Ratten vs Richardson

[Beno88]

It’s been made fairly clear that Ratten’s six games at the helm are somewhat of an ongoing job interview. Naturally those performances will be compared to our efforts under Alan Richardson earlier in the year.

It’s difficult to get genuine comparison given the variables applicable from one week to the next, such as opposition, personnel, injuries, conditions, travel, venue, etc.

One way to compare is by using games where both coaches have faced the same opposition. This applies to Melbourne, Adelaide, Fremantle and Carlton. Yes the venue varies, but ultimately those four repeated opponents had added up to two games at Docklands, one game at the MCG and one game interstate.

We ended up 2-2 from those games under Richo, with a percentage of 106.83%. 74.25 points per game, 69.50 points against. A highest score of 95, lowest 66. We won the inside 50 count once, the clearances once, and had goal kicking accuracy of 53.1%.

Under Ratten we’ve also gone 2-2 against the same opponents. This time reversing the Fremantle & Carlton results, with a net result just 1 point less.

This time it’s a percentage of 96.91% (-9.92%), 78.5 points for (+4.25), 81 points against (+11.50). A highest score of 104 (+9), lowest of 68 (+2). We’ve won the inside 50 count three times (+2) , likewise the clearances (+2), with accuracy of 50.7% (-2.4%).

Unsurprisingly, there’s very little change in the data. Defensively we’re weaker, but we’re slightly stronger in the forward half and in the middle. We still leak goals on the rebound due to poor skills and our goal kicking hasn’t improved. In fact, all four losses covered by this data set could be attributed to poor finishing in front of goal and inside 50. Again, no surprises, but little improvement.

Overall, under Ratten St Kilda are actually 7.25 points a game worse than under Richardson against the same opposition.

The one thing that skews this data is Carlton’s improvement. Melbourne, Fremantle & Adelaide have little difference statistically between clashes one and two, yet Carlton are 24.5 points a game better than last time we met.

Ironically, the first time we played Carlton we won 68 to 55. This time we lost 68 to 78. Both clubs improvement laid bare, St Kilda no change, Carlton +23. The venue was different, but also irrelevant given we share a home ground.

This is just based on a specific set of data, but it’s the most even comparison of our performances under two different coaches in 2019. Richardson obviously had a major advantage given he’d been at the helm for five years. Ratten has had little time to apply his influence, but has had slightly better cattle to pick from.

This certainly doesn’t suggest whether Ratten should get the job or not, but in my opinion the opportunity to guarantee himself the job hasn't been taken to this point.

I'm interested to read what others think in regards to what has improved and if Ratten has done enough...

[BarryGrogan]

Didn't Cho have 5 pre-seasons to build his brand, his list, his players, his strategy amd his support staff?

And hasn't Ratten had none?

[Scollop]

Give the job back to Richardson

Oh hang on....

Compare our early season form of 2018 with our early season form this year

Have you considered how much of an influence the Ratten factor had with our early wins in the year? We are playing better footy in 2019 and Brett might be one of the major reasons why.

[saintspremiers]

Give the job back to Richardson

Popcorn please!!

[Impatient Sainter]

It’s been made fairly clear that Ratten’s six games at the helm are somewhat of an ongoing job interview. Naturally those performances will be compared to our efforts under Alan Richardson earlier in the year.

It’s difficult to get genuine comparison given the variables applicable from one week to the next, such as opposition, personnel, injuries, conditions, travel, venue, etc.

One way to compare is by using games where both coaches have faced the same opposition. This applies to Melbourne, Adelaide, Fremantle and Carlton. Yes the venue varies, but ultimately those four repeated opponents had added up to two games at Docklands, one game at the MCG and one game interstate.

We ended up 2-2 from those games under Richo, with a percentage of 106.83%. 74.25 points per game, 69.50 points against. A highest score of 95, lowest 66. We won the inside 50 count once, the clearances once, and had goal kicking accuracy of 53.1%.

Under Ratten we’ve also gone 2-2 against the same opponents. This time reversing the Fremantle & Carlton results, with a net result just 1 point less.

This time it’s a percentage of 96.91% (-9.92%), 78.5 points for (+4.25), 81 points against (+11.50). A highest score of 104 (+9), lowest of 68 (+2). We’ve won the inside 50 count three times (+2) , likewise the clearances (+2), with accuracy of 50.7% (-2.4%).

Unsurprisingly, there’s very little change in the data. Defensively we’re weaker, but we’re slightly stronger in the forward half and in the middle. We still leak goals on the rebound due to poor skills and our goal kicking hasn’t improved. In fact, all four losses covered by this data set could be attributed to poor finishing in front of goal and inside 50. Again, no surprises, but little improvement.

Overall, under Ratten St Kilda are actually 7.25 points a game worse than under Richardson against the same opposition.

The one thing that skews this data is Carlton’s improvement. Melbourne, Fremantle & Adelaide have little difference statistically between clashes one and two, yet Carlton are 24.5 points a game better than last time we met.

Ironically, the first time we played Carlton we won 68 to 55. This time we lost 68 to 78. Both club’s improvement laid bare, St Kilda no change, Carlton +23. The venue was different, but also irrelevant given we share a home ground.

This is just based on a specific set of data, but it’s the most even comparison of our performances under two different coaches in 2019. Richardson obviously had a major advantage given he’d been at the helm for five years. Ratten has had little time to apply his influence, but has had slightly better cattle to pick from.

This certainly doesn’t suggest whether Ratten should get the job or not, but in my opinion the opportunity to guarantee himself the job hasn't been taken to this point.

I'm interested to read what others think in regards to what has improved and if Ratten has done enough...

Great summation do you mind if I use it?

I was just happy to have a different voice other than the melancholy drones of Richardson and was excited by Ratten. I must say our loss to Carlton last weekend from the coaching box was very Richo like in its lack of response.

We had the same midfiled rotations who got slaughtered on the spread. No new players introduced to try and break things up.

We got slaughtered by Casboult and there 3 running small defenders out of our forward line which resulted in most of their scores.

No changes in approach, no imagination.

I have to say after Saturdays performance I am worried about Ratten?

[Legendary]

Membrey converts from 25m out and we probably beat the Blues. They are 5th/6th ranked team in the AFL since the bye.

Six weeks is not long enough to assess a coach. One thing for sure - Ratten has got 100% commitment and buy-in. The players have given supreme effort every game and there hasn't been a drop off in effort even in the two losses.

Ratten needs a pre-season to develop a gameplan, work on skills and execution, properly assess his list. His focus as an assistant was very different to that.

Hannebery reckons Ratten is the best footy brain he's worked with. Says something given the quality of coaches Dan had at the Swans.

Perhaps, just perhaps, things are never as bad as they seem and never as good as they seem.

Richo wasn't as bad as the majority thought and no new coach (Ratten or even Clarkson) would be as good as anyone thinks... there's a reality that the playing group has limitations no amount of coaching can overcome. Hence why Tomlinson, M. King, Bytel, Hill, B. King etc. are so important...

[Beno88]

Didn't Cho have 5 pre-seasons to build his brand, his list, his players, his strategy amd his support staff?

And hasn't Ratten had none?

Correct, as I mentioned in the third last paragraph.

Richo had everything bar 30% of the playing list at his disposal, so in any comparison Ratten is always coming from a long way back. However a lot of the recent noise suggests the team is performing significantly better under Ratten, yet based on even data, that's not the case.

[Beno88]

One thing for sure - Ratten has got 100% commitment and buy-in. The players have given supreme effort every game and there hasn't been a drop off in effort even in the two losses.

This is a great point. It's not that the effort has improved, earlier losses under Richardson still saw wonderful effort, such as against Collingwood, Richmond & Geelong, but we haven't had the major drop offs under Ratten. As the lead voice Ratten appears to be much more of a motivator than Richardson. It's that very factor that has Ratten ahead of Harvey for mine too.

[prwilkinson]

Membrey converts from 25m out and we probably beat the Blues. They are 5th/6th ranked team in the AFL since the bye.

Six weeks is not long enough to assess a coach. One thing for sure - Ratten has got 100% commitment and buy-in. The players have given supreme effort every game and there hasn't been a drop off in effort even in the two losses.

Ratten needs a pre-season to develop a gameplan, work on skills and execution, properly assess his list. His focus as an assistant was very different to that.

Hannebery reckons Ratten is the best footy brain he's worked with. Says something given the quality of coaches Dan had at the Swans.

Perhaps, just perhaps, things are never as bad as they seem and never as good as they seem.

Richo wasn't as bad as the majority thought and no new coach (Ratten or even Clarkson) would be as good as anyone thinks... there's a reality that the playing group has limitations no amount of coaching can overcome. Hence why Tomlinson, M. King, Bytel, Hill, B. King etc. are so important...

+1

[Scollop]

Finish off your stats next week and then we'll talk

[barneyboyz]

The last two years neither Richo or Ratten have had;

-A dominant forward line which regularly takes marks accross half forward (let alone inside 50)

-A dominant ruckman or combo. ***Saturday showed us that Rowan should be that second half of a combo

-A fast, well skilled midfielder who can regularly break lines and deliver to a [non-performing] forward line

-A tall, agile and dominant half back line that can take a mark in the unlikely event that we kick long down the line

-Many players that can take up the slack for those obvious shortfalls (we have had to rob Peter a bit this year); or

-Many players that can deliver a ball with any accuracy inside 50 (or at any place on the ground)

-Many players that aren't currently playing, whom might, if brought in help greatly in any of the areas mentioned above


Whoever gets the gig needs to rectify these areas first IMHO

[SAINT-LEE]

Any comparison on a handful of games is incredibly flawed.
Scientifically there's too many indifferent variables not only in the teams played but venues, history with opposition at various venues ( e.g. Adelaide @ home), coach changes affecting morale, player injuries, time in the season,etc etc.

We need at least 2 full seasons to compare with Alan's woeful record.
1 season to adjust and set plans in motion, and the next season to see the implementation unfold.

If Ratts or whoever win 10 or more in 2020 ( I believe transition seasons are 95% of the time a "write off" but the new coach can't do worse thsn the previous or its as disaster) and 14 or more in 2021 that would be very positive.

[Yorkeys]

The wins against the Doggies and Freo were excellent. Alan has no comparators for those performances in two years. Put Langlands and Gresh into Saturday's team we win. And by the way with several passengers and abysmal execution at critical times we still nearly won. When there were similar passenger numbers under Alan we got flogged. Any metrics that suggest Brett and Alan are similar credentialed coaches may only prove the point about lies, damned lies, and statistics.