Bad Coach......or Bad luck?

[Bluebear]

The promised follow up is here. Many people have pushed our current results as the prime reason for sacking Denis. Merely quoting the points for and against never tells the full story though, so I did some digging:

2003: Finished 15th

• 4 wins
• Won 27 quarters, lost 61
• 6 games lost all 4 quarters
• 8 games won 2+ Q's

2004: Finished 11th

• 10 wins
• Won 35 Q's, lost 52 (drew 1)
• 3 game 4q loss
• 13 games won 2+ Q'S

2005: Finished 16th

• 4 wins, 1 draw
• Won 27 Q's, lost 58 (drew 3)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 9 games won 2+ q's

2006: Finished 16th

• 3 wins, 1 draw
• Won 33 Q's, lost 51 (drew 4)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 13 games won 2+ q's

This shows clearly that our 2006 season was not far off our 10 win 2004 season that many hang their hat on - 2 winning quarters.
Secondly after our first year Pagan promised that it would take a long time to win consistently, but we would be more competitive - The reduction of games where we lost all 4 quarters from 6 to 3 is a clear sign of being more competitive, as is the increased number of drawn quarters, and the increased number of games wher we won at least 2 q's.

 

[Smell The Glove]

The refreshing thing about that is that the 2004 'bump' was done on the back of a whole lot of rejects for other clubs who were never going to maintain that intensity, wheras this year has been done on the back of almost all younger players. This year has been more of a development season and so the real difference is between 2005 and 2006. Mind you, you also have to take into account Fev's drastic improvement this year as a factor in those figures. The best thing there is that we won 13 2+ quarters rather than only 9 in 2005- that shows real signs of improvement.

 

[Effes]

Percentage:

2003 - 66.72%
2004 - 81.66%
2005 - 75.51%
2006 - 74.16%

 

[Bluebear]

Percentage:

2003 - 66.72%
2004 - 81.66%
2005 - 75.51%
2006 - 74.16%

Yep........thanks for helping point out that simply stating numbers such as premiership points, or in this case, percentage, doesn't really tell the whole story. Glad to see your with me onthis Effes.

 

[Effes]

I didn't give any opinion on anything Bluebear, just providing some facts to aid the discussion

 

[Da Bull]

We were by far a more competitive unit this year. In winning positions for a large number of games, but unable to run it out.

 

[Jimthegreat]

The promised follow up is here. Many people have pushed our current results as the prime reason for sacking Denis. Merely quoting the points for and against never tells the full story though, so I did some digging:

2003: Finished 15th

• 4 wins
• Won 27 quarters, lost 61
• 6 games lost all 4 quarters
• 8 games won 2+ Q's

2004: Finished 11th

• 10 wins
• Won 35 Q's, lost 52 (drew 1)
• 3 game 4q loss
• 13 games won 2+ Q'S

2005: Finished 16th

• 4 wins, 1 draw
• Won 27 Q's, lost 58 (drew 3)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 9 games won 2+ q's

2006: Finished 16th

• 3 wins, 1 draw
• Won 33 Q's, lost 51 (drew 4)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 13 games won 2+ q's

This shows clearly that our 2006 season was not far off our 10 win 2004 season that many hang their hat on - 2 winning quarters.
Secondly after our first year Pagan promised that it would take a long time to win consistently, but we would be more competitive - The reduction of games where we lost all 4 quarters from 6 to 3 is a clear sign of being more competitive, as is the increased number of drawn quarters, and the increased number of games wher we won at least 2 q's.

Don't get too carried away with qtr's won. Alot of those were in junk time. It's about winning games and we won 7 games less than in 2004, and even less than last year, which is sad. Our % was 74% indicating the ratio of our losses (points for/against) were the similar, just smaller margins because games were lower scoring. Individual improvement sadly didn't tranaslante into team improvement, which it should've as this side is better than the one in 2004.

Hoping against hope the Saints want Pagan.

 

[Bluebear]

Don't get too carried away with qtr's won. Alot of those were in junk time. It's about winning games and we won 7 games less than in 2004, and even less than last year, which is sad. Our % was 74% indicating the ratio of our losses (points for/against) were the similar, just smaller margins because games were lower scoring. Individual improvement sadly didn't tranaslante into team improvement, which it should've as this side is better than the one in 2004.

Hoping against hope the Saints want Pagan.

Research...............research................research.
Now by Junk time I assume you mean the last quarters of games that were already dead.

Well, we won 3 more 2nd q's, 4 more 3rd q's and only........1more 4th q than last year.
Percentage does not represent a ratio of our losses.......not sure what that actually means.

 

[blues4flag]

I've always wanted Pagan to continue on - the progress made over this year was IMO pretty obvious. As a young list, which was only getting younger and less experienced as our older players who are not up to AFL standard are replaced by 1st or 2nd year players, it was good to see an increase in competitiveness and much less flogging. There are a few exceptions, but overall a better performance over four quarters this season, and the continued development of our youngsters (and some older players in Fev, Whitnall and Scotland), and the on field future of the Blues is starting to look bright.

 

[Smell The Glove]

This year should finally see the last of the older duds (except for Teague and Deluca) finally departing the club. Denis has finally abandoned his archaic, '90s style list management and gone with a youth policy and I think that in 2008 we will clearly start reaping the rewards. My mouth waters at the thought of the final few cobwebs being brushed out and a healthy young list in its place. Good times ahead for us, but expect more pain in 2007 (and more high draft picks)

 

[Kahuna]

A little from column A and a little from column B.

 

[gadj1976]

what about providing stats on meaningless turnovers, when there was either none or little pressure.

We burn the ball like no other team. Percentage, quarters won, all means nothing if we can't hit a bloke 30-40m away when we're in the clear.

 

[Bluebear]

what about providing stats on meaningless turnovers, when there was either none or little pressure.

We burn the ball like no other team. Percentage, quarters won, all means nothing if we can't hit a bloke 30-40m away when we're in the clear.

Yep, wish I had access to those stats. All I was trying to point outis that we are more competitive this year than last........as promised by the coach.....and that we are not very far behind 2004, that many hang their hats on as a sign of where we were and how we have fallen.
Skills are poor, no doubt.
One stat I do have is the average accuracy (goals from scoring shots - doesn't include OOBOF or marked short of score) for and against - top 8 and bottom 8.

Top 8 - F: 53.88 A: 51.73
Bottom 8 - F: 51.23 A: 53.46

Skills? Pressure of opposition? Combination of all of the above?
Where do we rank?
Scoring shots: F: 506 - 15th (Hawks 16th 479)
A: 645 - 16th (Dons 15th 634)
Accuracy: F: 50.79 - 13th (Bris, Port, Kangas, WC ahead 50.86)
A: 54.88 - 14th (Ess - 57.89, Sydney! - 55.81)

Meaningless stats? Maybe.
More to a game than four points? Maybe, but when you are so far down in the S#$T you take what you can.

Just for the record, if we had the same avergae accuracy for as the top 8 we would have won 6 games this year.

 

[bibi01]

Don't get too carried away with qtr's won. Alot of those were in junk time. It's about winning games and we won 7 games less than in 2004, and even less than last year, which is sad. Our % was 74% indicating the ratio of our losses (points for/against) were the similar, just smaller margins because games were lower scoring. Individual improvement sadly didn't tranaslante into team improvement, which it should've as this side is better than the one in 2004.

Hoping against hope the Saints want Pagan.

both teams gets junk time not just 1 team.
we win a 1/4 its due to junk time
we lose a 1/4 its due to the superiority of the other team

argument of junk time is flawed as if you take into account junk time for winning 1/4 you also need to take into account for losing 1/4

 

[WalkerTexasRanger]

The promised follow up is here. Many people have pushed our current results as the prime reason for sacking Denis. Merely quoting the points for and against never tells the full story though, so I did some digging:

2003: Finished 15th

• 4 wins
• Won 27 quarters, lost 61
• 6 games lost all 4 quarters
• 8 games won 2+ Q's

2004: Finished 11th

• 10 wins
• Won 35 Q's, lost 52 (drew 1)
• 3 game 4q loss
• 13 games won 2+ Q'S

2005: Finished 16th

• 4 wins, 1 draw
• Won 27 Q's, lost 58 (drew 3)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 9 games won 2+ q's

2006: Finished 16th

• 3 wins, 1 draw
• Won 33 Q's, lost 51 (drew 4)
• 3 games 4Q loss
• 13 games won 2+ q's

This shows clearly that our 2006 season was not far off our 10 win 2004 season that many hang their hat on - 2 winning quarters.
Secondly after our first year Pagan promised that it would take a long time to win consistently, but we would be more competitive - The reduction of games where we lost all 4 quarters from 6 to 3 is a clear sign of being more competitive, as is the increased number of drawn quarters, and the increased number of games wher we won at least 2 q's.

Interesting stuff. The problem with this logic though is that is doesn't take into account the variables of other teams' development. If, for example, Carlton had played in the same controlled competition for each year (ie the 2003 year), then these stats would definitively show improvement. As we have no way of calculating the variables of other teams - this argument in not deductively valid.

Interesting perspective - and I like anything positive - but essentially it's still inductive reasoning and as such I might as well base an appraisal on how competitive I think we have been just from watching the games: I think that we improved our fight for some quarters this year over last - but we still went backwards from 2004 - In order to play finals you need wins - until we get more wins - it doesn't mean sh**. As far as the Pagan no Pagan argument goes - it's all entirely speculative. Even if you can say there has been steady improvement, there is nothing to suggest that a coaching change would or would not achieve more.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Research...............research................research.
Now by Junk time I assume you mean the last quarters of games that were already dead.

Well, we won 3 more 2nd q's, 4 more 3rd q's and only........1more 4th q than last year.
Percentage does not represent a ratio of our losses.......not sure what that actually means.

Also with a score of 100 to 50 gives your the same percentage as a loss by 200 to 100. Both are a twice the score giving you a percentage of 50%. just that the type of game is different.

There were quite a few dead last qtr's where we reduced large margin to around 20 points. Even so, our percentage was worse than last year. no spin will get away from that. We won 7 games less than 2004. That's the bottom line. It's not about playing in flashes, it's about playing 4 qtr's and winning games, something we did in 2004 because we played with more committment. After every hiding that year we came back, showed some "nuts" and won the next week. If it wasn't for that freak "on the full" by Houlihan in round 3 2004, resulting in the winner kicked by Wells, and blowing an 18 point lead late in the last qtr against the Swans late in the season, we may have made the finals. We also beat every side from 4th to 10th (we were 11th), barring the Swans, who we should of beaten (re: above). So I wouldn't even try to compare this year to 2004 despite having a better list now.