Analysis CLEARANCE NUMBERS ARE NOT A PROBLEM

[Mogwai]

I want a thread purely dedicated to this. I have been replying to too many posters who grab this incredibly misleading stat and say that it is a worry.

NO, IT IS NOT A WORRY STOP IT.

Hopefully I can carve up a few examples over the weekend.

Main gist: let them dump it out, Broad Grimes Rance Astbury can clean it up.

 

[Jimmybob]

Yeah, sure we mop up opppo's clearances.. but imagine if we got the clearances aswell

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Any thread titled with all caps and I just can't wait to click straight into it.

You know it's gon' be gud.

 

[Equus]

OK

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

more clearances we lose, more speccys floss van take.

 

[TigermanM2]

I want a thread purely dedicated to this. I have been replying to too many posters who grab this incredibly misleading stat and say that it is a worry.

NO, IT IS NOT A WORRY STOP IT.

Hopefully I can carve up a few examples over the weekend.

Main gist: let them dump it out, Broad Grimes Rance Astbury can clean it up.

Yep with you.

Sure it would be nice to get a few more clearances but in terms of a major problem for us? - vastly over-rated.

 

[Mogwai]

Yeah, sure we mop up opppo's clearances.. but imagine if we got the clearances aswell

That's like saying sure we kick goals but are we kicking enough behinds?

Our 16 man press is how we generate scoring. We can dump it into fifty from the clearance but that usually doesn't allow enough time for our pressing structure to form as our mosquito fleet is not adept to man marking. Sure, we can let the ball get to the ground first, but floating backs like McGovern will and have killed us if we register s**t F50 entries.

I can't get stats for score sources. Can someone help?

 

[Jimmybob]

Never said it's a problem for us.. but to suggest we don't need clearances is a bit of a wtf

 

[Mogwai]

Case #1: Port.

No.1 clearance team in the game: Port.
No.1 clearances conceded team in the game: Port.

Their differential is +2.

We actually concede less clearances than Port. The sheer amount of clearance volume that Port games get goes un-noticed. It's a game style.

For example, they lose an average of 30 stoppage clearances [no other team is at 30, next closest at 27.6 (Giants)] but they win 29.2 of them [next closest at 27.5 (Giants)].
However, they are the kings of the centre bounce; winning an average of 13 per game and losing 10.

 

[Mogwai]

Building on my case about turnovers.
Turnovers are incredibly important in the realm of basketball, for guards especially. Usually the stat is juxtaposed against assists in that game, for this one, I will use intercepts.

Our opponents average 82.4 turnovers a game. Next best? Adelaide at 76.8. After that, Demons at 76. There is a line of good teams that follow in this ranking, which probably indicates that there is a strong relationship between good teams and good amounts of turnovers forced.

However, these turnovers mean nothing if we give the ball to them as well. So what's our differential between how much we turn over the ball, and how much do we intercept? A whopping +9.5. Does anyone else come close? Closest are the Dees at +5.1. Adelaide are at -0.3.

 

[Mogwai]

Never said it's a problem for us.. but to suggest we don't need clearances is a bit of a wtf

It's best to keep an open mind. If we had the Port team I would argue that we would live and die by the clearance. Now that we have the best intercept team of this era [no one has come close to the 80s mark with intercepts since footywire started tracking], we live and die by letting them clear in horror and panic.

 

[HTT]

It's not a massive problem but it's still a deficiency - the great thing is we don't have many of those so we have time to fix ones like this.

In Konrad Marshall's book, they talk about playing on a 'short pitch' rather than a 'long pitch'. Prior to last year we played on a long pitch, basically letting the other team bring it up the length of the ground before our backline forced a turnover. Now we play on a short pitch where we attempt to get the ball back ASAP. The logic is that its significantly easier to score when you launch your attack at HF than when you launch it from your defensive 50. It works similarly here. It's far easier to score from the location of a stoppage than from 50m+ further from our goal.

And when we look as dangerous as we do when we actually win a clearance, I'd rather win a few more.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

It's not a massive problem but it's still a deficiency - the great thing is we don't have many of those so we have time to fix ones like this.

In Konrad Marshall's book, they talk about playing on a 'short pitch' rather than a 'long pitch'. Prior to last year we played on a long pitch, basically letting the other team bring it up the length of the ground before our backline forced a turnover. Now we play on a short pitch where we attempt to get the ball back ASAP. The logic is that its significantly easier to score when you launch your attack at HF than when you launch it from your defensive 50. It works similarly here. It's far easier to score from the location of a stoppage than from 50m+ further from our goal.

And when we look as dangerous as we do when we actually win a clearance, I'd rather win a few more.

Was about to reference that part of the book. It was an interesting read, because it argued that statistically we were as efficient with the ball in 2016 as we were in 2017. However, in 16 we were starting our possessions from the back line, so the odds of getting it all the way to the forward line were reduced. In 17 we forced F50 turnovers and managed to goal.

 

[guruisatiger]

I want a thread purely dedicated to this. I have been replying to too many posters who grab this incredibly misleading stat and say that it is a worry.

NO, IT IS NOT A WORRY STOP IT.

Hopefully I can carve up a few examples over the weekend.

Main gist: let them dump it out, Broad Grimes Rance Astbury can clean it up.

Agree with you, next year might be different with new rules coming in

 

[Dr Tigris]

There are clearances and clearances.
The clearances where you get the ball and move it quickly into the open and into forward 50 = goals.
The clearances where you get the ball under pressure and have to move it via risky passes under pressure often lead to turnovers. And those turnovers are where the play is broken so a well organized team that moves quickly can open you up - because when you have the ball and are trying to move it forward you have to be set up to move the ball forward and so you are open if a turnover happens.
And there are clearances that are really just moments in a rolling scrum. Nothing opens up and it's just wrestling contests.

What we do better than possibly any team ever is cause the second type of contested ball. Other teams win the ball inside but cannot get it out and we get the turnover and use it quickly to multiple scoring avenues. Not that we deliberately lose the contested ball. We deliberately set up to control the outside of the contest (see Y&B). That means that we are deliberately trying to create situations where we can force a turnover in a way that we can take advantage of. We love that sort of broken play.

e.g. Adelaide, GWS are great inside, but don't like broken play. When they beat us they open the play out and their better ball movement kills us. If we stop the play opening out for them, we cause it to open for us.

Best description I have seen is a guy on the MB saying, when the Tigers don't have the ball the ground is so small, and when the Tigers do have the ball it is a paddock.
The whole contested ball thing is part of why the game looks like that. We deliberately try to create a situation like a one way valve. Doesn't flow one direction and flow freely the other way.

 

[RunningBounce]

Yep, we set up to score from intercepts, no doubt. And sitting on top of the ladder on 10 and 3, there's no arguing about whether it works.

But like Jim above, I'd argue that winning a couple more clean clearances a game could not be a bad thing.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

There are clearances and clearances.
The clearances where you get the ball and move it quickly into the open and into forward 50 = goals.
The clearances where you get the ball under pressure and have to move it via risky passes under pressure often lead to turnovers. And those turnovers are where the play is broken so a well organized team that moves quickly can open you up - because when you have the ball and are trying to move it forward you have to be set up to move the ball forward and so you are open if a turnover happens.
And there are clearances that are really just moments in a rolling scrum. Nothing opens up and it's just wrestling contests.

What we do better than possibly any team ever is cause the second type of contested ball. Other teams win the ball inside but cannot get it out and we get the turnover and use it quickly to multiple scoring avenues. Not that we deliberately lose the contested ball. We deliberately set up to control the outside of the contest (see Y&B). That means that we are deliberately trying to create situations where we can force a turnover in a way that we can take advantage of. We love that sort of broken play.

e.g. Adelaide, GWS are great inside, but don't like broken play. When they beat us they open the play out and their better ball movement kills us. If we stop the play opening out for them, we cause it to open for us.

Best description I have seen is a guy on the MB saying, when the Tigers don't have the ball the ground is so small, and when the Tigers do have the ball it is a paddock.
The whole contested ball thing is part of why the game looks like that. We deliberately try to create a situation like a one way valve. Doesn't flow one direction and flow freely the other way.

Great description...of Big/Small use of paddock...
Using that one way valve analogy...my concern is that reducing the flow is creating pressure somewhere else...eventually all valves wear out...
Where does the valve break down and why?!? and How?!

 

[Dr Tigris]

Great description...of Big/Small use of paddock...
Using that one way valve analogy...my concern is that reducing the flow is creating pressure somewhere else...eventually all valves wear out...
Where does the valve break down and why?!? and How?!

I have a habit of using dodgy analogies that break down. But it is a simple way to think of how we work as a team.

My thought son winning contested ball are a bit confused, maybe contradictory. If you win contests and get that ball going fast you automatically open the other team out. So winning contested ball is King.

But we don't do that. (Well we do but it isn't our one wood, as Dimma would say). We force the game into a chaotic, messy style. Constant contests and pressure where other teams find themselves always being tackled or pressured and so it is very hard to move the ball forward. That leads to oppo doing one of two things. 1) move the ball forward under pressure to a well structured defensive set up, with great intercept marks who use the ball well, and run in waves. Or 2) move the ball backward to create space and time. This means that we are set up in front of them and they can't get through. I'll get onto what we do to open it up offensively later. But central to making this work is that we have super fast guys that can do repeat sprints, and have a great defensive work rate. So the oppo always has someone closing them down. Actual and inferred pressure. If we focus on setting up for this rather than setting up for contests we either a) win the contest and have people outside to take the ball forward, or b) have players ready to stop the oppo ball movement. We dedicate less to the contest. Enough to make a contest is the key. Watch contests that are in the open (by that I mean when the ball has moved to an area with 5 or 6 players in it. Quite often we have 1 or 2 players contesting and the rest taking up position outside. And as our players arrive they take up positions outside the contest, but near it. If we are getting heavily outnumbered in the contests someone will go in. But watch how we set up around the contest as it is occurring. Other teams go in to get the ball almost always. We have a much more balanced approach. If we win it great, we're set up to take advantage. If not, we're set up to stop them. Vital to stopping them is firstly that our players at the contest apply pressure, but also that our defense sets up smartly and are great at intercept marking and really good rebound (kicking and running in waves). So we set up to stop the oppo moving the ball cleanly. This is Dimma's one wood from Y&B. Read it carefully, it's clear what we are doing and how.

But then the second part of the one way valve is how we turn that into attack. Once again repeat sprint capability is key, and a carefully structured forward 50 approach. When we get the ball we are set up on the defensive side of the contest, or through our defenders, and we run like buggary to get forward. This creates a wave of players going forward. And often an overlap or outnumber because the oppo has more players in the contest and/or cannot keep up with the repeat sprints. Then we either kick the ball to the grass for the small forwards/lock it in, or we kick to a contest to get a mark or bring the ball to ground. Watch how often JR goes for the ball and taps it rather than tries to mark it. Often he moves the ball another 10-20 meters into our forward line to our smalls advantage. Much easier than taking the mark (except against Sydney, he caught everything ). That then gives us either a shot at goal or forces a stoppage close to goal. A few years ago we did exactly the same thing but kicked it to the pocket and tried for throw in. Now we go relatively central and aim to reapply the one way valve 20 meters from goal. And of course we are set up on the defensive side, with speedsters running down defenders. So that when the ball comes free or is intercepted we have a shot on goals because we have extra numbers on the side the ball is moving to.

Simples.

Sort of - I've spent too long reading Y&B and watching what we do .

TLDR
Our game style means we don't want to commit to the contest too much. So we lose a few extra contests. But in turn we get the ball back in a situation that favors us going forward.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

GWS looked good against us in that Final last year...then faltered...
Tall sides on smaller grounds look good against us...till they get to the 'G' ..
Is there room for improvement in our game plan...

 

[Livonski]

I have a habit of using dodgy analogies that break down. But it is a simple way to think of how we work as a team.

My thought son winning contested ball are a bit confused, maybe contradictory. If you win contests and get that ball going fast you automatically open the other team out. So winning contested ball is King.

But we don't do that. (Well we do but it isn't our one wood, as Dimma would say). We force the game into a chaotic, messy style. Constant contests and pressure where other teams find themselves always being tackled or pressured and so it is very hard to move the ball forward. That leads to oppo doing one of two things. 1) move the ball forward under pressure to a well structured defensive set up, with great intercept marks who use the ball well, and run in waves. Or 2) move the ball backward to create space and time. This means that we are set up in front of them and they can't get through. I'll get onto what we do to open it up offensively later. But central to making this work is that we have super fast guys that can do repeat sprints, and have a great defensive work rate. So the oppo always has someone closing them down. Actual and inferred pressure. If we focus on setting up for this rather than setting up for contests we either a) win the contest and have people outside to take the ball forward, or b) have players ready to stop the oppo ball movement. We dedicate less to the contest. Enough to make a contest is the key. Watch contests that are in the open (by that I mean when the ball has moved to an area with 5 or 6 players in it. Quite often we have 1 or 2 players contesting and the rest taking up position outside. And as our players arrive they take up positions outside the contest, but near it. If we are getting heavily outnumbered in the contests someone will go in. But watch how we set up around the contest as it is occurring. Other teams go in to get the ball almost always. We have a much more balanced approach. If we win it great, we're set up to take advantage. If not, we're set up to stop them. Vital to stopping them is firstly that our players at the contest apply pressure, but also that our defense sets up smartly and are great at intercept marking and really good rebound (kicking and running in waves). So we set up to stop the oppo moving the ball cleanly. This is Dimma's one wood from Y&B. Read it carefully, it's clear what we are doing and how.

But then the second part of the one way valve is how we turn that into attack. Once again repeat sprint capability is key, and a carefully structured forward 50 approach. When we get the ball we are set up on the defensive side of the contest, or through our defenders, and we run like buggary to get forward. This creates a wave of players going forward. And often an overlap or outnumber because the oppo has more players in the contest and/or cannot keep up with the repeat sprints. Then we either kick the ball to the grass for the small forwards/lock it in, or we kick to a contest to get a mark or bring the ball to ground. Watch how often JR goes for the ball and taps it rather than tries to mark it. Often he moves the ball another 10-20 meters into our forward line to our smalls advantage. Much easier than taking the mark (except against Sydney, he caught everything ). That then gives us either a shot at goal or forces a stoppage close to goal. A few years ago we did exactly the same thing but kicked it to the pocket and tried for throw in. Now we go relatively central and aim to reapply the one way valve 20 meters from goal. And of course we are set up on the defensive side, with speedsters running down defenders. So that when the ball comes free or is intercepted we have a shot on goals because we have extra numbers on the side the ball is moving to.

Simples.

Sort of - I've spent too long reading Y&B and watching what we do .

TLDR
Our game style means we don't want to commit to the contest too much. So we lose a few extra contests. But in turn we get the ball back in a situation that favors us going forward.

Spot on.
It stems from the philosophy around the randomness of footy.
Eg. Stoppages. It’s 50:50 where the ball will go so why invest in something you can’t control?
Invest in areas you can control, like pressure on first possession.
As you point out we can have an extra inside but why waste that resource on a 50:50?

 

[Dr Tigris]

Spot on.
It stems from the philosophy around the randomness of footy.
Eg. Stoppages. It’s 50:50 where the ball will go so why invest in something you can’t control?
Invest in areas you can control, like pressure on first possession.
As you point out we can have an extra inside but why waste that resource on a 50:50?

I really noticed it against Sydney who do go all in. We put a lot of effort into setting up to control the 5m around the contest.

And yes the randomness of footy. As long as you have a good contested person in there, why go for extras?

 

[NZ_Tiger]

I noticed our pressure causes teams to over commit at stoppages around the ground. I think players feel safer being drawn to the contest where they can support each other while we keep our width and rely on a few players to keep the pressure on and foul up the opposition exits.

We do okay at centre clearances, so we do have the ability in an even numbers contest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Livonski]

I really noticed it against Sydney who do go all in. We put a lot of effort into setting up to control the 5m around the contest.

And yes the randomness of footy. As long as you have a good contested person in there, why go for extras?

I sat thru a preso from Hawks sports scientist/quant.
Explained why Hawks concentrated on precision ball movement and recruited brilliant kicks.
They focussed heavily on what they could control i.e. when they have it.
And explicitly stated that randomness of the weird shaped ball, skewiff bounces, dufus ruckmen.
Couple of years ago now but joined a lot of dots for me. I remember media questioning Clarkson about clearances at the time. Made sense.

 

[Livonski]

This slide sums it up well. Remember the prelim when Port just missed getting Hawks?
Hawks gave everything a value but split them between luck and skill. What the stats show on that day was Hawks we’re incredibly lucky to win. Lost the skill section but won the luck section. Should’ve been spanked.

 

[HTT]

Would’ve loved a centre clearance with 20sec to go on Saturday