Interesting stats from last year

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Reggi
    On the Rookie List
    • Jan 2003
    • 2718

    Interesting stats from last year

    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
    Last edited by Reggi; 19 March 2006, 08:12 PM.
    You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler
  • liz
    Veteran
    Site Admin
    • Jan 2003
    • 16778

    #2
    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.

    Comment

    • satchmopugdog
      Bandicoots ears
      • Apr 2004
      • 3691

      #3
      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.
      "The Dog days are over, The Dog days are gone" Florence and the Machine

      Comment

      • Nico
        Veterans List
        • Jan 2003
        • 11339

        #4
        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".
        http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

        Comment

        • Reggi
          On the Rookie List
          • Jan 2003
          • 2718

          #5
          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
          You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler

          Comment

          • NMWBloods
            Taking Refuge!!
            • Jan 2003
            • 15819

            #6
            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.
            Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

            "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

            Comment

            • SimonH
              Salt future's rising
              • Aug 2004
              • 1647

              #7
              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.

              Comment

              • giant
                Veterans List
                • Mar 2005
                • 4731

                #8
                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.

                Comment

                • Ruckman
                  Ego alta, ergo ictus
                  • Nov 2003
                  • 3990

                  #9
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • goswannie14
                    Leadership Group
                    • Sep 2005
                    • 11166

                    #10
                    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.
                    Does God believe in Atheists?

                    Comment

                    • Ruckman
                      Ego alta, ergo ictus
                      • Nov 2003
                      • 3990

                      #11
                      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?

                      Comment

                      • Legs Akimbo
                        Grand Poobah
                        • Apr 2005
                        • 2809

                        #12
                        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
                        He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.

                        Comment

                        • Legs Akimbo
                          Grand Poobah
                          • Apr 2005
                          • 2809

                          #13
                          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
                          He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.

                          Comment

                          • Go Swannies
                            Veterans List
                            • Sep 2003
                            • 5697

                            #14
                            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.

                            Comment

                            • Ruckman
                              Ego alta, ergo ictus
                              • Nov 2003
                              • 3990

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
                              Not sure what it all means
                              Your not sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...