Resource 2019 Stats thread + prior year comparisons

[RussellEbertHandball]

5th for free kicks (21.0), 18th for team/opponent free kick differential (-4.0) (LOL, how can you dominate so many stats but be pinged for so many free kicks?!)

LOL the more things change, the more things stay the same. Umpires over officiating our games as well, as we are 5th most free kicks as well 18th differential. Maybe its that bloody evening up after half time bullshit why we end up with so many free kicks in our games.

18th for rebound 50s (34.6), 18th for team/opponent rebound 50 differential (-13.4) (This is due to defending higher up the ground and intercepting the ball before it reaches defensive 50)

This has to be one of the most useless stat. I hadn't really thought about it before this year, but as it stood out like a sore thumb, I looked at the inside 50 differential and saw it was driven by that.

We had the ball 75% of the game in our half of the ground on Good Friday and 71 inside 50's vs 38 so we end up with a poor rebound differential which shows how useless it is by itself. We have dominated inside 50's against Melbourne and Carlton as well.

 

[Port85]

After last week's game we are 2nd in the league for fewest scoring shots against, but most pleasingly we've actually jumped to 6th (After languishing around the bottom of the league) in minimising opposition scoring shorts per inside 50. We're still 14th for goals conceded per inside 50, meaning when the oppo get through, they mainly goal with their scoring shots (I haven't really studied it, but I assume we are giving up easier shots on goal - thus the high conversion).

As mentioned above, our forward line is still inefficient and this might not be rectified this year, so hopefully the midfield and team press can help us create so many forward entries we just overwhelm the opposition.

 

[Port85]

After a couple of comments in this thread, I've gone back and looked at the similar stats from 2017, the last time we were "famed" for playing a forward half press.

Below is a table showing our rankings across the AFL for the 2017 vs the first five rounds of 2019. A five game sample size is not the same as an entire season, but its a decent enough start to look at some of the big differences.

Stat	2017 Ranking	2019 Ranking	Diff
Goals Per I50	12	14	-2
Scoring Shots per I50	12	15	-3
Marks per I50	12	12	0
Opp Goals Per I50	3	14	-11
Opp Scoring Shots Per I50	3	6	-3
Opp Marks Per I50	1	11	-10
Total Scoring Shots Per Game	2	2	0
Port Conversion	13	12	-1
Opp Total Scoring Shots Per Game	3	2	+1
Opp Conversion	2	16	-14
I50 Ratio	1	1	0
Centre Clearance Differential	4	2	+2
Stoppage Clearance Differential	11	1	+10
Tackle Differential	8	1	+7
Uncontested Possessions Differential	13	1	+12
Contested Possessions Differential	3	4	-1

My thoughts:

After much lamenting of our inability to convert inside 50s into goals in 2017, we've actually gotten slightly worse if anything but still facing the same issue...not sure if this is personnel would make much of a difference this season anyway.

The inside 50 ratio is pretty ******* good though, we're back to getting good forward half opportunities and up there with the highest amount of scoring shots in the league (just like 2017!)

Defensively we're doing about the same at keeping the ball outside of our defensive 50 arc, but when its in there, we're conceding goals much more easily than in 2017, we're doing really well at keeping scoring shots down generally but they are mostly goals. This may iron itself out over 23 rounds, but I'll be keeping an eye on it, that's for sure.

When it comes to midfield metrics, we're killing it around the stoppages so far in 2019 compared to 2017, which is good. Probably down to the 2 ruck combo plus maybe Schofield's genius? We're also tackling much more than our opponents and winning alot more of the ball through uncontested possessions - the new quick ball movement style.

So there are a lot of similarities but it's also different in a lot of ways as well. The midfield seems to be doing better and the forwards about the same...jury still out about the defence - given its more of a whole team approach than a back six.

I'm fascinated to see how it evolves over time and I'm optimistic for this season, but also cautious given the weaknesses inherent up forward in both years (2017 + 2019) not just this season.

 

[chickentendies]

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31667

Perfect thread for it, but Ollie Wines, Boak and Burton our big improves from last season based on the HPN model.

 

[Janus]

After a couple of comments in this thread, I've gone back and looked at the similar stats from 2017, the last time we were "famed" for playing a forward half press.

Below is a table showing our rankings across the AFL for the 2017 vs the first five rounds of 2019. A five game sample size is not the same as an entire season, but its a decent enough start to look at some of the big differences.

Stat	2017 Ranking	2019 Ranking	Diff
Goals Per I50	12	14	-2
Scoring Shots per I50	12	15	-3
Marks per I50	12	12	0
Opp Goals Per I50	3	14	-11
Opp Scoring Shots Per I50	3	6	-3
Opp Marks Per I50	1	11	-10
Total Scoring Shots Per Game	2	2	0
Port Conversion	13	12	-1
Opp Total Scoring Shots Per Game	3	2	+1
Opp Conversion	2	16	-14
I50 Ratio	1	1	0
Centre Clearance Differential	4	2	+2
Stoppage Clearance Differential	11	1	+10
Tackle Differential	8	1	+7
Uncontested Possessions Differential	13	1	+12
Contested Possessions Differential	3	4	-1

My thoughts:

After much lamenting of our inability to convert inside 50s into goals in 2017, we've actually gotten slightly worse if anything but still facing the same issue...not sure if this is personnel would make much of a difference this season anyway.

The inside 50 ratio is pretty ******* good though, we're back to getting good forward half opportunities and up there with the highest amount of scoring shots in the league (just like 2017!)

Defensively we're doing about the same at keeping the ball outside of our defensive 50 arc, but when its in there, we're conceding goals much more easily than in 2017, we're doing really well at keeping scoring shots down generally but they are mostly goals. This may iron itself out over 23 rounds, but I'll be keeping an eye on it, that's for sure.

When it comes to midfield metrics, we're killing it around the stoppages so far in 2019 compared to 2017, which is good. Probably down to the 2 ruck combo plus maybe Schofield's genius? We're also tackling much more than our opponents and winning alot more of the ball through uncontested possessions - the new quick ball movement style.

So there are a lot of similarities but it's also different in a lot of ways as well. The midfield seems to be doing better and the forwards about the same...jury still out about the defence - given its more of a whole team approach than a back six.

I'm fascinated to see how it evolves over time and I'm optimistic for this season, but also cautious given the weaknesses inherent up forward in both years (2017 + 2019) not just this season.

Need more than just rankings because it doesn't tell you the whole story.

Team/opponent differential:

Inside 50s: 2017 1st (10.3), 2019 1st (15.0) = +4.7

Goals: 2017 2nd (3.1), 2019 7th (1.2) = -1.9

Behinds: 2017 2nd (2.8), 2019 1st (4.8) = +2

Goal Assists: 2017 1st (3.2), 2019 7th (0.6) = -2.6

Tackles: 2017 8th (0.2), 2019 1st (6.6) = +6.4

Contested Possessions: 2017 4th (5.1), 2019 3rd (10.6) = +5.5

Uncontested Possessions: 2017 13th (-10.2), 2019 1st (47.0) = +57.2

Clearances: 2017 8th (0.2), 2019 1st (8.6) = +8.4

Turnovers: 2017 17th (-3.6), 2019 17th (-3.2) = -0.4

Intercepts: 2017 1st (3.9), 2019 5th (2.4) = -1.5

Tackles Inside 50: 2017 2nd (4.7), 2019 3rd (3.2) = -1.5

One Percenters: 2017 1st (6.7), 2019 1st (7.4) = +0.7


So basically, we have the same amount of scoring shots as 2017, but have scored behinds instead of goals. That will be rectified. We are getting on the outside much more, generating far more clearances, more tackles and more contested possessions.

 

[GremioPower]

Need more than just rankings because it doesn't tell you the whole story.

Team/opponent differential:

Inside 50s: 2017 1st (10.3), 2019 1st (15.0) = +4.7

Goals: 2017 2nd (3.1), 2019 7th (1.2) = -1.9

Behinds: 2017 2nd (2.8), 2019 1st (4.8) = +2

Goal Assists: 2017 1st (3.2), 2019 7th (0.6) = -2.6

Tackles: 2017 8th (0.2), 2019 1st (6.6) = +6.4

Contested Possessions: 2017 4th (5.1), 2019 3rd (10.6) = +5.5

Uncontested Possessions: 2017 13th (-10.2), 2019 1st (47.0) = +57.2

Clearances: 2017 8th (0.2), 2019 1st (8.6) = +8.4

Turnovers: 2017 17th (-3.6), 2019 17th (-3.2) = -0.4

Intercepts: 2017 1st (3.9), 2019 5th (2.4) = -1.5

Tackles Inside 50: 2017 2nd (4.7), 2019 3rd (3.2) = -1.5

One Percenters: 2017 1st (6.7), 2019 1st (7.4) = +0.7


So basically, we have the same amount of scoring shots as 2017, but have scored behinds instead of goals. That will be rectified. We are getting on the outside much more, generating far more clearances, more tackles and more contested possessions.

You're working with differentials. We are kicking fewer goals and more behinds than our opponents.

 

[Janus]

You're working with differentials. We are kicking fewer goals and more behinds than our opponents.

Yeah, if you miss a shot at goal, unless you spray it wildly, it scores a behind.

So the amount of behinds being up and the amount of goals being down will balance out once the team starts kicking goals instead of missing them.

Or to put it another way - in 2017, we had 5.9 more scoring shots than our opponents. In 2019, we have 6 more scoring shots. Our job is to make sure those 6 more score shots are goals and not behinds.

 

[ozph1870]

Classic overthinkers thread...

Its a very simple game. Like all sports. Do the basics right and the results will follow.
So many misleading pointless stats. (respect the work put in) but you can very easily play a style that's statistically sound, but in reality is very poor...

Take last year's greatest hoax stat ever.. Our defense, was abysmal, but statistically manufactured a way to artificially make it look ok, by slowing the game right down and make it a slopfest.

 

[GremioPower]

Yeah, if you miss a shot at goal, unless you spray it wildly, it scores a behind.

So the amount of behinds being up and the amount of goals being down will balance out once the team starts kicking goals instead of missing them.

Or to put it another way - in 2017, we had 5.9 more scoring shots than our opponents. In 2019, we have 6 more scoring shots. Our job is to make sure those 6 more score shots are goals and not behinds.

But, the scoring-shot differential being similar, are we kicking worse, are they kicking better, or both? It could be any of these cases.

 

[Janus]

But, the scoring-shot differential being similar, are we kicking worse, are they kicking better, or both? It could be any of these cases.

You've seen our games. How many easy shots at goal have we missed?

 

[GremioPower]

You've seen our games. How many easy shots at goal have we missed?

Plenty, but what we do is only half of the story.

Differentials show relation. You are using as metric a differential between differentials. That seems confusing.

Wouldn't it be better to compare separatedly the averages between 2017 and 2019, our own and our opponents'?

 

[GremioPower]

Classic overthinkers thread...

Its a very simple game. Like all sports. Do the basics right and the results will follow.
So many misleading pointless stats. (respect the work put in) but you can very easily play a style that's statistically sound, but in reality is very poor...

Take last year's greatest hoax stat ever.. Our defense, was abysmal, but statistically manufactured a way to artificially make it look ok, by slowing the game right down and make it a slopfest.

"Stats are like bikinis. They show everything, but what matter the most," as the saying goes. They don't reveal all, nor substitute the direct experience. Still, properly understood, they allow us to get a good idea of the whole.

There are bad stats, for sure. There are bad reading of stats, too. The more we talk about them, the better we get in understanding them. We learn to read them better and identifying those that are useful from those that are not. That's what this thread is for.

 

[Janus]

Plenty, but what we do is only half of the story.

Differentials show relation. You are using as metric a differential between differentials. That seems confusing.

Wouldn't it be better to compare separatedly the averages between 2017 and 2019, our own and our opponents'?

Goals

2017 - Port 14.0, Opponents 10.9

2019 - Port 13.0, Opponents 11.8 (-1 Port, +0.9 Opponent)

Behinds

2017 - Port 13.3, Opponents 10.5

2019 - Port 12.4, Opponents 7.6 (-0.9 Port, -2.9 Opponent)

So opposition teams have 2 less scoring shots in total, and Port has 1.9 less scoring shots total.

The only difference is that the opposition is kicking around 1 extra goal from their scoring shots, and 3 less behinds...whereas Port is kicking 1 less goal, and 1 less behind from their scoring shots.

It's a swing of around -10 points (+3 to the opposition, -7 to Port Adelaide). Hence why I said it's more the goals we are leaving on the table than anything the opposition is doing.

 

[GremioPower]

Goals

2017 - Port 14.0, Opponents 10.9

2019 - Port 13.0, Opponents 11.8 (-1 Port, +0.9 Opponent)

Behinds

2017 - Port 13.3, Opponents 10.5

2019 - Port 12.4, Opponents 7.6 (-0.9 Port, -2.9 Opponent)

So opposition teams have 2 less scoring shots in total, and Port has 1.9 less scoring shots total.

The only difference is that the opposition is kicking around 1 extra goal from their scoring shots, and 3 less behinds...whereas Port is kicking 1 less goal, and 1 less behind from their scoring shots.

It's a swing of around -10 points (+3 to the opposition, -7 to Port Adelaide). Hence why I said it's more the goals we are leaving on the table than anything the opposition is doing.

At least, up to now, we seem all to agree that 2019 has been very similar to 2017. Coincidentally, in both seasons, we started with 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 win, in our first 5 games.

----

2019 v. 2017 - First five games (Avg.)

Port
Sc. Shots: 25.40 - 29.20 (-3.80)
Goals: 13.00 - 16.40 (-3.40)
Behinds: 12.40 - 12.80 (-0.40)
Points: 90.40 - 111.20 (-20.80)

Opponents
Sc. Shots: 19.40 - 22.40 (-3.00)
Goals: 11.80 - 11.40 (+0.40)
Behinds: 7.60 - 11.00 (-3.40)
Points: 78.40 - 79.40 (-1.00)

----

Basically, it is what you are saying, even considering the entire 2017 season. The scoring shots have been down similarly between us and the opposition. However, the number of goals against and behinds for have remained constant. The difference is that we are kicking fewer goals and conceding fewer behinds. That's mental!

This is what is good about stats. They bring up questions.

The season is just starting, so the sample is very small. Still, so far, the opposition is scoring better than in 2017 from fewer shots, fewer I50, and fewer possessions, right? They don't get much of the ball as they did then, but, when they do, they go for the kill.

Are we turning the ball over more? Is this a consequence of the 6-6-6 rule? Are the opponents simply pulling goals out of their asses? Is it the umpires? Are they playing on our weak points?

On the other hand, why are we failing offensivelly? Are we kicking from bad spots? Are we giving the ball to the wrong players? have we been unable to explore the opposition's defensive weaknesses?

Sincerely, I don't know.

 

[Port85]

We mark the ball about 20% of the time we enter attacking 50.

Some of those marks would be set shots we miss or don't make the distance.

With the 80% of entries we don't mark the ball either comes back out or we force a contest that results either in a difficult snap on goal or a stoppage that may result in another difficult snap on goal.

If we had aerial dominance like West Coast or Mason Cox at Collingwood OR a super fast leading small like De Goey I think we'd see better conversion and effiency.

We also have a lot of shots from distance on the run at the end of link up play through the midfield and they are difficult to hit at full speed.

So it's a bit of everything so I think we just keep chipping away at it over time with different approaches and list changes as we progress. Dixon or maybe someone like Cox from Fremantle might help if they can clunk a few more marks inside 50

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Ladder at end of Rd 5 2019

https://finalsiren.com/AFLLadder.asp?AFLLadderTypeID=2&SeasonID=2019&Round=5-1

7 goals behind the highest scoring side but most score recorded. 8th highest goals scored against



Vs Rd 5 2018 and 2017, with just goals and points scored for and against (just change the year)

2018 13 goals behind highest, =8th highest in defence. 2017 18 goals behind the highest and 17th highest in defence
---

 

[Port85]

Thought it might be interesting to track last nights game against our average performance over Rd 1-5.

Scoring
Goals per inside 50 = 21% (avg: 21%)
Scoring Shots per inside 50 = 49% (avg: 41%)
Total Scoring shots = 28 (avg: 25)
Conversion = 43% (avg: 51%)

So scoring shot production was slightly better than usual with conversion much worse but you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to work that out with 12.16

Conceding
Opp Goals per inside 50 = 24% (avg: 25%)
Opp Scoring Shots per inside 50 = 38% (avg: 41%)
Opp Total Scoring shots = 17 (avg: 19)
Opp Conversion = 65% (avg: 61%)

North converted slightly higher than what we're used to seeing from our opponents, otherwise we kept their scoring down.

This game was actually on par with our season so far as a whole, just with shitty conversion from us, and better than average from North (even factoring in we give up some really easy goals no matter who we play due to the high press).

In order to threaten at all come the end of the year we're going to need to tighten these numbers at both ends of the field up a bit or hope for a series of above average performances if we reach September.

 

[FPPF]

We're the highgest scoring side after 6 rounds...and 3rd on ladder with a few games to go this round..

For/Against: Port 540/464, Essendon 532/496, Collingwood 525/430

Average f/a: Port 90/77.3, Essendon 88.6/82.6, Collingwood 87.5/71.6


In 2018 after round 6 we were 537/482, avg 89.5/80.3 - 6th on ladder, 7th highest scoring
finished 10th on ladder
In 2017 - 706/464, avg 117.6/77.3 - 5th on ladder, highest scoring
finished 5ht on ladder, lost qualifying final
In 2016 - 549/612, avg 91.5/102 - 11th on ladder, 10th highest scoring
finished 10th on ladder
In 2015 - 507/532, avg 84.5/88.6 - 10th on ladder, 12th highest scoring
finished 9th on ladder
In 2014 - 673/426, avg 112.1/71 - 1st on ladder, 2nd highest scoring
finished 5th on ladder, lost in prelim
In 2013 -656/479, avg 109.3/79.8 - 3rd on ladder, 4th highest scoring
finished 7th on ladder, lost in semi final
In 2012 - 476/599, avg 79.3/99.8 - 15th on ladder, 13th highest scoring,
finished 14th on ladder

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

 

[GremioPower]

We're the highgest scoring side after 6 rounds...and 3rd on ladder with a few games to go this round..

For/Against: Port 540/464, Essendon 532/496, Collingwood 525/430

Average f/a: Port 90/77.3, Essendon 88.6/82.6, Collingwood 87.5/71.6


In 2018 after round 6 we were 537/482, avg 89.5/80.3 - 6th on ladder, 7th highest scoring
finished 10th on ladder
In 2017 - 706/464, avg 117.6/77.3 - 5th on ladder, highest scoring
finished 5ht on ladder, lost qualifying final
In 2016 - 549/612, avg 91.5/102 - 11th on ladder, 10th highest scoring
finished 10th on ladder
In 2015 - 507/532, avg 84.5/88.6 - 10th on ladder, 12th highest scoring
finished 9th on ladder
In 2014 - 673/426, avg 112.1/71 - 1st on ladder, 2nd highest scoring
finished 5th on ladder, lost in prelim
In 2013 -656/479, avg 109.3/79.8 - 3rd on ladder, 4th highest scoring
finished 7th on ladder, lost in semi final
In 2012 - 476/599, avg 79.3/99.8 - 15th on ladder, 13th highest scoring,
finished 14th on ladder

On Goals and Behinds after 6 rounds
Our best quarter is Q2, both offensivelly and defensivelly, but in our scoring accuracy (Q3).
Our worst quarter defensively is Q3 - but in scoring shots (Q1).
Our worst quarter offensively is Q4 - but in scoring shots (Q3).

We win the first half, but lose the second. The difference between the first and the second halves are basically two - in the 2H, we have fewer scoring shots, and the oposition scores more accurately.

In Q1 and Q3, we have similar # of Scoring Shots than our opposition - although we have advantage in both quarters (Q1 - 0.33/game; Q3 - 0.5/g). By points. we won Q1 (2 points/game), but lose Q3 (1.2 p/g).

Both in Q2 and Q4, we have significant more scoring shots; in Q2, more than double (7.67/g to 3.50/g). By points, we won only Q2 (25.17 p/g to 23.67 p/g). In Q4, we have a scoring-shot differential of +1.67/g, but opposition scores 0.83 p/g more than we do.

----

TOTAL
Team G.B (SS.PS) A%
Port 77.77 (154:539) 58.33%
Opp. 70.44 (114:464) 67.84%

GD Port +7
BD Port +33

Per Half
1H
Port 42.41 (83:293) 58.84%
Opp. 30.26 (56:206) 61.31%

GD Port +12
BD Port +15

2H
Port 35.36 (71:246) 57.75%
Opp. 40.18 (58:258) 74.14%

GD Opp. +5
BD Port +18

Per Quarter
Q1
Port 21.16 (37:142) 63.96%
Opp. 19.16 (35:130) 61.90%

GD Port +2
BD Even

Q2
Port 21.25 (46:151) 54.71%
Opp. 11.10 (21:76) 60.32%

GD Port +10
BD Port +15

Q3
Port 19.14 (33:128) 64.65%
Opp. 21.9 (30:135) 75.00%

GD Opp. +2
BD Port +5

Q4
Port 16.22 (38:118) 51.75%
Opp. 19.9 (28:123) 73.21%

GD Opp. +3
BD Port +13

----

G - Goals
B - Behinds
SS - Scoring Shots
PS - Points Scored
A% - Accuracy Percentage
GD - Goal Differential
BD - Behind Differential

 

[GremioPower]

On Goals and Behinds after 6 rounds
Our best quarter is Q2, both offensivelly and defensivelly, but in our scoring accuracy (Q3).
Our worst quarter defensively is Q3 - but in scoring shots (Q1).
Our worst quarter offensively is Q4 - but in scoring shots (Q3).

We win the first half, but lose the second. The difference between the first and the second halves are basically two - in the 2H, we have fewer scoring shots, and the oposition scores more accurately.

In Q1 and Q3, we have similar # of Scoring Shots than our opposition - although we have advantage in both quarters (Q1 - 0.33/game; Q3 - 0.5/g). By points. we won Q1 (2 points/game), but lose Q3 (1.2 p/g).

Both in Q2 and Q4, we have significant more scoring shots; in Q2, more than double (7.67/g to 3.50/g). By points, we won only Q2 (25.17 p/g to 23.67 p/g). In Q4, we have a scoring-shot differential of +1.67/g, but opposition scores 0.83 p/g more than we do.

----

TOTAL
Team G.B (SS.PS) A%
Port 77.77 (154:539) 58.33%
Opp. 70.44 (114:464) 67.84%

GD Port +7
BD Port +33

Per Half
1H
Port 42.41 (83:293) 58.84%
Opp. 30.26 (56:206) 61.31%

GD Port +12
BD Port +15

2H
Port 35.36 (71:246) 57.75%
Opp. 40.18 (58:258) 74.14%

GD Opp. +5
BD Port +18

Per Quarter
Q1
Port 21.16 (37:142) 63.96%
Opp. 19.16 (35:130) 61.90%

GD Port +2
BD Even

Q2
Port 21.25 (46:151) 54.71%
Opp. 11.10 (21:76) 60.32%

GD Port +10
BD Port +15

Q3
Port 19.14 (33:128) 64.65%
Opp. 21.9 (30:135) 75.00%

GD Opp. +2
BD Port +5

Q4
Port 16.22 (38:118) 51.75%
Opp. 19.9 (28:123) 73.21%

GD Opp. +3
BD Port +13

----

G - Goals
B - Behinds
SS - Scoring Shots
PS - Points Scored
A% - Accuracy Percentage
GD - Goal Differential
BD - Behind Differential

On Goals and Behinds after 6 rounds

Collingwood Edition
Pies' impose themselves basically in Q1 and Q4. Q3 is even (although they win). Their worst quarter overall is Q2, which they lose.

Their best quarter is Q1, both offensivelly and defensivelly, but in their scoring accuracy (Q3).
Defensivelly, they struggle similarly in Q2 and Q3. Q3 is worse, but for scoring shots.

They win both halves. The difference between the first and the second halves are basically two - in the 2H, they score more accurately, but the oposition scores both more and better.

----

TOTAL
Team G.B (SS.PS) A%
Coll 76.69 (145:525) 60.34%
Opp. 62.58 (120:430) 59.72%

GD Coll +14
BD Coll +11

Per Half
1H
Coll 36.36 (72:252) 58.33%
Opp. 28.29 (57:197) 57.60%

GD Coll +8
BD Coll +7

2H
Coll 40.33 (73:273) 62.33%
Opp. 34.29 (63:233) 61.64%

GD Coll +6
BD Coll +4

Per Quarter
Q1
Coll 21.20 (41:146) 59.35%
Opp. 9.11 (20:65) 54.17%

GD Coll +12
BD Coll +9

Q2
Coll 15.16 (31:106) 56.99%
Opp. 19.18 (37:132) 59.46%

GD Opp. +4
BD Opp. +2

Q3
Coll 21.14 (35:140) 66.67%
Opp. 20.16 (36:136) 62.96%

GD Coll +1
BD Opp +2

Q4
Coll 19.19 (38:133) 58.33%
Opp. 14.13 (27:97) 59.88%

GD Coll +5
BD Coll +6

----

Silly Stat of the Day
Combining both numbers, our and theirs, the game would unfold like this:

QT Port 2.2:14, Coll 3.5:23 (Coll +9)
HT Port 6.5:41, Coll 5.8:38 (Port +3)
3T Port 9.8:62, Coll 8.9:57 (Port +5)
FT Port 12.9:81, Coll 12.10:82 (Coll +1)

 

[Lawnchair Larry]

Not a lot to see here, but I did it so I’ll post it.
I looked at a plot of age distribution of PAFC squad whose ages are corrected to near the beginning of the 2019 finals campaign – 1st Sept 2019.
The plot looks like this for the 40+ squad members:

Also included on the plot is the age profile of the best 22 from the Brisbane Lions April 2019 match, with ages also corrected to 1st Sept 2019. So, I am assuming that team is playing in finals (!!).When compared to the squad composition it reveals the age bias in the selection process. Of course a bias to older ages is not a surprise.
I have also done this procedure for the Collingwood and WCE teams that played in the 2018 GF, but transported in age to 1 Sept 2019. With WCE I have substitutes Gaff and Naitanui for Le Cras and Lycett on the best 22 2018 GF team, before transporting ages to 1 Sept 2019.

I’ve fitted the squad age distribution curves to a best fit line shape (Corrigan Gallagher) and the best 22 age distribution to a linear fit, because I want to overlay similar data from other clubs as continuous lines rather than a mish-mash of data. If you consider the individual data points in overlays with other teams it is difficult to see the trends. The line fits for the squads fall short of 100% by approx 1-2 players for a 40+ squad, because the curves are just that – a best fit. But the line shapes fit pretty well and provide good line of sight for comparison.


Looking at the overlays for the respective squads (including Crows):

Clearly all squads examined have about 70% of players below about 27.5 on 1st Sept 2019. But at ages lower than this Port suffers a blowout in younger players, which is quite different from the others looked at here. Our median age (50%) is fully 1.5-2 years younger than the others I have looked at. That’s maybe 30-40 games of added experience to the young guys.
The curves do suggest a rebuild phase for the Port team, but I am concerned that the blowout in the younger age range is not being used to test the capability of these players at the top level. If that curve for Port is mined appropriately then it is capable of creating a dynasty of premierships, as I think there is plenty of talent there. It has to be done before the older age group falls “off the perch” and before a totally young team learns the art of losing (refer Carlton IMO).
Less important is the comparison of the projected best 22 players to the 1st Sept 2019. It’s entirely speculative, particularly if Port returns Dixon Broadbent & Hartlett to the team as “old timers”:

This plot confirms that we are addressing the bias in younger players in the squad to some degree, and that is a good outcome. We are however very different from a GF aspirant point of view, if a comparison with Pies and WCE is relevant. I doubt whether we need more younger players into the team (represented by the crew who played against the Lions), if we are to sustain at least a reasonable chance of winning. More the point we need to be moving young players in and out of the team on a regular basis.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What we are doing well in or leading - one isn't good to be leading

Getting lots of the ball, winning lots of clearances, partially assisted by the rucks doing well, working hard Ken Hinkley style, but doing plenty of stupid things, Ken Hinkley style, but racking up the clangers.

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/th-port-adelaide-power



Compare that to Geelong
● Ranked 4th in Marks Per Game
● Ranked 1st in Points Per Game
● Ranked 5th in Tackles Per Game
● Ranked 1st in Goal Assists Per Game
● Ranked 1st in least Opponent Kicks Per Game
● Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Disposals Per Game
● Ranked 4th in least Opponent Marks Per Game
● Ranked 1st in least Opponent Points Per Game
● Ranked 4th in least Opponent Inside 50s Per Game
and
● Ranked 13th in Inside 50s Per Game
● Ranked 17th in Clangers Per Game

They get less of the ball than us, but are more efficient than us.

And this is where we have been rubbish. We dont mark the ball inside 50 enough because Marshall, Westhoff, Ryder and Lycett don't do it. Probably dosn't help that 3 of our 4 home games and the WCE game have been affected by rain and the ball has been a piece of soap but it sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Basically we have a total system failure, and the only areas we can succeed in are those that an individual player can do by themselves. Anything requiring coordination we suck at.

 

[GremioPower]

What we are doing well in or leading - one isn't good to be leading

Getting lots of the ball, winning lots of clearances, partially assisted by the rucks doing well, working hard Ken Hinkley style, but doing plenty of stupid things, Ken Hinkley style, but racking up the clangers.

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/th-port-adelaide-power

View attachment 673173

Compare that to Geelong
● Ranked 4th in Marks Per Game
● Ranked 1st in Points Per Game
● Ranked 5th in Tackles Per Game
● Ranked 1st in Goal Assists Per Game
● Ranked 1st in least Opponent Kicks Per Game
● Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Disposals Per Game
● Ranked 4th in least Opponent Marks Per Game
● Ranked 1st in least Opponent Points Per Game
● Ranked 4th in least Opponent Inside 50s Per Game
and
● Ranked 13th in Inside 50s Per Game
● Ranked 17th in Clangers Per Game

They get less of the ball than us, but are more efficient than us.

And this is where we have been rubbish. We dont mark the ball inside 50 enough because Marshall, Westhoff, Ryder and Lycett don't do it. Probably dosn't help that 3 of our 4 home games and the WCE game have been affected by rain and the ball has been a piece of soap but it sticks out like a sore thumb.


View attachment 673181

Basically, if we were able to fix our F50 entries, we would be fine. However, we aren't able; so, we are not fine.