| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mgh3536
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Telling stats |  |
|
16th for disposal effectiveness,
3rd for clangers
No1 for behinds
Think its youth and a developing of our gameplan, If we can lift on these we will take giant steps
|
|
|
|
 |
surfer1
Joined: 18 May 2004
Location: Sydney ex Ararat
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| In top eight
|
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thought out disposal had improved dramatically in the past two weeks although the overall efficiency would have been well down against the Tigers due to the slippery ball and the amount of nothing handballs that went to no-one.
It's worrying but also exciting. Imagine that, shocking disposal and yet won 3 of 5 games, one loss of a couple of goals and kept 4 of those 5 teams to under 90 points (last year our avg agst was 92 pts if I remember correctly... This year we'd be tracking at least 2 goals better than that I would have thought) in the 8. Also worth remembering we've had the toughest opening 5 games of any team bar maybe Freo so that combined with the fact that we're a developing team might be playing a larger part than you'd think.
Go Pies. No matter what the stats say, I'm excited!!!
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
is this not a symptom of trying to keep the ball moving forward at all costs?
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think there is something similar to 2010 about it all.. Early on that year and even mid way through we were pretty manic but just not polished. We kicked a lot of behinds and missed the chance to really bury teams. By the end of the year the polish was there and combined nicely with the grunt to lift a premiership cup!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Take the Freo game out of that and what's the stats?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I try not to read too much into stats but was surprised to find we were last in the hit outs. Which may explain why our clearance and stoppage work is ranked bottom half.
2nd for marks inside 50 and 3rd for rebound 50's suggests to me we are counter attacking well but failing to convert our opportunities.
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. I'd love to see a stat for 'perceived pressure' or 'forced turnovers' but that would be fairly subjective.
Still early days, it could all change abruptly after a couple of games but interesting nonetheless.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
stoid
stoid
Joined: 06 Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | ........
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. ........ |
That was remarkable stat against North. They were truly woeful.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | I try not to read too much into stats but was surprised to find we were last in the hit outs. Which may explain why our clearance and stoppage work is ranked bottom half.
2nd for marks inside 50 and 3rd for rebound 50's suggests to me we are counter attacking well but failing to convert our opportunities.
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. I'd love to see a stat for 'perceived pressure' or 'forced turnovers' but that would be fairly subjective.
Still early days, it could all change abruptly after a couple of games but interesting nonetheless. |
Hit outs are an absolutely, 100% worthless statistic. There is absolutely zero correlation between hit outs and anything worthwhile (clearances, contested possessions etc). You'd think Collingwood fans would know this as well as anyone. We used to get creamed in the hit outs every week during the Fraser era and yet we still normally won the clearances and contested possessions.
Hit outs only mean anything at all if you're talking about "hit outs to advantage". And they only mean anything at all if you're talking about "he hit it right down his throat" and not "the ball hit the ruck man's hand and one of his midfielders happened to fall on it first".
It's been shown that the three stats that correlate well to wins are disposal efficiency, contested possessions and tackles, which makes sense since there are three phases of the game: You have the ball (in which case disposal efficiency is very important), nobody has the ball (in which case contested possessions are important) or they have the ball (in which case tackling is important). This ignores stats like marks inside 50 which are obviously by-products of playing well rather than a cause of it.
You also can't just look at our totals, you need to look at totals for and against. For instance GC leads the league in contested possessions (to round 4)...and also in contested possessions allowed. So they're not a great contested ball team like their totals would imply, they're an average one.
On the season we're a slightly above average contested possession team, an excellent tackling team and probably a below average disposal efficiency team (I can't find disposal efficiency against stats, but I'd bet we're pretty good, which would partly offset our own miserable disposal). So about an above average team, against a tough fixture.
THe other thing that stands out is that our ratio of marks inside 50's to goals is terrible. Partly due to poor set shots, but I'd bet we take way more marks in low percentage areas (48m out on the boundary line) than anyone.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I wouldn't read too much into average stats over so few games, there's just not enough data for a true trend to form. These stats can be too easily skewed by one game and are highly dependent on who we've played (our early draw has been one of the toughest).
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Statistics, damn lies and statistics!
|
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | I try not to read too much into stats but was surprised to find we were last in the hit outs. Which may explain why our clearance and stoppage work is ranked bottom half.
2nd for marks inside 50 and 3rd for rebound 50's suggests to me we are counter attacking well but failing to convert our opportunities.
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. I'd love to see a stat for 'perceived pressure' or 'forced turnovers' but that would be fairly subjective.
Still early days, it could all change abruptly after a couple of games but interesting nonetheless. |
Hit outs are an absolutely, 100% worthless statistic. There is absolutely zero correlation between hit outs and anything worthwhile (clearances, contested possessions etc). You'd think Collingwood fans would know this as well as anyone. We used to get creamed in the hit outs every week during the Fraser era and yet we still normally won the clearances and contested possessions.
Hit outs only mean anything at all if you're talking about "hit outs to advantage". And they only mean anything at all if you're talking about "he hit it right down his throat" and not "the ball hit the ruck man's hand and one of his midfielders happened to fall on it first".
It's been shown that the three stats that correlate well to wins are disposal efficiency, contested possessions and tackles, which makes sense since there are three phases of the game: You have the ball (in which case disposal efficiency is very important), nobody has the ball (in which case contested possessions are important) or they have the ball (in which case tackling is important). This ignores stats like marks inside 50 which are obviously by-products of playing well rather than a cause of it.
You also can't just look at our totals, you need to look at totals for and against. For instance GC leads the league in contested possessions (to round 4)...and also in contested possessions allowed. So they're not a great contested ball team like their totals would imply, they're an average one.
On the season we're a slightly above average contested possession team, an excellent tackling team and probably a below average disposal efficiency team (I can't find disposal efficiency against stats, but I'd bet we're pretty good, which would partly offset our own miserable disposal). So about an above average team, against a tough fixture.
THe other thing that stands out is that our ratio of marks inside 50's to goals is terrible. Partly due to poor set shots, but I'd bet we take way more marks in low percentage areas (48m out on the boundary line) than anyone. |
Like I said, "I try not to read too much into stats". It was merely an observation. I thought Grundy was getting a few. "Which may explain why our clearance and stoppage work is ranked bottom half." Of course there are other factors that determine the outcome of a stoppage or centre clearance but surely not winning the tap out has some effect. Yes, I am aware that hit outs to advantage are a more useful statistic. Again, I'm not reading too much into it.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | I try not to read too much into stats but was surprised to find we were last in the hit outs. Which may explain why our clearance and stoppage work is ranked bottom half.
2nd for marks inside 50 and 3rd for rebound 50's suggests to me we are counter attacking well but failing to convert our opportunities.
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. I'd love to see a stat for 'perceived pressure' or 'forced turnovers' but that would be fairly subjective.
Still early days, it could all change abruptly after a couple of games but interesting nonetheless. |
Hit outs are an absolutely, 100% worthless statistic. T....... ........but I'd bet we take way more marks in low percentage areas (48m out on the boundary line) than anyone. |
[b]Like I said, [b]"I try not to read too much into stats". It was merely an observation. [/b]......... |
I disagree. I read the "Complete works of Shakespeare" from our clangers, that end of the world is nigh from our frees against & the inner secrets of Bronwyn Bishop's hair from our desire indictors.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | ........
Our tackles have jumped to top 6 but I find that stat misleading. If you've got the ball, you obviously don't need to tackle. ........ |
That was remarkable stat against North. They were truly woeful. |
Yes, they were but I don't take much notice of tackle counts and here's why.
We beat norf by 35 pts and have 13 more tackles. Sounds a likely result, yeah?
But then Adelaide beat GWS by 65 pts yet lay 7 less tackles than their opponent.
Do we now question the crows tackling? They won by 10 goals! Of course we don't. At a guess, I'd say that wouldn't happen very often but goes to show just how misleading stats can be
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
