Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter

[Otiman]

Disposals
StKilda - 316
Bulldogs - 426

This tells the biggest story of the game. We just couldn't get our hands on the ball. Even when we did, we were under a great deal of pressure, butchered our kicks and it was picked up by the opposition.

Contested Posessions (thanks for the reminder)
St. Kilda - 101
Bulldogs - 111

Not too sure how to analyse this one. Given the dogs play a more open and free running game, and we rely on contested posession to advance, it may have had a large bearing on the game, but the relatively small discrepancy here (see easily outweighed by the free kick count) shouldn't have had a huge impact on the game. (let's further analyse)

% Of Disposals that were contested
St. Kilda - 31%
Bulldogs - 26%

Paints a better picture. Shows that more of our posessions were contested (and therefore under pressure)

Hit Outs
St. Kilda - 26
Bulldogs - 29

Even though we were roughly level on hit outs, we still didn't get the ball often enough.

Clearances
St. Kilda - 33
Bulldogs - 20

We "smashed" them in the clearances, but this got us nowhere because we were slow and under pressure.

Tackles
St. Kilda - 52
Bulldogs - 47

Now, this one is deceptive, it says we came out ahead. Let's fiddle with these numbers (ahh, the fun of being a statistician) to give a figure of "Tackles per opposition disposal (%)". This is essentially a measure of the percentage of opposition disposals that are either put under tackling pressure, bottled up in a pack, or turned over.

Takles per Opposition Disposal (%)
St. Kilda - 12.2%
Bulldogs - 14.8%

Not a huge discrepancy, but still large nonetheless.

Clangers
St. Kilda - 50
Bulldogs - 53

Were we watching the same game? This one baffles me.


Frees For
St. Kilda - 25
Bulldogs - 13

Looks like we were gifted a good run with the umpires? No, it just means the Bulldogs were dancing the fine white line between extreme pressure and giving away frees.

Scoring Shots
St. Kilda - 24
Bulldogs - 31

You're always going to lose the match with this much less scoring shots, unless you are dead eye dicks, or the opposition is St. Kilda.... wait... scratch that last idea.


Accuracy
St. Kilda - 45.8%
Bulldogs - 48.4%

For all the screaming and moaning about our accuracy in front of goal, it wasn't much worse than the dogs today. Overall, 45% accuracy is still shizenhousen.

Disposals per Goal
St. Kilda - 28.7
Bulldogs - 28.4

Here it's clear to see that had we have gotten more of the ball, we would have come close to winning.

So, while we may lament goalkicking til the cows come home, it was our inability to be first to the ball, as well as giving plenty of turnovers.

Also, if the Clearances were in our favour, as was the Clanger count, as well as the "Contested Marks", where was the difference? The Answer - Roving contested mark situations. Continually the dogs would spoil a mark, or a pack, and getting clear posession out of there.

So, has this analysis changed your views on the game any?

[spert]

The big bad stat this year is our contested possessions -we are hopeless. Too may soft players who are outside runners who receive but don't hit the contest hard enough. We have a long way to go.

[rodgerfox]

We did have a few shots on goal that missed completely.

2 or 3 in the first quarter alone.

[Mr Magic]

The total # of disposals is a very misleading stat.
There is no reflection of the scores of kicks/marks/handballs, the Bulldogs had moving the ball from one side of the ground to the other across their halfback line for huge portions of the game.

Is there a stst which shows disposals that are more than 'cheap dreamteam stats'?

[yipper]

Rebounds from D50 is a stat I'd like to see - reckon the Doggies were exceptional at this area.

What is being highlighted (exposed?) this season is that we are incapable of playing the type of footy being asked of us at present. Is this an indictment on the coach? The players? Both? I am undecided at present. But what disappoints me greatly is that we are now carrying a label of soft - this has never happened in my time following this club. Not even in the bad old 80's were we ever accused of being soft. We were once exceptional at contested ball / hard ball stuff - and not that long ago either. Now we are being picked off - yes, we have lost a lot of grunt from our side that has not been replaced yet. Armitage is one positive. But why are we so bad in this area all of a sudden?? Lack of pace has always been a StKilda trait. But hardness at the contest? No, we have always been pretty reasonable at this area, even with shite teams in the past.

[degruch]

Looks like the stats for two average teams trying to out average eachother. Remember though, most of our positive stats were accrued in the first and last quarters, with the Bulldogs getting a free run in the middle...that's why they appear about the same for each side over all. We were attrocious in frot of goal in the first quarter, then didn't get it (Bulldogs 11-11 v's Saints 11-3 F50 entries - shots at goal in the second) for two quarters, looking good in the last.

A very average performance all round. Dull. Glad I don't have to watch this weekend's match, even if we are a chance to win (good record against the Swan's recently).

[Mr Magic]

There's an area that I have noticed that we are terrible at and I don't know if stats are taken for it.

I call it 'offensive shepherds/blocks' for want of a better name.

It's where one of our players gives off a handball and then blocks the chasing opposition player away from our player who has received the handball.

I see it done repeatedly to us in every game (except against teh Dees) but I rarely see it done by us.

[Saints43]

There's an area that I have noticed that we are terrible at and I don't know if stats are taken for it.

I call it 'offensive shepherds/blocks' for want of a better name.

It's where one of our players gives off a handball and then blocks the chasing opposition player away from our player who has received the handball.

I see it done repeatedly to us in every game (except against teh Dees) but I rarely see it done by us.

Spot on on both counts in this thread. The number of times the dogs chipped the ball across between the pockets was astounding.

And the give & block which all good teams do. Exactly the sort of thing I was expecting us to do under RL.

[midas_touch]

A few of those stats really took me by surprise, such as the clangers, clearences, and especially the posessions. I never thought the Dogs had 110 more touches than us. However, I'd like to see this same stats breakdown for the second and third quarters, where the game was won and lost.

[rodgerfox]

There's an area that I have noticed that we are terrible at and I don't know if stats are taken for it.

I call it 'offensive shepherds/blocks' for want of a better name.

It's where one of our players gives off a handball and then blocks the chasing opposition player away from our player who has received the handball.

I see it done repeatedly to us in every game (except against teh Dees) but I rarely see it done by us.

You're right.

We fall down massively in areas that require a player to think for themselves and use common sense - ie. protect your mates when they get the nut, or protect them when they don't have nut.

This used to be a 'KPI' for us - which puts accountablility on those who lack the ability to use common sense on a footy field.

Now we have very good footballers, proven very good footballers - who don't think to block, shepherd or do anythnig that doesn't involve running from one end of the ground to the other aimlessly.

[Otiman]

Hmm, the Hun superfooty used to have R50 stats, neither they nor Final Siren have them.

I guess you can estimate them from I50 minus scoring shots.


Ghetto R50: I50 minus Scoring shots.
Saints - 57-24 = 33
Bulldogs - 58-31 = 27

This would include kicks out of bounds on the full, and ball ups/throw ins which i'm not sure R50 stats take into account.

I'd love to get my hands on the quarter by quarter stats and actually see what happened in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

[Saintschampions08]

Clangers
St. Kilda - 50
Bulldogs - 53

Were we watching the same game? This one baffles me.

In the end clangers doesn't matter, its all about percentage.

Bulldogs 426 disposals, 12.45% Clangers.
Saints 316 disposals, 15.82% Clangers.

[my les foote]

The only stats that matter

W BULLDOGS 2.0 7.5 11.13 15.16 (106)
ST KILDA 3.6 4.7 5.9 11.13 (79)

For the other stats to be any use you need to break them down on a quarter by quarter basis. Throw away the last quarter and work out what was different about the first quarter and the second and third quarters.

[bigcarl]

Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals

in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.

[plugger66]

The other thing with clangers is frees count as clangers so there is another 12 that Bulldogs got.

[bob__71]

In soccer and basketball do they keep stats for the amount of kicks/passes for individuals and the team.

Seems to me if we play like these sports where ninety percent of possession is waiting for a hole etc...then these stats are essentially meaningless

[Otiman]

In soccer and basketball do they keep stats for the amount of kicks/passes for individuals and the team.

Seems to me if we play like these sports where ninety percent of possession is waiting for a hole etc...then these stats are essentially meaningless

Then it shows that we don't wait for a hole, Chippilotto, as it has been termed. With good reason, our footskills aren't up to it, nor is our ability to find space.

[fingers]

It's much easier to lay more tackles when the other team has much more of the ball.

[Otiman]

It's much easier to lay more tackles when the other team has much more of the ball.

And if you scrolled down one more line before jumping to hit the reply button, you would have seen "Tackles per opposition disposal, %" which we lost.

[Mr Magic]

Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals

in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.

But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?
Until we know where/when these disposals were had, the figures are almost meaningless.

You can make statistics 'fit' any side of the argument you want - the glass is either 50% full or 50% empty, depending on your perspective.

WB continuously chipped the ball around their FB/HB line and if we had done that there would have been many posters screaming about the terrible 'chippilotto gameplan' that we employed. Now we are using statistics that quite probably are unduly affected by this very 'chippilotto gameplan' that we hate.

When we employ 'chippilotto' it's a terrible gameplan.
When other teams employ a similar gameplan against us its 'see how sh1t we are' and no mention of the 'chippilotto'.

Where's the consistancy?

[fingers]

It's much easier to lay more tackles when the other team has much more of the ball.

And if you scrolled down one more line before jumping to hit the reply button, you would have seen "Tackles per opposition disposal, %" which we lost.

Relax tiger...not having a go at your stats but at our ability to win the ball.

[plugger66]

Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals

in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.

But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?
Until we know where/when these disposals were had, the figures are almost meaningless.

You can make statistics 'fit' any side of the argument you want - the glass is either 50% full or 50% empty, depending on your perspective.

WB continuously chipped the ball around their FB/HB line and if we had done that there would have been many posters screaming about the terrible 'chippilotto gameplan' that we employed. Now we are using statistics that quite probably are unduly affected by this very 'chippilotto gameplan' that we hate.

When we employ 'chippilotto' it's a terrible gameplan.
When other teams employ a similar gameplan against us its 'see how sh1t we are' and no mention of the 'chippilotto'.

Where's the consistancy?

They chipped it around because there no forward pressure and then used their skills to get it into their forward line without any real pressure. they played smart footy because they knew they had the skills to do it. Yes I do agree you can get stats to say what you want but if you have 110 more disposals you will win 99% of the games.

[BringBackMadDog]

the two stats that tell the biggest story is handball receives and running bounces. We got smashed in both. There lies our biggest problem, not enough blokes willing or capable to run and carry the ball

[Mr Magic]

Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals

in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.

But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?
Until we know where/when these disposals were had, the figures are almost meaningless.

You can make statistics 'fit' any side of the argument you want - the glass is either 50% full or 50% empty, depending on your perspective.

WB continuously chipped the ball around their FB/HB line and if we had done that there would have been many posters screaming about the terrible 'chippilotto gameplan' that we employed. Now we are using statistics that quite probably are unduly affected by this very 'chippilotto gameplan' that we hate.

When we employ 'chippilotto' it's a terrible gameplan.
When other teams employ a similar gameplan against us its 'see how sh1t we are' and no mention of the 'chippilotto'.

Where's the consistancy?

They chipped it around because there no forward pressure and then used their skills to get it into their forward line without any real pressure. they played smart footy because they knew they had the skills to do it. Yes I do agree you can get stats to say what you want but if you have 110 more disposals you will win 99% of the games.

Generally yes.

Interestingly I believe a couple of the stats that most Clubs take note of are the average # of disposals per goal,
and the number of forward 50 entries per goal.

In both cases the lower the number the better as it shows you are playing more efficiently.

[sunsaint]

the stat that matter are not published
#burst leg speed Stkilda Vs opposition
#total distance ran vs walking
#meters covered while flat out running to create turnover through interception or tackle (instead of trotting 5m off your opponent)