Analysis The Stats and nothing but the Stats

Remove this Banner Ad

Our centre bounce combinations against the dees



I'm curious about this data, and the earlier data posted by caesar88 .

First question: is there any significance to the order the names are listed in the columns in this table e.g. does it represent ruck-rover, centre, rover or something like that OR is it just a random order for the three players listed?

Second question: by my calculations, there were about 24 centre bounces (including ball ups after a failed first bounce): 4 at the start of quarters plus another 20 after goals (21 goals except one of them was after the siren). According to the data posted, we got first touch on 6 of these and then successfully converted that into a clearance 5 times. Does this mean Melbourne got first touch the other 18 times?

Third (not sure if this is a question or an observation), it is tempting to infer that because Warner attended more centre bounces than Heeney (18 to 14), but Heeney got more first touches than Warner (9 to 2) that Heeney was vastly more effective at getting his hands on it first (and/or they just had different roles and Warner was playing a really outside role). Except that the first stat applies only to CBAs and the second stat applies to all stoppages and so this could be wrong. Might be useful to know where individuals got their first touches and the proportion of those that were successful so that we can judge how successful a player was at winning a first touch relative to the number of opportunities they had to do so.
 
I'm curious about this data, and the earlier data posted by caesar88 .

First question: is there any significance to the order the names are listed in the columns in this table e.g. does it represent ruck-rover, centre, rover or something like that OR is it just a random order for the three players listed?

Second question: by my calculations, there were about 24 centre bounces (including ball ups after a failed first bounce): 4 at the start of quarters plus another 20 after goals (21 goals except one of them was after the siren). According to the data posted, we got first touch on 6 of these and then successfully converted that into a clearance 5 times. Does this mean Melbourne got first touch the other 18 times?

Third (not sure if this is a question or an observation), it is tempting to infer that because Warner attended more centre bounces than Heeney (18 to 14), but Heeney got more first touches than Warner (9 to 2) that Heeney was vastly more effective at getting his hands on it first (and/or they just had different roles and Warner was playing a really outside role). Except that the first stat applies only to CBAs and the second stat applies to all stoppages and so this could be wrong. Might be useful to know where individuals got their first touches and the proportion of those that were successful so that we can judge how successful a player was at winning a first touch relative to the number of opportunities they had to do so.
I probably should've mentioned this in my original comment, but I didn't include centre bounces where there were ruck infringements (as no first touch occurred), nor where a ruck just belted the ball out of the area of the mids into general play. So this would account for a number of the missing centre bounces from my data. But yes it would also assume Melbourne had their share of first touches at centre bounces.

Number of opposition first touches at both centre bounces and stoppages, where each Swans player won their first touches, and their percentage of first touches per centre bounce attendances are all easy enough figures I could add for next week's game and thereafter.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Great effort caesar88 . Colours look lovely. (I wanted to say peachy but it's more rosy.) I'm much more interested in the breakdowns for the individual players (that's just gold that is) than the breakdown by half (which is also interesting but less).

I still want to cross reference it with numbers of stoppages/centre bounces attended.

Goes to show Heeney is by a mile the best stoppage player and ballwinner in last game's 22/3. Will be interesting to compare the likes of Adams and Parker when they player and also Sheldrick when he finally gets a run. I think that's when we're going to be even more grateful for this excellent material you're feeding us.
 
Fair bit of debate in the last few weeks here about whether to play two or three tall forwards. I'm curious to find out how much of a game all the three of them are in the forward line together. When you take into account the time spent on the bench for any one of the three, or the time that McLean spends in the ruck.

I would guess it's only 40 to 50 percent of game time that all three are playing forward at the same time. Not sure how simple it would be for someone smarter than me to find the answer for the first two games this year? or maybe games late last season after Buddy had finished up?

I have a vague memory of someone posting about it but can't recall where?
 
Fair bit of debate in the last few weeks here about whether to play two or three tall forwards. I'm curious to find out how much of a game all the three of them are in the forward line together. When you take into account the time spent on the bench for any one of the three, or the time that McLean spends in the ruck.

I would guess it's only 40 to 50 percent of game time that all three are playing forward at the same time. Not sure how simple it would be for someone smarter than me to find the answer for the first two games this year? or maybe games late last season after Buddy had finished up?

I have a vague memory of someone posting about it but can't recall where?
Depends on how much bench time each of them plus Grundy has, assuming McLean rucks during Grundy's bench. On Friday TOG%
McDonald 80
McLean 79 - 29 = 50
Amartey 58 subbed at 3/4 time
Grundy 71 so McLean rucks 29
Total 80 + 50 + 58 = 188
Average no of tall forwards on ground 1.88

Interesting that it looks as if all three talls were targeted at 80% TOG while playing.
 
Last edited:
Some of these links aren't working for me at all. All I get is a picture of a cloud (as in a thought bubble because it's thinking...???).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #66
A club related stat:

The most common match-up we've had since the AFL became an 18-team competition is Sydney-GWS. These two clubs have already faced each other 26 times, including three finals. As of Round 3, 2024, the Giants have played 277 games in the AFL, that means 10.65% of them have been against the Swans!
 
From the Footy Live app

Matt Roberts has a kicking efficiency of 92.3% this season - the second-highest of the top-50 kicks in the AFL.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #73
From the Footy Live app
I've got the app but I can't find the article, Grim. What is the headline? All I can find in his personal stats is a disposal efficiency of 87%.
Might be his graph in the Dream Team but its really difficult to read.
 
Last edited:
I've got the app but I can't find the article, Grim. What is the headline? All I can find in his personal stats is a disposal efficiency of 87%.
Might be his graph in the Dream Team but it’s really difficult to read.
It’s not the article. In every game’s section (before the match) there is a KPI tab. It usually contains a gem or two in there. i always make sure to check it out
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top