SA Footy

Did so many players fail to take a mark? It says there were only 101 marks between the two clubs? On a fine day?

Whats the average Spelly...?

It also had Hardy taking 6 marks yet not having a kick or handball. What did he do with the ball then when he took 6 marks. He didn't get holding the ball every time

Dog_ger wrote:Whats the average Spelly...?

Phil Herden would be able to tell you that. I don't keep records of that because he does.

Here's a stat, Norwood knocked off 3 of Central's percentage points on the ladder with that game on Saturday, not many teams can lay claim to that against the Dogs, well done Norwood!

For what its worth, I had the following for both clubs:

CD: 156 kicks, 61 marks, 142 handballs
NWD: 189 kicks, 82 marks, 121 handballs.

CK wrote:For what its worth, I had the following for both clubs:

CD: 156 kicks, 61 marks, 142 handballs
NWD: 189 kicks, 82 marks, 121 handballs.

Laird would be furious (seriously). Has a 2 for 1 standard in kicks vs handballs as a 'standard'.
Having been in Melbourne on the weekend and missing this match, I'd be interested as to why we were either 'forced' to have such a high volume of handballs, or whether we 'elected' that path for some weird reason.

ST...

SnappyTom wrote:

CK wrote:For what its worth, I had the following for both clubs:

CD: 156 kicks, 61 marks, 142 handballs
NWD: 189 kicks, 82 marks, 121 handballs.

Laird would be furious (seriously). Has a 2 for 1 standard in kicks vs handballs as a 'standard'.
Having been in Melbourne on the weekend and missing this match, I'd be interested as to why we were either 'forced' to have such a high volume of handballs, or whether we 'elected' that path for some weird reason.

ST...

I think it was a mixture mate, Norwoods pressure from late in the second quarter was top notch and definately impacted on our over use of the ball.

I also think we made a consious effort to move the ball on very quickly to beat any attempt by Norwood to flood back on the small Norwood Oval, especially after taking marks all players were looking to handball on.

When were playing well in the first half the handball was effective but they were generally handballs over 10 meters creating the open runner.

Will add though i thought it was one of the more selfish games i have seen the Dogs play in a very long time and judging by his reaction on the weekend i think Scotty Dutschke would agree.

Interesting, isn't it. Candlestick Park is one of the (if not then THE) smallest ovals in the league. We struggle there a bit.
I would have suspected that this oval is the one where kicking can hurt the most.

While we have a good recent record there (of results), our matches have not always played that way.

I don't want to drive spelly mad, but I'd love to see a decade of our match percentages of kicks to handballs against our average - in the least versus The Ponderosa.

Maybe we suffer a bit from 'little oval syndrome'...

ST...

ST, PhilH has all of that stuff, you might want to PM him about it.

SnappyTom wrote:Interesting, isn't it. Candlestick Park is one of the (if not then THE) smallest ovals in the league. We struggle there a bit.
I would have suspected that this oval is the one where kicking can hurt the most.

While we have a good recent record there (of results), our matches have not always played that way.

I don't want to drive spelly mad, but I'd love to see a decade of our match percentages of kicks to handballs against our average - in the least versus The Ponderosa.

Maybe we suffer a bit from 'little oval syndrome'...

ST...

I do agree kicking can be more damaging, but i think in previous years at the parade we have been sucked in to trying to kick to long and be too damaging, therefore our inside 50's have been uneffective, mainly just long bombs to no real target from 55 meters away. It's then easy for teams to play the loose man in defence and make every contest inside 50.

IMHO on the weekend we made a massive effort to attempt and make every inside 50 count and not just waste possesion.

spell_check wrote:ST, PhilH has all of that stuff, you might want to PM him about it.

Cheers spelly, i'll eventually give that a go.

ST...

I'll look at it ... a little later in the week

One issue with Sunday games ... I have only a few hours Monday night to update the stats for the report due out Tuesday morning.

I suspect without knowing that maybe the league stats went over to Champion Data over the weekend.
Why
0 replaced with -
Players now in alphabetical order in the paper not positions
Some rather funny figures from the Norwood v Central game as already mentioned.

CK wrote:For what its worth, I had the following for both clubs:

CD: 156 kicks, 61 marks, 142 handballs
NWD: 189 kicks, 82 marks, 121 handballs.

They had:

CD: 150 kicks (-6), 44 marks (-17), 127 handballs (-15)
NWD: 186 kicks (-3), 54 marks (-28), 81 handballs (-40)

Assuming champion data are using the same definitions as the AFL, then I don't think the switch has happened yet.

That marks discrepancy is amazing. It's one of the very few statistics that is not subjective and should match up within 1 or 2 with every other stats provider (the odd free kick being called as a mark). To miss 45 marks, I don't know how it is possible.

The players in alphabetical order makes it easier for me to update the "Every scorer in the SANFL", so there's a plus.

All the Norwood-Centrals stats look very weird - too many zeros in kicks, marks and handballs. I am fairly sure that they went over to the Champion Data system this week.

The Glenelg-South stats are actually more accurate than they usually are - they only recorded 14 less possessions for Glenelg than we did, often they are over 50 less.

By the way, according to our stats, Glenelg's 201 handballs is the most we have ever recorded for Glenelg.

scott wrote:

CK wrote:Assuming champion data are using the same definitions as the AFL, then I don't think the switch has happened yet.

The problem isn't the definitions, it is the monkeys who enter the stats, who are the same people whether they are using the Champion system or not.

whoops, I didn't say that, did I?

Ecky wrote:All the Norwood-Centrals stats look very weird - too many zeros in kicks, marks and handballs. I am fairly sure that they went over to the Champion Data system this week.

The Glenelg-South stats are actually more accurate than they usually are - they only recorded 14 less possessions for Glenelg than we did, often they are over 50 less.

By the way, according to our stats, Glenelg's 201 handballs is the most we have ever recorded for Glenelg.

We seem to be handballing it more often this year too. Could it be some AFL rubbing off on to the SANFL?

Ecky wrote:

scott wrote:

CK wrote:Assuming champion data are using the same definitions as the AFL, then I don't think the switch has happened yet.

The problem isn't the definitions, it is the monkeys who enter the stats, who are the same people whether they are using the Champion system or not.

whoops, I didn't say that, did I?

The couple of 18s games I've been to I've been within earshot of the statisticians for champion and certainly the caller does a good job at picking up the numbers and the stats, but it's just whether the other statistician grabs it all and puts it into the computer correctly.

I've seen the advertiser guys do stats on paper (I was near them at the one game I've done stats live at the ground - south v port in '08 I reckon) and it's amazing what they miss and what they attributed wrongly.

While most people think statistics are meaningless, they truly become 100% meaningless for everyone when they're not counted correctly.

I did notice those glenelg v south stats on the weekend had some very high - and therefore seemed very accurate - numbers.

2 of our statisticians did our U18 stats on the weekend, and they got hold of the Champion Data stats and commented that they were a similar level of mediocrity to the usual Advertiser League stats - about 40 fewer possessions for Glenelg.
I think it depends a lot on who they have recording them, which is not good enough given that these people are paid to provide accurate stats.