Interesting Stat

[Glenno23]

In the 75 games or so we have had Neil Craig has been coach and we have been behind at 3 qtr time, we have only gone on to win 1 of them.

Now i know the best position to be in at 3 qtr time is in front, but what could the reasons be for our inability to come from behind?

- Fitness?

- Craig's refusal to change tactics?

- Mental belief?

An interesting stat, that should maybe be looked at? The boys tried hard today and levelled scores up, but just couldnt go on with it

What are your thoughts as to why we struggle to comeback from behind?

 

[smoovy]

In the 75 games or so we have had Neil Craig has been coach and we have been behind at 3 qtr time, we have only gone on to win 1 of them.

Now i know the best position to be in at 3 qtr time is in front, but what could the reasons be for our inability to come from behind?

- Fitness?

- Craig's refusal to change tactics?

- Mental belief?

An interesting stat, that should maybe be looked at? The boys tried hard today and levelled scores up, but just couldnt go on with it

What are your thoughts as to why we struggle to comeback from behind?

What we need to know is the amount of times we have been behind at 3 qtr by low margins. Better stat is how many 4th qtrs have we one.

Certainly our record in close games is poor.

 

[Mad Dog]

There used to be a time at the AFC that if we were within 3 goals at 3/4 time.......you could bet your gonads we would win the match comfortably.

Not anymore.....

 

[ThePeckers]

Because we don't have a big forward who can fire up and kick goals. Burton is starting to get back to his best form I think. To make come backs you need key forwards or really good goal sneaks.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

It's probably because in the time we've been under Neil Craig...we've been up at three quarter time most times.

 

[AndrewJo]

In the 75 games or so we have had Neil Craig has been coach and we have been behind at 3 qtr time, we have only gone on to win 1 of them.

Now i know the best position to be in at 3 qtr time is in front, but what could the reasons be for our inability to come from behind?

- Fitness?

- Craig's refusal to change tactics?

- Mental belief?

An interesting stat, that should maybe be looked at? The boys tried hard today and levelled scores up, but just couldnt go on with it

What are your thoughts as to why we struggle to comeback from behind?

I find this totally unbelievable. Anyone remember some games where we came from behind?

 

[NSWCROW]

- Craig's refusal to change tactics?

It's called JACK OATEY SYNDROME

 

[Kickin_Goals]

I find this totally unbelievable. Anyone remember some games where we came from behind?

You have to be behind to do that and winning pretty much every quarter of every game last year didn't leave much room for that.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

It's called JACK OATEY SYNDROME

Didn't Jack Oatey win 6 premierships?

 

[NSWCROW]

Didn't Jack Oatey win 6 premierships?

Sure did.

 

[JohnK]

In the 75 games or so we have had Neil Craig has been coach and we have been behind at 3 qtr time, we have only gone on to win 1 of them...

Glenno, this looks like one of those GeeWhiz stats that Bruce comes up with, that sounds impressive at the time as if it really means something.

Here's my analysis.

Under Craig's 75 games up to Round 17 2007, Adelaide has been behind 26 times at 3/4 time and only once managed to win the game.
That was in the QF in 2006 against Fremantle (5.12/7.4 at 3/4 time and then winning 10.16/7.4).

So, yes, the stat stands up. Adelaide under Craig cannot be called a Come-Back King sort of team.

But don't rest there. Look at the flipside.

Under Craig, Adelaide has been in front at 3/4 time in 48 matches and have gone on to win 46 of those games. In other words, Adelaide has only lost two games out of 75 under Craig after being in front at 3/4 time.

While it is is true to say that Adelaide can't come back, it is also true to say that it has only encountered two teams in the competition over the last 75 games who have been able to win the game from behind at 3/4 time against Adelaide.

In other words, all this stat is really saying is that in about 98% of the time,the team that is behind at 3/4 time will lose the match.

Someone else can track the comebacks of all the other teams over the last 75 games. Here's the website: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/afl_index.html

Some will do better than Adelaide, but most won't.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that those teams that manage to come back four of five times might also be those teams that manage to lose five or six games from a winning position at 3/4 time.

Adelaide is probably no different from any other team in the comp, if you balance this apparently remarkable stat with its flipside equivalent.

This is probably the sort of dead stat that Bruce has been propping up his career with... and the sort of dead use of stats that Andrew Capel uses every Tuesday in the Advertiser. In the end, it's no more than proving that the sun went down last night because it came up again this morning.

Or, to put this in another way, what is the useful information in that stat?

Adelaide under Craig can't come back. Most teams can't, most of the time.
Adelaide under Craig can hold its 3/4 lead for a win. Most teams can, most of the time.

This outcome has little to do with Craig and little to do with Adelaide.

Sun goes down; sun comes up.

And those who are taking notice... 26+48 equals 74. There is one game missing from Craig's 75.

In Round 11, 2007, Adelaide was equal with Geelong at 3/4 time and went on to lose that match. And possibly the season.

 

[sapaul]

Sure did.

7 actually.

 

[Glenno23]

Glenno, this looks like one of those GeeWhiz stats that Bruce comes up with, that sounds impressive at the time as if it really means something.

Here's my analysis.

Under Craig's 75 games up to Round 17 2007, Adelaide has been behind 26 times at 3/4 time and only once managed to win the game.
That was in the QF in 2006 against Fremantle (5.12/7.4 at 3/4 time and then winning 10.16/7.4).

So, yes, the stat stands up. Adelaide under Craig cannot be called a Come-Back King sort of team.

But don't rest there. Look at the flipside.

Under Craig, Adelaide has been in front at 3/4 time in 48 matches and have gone on to win 46 of those games. In other words, Adelaide has only lost two games out of 75 under Craig after being in front at 3/4 time.

While it is is true to say that Adelaide can't come back, it is also true to say that it has only encountered two teams in the competition over the last 75 games who have been able to win the game from behind at 3/4 time against Adelaide.

In other words, all this stat is really saying is that in about 98% of the time,the team that is behind at 3/4 time will lose the match.

Someone else can track the comebacks of all the other teams over the last 75 games. Here's the website: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/afl_index.html

Some will do better than Adelaide, but most won't.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that those teams that manage to come back four of five times might also be those teams that manage to lose five or six games from a winning position at 3/4 time.

Adelaide is probably no different from any other team in the comp, if you balance this apparently remarkable stat with its flipside equivalent.

This is probably the sort of dead stat that Bruce has been propping up his career with... and the sort of dead use of stats that Andrew Capel uses every Tuesday in the Advertiser. In the end, it's no more than proving that the sun went down last night because it came up again this morning.

Or, to put this in another way, what is the useful information in that stat?

Adelaide under Craig can't come back. Most teams can't, most of the time.
Adelaide under Craig can hold its 3/4 lead for a win. Most teams can, most of the time.

This outcome has little to do with Craig and little to do with Adelaide.

Sun goes down; sun comes up.

And those who are taking notice... 26+48 equals 74. There is one game missing from Craig's 75.

In Round 11, 2007, Adelaide was equal with Geelong at 3/4 time and went on to lose that match. And possibly the season.

sure put that one to rest

Just seems teams like the Eagles come back a lot more often than we do (even if they dont go onto win)

but this may all be misperceived by me

 

[NSWCROW]

7 actually.

That too

 

[Macca19]

Just Port as an example.

In the same time frame, weve come from behind to win 5 matches, and lost 4 after being in front at 3/4 time.

 

[Damp Squarie]

It's probably because in the time we've been under Neil Craig...we've been up at three quarter time most times.

Thats what I was thinking. I cant remember too many times where we have been smashed after 3/4 time.

Maybe against WC and Brissy in NCs reign...

 

[bus24]

bzzt

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

In the 75 games or so we have had Neil Craig has been coach and we have been behind at 3 qtr time, we have only gone on to win 1 of them.

Now i know the best position to be in at 3 qtr time is in front, but what could the reasons be for our inability to come from behind?

- Fitness?

- Craig's refusal to change tactics?

- Mental belief?

An interesting stat, that should maybe be looked at? The boys tried hard today and levelled scores up, but just couldnt go on with it

What are your thoughts as to why we struggle to comeback from behind?

Hehe, good reverse psychology.

 

[Glenno23]

Hehe, good reverse psychology.

Ha!!

I went looking for it and couldnt find it, stupid search wouldnt work, but here it is

My plan all along was this

Guess its 2 from 76 now....