Our percentages vary slightly; did you not include finals, @SplitRound?
Appreciate your work.
I imagine someone from the AFL will be along to collect you, shortly.
1 Like
1978-1993 the glory days.
Do we just call you doctor Data?
Where do you get all these numbers from?
https://afltables.com/afl/stats/biglists/bg3.txt
Dates got mangled on import, hence me being so slow to respond.
I just read the book “Footballistics”…it explains that the OOB rule changes had a big impact on scoring, by forcing the game to be played long and direct up the middle:
- 1924: Last touch OOB rule introduced
- Circa 1938: Last touch OOB rule was relaxed again
- Circa 1967: Rule returned in a softer form, with OOB on the full penalised
2 Likes
The base numbers are the same but the percentages are different because for some stupid reason I divided by 200 rather than 207. Why 200? Well, because I’m a ■■■■■■ idiot, that’s why.
2 Likes
Also with less interchange some take it slower to give there stars a breather as they need them on field more then other teams due to septh time stage of game!
I wouldn’t stress about slow/boring styles, remember the innovative new rules from 2018-19 will completely fix all that
Nothing wrong with our brand we just play a brand like Zaharakis football no balls
Whatever you think of “brand”, in 2019 we ranked 3rd for turnovers both on total and differential.
You’re not going to win if you’re losing the ball that much.
I suspect our score launches (the much vaunted “half-back brand”) has a hell of a lot more to do with where our good ball users are and aren’t! than any grand plan.
4 Likes
That’s a great indicator.
We would have done the analysis on methods that provided turnovers(opposition scores) vs our scores.
If it’s considered that majority of turnovers are relative to a corridor/speed/wide/slow method than that method will be reduced. From what I’m seeing and hearing is that wider exits and midfield movement is centralised more so to the wing. I assume this method resulted in us having a greater positive on turnover score vs our scores. Our scoring power may decrease but the oppositions will decrease more so.
Other methods may also be adopted such as handball happy movement like Richmond and the Bulldogs before that which in recent past we have hardly executed.
Can you try and re type this?
I can’t make any sense of it at all.
Hmm I’ll try,
My assumption is that we have several methods of ball movement and each have been analysed whether they create more goals compared to turning the ball over that result in opposition goals.
The best method based on the above is to train and prepare to move the ball wider based on what I’ve seen and heard.
Our go to methods of fast and through the corridor have reduced in training and preparing for.
There is other methods such as handballing to gain territory to score that we haven’t been known that we may adopt.
First comment…I have some reservations about David King’s intelligence and therefore any proposition he puts forward.
Second comment…related to the first…I need more data to be convinced that teams are playing slower football. I think the sprinting/endurance running capacities have increased, and this puts more pressure on the player with the ball AND the defending mids have the tank to get back behind the ball faster than ever before.
How should we play? I think it’s a weapons race to put together the most athletic team. So give me more 190cm mobile mids who are quick off the mark and can run all day, and I will just use them to repeat challenge the opposition until we overwhelm them physically…I think skill supremacy is a bit unreliable from week to week, whereas running supremacy is a more consistent advantage. My team will be horrible to watch though. Very basic game style. We’ll just aim to get an extra number, use it to overlap, and simply walk in goals. Like Richmond.
2 Likes
I get what you’re saying now - but what I’m saying is I don’t think it ultimately where we kick it, if we’re turning it over as much as we did last year.
You don’t win games by turning it over in better positions - you just lose them less badly.
IMO it needs to be a really conscious decision from the club to prioritise ball use.
Get Ridley, Ham, Franga, Stringer, Tippa, McKenna, Langford with the ball in their hands as much as we can.
To me, Guelfi & Clarke et al need to provide something extraordinary in other facets to get a run.
Ok I think I confused you then yet the same should apply. What caused the turnover was it a kick, handball, being tackled etc. In your scenario its the kick and hopefully that type of kick and where it occurred is decreased and/or eradicated.
Something that has been made made public is how much theory has been administered and provided to our team. Hopefully areas of it are based on the kicks your referring to that create high exposure to opposition goals and being addressed as well as providing education as to how to prevent and other options to consider.
In my scenario, Guelfi and Clarke and co can kick it as much as they want at Sandringham and Notth Ballarat.
There’s a certain amount you can improve kicking once you’re in the system, once you’ve been around 2-3 years I hold out very little hope.
Essendon looks to have bucked the league trend if Thursday night’s game is anything to go by as an indication of the future. At times we played fast and showed flashes of daring do, at other times we were able to slow the game down. The team’s abilty to change tempo kept the one dimensional WEagles napping and they weren’t able to adjust and contain. Such an ability to change the pace of the game will go a long way this season.
3 Likes
Good point. I loved the post match interviews that had no mention of “learnings” but did mention “teammate predictability and system”.
2 Likes