Stats, stats and damn stats

[Nico]

I didn't see the game so I can't make any direct judgement on how any player went yesterday, however, when I was looking at the Supercoach points for both sides for the game I saw some quite telling statistics. I know stats lie sometimes and some might dismiss the following, but here goes.

Supercoach Points WB = 1770 Swans = 1530 Difference = 240. the difference being 3.5 players who scored around 70 points. This is apparently what it looked like in the 2nd quarter.

The WB had 8 players who scored below 70 points and that 8's total points were 443. The Swans had "13" players below 70 points for a total of 557 points. WB average is 55 and our average is 43.

The damning stat though is we had 6 players below 50 (total 210) and the WWB had 1(27 Aker). We only had 9 less possessions for the game and our efficiency was 73% and the WB 70%.

Perhaps the story lies in the fact that we had 159 kicks as against their 196 and we had 198 handballs to their 168. Almost an exact reverse. They had 90 marks and we had 66, that figures. It looks like we had too many players happy to take the easy handball option then again it could be added that the WB pressure caused us to treat the ball like a hot potato. Did we overdo the handball and at the same do a very poor job at it.

Do I dare suggest our game plan is or how we play the WB is shizenhousen.

So what about the players under 70 points. In descending order.

Jack - 14 stats, 6 contested possessions, 2 tackles,73% TOG. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Moore - 13 possessions, 9 contested, 3 tackles, TOG 76%. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Buchanan - 14 possessions, 5 contested, 4 tackles TOG 69%. 8 possessions in the 2nd Q when we got flogged. 6 in the other 3 quarters says he was no where near the contest for much of his time.
Bevan - 17 possessions, 5 contested, 6 tackles, 5 marks all uncontested, 91% TOG. Negating game with some run to space perhaps or was he towelled up by his opponents.
Crouch - 14 stats, 5 contested, 3 tackles TOG 81% (Aker 85%) Clearly a negating role that probably gave us little run off work.
MCveigh - 12 stats all uncontested, no scores. Was he playing a negating role or was he well tagged. TOG 93%.
White - 4 stats, 13 hit outs, 37% TOG. I believe Jolly had a poor game so that doesn't make sense.
Jolly - 12 stats, 29 hitouts, 9 handballs, 3 frees against, 4 clangers, 70% TOG. Strange figures, was there something wrong with him. A howler of a game.
Ablett - 14 stats, 6 in the last Q, 4 clearances (is that right?) 1 tackle, 4 clangers, 3 frees against, TOG 64%. If he had a man he didn't get to close to him. Horrible performance.
LRT - 13 stats, 10 uncontested, no tackles, no clearances, TOG 94%. Oh my gawd, no wonder the WB forwards had a picnic.
Grundy - 7 stats, 3 unc marks and 7 uncontested possessions, 4 tackles, no clearances, 82%TOG. Even worse. A putrid game. Those stats are damning.
Malceski - 8 stats, 6 unc, efficiency 50% (team worst), no clearances, 64% TOG. the 3rd backman who had no clearances. An massive fall from grace.
MOL - 7 stats, 5 unc, 2 clangers. Worst game of his career.

So we had 3 backmen who were useless and 8, yes 8 players you could call run off and link players who you might expect to work through the centre and run to space that didn't appear to get near the footy much at all or slaughtered the footy. It could be said they didn't work anywhere near hard enough when it mattered.

To me this highlights our weaknesses:

2 tall backmen who struggle against quality opposition.
A medium backman who has "lost it".
A midfield that relies on too few players ie. Goodes, ROK, J Bolton and Kirk and the rest are levels below so add little value to the rotations and indeed don't rotate with the fab 4. These 4 had massive TOG, so do we rely too much on these players and undervalue others. I would say when these 4 get possession there are too few link up players/options.

On these stas and they seem to stack up every time we play a top team, as another poster said our bottom 6 maybe just aren't good enough.

So to me it follows that the serial offenders are Buchanan, Ablett, Malceski, Grundy, LRT.
Moore needs to WHAO.
White is continually a wasted asset.
Jolly and McVeigh need to play well every week.
We had these negating mid sized players; Jack, Crouch, Ablett, Bevan, McVeigh(?)
By the way they said in the radio yesterday that Ablett went into the game with a suspect shoulder. Sheesh.

Wayne Schwass said this morning on SEN that we keep having the blue collar tag and are a good average team but when it is time to put on the suit against the silk we fail miserably. Theses stats back it up.

I lot to digest and I throw it out there for comment.

[goswannie14]

Your comments on the players certainly prove your first line.....you didn't see the game.

[Nico]

Strewth I just looked at the bottom 8 I metioned for the Bullies.

Johnson, Morris, Eagleton, Griffen, Gilbee, Boyd, Minson and Aker. That's a handy group. So when some of their core players didn't go so well, the next level stood up or went up a couple of levels. Our blokes just can't do it against quality, and it has been repeated for the past 2.5 years and proves we haven't improved our bottom line one iota. We have to promote players and continue with them at the expense of the list cloggers.

If that was Goodes, Kirk, ROK, C Bolton and Hall who had bad days we would have been humiliated to the enth degree.

[Nico]

Your comments on the players certainly prove your first line.....you didn't see the game.

Yes you are probably right, perhaps I should have refrained from suggestion, but pray tell, who of those played scintillating games in what was a total flogging.

[pinkemu]

I didn't see the game so I can't make any direct judgement on how any player went yesterday, however, when I was looking at the Supercoach points for both sides for the game I saw some quite telling statistics. I know stats lie sometimes and some might dismiss the following, but here goes.

Supercoach Points WB = 1770 Swans = 1530 Difference = 240. the difference being 3.5 players who scored around 70 points. This is apparently what it looked like in the 2nd quarter.

The WB had 8 players who scored below 70 points and that 8's total points were 443. The Swans had "13" players below 70 points for a total of 557 points. WB average is 55 and our average is 43.

The damning stat though is we had 6 players below 50 (total 210) and the WWB had 1(27 Aker). We only had 9 less possessions for the game and our efficiency was 73% and the WB 70%.

Perhaps the story lies in the fact that we had 159 kicks as against their 196 and we had 198 handballs to their 168. Almost an exact reverse. They had 90 marks and we had 66, that figures. It looks like we had too many players happy to take the easy handball option then again it could be added that the WB pressure caused us to treat the ball like a hot potato. Did we overdo the handball and at the same do a very poor job at it.

Do I dare suggest our game plan is or how we play the WB is shizenhousen.

So what about the players under 70 points. In descending order.

Jack - 14 stats, 6 contested possessions, 2 tackles,73% TOG. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Moore - 13 possessions, 9 contested, 3 tackles, TOG 76%. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Buchanan - 14 possessions, 5 contested, 4 tackles TOG 69%. 8 possessions in the 2nd Q when we got flogged. 6 in the other 3 quarters says he was no where near the contest for much of his time.
Bevan - 17 possessions, 5 contested, 6 tackles, 5 marks all uncontested, 91% TOG. Negating game with some run to space perhaps or was he towelled up by his opponents.
Crouch - 14 stats, 5 contested, 3 tackles TOG 81% (Aker 85%) Clearly a negating role that probably gave us little run off work.
MCveigh - 12 stats all uncontested, no scores. Was he playing a negating role or was he well tagged. TOG 93%.
White - 4 stats, 13 hit outs, 37% TOG. I believe Jolly had a poor game so that doesn't make sense.
Jolly - 12 stats, 29 hitouts, 9 handballs, 3 frees against, 4 clangers, 70% TOG. Strange figures, was there something wrong with him. A howler of a game.
Ablett - 14 stats, 6 in the last Q, 4 clearances (is that right?) 1 tackle, 4 clangers, 3 frees against, TOG 64%. If he had a man he didn't get to close to him. Horrible performance.
LRT - 13 stats, 10 uncontested, no tackles, no clearances, TOG 94%. Oh my gawd, no wonder the WB forwards had a picnic.
Grundy - 7 stats, 3 unc marks and 7 uncontested possessions, 4 tackles, no clearances, 82%TOG. Even worse. A putrid game. Those stats are damning.
Malceski - 8 stats, 6 unc, efficiency 50% (team worst), no clearances, 64% TOG. the 3rd backman who had no clearances. An massive fall from grace.
MOL - 7 stats, 5 unc, 2 clangers. Worst game of his career.

LRT had one tackle, The Ump just decided to make it a 50 against him

[Lohengrin]

Your comments on the players certainly prove your first line.....you didn't see the game.

Care to elaborate?

[liz]

I might change my mind if I were to watch a replay (I won't be) I left the ground (without the benefit of any stats) thinking that

- Bevan had had a reasonable game
- Malceski wasn't too bad, and stood up a couple of times in situations were he hasn't in other games this year
- Ablett wasn't great but had far from his worst game of the year and at least won a few clearances against the run when the team was at its crappiest

Thought LRT had a very ordinary afternoon, and Grundy was almost unsighted. Also thought Jolly was a long long way down from where he has been in other games this year. Am surprised by the TOG for White because I noticed him a fair bit out there. Suggests he got involved in the time he was given. But seems strange to be so miserly with him (the coaches, I mean).

Biggest problem with looking at stats is that it doesn't tell the story of how the whole team allowed the Dogs to run riot in the second quarter with barely a finger laid on them. That suggests that a huge number of Swans just didn't work hard enough in that quarter. Some of them would have covered that up by getting a decent amount of the ball in the second half, when the team actually played some pretty good footy. Indeed, if you ignored the scoreboard, you'd have thought they were a very good team in the second half. In some ways that makes the rubbish of the first half even more unpalatable. I realise the Dogs weren't going quite as hard given they had the game already wrapped up, but I still thought we played some skilfull, cohesive and, at times, inventive football after half time.

[goswannie14]

Care to elaborate?

Yeah, no problem, the OP said...

I didn't see the game so I can't make any direct judgement on how any player went yesterday,

Then went on to make judgements, it's not that hard really.

[Midfield]

Buchanan - 14 possessions, 5 contested, 4 tackles TOG 69%. 8 possessions in the 2nd Q when we got flogged. 6 in the other 3 quarters says he was no where near the contest for much of his time.

Where did you get these stats from? Amon had 2 possessions in the first half if i recall correctly. In the second quarter he had nil as he was either on the bench (when we could have used his drive out of the centre) or sitting deep in the forward pocket. Gerard Healy actually commented on his second half performance.

[Lohengrin]

Yeah, no problem, the OP said...

Then went on to make judgements, it's not that hard really.

As in point out where he made mistakes.

[jono2707]

Try watching the game - stats dont tell you everything.

[connolly]

I didn't see the game so I can't make any direct judgement on how any player went yesterday, however, when I was looking at the Supercoach points for both sides for the game I saw some quite telling statistics. I know stats lie sometimes and some might dismiss the following, but here goes.

Supercoach Points WB = 1770 Swans = 1530 Difference = 240. the difference being 3.5 players who scored around 70 points. This is apparently what it looked like in the 2nd quarter.

The WB had 8 players who scored below 70 points and that 8's total points were 443. The Swans had "13" players below 70 points for a total of 557 points. WB average is 55 and our average is 43.

The damning stat though is we had 6 players below 50 (total 210) and the WWB had 1(27 Aker). We only had 9 less possessions for the game and our efficiency was 73% and the WB 70%.

Perhaps the story lies in the fact that we had 159 kicks as against their 196 and we had 198 handballs to their 168. Almost an exact reverse. They had 90 marks and we had 66, that figures. It looks like we had too many players happy to take the easy handball option then again it could be added that the WB pressure caused us to treat the ball like a hot potato. Did we overdo the handball and at the same do a very poor job at it.

Do I dare suggest our game plan is or how we play the WB is shizenhousen.

So what about the players under 70 points. In descending order.

Jack - 14 stats, 6 contested possessions, 2 tackles,73% TOG. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Moore - 13 possessions, 9 contested, 3 tackles, TOG 76%. Maybe didn't get to enough contests.
Buchanan - 14 possessions, 5 contested, 4 tackles TOG 69%. 8 possessions in the 2nd Q when we got flogged. 6 in the other 3 quarters says he was no where near the contest for much of his time.
Bevan - 17 possessions, 5 contested, 6 tackles, 5 marks all uncontested, 91% TOG. Negating game with some run to space perhaps or was he towelled up by his opponents.
Crouch - 14 stats, 5 contested, 3 tackles TOG 81% (Aker 85%) Clearly a negating role that probably gave us little run off work.
MCveigh - 12 stats all uncontested, no scores. Was he playing a negating role or was he well tagged. TOG 93%.
White - 4 stats, 13 hit outs, 37% TOG. I believe Jolly had a poor game so that doesn't make sense.
Jolly - 12 stats, 29 hitouts, 9 handballs, 3 frees against, 4 clangers, 70% TOG. Strange figures, was there something wrong with him. A howler of a game.
Ablett - 14 stats, 6 in the last Q, 4 clearances (is that right?) 1 tackle, 4 clangers, 3 frees against, TOG 64%. If he had a man he didn't get to close to him. Horrible performance.
LRT - 13 stats, 10 uncontested, no tackles, no clearances, TOG 94%. Oh my gawd, no wonder the WB forwards had a picnic.
Grundy - 7 stats, 3 unc marks and 7 uncontested possessions, 4 tackles, no clearances, 82%TOG. Even worse. A putrid game. Those stats are damning.
Malceski - 8 stats, 6 unc, efficiency 50% (team worst), no clearances, 64% TOG. the 3rd backman who had no clearances. An massive fall from grace.
MOL - 7 stats, 5 unc, 2 clangers. Worst game of his career.

So we had 3 backmen who were useless and 8, yes 8 players you could call run off and link players who you might expect to work through the centre and run to space that didn't appear to get near the footy much at all or slaughtered the footy. It could be said they didn't work anywhere near hard enough when it mattered.

To me this highlights our weaknesses:

2 tall backmen who struggle against quality opposition.
A medium backman who has "lost it".
A midfield that relies on too few players ie. Goodes, ROK, J Bolton and Kirk and the rest are levels below so add little value to the rotations and indeed don't rotate with the fab 4. These 4 had massive TOG, so do we rely too much on these players and undervalue others. I would say when these 4 get possession there are too few link up players/options.

On these stas and they seem to stack up every time we play a top team, as another poster said our bottom 6 maybe just aren't good enough.

So to me it follows that the serial offenders are Buchanan, Ablett, Malceski, Grundy, LRT.
Moore needs to WHAO.
White is continually a wasted asset.
Jolly and McVeigh need to play well every week.
We had these negating mid sized players; Jack, Crouch, Ablett, Bevan, McVeigh(?)
By the way they said in the radio yesterday that Ablett went into the game with a suspect shoulder. Sheesh.

Wayne Schwass said this morning on SEN that we keep having the blue collar tag and are a good average team but when it is time to put on the suit against the silk we fail miserably. Theses stats back it up.

I lot to digest and I throw it out there for comment.

We are playing a high possession run and carry type of game and the handball to kick ratio shows that.
Bevo had a reasonable game under the circumstances. McV was simply killed and had no impact on the game. He is very suspect still under a heavy tag and he tends to drift to the fringes of the contests under pressure. He sure did that in the second quarter when they pantsed us in the corridor.
Crouch gave us no run off his opponent but then no one really expected that. He is playing in a time warp of 2003 - 2007 when taggers were just expected to negate. Will never change aqnd not really worth analysing.
Jolly was tagged out of the game by Hudson. Eade applied real pressure on him and he never got any space and was very quiet.
Malceski simply isn't up to hard contested football.
LRT is interesting because he effectively played as a loose attacking defender(the term is used advisedly) didn't have a direct opponent and made some shocking clangers. It was almost as if Eade let him alone knowing he would try and run out of defense and closed him down with a fast smaller player defense.
Ablett should not have played and the match committee is responsible.
Ted Richards also didn't respond well to close checking pressure.
White was beaten by their second ruckman. He should have been moved into attack, LRT out of defense into the ruck and Mc V put in as a sweeper in defense as the spare man or on the forward line. Magic could have been used on the wingWe went into the game with one tall defender too many. Eade knew so much about our players, planned well and his players did the job. The real story that the stats dont show is a coach who stubbonly refused to change the game plan and make tactical changes during the towel up. We overused the ball out of defense when it became obvious that the Bulldogs speed on their half forward line was causin g the turn overs. Change the game plan man! Roos should be rated at about 30 % efficiency.

[ScottH]

Try watching the game - stats dont tell you everything.

Wouldn't bother watching the game. The stats are far less embarassing.

[satchmopugdog]

Wouldn't bother watching the game. The stats are far less embarassing.

Haven't seen a stat as good-looking as Giansiracusa or as comical as LRT

[ScottH]

Haven't seen a stat as good-looking as Giansiracusa or as comical as LRT

Settle!!