Opinion Stats in AFL

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

One thing that struck me watching the World Cup in Brazil was how few stats are used in the coverage of the game.

There are a few absolute basics - shots on target, corners etc that get thrown up but usually half an hour after the game has finished and the hosts are filling time back in the studio. All the stats are there - passes completed, tackles made, time in possession, variations on what there is in the AFL, but they hardly use them at all.

Compare that to AFL and it is shoved down our throats, laptops dominate the coaches box, the coaches clutch stats print outs at the quarter time breaks.

I read an Inside Sport interview with ex-Wallabies coach Bob Dwyer and he put something into words that I have always felt but never been able to communicate effectively. It's about rugby but the parallels are there.

Would be interested to hear other people's thoughts.

You coached the Wallabies in the early '80's when the game was solidly amateur. You coached them in the mid-90's when the game was on the cusp of professionalism. And you coached the Waratahs five years ago when professionalism was entrenched. How do you compare those eras?

I think throughout the '80's and into the '90's the game became professional in all things other than the payment of money. Players prepared in a professional manner, the attention to detail and the use of technology increased greatly. The payment of money was only the last step.

The changes that have occurred since are understandable, but they need some attention and revision. The biggest change was that coaches suddenly had their players available for large periods of time. So there was a movement towards occupying that time with training. As a result, there was this invention of things to do during that time. I think that change has been for the worse.

The game is suffering from paralysis by analysis. Coaches have invented so many ways of deciding whether a player played well or not, and almost invariably that analysis has been quantitative. In other words, they've added up how many involvements a player had, how many times he carried the ball, etc. Perhaps the more important analysis should have been qualitative.

What things did a player do that changed the game? What things did a player do that are difficult to do and an average player couldn't do? In reality, is it more important that a player carries the ball 20 times, or carries the ball six times and makes two half-breaks and produces two tries? The quality contributions are the determining factors. And that sort of analysis is escaping our attention because it calls for judgement rather than a statement of fact.

Maybe an evaluation of a player's performance is better achieved by a gut-feel score from the coach after the game. Then, if you think a player played well but his quantitative analysis says he didn't, maybe the numbers are incorrect. But, you see, all this occupies time. It's the public servant mentality where the longer you stay at the office, the more the boss will think of you. In fact, one brilliant moment of inspiration is worth 40 hours' work.

Is this the reason for the lack of flair in rugby?

I don't think flair's been coached out of players. But because there's a week-by-week judgement made against the analysis figures and the error rate, players' subconscious focus is on not making mistakes, rather than following instincts and seeing what happens. All the coaches will say they don't coach instinct out of players... I would say they lead a player's subconscious thinking in that direction.

 

[Hank93]

How would AFL coaches cope without any access to stats or GPS data?

That'd separate the crap coaches from the good ones.

Also, maybe as there's so few goals in soccer, that a lot of the stats don't actually translate to anything meaningful to the overall result?

Australia had 376 passes in the game v the Dutch at World Cup, but how many of them actually had a bearing on the result?

Brazil had more shots, attacks, possession and corners v Germany and lost 7-1 on home soil. Perhaps stats in that code of football just isn't important?

Compare that to Brisbane having 28 more inside 50s on the weekend v Melbourne, and based on probability they'll probably win the game.

 

[Allefgib]

In reality, is it more important that a player carries the ball 20 times, or carries the ball six times and makes two half-breaks and produces two tries?

So what, use the right stats. Makes sense. .. they're still stats

We have add much flair in footy as we've ever had. Is there a concern here?
I loved feeling Tex had an important game against the pies the other week. I specifically went looking and found his 10 score involvements and 5 goal assists reflected the value of his contribution.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I look forward to Tex's three Brownlow votes

 

[Allefgib]

Come on mate. Elaborate on your key point.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

That is the key point. Did you need to check the stats to know that Tex played a good game? The game is stats obsessed. He won't get three Brownlow votes, a high-stat player will.

Every year they are trying to come up with more and more complicated ways to tell people what they already know, because at whichever point in time you choose the stats don't tell the story. We need deeper and more detailed stats that take more things into account...

Bomber Thompson at Geelong was particularly dismissive of stats - "Yeah, I'm more interested in how our ball movement looks"

 

[Allefgib]

For me it's a fuller picture. A mix of objective and subjective measures. Increases my enjoyment and immersion.

Teams tracking key measures can support decision making.
It enhances what you feel and see. Doesnt replace it.

 

[Allefgib]

Example. In the other thread I said otten is better in the air than goldsack. That is my gutfeel.
Quick check on stats and otten takes more contested marks and had more 1%s. That solidifies my opinion.

 

[DD#23]

I agree with the point here, but I honestly couldn't care less if Tex's stats are the difference between him getting a mention on Talking Footy for having a good game or not.

FAR more concerning for me is that as we've heard straight from the horse's mouth, all our gameday moves/matchups are based heavily on statistics, which is a flawed system to say the least. Its kind of scary to be honest, no wonder a guy like Polec was able to run amok in the first Showdown. I can just imagine that conversation, "if Polec has less than 5 touches to quarter time we'll let him go", too bad if he runs and carries it 40m each time before he kicks it.

 

[MRB37]

Example. In the other thread I said otten is better in the air than goldsack. That is my gutfeel.
Quick check on stats and otten takes more contested marks and had more 1%s. That solidifies my opinion.

Yes, this is how I'd like to see them used. Use stats to back up your beliefs, observations/opinions, rather than using stats as the sole barometer for how you see things.

 

[Allefgib]

Again the example you give is just looking at the wrong measure.
Not making calls without the measure.

I'm more concerned we pre plan to much rather than think more on our feet.

 

[MRB37]

no wonder a guy like Polec was able to run amok in the first Showdown. I can just imagine that conversation, "if Polec has less than 5 touches to quarter time we'll let him go", too bad if he runs and carries it 40m each time before he kicks it.

And on the flip side when you get the "Oh, X player had a great game, he got 40 touches!" even though they've butchered it a ton (and when you dig deeper into the stats see there disposal efficiency is at 50-60%)

 

[Allefgib]

Yes, this is how I'd like to see them used. Use stats to back up your beliefs, observations/opinions, rather than using stats as the sole barometer for how you see things.

Surely both creates the best decision making context.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They key point he made was the time that is available dictates the direction. They can't run, kick, lift weights all day so have to fill that time somehow.

Video reviews, team meetings, statistical breakdowns... cutting the game up into miniscule components and analysing them all at length. Measuring everything. Inventing new things to measure. Sando after the Fremantle loss last season spouting that we were unlucky because we'd won lots of their KPI's but lost the game... Coaches cling to these stats and in turn players cling to them.

Statistically David Mackay is a good tackler. Gets good numbers every season. Bullshit he is. Knows how to wrap up a bloke in congestion when one of three other guys could have been credited with it.

Later in the interview (I can't be bothered typing it all out) Dwyer talks about the element of follow the leader that is at play. All clubs have these vacant expanses of time available and invent new and creative ways to fill it. Copy and steal.

 

[MRB37]

Surely both creates the best decision making context.

Sure it can, but there's a ton of people, especially nowadays who only look at things like Supercoach/Champion Data and form their opinions based on that. There's still the intangible things stats don't measure.

 

[Allefgib]

What is the negative impact you are concerned about?

Players losing time for got to the movies?

I'm not concerned they over think things in the heat of bald due ti stats. Are you?

 

[croweater 41]

So working in a stats box has opened my eyes a little to what makes a coach tick on game day.

They set targets they want to achieve e.g 20 tackles a qtr, less than 10 opposition marks a qtr etc etc. They aren't solely worried about a single players stats. But are worried about how the team is operating as a whole. They use the stats to see where the link is breaking down or holding up.

Kicking efficiency is another major factor which again would translate into the ball movement like Bomber Thompson said he is more concerned about.

I have listened to the coach at quarter and half time breaks and he is only worried about the team goals as mentioned above rather than individuals who may have had 30 touches by half time.

So really stats are what you make of them. You can look at player A and see they have had 35 touches and 2 goals kicking or see Player B who had 10 touches 10 tackles and was assigned a job to shut down a player. Who do you give the best to? 9/10 it will be the Player A even if they have butchered the crap out of it.

 

[radiojake]

I concur with Drugs Are Bad Mackay's general vibe

 

[Allefgib]

Sure it can, but there's a ton of people, especially nowadays who only look at things like Supercoach/Champion Data and form their opinions based on that. There's still the intangible things stats don't measure.

Who? Fans?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Example. In the other thread I said otten is better in the air than goldsack. That is my gutfeel.
Quick check on stats and otten takes more contested marks and had more 1%s. That solidifies my opinion.

It shouldn't. Who gets outmarked more often? Who plays on talls more often? How many contests does Otten compete in compared to Goldsack to get these "more contested marks"? How many 1%ers refer to spoils instead of blocking, shepherding, finding the boundary when needed? To get effective stats you'd need to dig to the absolute nth degree not to mention take into account the quality of opponent, context of the game, point of the season, quality of the delivery... not to mention inconsistency in data gathering. It's impossible to do. And trying to dig deep enough to be effective is the paralysis by analysis he's talking about. And even if we eventually reach this statistical utopia where every single factor is taken into account, is the end point meaningfully different to what a good judge gets from watching and giving their own qualitative analysis?

 

[Allefgib]

I concur with Drugs Are Bad Mackay's general vibe

Which is? Ppl think too much about stats?
What should they be thinking about then?

 

[radiojake]

They dominate the conversation too often when it comes to talking about how a game on the weekend was -

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What is the negative impact you are concerned about?

Players losing time for got to the movies?

I'm not concerned they over think things in the heat of battle due to stats. Are you?

Ok, this is where I wanted to get to.

I think there is a competitive advantage to be gained by whichever football coach stops playing follow the leader, trims the game down to the bone (what actually matters) and simplifies things for the players.

Instead of trying to cram the next innovation in and getting more and more science/technology based, spending less and less time improving their football skills, which coach will be able to capture and harness the pure instincts and talents of the players at his command?

The "don't have time to practice their goal kicking" thing that we hear constantly amazes me, as does the losing coach taking solace in "but we won the clearances and contested ball."

 

[Allefgib]

Glad we got there. And in under a page to. It felt efficient... But we have that stat to prove it.

Totally appreciate the line of thought you are progressing. However im not sure stat analysis had anything to do with less goal kicking. Do you?

I think you're trying to say that teams need to be doing more skills, decision making/game plan training? How do we know when we're doing week at those things?

 

[DD#23]

Glad we got there. And in under a page to. It felt efficient... But we have that stat to prove it.

Totally appreciate the line of thought you are progressing. However im not sure stat analysis had anything to do with less goal kicking. Do you?

I think you're trying to say that teams need to be doing more skills, decision making/game plan training? How do we know when we're doing week at those things?

you count how many times I bang my head against the wall during our games