Autopsy Roos lose to Suns

[DuckYeah]

Some of players also don't trust or believe what they're being told is going to work. Even if is 50% of the team we are so disconnected and messy because we are all aren't on the same page.

Then shouldn’t you speak up? If im advising a bloke to do a job, then when he gets there stands around with his thumb up his arse because theres some kind of issue and he doesn’t raise it with me then i’d get annoyed as he’d be doing nothing.

 

[ferball]

Forgot about Jacobs.

You had several guys with arguments for being as good in their role as anyone in the league.

Playing Devils Advocate with Brad, perhaps we lacked an aggressive even impatient board to breath down his neck.

He was most probably backed unequivocally with the best of intentions but it never felt like the "now or never" time ever arrived.

He might pull it off at *. They're better resourced and have many more friends in high places.

Maybe.

There were certain issues - fitness, skills and killer instinct - that he never was on top of compared to say ... our current coach at the same time. The backline ... we are still paying the price for that because of the whole culture of zone defense we just don't have. That's why we are learning it onfield even now and look so incompetent at it. Its why guys like Corr and Lmac don't instruct on field how to set up. They never learned it earlier in their time at the club.

Those issues seem like they'll be there at * from what I've seen so far.

At some point they'll probably break the finals drought under him tho.

 

[ferball]

Then shouldn’t you speak up? If im advising a bloke to do a job, then when he gets there stands around with his thumb up his arse because theres some kind of issue and he doesn’t raise it with me then i’d get annoyed as he’d be doing nothing.

100%

 

[Moti]

I've said this before a few times, its probably peak Bard but anyway...

There was a 25 game streak that started in 2015 and ended in 2016 where we lost 5 games and won the last nine. In one season that is a Premiership and add to that in 2016 we were very unlucky. We fell apart like a cheap suit.

We lost alot more players than the Bulldogs and they were crucial players. We lost Higgo, W8, Ben Jacobs when he was the best tagger in a decade, Sammy Wright, Luke McDonald and for periods lost Ben Brown (for one or two games including the one against WB that we lost by less than his average goals for the year), Mason Wood (when he had confidence and could play) Cunners and Scooter (for one or two games).

We also lost more players to injury during games than anyone else. There was an article about it at one point.

The list was far from shithouse and would have been better performed in 20216 with a bit of luck on the injury front.

He was a better coach than he gets credit for now but I think with hindsight he had some major flaws that meant he'd never be good enough to win a flag. He wasn't driven enough to get everything he could out of his players and that was the difference in those mid decade years when we played well.

I was extremely frustrated during 2014-15 because I felt we had a lot of improvement to make. For me, Brad didn't get the best out of that team or list.

Why were we competitive? Thank GWS and GC. We had a competitive list at the right time while a bunch of teams couldn't replenish their young talent quickly enough. It is why the Hawks were so dominant, closing the gap was too hard when you have 4 drafts that are so compromised.

 

[Themanbun]

Some of players also don't trust or believe what they're being told is going to work. Even if is 50% of the team we are so disconnected and messy because we are all aren't on the same page.

Our forwards are being asked to bust their arses, lead to clear space behind them, and lead again. To work as a unit and know that even if you don't get used, you've unlocked someone else.

It's amazing how Darling and Konstanty come from outside our system and are implementing it better than all our forwards bar Paul Curtis. And it works. It only breaks down when the usual suspects don't present.

IF what you say is the case or is accurate inside word (I'm not saying it is) then our forwards want cheapies out the back and seem to not have confidence in anything other than the thing that requires the least work from them.

 

[King Corey]

Maybe.

There were certain issues - fitness, skills and killer instinct - that he never was on top of compared to say ... our current coach at the same time. The backline ... we are still paying the price for that because of the whole culture of zone defense we just don't have. That's why we are learning it onfield even now and look so incompetent at it. Its why guys like Corr and Lmac don't instruct on field how to set up. They never learned it earlier in their time at the club.

Those issues seem like they'll be there at * from what I've seen so far.

At some point they'll probably break the finals drought under him tho.

2014 was interesting in that our defensive method seemed much improved with Tudor's arrival.

The Freo and Swans wins were solid and controlled, akin to the way Pagan sides would keep the hand on the throat of Port Adelaide sides (2nd time 2002 comes to mind) when they were the more dangerous team at the time.

We were decent in 2015 but I don't feel we retained the same tight defensive structure we showed on our in form run in 2014.

 

[Souup]

I don't know where to put this but I'll put it here:

Clarko has being criticised for lamenting missed shots on goal early - he did it in Round 1 against the Dogs and did it again in the presser after the game on the weekend. I agree with Clarko on that being a killer for us, so I thought I'd have a look at expected scores from the weekend and then over the first 5 games. Stats tell a good story.

Expected scores from the game vs Gold Coast:

Actual:
NM: 89
GC: 141

Expected:
NM: 89.5
GC: 113.9

For the season so far, expected scores (this is how much over or under expected scoring each team went):
R1 - Dogs were +15.6, we were +2.2.
Actual final margin: 16 point loss
Expected final margin: 2.6 point loss

R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win

R3 - Adel were +9.6, we were +10.5
Actual Final margin: 36 point loss
Expected final margin: 36.9 point loss

R4 - Syd were +8.7, we were 0.0
Actual Final margin: 65 point loss
Expected Final margin: 56.3 point loss

R5 - GC were +27.1, we were -0.5
Actual Final margin: 52 point loss
Expected Final margin: 24.4 point loss

The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
________________________________________________________________
Previous year's expected score average:
2024: +1.8 (we were +5.3)
2023: -0.3 (we were -0.2)
2022: +0.6 (we were -5.9)
___________________________________________________

Anyway do with that whatever you want. As someone who has been bullish with our start to the season, this reinforces what I've felt while watching games. The stats were saying Hawthorn's 4-0 start was way overblown (so was Sam Mitchell btw), and it showed yesterday. The stats in the first 8 games of last year were also bullish on Brisbane, despite their rocky early record and look how that panned out.

What I'd suggest we can definitely take from it: There have been criticisms particularly with the Sydney and GC losses, that big losses are there and nothing has changed. What the the expected score stat suggests is that the GC margin was way overblown, and so was our win against Melbourne. It also says the Dogs loss could have gone either way.

Essentially, this is what we have in our 4 losses (brackets = number if you remove Sydney game):
Actual losing margin from 4 losses: 42.2 (34.6)
Expected losing margin after 4 losses: 30.5 (21.3)

I wonder if we'd see the lamenting we've seen if this happened in an alternate universe:
Dogs: We win by a goal
GC: Lose by 4 goals

Sitting 2-3 after games against last year's Grand Finalists in Sydney, and two of the in-form teams in the competition in Adelaide away and GC. The Syd loss a big one and were flat out shit so no excuses from me, but the Adelaide and GC performances respectable as they're clearly good sides and we played well. We then head into games against a gettable Carlton, a Port Adelaide who have started poorly and Essendon who's 2 wins are currently a 12 point win in Melbourne against that poor Port Adelaide side, and a 39 point win against Melbourne.

I keep saying it, but let's see how things play out over the next month.

 

[Horizons_00]

I don't know where to put this but I'll put it here:

Clarko has being criticised for lamenting missed shots on goal early - he did it in Round 1 against the Dogs and did it again in the presser after the game on the weekend. I agree with Clarko on that being a killer for us, so I thought I'd have a look at expected scores from the weekend and then over the first 5 games. Stats tell a good story.

Expected scores from the game vs Gold Coast:

Actual:
NM: 89
GC: 141

Expected:
NM: 89.5
GC: 113.9

For the season so far, expected scores (this is how much over or under expected scoring each team went):
R1 - Dogs were +15.6, we were +2.2.
Actual final margin: 16 point loss
Expected final margin: 2.6 point loss

R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win

R3 - Adel were +9.6, we were +10.5
Actual Final margin: 36 point loss
Expected final margin: 36.9 point loss

R4 - Syd were +8.7, we were 0.0
Actual Final margin: 65 point loss
Expected Final margin: 56.3 point loss

R5 - GC were +27.1, we were -0.5
Actual Final margin: 52 point loss
Expected Final margin: 24.4 point loss

The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
________________________________________________________________
Previous year's expected score average:
2024: +1.8 (we were +5.3)
2023: -0.3 (we were -0.2)
2022: +0.6 (we were -5.9)
___________________________________________________

Anyway do with that whatever you want. As someone who has been bullish with our start to the season, this reinforces what I've felt while watching games. The stats were saying Hawthorn's 4-0 start was way overblown (so was Sam Mitchell btw), and it showed yesterday. The stats in the first 8 games of last year were also bullish on Brisbane, despite their poor record and look how that panned out.

What I'd suggest we can definitely take from it: There have been criticisms particulary with the Sydney and GC losses, that big losses are there and as bad as ever. What the the expected score stat suggests is that the GC margin was way overblown, and so was our win against Melbourne. It also says the Dogs loss could have gone either way and we haven't been as bad as the scorelines suggest (I'll give you the Sydney game though and so would the stats - we were crap)

Interesting info! Good post.

IMO it has zero to do with numbers, data, stats, weather, opposition etc

Its our mental consciousness. There is lack of love or care to be competitive as our mental side is so weak and Insecure.

 

[shintemaster]

I don't know where to put this but I'll put it here:

Clarko has being criticised for lamenting missed shots on goal early - he did it in Round 1 against the Dogs and did it again in the presser after the game on the weekend. I agree with Clarko on that being a killer for us, so I thought I'd have a look at expected scores from the weekend and then over the first 5 games. Stats tell a good story.

Expected scores from the game vs Gold Coast:

Actual:
NM: 89
GC: 141

Expected:
NM: 89.5
GC: 113.9

For the season so far, expected scores (this is how much over or under expected scoring each team went):
R1 - Dogs were +15.6, we were +2.2.
Actual final margin: 16 point loss
Expected final margin: 2.6 point loss

R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win

R3 - Adel were +9.6, we were +10.5
Actual Final margin: 36 point loss
Expected final margin: 36.9 point loss

R4 - Syd were +8.7, we were 0.0
Actual Final margin: 65 point loss
Expected Final margin: 56.3 point loss

R5 - GC were +27.1, we were -0.5
Actual Final margin: 52 point loss
Expected Final margin: 24.4 point loss

The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
________________________________________________________________
Previous year's expected score average:
2024: +1.8 (we were +5.3)
2023: -0.3 (we were -0.2)
2022: +0.6 (we were -5.9)
___________________________________________________

Anyway do with that whatever you want. As someone who has been bullish with our start to the season, this reinforces what I've felt while watching games. The stats were saying Hawthorn's 4-0 start was way overblown (so was Sam Mitchell btw), and it showed yesterday. The stats in the first 8 games of last year were also bullish on Brisbane, despite their rocky early record and look how that panned out.

What I'd suggest we can definitely take from it: There have been criticisms particularly with the Sydney and GC losses, that big losses are there and nothing has changed. What the the expected score stat suggests is that the GC margin was way overblown, and so was our win against Melbourne. It also says the Dogs loss could have gone either way.

I wonder if we'd see the lamenting we've seen if this happened in an alternate universe:
Dogs: We win by a goal
GC: Lose by 4 goals

Sitting 2-3 after games against last year's Grand Finalists in Sydney, and two of the in-form teams in the competition in Adelaide away and GC. We then head into games against a gettable Carlton, a Port Adelaide who have started poorly and Essendon who's 2 wins are currently a 12 point win in Melbourne against that poor Port Adelaide side, and a 39 point win against Melbourne.

I keep saying it, but let's see how things play out over the next month.

Nice post. FWIW at the risk of being accused of blind support - my eye test agrees with you. We are better this year (so far). The trick is how we turn being "better" into 6+ wins. Plenty of time left but you'd like to see us get one every few weeks at a minimum and I'd personally love to see 2 in a row at any point.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I don't know where to put this but I'll put it here:

Clarko has being criticised for lamenting missed shots on goal early - he did it in Round 1 against the Dogs and did it again in the presser after the game on the weekend. I agree with Clarko on that being a killer for us, so I thought I'd have a look at expected scores from the weekend and then over the first 5 games. Stats tell a good story.

Expected scores from the game vs Gold Coast:

Actual:
NM: 89
GC: 141

Expected:
NM: 89.5
GC: 113.9

For the season so far, expected scores (this is how much over or under expected scoring each team went):
R1 - Dogs were +15.6, we were +2.2.
Actual final margin: 16 point loss
Expected final margin: 2.6 point loss

R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win

R3 - Adel were +9.6, we were +10.5
Actual Final margin: 36 point loss
Expected final margin: 36.9 point loss

R4 - Syd were +8.7, we were 0.0
Actual Final margin: 65 point loss
Expected Final margin: 56.3 point loss

R5 - GC were +27.1, we were -0.5
Actual Final margin: 52 point loss
Expected Final margin: 24.4 point loss

The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
________________________________________________________________
Previous year's expected score average:
2024: +1.8 (we were +5.3)
2023: -0.3 (we were -0.2)
2022: +0.6 (we were -5.9)
___________________________________________________

Anyway do with that whatever you want. As someone who has been bullish with our start to the season, this reinforces what I've felt while watching games. The stats were saying Hawthorn's 4-0 start was way overblown (so was Sam Mitchell btw), and it showed yesterday. The stats in the first 8 games of last year were also bullish on Brisbane, despite their poor record and look how that panned out.

What I'd suggest we can definitely take from it: There have been criticisms particulary with the Sydney and GC losses, that big losses are there and as bad as ever. What the stats say is that those margins are way overblown, and we haven't been as bad as the scorelines suggest (I'll give you the Sydney game though and so would the stats - we were crap)

But that’s what the results are.
It’s what actually happened.

Not what should’ve happened.

If’s and buts don’t cut it anymore.

It’s wins and wins only. Until that happens, the justification of improvement using stats is worthless.

 

[Horizons_00]

Then shouldn’t you speak up? If im advising a bloke to do a job, then when he gets there stands around with his thumb up his arse because theres some kind of issue and he doesn’t raise it with me then i’d get annoyed as he’d be doing nothing.

Probably. But the players could be selling the dream to the coaches too and the club validation that dream back to em. Its like a paradox where nothing ever really changes because the loop has never been broken.

It feels like it like we need some real wake up calls. Who the **** is on board and who isn't, who believes in this and wants to succeed or just want to follow.

Players surely wouldn't want to speak up about their content to just rock up to play footy and that they don't really believe? Human nature is to not upset the whole team and disrespecting the people that do trust the process. Its easier to pretend and get that pay packet, because when you are successful that means there is pressure and teams will hunt us and that would surely scare some of our players with how mentality fragile we have shown to be.

Its such a hard thing to support kangas as I feel like I'm stuck in the loop with them Haha

 

[Horizons_00]

Nice post. FWIW at the risk of being accused of blind support - my eye test agrees with you. We are better this year (so far). The trick is how we turn being "better" into 6+ wins. Plenty of time left but you'd like to see us get one every few weeks at a minimum and I'd personally love to see 2 in a row at any point.

We believe that we can win every game.

 

[Only Forwards]

If’s and buts don’t cut it anymore.

No they do not.

Ws do.

I do not care the manner of the L. We’ve had so goddamn many of them why debate the flavor of the shit sandwiches we’re continuing to be subjected too.

‘Oh look this one has nuts.’

 

[Souup]

But that’s what the results are.
It’s what actually happened.

Not what should’ve happened.

If’s and buts don’t cut it anymore.

It’s wins and wins only. Until that happens, the justification of improvement using stats is worthless.

The stat suggests we are doing better than scores suggest - that's my point. I'm not saying we're winning the flag, I'm not saying change the scorelines. I'm saying the numbers suggest we have improved compared to last year, and we can count ourselves a little unlucky with how over-the-top accurate teams have been against us.

Stats don't have a bias.

Teams are currently scoring way more against us than is reasonable, and we are scoring about as expected - a regression to the mean is to be expected.

If you think I'm manipulating stats or trying to create something that's not there, here are our first 5 games last year:

Round 1:
Actual: GWS 121-82NM (39 points)
Expected: GWS 134.9-66.2 (68.7 points)

Round 2:
Actual: Freo 102-76 NM (26 points)
Expected: Freo 99.1-77 NM (22.1 points)

Round 3:
Actual: Carlton 137-81 NM (56 points)
Expected: Carlton 123.6-76.7 NM (46.9 points)

Round 4:
Actual: Bris 112-42 NM (70 points)
Expected: Bris 133.2-41 NM (92.2 points)

Round 5:
Actual: Geel 139-64 NM (75 points)
Expected: Geel 125.3-54.2 NM (71.1 points)

Actual average losing margin: 53.2 points
Expected average losing margin: 60.2 points
____________________________________

So after 5 games last year we were actually worse than what scorelines suggested by 7 points. This year we're better than our first 5 games indicate by 11.7 points (let's call that 2 goals)

Again, you can't just ignore what the stats say. It tells a story, and the story suggests we are better than what the scoreboard has indicated.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The stat suggests we are doing better than scores suggest - that's my point. I'm not saying we're winning the flag, I'm not saying change the scorelines. I'm saying the numbers suggest we have improved compared to last year, and we can count ourselves a little unlucky with how over-the-top accurate teams have been against us.

Teams are currently scoring way more against us than is reasonable, and we are scoring about as expected - a regression to the mean could be expected.

If you think I'm manipulating stats or trying to create something that's not there, here are our first 5 games last year:

Round 1:
Actual: GWS 121-82NM (39 points)
Expected: GWS 134.9-66.2 (68.7 points)

Round 2:
Actual: Freo 102-76 NM (26 points)
Expected: Freo 99.1-77 NM (22.1 points)

Round 3:
Actual: Carlton 137-81 NM (56 points)
Expected: Carlton 123.6-76.7 NM (46.9 points)

Round 4:
Actual: Bris 112-42 NM (70 points)
Expected: Bris 133.2-41 NM (92.2 points)

Round 5:
Actual: Geel 139-64 NM (75 points)
Expected: Geel 125.3-54.2 NM (71.1 points)

Actual average losing margin: 53.2 points
Expected average losing margin: 60.2 points
____________________________________

You honestly can't tell me we're as bad as ever. Last year we were worse than our first 5 games indicated. This year we're better than our first 5 games indicate.

I’ve not suggested your manipulating anything.

I’m suggesting that putting down our predicament as ‘teams being over-the-top accurate’ against us is a touch silly when we’re 1-4, having been blasted off the park the last two weeks.

 

[Passmore]

‘Oh look this one has nuts.’

Can be one nasty surprise, that.

 

[Samsquanch]

Our forwards are being asked to bust their arses, lead to clear space behind them, and lead again. To work as a unit and know that even if you don't get used, you've unlocked someone else.

It's amazing how Darling and Konstanty come from outside our system and are implementing it better than all our forwards bar Paul Curtis. And it works. It only breaks down when the usual suspects don't present.

IF what you say is the case or is accurate inside word (I'm not saying it is) then our forwards want cheapies out the back and seem to not have confidence in anything other than the thing that requires the least work from them.

I think I get your drift...

 

[joegreen]

A question then to ask is why are teams so accurate against us? Is it a lack of pressure at the time of kicking? Opposition goals seem to come so easy. The eye test says to me they appear to have all the time in the world.

So then why is there a lack of pressure? Is it work rate and effort based - are they not trying or are they fatigued and then why fatigued - not fit enough or trying to cover too much offensively then can't get back? Game plan - structural and positioning - too offensive? Leg speed and/or agility i.e. not fast enough or too tall?

You'd need someone to break down each shot on goal and how it unfolded to know why.

I'd love to see what the coaches review and be able to answer the above questions.

 

[Horizons_00]

The stat suggests we are doing better than scores suggest - that's my point. I'm not saying we're winning the flag, I'm not saying change the scorelines. I'm saying the numbers suggest we have improved compared to last year, and we can count ourselves a little unlucky with how over-the-top accurate teams have been against us.

Stats don't have a bias.

Teams are currently scoring way more against us than is reasonable, and we are scoring about as expected - a regression to the mean is to be expected.

If you think I'm manipulating stats or trying to create something that's not there, here are our first 5 games last year:

Round 1:
Actual: GWS 121-82NM (39 points)
Expected: GWS 134.9-66.2 (68.7 points)

Round 2:
Actual: Freo 102-76 NM (26 points)
Expected: Freo 99.1-77 NM (22.1 points)

Round 3:
Actual: Carlton 137-81 NM (56 points)
Expected: Carlton 123.6-76.7 NM (46.9 points)

Round 4:
Actual: Bris 112-42 NM (70 points)
Expected: Bris 133.2-41 NM (92.2 points)

Round 5:
Actual: Geel 139-64 NM (75 points)
Expected: Geel 125.3-54.2 NM (71.1 points)

Actual average losing margin: 53.2 points
Expected average losing margin: 60.2 points
____________________________________

So after 5 games last year we were actually worse than what scorelines suggested by 7 points. This year we're better than our first 5 games indicate by 11.7 points (let's call that 2 goals)

Again, you can't just ignore what the stats say. It tells a story, and the story suggests we are better than what the scoreboard has indicated.

You can't ignore the stats and yes it tells a story

But its only one side of the story

 

[Souup]

I’ve not suggested your manipulating anything.

I’m suggesting that putting down our predicament as ‘teams being over-the-top accurate’ against us is a touch silly when we’re 1-4, having been blasted off the park the last two weeks.

The fact you consider our game against GC as 'blasted off the park' is why stats matter. They were a 4 goal better side if you adjust for them being way more accurate side than they should have been. They beat us by 52, should have been 24 - you literally cannot do anything as a side to impact how accurate the opposition is above the expected.

To further make my point: This would be like a side kicking 5 goals in a game from torpedo's from 70m out and 3/3 from outside the boundary 50m out and winning by 8 goals and someone saying 'well I know they kicked 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3 from a ridiculously difficult spot, but the reality is we got flogged by 50 points'.

What are the odds a side kicks 5 goals from 70m torpedos and 3/3 from a very difficult spot? What can you do as a side to influence their chances at converting those? The answer is nothing - it's a difficult shot, and the ability for the opposition to be significantly more accurate than they should be from shots is not something you can influence.

So I'd suggest we've been 'blasted off the park' once this year - Sydney.

 

[ferball]

A question then to ask is why are teams so accurate against us? Is it a lack of pressure at the time of kicking? Opposition goals seem to come so easy. The eye test says to me they appear to have all the time in the world.

So then why is there a lack of pressure? Is it work rate and effort based - are they not trying or are they fatigued and then why fatigued - not fit enough or trying to cover too much offensively then can't get back? Game plan - structural and positioning - too offensive? Leg speed and/or agility i.e. not fast enough or too tall?

You'd need someone to break down each shot on goal and how it unfolded to know why.

I'd love to see what the coaches review and be able to answer the above questions.

Rick18 did that in his last shinboner blog.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The fact you consider our game against GC as 'blasted off the park' is why stats matter. They were a 4 goal better side if you adjust for them being way more accurate side than they should have been. They beat us by 52, should have been 24 - you literally cannot do anything as a side to impact how accurate the opposition is above the expected.

To further make my point: This would be like a side kicking 8 goals in a game from torpedo's from 70m out and winning by 8 goals and someone saying 'well I know they kicked 8 goals from torpedos, but the reality is we got flogged by 50 points'.

What are the odds a side kicks 8 goals from 70m torpedos? What can you do as a side to influence their chances at converting those? The answer is nothing - it's a difficult shot, and the ability for the opposition to be significantly more accurate than they should be from shots is not something you can influence.

So I'd suggest we've been 'blasted off the park' once this year - Sydney.

You can throw as much hypothetical scoring at me as you want, the bottom line is we lost by half a ton.

You put it down to luck, I put it down to the side being as shit as ever.

Based on five years of performance, I know what’s closer to the answer.

This sort of stuff is bordering on the English cricket team mantra of disassociating from actual results.

 

[shintemaster]

So I'd suggest we've been 'blasted off the park' once this year - Sydney.

I think this is accurate. We are going "okay" from an admittedly very low base. It's all about scrounging a few wins over the next 5-6 weeks, however that occurs.

 

[Souup]

You can throw as much hypothetical scoring at me as you want, the bottom line is we lost by half a ton.

You put it down to luck, I put it down to the side being as shit as ever.

Based on five years of performance, I know what’s closer to the answer.

This sort of stuff is bordering on the English cricket team mantra of disassociating from actual results.

There's no way you just read all of that, grasped what it meant, and came back with 'You put it down to luck, I put it down to the side being as shit as ever'.

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this but I'm genuinely not sure if you're serious.

Maybe another example:
A basketballer has a career 3pt % of .08. That is, he makes 8 shots for every 100 he takes from the 3pt line. Let's say he's had a 10 year career where he's taken 1,000 3pt shots (so he's made 80/1000)
He then comes up against your team and shoots 10/12 (83%) from 3pt and gets his team the win by 5 points.

Surely you understand that this is statistically odd and that the losing side could consider themselves unlucky to lose to a guy that caught fire from 3pt?

The thing this example doesn't take into account is the difficulty of those shots; the bloke could be hitting open 3 pointers, whereas the AFL expected score stat takes into account pressure on the player taking the shot, position on field, set shot vs. general play etc., so you can absolutely count yourself unlucky if a team scores +28 above expected (like GC did), because you can't just say 'well be better defensively'.

 

[King Corey]

I don't know where to put this but I'll put it here:

Clarko has being criticised for lamenting missed shots on goal early - he did it in Round 1 against the Dogs and did it again in the presser after the game on the weekend. I agree with Clarko on that being a killer for us, so I thought I'd have a look at expected scores from the weekend and then over the first 5 games. Stats tell a good story.

Expected scores from the game vs Gold Coast:

Actual:
NM: 89
GC: 141

Expected:
NM: 89.5
GC: 113.9

For the season so far, expected scores (this is how much over or under expected scoring each team went):
R1 - Dogs were +15.6, we were +2.2.
Actual final margin: 16 point loss
Expected final margin: 2.6 point loss

R2 - Melb were -16.7, we were +13.9
Actual Final margin: 59 point win
Expected final margin: 28.4 point win

R3 - Adel were +9.6, we were +10.5
Actual Final margin: 36 point loss
Expected final margin: 36.9 point loss

R4 - Syd were +8.7, we were 0.0
Actual Final margin: 65 point loss
Expected Final margin: 56.3 point loss

R5 - GC were +27.1, we were -0.5
Actual Final margin: 52 point loss
Expected Final margin: 24.4 point loss

The league average for expected score is currently +2.3 (see below for previous year's league averages)
- Teams are currently averaging +8.9 against us. If you remove the Melbourne game (the only team who have been in the negative against us, and by a big way), teams have averaged +15.2 against us.

- We're currently averaging +4.8, remove the Melbourne game where we went +13.9 and we're averaging +3.05.
________________________________________________________________
Previous year's expected score average:
2024: +1.8 (we were +5.3)
2023: -0.3 (we were -0.2)
2022: +0.6 (we were -5.9)
___________________________________________________

Anyway do with that whatever you want. As someone who has been bullish with our start to the season, this reinforces what I've felt while watching games. The stats were saying Hawthorn's 4-0 start was way overblown (so was Sam Mitchell btw), and it showed yesterday. The stats in the first 8 games of last year were also bullish on Brisbane, despite their rocky early record and look how that panned out.

What I'd suggest we can definitely take from it: There have been criticisms particularly with the Sydney and GC losses, that big losses are there and nothing has changed. What the the expected score stat suggests is that the GC margin was way overblown, and so was our win against Melbourne. It also says the Dogs loss could have gone either way.

Essentially, this is what we have in our 4 losses (brackets = number if you remove Sydney game):
Actual losing margin from 4 losses: 42.2 (34.6)
Expected losing margin after 4 losses: 30.5 (21.3)

I wonder if we'd see the lamenting we've seen if this happened in an alternate universe:
Dogs: We win by a goal
GC: Lose by 4 goals

Sitting 2-3 after games against last year's Grand Finalists in Sydney, and two of the in-form teams in the competition in Adelaide away and GC. The Syd loss a big one and were flat out shit so no excuses from me, but the Adelaide and GC performances respectable as they're clearly good sides and we played well. We then head into games against a gettable Carlton, a Port Adelaide who have started poorly and Essendon who's 2 wins are currently a 12 point win in Melbourne against that poor Port Adelaide side, and a 39 point win against Melbourne.

I keep saying it, but let's see how things play out over the next month.

Interesting post.

Wouldn't you remove both Sydney AND Melbourne results if you were wanted a more levelled out average?

Otherwise we're cherry picking