consider that in 1999, players basically played their positions. If you were a back, you played back, if you were a forward, you played forward, etc. In the age of team defence and zoning and flooding, crossing the 50m arc doesn't necessarily mean you are a good chance of scoring a goal.

In fact, i'd argue that some of our easiest goals come from the slingshot. We win the ball in defence, and if we have a chance to use it cleanly, we have Ebert, Boak, White, Mitchell et al breaking forward and they have all the space in the world to waltz into our forward 50, where we've got Schulz one out, or Westhoff running back with the flight, with 4 or 5 metres on his man.

If we put high pressure on the guy moving the ball inside 50, with our back 6 and how good they are at the contest and in traffic, we're a terrific chance of forcing a turnover or a shot from a poor position. As soon as that turnover happens, the opposition team probably has to force a contest at the next kick, because if we get it to the half back line, we've already got runners forward of their man another kick up the field and it's about to become a formality that we score.

The reason we concede repeat 50 entries is because it's our gameplan to move the ball very quickly out of defence. It might look like a tennis match with the net being our defensive 50 metre line sometimes, but as soon as it passes the half back line and we have control over the ball, we're almost certainly gonna score. Unfortunately, because we're trying to freewheel out of defence, we probably turn the ball over more than most teams, but when we do get through, they haven't had the chance to set up, and are basically relying on a brilliant individual piece of defending, or a stuff up on our behalf to stop us from goaling.

Its a 16 year stat, ie when they started counting the Inside 50's. What it says is that we have done something nobody else has been able to achieve back to back and twice. That is a plus for us. But it also says that it isnt sustainable as we are fighting the odds. Its pretty basic. We have to swing it around. -10 is a lot more sustainable than -29, because it will wear down our guys if we do this week in week out.
 

Vagabond0

Club Legend
Sep 21, 2014
1,163
1,838
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Doesnt matter about quality of inside 50's with that stat. Its a stat which I'm sure over 16 years has had plenty of average quality inside 50's in that 131 examples and the dominate team has got up to win. The bottom line is we cant do it week in week out and expect to defy the odds. And the other thing to come out of it is we are too good to let this happen. No idea who the other side is but I dont think it was a bum team who defied the odds.

Obviously it would be concerning if it was week in week out, if we can't dominate matches against bottom 10 clubs then we've got problems. No one wants to go to the footy and watch your side sit back and defend a lead.

However likewise, I don't see it as a problem if it's a measured ploy. If Kenny sizes up the opposition and believes the best way to beat them is to sit back and play on the counter then I'm not going to argue with him. Personally v Sydney, more often than not I felt Sydney looked more likely to score when we went into our forward 50, they're masters at it.

I suppose the real question is, was the last two weeks a deliberate ploy or are we just getting beaten in the mid and struggling with effectively getting the ball out of defence?
 
It's not a ploy to get smashed in inside 50s. Ken said in last week's press conference we won't survive if that continues.

Ken's presser
"We can't play footy like that all year," Hinkley said.
"You won't survive if you continue to give up that many entries.
"Last year we were an elite defending inside-50s team. I think we averaged 43-44 entries per week against us over the whole course of the year.
"We're miles off that at the moment, so there's lots of room to improve."
Ken's presser
 

Vagabond0

Club Legend
Sep 21, 2014
1,163
1,838
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yep got the message loud and clear from both Ken and almost every player's interview since the showdown.

Re Hawthorn I was worried about it, although in the last quarter it did feel that playing Westhoff loose in defence gave us the support we needed in defence and the cost of having one less option to get the ball out, also Hawthorn's set up outside their 50 kept making sure it came back in. They pretty much had their wall set so we couldn't even use the boundary line for a reprieve.

v Adelaide though it felt like we had it under total control. Pretend your weak when your strong mindset. Which got me thinking... probably just me being too confident though.
 

Smithy7

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Mar 1, 2014
13,603
20,109
South of Scotland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/br...ort-adelaide-ace/story-fndv8w9k-1227348567304
Brad Ebert has no grudges with West Coast in settling as Port Adelaide ace
BRAD Ebert doesn’t hold grudges.

There is no lingering bitterness over his departure from West Coast at the end of 2011 when he was dumped from the Eagles’ September campaign after a first-week loss to Collingwood in Melbourne.
Ebert’s critics in the west pointed to a suspect kicking action, but he’s answered it since returning to his home town and signing with Port Adelaide.
He hasn’t missed a game since leaving West Coast and is an unsung hero in one of the most explosive midfields in the AFL.
“I was definitely disappointed with not getting picked but it definitely wasn’t the reason behind my leaving,” Ebert recalled this week ahead of his clash with old mates today at Adelaide Oval.
“I wanted to be back around family and friends and I think that played a big part in my form that season.
More.......
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/br...ort-adelaide-ace/story-fndv8w9k-1227348567304
upload_2015-5-9_21-28-13.png

Port Adelaide’s Brad Ebert at Alberton Oval
 
Are there any pictures floating around of the 'Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future' banner from 1997?
Do a search I reckon its bèen posted a dozen times on here so should be on here and google images.
 
Apr 7, 2013
40,888
82,570
Burn City
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Do a search I reckon its bèen posted a dozen times on here so should be on here and google images.
No such luck via Google or BigFooty. This is all I found via the 'Power Play' vhs uploaded on YouTube which showcased the 97 season.
banner1.png
banner2.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back