Review The Dogs in 2013 - A Statistical Look

[yebiga]

Well done Dannn...fantastic thread
I have shamefacedly withdrawn my protest with stewards

As to our clearance movement, I found myself studying our movement from clearances a lot last year, trying to understand why it was not resulting in higher scores. For most of the year, our clearance players would just get it on their boot without looking, and they were all guilty.

This seemed to change in the last 6 or so games. Once one of midfielders gained possession they began to look for a short handball to a player in better position or attempted to gain some separation from the contest to buy some time and enable the, to look at better options ahead. The forwards ahead of the contest also became better at covering loose opposition defenders covering the most likely route forward. So a Gia or Dickson, or jones would take their man to the free opponent to cover both and not allow an easy turnover.


I am in agreement with most of your observations but feel the stats pertaining to Tom Campbell do not reflect his value or impact. I am wary of supporting big ruckman as forward options, I think their movement needs to be very finely tuned to get it right consistently. Minsons odyssey down forward under Eade for example was an unmitigated disaster. Nevertheless, I have to call it the way I see it.

Unlike Minson, Tom did not permit the ball to be rebounded by defenders faster than it came in. I am still to understand why, as he seems no more athletic then Minno. Perhaps its the position and support from other players. I don't know but this to me is the biggest disadvantage of having a beast like Tom deep in the forward line, namely the opposition running off a slow forward effectively with an extra man coming out of defence can just destroy you.

But for whatever reason it did not happen. Tom does have a better turning circle then Minno and is perhaps as a result a little better with his second efforts.

What also may not be evident in the CD stats is Toms ability to not be out marked, and to at least get his hand on any high ball and bring it to ground. He consistently got into the right position and is impossible for defenders to move. His contested marking certainly needs improvement but the amount of times he actually gets both hands on the ball and it just does not quite stick suggests he is well worth persisting. I know this is a statistical thread but Tom shows great qualities of strength, courage and whilst his star is rising we need to wait and see we're it plateaus before making changes.

He is still a very young man and needs time. He reminds me of B Ottens, who also started as a forward and continued to be an effective forward after becoming an elite ruckman. Even if Williams is fit, I would be playing Campbell deep forward and giving him ruck time when Wilbur needs his breaks.

A fit Williams will fit into our top 22 every day in any number of positions. It would be folly though to have him play a central role. Williams from now on is a bonus player. You can't build a forward line around a guy who may at any moment break down.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Given the plethora of mids drafted in the last 2 drafts, is it little wonder we're the 2nd smallest list (height wise) in the comp?

Perhaps, but let's not forget that in the past few drafts we've taken four players that are over 190cm (Stringer, Macrae, Talia, Roberts…am I missing anybody?). I think it's a pretty telling statistic, personally. As blizzrd says, according to CD we have only a single ruck man on the list - that's not good. A lot of our midfielders are also on the smaller side, and while I don't think it's as big of an issue as those who are obsessed with tall midfields, we definitely need to add some height. Let's not forget that every side has been in these two midfield-heavy drafts as well.

I am in agreement with most of your observations but feel the stats pertaining to Tom Campbell do not reflect his value or impact. I am wary of supporting big ruckman as forward options, I think their movement needs to be very finely tuned to get it right consistently. Minsons odyssey down forward under Eade for example was an unmitigated disaster. Nevertheless, I have to call it the way I see it.

I understand what you're saying with here yebiga and, like most of your post, agree with it. However I feel a lot of the time, Campbell's impact was greater on our smaller guys than it was in the air. We surrounded him with a lot of very good crumbers (Dickson, Dahlhaus, Grant) and his actions directly lead to a significant increase in goals. However, while he did kick multiple on several occasions, we really didn't get a lot of return from the amount of times he was targeted. He does follow up his work quite well, you're correct, but he still doesn't get a lot of separation from his man in a contest, which to me says he's either lacking work rate (perhaps a tank) or forward nous. After watching him, I believe it's more likely the latter, but probably a little of both. As a ruck man he's raw but incredibly efficient; he doesn't rack up the hit outs but the hit outs he does get are very effective.

I think he's definitely worth persisting with for now as a forward - but a day will come when he needs to transition to the ruck, in my opinion. I just hope that when he does he doesn't seek out more opportunity, as he very well could.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Perhaps, but let's not forget that in the past few drafts we've taken four players that are over 190cm (Stringer, Macrae, Talia, Roberts…am I missing anybody?).

Bontempelli

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

That's embarrassing.

 

[Interloper]

Hats off to you Dannnnnnnnnn, a fantastic read and very stimulating. It's going to take days (weeks) to digest all this.
A couple of off the top observations with no real depth of thought to it at the moment but a player who I thought really developed and delivered this year was Dahl. He copped a bit mid year when the team was generally down but maintained a massive work rate borne out by his pressure acts stats (a stat that I value highly as it is indicative of work off the ball).
Roberts stats indicate defender to me who can pinch hit forward. I'm certain he can read the game and can put himself in the right spots defensively. He may get beaten to the spot from time to time but I see that as a result of physical maturity and speed at this stage. I rate his defensive instincts and also his ability to put and find other people in space out of defense. Contrast with Wood who is the complete opposite in my view. He has the speed but not the vision or the skill to consistently set up attack or relieve pressure out of defence. His first instinct is to run out of trouble and offload in the tackle much like a league player would do. Problem with that is when you get caught holding the ball you give up a set shot at goal to the opposition or turn over the ball in a dangerous part of the ground with fatal consequences. He hasn't got the vision to find others or put others in space unless he's broken the line first. JJ perhaps a little similar. They're the guys you want to put away not do the putting away (under defensive pressure I'm talking about).
Anyway Dan10, top effort. Lots of food for thought. This thread has longevity written all over it.

 

[dogwatch]

It seems as though they've only given a vast amount of statistics on the U18s in the past two years, where it's probably a bit too early to judge accurately. Next time I get a chance I'll see if I can come up with anything and get back to you, as it's something I'm interested in seeing as well.

The more I think about this the more critical I consider it. Just stop and think for a moment: getting an edge on other clubs in the draft is probably the surest way to making regular finals appearances and even premierships. If CD or anyone else could determine with great reliability those who succeed at AFL level just by looking at their junior level stats, the national draft would be a mechanical exercise with selections being tempered only by club needs, father-sons, etc.

Obviously every club is looking for this holy grail and some are better at it than others (we are coming from a fair way back but have obviously improved with the two Macs in recent years). I understand that clubs engage CD to do a fair bit of private research and analysis for them, so perhaps there are already better indicators than we are aware of.

There are other aspects of draft selection which are not as conducive to statistical analysis of course. Famously at VUWO we look for "quality people" from good families - not easy to quantify in a CD sort of way. There is also to be considered how long players have been injured during their final junior years and how long they have been playing footy (some came to the game only in their teens and supposedly have more improvement in them than others ... Farren Ray was considered such a player )

Anyway, don't give up the search, dannnnnnnnnn. I'd be really interested to see a reliable indicator of post draft success but it may be just as far away as obtaining a system to win consistently at the races. Anyone who has really got the answer isn't going to be telling anyone else about it!

 

[paulveed]

Blimey Dannnnn, when you said "I have a lot of time on my hands", you were ALMOST right!
Dannnnn you obviously have WAYYYYYY too much time on your hands.

Any way me lad...Well bl##dy done. Made fascinating reading...even though I really didn't actually have the time available, that I spent reading it all.

But it demonstrates why stats are so beloved by politicians. They can say what ever you choose to have them say.
What is the old saying? : There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Just my gut feelings on a couple of points, all be at the risk of repeating myself.

I agree 100% on Roberts, should be played either forward or back consistently for a season or two, particularly till he bodies up to match his height.
Personally I think we need a key forward far more than an extra back, so I would rather him up front. Actually I prefer him as a forward anyway,
he is more creative there.
Agree I don't see either Campbell or Cordy as FF's, but would always want one or the other played as 2nd ruck out of the FP.
I would see Roberts or Williams as far better options at FF, or swap them with the Jones boy at CHF.

Just don't buy Wood as backman full stop. For mine he is a winger or nothing, and I do like his pace and athleticism, so wing for mine.

Shouldn't our wing players always start on the defensive side of their opponents at starts/restarts? Your stat suggesting we don't get sufficient forward
yardage for our stopage/first-use dominance, this suggests we do tend to go backwards before we go forwards, when we do win in the middle. So having our
outside players on the defensive side of their opponents should put them in a better position which ever side wins the ball-up/first possession.

I hope rather than having Dal and Honeychurch competing for the one position in the front half, I would love to see them become a new dynamic duo.
Their playing styles could become quite complimentary if they can develop a rapport like Libba and Wal, or Jonno and Bubba S. had.
I was rapt that we picked up Honeychurch, he may well become the p/u of the season for us. Just love both the way he attacks the game,
and his attitude. Does he havedeficiencies? Sure, but so does everyone else. He, Dal, Rat and Hunter should give us a really dynamic "small" brigade into the future.

I hope you are right re Redpath making it as a defender, cause he did not seem to have a clue as a forward.

Had to laugh at your Greenwood's height comment. I find that every time you stand next to one of the guys you think from the side lines are
runts, in real life they are all taller than you expected. I think if most of us found ourselves in the centre of a 1/4 time huddle we would be overshadowed by most of the players.

 

[Dazb86]

Surprised by Campbells stats. It seemed like everytime he got near it we scored. Ditto for J.Grant.

Would score involvments include providing a contest and bringing the ball to ground for your smaller forwards? I feel Campbell provided plenty of these opportunitys and he kept his feet most of the time.

 

[Interloper]

I agree 100% on Roberts, should be played either forward or back consistently for a season or two, particularly till he bodies up to match his height.
Personally I think we need a key forward far more than an extra back, so I would rather him up front. Actually I prefer him as a forward anyway,
he is more creative there.

I'm enjoying the split on whether Roberts is best up forward or down back. I'm in the down back brigade partly because of the creativity you refer to and also what I believe is an ability to read the play and make decisions.
CHF is the dilema and he's a candidate but I'm sticking with him down back. Jones need to show something serious this year in terms of consistency and conversion. I like Campbell at FF with the improved delivery, improved physical capacity and modified structure that will likely surround him this coming season.
The thing about the stats (esp on players), as interesting as they are, is that they give you a snapshot as to what is or was but not necessarily what will be especially when you factor in benefit gained from accumulated experience and improved physical conditioning, maturity and capacity. They also require context which is half the fun.
I'll have to read it all again (and possibly several more times after that) but the clearance one warrants some consideration. My feeling through the year, especially initially, was it was the 2nd disposal from the clearance that needed work and attention (the first disposal being from the contest winner eg Libba from a centre clearance handballing to Boyd for example and what Boyd does with it being critical - and factors being the positioning of Boyd, the options presented to or made available to Boyd by other players, and then Boyd's vision, decision making and then execution/disposal efficiency and effectiveness under pressure). That brought into play a combination of factors apart from personnel and individual skill sets (structures, experience, positioning, spread etc).
It's going to take me weeks to get through all this. Just as well I'm on holiday

 

[Some Idiot]

So many stats, hard to go through all of them.
Dannnnn what have you done?

 

[Some Idiot]

Surprised by Campbells stats. It seemed like everytime he got near it we scored. Ditto for J.Grant.

Would score involvments include providing a contest and bringing the ball to ground for your smaller forwards? I feel Campbell provided plenty of these opportunitys and he kept his feet most of the time.

Definitely a flaw with the stats imo. Campbell was good at having a genuine impact on contests, even though the ball would've been considered 'in dispute' after a lot of those contests.

 

[littlenails]

Those stats were good at looking at what happened last year. Just as I thought we were competitive in most games.

The stats that I am most interested in are those that indicate how we are going to go this year. What has to happen to make that occur?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Surprised by Campbells stats. It seemed like everytime he got near it we scored. Ditto for J.Grant.

Would score involvments include providing a contest and bringing the ball to ground for your smaller forwards? I feel Campbell provided plenty of these opportunitys and he kept his feet most of the time.

See this could be considered another flawed statistic depending on how you look at it - I believe that score involvements must involve either direct possession, a one-percenter or a tackle. Much of Campbell's work came from a dropped mark or similar, meaning that the full 'score involvement' goes to the gatherer at ground level. However, I haven't been able to find any mention of Campbell's score involvement statistics - as such, they could very well be high.

My point is, though, that the main role of a key forward isn't to drop marks. I would say that Campbell's role was somewhat circular - he benefitted our small forwards by contesting and providing a consistent target, but his presence necessitated a large number of ground-level players in our forward line. 18% retention rate is just not good enough. We can surround him with as many ground ball players as possible (and I think we are planning to, adding Crameri and Honeychurch to a line up of Dahlhaus, Dickson, Grant, Hrovat and Hunter), but it still doesn't solve our need for a bail out option. In fact, it takes us backwards. In the critical moments of a game, we don't want to rely on a dropped mark setting up small forwards; no, we want to rely on marks. Look at Cordy's massive mark in the dying moments of the Melbourne game - we didn't win, but his mark and conversion gave us the best possible chance to do so. If it was dropped, we are relying on a much larger amount of variables going our way to get that goal. It also shaves more time off the clock. As I mentioned earlier, Campbell's retention rate necessitates ground ball winners, which puts us at a disadvantage in the air.

I'm not suggesting that we give up on Campbell - at this point he's our best option and scoring does happen around him. Long term, however, I don't think he's the answer - and I don't think he'll end up a full forward.

 

[Dazb86]

Oh right. Yeah I never saw him as a permanent FF. He's the best on our list at playing the 2nd ruck role and possibly the 2nd best on the list as a main ruck. Roughead might be a better ruck though.

A lot of Campbells goals came from free kicks (chopping the arms) just because he's a tall bloke that gets to front position, get his hands above his head and he's hard to move out of the contest. I see him being pretty valuable next year and into the future.

A tall guy that has a knack to get free kicks and can kick set shots pretty reliably from big distances is pretty gold for us. When he plays deep he provides a contest and brings the ball to ground and 9/10 times keeps his feet and can make a sheppard for the smaller blokes.

Guys like Jones when providing a contest tend to go to ground afterwards because of their leap and can be moved in the contest fairly easily. It's a bit of an all or nothing situation with Jones. He'll either take the mark or be made redundant when the ball hits the deck because he's sprawled on the ground.

 

[dogwatch]

Not wishing to be unkind but at least Campbell got to the contests even if he only won 18% of them. Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big knocks on Cordy was that he didn't even contest marks because he was either running to the wrong position or couldn't get his hands above shoulder level.

So we have one bloke who is a fantastic pack mark (Jones) but doesn't get enough marks on the lead or body-on-body. We have another (Campbell) who gets involved a lot but doesn't win enough contested marks and like Jones he doesn't get enough separation to take many uncontested marks. And finally we have another (Cordy) who doesn't do much of either and despite his supposed agility is not much value when the ball hits the ground.

At least all of them are young and still developing. All will be given a chance in 2014 and I'm confident that at least one of them will make significant improvement this year. There is also Tom Williams if he can stay on the park.

If not, Fletcher Roberts may do a Steven Bradbury and overtake them all to make one of the KPF roles his own.

 

[_Mike_]

Good work D...

A few surprising stats but many result expected for a number of those in question.

 

[Metal]

The question has to be asked whether stats have true value when considered out of context.

As an example, was it not the Swans who were not winning centre clearances but were happy for the opposition's 2nd or 3rd ball receiver to be sweated on to cause a turnover or to force the ball into the hands of one of our poorer disposers.

It was also said that some teams were happy to attack from their half back line (from centre bounces), so were not unduly worried that the ball got carried through hurried kicks or sideways handballs to our half forward line as long as pressure applied during these exchanges ultimately resulted in a turnover.

 

[Interloper]

The question has to be asked whether stats have true value when considered out of context.

As an example, was it not the Swans who were not winning centre clearances but were happy for the opposition's 2nd or 3rd ball receiver to be sweated on to cause a turnover or to force the ball into the hands of one of our poorer disposers.

It was also said that some teams were happy to attack from their half back line (from centre bounces), so were not unduly worried that the ball got carried through hurried kicks or sideways handballs to our half forward line as long as pressure applied during these exchanges ultimately resulted in a turnover.

I agree. A context is required given that the stat a particular player may acquire in a particular instant of a game is in the wider context of the respective teams' game plans and the simultaneous actions of every other player on the ground at that moment. Our game is fluid, unlike baseball (a game heavy in stats) which is a series of set plays from a stationary starting point (the only variable being a base runner attempting to steal a base). And, as an aside, what sort of game plan could you have in baseball? I can't see the need for one as the game is so simple. Pitcher throws ball. Batter tries to either sacrificially hit the ball to get an on base runner home/advanced and/or hit the ball or get walked to advance to at least first base. There will be tactical/strategic approaches to individual plays where there may be a runner on third and only 1 out etc but as for an over-arching game-plan or the necessity for a particular game-style, I can't see it because it's not a fluid game outside of individual plays.
But back to AFL, the stats as they relate to clearances, inside 50s or rebounds etc may help to identify or expose the game style of a particular team over the course of a season much like the example you cite.
The teams deliberately conceding clearances (might have been Geelong too) to win turnover ball are using a flawed game plan in my view because, in all likelihood, eventually you'll strike a team (probably in finals) that is able to cope with the applied pressure at clearances and will have both the execution skills and the structure to take advantage of the (relatively) free pass. And then to counter that you'd have to contest clearances again to stop the flow but risk being (relatively) unaccustomed to it and possibly less skilled at it. But if your pressure and defense around clearances and in the back half is superior to any clearance players and attacking structures you'll encounter then you'll probably be OK (and win the flag).
If on your list you had predominately defensive players you may be better off with that approach. We might assume that all lists are relatively similar to each other in the types of players available for selection (just at different stages of development) but individual lists may be weighted towards a particular game style or the game style may evolve to accommodate the weighting of an inherited list. A perfectly balanced list is ideal but probably doesn't exist.
On Geelong, did the loss of Ablett, Ling and the ageing of Corey force a change in game style? Would be interesting to know whether the stats indicate/confirm a change from say 2009 and 2011 to 2012/13.
So much context

 

[TempleKelvington]

See this could be considered another flawed statistic depending on how you look at it - I believe that score involvements must involve either direct possession, a one-percenter or a tackle. Much of Campbell's work came from a dropped mark or similar, meaning that the full 'score involvement' goes to the gatherer at ground level. However, I haven't been able to find any mention of Campbell's score involvement statistics - as such, they could very well be high.

My point is, though, that the main role of a key forward isn't to drop marks. I would say that Campbell's role was somewhat circular - he benefitted our small forwards by contesting and providing a consistent target.

I would argue that part of KP forwards role is create a contest at the very least bringing the ball to ground to advantage if possible. Campbell was excellent at that. I also expect him to improve holding his marks. He is a very good mark of the footy, just needs to hold a few more times a game to be a nightmare.

 

[black pup]

Theory a good read, but fair go, Campbell has been fantastic, bring the ball to ground Etc. Those of us that have watched Tommy at Williamstown know how could a player he potentially is. Watching Will Minson at Williamstown before Macca arrived at the Bulldogs, Will was finished, not to a lot of us but certainly to the majority. There are a lot of things that turned Will career around. Having coached and possible stuffed up a lot of careers , and perhaps hopefully made a couple.
D, I think a lot of the stats although good reading. Are a load of bullshit. But I appreciate the read I found it fascinating .
I

 

[Testekill]

Watching Will Minson at Williamstown before Macca arrived at the Bulldogs, Will was finished, not to a lot of us but certainly to the majority.
I

Really? Fifth in the JJ Liston medal while playing five less games than the winner is finished? Constantly being in the best is finished? Dominating for Williamstown is finished?

 

[Dav1d]

CD said Micheal Hurley was the next Wayne Carey for years...

I don't really understand why we retained Howard, maybe giving him one last year

Hoping that the club also decide to play certain players in a single position, particularly the KPPs

 

[black pup]

Bet

Really? Fifth in the JJ Liston medal while playing five less games than the winner is finished? Constantly being in the best is finished? Dominating for Williamstown is finished?[/quotE
I suggest you have a talk to Will, and see how he felt, or club who were quite prepared to trade him to Gold Coast. Long way from finishing fifth in Liston trophy. Thank god Gold Coast choice a Collingwood ruckman who has long gone. Credit too Macca who has backed Will in, and Will who has surprised everyone by winning all Australian selection.

 

[Dazb86]

I could see a lot of 1st ruck types using free agency.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Haven't been on for a while so sorry for gravedigging a few older posts.

Not wishing to be unkind but at least Campbell got to the contests even if he only won 18% of them. Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big knocks on Cordy was that he didn't even contest marks because he was either running to the wrong position or couldn't get his hands above shoulder level.

So we have one bloke who is a fantastic pack mark (Jones) but doesn't get enough marks on the lead or body-on-body. We have another (Campbell) who gets involved a lot but doesn't win enough contested marks and like Jones he doesn't get enough separation to take many uncontested marks. And finally we have another (Cordy) who doesn't do much of either and despite his supposed agility is not much value when the ball hits the ground.

At least all of them are young and still developing. All will be given a chance in 2014 and I'm confident that at least one of them will make significant improvement this year. There is also Tom Williams if he can stay on the park.

If not, Fletcher Roberts may do a Steven Bradbury and overtake them all to make one of the KPF roles his own.

Completely agree on Campbell and it's why I see him as our best full forward option at present (disregarding Tom Williams as I'm not confident he'll ever get back). Things just happen around him and his work allows the smaller guys to really have an impact. My point is simply that he's not a long-term solution there in my opinion. He helped us because of the quality smalls (or those that play small) we had - Hunter, Dahlhaus, Dickson and Grant - but in crunch moments and finals we don't want to be relying on smaller players collecting Campbell's dropped marks to kick our goals. I think if Jones can stop getting lost up the ground and start positioning himself well it will help immensely, but at this stage I don't think Campbell fits in as a permanent full forward down the track. I have more confidence in his rucking abilities.

The question has to be asked whether stats have true value when considered out of context.

As an example, was it not the Swans who were not winning centre clearances but were happy for the opposition's 2nd or 3rd ball receiver to be sweated on to cause a turnover or to force the ball into the hands of one of our poorer disposers.

It was also said that some teams were happy to attack from their half back line (from centre bounces), so were not unduly worried that the ball got carried through hurried kicks or sideways handballs to our half forward line as long as pressure applied during these exchanges ultimately resulted in a turnover.

I agree with this - but that's part of the purpose of the thread. My elaborations were not intended to come across as absolute truths, instead starting points for discussion. Outside of context these statistics are just numbers, however, attempts to contextualise them can lead to pretty interesting discussion.

I would argue that part of KP forwards role is create a contest at the very least bringing the ball to ground to advantage if possible. Campbell was excellent at that. I also expect him to improve holding his marks. He is a very good mark of the footy, just needs to hold a few more times a game to be a nightmare.

Yes, part of it - and that part he does especially well. But I'd argue that his lack of contest-winning ability necessitated a smaller forward line, which did hurt us every now and then. If he can improve his marking to the level that you expect him to be able to then he is absolutely capable of playing that role into the future - but I'm less convinced that there's that much improvement in his marking and one-on-one abilities without sacrificing mobility. I'm more confident that his ruck work will improve to a point where he can be considered a number one ruckman.