Analysis The Stats and nothing but the Stats

[Dubai Quacker]

They need a new acronym since it is no longer the centre bounce

Centre throw?
Centre balls up?
Centre throw up?

 

[Ticky009]

 

[caesar88]

I looked at our most commonly-used CBAs (they really need a new name for these given that it is now a ball-up) from the Opening Round game to see which individuals and combinations were most and least effective. I'll try and track these every week and see if any patterns emerge.

I did these a few years ago but I can't remember how I presented them so they were easier to read and make sense of.

Combinations

Clearance rate = Percentage of each combination's CBAs in which the clearance was won
Scoring rate = Percentage of each combination's CBAs in which the clearance led directly to a score



Individuals

Involvement rate = Percentage of each player's involvement in a clearance-winning combination
Scoring rate = Percentage of each player's centre clearances that led directly to a score

 

[Callipygian]

I looked at our most commonly-used CBAs (they really need a new name for these given that it is now a ball-up) from the Opening Round game to see which individuals and combinations were most and least effective. I'll try and track these every week and see if any patterns emerge.

I did these a few years ago but I can't remember how I presented them so they were easier to read and make sense of.

Combinations

Clearance rate = Percentage of each combination's CBAs in which the clearance was won
Scoring rate = Percentage of each combination's CBAs in which the clearance led directly to a score

View attachment 2547508

Individuals

Involvement rate = Percentage of each player's involvement in a clearance-winning combination
Scoring rate = Percentage of each player's centre clearances that led directly to a score

View attachment 2547507

Great table. Too small a sample size to draw too many conclusions except it looks good for Errol and Rowy.

In the second table it's confusing that the "involvement rate" reflects when any of the individuals in the set up won the clearance (is that right?) but the "scoring rate" only reflects when that individual's clearance was turned into a score (score or goal, btw?). I found it made the table a bit hard to digest and I really had to think about it.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Great table. Too small a sample size to draw too many conclusions except it looks good for Errol and Rowy.

In the second table it's confusing that the "involvement rate" reflects when any of the individuals in the set up won the clearance (is that right?) but the "scoring rate" only reflects when that individual's clearance was turned into a score (score or goal, btw?). I found it made the table a bit hard to digest and I really had to think about it.

IIRC didn't you do something with non-CBA clearances as well? It seems like a big ask but if you ever felt like treading that road again I for one would be delighted.

 

[caesar88]

Great table. Too small a sample size to draw too many conclusions except it looks good for Errol and Rowy.

In the second table it's confusing that the "involvement rate" reflects when any of the individuals in the set up won the clearance (is that right?) but the "scoring rate" only reflects when that individual's clearance was turned into a score (score or goal, btw?). I found it made the table a bit hard to digest and I really had to think about it.

I intended for the involvement rate to show how often a player was part of a clearance-winning combination and the scoring rate to show how often that player's centre clearance led directly to a score.

So for example Gulden was involved in a clearance-winning combination in 53% of his CBAs, he won two centre clearances himself, and we scored from both of them.

I'm open to any ideas on phrasing & terminology as this is not my strongest suit.

I also counted all scores from centre clearances, not just goals, as I feel like that's putting too much importance on the result of the finish rather than the clearance that helped potentially create it.

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Ticky009]

2026 - Team Ratings After Round 1 — Matter of Stats

MoSHBODS changed the ranking of a baker’s dozen teams this week after which it had left Western Bulldogs in 1st, but moved Hawthorn into 2nd, up by three places, and left Gold Coast in 3rd. Other big movers were Adelaide up three into 4th, Brisbane Lions down three into 5th, and Geelong down three

www.matterofstats.com

MatterOfStats 2026 : Team Dashboard for Round 1 — Matter of Stats

Below is the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table after Round 1. It is far too early to suggest that the sample is in sufficiently for us to draw any meaningful conclusions from this table.

www.matterofstats.com

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Callipygian]

Does anyone know what this means? I looked at the website but almost all the content is "premium" and I didn't find the answers I was looking for.

 

[Millky95]

Does anyone know what this means? I looked at the website but almost all the content is "premium" and I didn't find the answers I was looking for.

Percentage of how many centre bounces each player attended.

Grundy, being the main ruckman attended 84.6% of all centre bounces. Amatey attended 15.6% as the backup ruck but they didn't put Logan in the centre at all.

Our main midfielder combo was Rowbottom, Heeney and McInerney based on percentage

 

[Kiama Chris]

Percentage of how many centre bounces each player attended.

Grundy, being the main ruckman attended 84.6% of all centre bounces. Amatey attended 15.6% as the backup ruck but they didn't put Logan in the centre at all.

Our main midfielder combo was Rowbottom, Heeney and McInerney based on percentage

I'd be careful about that last. It's possible, even probable, that McInerney attended mostly when Heeney didn't. Ditto Rowie and Gus. Pretty sure Rowie matched up on Neale at CBAs but Gus followed him around the ground. Dunkley set up on our main attacker, usually, but not only, Heeney.
Their setup to release someone was very good.

 

[Callipygian]

Percentage of how many centre bounces each player attended.

Grundy, being the main ruckman attended 84.6% of all centre bounces. Amatey attended 15.6% as the backup ruck but they didn't put Logan in the centre at all.

Our main midfielder combo was Rowbottom, Heeney and McInerney based on percentage

Thanks Millky95 . Then much inferior to caesar88 's stats he at least then tells us something extra that gives a little insight into the quality of the work they did while they were there.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Thanks Millky95 . Then much inferior to caesar88 's stats he at least then tells us something extra that gives a little insight into the quality of the work they did while they were there.

Raw data vs analysis. caesar88 stuff is top notch.

 

[Millky95]

Thanks Millky95 . Then much inferior to caesar88 's stats he at least then tells us something extra that gives a little insight into the quality of the work they did while they were there.

Raw data vs analysis. caesar88 stuff is top notch.

Raw data can be interesting. I never noticed Papley at a CBA but did notice McDonald rucking around the ground so surprised he never took 1 CBA

 

[caesar88]

Some CBA numbers for our round 1 game against the Lions. Same as last week, listed below are only the most-used combinations. In the case of this week though, the combinations were so varied compared to last week that the "top five" most-used combinations ended up being a top seven. I don't, and won't, include combinations that feature only once, as it's not enough of a sample size to judge them. However I will still include any individual efforts in those one-off combinations under the 'individual' section.

Combinations



What it means...

The combination of Grundy, McInerney, Sheldrick & Warner had the best clearance rate, winning the clearance every time they featured together. Perhaps unsurprising then that they also had the highest rate of scoring from their centre clearances, albeit only once. (It was not a game for scoring from centre bounces really.)

I've also included a new section, inspired by the weekend's lopsided clearance count & the discussion of 'meaningful clearances', which assesses the opposition's clearances against and whether they entered their forward 50 from those clearances. So, for example, Amartey, Heeney, McInerney & Sheldrick in the top row might've only won the clearance 50% of the time they featured together, but the other 50% from the opposition failed to enter their forward 50 at all. On the contrary, the third combination down - Grundy, Gulden, Rowbottom & Sheldrick - didn't win any clearances together, and every clearance the opposition won against them also went inside their forward 50.

Individuals



As for the individual numbers, Sheldrick & Warner won the most raw clearances, but Rowbottom had the best scoring rate as we scored from his one and only centre clearance. And Sheldrick & Warner also had the highest involvement rates, with 55% of the combinations Warner was a part of winning the clearance.

 

[Ticky009]

I don't understand this at all but some of you might have fun with it

 

[Kiama Chris]

I don't understand this at all but some of you might have fun with it

Like you I have no idea except that whatever it is Linear Regression seems to fit.

 

[giantsully]

Raw data vs analysis. caesar88 stuff is top notch.

"What" versus "So what".

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I don't understand this at all but some of you might have fun with it

Its reasonably straightforward Ticky009. You simply have to determine your dependant and independent variables & apply a least squares regression formula (replicated below). Fun for the whole family.

 

[caesar88]

This week's CBA stuff.

Combinations



Only three repeat-combinations this week, which probably isn't surprising. Gulden & Heeney being out limited our flexibility. For example, the Grundy-McInerney-Rowbottom-Warner combination was used at 43% of our CBAs, which is a huge number. That combination had the best rate when it came to winning clearances, but the Amartey-Jordon-Rowbottom-Warner combination had the best rate of scoring from their clearance wins. And ironically, the combination of Grundy-McInerney-Sheldrick-Warner had the best rate at preventing the opposition from entering their forward 50 from their clearance, despite not featuring a defensive mid.

Individuals



Warner probably had the best night at centre bounces as he had the equal-most clearances, the equal-highest scoring rate from his clearances, and was also involved in the most clearance-winning combinations.

I will do a compilation of the first three games at some point during the bye when I can be arsed, though it's not that important as three games isn't much of a sample size.

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Ticky009]