COKEandCOLA
Club Legend
- Feb 23, 2019
- 1,270
- 1,333
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #7,101
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
No Oppo Supporters General AFL and other clubs discussion thread. **Opposition fans not welcome** Part 4
- Thread starter Hauker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I’ve posted in here before that the Bulldogs’ coach has come under scrutiny from the board due to some “off the field” issues. The patience of the board will be tested again - I’m making no presumption as to the reasons why this time other than the team’s form (although Slobbo danced around it tonight on 360). Beveridge coming out with a whinge like this smells of desperation.
It certainly doesn’t hurt to have a big marking forward but how many goals per game does it generate? 1? 2? The bulk of goals are going to come via other channels which is why we typically favour mobile kpf and mobile kpd.
OnTheRocks
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 11, 2016
- 5,670
- 8,574
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Cameron and Lynch say 4 or 3
Steven Tyler
Brownlow Medallist
Having someone take contested marks in your forward line stops the ball being sling-shotted out of defence with ridiculous ease..............
It’s not just about scoring
So put McEvoy at full forward and problem solved, right?
Yep it allows your defensive structures to get set and lock it in. If the person taking the contested mark doesn’t kick the goal then lock it in and then with enough pressure from your forwards and mids try and get it back in there again. Clunking those marks also allows your mids to get a breather so they can go hard again if the set shot misses. I guess it’s not rocket science.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,419
- 43,517
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Big Boy, Impey and Sicily are probably 75% of our Contested Marks.
BigBoy - 19
Sicily - 9
Rough - 8
Scrimshaw - 6
Impey - 6
Gunston - 6
83 Contested Marks in total, so a fair effort by the above.
Those figures are a distortion.
McKay has taken 39 marks (25 contested) but only 14 marks inside 50 - for 11 goals. That't not a bad return.
Rough has taken 21 marks (10 marks inside 50) - for 7 goals.
Compare to Jeremy Cameron. 45 marks in total (24 contested) - 24 marks inside 50 - 24 goals.
In other words almost 2/3 rds of McKay's marks have been outside 50 (unlike the other 2 players) - so it's unfair to equate his goals with his marking.
Not sure about that - surely there's a tendency that more contested marks inside forward 50 results in more goals.
I reckon the more anything in the forward 50 (other than free kicks against) equals more goals.
(And I'd love to have McKay at Hawthorn as well - more than, say, Charlie Curnow)
Although Curnow has a massively efficient goal return on contested marks - 200% !!
(He's taken 1 contested mark, for 2 goals).
- Mar 11, 2018
- 8,149
- 12,482
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Contested marks look really good
COKEandCOLA
Club Legend
- Feb 23, 2019
- 1,270
- 1,333
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #7,116
No doubt the spooners would want something ridiculously stupid in a trade though unfortunately.
Milkshaker
Cancelled
- Nov 6, 2014
- 2,703
- 5,997
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Good thing Clarko did not coach during the 80s. Those pesky marking forwards.
COKEandCOLA
Club Legend
- Feb 23, 2019
- 1,270
- 1,333
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #7,119
Thanks for reminding me mate, I've been trying to wipe it from the memory bank.
Under the deal:
- Carlton received pick Nos.10, 16, and 73 in this year's draft and the Crows' 2018 second-round pick.
- Adelaide received Gibbs, No.77 and Carlton's 2018 second-round and third-round picks.
The trade was absolutely ridiculous and was close to Dodoro levels of insanity.
Was barely worth the single 1st Round Selection not to mention the additional one they managed to extract.
The swap of the 2nd Round Selections didn't mean a whole lot, especially seeing how it ended up at GWS anyway and also the fact there was only a few places between the selections.
The fact that Carlton also pushed the trading of 4th Round Selections also just further justifies the fact they are major tightwad's when it comes to trade period.
I'm actually surprised that SOS didn't pull out a #fistpump
Hawkboy62
Club Legend
Veteran
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2018
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2018
Hawthorn Hawks - Kaiden Brand Player Sponsor 2018
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2017
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2017
Hawthorn Hawks - Kaiden Brand Player Sponsor 2017
- Jan 4, 2016
- 2,707
- 4,065
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I see Bulldogs want to play games at Whitton Oval, their spiritual home. 2 games a year after the ground has been upgraded to seat 18,000 at a cost of only $150 million. They are getting $1 million for a feasability study.
Sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer. .
Sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer. .
- Banned
- #7,121
Then why did they get the state government to pay the same to upgrade North Ballarat?
Oh and will they be charging their own supporters to sit in a wooden seat $50 on top of the $500-2000 they pay for social/player sponsorship membership? Yep apparently NB is a premium stadium so they have to charge that... is their bullshit line. Whitten Oval's not Etihad/Marvel so I'd expect the same line.
Yes at North Ballarat that is what they do which is why no one turns up... btw Saturday b4 a Sunday game they rang those same supporters and offered the same $50 seats for $5 if they'd take them, the long time bulldogs supporters were disgusted and refused to go ever again. If Hawthorn did that I'd be disgusted too. Never seen or heard anything like that at a Tassie game which is comparable to North Ballarat.
(Btw very nice ground, great surface)
I can’t access contested marks inside fifty but I can tell you that contested marks and marks inside 50 do correlate positively but the correlation is very weak.
CM = contested Marks
I50 = inside 50
MI50 - marks inside 50
Based on 2018 season data (closer to 1 the better for R^2):
CM v MI50 R^2 = 0.285
CM v Goals R^2 = 0.604
MI50 v Goals R^2 = 0.656
I50 v CM R^2 = 0.301
I50 v Goals R^2 = 0.704
I50 v MI50 R^2 = 0.752
So the strongest influence over goals is inside 50s and this is likely driven by its influence over MI50. CM doesn't correlate strongly with with I50 or MI50 but it does ok with goals. So I'm going to suggest that while not definitive, this analysis suggests that CM has a small impact on overall marks inside 50 which probably drives its correlation with goals but also has a boost to inside 50 which in turn gives it an additional boost to goals.
However, there is a much stronger theme present in the data suggesting forwards that contribute to getting the ball inside 50 and getting free of their opponent is where the majority or scoring comes from. IF you find a rare player that can do both then you got to pay that player 1 million dollars and get him into your club. if you have to choose between tall how can take contested marks (Tippett) and your more mobile forward (Roughy, Buddy, Kennedy) then you go with the later.
I don't have a deep dataset of individual players but I have the CM and goals for the top 16 goal kickers and the correlation between contested marks and goals is only 0.36. There are a handful that have big numbers of both and the rest mostly have under 25 CM (about half of the leading KPF). More than half the top 100 goal kickers don't feature in the top 100 contested marking players.
Edit: think my spreadsheet was broken on this sentence: ‘68% of the top CM players don't feature in the top 100 goal kickers.’
Last edited:
Just get it into fifty and don’t let the opposition mark it
Brant
Brownlow Medallist
Shit...Just get it into fifty and don’t let the opposition mark it
Makes our game plan the last 2x years seem a little silly...
- Status
