Game Day Key Performance Indicators per game

[jenny61_99]

im pretty sure if you average 25 tackles a quarter you'd set an AFL all time record for tackles?

Having a KPI that no one has ever achieved seems to not be a good KPI haha


edit: seems like its been done 30 or 40 times before but never by us

Sydney got over 100 tackles against Essendon I think.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Sydney got over 100 tackles against Essendon I think.

Sydney got 85 last week. Last night - 67

 

[AFC979810]

Sydney got over 100 tackles against Essendon I think.

Record is Richmond V Port Adelaide in 2010. They got 142 tackles in a game.

 

[jenny61_99]

Sydney got 85 last week. Last night - 67

Bloody radio blokes, don't know what they are talking about!

 

[Sir Vlado]

Record is Richmond V Port Adelaide in 2010. They got 142 tackles in a game.

That was that monumental sludgefest, wasn't it? AAMI became an ocean that day and Richmond finally had a win.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Bloody radio blokes, don't know what they are talking about!

I just took those numbers from the AFL app. They could be correct but could be incorrect as well.

 

[Glenno23]

That was that monumental sludgefest, wasn't it? AAMI became an ocean that day and Richmond finally had a win.

And Port was celebrating something IIRC?

 

[6BTS]

Brad Scott said that contested possession is the most important statistic in the game in his press conference.

 

[Sir Vlado]

And Port was celebrating something IIRC?

Some sort of significant anniversary I think, and they were kept to 3 goals for the whole game.

 

[Allefgib]

Brad Scott said that contested possession is the most important statistic in the game in his press conference.

"get ball"

 

[Rusty Crow]

That was that monumental sludgefest, wasn't it? AAMI became an ocean that day and Richmond finally had a win.

And Port was celebrating something IIRC?

Some sort of significant anniversary I think, and they were kept to 3 goals for the whole game.

140 years of Port Magpies, not sure that was significant, 150 yes.

 

[androidtommy]

Was just looking at some stats on the afl site.
As a team, we average:
the second most bounces per games (14.6, behind carlton 15.6. Smith #1 leaguewide with 28, Mackay 5th with 23)
the fewest clangers (39.1, essendon 40.3)
third highest disposal efficiency (73.8%)
top four in both disposals and marks.

Now disposals and marks says a lot about our game plan and how we chip it around a bit, especially when under lots of pressure (i always see players waving their hands to say calm down)
But i thought the other three stats were interesting, given how poorly we started the year and how much we have turned over the ball (or so it seems) we would have more clangers and a lower disposal efficiency. Do you think it is because we take the ball through the corridor so much that the clangers impact us on the scoreboard a lot more?

 

[CrowAboutIt]

It's an interesting topic because I think the KPI's changes from year to year depending on the coach and game plan.

I was watching "Open Mike" with Jason Dunstal and they were talking about how Hawthorn won in 07 but missed the finals in 08. Dunstal was saying that Hawthorn were a top heavy uncontested possession winner in 07 which won them the GF, but in 08 teams had adjusted their game plans, zones and tactics to deal with Hawthorns ability to win the game through uncontested possession, so Hawthorn had to take a bunch of guys who didn't like the contested possession and turn them into contested possession ball winners, which a chunk of players didn't take an immediate liking to.

Hawks won in 08. 07 was 119

 

[Valentino Dmitri]

do raw tackle numbers count for much?

is there a stat for tackles that is the equivalent for the old 'taps to advantage' that the rucks have?

anecdotal evidence - i'd suggest that crows tackles over the last half decade or so, if not longer, don't regularly stopp the opposition from getting the ball off to a team mate.

disposal efficiency is a little misleading too i think.

couple of stats i would like to see - and it's late so i hope this makes sense -

a) inside players ability to get the ball to an outside player in an advantageous position, or at the very least another playing in a better position than they're already in

b) outside players ability to use ball advantageously

for both, each stat wouldn't be able to be worked out until the tape of each possession has been recorded, paused and judged which would have been the very best disposal in each situation. for instance if mackay was to chip a 20m pass sideways towards the wing from the middle of the ground to jacobs (who is being manned by the opposition ruck), and the ball is put on his chest, that would be considered an efficient disposal. however if he had sloane 40m away, all alone on the hff, that was the clear best decision at the time and it wasn't taken up. in my review system mackay would have got no credit for his kick, and that is the sort of disposal efficiency i would like to see.

same for a dangerfield clearance etc.

i don't think anyone outside the clubs themselves could be bothered documenting this stuff obviously.

 

[Allefgib]

Was just looking at some stats on the afl site.
As a team, we average:
the second most bounces per games (14.6, behind carlton 15.6. Smith #1 leaguewide with 28, Mackay 5th with 23)
the fewest clangers (39.1, essendon 40.3)
third highest disposal efficiency (73.8%)
top four in both disposals and marks.

Now disposals and marks says a lot about our game plan and how we chip it around a bit, especially when under lots of pressure (i always see players waving their hands to say calm down)
But i thought the other three stats were interesting, given how poorly we started the year and how much we have turned over the ball (or so it seems) we would have more clangers and a lower disposal efficiency. Do you think it is because we take the ball through the corridor so much that the clangers impact us on the scoreboard a lot more?

Very interesting stuff.
One reason being that when I was hearing talk of 'we need to defend better' from a turnover I thought the problem may have been more the weight of numbers of turnovers we had.
Seems like with fewest clangers and third highest DE that it is the way we've defended, or more likely how out of position we've been after a turnover, that is the bigger issue.

We definitely seemed to run back well in the 2nd half on the weekend and less prone to goals over the back.

More please Sando.

 

[cmndstab]

If we're being honest, our tackle count was so high primarily because Collingwood were so sloppy, particularly in the first half.

Yes, we still had to stick those tackles (and in the past we very well might not have!) but we had so many more opportunities than we should have had.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Seems like with fewest clangers and third highest DE that it is the way we've defended, or more likely how out of position we've been after a turnover, that is the bigger issue.

We definitely seemed to run back well in the 2nd half on the weekend and less prone to goals over the back.

As usual it's probably multi-factorial.

I sit in Riverbank stand so it's awesome for seeing running patterns/positional play.

I would say that as a collective we've probably run forward a little too hard/pushed up too much. Balance was great on Thursday.

We've had quite a few slow players through defence and the midfield. Guys like Martin are probably a good selection, as was the non-selection of Reilly. We don't need 22 speedsters but a balance is needed.

Possibly most critical was simply the want and desire to run hard defensively. In previous weeks we were simply lazy and unprofessional at times.

 

[Geoffa32]

If we're being honest, our tackle count was so high primarily because Collingwood were so sloppy, particularly in the first half.

Yes, we still had to stick those tackles (and in the past we very well might not have!) but we had so many more opportunities than we should have had.

Chicken or egg stuff here.

I know that when teams tackle our guys at a hugh rate our skills turn to shit. But fewer tackles we almost loom silky.

Did Collingwood fall apart due to our obvious intent to tackle hard and often? Or did they just have a shit night due to lack of form?

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

20 goals
100 tackles
100% efficiency
+ 50 contested ball

This should deliver us our next flag