TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Some interesting 2008 statistical comparisons

Have you shown us the good ones or the bad ones?

disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be.

ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect.

someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators.

then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be.

i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal.

true_blue3 wrote:

In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger.

I've seen all the players I listed above miss easy targets. Some players on our list are overrated users of the ball IMO.

Effective Disposal Efficiency:
Houlihan 67.02% - 12 clangers - 5 games
Anderson 70.59% - 9 clangers - 4 games
Pfeiffer 75.00% - 12 clangers - 7 games
Bannister 84.91% - 12 clangers - 5 games

Murphy 70.48% - 54 clangers - 22 games
Stevens 70.60% - 68 clangers - 22 games
Carrazzo 78.40% - 69 clangers - 21 games

Seems some of our allegedly highly skilled disposers aren't what they're cracked up to be.

http://carltonfc.com.au/Stats/tabid/4325/default.aspx

The same goes for a player who always goes for the 20M 'safe' kick to the team-mate in space.

true_blue3 wrote:

Are you saying midfielders aren't involved in chipping the ball across the backline? I think you'll find them involved more often than not. Also Nick Stevens receives the ball in space more often than any other player mentioned so he has no excuses IMO.

In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger

true_blue3 wrote:

as for nick stevens receiving the ball in space, yes that's true but you neglect how he gets as much ball as anyone in the comp delivering the ball inside 50. this is amde even worse for him considering we only have 1 target and 3 or 4 defenders to beat, so it requires a kick that has to pierce through all the oppositiona nd hit fev on the chest like a bullet, which he usually can do.

Shit thread.

Sorry mate... but, its terrible.

This did it for me:

Quote:

In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger

Your opinion suggests that (for the last 6 years prior to this one) we have been getting flogged by a bunch of witches hats.

Got to pay the opposition a bit more respect than that mate.

Author:	Rexy [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Some interesting 2008 statistical comparisons
Effective Disposal Efficiency: Houlihan 67.02% - 12 clangers - 5 games Anderson 70.59% - 9 clangers - 4 games Pfeiffer 75.00% - 12 clangers - 7 games Bannister 84.91% - 12 clangers - 5 games Murphy 70.48% - 54 clangers - 22 games Stevens 70.60% - 68 clangers - 22 games Carrazzo 78.40% - 69 clangers - 21 games Seems some of our allegedly highly skilled disposers aren't what they're cracked up to be. http://carltonfc.com.au/Stats/tabid/4325/default.aspx

Author:	verbs [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Have you shown us the good ones or the bad ones?

Author:	true_blue3 [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:
disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal.

Author:	Rexy [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:
verbs wrote: Have you shown us the good ones or the bad ones? Exactly my point.

Author:	Rexy [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:
true_blue3 wrote: disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal. In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger. I've seen all the players I listed above miss easy targets. Some players on our list are overrated users of the ball IMO.

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Some interesting 2008 statistical comparisons http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22796	Page 1 of 2

Author:	true_blue3 [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:07 pm ]
Post subject:
Rexy wrote: true_blue3 wrote: disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal. In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger. I've seen all the players I listed above miss easy targets. Some players on our list are overrated users of the ball IMO. who?

Author:	mjonc [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:
For a better understanding of Champion Data stats -http://www.championdata.com.au/files/rankings.pdf

Author:	lara #25 [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Some interesting 2008 statistical comparisons
Rexy wrote: Effective Disposal Efficiency: Houlihan 67.02% - 12 clangers - 5 games Anderson 70.59% - 9 clangers - 4 games Pfeiffer 75.00% - 12 clangers - 7 games Bannister 84.91% - 12 clangers - 5 games Murphy 70.48% - 54 clangers - 22 games Stevens 70.60% - 68 clangers - 22 games Carrazzo 78.40% - 69 clangers - 21 games Seems some of our allegedly highly skilled disposers aren't what they're cracked up to be. http://carltonfc.com.au/Stats/tabid/4325/default.aspx Quick question, why is carrots' disposal efficiency % higher than smurphs, who had less clangers? im guessing it involves the one-game difference? i'd love to get all those numbers down, but provided players are doing equally brilliant things during the game, or trying to make up for their mistakes (like murph did on the wing against Port at AAMI with his wayward handball) then i can deal with that. wonder what clangers would be like for the likes of judd / gablett / bartel /harvey

Author:	Jarusa [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:06 am ]
Post subject:
clangers are a pretty poor stat. For starters kicking a behind, even if it is from the boundary on 50 under immense pressure is counted as a clanger. Check it out Franlkin and Fefola have enormous clanger counts as well as strap-ons. The same goes for a player whoo always goes for the 20M 'safe' kick to the team-mate in space. These types of player will have fantastic 'efficienct' stats. But in reality one great 50M pass to a team-mate to advantage is worth much more than 3 or 4 dinky 20M kick to team-mates with zero risk. The fact is most of the time for a goal to be created someone has to create a skillful pass and someone else has to provide the easiest passage for the midfielder. Not an easy assignment. You need some sort of mixture of midfield briliance and forward brilliance to kick a winnig score(hopefully both).

Author:	HELLAS BLUE [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:17 am ]
Post subject:
true_blue3 wrote: disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal. Are you saying midfielders aren't involved in chipping the ball across the backline? I think you'll find them involved more often than not. Also Nick Stevens receives the ball in space more often than any other player mentioned so he has no excuses IMO.

Author:	The Hoff [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:23 am ]
Post subject:
Free kicks against also count as a clanger. Statistics mean very little: they can say anything you want them to say.

Author:	Wojee [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:55 am ]
Post subject:
Jarusa wrote: The same goes for a player who always goes for the 20M 'safe' kick to the team-mate in space. Robert Harvey?

Author:	troybond [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:
HELLAS BLUE wrote: true_blue3 wrote: disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal. Are you saying midfielders aren't involved in chipping the ball across the backline? I think you'll find them involved more often than not. Also Nick Stevens receives the ball in space more often than any other player mentioned so he has no excuses IMO. How many times have you seen Judd, Stevo and Murph in our back half chipping the ball around......Maybe once or twice a game max! How many times have you seen Thornton, Jamison and Waite chipping it around??....... At least twice a quarter!! Do yourself a favour and go down to the club and ask our forwards(FEV) when he leads who does he want passing it to him and he'll tell ya Juddy and STEVO. Your bias towards Stevo is laughable.

Author:	Crusader [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Shit thread. Sorry mate... but, its terrible. This did it for me: Quote: In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger Your opinion suggests that (for the last 6 years prior to this one) we have been getting flogged by a bunch of witches hats. Got to pay the opposition a bit more respect than that mate.

Author:	Mrs Caz [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Mate and champ....let both of you be careful how you argue each others points please.

Author:	tommi [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:
No worries China.............! kindest regards tommi

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Car17on [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:00 pm ]
Post subject:
http://www.stormpages.com/peterg/2008_Stat_Summary.xls

Author:	true_blue3 [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:
HELLAS BLUE wrote: true_blue3 wrote: disposal efficiency stats are not as useful as they are made out to be. ask any carlton supporter and they will tell you stevo is our best kick but because he gets the ball in such dangerous positions and is always kicking into a flooded 50 his efficiency is obviously going to be lower than you'd expect. someone like judd for example wins almost half his ball in a contested situation, you can't expect his disposal efficiency to be as good as someone who gets the ball in space. we all know how good a kick and handball he is, but these stats tell otherwise and that tells you these stats aren't great indicators. then you have someone like carrazzo, who is clearly instructed to take easy options or handball because his kicking is so crap and he gets the ball in the backline where he has heaps of teammates to kick to who are all loose and this makes his efficiency higher than he deserves it to be. i'm not saying this stat isn't useful but it's just given a lot more value than it should have. watching a game of footy is all you need to do when judging someone's disposal. Are you saying midfielders aren't involved in chipping the ball across the backline? I think you'll find them involved more often than not. Also Nick Stevens receives the ball in space more often than any other player mentioned so he has no excuses IMO. yes, i am saying our mids (the likes of judd, stevo, gibbs, murphy etc.) do not waste their time chipping it around in the backline. maybe once a game this may happen. whereas players like carrazzo, waite (i.e.poor kickers) have their disposal efficiency rate a lot higher than they deserve because they have at least 6 or 7 useless chips in the backline or switches across field. as for nick stevens receiving the ball in space, yes that's true but you neglect how he gets as much ball as anyone in the comp delivering the ball inside 50. this is amde even worse for him considering we only have 1 target and 3 or 4 defenders to beat, so it requires a kick that has to pierce through all the oppositiona nd hit fev on the chest like a bullet, which he usually can do.

Author:	HELLAS BLUE [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:
true_blue3 wrote: as for nick stevens receiving the ball in space, yes that's true but you neglect how he gets as much ball as anyone in the comp delivering the ball inside 50. this is amde even worse for him considering we only have 1 target and 3 or 4 defenders to beat, so it requires a kick that has to pierce through all the oppositiona nd hit fev on the chest like a bullet, which he usually can do. Well I guess that's where we differ in opinion. Stevo gets plenty of easy stats to go with his inside 50's. Considering he's not stuffing up his easy kicks yet his efficiency is only at 70% says to me not many of his inside 50's are hitting targets. I'd love to see his inside 50 efficiency.

Author:	Rexy [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Crusader wrote: Shit thread. Sorry mate... but, its terrible. This did it for me: Quote: In general play (not a shot on goal IMO), a clanger is a clanger Your opinion suggests that (for the last 6 years prior to this one) we have been getting flogged by a bunch of witches hats. Got to pay the opposition a bit more respect than that mate. Shit post. Makes no sense and misses the point. Sorry champ.