Time for some stats!

[4#Didak#4]

Last Friday was an extremely confusing game, for everyone it seems. I was extremely tempted to forget that game and move on - I certainly will not watch it again.

The theories are all out there: they weren't trying, no tactics like the press in place, bruise free football, the Cats too good, missing players etc etc. Something was certainly on the nose.

So I have turned to the magical world of stats for some answers and peace of mind.

We all know our inside 50s & scoring shots were diabolical, but why?

Our possession count was OK, not great but OK, tackles were about our season average, but we were chasing tail all night. Disposal effiency was on our average (which surprised me greatly). Centre clearances were on our average (again surprising), our running bounces (a great stat that tells us if we are running & carrying the ball enough) were just above average.

The above indicates we had enough of the ball and disposed of it OK. Making it all the more perplexing. If we look into it further though some stats tell a story:

Kick/Handball %
We usually kick 60% and handball 40%. This game we went 55/45. That is a significant difference in the way we used the ball. Particularly when under pressure where we tend to kick more. Against St K it was 61/39, Carlton 64/36, the last Geelong game 63/37.

For those still reading, this is where it gets interesting - against West Coast we dropped off to 58/42 and won comfortably. I might be reading a bit much into this, but it is possible that they were trying to use handball a lot more in preparation for next weeks WC press. Other clubs are implementing this well now & perhaps they are trying to work on a way to combat it or use handball like we did in round 10. Against Geelong it is totally inappropriate to take them on with this style - we never have before.

As a side note we also had a really low kick/handball count against the Hawks who were trying some very different things that day tactically.

Contested Possessions
Our contested possessions were down 24 on season average or 15%. Once again this is a significant amount. Something we pride ourselves on. This basically means that the slight drop off in possession average of 23 is all & more in the contested possessions. This is again wierd as usually when our possession count is lower its less uncontested, but the contested remains around our average.

Perhaps the Cats, who are a great contested possession side, simply beat us on our merits easily, but last time we played our CP was up on average so they would have had to improve a lot. I think there is little doubt they didnt put their bodies on the line to win the hard ball, we don't win games when that happens, its central to our game plan.

I am putting this down to both preservation & the Cats intensity after being well beaten in this department against Sydney. However you can still win games when CP is down - see the Carlton game.

1 Percenters
Yes there is a stat for 1%ers and this includes things like shepards, spoils, and smothers. For me this is the big key, it was our worst result for the year - down nearly 30% on the year, down 32% on last time we played the Cats. These are little things that make good sides great. They are the statistical equivalent of desperation. Everyone saw they were not desperate enough and this backs that up.

These are things that every player can do in any game, against anyone, the only time this drops off is when there is no effort to do them. The good news is they are also very easily corrected.

In Summary
The above factors meant although we had some of the ball, and used it OK we were not winning enough crucial contested ball to get it inside 50 enough. We handballed a lot more which is never going to get you forward quick or deep. We did not pressure the ball carrier and cause trunovers, we did not run in support of our ball carrier - this will mean we turn the ball over and they don't - the vast majority of our scoring shots are from opposition turnovers. No pressure on Geelongs elite midfielders will mean no turnovers and no scoring shots - one way traffic.

I am a lot more comfortable with that loss. Those three statistical anomolies were all within our control. I am not saying we would have beaten Geelong had we changed all the above to our average number, but it would have been within 4-5 goals. To beat the Cats though we do need to play above our average and they remain a significant threat for the 2011 flag.

 

[ThexderX]

Nice work, although I noted you have about 23% more stats than your normal posts and you used about 36% more words on average.

That said I think your effort was up 62% on normal.

The one stat you forgot was the "we don't give a stuff and we're not trying" stat...that was up 100%.

 

[Pie eyed]

Last Friday was an extremely confusing game, for everyone it seems. I was extremely tempted to forget that game and move on - I certainly will not watch it again.

The theories are all out there: they weren't trying, no tactics like the press in place, bruise free football, the Cats too good, missing players etc etc. Something was certainly on the nose.

So I have turned to the magical world of stats for some answers and peace of mind.

We all know our inside 50s & scoring shots were diabolical, but why?

Our possession count was OK, not great but OK, tackles were about our season average, but we were chasing tail all night. Disposal effiency was on our average (which surprised me greatly). Centre clearances were on our average (again surprising), our running bounces (a great stat that tells us if we are running & carrying the ball enough) were just above average.

The above indicates we had enough of the ball and disposed of it OK. Making it all the more perplexing. If we look into it further though some stats tell a story:

Kick/Handball %
We usually kick 60% and handball 40%. This game we went 55/45. That is a significant difference in the way we used the ball. Particularly when under pressure where we tend to kick more. Against St K it was 61/39, Carlton 64/36, the last Geelong game 63/37.

For those still reading, this is where it gets interesting - against West Coast we dropped off to 58/42 and won comfortably. I might be reading a bit much into this, but it is possible that they were trying to use handball a lot more in preparation for next weeks WC press. Other clubs are implementing this well now & perhaps they are trying to work on a way to combat it or use handball like we did in round 10. Against Geelong it is totally inappropriate to take them on with this style - we never have before.

As a side note we also had a really low kick/handball count against the Hawks who were trying some very different things that day tactically.

Contested Possessions
Our contested possessions were down 24 on season average or 15%. Once again this is a significant amount. Something we pride ourselves on. This basically means that the slight drop off in possession average of 23 is all & more in the contested possessions. This is again wierd as usually when our possession count is lower its less uncontested, but the contested remains around our average.

Perhaps the Cats, who are a great contested possession side, simply beat us on our merits easily, but last time we played our CP was up on average so they would have had to improve a lot. I think there is little doubt they didnt put their bodies on the line to win the hard ball, we don't win games when that happens, its central to our game plan.

I am putting this down to both preservation & the Cats intensity after being well beaten in this department against Sydney. However you can still win games when CP is down - see the Carlton game.

1 Percenters
Yes there is a stat for 1%ers and this includes things like shepards, spoils, and smothers. For me this is the big key, it was our worst result for the year - down nearly 30% on the year, down 32% on last time we played the Cats. These are little things that make good sides great. They are the statistical equivalent of desperation. Everyone saw they were not desperate enough and this backs that up.

These are things that every player can do in any game, against anyone, the only time this drops off is when there is no effort to do them. The good news is they are also very easily corrected.

In Summary
The above factors meant although we had some of the ball, and used it OK we were not winning enough crucial contested ball to get it inside 50 enough. We handballed a lot more which is never going to get you forward quick or deep. We did not pressure the ball carrier and cause trunovers, we did not run in support of our ball carrier - this will mean we turn the ball over and they don't - the vast majority of our scoring shots are from opposition turnovers. No pressure on Geelongs elite midfielders will mean no turnovers and no scoring shots - one way traffic.

I am a lot more comfortable with that loss. Those three statistical anomolies were all within our control. I am not saying we would have beaten Geelong had we changed all the above to our average number, but it would have been within 4-5 goals. To beat the Cats though we do need to play above our average and they remain a significant threat for the 2011 flag.

The only stat which matters was Malthouse forehead temperature.
First time this year it remained below 34 for the entire match.
Apparently his heart rate remained level and stable the entire game, even when he ate Buck's tongue.

 

[the distributer]

Last Friday was an extremely confusing game, for everyone it seems. I was extremely tempted to forget that game and move on - I certainly will not watch it again.

The theories are all out there: they weren't trying, no tactics like the press in place, bruise free football, the Cats too good, missing players etc etc. Something was certainly on the nose.

So I have turned to the magical world of stats for some answers and peace of mind.

We all know our inside 50s & scoring shots were diabolical, but why?

Our possession count was OK, not great but OK, tackles were about our season average, but we were chasing tail all night. Disposal effiency was on our average (which surprised me greatly). Centre clearances were on our average (again surprising), our running bounces (a great stat that tells us if we are running & carrying the ball enough) were just above average.

The above indicates we had enough of the ball and disposed of it OK. Making it all the more perplexing. If we look into it further though some stats tell a story:

Kick/Handball %
We usually kick 60% and handball 40%. This game we went 55/45. That is a significant difference in the way we used the ball. Particularly when under pressure where we tend to kick more. Against St K it was 61/39, Carlton 64/36, the last Geelong game 63/37.

For those still reading, this is where it gets interesting - against West Coast we dropped off to 58/42 and won comfortably. I might be reading a bit much into this, but it is possible that they were trying to use handball a lot more in preparation for next weeks WC press. Other clubs are implementing this well now & perhaps they are trying to work on a way to combat it or use handball like we did in round 10. Against Geelong it is totally inappropriate to take them on with this style - we never have before.

As a side note we also had a really low kick/handball count against the Hawks who were trying some very different things that day tactically.

Contested Possessions
Our contested possessions were down 24 on season average or 15%. Once again this is a significant amount. Something we pride ourselves on. This basically means that the slight drop off in possession average of 23 is all & more in the contested possessions. This is again wierd as usually when our possession count is lower its less uncontested, but the contested remains around our average.

Perhaps the Cats, who are a great contested possession side, simply beat us on our merits easily, but last time we played our CP was up on average so they would have had to improve a lot. I think there is little doubt they didnt put their bodies on the line to win the hard ball, we don't win games when that happens, its central to our game plan.

I am putting this down to both preservation & the Cats intensity after being well beaten in this department against Sydney. However you can still win games when CP is down - see the Carlton game.

1 Percenters
Yes there is a stat for 1%ers and this includes things like shepards, spoils, and smothers. For me this is the big key, it was our worst result for the year - down nearly 30% on the year, down 32% on last time we played the Cats. These are little things that make good sides great. They are the statistical equivalent of desperation. Everyone saw they were not desperate enough and this backs that up.

These are things that every player can do in any game, against anyone, the only time this drops off is when there is no effort to do them. The good news is they are also very easily corrected.

In Summary
The above factors meant although we had some of the ball, and used it OK we were not winning enough crucial contested ball to get it inside 50 enough. We handballed a lot more which is never going to get you forward quick or deep. We did not pressure the ball carrier and cause trunovers, we did not run in support of our ball carrier - this will mean we turn the ball over and they don't - the vast majority of our scoring shots are from opposition turnovers. No pressure on Geelongs elite midfielders will mean no turnovers and no scoring shots - one way traffic.

I am a lot more comfortable with that loss. Those three statistical anomolies were all within our control. I am not saying we would have beaten Geelong had we changed all the above to our average number, but it would have been within 4-5 goals. To beat the Cats though we do need to play above our average and they remain a significant threat for the 2011 flag.

Someone said on footy classified last night that our missed tackle count sky rocketed, something like 3 times more missed tackles than normal, read no more, that tells about mindset.

 

[vjknight]

this is the sort of summary i was asking for the other day - well done #4.

where did you source the stats from ?

also does anyone have the stats on individuals time on ground, location on ground etc - ie im looking for elite players benched for extended periods or played out of position, particularly in the 1st half, but also the whole game.

a lot of that going on from what i understand.

 

[doppleganger]

Ball, Jolly and Cloke were in the worst 3 players on the ground, all had absolute stinkers.

Not too much to worry about IMO.

Will bounce back.

 

[upnsmoke]

Thanks for the stats.

Judging by the stats, the One percenters are the main demise for the Pies.... I agree this suggest that the Pies weren't desperate in their efforts.

However, looking at the other stats, its grim, Pies almost threading season averages, yet 100 point demolition.

I'm still optimistic, but it seems Cats have an extra gear they can access when they want to...

The Cats fans saying Cats didnt try are wrong IMO, Cat's plan of attack was almost implemented to the T.... but shouldnt of been a 100 point difference, then you add the Pies weren't desperate in their efforts hence the outcome.


I still think, Cats shouldnt be under estimated, Pies are yet to score 62+ points against them this season. And they are indeed big bodied, veterans with several who are either current All Australians or Ex All Australians... and a very good coach.

They should be regarded as biggest threath this season, either Pies are fit or not.

 

[Pie eyed]

They should be regarded as biggest threath this season, either Pies are fit or not.

I think it's been patently clear the Cats are the biggest threat for a fair while now.

 

[Wooljay]

The 1% stat is the big one, good indication of desperation and intensity. Pretty much tells the tale of Friday night itself.

 

[Kirby]

The Cats are purely and simply a team (great team) who you can not let bully you and beat you for contested ball. If you give up the one percenters against them they will run all over you and smash you to smithereens.

This is why our game plan was developed to beat them and it heavily relies upon pressure, one percenters, structures and discipline. All of those things were missing on Friday night and we consequently got flogged.

 

[Number 10]

You only needed to watch their runners (Christensen, Varcoe, Wojcinske, Enright, Mackie) run as free as they wanted to see what went wrong.

We simply didn't want to chase, we didn't want to bust a gut if we were losing so we put the cue in the rack and preserved ourselves.

Having said that, if I even smell a whiff of that mindset during the finals - we are done. But, that is highly unlikely seeing what we have done all season

 

[Brad Goodman]

They had 14 players aged 27 years or over, we had eight and our ninth eldest was Travis Cloke at 24.

Not sure if that actually means anything though, other than that Geelong is an old side with perhaps one last tilt at a flag before their core is too old.

 

[mattys123]

They had 14 players aged 27 years or over, we had eight and our ninth eldest was Travis Cloke at 24.

Not sure if that actually means anything though, other than that Geelong is an old side with perhaps one last tilt at a flag before their core is too old.

We are about to add some experience (or age) this week though, with Maxwell, Davis and Shaw all returning.

Davis and Maxy are obviously over 27, so you can't say we are a heap younger then the Cats, but we are younger in the key position areas with the likes of Dawes, Cloke, Reid etc.

Oh, and to the OP, thanks for those stats, proves that we treated the game like a practice match, as most of us have been saying since Friday Night.

 

[4#Didak#4]

this is the sort of summary i was asking for the other day - well done #4.

where did you source the stats from ?

also does anyone have the stats on individuals time on ground, location on ground etc - ie im looking for elite players benched for extended periods or played out of position, particularly in the 1st half, but also the whole game.

a lot of that going on from what i understand.

Stats are from CFC website.

Not sure about individual TOG. Certainly Sinclair seemed to play a lot of minutes through the middle and Pendles sat out for a fair chunk.

 

[Ed D]

http://www.afl.com.au/statistics/ta...roundid=800&fixtureid=0&teamid=38&playerids=0

Click the MORE STATS link on the right hand side and select TG% option to see the players time on ground.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

OP needed to mention the care factor from the players, which was at approximately 0%.

 

[Pie eyed]

Swanny, mid-tackle, and Dawes,on a searching lead, both seen tweeting Daisy about his new hair-do was a dead set give away.

 

[Beastie03]

You can look at all the stats and they are all showing Collingwood meeting its season averages. As anyone would know who actually understands the press which is infact a compressed zone designed to keep the ball inside a teams half, is that you actually have to kick a behind to have time to set it up! Collingwood wasnt allowed to set up their press as they didnt score a single behind. They were forced to play man on man. Now i have nothing but respect for a side like Collingwood as they have done very well and are the reigning premiers. But when it comes to playing man on man football i would think even the most one eyed magpies fan would say that geelong would win that hands down. Also although the press was designed for Geelongs overuse of the ball this isnt the same geelong team that played last year. This is a cats team that is using the press but still using the corridor with fewer disposals. Cats arent handballing back a mucking around with the handball anymore. Have a look at their handball to kick ratio state for last year and this year. They are kicking the ball long down the corridor wasnting the one on one situation because they back their players in beating teams on one on ones.

 

[Markfs]

I think we were outplayed. The stats indicate a few players didnt come to play 100% but the team took it easy at the start and were actually in front, so I have a feeling that they thought it was going to be an easy night at the office.

The point about Geelong's changing game-plan is right. They do things a bit smarter now. We didnt get the ball forward so it was hard to do a "forward-press" when it was in our back-line so much.

Good to see a Geelong supporter in here making some good points.

I still think that Geelong are, on average, slower than the Pies. A few new players have helped the Cats but I still think they might be shown up if the ball gets out into the open.

Great stats at the start. It's so good to have a thread that is based on some thinking and evidence. Keep up the good work!!

 

[the distributer]

You can look at all the stats and they are all showing Collingwood meeting its season averages. As anyone would know who actually understands the press which is infact a compressed zone designed to keep the ball inside a teams half, is that you actually have to kick a behind to have time to set it up! Collingwood wasnt allowed to set up their press as they didnt score a single behind. They were forced to play man on man. Now i have nothing but respect for a side like Collingwood as they have done very well and are the reigning premiers. But when it comes to playing man on man football i would think even the most one eyed magpies fan would say that geelong would win that hands down. Also although the press was designed for Geelongs overuse of the ball this isnt the same geelong team that played last year. This is a cats team that is using the press but still using the corridor with fewer disposals. Cats arent handballing back a mucking around with the handball anymore. Have a look at their handball to kick ratio state for last year and this year. They are kicking the ball long down the corridor wasnting the one on one situation because they back their players in beating teams on one on ones.

Anyone with atleast half a brain would actually know what they're talking about before making an idiot of themselves, you can set up a press from a slow play fwd of centre you dumb nit!!

 

[buzzbuzz]

Anyone with atleast half a brain would actually know what they're talking about before making an idiot of themselves, you can set up a press from a slow play fwd of centre you dumb nit!!

You're not a very nice person, are you?

 

[4#Didak#4]

You can look at all the stats and they are all showing Collingwood meeting its season averages. As anyone would know who actually understands the press which is infact a compressed zone designed to keep the ball inside a teams half, is that you actually have to kick a behind to have time to set it up! Collingwood wasnt allowed to set up their press as they didnt score a single behind. They were forced to play man on man. Now i have nothing but respect for a side like Collingwood as they have done very well and are the reigning premiers. But when it comes to playing man on man football i would think even the most one eyed magpies fan would say that geelong would win that hands down. Also although the press was designed for Geelongs overuse of the ball this isnt the same geelong team that played last year. This is a cats team that is using the press but still using the corridor with fewer disposals. Cats arent handballing back a mucking around with the handball anymore. Have a look at their handball to kick ratio state for last year and this year. They are kicking the ball long down the corridor wasnting the one on one situation because they back their players in beating teams on one on ones.

I am not sure what game you were watching but there was a total lack of man on man happening, we continually ran wide of direct opponents looking for the easy kicks. There was no attempt to go man on man and make Geelong players accountable - which would have been a bloody good idea half way through the second quarter - would have loved some sort of man on man contest.

Geelong are a good man on man, contested team, but not that great (backline excepted). Sydney destroyed Geelong the week before going man on man & playing a huge contested game. I think this is the biggest weakness of the Cats & something they focussed on Friday night. Selwood is great at it, Bartel can be (but has been down a lot this year along with Chappy) and Ablett was brilliant. The Hawks are well equipped to smash the Cats in close with Hodge, Sewell, Mitchell & Lewis. They really need to improve on recent contested footy performances or risk a defeat this week. Friday was a good start!

Where the Cats are great is when they start running in numbers, taking risks no other sides can because of their skills, hurting sides that drop off their direct opponents. There is no better side at hurting the opposition with their uncontested possessions with direct penetrating footy. To beat them you close this down and win the contested footy to deny their runners - then you apply the press.

 

[the distributer]

You're not a very nice person, are you?

Yes i am, i just don't like people talking shit.

 

[Ed D]

You can look at all the stats and they are all showing Collingwood meeting its season averages.

No they weren't, that's what this thread points out if you actually took the time to read it. As for the press etc and not having time to set it up, what a stupid remark! If you think the Pies were playing their best and were simply outplayed then you're in for a shock!

 

[Bay Pie]

http://www.afl.com.au/statistics/ta...roundid=800&fixtureid=0&teamid=38&playerids=0

Click the MORE STATS link on the right hand side and select TG% option to see the players time on ground.

Hehe. Outside of Taz and Blair who were the subbed and sub, Krak, Bally, BJ & Pendles had the least TOG%. All under 80%.

Johno injured but Bally & Pendles Our 2 inside extractors

I'd be interested in our rotation numbers for that game.

1%ers tell the story. Thanks for the stats #4.