AFL Autopsy RND 19: Loss to the Pies

[bacon buster]

Except stats don't tend to show a pattern with this.

Good teams don't get stuck playing lots of close games.

It's an artefact of human thought where we think there's a pattern to it.

fair. we were a good team for almost all of the 90s, and anecdotally, i'd say our close game record had to be crap.

maybe it's more that good teams can turn a close game into a 2-3 goal win (which is no longer "close")

 

[faible]

fair. we were a good team for almost all of the 90s, and anecdotally, i'd say our close game record had to be crap.

We were a great team in 2000, not too many close games to be found, we just brutalised other sides.

Geelong's 9-0 win streak with > 130% is a lot more convincing than Collingwood's.

 

[Mercurial89]

Statistics pretty consistently bear out that close games are a coin-toss. Winning a heap of them like Collingwood has doesn't mean they're good, it means they're lucky. Losing a heap of them in a row means you're unlucky. Over time they tend to average back out.

Good teams simply don't end up in a position where they have to win a number of games by a single kick. If Collingwood were as good as their record sounds, they wouldn't have been in the position of having to win after the siren against a bottom 5 side.

There would have to be a feedback loop of situational growth though yeah?

I don't think the pies are a "good team" however how they have played in some of these close games scenarios is superior to the other teams they have faced.
They are an average team that finds themselves in situational football often (due to not being good enough to beat other teams easily) but through that practice they make less mistakes, know what to do.

Just saying from a statistics point of view looking at a won close games vs lose close games is a bit too simplistic I'd have thought to declare it's mostly down to "luck".

Edit for a bit more context:
The Stephen Milne bounce, is the luck part of things possibly?
Where as what happened on the weekend was the opposition (us) not being good enough in that situation to stop what they did. I guess you could argue that you have to be lucky that the other team makes mistakes, but I guess my focus is on the ability to take advantage of that.

Another example, Bills vs Chiefs playoffs game last year. Chiefs had 13 seconds to tie the game to force overtime and through a series of "bad calls" by the Bills in hindsight meant they did it through some pretty clutch play of their own.

Is it luck that the opposition left the door open for those opportunities or is it on the other team's ability to walk through the doors that have been left open?
With the smaller the opening the greater you have to perform to take advantage of that lapse.

 

[ant555]

No consolation to us but the play probably does not happen if it is anyone but Pendlebury kicking out. It was his vision that set the play up telling Moore where to run and identifying where the space was very quickly. Most others would have just launched the footy down the middle.

 

[Darealrath]

fair. we were a good team for almost all of the 90s, and anecdotally, i'd say our close game record had to be crap.

maybe it's more that good teams can turn a close game into a 2-3 goal win (which is no longer "close")

From memory we had an incredible H&A record in close games but an awful one in finals. Dan26 used to post about it.

 

[Squeaky]

It was unbearable watching all that shit last night as a supporter - I hope the players are made to wade through that crap too!
Never again.

 

[TheGrizz]

No consolation to us but the play probably does not happen if it is anyone but Pendlebury kicking out. It was his vision that set the play up telling Moore where to run and identifying where the space was very quickly. Most others would have just launched the footy down the middle.

I think this is one of the most underrated parts of that final play.

Pendleburys anticipation is impressive, he essentially told Moore to run wide and take space wide before Jones had even kicked it. He saw it coming and played chessmaster.

 

[rumply]

I turned the tv off after the first quarter and didn't watch again.
But in the first Hind booted the ball away after a whistle at the top of their 50m arc and they didn't call the 50m, in fact it was two possessions by us after the free a handpass and the kick.

So unless there were other examples in the rest of the game that I missed it would appear that they were consistent within the game?

Doesnt worry me too much it wasnt paid but we see plenty that are & it sort of follows that if they are going to be hot on HTB that day that they would also have little patience for any time wasting.

 

[rumply]

It was unbearable watching all that s**t last night as a supporter - I hope the players are made to wade through that crap too!
Never again.

Haha, no way am I going anywhere near any tv footy shows this week.

 

[Bjchan13]

I think this is one of the most underrated parts of that final play.

Pendleburys anticipation is impressive, he essentially told Moore to run wide and take space wide before Jones had even kicked it. He saw it coming and played chessmaster.

Pendlebury telling a player to run into the wide open space we left for them is impressive to you? Thats a basic piece of play in my opinion. A solid team defence set up correctly in that situation wouldn't have left all of that room to begin with.

 

[yodellinhank]

There would have to be a feedback loop of situational growth though yeah?

I don't think the pies are a "good team" however how they have played in some of these close games scenarios is superior to the other teams they have faced.
They are an average team that finds themselves in situational football often (due to not being good enough to beat other teams easily) but through that practice they make less mistakes, know what to do.

Just saying from a statistics point of view looking at a won close games vs lose close games is a bit too simplistic I'd have thought to declare it's mostly down to "luck".

Edit for a bit more context:
The Stephen Milne bounce, is the luck part of things possibly?
Where as what happened on the weekend was the opposition (us) not being good enough in that situation to stop what they did. I guess you could argue that you have to be lucky that the other team makes mistakes, but I guess my focus is on the ability to take advantage of that.

Another example, Bills vs Chiefs playoffs game last year. Chiefs had 13 seconds to tie the game to force overtime and through a series of "bad calls" by the Bills in hindsight meant they did it through some pretty clutch play of their own.

Is it luck that the opposition left the door open for those opportunities or is it on the other team's ability to walk through the doors that have been left open?
With the smaller the opening the greater you have to perform to take advantage of that lapse.

You make your own luck. Milne stood back to check which way the ball would bounce.

 

[yodellinhank]

I think this is one of the most underrated parts of that final play.

Pendleburys anticipation is impressive, he essentially told Moore to run wide and take space wide before Jones had even kicked it. He saw it coming and played chessmaster.

You make your own luck.

 

[TheGrizz]

Pendlebury telling a player to run into the wide open space we left for them is impressive to you? Thats a basic piece of play in my opinion. A solid team defence set up correctly in that situation wouldn't have left all of that room to begin with.

Notice that basically all of Collingwoods players (bar 1) are in the middle of the ground, which indicates that the set play they were planning to go with was down the middle.

If taking the wide space was such a simple concept, how come basically no one else for Collingwood (or us) thought to take it until Moore got goalside of Wright.

What was impressive was that Pendlebury, in the heat of a crucial moment, before Jones had even kicked the ball, had the wherewithal to think of a counter/contingency to the dump kick down the middle they were set up for in case the opportunity arose.
Like Ant said, the vast majority of guys just pump that ball down the middle and don't think twice (and considering how Collingwood were set, that is what they expected). Pendlebury had the presence of mind and composure to step out of that structured play beforehand and give himself options.

The impressive part isn't kicking it wide to a guy in space, it's processing the possible alternatives in the heat of the game. Something none of our players seemed to do once our structure got broken by Moore and Bianco.

I get that you don't think our structure was existent, you have made that abundantly clear, but don't get snarky with me cause I disagree.

 

[bacon buster]

View attachment 1456997


Notice that basically all of Collingwoods players (bar 1) are in the middle of the ground, which indicates that the set play they were planning to go with was down the middle.

If taking the wide space was such a simple concept, how come basically no one else for Collingwood (or us) thought to take it until Moore got goalside of Wright.

What was impressive was that Pendlebury, in the heat of a crucial moment, before Jones had even kicked the ball, had the wherewithal to think of a counter/contingency to the dump kick down the middle they were set up for in case the opportunity arose.
Like Ant said, the vast majority of guys just pump that ball down the middle and don't think twice (and considering how Collingwood were set, that is what they expected). Pendlebury had the presence of mind and composure to step out of that structured play beforehand and give himself options.

The impressive part isn't kicking it wide to a guy in space, it's processing the possible alternatives in the heat of the game. Something none of our players seemed to do once our structure got broken by Moore and Bianco.

I get that you don't think our structure was existent, you have made that abundantly clear, but don't get snarky with me cause I disagree.

isn't the fact that the Collingwood players, as you mention, congregating in the middle, CREATING the space out on the left flank? even it was pure luck, and not by design, Pendlebury still had the composure to take advantage of it.

maybe if Pendlebury saw it, one of our players could have been alert to the danger. but they were quite clearly distracted as the ball was in flight. ball watching is normal, but it cost us the game, in my view.

 

[faible]

There would have to be a feedback loop of situational growth though yeah?

I don't think the pies are a "good team" however how they have played in some of these close games scenarios is superior to the other teams they have faced.
They are an average team that finds themselves in situational football often (due to not being good enough to beat other teams easily) but through that practice they make less mistakes, know what to do.

Just saying from a statistics point of view looking at a won close games vs lose close games is a bit too simplistic I'd have thought to declare it's mostly down to "luck".

Edit for a bit more context:
The Stephen Milne bounce, is the luck part of things possibly?
Where as what happened on the weekend was the opposition (us) not being good enough in that situation to stop what they did. I guess you could argue that you have to be lucky that the other team makes mistakes, but I guess my focus is on the ability to take advantage of that.

Another example, Bills vs Chiefs playoffs game last year. Chiefs had 13 seconds to tie the game to force overtime and through a series of "bad calls" by the Bills in hindsight meant they did it through some pretty clutch play of their own.

Is it luck that the opposition left the door open for those opportunities or is it on the other team's ability to walk through the doors that have been left open?
With the smaller the opening the greater you have to perform to take advantage of that lapse.

Close games tend to regress to the mean, Collingwood winning a heap of close games this year would likely flip next year. We don't tend to see any team consistently win close games over an extended period of time in the AFL, nor does there appear to be much correlation between Premierships and winning close games.

Time in AFL behaves very differently to the NFL as well, so what's relevant to AFL may not be relevant to NFL or NBA.

UPDATE: Close Games in VFL/AFL History: Do Successful Teams Win Them? — Matter of Stats

Back in November of 2015, I wrote this piece on the topic of close games in response to the claims being made then about the ability of good teams to win close games .

www.matterofstats.com

Successful teams don't so much tend to win the close ones, but instead tend to win the ones that aren't close.

Like It Or Not, A Close AFL Game Really Is A Coin Flip

The word luck can make it sound as if all notions of cause and effect fly out the window as soon as a margin drops below two goals. Let’s put it this way instead: the results of close games are indistinguishable from the results of a coin flip.

www.statsinsider.com.au

 

[Knighta21]

I have no idea what Ham was doing at the end, yeah he made the decision to leave Bianco but if he kept sprinting at Moore instead of turning around half way, might have put enough pressure on the kick to then allow Laverde to get to bianco or other players to cover. Just so bizarre.

 

[Bjchan13]

View attachment 1456997


Notice that basically all of Collingwoods players (bar 1) are in the middle of the ground, which indicates that the set play they were planning to go with was down the middle.

If taking the wide space was such a simple concept, how come basically no one else for Collingwood (or us) thought to take it until Moore got goalside of Wright.

What was impressive was that Pendlebury, in the heat of a crucial moment, before Jones had even kicked the ball, had the wherewithal to think of a counter/contingency to the dump kick down the middle they were set up for in case the opportunity arose.
Like Ant said, the vast majority of guys just pump that ball down the middle and don't think twice (and considering how Collingwood were set, that is what they expected). Pendlebury had the presence of mind and composure to step out of that structured play beforehand and give himself options.

The impressive part isn't kicking it wide to a guy in space, it's processing the possible alternatives in the heat of the game. Something none of our players seemed to do once our structure got broken by Moore and Bianco.

I get that you don't think our structure was existent, you have made that abundantly clear, but don't get snarky with me cause I disagree.

I thought we were having a conversation. Apologies if you took it as snarky. The concept of players congregating in the middle of the ground to create space on the flanks and wing is not new. I'll maintain that we couldve closed down more space and still covered players with a better defensive set up. Pendlebury saw the hole in our set up and exploited it.

 

[Milanista28]

read somewhere that pointed out that Murphy kicked in whilst the umpire was still in the motion of signalling the free kick

apparently, to the letter of the law, whilst it was AFTER the whistle, it cannot be paid 50 if the umpire is still signalling.

i didn't have a problem with it, i'd be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, it was loud out there.

50 is generally only paid after the 2nd whistle, 1st whistle then free kick signal then 2nd whistle, he hadn't blown the 2nd whistle so no 50.

 

[citizen-erased]

No consolation to us but the play probably does not happen if it is anyone but Pendlebury kicking out. It was his vision that set the play up telling Moore where to run and identifying where the space was very quickly. Most others would have just launched the footy down the middle.

yep.
Bianco sprints to the wing the second Pendles comes out.
posted in the Langford thread. Started with the best Pie ive seen in my life and finished with a top 5.

what can you do. They're a top 4 side for a reason

 

[ant555]

Pendlebury telling a player to run into the wide open space we left for them is impressive to you? Thats a basic piece of play in my opinion. A solid team defence set up correctly in that situation wouldn't have left all of that room to begin with.

I disagree. Having watched it back a few times our blokes in the middle had gone to a man. It was not a basic bit of play. It was quick thinking from a very smart player on two fronts. First he sees the middle is a no go and secondly he is directing Moore to get a break on Wright. Our blokes where set where the Collingwood players where up the field. The key to it was Moore getting a start on Wright. It allowed him to run to half back and it forced Ham into making a bad decision. It was absolutely a play made up on the run. If it was a set play he would not have been telling Moore which way to run.
If we had of gone genuine zone then they had the numbers in the middle of the ground. We where in man on man mode. Problem was Wright did not have his man. Even after Ham made the wrong choice they scrambled pretty well and Langford should have made the spoil.

 

[citizen-erased]

read somewhere that pointed out that Murphy kicked in whilst the umpire was still in the motion of signalling the free kick

apparently, to the letter of the law, whilst it was AFTER the whistle, it cannot be paid 50 if the umpire is still signalling.

i didn't have a problem with it, i'd be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, it was loud out there.

I don't believe the 50 should be there.
For one, Jones wasn't gonna play on to anywhere. It doesn't impact the next kick (i.e. allowing them to setup) as we had no one free forward of the contest.

Prefer 50's to be less rigid tbh and something you let the ump award at discretion. I hate the technical ones.

 

[ant555]

I thought we were having a conversation. Apologies if you took it as snarky. The concept of players congregating in the middle of the ground to create space on the flanks and wing is not new. I'll maintain that we couldve closed down more space and still covered players with a better defensive set up. Pendlebury saw the hole in our set up and exploited it.

The thing is there was only one player that ran to space so they where not looking to set up space on one side. They where 100% looking to go down the middle and Pendlebury adjusted it last second.

 

[citizen-erased]

Pendlebury telling a player to run into the wide open space we left for them is impressive to you? Thats a basic piece of play in my opinion. A solid team defence set up correctly in that situation wouldn't have left all of that room to begin with.

he creates that space.
Bianco is not on the wing before he plays on. he sprints the second Pendles comes out wide. And he's doing that for the play after the current one.
Moore was on for a short receive but Pendles puts him on a run so he can go out wide (where Bianco is heading).

Pendles knows the corridor = loss.
So gambles the wing, and trusts his team-mates are in sync with what's about to unfold.

He won that game for them (and Elliott's kick, which was pretty sensational)

 

[mike14]

It's interesting to see/read all the analysis about this last play. I get that this one ended up being literally the game winner; but as this board can attest to based on all the game day threads, red-time goals and shocking defensive transition from our 50 have been hallmarks of our play all year. There must be at least a dozen examples of the opposition taking the ball from one end to the other for a shot on goal without us looking like touching it.

Sunday afternoon was another systematic failure that just had immediately felt results. Hopefully rather than focusing on how we can stop that particular play from happening again, the club is finally looking at developing and implementing a system to arrest the larger issue.

 

[Bjchan13]

I disagree. Having watched it back a few times our blokes in the middle had gone to a man. It was not a basic bit of play. It was quick thinking from a very smart player on two fronts. First he sees the middle is a no go and secondly he is directing Moore to get a break on Wright. Our blokes where set where the Collingwood players where up the field. The key to it was Moore getting a start on Wright. It allowed him to run to half back and it forced Ham into making a bad decision. It was absolutely a play made up on the run. If it was a set play he would not have been telling Moore which way to run.
If we had of gone genuine zone then they had the numbers in the middle of the ground. We where in man on man mode. Problem was Wright did not have his man. Even after Ham made the wrong choice they scrambled pretty well and Langford should have made the spoil.

I think we could've set the defence up to guard more space while still being responsible for a man somewhat. Make the ground small. You dont have to be side by side with a man to be responsible if you have structured up the ground to limit options from a kick out. Collingwood created tonnes of space so Pendlebury found the weak spot (space for Moore to run into) and exploited it. Theres no way he could've guessed Bianco would be wide open after going to Moore either. He would've been hoping for a 1v1 vs Ham on a wide open wing when he started the play. As it turns out Ham left his man and we know what happened from there. I dont think we were playing strict man on man defence, if we were Ham would never have left his man.