Champion Data for SANFL?

[scott]

Does anyone know if these stats will be made available to the public?

I thought if the SANFL was going to fork out thousands of dollars to have CD doing stats for league and U18, that they would adopt them for their website.

Just had a look at the website then for the stats and it appears they're going with the advertiser stats again, which is quite disappointing.

I collated stats for South v West on the weekend and there is some shockingly enormous discrepancies.

Kicks
Them: S 168-202 W
I had: S 186-218 W (18-16 difference, quite big)

Handballs:
Them: S 66-89 W
I had: S 97-155 W (31-66 difference, absolutely amazing difference)

I don't claim to be 100% accurate either but I don't give extra kicks/handballs either.

Marks should be pretty close to spot on, but...
Them: S 90-119 W
I had: S 85-130 W (5-11 difference, would put at least half of my house on that I didn't miss five South marks)

Tackles stat is subjective but I had 37-33 in South's favour for the record, whereas they had 22-28.


I think where the advertiser goes wrong is having one person (or possibly two) doing each team. So where one party might consider something a tackle, the other doesn't.

Champion Data (as I believe) has one caller for kicks/handballs/marks/etc to avoid this.

[Squawk]

Good call Scott. I assumed that one professional set of stats would be used for any and all purposes - clubs, SANFL website, scouts, Advertiser, etc. - but haven't seen that this is the case as yet.

[redandblack]

Well, Scott, I called the game for West for our stats team and our figures were very, very close to yours.

As you say, you might miss one or two, or give an extra one or two depending on interpretation, but you don't 'make up' 50 or 60 stats.

For example, the Advertiser stats had James Ezard with 19 possessions, I had 27. The ABC (Ian Mogridge, who is very good), had much the same as mine, I think.

Apart from that, I think Champion Data might have pulled the pin already on doing league stats.

[am Bays]

I understand that we said thanks but no thanks to CD right from the time the idea was first floated. Our stats team is very dedicated and most importantly though know our players idosyncrasies and nuances. I would trust our stats people accuarcy over CD and The Advertiser.

[PhilH]

As someone who uses the official weekly SANFL stats for my weekly report I was advised that for the league Champion Data will not be up & running to approx Rd 5-6. Until then it is the same as previous years. NB the same statisticians who will be inputting for Champion Data will as a rule be the same ones as are doing the advertiser ones now.

[spell_check]

So when the CD stats take over, will they be published in the newspapers?

[MAY-Z]

As someone who uses the official weekly SANFL stats for my weekly report I was advised that for the league Champion Data will not be up & running to approx Rd 5-6. Until then it is the same as previous years. NB the same statisticians who will be inputting for Champion Data will as a rule be the same ones as are doing the advertiser ones now.

oh dear are you serious- so the other 8 clubs are paying for something which will be well below the standard they currently get from their own club people for free. all this talk about making the sanfl clubs spend less yet they are being asked to pay for something they havent had to pay for previously.

and yes scott checking the paper stats again on sunday their stats for both us and sturt were well down on whet we had recorded with very few player stats matching.

[Ecky]

From the rumours I hear, this Champion Data debacle is becoming quite embarrassing for the SANFL.

Stats taken by club statisticians = free and accurate

Stats taken by Champion Data / Advertiser = expensive and horribly inaccurate

At least Glenelg has seen the light.