Rumour 2022 Rumour Discussion Thread

[Scorpus]

Keep up to date with the latest Crows rumors in our summary thread: Rumour - Rumours Thread for Rumors Only

If you post a new rumor here, let me know and I'll copy it over

 

[jackster83]

Yes it does. Our games have the most tackles. Other teams have more than us on average in our games, but they only play in games involving us once or twice a year, whereas we're in those high-tackle count games every week.

That's why basic stats are misleading.

Like how Thommo would get 40 touches every week but his opponent would usually be the best player on the ground.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yes, we tend to lose the tackle count in our matches. But make more tackles over the season than any other team.

Simple way to think about it - we GET tackled far more than any other team.

Thought it was very unlikely & turns out to be false...

AFL Tables - 2022 Team Stats & Season Highs

We are net -14 tackles for the season but nowhere near last! Less than 1 differential per game... around mid pack.

-282 Hawks
-152 Kangaroos
-105 Dees
-46 Suns
-45 Lions
-31 Dockers
-14 Tigers
Etc

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

How does that work?

We have lots tackles but we also get tackled a lot. A common theme under Nicks, is that teams love tackling us

 

[maxlilly]

Yes, we tend to lose the tackle count in our matches. But make more tackles over the season than any other team.

Simple way to think about it - we GET tackled far more than any other team.

Even without Rory Atkins ?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

We have lots tackles but we also get tackled a lot. A common theme under Nicks, is that teams love tackling us

But it was an incorrect statement.

See post above.

Would be hell of stastical anomaly... but not so.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

But it was an incorrect statement.

See post above.

Would be hell of stastical anomaly... but not so.

The original statement was correct.

We average 67.6 tackles a game, number 1 in the comp.
We also ‘concede’ 68.4 tackles a game.
Also number 1.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The original statement was correct.

We average 67.6 tackles a game, number 1 in the comp.
We also ‘concede’ 68.4 tackles a game.
Also number 1.

Sure, but we don't have the worst differential overall.

We tackle about the same as our opposition in games & we play in games generally with a higher tackle count.

Tackling is the least of our issues!

Skills on the other hand & scores from turnovers...

 

[dogs105]

But it was an incorrect statement.

See post above.

Would be hell of stastical anomaly... but not so.

The statement was that we have a negative differential, not the worst differential. We also have the most tackles per game.

 

[dogs105]

Sure, but we don't have the worst differential overall.

We tackle about the same as our opposition in games & we play in games generally with a higher tackle count.

Tackling is the least of our issues!

Skills on the other hand & scores from turnovers...

Nobody has ever said we had the worst differential. Just that we have less tackles than our opponents, but more tackles than any other team.

 

[Runnin Blue]

I heard a rumour there were tackles in this thread.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The statement was that we have a negative differential, not the worst differential. We also have the most tackles per game.

Bottom line is tackling is NOT the reason we are low on the ladder.

How about our kicking efficiency.
Turnovers.
Scores against from turnovers.

 

[dogs105]

Bottom line is tackling is NOT the reason we are low on the ladder.

How about our kicking efficiency.
Turnovers.
Scores against from turnovers.

Sure. I was just explaining how the maths might work.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's pretty straightforward. Our tackle percentage was higher than our opponents' but lower on a head-to-head basis. Tackle per game differential however was negative which is a net positive and NOT the reason we are losing games.

Champion Data had us No 1 on the perceived tackling pressure gauge but that mostly indicates that there were a huge number of repeat stoppages in our matches, not that our tackle differential is anything we need to tackle moving forward.

 

[dogs105]

It's pretty straightforward. Our tackle percentage was higher than our opponents' but lower on a head-to-head basis. Tackle per game differential however was negative which is a net positive and NOT the reason we are losing games.

Champion Data had us No 1 on the perceived tackling pressure gauge but that mostly indicates that there were a huge number of repeat stoppages in our matches, not that our tackle differential is anything we need to tackle moving forward.

Can you please repeat your positive statement about negative repeat stoppages?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

It's pretty straightforward. Our tackle percentage was higher than our opponents' but lower on a head-to-head basis. Tackle per game differential however was negative which is a net positive and NOT the reason we are losing games.

 

[crow2crow]

View attachment 1510636

i believe our f50 tackles are quite low though aren't they

 

[WaynesWorld19]

i believe our f50 tackles are quite low though aren't they

Anecdotally ....I'd suggest this is the case

 

[morris086]

i believe our f50 tackles are quite low though aren't they

Ranked 8th with an average of 11 per game, Swans first with 12.1 per game

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Ranked 8th with an average of 11 per game, Swans first with 12.1 per game

Also, worth considering how many tackles per inside 50m.

We are 13th for I50's, so we would have more tackles than average when in our forward line.

 

[50BC]

I’m not frustrated at the slow pace of it, quite the opposite. I’m frustrated that the rebuild was done way too early and our focus is on continuity to minimise losses each week rather than cycling through our list. We’re going to be the same old side that competes for the lower part of the 8 each year. Our club didn’t have the patience to rebuild properly.

I think there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon who are now aware of the entirely self inflicted reasons we had to press the hard re-set button when we did. That particular set of circumstances should have never occurred, but it did and here we are. But I agree to the rest of it, I think we have quite a bit of turnover of our list to go. Longer that takes, longer we stay uncompetitive.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Yes, we tend to lose the tackle count in our matches. But make more tackles over the season than any other team.

Simple way to think about it - we GET tackled far more than any other team.

Whats our stats for broken tackles or ineffective tackles?.

How many times did we see our “so called” elite tacklers (keays, murph, mchenry etc etc) lay a tackle that the opponent could a) get out of or b) couldnt get out of but was still able to easily offload to a nearby team mate because his arms were still free..

We’d have to be up there as one of the league leaders in laying broken or ineffective tackles..

 

[crow2crow]

Also, worth considering how many tackles per inside 50m.

We are 13th for I50's, so we would have more tackles than average when in our forward line.

huh?

that makes no sense
1) there is no direct correlation between I50s and F50 tackles
2) even if there was there is 18 teams so we would need to be better than 9th for I50s on your logic

serious this is flat out wrong illogical

 

[ams4crows]

Tom Browne reckon Geelong are getting Bruhn and Oliver Henry

Collingwood getting McStay Hill and Frampton

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

huh?

that makes no sense
1) there is no direct correlation between I50s and F50 tackles
2) even if there was there is 18 teams so we would need to be better than 9th for I50s on your logic

serious this is flat out wrong illogical

How can a forward tackle the player I50 if it's not inside our 50m?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Tom Browne reckon Geelong are getting Bruhn and Oliver Henry

Collingwood getting McStay Hill and Frampton

Hill must be taking a pay cut!