Mega Thread The Stats Thread

[grimlock]

Centre square
v Gold Coast

• Mitchell 27
  • Hall 8
  • Lonergan 7
  • Rischitelli 7
  • Miller 3
  • Stanley 2
• Kennedy 23
  • Hall 10
  • Lonergan 4
  • Stanley 4
  • Rischitelli 2
  • Matera 1
  • Miller 1
  • Russell 1
• Hannebery 21
  • Miller 10
  • Lonergan 4
  • Hall 3
  • Stanley 3
  • Rischitelli 1
• Cunningham 10
  • Rischitelli 4
  • Miller 3
  • Hall 1
  • Lonergan 1
  • Matera 1
• Goodes 5
  • Hall 2
  • Lonergan 1
  • Rischitelli 1
  • Stanley 1
• K.Jack 3
  • Lonergan 2
  • Hall 1
• Jetta 3
  • Miller 2
  • Hall 1
• B.Jack 2
  • Rischitelli 1
  • Stanley 1
• Lloyd 1
  • Miller 1
• Reid 1
  • Rischitelli 1

Season

1. Kennedy 471 (79.29%)
2. Parker 298 (50.17%)
3. Hannebery 295 (49.66%)
4. K.Jack 271 (45.62%)
5. Mitchell 233 (39.23%)
6. McVeigh 113 (19.02%)
7. McGlynn 29 (4.88%)
8. Cunningham 12 (2.02%)
9. Rampe 12 (2.02%)
10. Goodes 11 (1.85%)
11. Bird 10 (1.68%)
12. Jetta 5 (0.84%)
13. Reid 5 (0.84%)
14. Robinson 4 (0.67%)
15. Lloyd 3 (0.51%)
16. B.Jack 2 (0.34%)
17. Franklin 1 (0.17%)
18. No one 1 (0.17%)

Having Kieren Jack getting injured relatively early with Parker and McVeigh already missing the game, meant that Cunningham had to fill in for most of the game with the rest only coming into play late into the last quarter.

Rucks
v Gold Coast

• Pyke 16
  • Smith 12
  • Dixon 4
• Tippett 16
  • Smith 10
  • Dixon 6

Season

1. Pyke 308 (51.85%)
2. Tippett 229 (38.55%)
3. Nankervis 41 (6.90%)
4. Derickx 8 (1.35%)
5. Reid 7 (1.18%)
6. Towers 1 (0.17%)

The numbers ended up equal for Pyke and Tippett but it must be noted Pyke took the last 4 which were the 'junk time' bounces

Kick ins
v Gold Coast

• Rampe 4
• Jetta 3
• Laidler 2
• Grundy 1

Season

1. Jetta 69 (29.11%)
2. McVeigh 57 (24.05%)
3. Laidler 54 (22.78%)
4. Rampe 33 (13.92%)
5. Shaw 12 (5.06%)
6. Grundy 3 (1.27%)
7. Smith 2 (0.84%)
8. Jones 1 (0.42%)
9. Lloyd 1 (0.42%)

 

[grimlock]

 

[grimlock]

One of the key set of stats that really stood out to me was the Swans ranking number 1 in handballs and the Dockers ranking number 1 in handballs conceded (i.e. lowest number of handballs conceded). If we go down the path of handballing too much I think we could find ourselves in a spot of bother with a result similar to the 2013 PF where they swarmed all over not the player going for the ball but his nearby teammates waiting to receive the handball in close.

 

[grimlock]

 

[grimlock]

Centre square
v Freo

• Kennedy 19
  • Mundy 8
  • Neale 3
  • Fyfe 2
  • Pavlich 2
  • Barlow 1
  • de Boer 1
  • Suban 1
  • Walters 1
• Goodes 18
  • Neale 5
  • Suban 5
  • Fyfe 3
  • Barlow 2
  • de Boer 2
  • Mundy 1
• Mitchell 18
  • Fyfe 11
  • Mundy 4
  • de Boer 2
  • Suban 1
• Hannebery 6
  • Mundy 3
  • Fyfe 2
  • Suban 1
• McVeigh 1
  • Neale 1
• Reid 1
  • Mundy 1

Season

1. Kennedy 490 (79.67%)
2. Hannebery 301 (48.94%)
3. Parker 298 (48.46%)
4. K.Jack 271 (44.07%)
5. Mitchell 251 (40.81%)
6. McVeigh 114 (18.54%)
7. Goodes 29 (4.72%)
8. McGlynn 29 (4.72%)
9. Cunningham 12 (1.95%)
10. Rampe 12 (1.95%)
11. Bird 10 (1.63%)
12. Reid 6 (0.98%)
13. Jetta 5 (0.81%)
14. Robinson 4 (0.65%)
15. Lloyd 3 (0.49%)
16. B.Jack 2 (0.33%)
17. Franklin 1 (0.16%)
18. No one 1 (0.16%)

With K.Jack and Parker missing the big question was going to be who would replace them in the middle. McVeigh was the obvious choice but he was needed down back in defence to quell the Freo small forwards, so it was a case of winding the clock back 10 years with a Mitchell-Kennedy-Goodes trio taking 13 of the 21 centre bounces. Longmire did admit the plan was to use Heeney in the middle at times but this was discarded after his early injury.

Rucks
v Freo

• Pyke 12
  • Sandilands 11
  • Clarke 1
• Tippett 9
  • Sandilands 7
  • Clarke 2

Season

1. Pyke 320 (52.03%)
2. Tippett 238 (38.70%)
3. Nankervis 41 (6.67%)
4. Derickx 8 (1.30%)
5. Reid 7 (1.14%)
6. Towers 1 (0.16%)

After Reid's injury Tippett had to spend more time forward as the only genuine tall target so Pyke became the number 1 ruckman for the rest of the game

Kick ins
v Freo

• Laidler 5
• Jetta 1
• McVeigh 1
• Rampe 1
• T.Richards 1

Season

1. Jetta 70 (28.46%)
2. Laidler 59 (23.98%)
3. McVeigh 58 (23.58%)
4. Rampe 34 (13.82%)
5. Shaw 12 (4.88%)
6. T.Richards 6 (2.44%)
7. Grundy 3 (1.22%)
8. Smith 2 (0.81%)
9. Jones 1 (0.41%)
10. Lloyd 1 (0.41%)

 

[grimlock]

Centre square
v North Melbourne

• Kennedy 17
  • Cunnington 5
  • Swallow 4
  • Ziebell 4
  • Dal Santo 2
  • Jacobs 2
• Mitchell 12
  • Dal Santo 6
  • Swallow 3
  • Ziebell 2
  • Cunnington 1
• McVeigh 11
  • Cunnington 3
  • Dal Santo 3
  • Swallow 3
  • Ziebell 2
• Goodes 9
  • Cunnington 3
  • Ziebell 3
  • Swallow 2
  • Jacobs 1
• Hannebery 8
  • Jacobs 5
  • Cunnington 1
  • Swallow 1
  • Ziebell 1
• Rampe 8
  • Cunnington 3
  • Swallow 3
  • Dal Santo 1
  • Ziebell 1
• Jetta 1
  • Ziebell 1

Season

1. Kennedy 507 (79.59%)
2. Hannebery 309 (48.51%)
3. Parker 298 (46.78%)
4. K.Jack 271 (42.54%)
5. Mitchell 263 (41.29%)
6. McVeigh 125 (19.62%)
7. Goodes 38 (5.97%)
8. McGlynn 29 (4.55%)
9. Rampe 20 (3.14%)
10. Cunningham 12 (1.88%)
11. Bird 10 (1.57%)
12. Heeney 6 (0.94%)
13. Jetta 6 (0.94%)
14. Reid 6 (0.94%)
15. Robinson 4 (0.63%)
16. Lloyd 3 (0.47%)
17. B.Jack 2 (0.31%)
18. Franklin 1 (0.16%)
19. No one 1 (0.16%)

Clearly two main sets of midfielders used. In the first half it was Hannebery, Mitchell, Kennedy and Goodes whereas in the second half it was McVeigh, Kennedy, Mitchell and Rampe.

Ruck centre square
v North Melbourne

• Tippett 11
  • Goldstein 10
  • Brown 1
• Pyke 11
  • Goldstein 9
  • Brown 2

Season

1. Pyke 331 (51.96%)
2. Tippett 249 (39.09%)
3. Nankervis 41 (6.44%)
4. Derickx 8 (1.26%)
5. Reid 7 (1.10%)
6. Towers 1 (0.16%)

Tippett took the first 8 centre bounces but only 3 of the remaining 14 when the Swans needed Tippett as a more stay at home forward.

Kick ins
v North Melbourne

• Laidler 6
• Jetta 3
• Shaw 1
• McVeigh 1

Season

1. Jetta 73 (28.40%)
2. Laidler 65 (25.29%)
3. McVeigh 59 (22.96%)
4. Rampe 34 (13.23%)
5. T.Richards 6 (2.33%)
6. Shaw 13 (5.06%)
7. Grundy 3 (1.17%)
8. Smith 2 (0.78%)
9. Jones 1 (0.39%)
10. Lloyd 1 (0.39%)

We will lose our top kick-in taker for the second season running. I don't envisage T.Richards, Grundy or Smith taking more responsibility in this area so either Laidler, Rampe, Jones or McVeigh take a lot more or we will have to find someone new.

 

[RW]

This looks like an interesting blog. Haven't had a close look at it yet but it might be a useful reference.

http://www.matterofstats.com/

 

[grimlock]

Centre Square

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Kennedy || 24
\v|Pendlebury|7
\v|Adams|5
\v|Greenwood|5
\v|Blair|2
\v|Treloar|2
\v|Crisp|1
\v|de Goey|1
\v|Sidebottom|1
\Parker||24
\v|Adams|5
\v|Pendlebury|5
\v|Treloar|5
\v|Blair|3
\v|Crisp|2
\v|Greenwood|2
\v|de Goey|1
\v|Sidebottom|1
\ K.Jack || 17
\v|Adams|5
\v|de Goey|5
\v|Greenwood|4
\v|Blair|2
\v|Crisp|1
\ Mitchell || 9
\v|Adams|3
\v|Treloar|2
\v|Crisp|1
\v|Fasolo|1
\v|Greenwood|1
\v|Pendlebury|1
\ Hannebery || 8
\v|Adams|3
\v|Treloar|3
\v|de Goey|1
\v|Pendlebury|1
\ Robinson || 3
\v|Pendlebury|2
\v|Adams|1
\ Heeney || 1
\v|Adams|1
\ Hewett || 1
\v|de Goey|1

Pretty much a rotation of JPK, Parker, K.Jack and Hannebery before Hannebery's concussion gave Mitchell slightly more time in the middle. Then Robinson and Hewett were given a go in the middle when the game was well won.

Rucks

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Tippett || 24
\v|Witts|17
\v|Cloke|6
\v|Gault|1
\ Sinclair || 5
\v|Witts|3
\v|Cloke|1
\v|Gault|1

Anything but a 50/50 split here - Tippett is clearly the number 1 ruck and Sinclair not much of an afterthought.

Kick ins

Player|Times
\Laidler|9
\Grundy|1
\Rampe|1

Only Rampe's kick in didn't result in a mark or clean possession.

 

[Millky95]

Kick ins
PlayerTimes
Laidler9
Grundy1
Rampe1


Only Rampe's kick in didn't result in a mark or clean possession.

Now that is an awesome bit of trivia

 

[grimlock]

After a small sample space of just 2 rounds, we have the most inside 50s (145, next best is 131 PTA) and the most goals (38, next best 36 by ADE and GCS)

We are 8th in goals per inside 50 (26.21% ranked 8th) but a clear 1st for scores per inside 50 (66.07%, next best is 59.82% by Gold Coast)

So the attacking side of our game is going really real gung ho at the moment.

 

[RW]

I still think we are over-using the ball but the difference in our attack between the start of this year and most of last year has been stark (though of course you have to factor in quality of opposition, and I don't really rate Collingwood as a top 8 side). It's very early, but maybe Horse can adapt his game plan after all.

 

[grimlock]

Centre square - v Carlton

The combination of Kennedy, Jack and Parker has been the most used so far, with 25 out of 62 centre bounces involving this trio.

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Kennedy || 25
\v|Gibbs|8
\v|Cripps|6
\v|Graham|3
\v|Wright|3
\v|Murphy|2
\v|E.Curnow|1
\v|Kerridge|1
\v|Thomas|1
\ Parker || 24
\v|Cripps|7
\v|Curnow|6
\v|Gibbs|3
\v|Kerridge|3
\v|Murphy|2
\v|Wright|2
\v|Graham|1
\ K.Jack || 19
\v|Cripps|8
\v|Gibbs|4
\v|Kerridge|3
\v|E.Curnow|2
\v|Murphy|1
\v|Wright|1
\ Hannebery || 14
\v|Gibbs|3
\v|Cripps|2
\v|E.Curnow|2
\v|Graham|2
\v|Murphy|2
\v|Kerridge|1
\v|Thomas|1
\v|Wright|1
\ Mitchell || 14
\v|Cripps|5
\v|Gibbs|2
\v|Graham|2
\v|Murphy|2
\v|Boekhorst|1
\v|E.Curnow|1
\v|Wright|1
\ Hewett || 2
\v|Graham|1
\v|Murphy|1
\ Cunningham || 1
\v|Cripps|1

Centre square - season to date

Player|Times
\Kennedy|49
\Parker|48
\K.Jack|36
\Mitchell|23
\Hannebery|22
\Hewett|3
\Robinson|3
\Cunningham|1
\Heeney|1

Rucks centre square - v Carlton
Sinclair got more of a run in the ruck this week, especially in the first half but Tippett finished with 11 of the final 12 centre bounces

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Tippett || 23
\v|Phillips|12
\v|Kreuzer|11
\ Sinclair || 10
\v|Phillips|6
\v|Kreuzer|4

Rucks centre square - season to date

Player|Times
\Tippett|47
\Sinclair|15

Kick ins - v Carlton
2 of Mills's 3 kick ins didn't result in a mark. Rampe was the only other kick in that didn't result in a mark, but he booted it 50+m.

Player|Times
\Laidler|4
\Mills|3
\Rampe|2
\Jones|1
\Lloyd|1

Kick ins - season to date

Player|Times
\Laidler|13
\Mills|3
\Rampe|3
\Grundy|1
\Jones|1
\Lloyd|1

 

[grimlock]

In this week's stats preview we look at the figures regarding each side's attack. Two of the top 3 scoring sides will face off with Adelaide leading the competition with 55 goals and the Swans not far behind on 52 (ranked 3rd). However the two sides differ quite significantly in how they are generating their shots at goal.

The Swans are doing it through sheer weight of numbers, clearly leading the competition in inside 50s but have been inefficient - ranking only 13th in goals per inside 50. Adelaide have still generated a relatively high number of inside 50s but are much more efficient in converting goals per inside 50 entry, ranking 2nd in the competition.

Furthermore it's also interesting to note that the Crows are ranked 16th in "marks inside 50 per inside 50 entry", meaning a large majority of their goals are coming from open play, not set shots.


Stat: Goals (Total)

Team | Goals | Rank
\ Adelaide | 55 | 1st
\N.Melbourne|54|2nd
\ Sydney | 52 | 3rd
\Gold Coast|49|4th
\Port Adelaide|48|5th
\Geelong|47|6th
\West Coast|45|7th
\Melbourne|42|8th
\W.Bulldogs|41|9th
\Hawthorn|40|10th
\Richmond|39|11th
\St Kilda|38|12th
\Collingwood|34|13th
\Brisbane,GWS|33|eq 14th
\Carlton,Essendon,Fremantle|27|eq 16th

Stat: Inside 50s (Avg)

Team | Inside 50s | Rank
\ Sydney | 70.7 | 1st
\Port Adelaide|64.0|2nd
\Geelong|59.3|3rd
\Gold Coast|59.0|4th
\ Adelaide | 56.3 | 5th
\W.Bulldogs|55.3|6th
\West Coast|53.7|7th
\Hawthorn,Melbourne|53.3|equal 8th
\N.Melbourne|52.0|10th
\St Kilda|51.3|11th
\GWS|51.0|12th
\Carlton|50.0|13th
\Richmond|49.7|14th
\Collingwood|48.7|15th
\Essendon|45.7|16th
\Brisbane|43.7|17th
\Fremantle|42.3|18th

Stat: Goal per inside 50 (%)

Team | Goal/I50 (%) | Rank
\N.Melbourne|34.6%|1st
\ Adelaide | 32.5% | 2nd
\West Coast|28.0%|3rd
\Gold Coast|27.7%|4th
\Geelong|26.4%|5th
\Melbourne|26.3%|6th
\Richmond|26.2%|7th
\Brisbane|25.2%|8th
\Hawthorn,Port Adelaide|25.0%|equal 9th
\W.Bulldogs|24.7%|11th
\St Kilda|24.7%|12th
\ Sydney | 24.5% | 13th
\Collingwood|23.3%|14th
\GWS|21.6%|15th
\Fremantle|21.3%|16th
\Essendon|19.7%|17th
\Carlton|18.0%|18th

Stat: Marks inside 50 per inside 50 (%)

Team | M I50 / I50 (%) | Rank
\Richmond|30.87%|1st
\Gold Coast|29.38%|2nd
\West Coast|29.19%|3rd
\St Kilda|28.57%|4th
\N.Melbourne|25.64%|5th
\Geelong|24.72%|6th
\Brisbane|23.66%|7th
\GWS|23.53%|8th
\Essendon|22.63%|9th
\W.Bulldogs|22.29%|10th
\Carlton|22.00%|11th
\Fremantle|21.26%|12th
\Hawthorn|20.00%|13th
\ Sydney | 19.34% | 14th
\Melbourne|18.75%|15th
\ Adelaide | 17.16% | 16th
\Collingwood|17.12%|17th
\Port Adelaide|16.15%|18th

 

[grimlock]

Rest of the stats for you to peruse at your own leisure

 

[grimlock]

 

[Number37]

Great work, again Grim.

Is T.Jones Zak's other brother?

 

[grimlock]

Great work, again Grim.

Is T.Jones Zak's other brother?

I always sneak in a typo to see who's paying attention. Good work.

 

[grimlock]

Centre square

Hannebery used slightly less in the middle, with McGlynn also moving into the rotation.

v GWS

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Kennedy || 25
\v|Griffen|6
\v|Shiel|6
\v|Coniglio|5
\v|Ward|5
\v|Smith|1
\ Parker || 19
\v|Griffen|8
\v|Ward|6
\v|Coniglio|2
\v|Greene|2
\v|Kelly|1
\ K.Jack || 17
\v|Shiel|6
\v|Greene|5
\v|Ward|3
\v|Coniglio|2
\v|Smith|1
\Mitchell || 13
\v|Coniglio|3
\v|Griffen|3
\v|Ward|3
\v|Greene|2
\v|Kelly|1
\v|Shiel|1
\ Hannebery || 9
\v|Ward|3
\v|Coniglio|2
\v|Shiel|2
\v|Greene|1
\v|Griffen|1
\ McGlynn || 2
\v|Greene|1
\v|Griffen|1
\ Hewett || 1
\v|Ward|1

Season to date

Player|Times
\Kennedy|72
\Parker|67
\K.Jack|53
\Mitchell|36
\Hannebery|31
\Hewett|4
\Robinson|3
\McGlynn|2
\Cunningham|1
\Heeney|1

Most common centre square combination

P1|P2|P3|Times
\Kennedy|K.Jack|Parker|32|32
\Hannebery|Kennedy|Parker|11|11
\Mitchell|Kennedy|K.Jack|7|7
\Mitchell|K.Jack|Parker|6|6
\Hannebery|Mitchell|Kennedy|6|6
\Mitchell|Kennedy|Parker|6|6
\Hannebery|Mitchell|Parker|5|5
\Hannebery|Kennedy|K.Jack|5|5

Rucks centre square

Tippett continuing the 2/3rd to 1/3rd split, but more tellingly almost all his battles were against Mumford.

v GWS

Player|Times|Opponent
\Tippett || 19
\v|Mumford|18
\v|Lobb|1
\Sinclair || 9
\v|Mumford|5
\v|Lobb|4

Season to date

Player|Times
\Tippett|66
\Sinclair|24

Kick ins

Only 5/8 kick ins resulted in a mark this week.
It will be interesting to see how the return of McVeigh affects the kick ins.

v GWS

Player | Times
\Laidler|4
\Mills|3
\Grundy|1

Season to date

Player | Times
\Laidler|17
\Mills|6
\Rampe|3
\Grundy|2
\Jones|1
\Lloyd|1

 

[grimlock]

Centre square - v Adelaide
Two interesting observations:

1. K.Jack used much less in the centre square today, most likely due to his heavy clash with Jenkins. Hannebery was used a lot more in his stead. We were dominant in the centre in the first quarter and were second best for the rest of the game IMHO, and not having Jack in there was probably a critical factor.
2. Franklin moved into the centre square for the penultimate centre bounce of the game and arguably the most critical centre bounce of the season so far. It was a strange move considering he hadn't been used there before in the regular season (did a lot of it in the NAB Challenge) and also I thought he would have been needed as a target up forward.

Player | Opponent | Times
\ Kennedy || 30
\v|M.Crouch|10
\v|Thompson|9
\v|Sloane|6
\v|Douglas|3
\v|Mackay|1
\v|Lyons|1
\ Parker || 23
\v|Sloane|8
\v|M.Crouch|6
\v|Thompson|5
\v|Douglas|2
\v|Lyons|1
\v|Mackay|1
\ Hannebery || 22
\v|Thompson|6
\v|M.Crouch|5
\v|Sloane|4
\v|Douglas|3
\v|Mackay|3
\v|Lyons|1
\ Mitchell || 13
\v|Lyons|5
\v|Thompson|3
\v|M.Crouch|2
\v|Sloane|2
\v|Mackay|1
\ K.Jack || 10
\v|Thompson|3
\v|Sloane|2
\v|M.Crouch|1
\v|Douglas|1
\v|Laird|1
\v|Lyons|1
\v|Mackay|1
\ McGlynn || 3
\v|Sloane|2
\v|Thompson|1
\ Franklin || 1
\v|Thompson|1

Centre square - year to date

Player|Times
\Kennedy|102
\Parker|90
\K.Jack|63
\Hannebery|53
\Mitchell|49
\McGlynn|5
\Hewett|4
\Robinson|3
\Cunningham|1
\Franklin|1
\Heeney|1

Rucks - v Adelaide
Tippett took on a bigger workload this week in Sinclair's absence. Nankervis had a spell in the ruck for short stints in the first and third quarters and a slightly longer spell in the last when Tippett was resting up for the final charge.

Player|Opponent|Times
\ Tippett || 30
\v|Jacobs|29
\v|Jenkins|1
\ Nankervis || 4
\v|Jacobs|2
\v|Jenkins|2

Rucks - season to date

Player|Times
\Tippett|96
\Sinclair|24
\Nankervis|4

Kick ins - v Adelaide
The not 15m call occurred on our second kick in (McVeigh to Rampe) and after that it seemed we were spooked out of the short kick in which we've used quite regularly in the first 3 rounds. As a result we kicked long 11 of the remaining 13 kick ins, with only 1 of thos 11 long kicks resulting in a mark.

Player|Times
\Laidler|5
\Rampe|4
\McVeigh|3
\Mills|3
\Smith|1

Kick ins - season to date

Player|Times
\Laidler|22
\Mills|9
\Rampe|7
\McVeigh|3
\Grundy|2
\Jones|1
\Lloyd|1
\Smith|1

 

[grimlock]

In today's stats focus, we look at the different styles of the two teams so far in 2016. West Coast, with a noted advantage in the ruck in Nic Nat, often get first hands to the ball and with it gain territorial advantage. And then with the much vaunted "Weagles Web", lock the ball in their forward half, hunting the opposition, forcing the turnover and generating a shot at goal.

The Swans still like to use hands in tight at a stoppage or contested situation, and if they manage to break clear of traffic can often score goals with open spaces in their forward half.

We can see this discrepancy in each side's kick-to-handball ratio

Team | K:H ratio | Rank
\ West Coast | 1.38 | 1st
\Fremantle|1.32|2nd
\Adelaide|1.28|3rd
\Carlton|1.27|4th
\Geelong|1.24|5th
\N. Melbourne|1.23|6th
\GWS|1.22|7th
\Collingwood|1.19|8th
\Richmond|1.17|9th
\Gold Coast|1.13|10th
\P. Adelaide|1.13|11th
\Brisbane|1.12|12th
\St Kilda|1.12|13th
\Melbourne|1.12|14th
\ Sydney | 1.11 | 15th
\Hawthorn|1.09|16th
\Essendon|1.07|17th
\W. Bulldogs|1.05|18th

The Eagles's ruck dominance can be seen in the hitouts stat, both for and against

Team | Hitouts made | Rank
\ West Coast | 55.5 | 1st
\Hawthorn, P. Adelaide|46.0|eq. 2nd
\Adelaide|44.5|4th
\Carlton, N.Melbourne|43.8|eq. 5th
\Melbourne|43.3|7th
\St Kilda|43.0|8th
\ Sydney | 41.3 | 9th
\Geelong, GWS|37.0|eq. 10th
\Richmond|35.3|12th
\Brisbane|33.5|13th
\Essendon|33.0|14th
\Fremantle|32.8|15th
\W. Bulldogs|30.0|16th
\Collingwood|28.8|17th
\Gold Coast|28.5|18th

Team | Hitouts conceded | Rank
\Carlton|26.5|1st
\ West Coast | 27.0 | 2nd
\Melbourne|31.3|3rd
\Essendon|34.3|4th
\GWS|35.5|5th
\Fremantle|36.3|6th
\Geelong|38.0|7th
\W. Bulldogs|38.5|8th
\Richmond|39.0|9th
\ Sydney | 39.3 | 10th
\St Kilda|40.3|11th
\N. Melbourne|41.0|12th
\Collingwood|41.3|13th
\Gold Coast|44.8|14th
\Brisbane|45.5|15th
\Adelaide|46.8|16th
\Hawthorn|48.5|17th
\P. Adelaide|49.3|18th

Those raw stats look mightily impressive, but how do they translate to clearances? We use the derived stat Clearances Ratio (Clearances For / Clearances Against) to give us a better idea:

Team | HO Diff | Clear. For | Clear. Against | Clear. Ratio | Rank
\W. Bulldogs|-8.5|37.8|28.8|1.31|1st
\GWS|1.5|38.3|29.8|1.29|2nd
\Adelaide|-2.3|42.8|39.0|1.10|3rd
\Melbourne|12.0|37.8|35.0|1.08|4th
\ Sydney | 2.0 | 38.5 | 35.8 | 1.08 | 5th
\ West Coast | 28.5 | 39.0 | 36.5 | 1.07 | 6th
\Richmond|-3.8|35.0|33.5|1.04|7th
\Gold Coast|-16.3|34.8|33.5|1.04|8th
\St Kilda|2.8|39.0|37.3|1.03|9th
\Geelong|-1.0|36.0|36.0|1.00|10th
\N. Melbourne|2.8|40.5|42.0|0.96|11th
\Essendon|-1.3|31.8|33.5|0.95|12th
\Collingwood|-12.5|32.8|34.8|0.94|13th
\Fremantle|-3.5|32.3|35.0|0.92|14th
\Hawthorn|-2.5|38.3|42.0|0.91|15th
\Brisbane|-12.0|34.3|40.5|0.85|16th
\P. Adelaide|-3.3|38.8|47.0|0.82|17th
\Carlton|17.3|30.0|37.0|0.81|18th

As we can see, despite West Coast dominating the taps, the Swans midfield are slightly better on a scaled rating. So while Nic Nat will undoubtedly beat Tippett and Sinclair to most taps, we should back the Swans midfield to either shark his hits, or pressure the Eagles midfield to cough it up under tremendous pressure.

Also it's a big indictment on Carlton's midfield set up, having the 2nd biggest HO differential but clearly the worst clearance setup in the AFL.

Finally, we note the differences in each side's forward line efficiency.

Team | Avg. Goals | Avg. Inside 50 | Goal/I50 (%) | Rank
\N. Melbourne|18.5|52.3|35.41%|1st
\Adelaide|17.8|57.5|30.87%|2nd
\ West Coast | 15.8 | 55.3 | 28.51% | 3rd
\Gold Coast|15.8|56.3|28.00%|4th
\Richmond|12.0|44.0|27.27%|5th
\Melbourne|14.5|54.3|26.73%|6th
\St Kilda|12.8|50.0|25.50%|7th
\W. Bulldogs|13.5|54.0|25.00%|eq. 8th
\Hawthorn|13.3|53.0|25.00%|eq. 8th
\ Sydney | 16.8 | 67.3 | 24.91% | 10th
\Geelong|14.0|57.0|24.56%|11th
\P. Adeliade|14.3|58.3|24.46%|12th
\GWS|13.8|57.0|24.12%|13th
\Brisbane|11.8|49.3|23.86%|14th
\Fremantle|10.3|43.3|23.70%|15th
\Collingwood|10.8|50.3|21.39%|16th
\Essendon|8.3|44.3|18.64%|17th
\Carlton|8.5|48.5|17.53%|18th

As we noted before the Adelaide game, the Swans forward line efficiency was below the league average, where the Swans weren't particularly good at converting Inside 50s into goals, but were scoring heavily based on the high number of inside 50s alone.

This trend continued in the first half against Adelaide where the Swans again had big inside 50 numbers but could only put 5 goals on the board from 29 inside 50 entries. The trend reversed itself in the second half with the Swans kicking 10 goals from 28 inside 50 entries.

The discrepancy between the Eagles and Swans forward lines can partly be explained by the types of shots generated at goal.

Team | Marks inside 50/I50 (%) | Rank
\Richmond|30.68%|1st
\ West Coast | 30.32% | 2nd
\Gold Coast|28.44%|3rd
\St Kilda|28.00%|4th
\Geelong|27.63%|5th
\N. Melbourne|25.84%|6th
\Brisbane|24.87%|7th
\Fremantle|23.12%|8th
\Carlton|22.68%|9th
\Essendon|22.60%|10th
\GWS|21.93%|11th
\W. Bulldogs|19.91%|12th
\Melbourne|19.82%|13th
\Hawthorn|19.34%|14th
\ Sydney | 18.22% | 15th
\Adelaide|16.96%|16th
\Collingwood|16.42%|17th
\P. Adelaide|15.02%|18th

The Eagles generate a high number of marks inside 50 from their forward 50 entries whilst the Swans struggle to emulate them. With tall targets in the likes of Kennedy, Darling, McGovern and Naitanui as well as small forwards Cripps, Le Cras and Hill who are good marks for their size, it's no wonder the Eagles are one of the best forward line in the competition.

The Swans don't possess the same depth as the Eagles, and have lost some potency with Tippett now playing as the side's number 1 ruckman. The performance of Heeney in last week's game after a slow pre-season could change this.

 

[grimlock]

Sydney v Brisbane overall stats

 

[grimlock]

In today's stats look, we note the low ranking of the Lions midfield, but also the surprising potency of their forward line.

The Swans are rightly regarded as one of the best midfields in the AFL, ranking consistently high in areas such as contested posessions, clearances and tackles. The Lions midfield cannot be held in the same high regard, in short, they struggle to get their hands on the ball enough times. Were the two brigades to meet in battle, it would be complete and decisive victory for the Swans.

Team | Avg. Disposals | Rank
\W. Bulldogs|231.2|1st
\GWS|214.0|2nd
\St Kilda|213.8|3rd
\Essendon|210.6|4th
\West Coast|210.2|5th
\ Sydney | 208.2 | 6th
\Adelaide|206.0|7th
\N. Melbourne|204.4|8th
\Geelong|202.8|9th
\Melbourne|200.8|10th
\Collingwood|199.6|11th
\Carlton|197.2|12th
\Hawthorn, Richmond|196.0|eq. 13th
\Gold Coast|193.2|15th
\Fremantle|192.2|16th
\Port Adelaide|184.4|17th
\ Brisbane | 176.4 | 18th

Clearance % = Number of clearances won / (Number of clearances won + Number of clearances lost)

Team | Clearance % | Rank
\W. Bulldogs|58.21%|1st
\GWS|55.17%|2nd
\ Sydney | 52.96% | 3rd
\Melbourne|51.87%|4th
\Geelong|51.63%|5th
\Gold Coast|50.90%|6th
\Adelaide|50.73%|7th
\Richmond|50.42%|8th
\St Kilda|50.39%|9th
\Essendon|50.00%|10th
\West Coast|49.87%|11th
\Fremantle|49.26%|12th
\Hawthorn|49.26%|13th
\N. Melbourne|49.10%|14th
\Collingwood|47.89%|15th
\Carlton|44.97%|16th
\Port Adelaide|44.68%|17th
\ Brisbane | 44.02% | 18th

But despite the midfield struggles, their no-frills forward line is working at a better efficiency than the much vaunted Swans's forward line.

Score/I50% = a score (either goal or behind) per inside 50

Team | Score/I50% | Rank
\N. Melbourne|52.40%|1st
\Adelaide|49.28%|2nd
\ Brisbane | 49.12% | 3rd
\Gold Coast|48.54%|4th
\Fremantle|48.42%|5th
\Richmond|44.83%|6th
\GWS|44.33%|7th
\Port Adelaide|43.17%|8th
\Geelong|44.66%|9th
\W. Bulldogs|42.51%|10th
\West Coast|42.14%|11th
\Hawthorn|41.91%|12th
\ Sydney | 41.27% | 13th
\Melbourne|40.29%|14th
\Collingwood|39.84%|15th
\St Kilda|38.34%|16th
\Carlton|36.10%|17th
\Essendon|33.77%|18th

 

[grimlock]

Centre square v West Coast
Rotations appear to have returned to normal with Jack the equal second most centre square attendee.

Player | Opponent | Times
\ Kennedy || 18
\v|Priddis|6
\v|Shuey|5
\v|Redden|4
\v|Yeo|2
\v|Gaff|1
\ K.Jack || 15
\v|Priddis|6
\v|Yeo|4
\v|Duggan|3
\v|Redden|1
\v|Shuey|1
\ Parker || 15
\v|Shuey|6
\v|Yeo|4
\v|Redden|2
\v|Duggan|1
\v|Gaff|1
\v|Priddis|1
\ Hannebery || 10
\v|Yeo|3
\v|Priddis|3
\v|Redden|2
\v|Shuey|2
\ Mitchell || 8
\v|Priddis|3
\v|Shuey|2
\v|Duggan|1
\v|Le Cras|1
\v|Redden|1
\ McGlynn || 3
\v|Cripps|1
\v|Gaff|1
\v|Shuey|1

Centre square - Season to date

Player | Times
\Kennedy|120
\Parker|105
\K.Jack|78
\Hannebery|63
\Mitchell|57
\McGlynn|8
\Hewett|4
\Robinson|3
\Heeney|1
\Cunningham|1
\Franklin|1

Rucks centre square - v West Coast
The ruck split continues to be unbalanced with most of the time going to Tippett.

Player | Opponent | Times
\ Tippett || 18
\v|Naitanui|17
\v|McInnes|1
\ Sinclair || 5
\v|Naitanui|3
\v|McInnes|2

Rucks centre square - season to date

Player | Times
\Tippett|114
\Sinclair|29
\Nankervis|4

Kick ins - v West Coast
Our leading kick in taker Laidler was out of commission early, but with only 7 kick ins for the game, the load was evenly spread between the next 3.

Player | Times
\Rampe|3
\McVeigh|2
\Mills|2

Kick ins - Season to date

Player | Times
\Laidler|22
\Mills|11
\Rampe|10
\McVeigh|5
\Grundy|2
\Jones|1
\Lloyd|1
\Smith|1

 

[vonn]

Omg can I has ur brain grimlock

 

[grimlock]

Having thrown the Brisbane midfield on the scrapheap last week, my words were made to look foolish when they produced an impressive performance to batter our midfield. I suppose I should be more circumspect in this week's stats update as a result. However I will continue to pour scorn about Essendon's equally poor midfield. However, unlike Brisbane, their problem lies not in getting the ball, but converting disposals and possessions to goals on the scoreboard.

High rankings in uncontested marks and uncontested possessions and the lowest contested possession rate in the AFL signify Worsfold's game plan to starve the opposition of the ball by hanging onto the Sherrin for as long as possible. However with a weakened forward line, translating these high numbers of possessions into goals has proved a major headache. Daniher is the undoubted star in their forward 50 but his woes with the set shots mean that he cannot be relied upon to hurt the opposition up forward.

Team | Uncontested marks | Rank
\ Essendon | 95.2 | 1st
\Geelong|85.5|2nd
\W. Bulldogs|85.0|3rd
\GWS|84.3|4th
\St Kilda|83.2|5th
\Carlton|79.7|6th
\West Coast|78.7|7th
\Adelaide|76.5|8th
\Richmond|75.5|9th
\Gold Coast|71.5|10th
\Fremantle|70.0|11th
\Collingwood|69.5|12th
\Hawthorn|69.0|13th
\N. Melbourne|68.8|14th
\Melbourne|63.3|15th
\Brisbane, Sydney | 62.0 | eq. 16th
\P. Adelaide|60.2|18th

Team | Uncontested possessions | Rank
\W. Bulldogs|295.8|1st
\ Essendon | 270.0 | 2nd
\St Kilda|263.5|3rd
\GWS|248.5|4th
\Adelaide|238.7|5th
\Geelong|234.8|6th
\Collingwood|231.3|7th
\Gold Coast,Hawthorn|229.7|eq. 8th
\Carlton|229.2|10th
\Melbourne,Richmond|223.0|eq. 11th
\ Sydney | 221.3 | 13th
\N. Melbourne|218.2|14th
\West Coast|217.7|15th
\Fremantle|211.8|16th
\P. Adelaide|207.2|17th
\Brisbane|191.3|18th

Team | Contested possession rate(%) | Rank
\ Sydney | 42.96% | 1st
\Brisbane|41.43%|2nd
\P. Adelaide|41.28%|3rd
\N. Melbourne|40.47%|4th
\Melbourne|40.27%|5th
\West Coast|40.01%|6th
\Adelaide|39.22%|7th
\Fremantle|38.95%|8th
\Richmond|38.28%|9th
\Collingwood|38.01%|10th
\Geelong|37.87%|11th
\Hawthorn|37.62%|12th
\GWS|36.85%|13th
\Carlton|36.75%|14th
\Gold Coast|36.44%|15th
\W. Bulldogs|34.38%|16th
\St Kilda|34.23%|17th
\ Essendon | 32.50% | 18th

Team | Disposals per goal | Rank
\N. Melbourne|21.52|1st
\Adelaide|22.83|2nd
\Geelong|23.36|3rd
\GWS|24.11|4th
\Melbourne|24.15|5th
\West Coast|24.56|6th
\ Sydney | 24.87 | 7th
\Gold Coast|26.59|8th
\Hawthorn|26.66|9th
\P. Adelaide|27.15|10th
\Brisbane|27.86|11th
\St Kilda|29.00|12th
\Collingwood|30.43|13th
\Richmond|31.14|14th
\W. Bulldogs|35.13|15th
\Fremantle|36.29|16th
\Carlton|40.26|17th
\ Essendon | 46.08 | 18th