Autopsy Roos lose to Suns

[Arthur Cloke]

Sorry for the delayed response guys. Just got back from Gather Round on the red-eye.

That game on Saturday was without a doubt the best day of my life. It was my personal derby. Both my teams going toe to toe in the Barossa. Never seen anything like it. It seemed so real.
I smuggled in a couple of bottles of Shiraz & I was knocking 'em back like no mother. After my 3rd bottle, I was rockin' and rollin'. The last thing I can remember is when we hit the lead during the 3rd quarter. It was somewhat of a melancholy feeling as I was really hoping for a draw. The last quarter is a blur. It ended up being a touch embarrassing as I woke up in the beetle position under the scoreboard after the game with a couple of snotty-nosed kids pointing at me and laughing.

I proceeded to rip my T-shirt off Hulk Hogan style and show them my 17 inch pythons. They soon got it.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

The fact you consider our game against GC as 'blasted off the park' is why stats matter. They were a 4 goal better side if you adjust for them being way more accurate side than they should have been. They beat us by 52, should have been 24 - you literally cannot do anything as a side to impact how accurate the opposition is above the expected.

To further make my point: This would be like a side kicking 5 goals in a game from torpedo's from 70m out and 3/3 from outside the boundary 50m out and winning by 8 goals and someone saying 'well I know they kicked 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3 from a ridiculously difficult spot, but the reality is we got flogged by 50 points'.

What are the odds a side kicks 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3/3 from a very difficult spot? What can you do as a side to influence their chances at converting those? The answer is nothing - it's a difficult shot, and the ability for the opposition to be significantly more accurate than they should be from shots is not something you can influence.

So I'd suggest we've been 'blasted off the park' once this year - Sydney.

You could give them less easy shots in front of goal...

 

[Souup]

You could give them less easy shots in front of goal...

Key words: above the expected.

The whole point of the stat is it takes into account statistical probability of the shot being made based on the difficulty level.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Key words: above the expected.

The whole point of the stat is it takes into account statistical probability of the shot being made based on the difficulty level.

Does it take into account each specific player who’s having a shot?

Because Larkey having shots and Zurhaar having shots are two different things from the same spot.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Key words: above the expected.

The whole point of the stat is it takes into account statistical probability of the shot being made based on the difficulty level.

Ahh ok, I think i've got it now.

 

[The Dingrel]

The fact you consider our game against GC as 'blasted off the park' is why stats matter. They were a 4 goal better side if you adjust for them being way more accurate side than they should have been. They beat us by 52, should have been 24 - you literally cannot do anything as a side to impact how accurate the opposition is above the expected.

To further make my point: This would be like a side kicking 5 goals in a game from torpedo's from 70m out and 3/3 from outside the boundary 50m out and winning by 8 goals and someone saying 'well I know they kicked 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3 from a ridiculously difficult spot, but the reality is we got flogged by 50 points'.

What are the odds a side kicks 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3/3 from a very difficult spot? What can you do as a side to influence their chances at converting those? The answer is nothing - it's a difficult shot, and the ability for the opposition to be significantly more accurate than they should be from shots is not something you can influence.

So I'd suggest we've been 'blasted off the park' once this year - Sydney.

With respect I think you can,,,,,,pressure on the guy kicking for goal and the guy kicking inside 50, forcing them to take shots further out and on more difficult angles. From Q1 against the suns on the weekend, they were getting easy shots from loose balls 20-30m in front, by unmanned players. And it continued the whole game. We seem to have ahd too many guys committing to the contest in the air and on the ground allowing loose players to have uncontested shots on goal at easy angles. I havevn't watched it again, and nor will I, but that was my impression.

 

[Souup]

With respect I think you can,,,,,,pressure on the guy kicking for goal and the guy kicking inside 50, forcing them to take shots further out and on more difficult angles. From Q1 against the suns on the weekend, they were getting easy shots from loose balls 20-30m in front, by unmanned players. And it continued the whole game. We seem to have ahd too many guys committing to the contest in the air and on the ground allowing loose players to have uncontested shots on goal at easy angles. I havevn't watched it again, and nor will I, but that was my impression.

3rd time repeating this...

The stat literally takes into account pressure on the guy kicking for goal, as well as where they are taking the shot.

Does it take into account each specific player who’s having a shot?

Because Larkey having shots and Zurhaar having shots are two different things from the same spot.

No it doesn't - it's based purely on numbers and probability and doesn't take into account the skill or history of the person taking the shot.

 

[The Dingrel]

Key words: above the expected.

The whole point of the stat is it takes into account statistical probability of the shot being made based on the difficulty level.

"Expected score" suggests a multivariate regression, what are the independent variables that make up the model Soupp? Based on that, the expected score surely isn't static. If I was starting from scratch I'd assume the number of inside 50's, centre clearances, contested ball gets, and turnovers (for and against) would be the main variables, and then there's weighting to account for recent form and player availability. On that basis, I think we have for large stretches dominated oppositions for clearances and contested ball, and again been quite terrible on the turnover front. The game very much got on the Suns terms once they evened up and got on top of the contested ball and clearances.

 

[The Dingrel]

3rd time repeating this...

The stat literally takes into account pressure on the guy kicking for goal, as well as where they are taking the shot.


No it doesn't - it's based purely on numbers and probability and doesn't take into account the skill or history of the person taking the shot.

sorry I don't read every post on here.....care to share the methodology in calculating the "expected score"....Im assuming a multivariate regression (see my other post).

 

[Souup]

sorry I don't read every post on here.....care to share the methodology in calculating the "expected score"....Im assuming a multivariate regression (see my other post).

Apologies mate, I shouldn't have been an arseh*le about repeating it.

It's based off historical data, taking into account all previous shots from that particular spot either in general play (with and/or without pressure) or from a set shot.

Example: a kick from a 30 degree angle, 48m out might have an expected score of 1.2, suggesting that there's a 1/5 chance of the player kicking it based on historical data. If a goal is kicked, that team would be +4.8, if they miss, it'd be -1.2. Extrapolate that over the game with each shot compared with historical data of the same shot from the same spot under similar conditions.

In the end, the season average across the whole competition works out pretty close to 0, which obviously makes sense statistically. Here's the last 4 years of league average expected score:

2025: +2.3 (Adelaide is currently at the top with +20.5 with 2nd place Brisbane sitting on a more reasonable +7.4. That Adelaide outlier is skewing the average big time. Melbourne is currently the lowest at -7.8. The top team and bottom team each year are roughly sitting at +7 and -7)
2024: +1.4
2023: -0.3
2022: +0.6
2021: -1.1

 

[Skarrz]

Sorry for the delayed response guys. Just got back from Gather Round on the red-eye.

That game on Saturday was without a doubt the best day of my life. It was my personal derby. Both my teams going toe to toe in the Barossa. Never seen anything like it. It seemed so real.
I smuggled in a couple of bottles of Shiraz & I was knocking 'em back like no mother. After my 3rd bottle, I was rockin' and rollin'. The last thing I can remember is when we hit the lead during the 3rd quarter. It was somewhat of a melancholy feeling as I was really hoping for a draw. The last quarter is a blur. It ended up being a touch embarrassing as I woke up in the beetle position under the scoreboard after the game with a couple of snotty-nosed kids pointing at me and laughing.

I proceeded to rip my T-shirt off Hulk Hogan style and show them my 17 inch pythons. They soon got it.

I reckon 3 bottles of Shiraz is your usual routine before posting on Bigfooty tbh

 

[The Dingrel]

Apologies mate, I shouldn't have been an arseh*le about repeating it.

It's based off historical data, taking into account all previous shots from that particular spot either in general play (with and/or without pressure) or from a set shot.

Example: a kick from a 30 degree angle, 48m out might have an expected score of 1.2, suggesting that there's a 1/5 chance of the player kicking it based on historical data. If a goal is kicked, that team would be +4.8, if they miss, it'd be -1.2. Extrapolate that over the game with each shot compared with historical data of the same shot from the same spot under similar conditions.

In the end, the season average across the whole competition works out pretty close to 0, which obviously makes sense statistically. Here's the last 4 years of league average expected score:

2025: +2.3 (Adelaide is currently at the top with +20.5 with 2nd place Brisbane sitting on a more reasonable +7.4. That Adelaide outlier is skewing the average big time. Melbourne is currently the lowest at -7.8. The top team and bottom team each year are roughly sitting at +7 and -7)
2024: +1.4
2023: -0.3
2022: +0.6
2021: -1.1

Thanks mate.

 

[tazaa]

After reading the game day thread for the last quarter I'll be in the minority with this.

I thought we were really good on the whole and I feel positive after that. Up until the last 2 minutes of the 3rd, we were the better team, and had we had the rub of the umpire green and made the most of our chances in the 1st, we could have won.

We have improved significantly from last year and things are moving in the right direction. A lot to like from both the older guys we brought in (thought all of Parker, Darling and Daniel were really good) as well as younger guys. Also amazing what happens when you bring in a genuine pressure small like JK and some good ball use and run off the back flank in Daniel and FO'S.

Mckercher was horrible. Logue cost us 2-3 goals in the first half and Simpkin's turnover in the 4th was an absolute killer.

I'm a Zurhaar critic but thought it was his best game of the season - really good balance of defensive pressure and intensity and also polish on the attacking end.

We'll beat Carlton by 5 goals next week.

Mate I didn't agree with your post at the time and the fact over 50 posters responded positively is actually concerning.
We have not improved significantly.

Zurhaar's form has been flakey all season and we were never a chance to beat Carlton based on exposed form.

 

[Souup]

Mate I didn't agree with your post at the time and the fact over 50 posters responded positively is actually concerning.
We have not improved significantly.

Zurhaar's form has been flakey all season and we were never a chance to beat Carlton based on exposed form.

I still agree with my post and what I said immediately after that Gold Coast loss - I stand by all of it. As of 5 games into this season, we were a lot better than any 5-game stretch over the last few years - certainly better than any 5-game stretch last year, and fairly comfortably so. The only game in which we disgraced ourselves was the Sydney game, and that was mostly after half time. We were absolutely a chance Carlton based on exposed form and suggesting otherwise is revisionist history - they were horrible to begin the year and comparable to us based on basically all key stats and indicators after 5 games, not to mention they were without Kemp and McKay who are key cogs in their forward structure.

That's what made yesterday so embarrassing on a whole new level and even worse than they Sydney performance. There were basically no redeeming features to come out of it and Carlton were absolutely there for the taking, and we shit the bed.

 

[apollo_creed]

I still agree with my post and what I said immediately after that Gold Coast loss - I stand by all of it. As of 5 games into this season, we were a lot better than any 5-game stretch over the last few years - certainly better than any 5-game stretch last year, and fairly comfortably so. The only game in which we disgraced ourselves was the Sydney game, and that was mostly after half time. We were absolutely a chance Carlton based on exposed form and suggesting otherwise is revisionist history.

Yesterday was embarrassing on a whole new level and even worse than they Sydney performance. There were basically no redeeming features to come out of it.

We have had 3 x 10 goal + smashings in a row.
I posted inside 50 numbers which are clearly not improving. You’re absolutely clutching at straws.
The Crows game before that we should’ve lost by more.

So in other words we’re not attacking anymore than previous years (we are more efficient) and we’re the easiest side to score against in the league.

Our pre-season games were also crap.

We sit 1 win and 5 losses with a percentage of 72.7… some improvement.

 

[Only Forwards]

We’ve lost the past four weeks by a combined 235 points.

We stepped on an opponent in round two who is clearly falling apart internally.

arguing that we’ve improved is like arguing what shade of brown the shit we are is.

 

[Souup]

We have had 3 x 10 goal + smashings in a row.
I posted inside 50 numbers which are clearly not improving. You’re absolutely clutching at straws.
The Crows game before that we should’ve lost by more.

So in other words we’re not attacking anymore than previous years (we are more efficient) and we’re the easiest side to score against in the league.

Our pre-season games were also crap.

We sit 1 win and 5 losses with a percentage of 72.7… some improvement.

I don't know what stats you've been looking at. Before the embarrassing performance yesterday, basically all important stats were tracking better than last year. I've included averages from last year and this year, as well as the what happened in the Carlton game yesterday so you can see that as of my post last week, there absolutely was an improvement on last year.

Our stats:

127.8 Contested possessions (132 yesterday)
129.4 Last year

241 Uncontested possessions this year (217 yesterday)
215.3 last year

87.7 Marks per game this year (58 marks yesterday)
88.4 marks per game last year

39 Clearances (38 yesterday)
36.9 last year

21 Shots a game (16 yesterday)
18.8 shots Last year

45.2 Inside 50's (39 yesterday)
45.3 last year
__________________
Opposition stats vs. us:

132.5 contested possessions this year (151 from Carlton yesterday)
134.7 contested possessions last year

220.3 uncontested possessions this year (219 from Carlton yesterday)
219 uncontested possessions last year

89.2 marks per game this year (85 marks from Carlton yesterday)
91.4 marks per game last year

39.7 clearances this year (46 from Carlton yesterday)
37.7 clearances last year

32.3 shots a game this year (38 from Carlton yesterday)
31.5 shots a game last year

58.8 Inside 50's this year (64 from Carlton yesterday)
59.1 Inside 50's last year
__________________

I'll state it again: before the Carlton game yesterday, all these stats were improvements on last year (except contested possessions because we're trying to control the ball more through uncontested marks and holding it up throughout quarters) and showed that things were trending in the right direction.

 

[Twangler]

I don't know what stats you've been looking at. Before the embarrassing performance yesterday, basically all important stats were tracking better than last year. I've included averages from last year and this year, as well as the what happened in the Carlton game yesterday so you can see that as of my post last week, there absolutely was an improvement on last year.

Our stats:

127.8 Contested possessions (132 yesterday)
129.4 Last year

39 Clearances (38 yesterday)
36.9 last year

21 shots a game (16 yesterday)
18.8 shots Last year

45.2 Inside 50's (39 yesterday)
45.3 last year
__________________
Opposition stats vs. us:

132.5 contested possessions this year (151 from Carlton yesterday)
134.7 contested possessions last year

39.7 clearances this year (46 from Carlton yesterday)
37.7 clearances last year

32.3 shots a game this year (38 from Carlton yesterday)
31.5 shots a game last year

58.8 Inside 50's this year (64 from Carlton yesterday)
59.1 Inside 50's last year
__________________

I'll state it again: before the Carlton game yesterday, all these stats were improvements on last year and showed that things were trending in the right direction.

Am I misreading something or is the comparative difference here so modest to be statistically insignificant? We are marginally better in clearances but other than that everything is the same as last year if not worse!

 

[tazaa]

I still agree with my post and what I said immediately after that Gold Coast loss - I stand by all of it. As of 5 games into this season, we were a lot better than any 5-game stretch over the last few years - certainly better than any 5-game stretch last year, and fairly comfortably so. The only game in which we disgraced ourselves was the Sydney game, and that was mostly after half time. We were absolutely a chance Carlton based on exposed form and suggesting otherwise is revisionist history - they were horrible to begin the year and comparable to us based on basically all key stats and indicators after 5 games, not to mention they were without Kemp and McKay who are key cogs in their forward structure.

That's what made yesterday so embarrassing on a whole new level and even worse than they Sydney performance. There were basically no redeeming features to come out of it and Carlton were absolutely there for the taking, and we shit the bed.

Carlton's form stacked up much better than ours.
Which is why I didn't give us much hope or even a chance of a win.

We look at who they have played so far and the Richmond game was the only anomaly.
Other than that they stayed with Hawthorn until they faded, similar to the Doggies who are also playing well with the players they have available and then the last lost Carlton had was to the Pies by 3 goals.
They then put the Eagles to the sword and the same to us.

Our form the first 3 weeks was respectable but from the Sydney game to now we have been absolute dogshit. Its a results based industry and I have basically seen our boys throw in the white towel and stop trying. That's the 3rd quarter against Sydney, the first quarter and last quarter and a half against Gold Coast and pretty much the 1st quarter and 2nd half yesterday. Absolute dogshit.

This is a results based industry and winning is all that matters. Outside of Curtis and George, can we find another winner on the ground yesterday? Not likely.

 

[Souup]

Am I misreading something or is the comparative difference here so modest to be statistically insignificant? We are marginally better in clearances but other than that everything is the same as last year if not worse!

Those stats include the Carlton game yesterday. My point is if you remove the Carlton game stats, we were better statistically in all key areas when compared to last year - which is when I made the post saying we had made improvements on last year after the Gold Coast game.

The Carlton game was embarrassing and was as 2022-2024 North as anything we've seen this year and I've not denied how bad yesterday was in any way.

 

[Souup]

Carlton's form stacked up much better than ours.
Which is why I didn't give us much hope or even a chance of a win.

We look at who they have played so far and the Richmond game was the only anomaly.
Other than that they stayed with Hawthorn until they faded, similar to the Doggies who are also playing well with the players they have available and then the last lost Carlton had was to the Pies by 3 goals.
They then put the Eagles to the sword and the same to us.

Our form the first 3 weeks was respectable but from the Sydney game to now we have been absolute dogshit. Its a results based industry and I have basically seen our boys throw in the white towel and stop trying. That's the 3rd quarter against Sydney, the first quarter and last quarter and a half against Gold Coast and pretty much the 1st quarter and 2nd half yesterday. Absolute dogshit.

This is a results based industry and winning is all that matters. Outside of Curtis and George, can we find another winner on the ground yesterday? Not likely.

Carlton's form did not stack up better than ours - it was actually extremely similar in basically all ways you could look at it statistically and then in game. They struggled to score (especially off turnover) and continually died in the second half in most their games after being in the game.

You can't criticise a poor quarter or half from us vs. Sydney and Gold Coast and then say Carlton 'stayed with Hawthorn until they faded'. We stayed with Gold Coast 'until we faded' - and Gold Coast are a better team than Hawthorn to this point in the season. We also hung in there with Adelaide until they had a small run in the 3rd and we could never reel them in enough.

We also put in basically an identical shift that they did against the Bulldogs, so anything you say about the Doggies playing well is relevant to our performance against them in Round 1.

 

[tazaa]

Carlton's form did not stack up better than ours - it was actually extremely similar in basically all ways you could look at it statistically and then in game. They struggled to score (especially off turnover) and continually died in the second half in most their games after being in the game.

You can't criticise a poor quarter or half from us vs. Sydney and Gold Coast and then say Carlton 'stayed with Hawthorn until they faded'. We stayed with Gold Coast 'until we faded' - and Gold Coast are a better team than Hawthorn to this point in the season. We also hung in there with Adelaide until they had a small run in the 3rd and we could never reel them in enough.

We also put in basically an identical shift that they did against the Bulldogs, so anything you say about the Doggies playing well is relevant to our performance against them in Round 1.

Carlton has not let a team score above 83 points in its 6 games. Defensively that is sound.
We've given up scores of 114, 117, 141 and 153 the past month. Come on souup.

The last 3 an average losing margin of 66 points.

There is nothing identical at all. They literally touched us up by 82 points less than 24 hours a go. And the expectation was a 5 goal win? At what point do we need to be realistic about where we're at.

Again I cannot see how we have improved.
Our percentage finished up on 63.5 in 2024 which is insipidly pathetic.

A pass mark this year was to have it above 87. Its currently sitting at 72.7% and getting worse each week.
This is from a high of 124.0% 4 weeks ago.
Right now we may beat Richmond at the G and Melbourne at the G and Richmond again later on in the year.
The eagles game in WA is 50-50.

4 wins again is a fail on all metrics and means another review. And West Coast, Richmond and Melbourne are equally as shit as we are.
You cant be having a 6th consecutive season of failure, back to back to back.
Something needs to change.