Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Otiman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8662
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
- Location: Elsewhere
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 633 times
Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
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?
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?
Last edited by Otiman on Wed 11 Jun 2008 2:58pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
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'?
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
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
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.
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.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
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).
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
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.
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
- Club Player
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:01pm
- Location: L2 A38
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Spot on on both counts in this thread. The number of times the dogs chipped the ball across between the pockets was astounding.Mr Magic wrote: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.
And the give & block which all good teams do. Exactly the sort of thing I was expecting us to do under RL.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 5:24pm
- Location: Sunshine, Vic
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.
Trust the Midas Touch
"My heart is at St.Kilda, I've been here seven years, I only wanted to play for them." (Fraser Gehrig, 27/11/2007)
"My heart is at St.Kilda, I've been here seven years, I only wanted to play for them." (Fraser Gehrig, 27/11/2007)
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
You're right.Mr Magic wrote: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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8662
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
- Location: Elsewhere
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 633 times
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.
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
- Club Player
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2008 11:04am
Re: Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
In the end clangers doesn't matter, its all about percentage.Otiman wrote:Clangers
St. Kilda - 50
Bulldogs - 53
Were we watching the same game? This one baffles me.
Bulldogs 426 disposals, 12.45% Clangers.
Saints 316 disposals, 15.82% Clangers.
- my les foote
- Club Player
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Tue 12 Dec 2006 6:03pm
- Location: Beside the seaside
- Been thanked: 2 times
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.
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.
Win it for HIM!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18614
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1959 times
- Been thanked: 859 times
Re: Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals
- Otiman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8662
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
- Location: Elsewhere
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 633 times
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.bob__71 wrote: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
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Re: Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?bigcarl wrote:in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals
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?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2005 11:17am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Relax tiger...not having a go at your stats but at our ability to win the ball.Otiman wrote: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.fingers wrote:It's much easier to lay more tackles when the other team has much more of the ball.
Re: Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
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.Mr Magic wrote:But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?bigcarl wrote:in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals
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?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Thu 05 Aug 2004 9:29am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 134 times
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Re: Analysing the Footscray game - The stats that matter
Generally yes.plugger66 wrote: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.Mr Magic wrote:But were they more quality disposals or just that 'ring-a-rosie crap'?bigcarl wrote:in other words they had more of the ball. a lot more, by the looks of it.Bulldogs 426 disposals.
Saints 316 disposals
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?
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.