Realistics KPI's

[_RT_]

Seeing as KPI's are al the rage at Richmond at the moment I though I would throw up 2 of my own KPI's regarding Richmond and compare them to 2005 the year after the previous spoon to see if we're travelling any better.

1. Development: This year our best 10 players are Richo, Deledio, Johnson, Brown, Bowden, Tuck, McMahon Simmonds, Newman & King, based on stats for the 08 season. In 2004 our 10 best players, based on stats, were Brown, Tuck, Coughlan, Bowden Johnson, Richo, Simmonds, Campbell, Newman & Pettifer. The list points to an alarming fact, we are still relying on the same players in 2008 as we were in 2005 to get us wins. Where is the development of the kids who should be pushing up and replacing these older players?
2. Wins & Losses: In 2005 we finished with 10 wins and 12 losses, the year after winning only 4 games while taking the spoon. Of the 10 wins for that year 3 were against top 8 sides and none were against top 4 sides. In the games we won our average margin was 27.7 points, in the losses the average margin was 37.1 points. We suffered 4 losses of 10+ goals and had 1 10+ goal win. In 2008 we currently have 8.5 wins(on track for 10.5 wins) the year after winning 3.5 games while collecting the spoon. Of those 8 wins only 1 has been against a top 8 side - Brisbane. In the games we have won the average margin has been 30.3 points while in the losses we have averaged 41.8 points per loss, despite only having 3 10+ goal losses this year. We have also won 2 games by 10+ goals. So I have to ask were we a better side in 2005 than we are in 2008? You could say we're not as we are losing games by a bigger margin this year than we were back then despite playing with a more experienced list.

The way I see it we're not really going any better than we were in 2005 yet everyone raves on about how much we've improved this year to last year, when it seems we're not really much better than we were in Wallaces first season.

I suggest that those of you who are praising the improvement shown this year compared to last year, open your eyes and look at the whole time under Wallace and not simply focus on results that compare a wooden spoon year with only 3 wins for the season to the following year where we have won 3 times as many games as it just gives you what you want to see, not what you should be seeing.

 

[freezer]

Of course the likes of richo, brown, simmonds, johnson, etc are going to be in our best players based on pure stats or whatever way you want to guage it, because they are senior players and some of the most talented in the squad.

The problem with the development comparison in Kings inclusion, and to some degrees Mcmahon's. If you are trying to say they've been more effective than Moore, Axel, White, and even Cotchin this year then your paying far too much attention to stats and not enough to what's been happening on the field.

The big difference is the average age of the squad, and how much improvement there is to come. The tigs in 08 and 05 may have had similar seasons but you'd have to be pretty confident to say that this squad has got a brighter future (jees you'd hope so ), and that there's a much bigger upside in the bottom 20 or so players than the rabble we had in 05.

Not saying TW is necessarily the man to take us to the top four, but you have to say we have a much better list and are a far more attractive prospect when we go looking for our next coach than we were when he started.

 

[tony_montana]

stats?

simmonds, King, Bowden have nowhere near been in our best 10 players for the season. Johnson in all but stats is useless, he gets the ball bc the opposition allows this bc his hurt factor with disposals is in the negative. Open your eyes ppl, Johnson does as he wants bc hes not rated by opponents.

Axel, Moore, Thursfield, White for mine have been in our top 10-12.

Top 10

Richo, Deledio, Tuck, Newman, Foley, Moore, Thursfield, Brown, White, McMahon have been our better players this season. At a pinch I'd say mcGuane is fast tracking to join this group, has been very very good the past 6 or so weeks.

For mine that top 10 list looks pretty healthy. Newman is playing career best football this season, has surprised me, Tuck has lifted, Mcmahon apart from 3 or 4 shockers has been good value, thats 3 players in the 24-26 bracket, 2 over 30 in richo, Brown, and 5 players under 22.

I'll take that as a positive.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

we are losing games by a bigger margin this year than we were back then despite playing with a more experienced list.

Out list was far, far, far more experienced in 2005.

We have since turned over 75% of the list and replaced them with 18 year olds.

Yes we kept 25% of the 2005 list, but you are ignoring the remaining 75% of the list. They will push out our star players from 2005 as they mature.

Not everybody matures as fast as Deledio - haven't you said this yourself?

 

[Accepted 04]

IMO devolpment should be based on if they can win a game off their own boot or help change the momentum for a win.
Eg. Edwards last quater against Bombers
Tamblings game against Brisbane
Hughes & Morton against Port
Riewoldt against West Coast etc.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

You'd need a labotomy to think that other than Richo , Simmonds and Brown on his day our senior player carry this club. There is a massive difference to the 2005 and 2008 side.

All our fringe players in 2005 either had walking sticks or were only one more draft from being shown the door. The 2008 side has a nucleaus of young up and coming players that have proved they can play first grade footy but just need another season or 2. The 2008 team is miles ahead because we've achieved the same result as 2005 but have improvement in us.

Look at this core and tell me if you'd delist any of these players

Deledio
Tambling
Patto
Foley
Rewoidt
Edwards
Moore
Mcgaune
Thurstfield
Cotchin
Morton

And we have plenty more coming through

Do the same exercise as you did with the other clubs. I think you'll find the top 5 players haven't changed that much in 3 years. I'll use Sydney as an example Kirk , Bolten , Leo Barry , Goodes , etc

Are they going to be in trouble. You guys need to relax. Alls good at Tigerland

 

[beaver fever]

You'd need a labotomy to think that other than Richo , Simmonds and Brown on his day our senior player carry this club. There is a massive difference to the 2005 and 2008 side. We would be bottom 4 without these 3 players.

All our fringe players in 2005 either had walking sticks or were only one more draft from being shown the door. The 2008 side has a nucleaus of young up and coming players that have proved they can play first grade footy but just need another season or 2. The 2008 team is miles ahead because we've achieved the same result as 2005 but have improvement in us. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck.

Look at this core and tell me if you'd delist any of these players

Deledio - In our top 5 players
Tambling - Too good to delist, but definitely tradeable
Patto - Would delist if we had other options
Foley - In our top 5 players
Riewoidt - Our most promising developing KPF
Edwards - Too good to delist, but definitely tradeable
Moore - Our best defender at present
McGaune - Would delist if we had other options
Thursfield - Our 2nd best defender
Cotchin - will be in our top 5 players
Morton - our 2nd best small forward

And we have plenty more coming through. What about promising developing talls. We don't have many of those now do we?

We have much work to do.

 

[CoggaRules]

stats?

simmonds, King, Bowden have nowhere near been in our best 10 players for the season. Johnson in all but stats is useless, he gets the ball bc the opposition allows this bc his hurt factor with disposals is in the negative. Open your eyes ppl, Johnson does as he wants bc hes not rated by opponents.

Axel, Moore, Thursfield, White for mine have been in our top 10-12.

Top 10

Richo, Deledio, Tuck, Newman, Foley, Moore, Thursfield, Brown, White, McMahon have been our better players this season. At a pinch I'd say mcGuane is fast tracking to join this group, has been very very good the past 6 or so weeks.

For mine that top 10 list looks pretty healthy. Newman is playing career best football this season, has surprised me, Tuck has lifted, Mcmahon apart from 3 or 4 shockers has been good value, thats 3 players in the 24-26 bracket, 2 over 30 in richo, Brown, and 5 players under 22.

I'll take that as a positive.

tm...you see it that way, i see it that way...but TW and his clowns look at what the stats sheet says and they see it completely differently.

TW uses the KPI shit to sell his story, well, if thats the case, RT's assesment blows TW's view of the universe right out of the water.

 

[richoatthedisco]

stats?

simmonds, King, Bowden have nowhere near been in our best 10 players for the season. Johnson in all but stats is useless, he gets the ball bc the opposition allows this bc his hurt factor with disposals is in the negative. Open your eyes ppl, Johnson does as he wants bc hes not rated by opponents.

Axel, Moore, Thursfield, White for mine have been in our top 10-12.

Top 10

Richo, Deledio, Tuck, Newman, Foley, Moore, Thursfield, Brown, White, McMahon have been our better players this season. At a pinch I'd say mcGuane is fast tracking to join this group, has been very very good the past 6 or so weeks.

For mine that top 10 list looks pretty healthy. Newman is playing career best football this season, has surprised me, Tuck has lifted, Mcmahon apart from 3 or 4 shockers has been good value, thats 3 players in the 24-26 bracket, 2 over 30 in richo, Brown, and 5 players under 22.

I'll take that as a positive.

Agree with all that, except the Newman assessment. Time was we'd say "Newman - he's never beaten. Never plays a bad one." This year he has had goals kicked on him for fun and turned it over alarmingly with loose handballs and cute dinky little kicks. Yes he still creates a lot but he needs to stop thinking of himself as a 'quarterback' and go back to beating his man first and foremost.

 

[_RT_]

tm...you see it that way, i see it that way...but TW and his clowns look at what the stats sheet says and they see it completely differently.

TW uses the KPI shit to sell his story, well, if thats the case, RT's assesment blows TW's view of the universe right out of the water.

That was the exact reason why I put them up. When doing a comparison from one year to the next it is quite easy to make things look either much better than they were or worse than they are.

In 2005 we had a team that was just starting to be turned over and won 10 games for the year (probably would have won more if not for Brown breaking his leg). In 2008 with a list that is supposedly more talented and younger we are probably going to win 10 games again.

Wallace using KPI's buys him some breathing space because most our supporters lap it up and believe everything he says about where the team is heading.

However, there is still quite a long way to go before we can even start to think we are a real threat for a premiership. We might make finals next year (most likely 5th-8th win a final and then out second week) but until we can start beating teams in the top bracket more than once in a blue moon Wallace can produce all the KPI's he wants and it will just be more spin.

 

[emperor]

maybe along with KPI's, BLT's and VIP's the brainst trust will find some use for this

http://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html

 

[CoggaRules]

That was the exact reason why I put them up. When doing a comparison from one year to the next it is quite easy to make things look either much better than they were or worse than they are.

In 2005 we had a team that was just starting to be turned over and won 10 games for the year (probably would have won more if not for Brown breaking his leg). In 2008 with a list that is supposedly more talented and younger we are probably going to win 10 games again.

Wallace using KPI's buys him some breathing space because most our supporters lap it up and believe everything he says about where the team is heading.

However, there is still quite a long way to go before we can even start to think we are a real threat for a premiership. We might make finals next year (most likely 5th-8th win a final and then out second week) but until we can start beating teams in the top bracket more than once in a blue moon Wallace can produce all the KPI's he wants and it will just be more spin.

man you are fighting a losing battle here, there are some fools that are speaking in tongues and want to congregate at some farm where they can all sing songs to TW and bow to his portrait as he sits in his throne and talks about how KPIs are the way of the world.

 

[tony_montana]

That was the exact reason why I put them up. When doing a comparison from one year to the next it is quite easy to make things look either much better than they were or worse than they are.

In 2005 we had a team that was just starting to be turned over and won 10 games for the year (probably would have won more if not for Brown breaking his leg). In 2008 with a list that is supposedly more talented and younger we are probably going to win 10 games again.

Wallace using KPI's buys him some breathing space because most our supporters lap it up and believe everything he says about where the team is heading.

However, there is still quite a long way to go before we can even start to think we are a real threat for a premiership. We might make finals next year (most likely 5th-8th win a final and then out second week) but until we can start beating teams in the top bracket more than once in a blue moon Wallace can produce all the KPI's he wants and it will just be more spin.

The only fools are the ones that think a whole team to win a premiership can be built in 5 years from the ground up.

At the end of his 5 year tenure we will have the core base from which to move fwd, anyone who expected more is clearly deluded.

 

[beaver fever]

maybe along with KPI's, BLT's and VIP's the brainst trust will find some use for this

http://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html

That is gold. Would have come in handy in any of my business management exams at uni. Those lecturers love their power words.

 

[beaver fever]

The only fools are the ones that think a whole team to win a premiership can be built in 5 years from the ground up.

At the end of his 5 year tenure we will have the core base from which to move fwd, anyone who expected more is clearly deluded.

Too bad we don't.

 

[tony_montana]

Too bad we don't.

in ur opinion, which is fine even if your wrong.

 

[JSFish]

1. Development: This year our best 10 players are Richo, Deledio, Johnson, Brown, Bowden, Tuck, McMahon Simmonds, Newman & King, based on stats for the 08 season. In 2004 our 10 best players, based on stats, were Brown, Tuck, Coughlan, Bowden Johnson, Richo, Simmonds, Campbell, Newman & Pettifer. The list points to an alarming fact, we are still relying on the same players in 2008 as we were in 2005 to get us wins. Where is the development of the kids who should be pushing up and replacing these older players?

It's been covered, but I still don't quite understand while you would base it on stats, something that you yourself have admitted to finding severely overrated.
By the way, there are more than 10 players in a football team. Even if we do have a similar average age or whatever in our best 10 players now compared to 2005, our 11th to 22nd players might be a lot better.

1. Wins & Losses: In 2005 we finished with 10 wins and 12 losses, the year after winning only 4 games while taking the spoon. Of the 10 wins for that year 3 were against top 8 sides and none were against top 4 sides. In the games we won our average margin was 27.7 points, in the losses the average margin was 37.1 points. We suffered 4 losses of 10+ goals and had 1 10+ goal win. In 2008 we currently have 8.5 wins(on track for 10.5 wins) the year after winning 3.5 games while collecting the spoon. Of those 8 wins only 1 has been against a top 8 side - Brisbane. In the games we have won the average margin has been 30.3 points while in the losses we have averaged 41.8 points per loss, despite only having 3 10+ goal losses this year. We have also won 2 games by 10+ goals. So I have to ask were we a better side in 2005 than we are in 2008? You could say we're not as we are losing games by a bigger margin this year than we were back then despite playing with a more experienced list.

A win is a win. We have won when we have been expected to this year, and haven't when we haven't been. Us pulling a few unexpected wins out of our arses in 2005 isn't hugely relevant to now. Also remember we have drawn with the Bulldogs this year (currently sitting in third by the way. Didn't you say we didn't beat a top 4 side in 05?), and taken another top 8 team in St. Kilda to three points.

Again, covered, but more experienced list now than 3 years ago? Seriously?

The way I see it we're not really going any better than we were in 2005 yet everyone raves on about how much we've improved this year to last year, when it seems we're not really much better than we were in Wallaces first season.

I suggest that those of you who are praising the improvement shown this year compared to last year, open your eyes and look at the whole time under Wallace and not simply focus on results that compare a wooden spoon year with only 3 wins for the season to the following year where we have won 3 times as many games as it just gives you what you want to see, not what you should be seeing.

The way I see it, you have specifically chosen 2 out of the almost infinite KPI's you could've chosen to suit your argument.

I suggest those of you who are adamant that we aren't improving - somehow as a result of our 2005 season - open your eyes and look at the difference in the team now and the team a few years back, and tell us which you would prefer.

 

[emperor]

That is gold. Would have come in handy in any of my business management exams at uni. Those lecturers love their power words.

Indeed they do....any business students would do well to memorise a few of the rippers that thing creates...lmao @ uni / corporate power speak

 

[beaver fever]

in ur opinion, which is fine even if your wrong.

Unfortunately I am not.

 

[beaver fever]

Indeed they do....any business students would do well to memorise a few of the rippers that thing creates...lmao @ uni / corporate power speak

If in doubt...continuous improvement was usually right.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

[/list]
I suggest those of you who are adamant that we aren't improving - somehow as a result of our 2005 season - open your eyes and look at the difference in the team now and the team a few years back, and tell us which you would prefer.

The current team wins hands down. And another 2 seasons should give them enough experience and bigger stronger bodies to be playing serious finals footy, not just top 8.

 

[Strawbs]

So Wallace shouldn't be using Key Performance Indicators - is that what I'm hearing? So he should simply hope we are improving and not try to measure it. OKaaayyyy. I wish he'd stop trying to be professional and do his job properly.

 

[_RT_]

It's been covered, but I still don't quite understand while you would base it on stats, something that you yourself have admitted to finding severely overrated.
By the way, there are more than 10 players in a football team. Even if we do have a similar average age or whatever in our best 10 players now compared to 2005, our 11th to 22nd players might be a lot better.

Well I could have used my opinion but then that creates more arguements. Given that KPI's are nothing more than overrated stats I thought it was the best way to go.

A win is a win. We have won when we have been expected to this year, and haven't when we haven't been. Us pulling a few unexpected wins out of our arses in 2005 isn't hugely relevant to now. Also remember we have drawn with the Bulldogs this year (currently sitting in third by the way. Didn't you say we didn't beat a top 4 side in 05?), and taken another top 8 team in St. Kilda to three points.

Correct a win is a win, but ask yourself the following question:
If the list is now better than the 05 list why have we won less games against top 8 opposition than the 05 list managed?

As for pulling out unexpected wins in 05 there was only 1 and that was beating the Swans by 1 point in round 14. Every other win that year would have been expected at the time including the other 2 top 8 wins, we beat the Dogs(8th at the time but 14th in 04), Freo (7th at the time but were playing at the MCG where they couldn't beat an egg).

As for the logic that nearly beating the Dogs and Saints proves that we're now better than 05, you're kidding aren't you? If you want to use that arguement then we must have been the 4th best team in the competition in 05, because in 05 we managed to beat the Premiers(Sydney) by 1 point and lost to the runners up(WCE) by 2 points and beaten Semi finalists(Cats) by 1 point.

Again, covered, but more experienced list now than 3 years ago? Seriously?

Tell me what the following 22 names have in common? Bowden, Brown, Coughlan, Deledio, Foley, Hyde, Jackson, Johnson, Meyer, Moore, Newman, Pattison, Pettifer, Polo, Raines, Richo, Schulz, Simmonds, Tambling, Thursfield, Tivendale & Tuck.
When you get the amswer you will know why I said we're a more experienced team now than we were back in 2005.

The way I see it, you have specifically chosen 2 out of the almost infinite KPI's you could've chosen to suit your argument.

I suggest those of you who are adamant that we aren't improving - somehow as a result of our 2005 season - open your eyes and look at the difference in the team now and the team a few years back, and tell us which you would prefer.

What other KPI's would you like to compare. How about:
100 points conceeded in a game: 05 10/22 games. 08 13/19 games. 3 games still to play and already 3 games worse off. Yet we're supposedly better.
Wins when lower on the ladder: 05 2/7 games. 08 2/12 games. 1 more game to play against higher opposition. More chances to win against higher opposition in 08 yet the same amount of wins as 05. Yet we're supposedly better.
Losses after leading at 1/2 time: 05 1/7 games. 08 4/11 games. In other words more teams have been able to over run us this year than 3 years ago. Yet we're supposedly better
Points against: 05 2190/22 games or 99.54 per game. 08 2073/19 games so far or 109 per game. Opposition scoring nearly 2 goals a game more against us this year than 05. Yet we're supposedly better.


How about you open your eyes and have a look, because it is quite clear we're sitting in the same position as the side we had 3 years back, yet we're supposedly better. How can we be better when the numbers show we're not?

 

[_RT_]

So Wallace shouldn't be using Key Performance Indicators - is that what I'm hearing? So he should simply hope we are improving and not try to measure it. OKaaayyyy. I wish he'd stop trying to be professional and do his job properly.

Not what I'm saying at all, just saying that KPI's are a waste of time IMO. You can set them up to say whatever you want them to say by picking and choosing the info you want to use. Christ, I've just proven that. Tell me why does Wallace have to use fancy KPI's to see if the team has improved? They are just another way of confusing the masses.

 

[JSFish]

Correct a win is a win, but ask yourself the following question:
If the list is now better than the 05 list why have we won less games against top 8 opposition than the 05 list managed?

I can't answer that obviously, but it doesn't make our 05 side a better side than the one we have currently.

As for pulling out unexpected wins in 05 there was only 1 and that was beating the Swans by 1 point in round 14. Every other win that year would have been expected at the time including the other 2 top 8 wins, we beat the Dogs(8th at the time but 14th in 04), Freo (7th at the time but were playing at the MCG where they couldn't beat an egg).

As for the logic that nearly beating the Dogs and Saints proves that we're now better than 05, you're kidding aren't you? If you want to use that arguement then we must have been the 4th best team in the competition in 05, because in 05 we managed to beat the Premiers(Sydney) by 1 point and lost to the runners up(WCE) by 2 points and beaten Semi finalists(Cats) by 1 point.

Look those are all fair points. A fair pwn. But again, those wins don't make that side better than now. Maybe you should ask yourself why, if we were winning more against top sides in 05, we are now looking at finishing with a similar number of wins this year? Not winning games we should have in 05 perhaps? So it depends on what you find more important - winning games you're not expected to, or winning all the games you are expected to.

Tell me what the following 22 names have in common? Bowden, Brown, Coughlan, Deledio, Foley, Hyde, Jackson, Johnson, Meyer, Moore, Newman, Pattison, Pettifer, Polo, Raines, Richo, Schulz, Simmonds, Tambling, Thursfield, Tivendale & Tuck.
When you get the amswer you will know why I said we're a more experienced team now than we were back in 2005.

I don't know the stats, maybe you do, but I would guess list wise we may be more experienced now, but not team-wise - as in the 22 we play each week. Back then we would have had a lot of the players we have playing each week on the list - but not actually playing.

What other KPI's would you like to compare. How about:
100 points conceeded in a game: 05 10/22 games. 08 13/19 games. 3 games still to play and already 3 games worse off. Yet we're supposedly better.
Wins when lower on the ladder: 05 2/7 games. 08 2/12 games. 1 more game to play against higher opposition. More chances to win against higher opposition in 08 yet the same amount of wins as 05. Yet we're supposedly better.
Losses after leading at 1/2 time: 05 1/7 games. 08 4/11 games. In other words more teams have been able to over run us this year than 3 years ago. Yet we're supposedly better
Points against: 05 2190/22 games or 99.54 per game. 08 2073/19 games so far or 109 per game. Opposition scoring nearly 2 goals a game more against us this year than 05. Yet we're supposedly better.

The top one and the bottom one are fairly void. Look at the Points For and Points Against this season. We are 8th in Points For this year, and 6 goals off being 5th. Clearly we are playing an attacking brand this year, hence the large number of points conceded.

The second top one I've covered.

Third one fair enough, our third quarters are definitely a worry. Something we can improve on.

How about you open your eyes and have a look, because it is quite clear we're sitting in the same position as the side we had 3 years back, yet we're supposedly better. How can we be better when the numbers show we're not?

Pretty much this is how I see it. We are better now because we are improving with a young side. You might disagree, but that's how I see it, and I'm not changing my mind on that.