Stats questions

Remove this Banner Ad

Looks like it was this one. Carlton 37.19 (241) def Essendon 9.14 (68). Of course, higher than the highest ever V/AFL seniors score.

FWIW I used the following search parameters to find this:
https://australianfootball.com/leag...ll&club1=2567&club2=2538&ground=11&limit=1000

And with thanks to the SLV Football Record archive

Goals: Ogier 8, Howell 6, Murphy 5, Muller 4, Kourkoumelis 4, M. Buckley 3, Nixon 2, Jones 2, Gumley, Alvin, Enders
Best: Kourkoumelis, Ogier, Murphy, Jones, Howell


Fantastic get with the VFL/AFL Magoos.

I didn't know it was on the AF website until now.

And of course it had to be Essendon losing by such a big margin.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jeep Tigers?

+ 95 Carlton - Hyundai
+ 99 North - Mazda

So that's 11. Probably the winner, I haven't checked closely. But finance comes close.

1979, 81, 82, 87 - Carlton (AVCO)
1983 - Hawthorn (BFC Finance)
1986, 88, 89 - Hawthorn (HFC Finance)
1991 - Hawthorn (Household Finance)

If you can include Insurance then QBE - Sydney - 2005 & 2012 brings it up to 11.
 
Looks like it was this one. Carlton 37.19 (241) def Essendon 9.14 (68). Of course, higher than the highest ever V/AFL seniors score.

FWIW I used the following search parameters to find this:
https://australianfootball.com/leag...ll&club1=2567&club2=2538&ground=11&limit=1000

And with thanks to the SLV Football Record archive

Goals: Ogier 8, Howell 6, Murphy 5, Muller 4, Kourkoumelis 4, M. Buckley 3, Nixon 2, Jones 2, Gumley, Alvin, Enders
Best: Kourkoumelis, Ogier, Murphy, Jones, Howell
79 scores for the game.

Looking back from the current era of footy it's hard to get your head around how so many shots could be generated.
 
I'm looking for a website where I can do my own custom queries which meet certain conditions, such as players drafted since 1994 and who have played over 200 games. Does such a thing exist? Thinking of something like the Cricinfo stats portal. If anyone has access to raw data I'm also happy to do the query offline, cheers :)
 
79 scores for the game.

Looking back from the current era of footy it's hard to get your head around how so many shots could be generated.

Simple, two extremes of game style. On one hand now players are coached to defend at all costs, kick backwards, sideways, anything but kick to a contest. Find a mate on his own or cause a stoppage of boundary throw in at worst. But do not, DO NOT, kick to a contest unless you down a goal near end of game and you in last minute of the game.

As a result the very inefficient use of ball to kick your next goal on average now. Back then it would have been attack the goals as quickly as possible, so efficient use of ball movement, kicking backwards etc, would just about never go on. Kicking to a contest going forward would have been encouraged and if you kick to a contest, back your mate to beat his opponent one on one.

They are two extremes. If you kick 20 goals back then and opposition 16, the coaches are not spending hours and hours of analysis putting energy into time how to restrict opposing team to under 12 goals. More focus on how to score even more goals. In fact the coaches were not full time with a zillion assistants. It was more just a pure game and sport.
 
Last edited:
Simple, two extremes of game style. On one hand now players are coached to defend at all costs, kick backwards, sideways, anything but kick to a contest. Find a mate on his own or cause a stoppage of boundary throw in at worst. But do not, DO NOT, kick to a contest unless you down a goal near end of game and you in last minute of the game.

As a result the very inefficient use of ball to kick your next goal on average now. Back then it would have been attack the goals as quickly as possible, so efficient use of ball movement, kicking backwards etc, would just about never go on. Kicking to a contest going forward would have been encouraged and if you kick to a contest, back your mate to beat his opponent one on one.

They are two extremes. If you kick 20 goals back then and opposition 16, the coaches are not spending hours and hours of analysis putting energy into time how to restrict opposing team to under 12 goals. More focus on how to score even more goals. In fact the coaches were not full time with a zillion assistants. It was more just a pure game and sport.
I know all of that.

It's just still hard to get your head around given the modern context.
 
I know all of that.

It's just still hard to get your head around given the modern context.


Do not find it hard to get head around at it myself. This is not rocket science.
So obvious going to games how many disposals are not going towards scoring goals. Majority of footy now is about maintaining possession.
North in 1990's were trying to score every 20 possessions.
300 possessions.. 15 goals
Giants had more than that in game against Cats and only 4 goals.
 
I'm looking for a website where I can do my own custom queries which meet certain conditions, such as players drafted since 1994 and who have played over 200 games. Does such a thing exist? Thinking of something like the Cricinfo stats portal. If anyone has access to raw data I'm also happy to do the query offline, cheers :)
I don't think it will do exactly what you're asking for, but Draftguru covers the draft very well, and may prove useful:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/
https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison
 
I don't think it will do exactly what you're asking for, but Draftguru covers the draft very well, and may prove useful:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/
https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison
Thanks for that. The thing which piqued my interest in this was actually Nathan Murphy and some of the discussion going on around him on the pies board. Wanted to know what proportion of players who play 150+ or 200+ games make their debut more than a year after being drafted. My guess would be that most players who play that many games debut the year after being drafted, but I dont have anything concrete to back that up. Will try to figure out a quick way of answering questions like that, if anyone has access to raw data I'd love to sift through it
 
+ 95 Carlton - Hyundai
+ 99 North - Mazda

So that's 11. Probably the winner, I haven't checked closely. But finance comes close.

1979, 81, 82, 87 - Carlton (AVCO)
1983 - Hawthorn (BFC Finance)
1986, 88, 89 - Hawthorn (HFC Finance)
1991 - Hawthorn (Household Finance)

If you can include Insurance then QBE - Sydney - 2005 & 2012 brings it up to 11.
Adding to finance

2005, 12 - Sydney (Citi)
2008 - Hawthorn (HSBC)
2010 - Collingwood (Aussie)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ronke kicked 7 goals in his third game. How close is this to a record for a third game?

I know Coleman kicked 12 on debut.

Gls|Player|Cb|Year|Rd|Prev Gls
\12|Ditchburn, Ross|Ca|1982|16|7
\8|Rait, Alan|WB|1933|4|8
\8|Pay, Kevin|Co|1961|4|2
\8|Jackson, Mark|Me|1981|3|10
\7|Kaine, Les|Ha|1956|3|3
\7|Carr, Ray|Me|1970|3|4
\7|Roberts, John P.|Sy|1980|3|5
\7|Rendell, Matt|Fi|1981|4|5
\7|Woodhall, Dale|Co|1984|4|4
\7|Hamilton, Shane|Ge|1988|18|4
\7|Wheildon, Darren|Fi|1989|12|3
\7|Wilson, Troy|WC|2001|3|2
\7|Ronke, Ben|Sy|2018|8|2
 
I'd look at Ablett whilst at the Suns.

Indeed I did...
2012
R1 69 loss to Crows 3 votes
R2 92 loss to saints 3 votes
R10 97 loss to Pies 3 votes

There's probably others.

Those are the top three, then Greg Williams (Ge, 65) and Anthony McGregor (Fi, 60).
 
Has there ever been a game where the coaches votes were 5544332211, i.e. both coaches picked 5 different players?

I've only got the votes since 2010, and there's been one of those - Adelaide v Collingwood, 2016 R17.

5 - B.Crouch, Lynch
4 - Sloane, Talia
3 - Henderson, Lyons
2 - Sinclair, Treloar
1 - Adams, Grundy

Buckley & Pyke each picked 3 Adelaide and 2 Collingwood players.

Brownlow was 3 Grundy, 2 B.Crouch, 1 Treloar

AFL bests were
Smith, Sloane, Talia, Lyons, B.Crouch, Lever
Grundy, Pendlebury, Treloar, Sinclair, Crisp
 
Last edited:
Has there ever been a season where teams one and two on the ladder have never met?


2004 Ladder
#
Team P W D L Home Away GF-BF For GA-BA Agn % Pts
1 Port Adelaide 22 17 5 10-0-1 7-0-4 357.271 (57%) 2413 258.275 (48%) 1823 132.4 68
2 Brisbane Lions 22 16 6 10-0-1 6-0-5 358.299 (54%) 2447 259.229 (53%) 1783 137.2 64


Round 11
Brisbane Lions 6.2 9.7 14.11 18.15 123 Sat 05-Jun-2004 7:10 PM Att: 34,241 Venue: Gabba
Port Adelaide 2.7 6.8 8.13 12.14 86 Brisbane Lions won by 37 pts

Grand Final
Port Adelaide 4.5 6.6 12.8 17.11 113 Sat 25-Sep-2004 2:30 PM Att: 77,671 Venue: M.C.G.
Brisbane Lions 2.2 6.7 9.9 10.13 73 Port Adelaide won by 40 pts



I may be thick here but I don't understand that question.


You are not thick. The question made no sense at all.
 
2004 Ladder
#
Team P W D L Home Away GF-BF For GA-BA Agn % Pts
1 Port Adelaide 22 17 5 10-0-1 7-0-4 357.271 (57%) 2413 258.275 (48%) 1823 132.4 68
2 Brisbane Lions 22 16 6 10-0-1 6-0-5 358.299 (54%) 2447 259.229 (53%) 1783 137.2 64


Round 11
Brisbane Lions 6.2 9.7 14.11 18.15 123 Sat 05-Jun-2004 7:10 PM Att: 34,241 Venue: Gabba
Port Adelaide 2.7 6.8 8.13 12.14 86 Brisbane Lions won by 37 pts

Grand Final
Port Adelaide 4.5 6.6 12.8 17.11 113 Sat 25-Sep-2004 2:30 PM Att: 77,671 Venue: M.C.G.
Brisbane Lions 2.2 6.7 9.9 10.13 73 Port Adelaide won by 40 pts






You are not thick. The question made no sense at all.

Were Port and Brisbane #1 and #2 when they met in round 11? No they were #3 and #4.
 
That was not the question posed. If it was, that post posing a question would have made sense.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have understood what the question was asking.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top