Are we too nice?

[esoteric]

I was ambling through a few stats sites and noticed that we were ranked lowest in the league last season for average free kicks against, at 21.0 per game. You'd think that's probably a good stat to be ranked lowest in, at least that was my first reaction.

On closer inspection, the only other teams who conceded less than 22 FA per game were Gold Coast, the bruise-free Dees, and the Bulldogs.
Highest were the unsociable Hawks (25.8), while Geelong were third with 24.6.

Now I certainly don't want to see the guys at the MRP every week, but do we need to push the envelope or HTFU a little?

 

[zeeCFC]

We just tackle very well IMO and are good at not going high at a head ducking opposition player.

 

[Kramer1]

I was ambling through a few stats sites and noticed that we were ranked lowest in the league last season for average free kicks against, at 21.0 per game. You'd think that's probably a good stat to be ranked lowest in, at least that was my first reaction.

On closer inspection, the only other teams who conceded less than 22 FA per game were Gold Coast, the bruise-free Dees, and the Bulldogs.
Highest were the unsociable Hawks (25.8), while Geelong were third with 24.6.

Now I certainly don't want to see the guys at the MRP every week, but do we need to push the envelope or HTFU a little?

Fear not.

According to another thread next year we will be walking the righteous path through the valley of death. Along the way we shall slay the demonic dragon of ineptitude and soar above the castle walls of our tormenters like a golden, flaming hawk...err I mean blue. We shall drive the dagger of retribution through the heart of Demetrious (Greek god of **** acts), and stand unchallenged atop the mountain as masters of our domain. We shall strike down upon those who oppose us with great vengeance and furious anger. And they will know our name is Carlton when we lay our vengeance upon them. Let it be proclaimed that truly we are Carlton and **** the rest.

All of this should equate to at least a few extra frees against per match.

 

[parrot]

Think our tackling and attack on the footy/opponent is excellent actually. It's really tricky, because of the incompetent, biased MRP, plus the anti-Carlton tabloid media who pressure the MRP to rub Carlton players out. We don't want to lose talent un-necessarily. Smart aggression is what it's about. Thought we had the balance right in 2011.

 

[BlueJet]

I wouldn't mind opposition players being a little more nervous coming back with the flight of the ball or just fearful of a crunching tackle. We seem to lack the intimidation factor that Geelong/Hawthorn have.
At the same time though silly frees/suspensions gained trying to play a style of footy unsuited to our playing group will be more counter productive.

 

[parrot]

We used to be "too nice" about 3-4 years ago, but we have a hard edge now.

Softest teams in the AFL currently...

1. Melbourne "bruise free football"
2. Richmond - Used to be #1 under Terry, now #2. Ultimate front-runners
3. Bulldogs - trademark uncontested footy under Eade
4. Port - players don't care
5. GC - Don't know how to tackle yet.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I would've thought not giving away frees is the sign of a smart footy team.

I'd wager that nice teams actually do worse in the free kick ratio ie, they concede more, and they get less.

Teams with a smart, hard edge know how to bend the rules and take advantage of the interpretation of the day. They also know how to exploit opponents into giving away free kicks.

Geelong have got a couple of absolute masters at this, not naming any names.

 

[HARKER]

No, we're not too nice and the free kick count alone, doesn't necessarily represent the toughness of a team.

We have enough "tough" on the ground not to be intimidated and regardless: Give me a Chris Yarran over a Campbell Brown every day of the week.

 

[I bleed Blue]

Fear not.

According to another thread next year we will be walking the righteous path through the valley of death. Along the way we shall slay the demonic dragon of ineptitude and soar above the castle walls of our tormenters like a golden, flaming hawk...err I mean blue. We shall drive the dagger of retribution through the heart of Demetrious (Greek god of **** acts), and stand unchallenged atop the mountain as masters of our domain. We shall strike down upon those who oppose us with great vengeance and furious anger. And they will know our name is Carlton when we lay our vengeance upon them. Let it be proclaimed that truly we are Carlton and **** the rest.

All of this should equate to at least a few extra frees against per match.

Needs recognition.

 

[Murphylicious]

Having the lowest fee kick against tally is the sign of having Chris Judd in our team.

But seriously, if the most common free kick paid is for incorrect tackling (including in the back or too high), which it is, then I would say it is a sign of good tackling. Good training.

Unless the umpires truely do love us...

 

[parrot]

Free kick counts are a complex subject. It is very true that teams that don't know how to tackle can give away huge numbers of frees, but there are also other confounding variables. For example, any Carlton team playing in a final over at Weagleland in a game umpired by Razor is pretty much stuffed before the ball is bounced.

 

[Stefchook]

Having the lowest fee kick against tally is the sign of having Chris Judd in our team.

But seriously, if the most common free kick paid is for incorrect tackling (including in the back or too high), which it is, then I would say it is a sign of good tackling. Good training.

Unless the umpires truely do love us...

The real advantage is in where you get your free kicks. Without having any facts, I'd be guessing we win lots of midfield frees, but don't get many free kick goals. Essendon on the other hand would blitz the opposition on this score.

FWIW, I've got a theory that there's a certain emotional 'limit' to how many frees the umps will pay against a particular team. Something that 'dirty' teams like Hawthorn exploit. So they don't get penalised all that much from being over-aggressive. But they get plenty of intangible (intimidation) benefit. I think we could benefit from adopting a significantly greater level of aggression. Just think how good it would be to have half a dozen players who intimidated the opposition like Robbo does.

 

[esoteric]

I have done a bit more analysis on this. There is a clear association between ladder position and free kicks against.... the more free kicks you give away, the higher you are likely to finish on the ladder. Over the last ten years, the premier team has usually finshed high on the list of average free kicks conceded.

2002 Bris 4th highest FA
2004 Bris 3rd highest
2006 Syd 1st higest
2007 Gee 8th highest
2008 Haw 1st higest
2009 Gee 6th highest
2010 Coll 15th highest - notable exception - playing the boundary??
2011 Gee 3rd highest

The wooden spooners generally have a low FA count.

I'm not suggesting that giving away free kicks directly causes a higher ladder position... maybe the more you have the ball the more likely you are to give away a free? Don't know what's going on here, but if you look at the stats, the association seems pretty strong.

 

[Murphylicious]

I have done a bit more analysis on this. There is a clear association between ladder position and free kicks against.... the more free kicks you give away, the higher you are likely to finish on the ladder. Over the last ten years, the premier team has usually finshed high on the list of average free kicks conceded.

2002 Bris 4th highest FA
2004 Bris 3rd highest
2006 Syd 1st higest
2007 Gee 8th highest
2008 Haw 1st higest
2009 Gee 6th highest
2010 Coll 15th highest - notable exception - playing the boundary??
2011 Gee 3rd highest

The wooden spooners generally have a low FA count.

I'm not suggesting that giving away free kicks directly causes a higher ladder position... maybe the more you have the ball the more likely you are to give away a free? Don't know what's going on here, but if you look at the stats, the association seems pretty strong.

Although the stats do paint that picture, I don't think there is any connection. Especially the part about having the ball more may translate into more free kicks conceded. That doesn't make sense. The only free kick you can really get pinged for when you have the ball is running too far, or high fend offs (and I guess out on the full/deliberate ut of bounds) as opposed to in the back, too high, chopping the arms and so one that are paid against players without the ball.

I think it's just coincedence.

 

[esoteric]

No, I think out of the 36 players on the field at any given time, the most likely one to concede a free is the bloke with the ball. Don't forget holding the ball and incorrect disposal.

 

[zeeCFC]

You can give a free away for placing your hands on the back or running in a 5m zone. Not necessarily a sign of toughness..stupidity maybe.

 

[joxstrap]

Giving away lots of free kicks would be great if:

a) it was the only way you could show aggression, and
b) it didn't penalise your team.

This theory falls flat because not every freekick involves being aggressive - in fact most are unrelated to physicality - holding the ball, running too far, kicking out of bounds on the full, hands in the back, holding a jumper, holding etc.

Also there are plenty of ways to be aggressive with very little risk of penalty - shepherding vary infrequently results in a free and is almost always uplifting to the team, and puts fear into the opposition if its done properly. Talking and good tackling are other examples.

There might be a recent correlation between frees against and high ladder positions but your analysis is incomplete without a full ladder and freekick against comparison. How do we not know that the bottom four for each of those years were comprised of the other highest freekick offenders?

 

[Murphylicious]

No, I think out of the 36 players on the field at any given time, the most likely one to concede a free is the bloke with the ball. Don't forget holding the ball and incorrect disposal.

Yeh fair call. Brain obviously shutting down for Christmas.

I've got nothing...

 

[HereComesJuddy]

We just tackle very well IMO and are good at not going high at a head ducking opposition player.

Selwood, much???

 

[Slippery Pete]

Selwood, much???

This is one for the players and coaches.

The umpires are going to pay that every day of the week, because he doesnt actually duck, he slides underneath the tackle to cause the high contact.

What opposition teams need to do is start hurting him the first time he does it. Take his head off (figuratively of course).

He'll get a free kick, sure. But he'll think twice about using that technique again.

 

[Dramoth]

Giving away lots of free kicks would be great if:

a) it was the only way you could show aggression, and
b) it didn't penalise your team.

This theory falls flat because not every freekick involves being aggressive - in fact most are unrelated to physicality - holding the ball, running too far, kicking out of bounds on the full, hands in the back, holding a jumper, holding etc.

Also there are plenty of ways to be aggressive with very little risk of penalty - shepherding vary infrequently results in a free and is almost always uplifting to the team, and puts fear into the opposition if its done properly. Talking and good tackling are other examples.

There might be a recent correlation between frees against and high ladder positions but your analysis is incomplete without a full ladder and freekick against comparison. How do we not know that the bottom four for each of those years were comprised of the other highest freekick offenders?

Well thought out and said sir. One of the most aggressive frees given away is the bump shepherd where, if you are a tall player, you attempt to shepherd bump a smaller player with their head bouncing around as they get bumped, impacting on your shoulder. While in some cases, these guys do get genuinely knocked about, some of them just play for the free and they go down like they were shot.

One of the worst free's given is for the forward who indulges in a bit of jumper pulling, then as the ball comes in throws the arms back and falls over, playing up a slight tug on the jumper.

 

[mediumsizered]

This is one for the players and coaches.

The umpires are going to pay that every day of the week, because he doesnt actually duck, he slides underneath the tackle to cause the high contact.

What opposition teams need to do is start hurting him the first time he does it. Take his head off (figuratively of course).

He'll get a free kick, sure. But he'll think twice about using that technique again.

If he had been playing in the '70s or '80s he would have only done it once before he realised that it was dangerous to his health. Of course the game is different nowadays (which is a good thing) so he knows he is relatively safe in continuing this practice.

 

[Dramoth]

This is one for the players and coaches.

The umpires are going to pay that every day of the week, because he doesnt actually duck, he slides underneath the tackle to cause the high contact.

What opposition teams need to do is start hurting him the first time he does it. Take his head off (figuratively of course).

He'll get a free kick, sure. But he'll think twice about using that technique again.

I like your way of thinking there

His technique is such that as soon as he knows he is going to be tackled, he bends his knees and lowers his shoulder height.