A clanger is a clanger is a clanger...

[mdc]

So I was reading a few of the other threads, where some posters (including me) were calling out a few players for their disposal. Others were defending said players by arguing that they only had 1 or 2 clangers, compared to team-mates who had much higher totals.

So that got me thinking...what exactly is a "clanger"? I'd always equated it roughly with a shanked kick - but apparently it's not so.

Wikipidea says:
Its official but vague description in statistical tables is "errors including frees against". Examples of clangers include,

• Any blatant disposal turnover
• Any free kick conceded
• Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
• 50m penalties conceded

Personally, I don't find this definition particularly satisfying for a couple of reasons:
- It is vague. Statistical analysis of sports is subject to enough variance as it is; it doesn't need inherent variance from poor definition leading to inconsistent recording.
- It seemingly lumps incongruous categories of errors together. For example, a 50m penalty is surely more grave an error than a fumble under no pressure. After all, a fumble under no pressure would usually be recovered by the same player, no?


Basically, I'm left wondering whether it's a category that's at all useful or necessary. Is it? Or is it just a matter of convenience for those recording the stats during the match?

 

[Bloben]

So I was reading a few of the other threads, where some posters (including me) were calling out a few players for their disposal. Others were defending said players by arguing that they only had 1 or 2 clangers, compared to team-mates who had much higher totals.

So that got me thinking...what exactly is a "clanger"? I'd always equated it roughly with a shanked kick - but apparently it's not so.

Wikipidea says:
Its official but vague description in statistical tables is "errors including frees against". Examples of clangers include,

• Any blatant disposal turnover
• Any free kick conceded
• Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
• 50m penalties conceded

Personally, I don't find this definition particularly satisfying for a couple of reasons:
- It is vague. Statistical analysis of sports is subject to enough variance as it is; it doesn't need inherent variance from poor definition leading to inconsistent recording.
- It seemingly lumps incongruous categories of errors together. For example, a 50m penalty is surely more grave an error than a fumble under no pressure. After all, a fumble under no pressure would usually be recovered by the same player, no?


Basically, I'm left wondering whether it's a category that's at all useful or necessary. Is it? Or is it just a matter of convenience for those recording the stats during the match?

I always thought that a clanger was a shanked kick too. Had no idea that a dropped mark or other type stuff ups were considered this too.

In this world of football anaysis there really should be categories on which type of error players have made instead of just a simple "clanger" bucket.

 

[sloth6]

If you look Clanger up in the dictionary -

You see this

If you look up Flat Track Bully - you'll find this:

 

[Snag Breac]

Never mind "clanger", what's a "shanked kick"? Just a stuff-up?

 

[Therussian]

If you look Clanger up in the dictionary -

You see this

If you look up Flat Track Bully - you'll find this:

GOLD GOLD GOLD

 

[mdc]

Never mind "clanger", what's a "shanked kick"? Just a stuff-up?

A kick that comes off the side of the boot or completely misses the target basically.

 

[Kirby]

A kick that comes off the side of the boot or completely misses the target basically.

Sounds all too familiar......

 

[Gyroscope_182]

A clanger is definately useful, but its measurement will always be under question, because how do you define 'pressure'? However, on paper, it is pretty easy to spot the difference.

A turnover is ineffective at large, but if you are in a contested situation, and feed a handball straight into the hands of an opposition, it will count as just an inneffective disposal.

A turnover under some pressure, can be deemed a clanger. Heath Shaw was rewarded a clanger handball for his attempt, under some pressure where just outside 50 from goal, he handballed straight to a North player. The pressure wasn't guaranteed to be convincing pressure, by the statistician.

But once again, as a spectator, you would agree it was an errant disposal.

The addition to public statistics such as disposal efficiency adds value to the clanger statistic. A long bomb forward to no-one in particular, a handball into the open where a 50-50 contest presents itself would be deemed ineffective, as it simply doesn't effect your team as advantageous.

Clanger Kings at Collingwood:
18 - Alan Didak (67.4% eff; 6 FA)
18 - Dane Swan (65.4% eff; 4 FA)
17 - Shane O'Bree (81.6% eff; 8 FA)
16 - Paul Medhurst (69.0% eff; 6 FA)
13 - Heath Shaw (75.2% eff; 3 FA)
13 - Rhyce Shaw (69.6% eff; 4 FA)

using the above, it can be taken that minus FA, Swan 14, Didak 12, Medhurst 10, H Shaw 10, O'Bree 9, R Shaw 9. With no individual 50m against stats, assuming they have given away 0 50m penalties, these are disposal clangers.

The Herald Sun site has a list of clangers, based on pure disposal, mis-calculating frees against and 50m penalties. That list has Swan 10, Didak 7, H Shaw 7, Cloke 6, Johnson 6, Pendlebury 5.

From that, I can only assume that in the above, out-on-the full has also been discounted, with Medhurst and Didak significantly less, and as forwards, expected to contribute to OOF stats more.

Shane O'Bree has been effective at more than 80%, but we notice some clangers. So it does become confusing

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Champion Data define the terms "clanger kick" and "clanger handball" thusly;

Clanger Kick - When a player kicks directly to an opponent who either takes an uncontested mark or gains an uncontested possession.

Clanger Handball - A handball that goes directly to an opponent despite the player being in a position to execute a clean disposal.

So as mentioned the other day, a ball kicked to a 50/50 contest under any conditions is not a clanger, even when a teammate might be 20m in the clear elsewhere and is ignored.

 

[Rids]

So I was reading a few of the other threads, where some posters (including me) were calling out a few players for their disposal. Others were defending said players by arguing that they only had 1 or 2 clangers, compared to team-mates who had much higher totals.

So that got me thinking...what exactly is a "clanger"? I'd always equated it roughly with a shanked kick - but apparently it's not so.

Wikipidea says:
Its official but vague description in statistical tables is "errors including frees against". Examples of clangers include,

• Any blatant disposal turnover
• Any free kick conceded
• Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
• 50m penalties conceded

Personally, I don't find this definition particularly satisfying for a couple of reasons:
- It is vague. Statistical analysis of sports is subject to enough variance as it is; it doesn't need inherent variance from poor definition leading to inconsistent recording.
- It seemingly lumps incongruous categories of errors together. For example, a 50m penalty is surely more grave an error than a fumble under no pressure. After all, a fumble under no pressure would usually be recovered by the same player, no?


Basically, I'm left wondering whether it's a category that's at all useful or necessary. Is it? Or is it just a matter of convenience for those recording the stats during the match?

Just a quick note to let you know that if there is a fumble or dropped mark under no pressure and the same player recovers the ball that it is not counted as a clanger, it is only if the no pressure error leads to a change in the course of play - this is a change in definition from previous years.

 

[kevind]

A clanger is definately useful, but its measurement will always be under question, because how do you define 'pressure'? However, on paper, it is pretty easy to spot the difference.

A turnover is ineffective at large, but if you are in a contested situation, and feed a handball straight into the hands of an opposition, it will count as just an inneffective disposal.

A turnover under some pressure, can be deemed a clanger. Heath Shaw was rewarded a clanger handball for his attempt, under some pressure where just outside 50 from goal, he handballed straight to a North player. The pressure wasn't guaranteed to be convincing pressure, by the statistician.

But once again, as a spectator, you would agree it was an errant disposal.

The addition to public statistics such as disposal efficiency adds value to the clanger statistic. A long bomb forward to no-one in particular, a handball into the open where a 50-50 contest presents itself would be deemed ineffective, as it simply doesn't effect your team as advantageous.

Clanger Kings at Collingwood:
18 - Alan Didak (67.4% eff; 6 FA)
18 - Dane Swan (65.4% eff; 4 FA)
17 - Shane O'Bree (81.6% eff; 8 FA)
16 - Paul Medhurst (69.0% eff; 6 FA)
13 - Heath Shaw (75.2% eff; 3 FA)
13 - Rhyce Shaw (69.6% eff; 4 FA)

using the above, it can be taken that minus FA, Swan 14, Didak 12, Medhurst 10, H Shaw 10, O'Bree 9, R Shaw 9. With no individual 50m against stats, assuming they have given away 0 50m penalties, these are disposal clangers.

The Herald Sun site has a list of clangers, based on pure disposal, mis-calculating frees against and 50m penalties. That list has Swan 10, Didak 7, H Shaw 7, Cloke 6, Johnson 6, Pendlebury 5.

From that, I can only assume that in the above, out-on-the full has also been discounted, with Medhurst and Didak significantly less, and as forwards, expected to contribute to OOF stats more.

Shane O'Bree has been effective at more than 80%, but we notice some clangers. So it does become confusing

As well as clangers I belive you need to look at what a player actually can do with the ball to hurt the opposition. Rhyce Shaw, Johnson, O'Bree etc combine clangers with disposal by both foot and hand that have no great benefit for the team. They are usually 20 meter nothing kicks of little conseqence.

Players like Didak combine clangers with disposals that stick a dagger through the heart of the opposition. This is what oftens divides the ordinary players from the good ones

 

[Pie eyed]

A clanger is definately useful, but its measurement will always be under question, because how do you define 'pressure'? However, on paper, it is pretty easy to spot the difference.

A turnover is ineffective at large, but if you are in a contested situation, and feed a handball straight into the hands of an opposition, it will count as just an inneffective disposal.

A turnover under some pressure, can be deemed a clanger. Heath Shaw was rewarded a clanger handball for his attempt, under some pressure where just outside 50 from goal, he handballed straight to a North player. The pressure wasn't guaranteed to be convincing pressure, by the statistician.

But once again, as a spectator, you would agree it was an errant disposal.

The addition to public statistics such as disposal efficiency adds value to the clanger statistic. A long bomb forward to no-one in particular, a handball into the open where a 50-50 contest presents itself would be deemed ineffective, as it simply doesn't effect your team as advantageous.

Clanger Kings at Collingwood:
18 - Alan Didak (67.4% eff; 6 FA)
18 - Dane Swan (65.4% eff; 4 FA)
17 - Shane O'Bree (81.6% eff; 8 FA)
16 - Paul Medhurst (69.0% eff; 6 FA)
13 - Heath Shaw (75.2% eff; 3 FA)
13 - Rhyce Shaw (69.6% eff; 4 FA)

using the above, it can be taken that minus FA, Swan 14, Didak 12, Medhurst 10, H Shaw 10, O'Bree 9, R Shaw 9. With no individual 50m against stats, assuming they have given away 0 50m penalties, these are disposal clangers.

The Herald Sun site has a list of clangers, based on pure disposal, mis-calculating frees against and 50m penalties. That list has Swan 10, Didak 7, H Shaw 7, Cloke 6, Johnson 6, Pendlebury 5.

From that, I can only assume that in the above, out-on-the full has also been discounted, with Medhurst and Didak significantly less, and as forwards, expected to contribute to OOF stats more.

Shane O'Bree has been effective at more than 80%, but we notice some clangers. So it does become confusing

You obviously spent some time on this..

It appears, statistically, that the more you get the ball the more "clangers" you are likely to have which would make complete sense and is probably bleeding obvious to the majority.

The big problem with having a stat called "clangers", or for that matter any categorized statistic, is the end figure is very much a result of the decisions made but the "statistician" in categorizing, grading or even recording the aforementioned "stats."


Sporting statistics are enormously subjective and open to wildly differing interpretations both at the time of recording and in end analysis.

I have very little faith in them with regard to AFL but by the same token some live by them. Many coach's, while always having an interest and more than likely regularly comparing them, have publicly expressed the view that statistics are a handy tool to have but are not "concrete" evidence of anything at all, purely indicators.

I think the "explosion" in statistical analysis regarding any sport has far more to do with filling column space in sporting publications than any other factor.

 

[GETSOMENUTS]

As well as clangers I belive you need to look at what a player actually can do with the ball to hurt the opposition. Rhyce Shaw, Johnson, O'Bree etc combine clangers with disposal by both foot and hand that have no great benefit for the team. They are usually 20 meter nothing kicks of little conseqence.

Players like Didak combine clangers with disposals that stick a dagger through the heart of the opposition. This is what oftens divides the ordinary players from the good ones

damn straight.

 

[mdc]

Champion Data define the terms "clanger kick" and "clanger handball" thusly;

Clanger Kick - When a player kicks directly to an opponent who either takes an uncontested mark or gains an uncontested possession.

Clanger Handball - A handball that goes directly to an opponent despite the player being in a position to execute a clean disposal.

Just a quick note to let you know that if there is a fumble or dropped mark under no pressure and the same player recovers the ball that it is not counted as a clanger, it is only if the no pressure error leads to a change in the course of play - this is a change in definition from previous years.

Combining that, I think we have something resembling a definition - could we say a clanger is a "turnover by a player that's not under pressure"?

A clanger is definately useful, but its measurement will always be under question, because how do you define 'pressure'? However, on paper, it is pretty easy to spot the difference.

My gripe was more with the grouping of all the different types of clangers into the one lot. I certainly think individual categories like "kicks going directly to opposition player" or "turnovers" are very useful and should be tracked.

But when most supporters still associate clangers simply with miskicks, when that's just a small part of it, I thought it could do with a bit of clarity.

A turnover under some pressure, can be deemed a clanger. Heath Shaw was rewarded a clanger handball for his attempt, under some pressure where just outside 50 from goal, he handballed straight to a North player. The pressure wasn't guaranteed to be convincing pressure, by the statistician.

Where do you find what was/wasn't deemed a clanger?

But once again, as a spectator, you would agree it was an errant disposal.

The problem is that most errant disposals would not be classed as a clanger. If Dane Swan kicks to a lead and the ball goes 10m over the head of both the leading player and defender, that's not a clanger.

What most supporters are frustrated with aren't necessarily clangers, it's more what I'd call "kicks that clearly miss the intended target". I'm sure (or at least hope) that the club itself tracks this, but it would be good to have access to it.

The addition to public statistics such as disposal efficiency adds value to the clanger statistic. A long bomb forward to no-one in particular, a handball into the open where a 50-50 contest presents itself would be deemed ineffective, as it simply doesn't effect your team as advantageous.

This is incorrect. From Champion Data:
An effective long kick has to travel more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contested or better for the team.

In fact, Champion Data grades a long kick to a 50/50 as equivalent to a short kick (<40m) that results in an uncontested possession.

I have very little faith in them with regard to AFL but by the same token some live by them. Many coach's, while always having an interest and more than likely regularly comparing them, have publicly expressed the view that statistics are a handy tool to have but are not "concrete" evidence of anything at all, purely indicators.

I think the "explosion" in statistical analysis regarding any sport has far more to do with filling column space in sporting publications than any other factor.

No statistician, never mind a coach, would argue that statistics can supplant a trained pair of eyes. But careful statistical analysis can be a strong complementary tool - at times picking up information that is hidden to the eye.

The "explosion" in statistical analysis is just natural progression. Teams want any advantage they can get, and statistical analysis is one such advantage. The old recorded statistics of possessions/marks etc...are extremely poor indicators, and so we need newer, more accurate measures. There's certainly been improvement in this area in the last 10 years, but the secrecy with which champion data guards its records isn't beneficial for statistical analysis in football.

The opposite is true in a sport like basketball (which I have a keen interest in). There is a large, vibrant community that discusses various innovative ways to look at the game, and new systems (or formulas) are being proposed every year. They are freely shared and criticised by competing schools of thought etc...and so progress is made very quickly, to the point that the general manager (i.e. director of personnel) for the Houston Rockets is a statistician with little basketball background. The phenomenon is even more pronounced in baseball, which is largely responsible for the explosion of statistical analysis in the first place.

 

[boulos]

Combining that, I think we have something resembling a definition - could we say a clanger is a "turnover by a player that's not under pressure"?



My gripe was more with the grouping of all the different types of clangers into the one lot. I certainly think individual categories like "kicks going directly to opposition player" or "turnovers" are very useful and should be tracked.

But when most supporters still associate clangers simply with miskicks, when that's just a small part of it, I thought it could do with a bit of clarity.



Where do you find what was/wasn't deemed a clanger?



The problem is that most errant disposals would not be classed as a clanger. If Dane Swan kicks to a lead and the ball goes 10m over the head of both the leading player and defender, that's not a clanger.

What most supporters are frustrated with aren't necessarily clangers, it's more what I'd call "kicks that clearly miss the intended target". I'm sure (or at least hope) that the club itself tracks this, but it would be good to have access to it.



This is incorrect. From Champion Data:
An effective long kick has to travel more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contested or better for the team.

In fact, Champion Data grades a long kick to a 50/50 as equivalent to a short kick (<40m) that results in an uncontested possession.



No statistician, never mind a coach, would argue that statistics can supplant a trained pair of eyes. But careful statistical analysis can be a strong complementary tool - at times picking up information that is hidden to the eye.

The "explosion" in statistical analysis is just natural progression. Teams want any advantage they can get, and statistical analysis is one such advantage. The old recorded statistics of possessions/marks etc...are extremely poor indicators, and so we need newer, more accurate measures. There's certainly been improvement in this area in the last 10 years, but the secrecy with which champion data guards its records isn't beneficial for statistical analysis in football.

The opposite is true in a sport like basketball (which I have a keen interest in). There is a large, vibrant community that discusses various innovative ways to look at the game, and new systems (or formulas) are being proposed every year. They are freely shared and criticised by competing schools of thought etc...and so progress is made very quickly, to the point that the general manager (i.e. director of personnel) for the Houston Rockets is a statistician with little basketball background. The phenomenon is even more pronounced in baseball, which is largely responsible for the explosion of statistical analysis in the first place.

Is that the Quantitative methods kicking in?
God i hate that subject.

I'm suprised not to see O'bree leading clangers at CFC so far this season.

 

[mdc]

Is that the Quantitative methods kicking in?
God i hate that subject.

I'm suprised not to see O'bree leading clangers at CFC so far this season.

Fortunately, I was exempt from QM.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Champion Data define the terms "clanger kick" and "clanger handball" thusly;

Clanger Kick - When a player kicks directly to an opponent who either takes an uncontested mark or gains an uncontested possession.

Clanger Handball - A handball that goes directly to an opponent despite the player being in a position to execute a clean disposal.

So as mentioned the other day, a ball kicked to a 50/50 contest under any conditions is not a clanger, even when a teammate might be 20m in the clear elsewhere and is ignored.

Always what I've thought. A stupid decision, or a shit kick/handball

 

[Pie eyed]

MDC.
The "explosion" in statistical analysis outside of the selection rooms is the direct responsibility of one Bruce "I can talk shit about every single player in the league cause I have these here new fangled stats" McAvaney.
They have been used ever since in Monday morning footy discussions to justify several millions of ridiculous statements and several valid ones.

1.) If very late in a game a player under immense pressure cleverly and inaccurately (so as not to be pinged) hand balls over the boundary denying the opposition forwards the chance to score, thus ensuring a win for his team, is that statistically a "Clanger"?

2.) If a player takes his 15th mark and effectively passes the ball with his 15th kick while winding down the clock for the fourth 3 minute period ending each quarter, is this an effective possession and an effective disposal?

 

[mdc]

MDC.
The "explosion" in statistical analysis outside of the selection rooms is the direct responsibility of one Bruce "I can talk shit about every single player in the league cause I have these here new fangled stats" McAvaney.
They have been used ever since in Monday morning footy discussions to justify several millions of ridiculous statements and several valid ones.

1.) If very late in a game a player under immense pressure cleverly and inaccurately (so as not to be pinged) hand balls over the boundary denying the opposition forwards the chance to score, thus ensuring a win for his team, is that statistically a "Clanger"?

2.) If a player takes his 15th mark and effectively passes the ball with his 15th kick while winding down the clock for the fourth 3 minute period ending each quarter, is this an effective possession and an effective disposal?

The question is why does Bruce have these new-fangled stats at his disposal to begin with? Someone's driving the demand for this (at least I'd like to think I'm not the only one).

1) clangers have to go directly to an opposition, so if the boundary line gets it it's not a clanger in any circumstance

2) yes

 

[Somebody]

So I was reading a few of the other threads, where some posters (including me) were calling out a few players for their disposal. Others were defending said players by arguing that they only had 1 or 2 clangers, compared to team-mates who had much higher totals.

So that got me thinking...what exactly is a "clanger"? I'd always equated it roughly with a shanked kick - but apparently it's not so.

Wikipidea says:
Its official but vague description in statistical tables is "errors including frees against". Examples of clangers include,

• Any blatant disposal turnover
• Any free kick conceded
• Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
• 50m penalties conceded

Personally, I don't find this definition particularly satisfying for a couple of reasons:
- It is vague. Statistical analysis of sports is subject to enough variance as it is; it doesn't need inherent variance from poor definition leading to inconsistent recording.
- It seemingly lumps incongruous categories of errors together. For example, a 50m penalty is surely more grave an error than a fumble under no pressure. After all, a fumble under no pressure would usually be recovered by the same player, no?


Basically, I'm left wondering whether it's a category that's at all useful or necessary. Is it? Or is it just a matter of convenience for those recording the stats during the match?

I dont' think that in common usage such as stats in the paper, clanger means all those things. For one thing, they list some of those things as separate stats like free kicks against.
I alwasy assumed it was just shanked kicks to possition (not goal kicking) and maybe also shanked handballs other than those leading to frees. But maybe they do mean more of those things on the list, like silly "deliberates" OOB, or poor fumbles leading to turnovers or dropping "sitter" marks and thus losing advantage. It would be good if this could be cleared up, maybe someone could email the herald or the Age for example and ask them what do they mean by clangers?

 

[Somebody]

As well as clangers I belive you need to look at what a player actually can do with the ball to hurt the opposition. Rhyce Shaw, Johnson, O'Bree etc combine clangers with disposal by both foot and hand that have no great benefit for the team. They are usually 20 meter nothing kicks of little conseqence.

Players like Didak combine clangers with disposals that stick a dagger through the heart of the opposition. This is what oftens divides the ordinary players from the good ones

Often this year I've seen all of Shaw, Obree and Johnno deliver excellent passes to teammates inside 50. If that's not a dagger, what is?

It's amusing how many people on footy forums develop prejudices about the disposal of certain players, and then don't even notice their good passes, jsut their clangers.

 

[Thommo 42]

Very true.

O'Bree and R.Shaw in particular appear to have improved their disposal by foot significantly. Swan seems to have gone backwards and Ben Johnson is still capable of some beautiful kicks, as well as some howlers - which is nothing new

 

[kevind]

Often this year I've seen all of Shaw, Obree and Johnno deliver excellent passes to teammates inside 50. If that's not a dagger, what is?

It's amusing how many people on footy forums develop prejudices about the disposal of certain players, and then don't even notice their good passes, jsut their clangers.

And it amuses me how many people on forums cannot see the faults in their own side. If you cannot see a disposal problem in the 3 players you mentioned, I guarantee that you will only be disappointed.

We will never be a serious threat to winning a premiership until our disposal improves dramatically. The players you mention have a lot going for them in certain areas of the game but are often left by the opposition to gather numerous possessions for the very reason that they are not going to hurt you.

 

[Rids]

I dont' think that in common usage such as stats in the paper, clanger means all those things. For one thing, they list some of those things as separate stats like free kicks against.
I alwasy assumed it was just shanked kicks to possition (not goal kicking) and maybe also shanked handballs other than those leading to frees. But maybe they do mean more of those things on the list, like silly "deliberates" OOB, or poor fumbles leading to turnovers or dropping "sitter" marks and thus losing advantage. It would be good if this could be cleared up, maybe someone could email the herald or the Age for example and ask them what do they mean by clangers?

I can clear up, 4 types of clanger (and it doesn't matter how much pressure the player diposing of the ball is under):

1) Kick that goes directly to opposition
2) Handball that goes directly to opposition
3) Free kick against
4) Dropped mark, no pressure fumble that leads to a change in the course of play (i.e. you don't have time to simply pick up the ball and carry on)

 

[mdc]

I can clear up, 4 types of clanger (and it doesn't matter how much pressure the player diposing of the ball is under):

1) Kick that goes directly to opposition
2) Handball that goes directly to opposition
3) Free kick against
4) Dropped mark, no pressure fumble that leads to a change in the course of play (i.e. you don't have time to simply pick up the ball and carry on)

Cheers for that Rids, are you involved with Champion Data in some capacity?