Bad Stats: where Richmond needs to improve ...... (afl site)

[one-eyed]

Where your club needs to improve
Nathan Schmook
afl.com.au
January 9, 2014

Richmond

                           Key stat     League rank
 
Tackles per game     55.9 per game     18th
 
Scoring accuracy     57.0%     13th
 
Hit out winning %     39.2%     15th
 

THE CURE:
The elimination final loss to Carlton highlighted the Tigers' deficiencies in the midfield, losing the hit-outs (37-52) and clearances (38-49). Lifting their hit-out win percentage must be a priority, and the recruitment of Shaun Hampson should help. The former Carlton ruckman will ease the load on Ivan Maric allowing the latter, in theory, to operate more efficiently. Richmond is a low stoppage team, which explains in part its overall tackle ranking of 18th. Its ground-level midfielders need to get better at winning first use, however, with Trent Cotchin lacking support in 2013. Dustin Martin (58 clearances in 2013), Reece Conca (48), Brandon Ellis (29) and Nick Vlastuin (21) would all be expected to improve their inside game in 2014.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-01-09/bad-stats

[WA Tiger]

Tackles again, what have we had, one good year out of about the last 4 regarding our tackle count.

[wayne]

Tackles again, what have we had, one good year out of about the last 4 regarding our tackle count.

tackles are overrated, I think brisbane were ranked 3rdish.

[RollsRoyce]

I know they're related, but I think scoring efficiency is a much bigger problem for us than scoring accuracy. It was torturous at times last year watching us going in circles, building slow, clumsy attacks, choosing the wrong options and being constantly repelled. I'd really like to see us start getting the ball in quickly, lead up, bullet pass onto the chest, bang, goal.

[Penelope]

Tackles again, what have we had, one good year out of about the last 4 regarding our tackle count.

tackles are overrated, I think brisbane were ranked 3rdish.

I think the more important stat would be turnovers created in total.
how the turnovers are caused is probably not so important.

[Gigantor]

control the pivot and you have gone a long way to winning the match...In the elimination final after half time Judd and co smashed us in the middle

[tony_montana]

Actually RR, if Im not mistaken we are one of the most efficient scoring teams in the comp*. But like you, I was surprised at hearing that. What we can definitely improve on is getting our fair share of cheaper/easier goals. We seem to have to work harder for them than other top sides.


*Don't have access to the stats for confirmation but distinctly recall reading it somewhere not too long ago

[Penelope]

yeah i remember something about that too, but was it scoring goals per inside 50 or just scoring in general?

you could have a good scoring rate per inside 50, yet still have a poor scoring accuracy if you were kicking a lot of points, if it was just based on any score rather just goals.

the other thing, if i remember correctly is that we had one of the better stats in turnovers caused inside our own f50, which could increase our scoring efficiency as we would have more occasions where we have more than one shot on goal for one inside 50?

[1980 I Was There]

Tackles again, what have we had, one good year out of about the last 4 regarding our tackle count.

tackles are overrated, I think brisbane were ranked 3rdish.

I think the more important stat would be turnovers created in total.
how the turnovers are caused is probably not so important.

Yeah I agree al, a team could lay 200 tackles in a match but if every tackle didn't result in a turn over then it was useless stat and not even worthy of a one pointer stat.
If a team lays 10 tackles and directly results in a goal or defending a goal then that's a stat they we all want to know about.

All of that doesn't mean don't tackle, it means tackle everything in sight as hard and effectively as you possibly can, BUT work as a team to back the tackler up. Read the play in other words.

[tony_montana]

yeah i remember something about that too, but was it scoring goals per inside 50 or just scoring in general?

you could have a good scoring rate per inside 50, yet still have a poor scoring accuracy if you were kicking a lot of points, if it was just based on any score rather just goals.

the other thing, if i remember correctly is that we had one of the better stats in turnovers caused inside our own f50, which could increase our scoring efficiency as we would have more occasions where we have more than one shot on goal for one inside 50?

Id say its scoring in general given our overall inaccuracy. On your second point, it sounds familiar regarding our caused turnovers inside our own 50, but Im not sure if that has a bearing on the scoring efficiency tbh.. who knows with how some stats are defined by CD and the like ala disposal efficiency

[RollsRoyce]

Actually RR, if Im not mistaken we are one of the most efficient scoring teams in the comp*. But like you, I was surprised at hearing that. What we can definitely improve on is getting our fair share of cheaper/easier goals. We seem to have to work harder for them than other top sides.


*Don't have access to the stats for confirmation but distinctly recall reading it somewhere not too long ago

This could be a case of "stats, stats, and more damned lies", or however that quote goes.