Interesting stats from last year

[Reggi]

Pro Stats

Re-inforces that we are playing a 'newish' style of footy where by managing the tempo we starve our oponents to death - they just don't get the footy enough.

In another sense these stats show how misleading stats can be.

We were the best side in the comp with the lowest amount of goals and possessions.

However we conceded less

[liz]

There are a couple of interesting things there.

Despite being 4th for tackles, the Swans had the most tackles per game laid against them. And the most 1%ers per game against them. This certainly suggests that Roos is generally able to dictate the way the game is played but that other clubs can adapt and step up to the mark.

The most important stat there for me is that the Swans were 2nd for errors per game. That provides one obvious place where they can get better - although if frees against are included in the error count, it is a bit misleading - ie a "double-dip" against them.

[satchmopugdog]

All those numbers made me feel sick.....my eyes started to roll around in my head and a red haze came down in front of me. How do you people make any sense of it? Maybe if it was set out in a more artistic mannerI would be able to analyse it.

[Nico]

What I see as the telling stats are.

1st in first possessions per game
1st in clearances per game
3rd in contested possessions pergame

as against 13th in uncontested possessions

This all means that we get where the ball is at and are prepared to run to a contest. As against other sides who rack up uncontested stats so look good "on paper".

[Reggi]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
All those numbers made me feel sick.....my eyes started to roll around in my head and a red haze came down in front of me. How do you people make any sense of it? Maybe if it was set out in a more artistic mannerI would be able to analyse it.

"I Love it when Statistics confirm my prejudices" J Patterson

Obviously we have different jobs, I thought they were simply laid out and easy to understand

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Nico
What I see as the telling stats are.

1st in first possessions per game
1st in clearances per game
3rd in contested possessions pergame

as against 13th in uncontested possessions

This all means that we get where the ball is at and are prepared to run to a contest. As against other sides who rack up uncontested stats so look good "on paper".

I agree that these stats are pretty important and sum up our tough, high pressure game plan.

However, on the flipside, the low uncontested possessions and high tackle count against us suggest that at times we also struggle to find space and move the ball around easily.

Uncontested possessions can be those dinky little sideways and backwards kicks that go nowhere, or they can be players finding space on the wings and moving the ball into attack quickly.

It's not like we haven't been guilty of dinky little chips and handballs that go nowhere, however it seems we do them under pressure.

We are probably the best high pressure team in the comp. What I would like to see this year is more of the free reign type of football that we saw in 2003 and the second half of the H&A in 2005. I think this would up our uncontested possession count, without prejudicing our pressure game, and would make for a more rounded team in 2006.

[SimonH]

Just singling out one of the stats: I'm not worried at all about coming last in 'opposition 1%ers'.

I've never seen a decent definition (in fact, any definition at all) of 1%ers offered by a stats site. The sheer number of them racked up means that they cannot only be including successful chases, bumps, shepherds etc. The bulk of them must be 'noble efforts' that failed, or at least failed to have a substantial impact on the unfolding play. There's a lot more motivation to do a 1%er if your team doesn't have the ball.

Unsurprisingly, 'in and under' midfielders feature very highly in 1%ers, but defenders run a very close second. CBolt, Dempster, LRT, Barry, Mathews and Keneally were 6 of the top 9 Swans in 1%ers in the 2005 GF; and 5 or 6 defenders (depending on whether you include Nicks in that definition) made the top 10 yearly average for 2005.

This, in turn, means that if you're playing a game:
a) where you're mostly in attack, and/or
b) where your game plan means that you'll play on the margins (e.g. bursts out of packs, 'heart in mouth' runs from defence),
the opposition will accumulate a lot of 1%ers, whether or not they ultimately stop you.

I suspect that Sydney's game plan (when it's working) will have the result that oppositions will always rack up a lot of 1%ers against us, and still (ususally) lose. The example par excellence was the 2005 Homebush game v Brisbane, which involved a pretty disgraceful waving of the white flag by most of the (admittedly undermanned) opposition... but they still massacred us 78-52 in the 1%er count.

Today's fun trivia fact: the only person of 44 not to record a single 1%er in the 2005 Grand Final was... the Norm Smith Medallist.

[giant]

Originally posted by SimonH

Today's fun trivia fact: the only person of 44 not to record a single 1%er in the 2005 Grand Final was... the Norm Smith Medallist.

Interesting, tho from your rationale he could argue that he was attacking &/or "playing on the margins".

I'm sure you're just making a point but one thing you couldn't criticise Judd for is his workrate - amongst all the so-called Blue Ribbon WCE midfielders he was the one at the bottom/middle of packs on GF day.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Nico
1st in first possessions per game
1st in clearances per game

Could these be the 2 of the most valueless (and most) stats in football?

They're almost entirely the product of the higher number of bounces/throw-in's that take place during our games.
If you contest more of these than any other team in the league then it would be surprising for us NOT to come first in these two areas.

Of more interest/relevance are the "differential averages" which compares our performance to our direct opponents. These have us 6th in terms of clearances and 4th in terms of 1st possesions.

All of which proves that . . .
a) We aren't anywhere near as good in these two areas as several other teams, particularly the Saints and the Crows.
b) Contrary to the thinking of some 'experts': Stoppages aren't a goal in themselves for the Swans, they are a byproduct of stopping our opponents.
c) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that's what most raw data is.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by SimonH
Today's fun trivia fact: the only person of 44 not to record a single 1%er in the 2005 Grand Final was... the Norm Smith Medallist.

Yeah but he gave plenty of 0-1% to his team mates.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Of more interest/relevance are the "differential averages" which compares our performance to our direct opponents. These have us 6th in terms of clearances

Interestingly enough (on the same differential scale) in 2006 we are running 3rd in terms of clearances.
Is it that we are playing weeker sides? Or are we improving, and is it Jude's doing?

[Legs Akimbo]

The results of a dodgy multiple regression (note sample size is too low to do this properly) make me think the game has changed less than some people might think

Best predictors of high number of wins

- High number of marks and contested marks
- High number of one percenters
- Lots of Inside 50s
- Less kicks overall but more long kicks
- Less tackles (i.e. the other guys are trying to tackle you)
- High number of hit houts

Things that don't matter so much

- Clearances
- Errors
- Rebound 50
- Handball
- Frees for
- Contested poss
- Frees against

---------------------
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -203.464 .000 . .
Kicks -.223 .000 -2.622 . .
Long kicks .253 .000 1.557 . .
Marks .238 .000 2.419 . .
Contest marks 1.044 .000 1.525 . .
Handball -.017 .000 -.262 . .
Tackles -.240 .000 -1.857 . .
Frees for -.220 .000 -.440 . .
Frees against -.227 .000 -.641 . .
Hit outs .201 .000 1.098 . .
Clearances .179 .000 .596 . .
INside 50 .447 .000 1.560 . .
Rebound 50 -.027 .000 -.105 . .
Contested poss -.213 .000 -.528 . .
One percenters .280 .000 2.408 . .
Errors .014 .000 .044 . .
a Dependent Variable: Title

[Legs Akimbo]

This is really interesting but slightly contradictory.

A factor analysis groups variables that go together - they are highly associated and it creates a new variable - a factor - which combines them together.

I did this and then regressed the factors against number of wins.

Style 1: Possession footy

High number of disposals
Lots of handballs
Many uncontested possessions

Teams: Hawthorn, Collingwood, Westcoast

Style 2: Crash and bash

Low number of kicks
Low number of marks
Lots of hit outs
High number of clearances

Teams: Port Adelaide, and to a lesser extent Bulldogs [very strongly not collingwood]

Style 3: Tough and under

High number of tackles
One percenters

Teams: Western Bulldogs, Melbourne [very strongly not Port Adelaide or Richmond]

Style 4: Total @@@@ ups

few contested marks,
Lots of frees against
Okay clearances
Lots of errors

Teams: Hawthorn, Essendon

Where are Sydney I hear you ask. Well we fall into mysterious factor five, which is notable for having a low eignevalue and is a bit of everything. Most notable is the high coloading for frees against and inside 50s. Adelaide are the same - most similar to Sydney.

There is also a factor 6, but pretty difficult to understand. West coasg have a high loading against it and it is big on contested possessions and low on accuracy. Geelong the same.

Not sure what it all means

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
All those numbers made me feel sick.....my eyes started to roll around in my head and a red haze came down in front of me. How do you people make any sense of it? Maybe if it was set out in a more artistic mannerI would be able to analyse it.

Think of it as a single canvas where Jackson Pollock was the creator until R11 - then Michelangelo took over.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Not sure what it all means

Your not sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!