Analysis Champion Data articles

[SJ]

I think the biggest problem in footy analysis at the moment in the media and in the general public is that people are looking for the silver bullet in stats. There isn't one, apart from the scoreboard.

The main objectives of footy are and have always been:
- When your opposition has the ball - to reduce their effectiveness and to win it back
- When the ball is in dispute - to win the ball
- When you have the ball - to use it well

Everything comes down to these three things, however they can be further broken down into more granular categories, each with numerous measures.

It is possible to win with just doing one of these things better than your opponent, and everything else worse.

 

[Lana]

I think the biggest problem in footy analysis at the moment in the media and in the general public is that people are looking for the silver bullet in stats. There isn't one, apart from the scoreboard.

The main objectives of footy are and have always been:
- When your opposition has the ball - to reduce their effectiveness and to win it back
- When the ball is in dispute - to win the ball
- When you have the ball - to use it well

Everything comes down to these three things, however they can be further broken down into more granular categories, each with numerous measures.

It is possible to win with just doing one of these things better than your opponent, and everything else worse.

Good summary, though its possible to lose all of those and still win the game if you kick accurately for goal and your opponent doesn't.

 

[SJ]

Good summary, though its possible to lose all of those and still win the game if you kick accurately for goal and your opponent doesn't.

Yes, although I put that under the 'When you have the ball - to use it well' umbrella.

Accuracy would be one of the major factors in deciding games between two similar quality sides.

 

[Partridge]

I think the biggest problem in footy analysis at the moment in the media and in the general public is that people are looking for the silver bullet in stats. There isn't one, apart from the scoreboard.

I think it's the legacy of how we used to analyse the game - if that's the right term to use. Going back decades, any good win or even premiership success was generally assigned to a star player or coach, but almost always, one guy made the difference. When you think about it, the notion that one player (especially) could win games alone in such a complex team sport is kind of ludicrous, but we're so used to it we think it's normal. We're still doing it right now on this board with Dangerfield. I've got no doubt a fair few Geelong supporters genuinely think one guy will make us a premiership threat next season. On the flip side, there's never any shortage of criticism, hostility and flat out hatred of any individual player who fails to be perfect while in Geelong colours. Even if they play in wins more often than not (Travis Varcoe the perfect example).

 

[Teriyakicat]

I think the biggest problem in footy analysis at the moment in the media and in the general public is that people are looking for the silver bullet in stats. There isn't one, apart from the scoreboard.

The main objectives of footy are and have always been:
- When your opposition has the ball - to reduce their effectiveness and to win it back
- When the ball is in dispute - to win the ball
- When you have the ball - to use it well

Everything comes down to these three things, however they can be further broken down into more granular categories, each with numerous measures.

It is possible to win with just doing one of these things better than your opponent, and everything else worse.

Good summary, though its possible to lose all of those and still win the game if you kick accurately for goal and your opponent doesn't.

I would hope that we would be better at more than one of those things SJ, when we win our games Is there a stat available that makes you suggest that we can win by achieving only one of those objectives?

It wasn't too long ago that we were told that winning clearances would win you games (or perhaps the opposite- you can't win a game without winning the clearances) and Geelong weren't any good at clearances but they were still winning games....

Then someone realised that we were allowing the opposition to win the clearances but we were loading up outside the stoppage and rebounding the ball through turnovers on the halfback line.

And we were also told that losing the contested possession count would lose us games- yes, it has probably come back to bite us but we lost the CP count in game after game but.... still won a majority of our games

Last season, we were 17th in the clearance differential and 13th in the contested possession differential- but still managed 17 wins. Perhaps it all broke down under the intensity of finals football, where a team still needs to be good at the basics to win.

 

[SJ]

I would hope that we would be better at more than one of those things SJ, when we win our games Is there a stat available that makes you suggest that we can win by achieving only one of those objectives?

It wasn't too long ago that we were told that winning clearances would win you games (or perhaps the opposite- you can't win a game without winning the clearances) and Geelong weren't any good at clearances but they were still winning games....

Then someone realised that we were allowing the opposition to win the clearances but we were loading up outside the stoppage and rebounding the ball through turnovers on the halfback line.

And we were also told that losing the contested possession count would lose us games- yes, it has probably come back to bite us but we lost the CP count in game after game but.... still won a majority of our games

Last season, we were 17th in the clearance differential and 13th in the contested possession differential- but still managed 17 wins. Perhaps it all broke down under the intensity of finals football, where a team still needs to be good at the basics to win.

Nope. No one has ever said that.

The only thing that has ever won you games is by kicking a higher score than the opposition. The rest are just measures of activity.

 

[Partridge]

Nope. No one has ever said that.

The only thing that has ever won you games is by kicking a higher score than the opposition. The rest are just measures of activity.

It's why the 2008 Grand Final was in many ways the perfect example of why some statistics are indicators but no more. Because in that game we utterly smashed Hawthorn in clearances, inside 50s, you name it. It was the only game that year where the team with 19 less inside 50s won (a salutory reminder to those who think Hawthorn played some sort of perfect game that day - they didn't). Except for one thing which remains the most important of all - accuracy on the scoreboard.

 

[SJ]

It's why the 2008 Grand Final was in many ways the perfect example of why some statistics are indicators but no more. Because in that game we utterly smashed Hawthorn in clearances, inside 50s, you name it. It was the only game that year where the team with 19 less inside 50s won (a salutory reminder to those who think Hawthorn played some sort of perfect game that day - they didn't). Except for one thing which remains the most important of all - accuracy on the scoreboard.

And the other thing it reminds us of is that match statistics don't tell the story of what happened within the match.

Hawthorn would have dominated most numbers between the 15- and 25-minute marks of the third quarter.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Nope. No one has ever said that.

The only thing that has ever won you games is by kicking a higher score than the opposition. The rest are just measures of activity.

Must've been just media hype or something - I am sure I heard something along those lines. Maybe you turn your volume down when the Fox boys are yakking about that stuff?

 

[Teriyakicat]

It's why the 2008 Grand Final was in many ways the perfect example of why some statistics are indicators but no more. Because in that game we utterly smashed Hawthorn in clearances, inside 50s, you name it. It was the only game that year where the team with 19 less inside 50s won (a salutory reminder to those who think Hawthorn played some sort of perfect game that day - they didn't). Except for one thing which remains the most important of all - accuracy on the scoreboard.

And the inside 50s count is only a measure of how many times the ball crosses that white line.. what happens after that (e.g. goes directly to an opponent) is what is important. Perhaps CD will now ask for a new line to be painted on the ground- a 20m line...

 

[Lana]

Must've been just media hype or something - I am sure I heard something along those lines. Maybe you turn your volume down when the Fox boys are yakking about that stuff?

Your thinking of the honorable David King

 

[SJ]

Must've been just media hype or something - I am sure I heard something along those lines. Maybe you turn your volume down when the Fox boys are yakking about that stuff?

In general, winning more clearances than your opposition will help you perform better, because your team has the ball. If your team has the ball it means you can score, and your opponent cannot. It falls under my second points of "when the ball is in dispute - to win the ball".

But winning more clearances doesn't win you the game. Carlton is strong around the stoppages this year and has won more than its opposition many times. However Carlton is very weak in many of the measures that make up the other two categories I mentioned earlier.

 

[Partridge]

In general, winning more clearances than your opposition will help you perform better, because your team has the ball. If your team has the ball it means you can score, and your opponent cannot. It falls under my second points of "when the ball is in dispute - to win the ball".

But winning more clearances doesn't win you the game. Carlton is strong around the stoppages this year and has won more than its opposition many times. However Carlton is very weak in many of the measures that make up the other two categories I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, ultimately, it's an extremely fluid, very complex sport with many different indicators of how well you are travelling. As you said, you can be behind in everything, but sneak a goal or two through and be ahead (or even win). Looking for some magical equation that will absolutely guarantee a win I don't think is going to be rewarding.

 

[SJ]

Yeah, ultimately, it's an extremely fluid, very complex sport with many different indicators of how well you are travelling. As you said, you can be behind in everything, but sneak a goal or two through and be ahead (or even win). Looking for some magical equation that will absolutely guarantee a win I don't think is going to be rewarding.

And you can't raise every lever to 'ultimate' simultaneously, either.

If you want to be strong in 'winning the ball', it will most likely come at some expense in 'using the ball'.

If you want to win the territory battle and lock the ball inside your own forward arc, most likely it will come at the expense of potency.

Coaches have to pick and choose which levers they want to raise, without losing too much elsewhere. And based on the skills they have on their list.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Your thinking of the honorable David King

lol
Possibly. I was just skimming over an article from David Wheadon's book called "the Art of Coaching", in particular a chapter titled "Premiership-Winning Game Plans". DW says about Sydney in 2012:

"Based on the defensive principle of closing down space, they surrounded stoppages with big numbers and so either won the clearance or at worst had a good chance of creating a repeat stoppage."

Maybe DK read this and decided that winning clearances must win you games.

And, in 2012, in an article about Chapman,

"Chapman believed turnovers, and scores from turnovers, were part the problem.

Champion Data stats tell us it is their clearance work.

"Last year they were actually in the negative for clearances, but they scored the most often from these clearances and defended a clearance loss the best in the competition," Champion Data's Glenn Luff says. "They were +393 points from clearances and ranked second. This year the clearance numbers are worse at minus 50 and they are ranked 13th. But their ability to score from these is down to ninth and they don't defend as well - ranked 10th.""

Little tidbits like that all go to my brain and get filed away. The more articles, the more the facts are likely to be retained

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...tar-paul-chapman/story-e6frepix-1226425683900

And another article- this time from mid- 2013:

"Previously, the football equation held that winning the ball and clearing it from ball-ups delivered victory. Now the statistical harbingers of victory are changing.

Last year when a team won the contested possession count, it won 76 per cent of matches. This year that has dropped to 67 per cent.

This year when a team wins the clearance count, it has only won slightly more than half of matches (52 per cent), when last year the clearance kings won more than two-thirds of games (68 per cent).

When a team won both counts it won 79 per cent of games last year and only 65 per cent this year.

Champion Data only holds these stats for the past two years but clubs contend that even the numbers last year were dropping on the year before. "No doubt contested ball, clearance figures are less relevant," one coach said. "The game has changed – it's about counter-attack and the best team to look at is Geelong."

The Cats are the second-worst team for clearances and bottom five for contested possessions, yet are undefeated. This continues a Cats trend of last year in often conceding both statistical areas."


"Contested ball and clearances are still strong indicators – you can't afford to be smashed in them – but winning them is not as significant as it was."


"It's not about the clearance it is about retaining it or the quality of your exit from the clearance. The Bulldogs are the perfect example, they clear it with a hacked kick forward but the opposition marks it and the Dogs don't have the leg speed to spread and cover the ground," a coach said.

"It's about putting enough pressure on the clearance kick and then on the ball carrier once it comes out of the clearance. So it is about the quality of possession or quality of clearance and the first possession after a clearance."

http://www.cessnockadvertiser.com.au/story/1482642/the-contest-is-up/?cs=6

 

[Teriyakicat]

In general, winning more clearances than your opposition will help you perform better, because your team has the ball. If your team has the ball it means you can score, and your opponent cannot. It falls under my second points of "when the ball is in dispute - to win the ball".

But winning more clearances doesn't win you the game. Carlton is strong around the stoppages this year and has won more than its opposition many times. However Carlton is very weak in many of the measures that make up the other two categories I mentioned earlier.

I just posted a few good quotes from an article (see above).
This sentence pretty much sums it up:
"So it is about the quality of possession or quality of clearance and the first possession after a clearance."

 

[cats2rise]

Nope. No one has ever said that.

The only thing that has ever won you games is by kicking a higher score than the opposition. The rest are just measures of activity.

"Catches win matches" in cricket springs to mind.

What I mean by that is the sole way to win a game is to score more runs than the opposition, yet when fielding the team that takes the half chances put themselves in a strong position.

I guess Geelongs mantra during the golden period could be that you build a strong defence, and from there on in you attack.

I agree with you that the ultimate aim is to kick more goals than the opposition, but other little things certainly help you on your way more often than not.

I also agree with your above post that there is too much read into stats, though.

 

[AM]

Nope. No one has ever said that.

The only thing that has ever won you games is by kicking a higher score than the opposition. The rest are just measures of activity.

That combined result in a team "....kicking a higher score than the opposition"

 

[GHS33]

Interested to read that we're currently the 2nd best in the competition for contested possessions. I've noticed we've been recording huge tackles numbers each game this year too, I'd be interested to see where we rank in that stat also if anyone has it.

 

[SJ]

Interested to read that we're currently the 2nd best in the competition for contested possessions. I've noticed we've been recording huge tackles numbers each game this year too, I'd be interested to see where we rank in that stat also if anyone has it.

We're actually last at 127.7 a game. No idea how they got second.

 

[Lana]

Interested to read that we're currently the 2nd best in the competition for contested possessions. I've noticed we've been recording huge tackles numbers each game this year too, I'd be interested to see where we rank in that stat also if anyone has it.

I think they meant to write second worst. We are averaging less than them.

"4. Geelong is the second-best team in 2015 for contested possessions, averaging 127.7 a game, while the Power have struggled and is ranked equal 11th with 136.3 a game."

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think the biggest problem in footy analysis at the moment in the media and in the general public is that people are looking for the silver bullet in stats. There isn't one, apart from the scoreboard.

The main objectives of footy are and have always been:
- When your opposition has the ball - to reduce their effectiveness and to win it back
- When the ball is in dispute - to win the ball
- When you have the ball - to use it well

Everything comes down to these three things, however they can be further broken down into more granular categories, each with numerous measures.

It is possible to win with just doing one of these things better than your opponent, and everything else worse.

And point 3 is probably most important, doesn't matter if you're elite at winning the ball or winning it back you won't win if you don't effectively use the footy.

Take Fre v rich last weekend, Sandilands recorded a record number of hitouts and as a result Freo smacked richmond in clearances. but who won the game? who kicked 12.3 to half time? Richmond were clinical with their ball use early and it showed on the scoreboard.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Interested to read that we're currently the 2nd best in the competition for contested possessions. I've noticed we've been recording huge tackles numbers each game this year too, I'd be interested to see where we rank in that stat also if anyone has it.

We rank 10th in total tackles (Bulldogs have averaged 75.5 tackles per game, we have averaged 65 per game), GHS, but 1st for team/opponent ave tackle differential at 9.6, slightly ahead of Port, who are 9.5. Giants are 3rd with 8.5.

 

[GHS33]

We rank 10th in total tackles (Bulldogs have averaged 75.5 tackles per game, we have averaged 65 per game), GHS, but 1st for team/opponent ave tackle differential at 9.6, slightly ahead of Port, who are 9.5. Giants are 3rd with 8.5.

The differential is a positive.

 

[AM]

Yet another reason we need to work on our stoppage work.

Source: Champion Data