Analysis Sliding Doors: the 3 games that swang our season

[GremioPower]

This season, in the AFL, Port scored:
- more shots than its opponents in 12 games for a 11-1 record;
- fewer shots than its opponents 8 times for a 0-8 record; and
- equal shots than its opponents 2 times for a 0-2 record.

There was a high correlation between scoring more shots and winning. Out of the 22 games, only three games have failed to follow the script. In all three, the result went against Port.

If the correlation had been perfect, our final record would have been 12-8-2, good enough for a seventh place overall. If we had won both "ties," our record would have been 14-8 (6th).

Those three games were:

Round 8, at home: Port 9.14:68 - 13.10:88 W. Lakes
Round 15, at home: Port 5.11:41 - 10.6:66 Footscray
Round 19, at home: Port 7.13:55 - 8.8:56 G.W.S.

The simplest reason why we haven't qualified for the Elimination Finals is our accuracy, of lack thereof, in those three home games.

 

[ctpower]

Our skill level has killed us for years and is my biggest criticism of Hinkley.
He’s never been able to turn it around.

 

[Ant Bear]

Liked for use of the word swang

 

[Power Girl]

Our skill level has killed us for years and is my biggest criticism of Hinkley.
He’s never been able to turn it around.

Hey hey hey buddy don’t be so hasty. He is the guy that is going to lead us to our next premiership.. or not

 

[Ant Bear]

.

Those three games were:

Round 8, at home: Port 9.14:68 - 13.10:88 W. Lakes
Round 15, at home: Port 5.11:41 - 10.6:66 Footscray
Round 19, at home: Port 7.13:55 - 8.8:56 G.W.S.

The simplest reason why we haven't qualified for the Elimination Finals is our accuracy, of lack thereof, in those three home games.

I'll exonerate the Bulldogs game, that was played in a torrential downpour and hail. Makes the game a lottery.

 

[ozph1870]

This season, in the AFL, Port scored:
- more shots than its opponents in 12 games for a 11-1 record;
- fewer shots than its opponents 8 times for a 0-8 record; and
- equal shots than its opponents 2 times for a 0-2 record.

There was a high correlation between scoring more shots and winning. Out of the 22 games, only three games have failed to follow the script. In all three, the result went against Port.

If the correlation had been perfect, our final record would have been 12-8-2, good enough for a seventh place overall. If we had won both "ties," our record would have been 14-8 (6th).

Those three games were:

Round 8, at home: Port 9.14:68 - 13.10:88 W. Lakes
Round 15, at home: Port 5.11:41 - 10.6:66 Footscray
Round 19, at home: Port 7.13:55 - 8.8:56 G.W.S.

The simplest reason why we haven't qualified for the Elimination Finals is our accuracy, of lack thereof, in those three home games.

Is not that simple, there's reasons why teams kick poorly when playing poorly. shallow entries, forced out wide, under pressure snaps instead of clean entry.

The bulldogs game we were destroyed, as we were in the first Showdown. So they can't be put down to poor kicking at all, we were completely out played in those games.
The giants game maybe though, had plenty of chances but missed simple shots, especially late.

Conversely, the saints game in China. We totally destroyed them, played clean crisp footy, lead by 40 odd points midway through the match at one stage kicking 18-2. The scoring shots were relatively similar, yet we had the huge margin. It wasn't their poor kicking, we were so much cleaner.

 

[GremioPower]

Is not that simple, there's reasons why teams kick poorly when playing poorly. shallow entries, forced out wide, under pressure snaps instead of clean entry.

It is never that simple. I argued that this is the SIMPLEST reason; not the BEST one.

The bulldogs game we were destroyed, as we were in the first Showdown. So they can't be put down to poor kicking at all, we were completely out played in those games.

Round 8
First, we kicked 15 scores for 30 points; while WL kicked 19 for 74.
Then, we kicked 7 scores for 32 points; while WL kicked ZERO.

At that point (Q4), we had 22 scores for 62 points; while WL had 19 for 74.
Finally, they outscored us 1.0:6 to 2.2:14 to finish the game.


Round 15
First, we kicked 4 scores for 14 points; while the Dogs kicked 7 for 32.
Then, we kicked 7 scores for 17 points; while the Dogs kicked ONE for 1.

At that point (Q3), we had 11 scores for 31 points; while the Dogs had 8 for 33.
Finally, they outscored us 1.4:10 to 5.3:33 to finish the game.

The giants game maybe though, had plenty of chances but missed simple shots, especially late.

Round 19
First, we kicked 12 scores for 32 points; while GWS kicked 14 for 49.
From that point (Q3) onwards, we kicked 8 scores for 23 points; while GWS kicked TWO for 7.

 

[raptalia]

I think the GWS game had to make the list of missed opportunity. A game we lost at the selection table. I am not a huge Dixon fan but had he played we would have won.

Hinkley picked Dixon in round 18 v Richmond and then again in round 20 v Essendon but left him out of the GWS game. If Dixon had been there Davis and Haynes would not have taken 23 defensive marks around our forward 50. Not entirely Ken's fault because Charlie was shit against Richmond but his non selection cost us.

 

[Relativity]

The fact we lost the close games continues an alarming trend over the last 5 years and adds to the perception of our team being mentally weak. Apart from Robbie and maybe Trav we don't seem to have a senior playing contingent that lift when it matters to bring the team home.

 

[Capital Power]

I thought at the time the killer was the first Freo game. The GWS game was another weird one where we went in with the mentality of trying to not lose by much. Those two plus the North cluster**** would be my three. Turn up to any of those and we play finals.

These pale into insignificance beside yesterday's events - those have the potential to screw us for years.

 

[LFC2010]

This season, in the AFL, Port scored:
- more shots than its opponents in 12 games for a 11-1 record;
- fewer shots than its opponents 8 times for a 0-8 record; and
- equal shots than its opponents 2 times for a 0-2 record.

There was a high correlation between scoring more shots and winning. Out of the 22 games, only three games have failed to follow the script. In all three, the result went against Port.

If the correlation had been perfect, our final record would have been 12-8-2, good enough for a seventh place overall. If we had won both "ties," our record would have been 14-8 (6th).

Those three games were:

Round 8, at home: Port 9.14:68 - 13.10:88 W. Lakes
Round 15, at home: Port 5.11:41 - 10.6:66 Footscray
Round 19, at home: Port 7.13:55 - 8.8:56 G.W.S.

The simplest reason why we haven't qualified for the Elimination Finals is our accuracy, of lack thereof, in those three home games.

3 games were,

Fremantle in Perth, should've won that, but the umps reemed us and that last quarter!
GWS here, still haven't seen GWS play worse footy than that, and somehow we were worse.
and of the Roos game at Marvel.. no explanation needed.

and the dropping of Lycett. That last game was proof that Lycett should never have been dropped in the 1st place.

 

[GremioPower]

I thought at the time the killer was the first Freo game. The GWS game was another weird one where we went in with the mentality of trying to not lose by much. Those two plus the North cluster**** would be my three. Turn up to any of those and we play finals.

These pale into insignificance beside yesterday's events - those have the potential to screw us for years.

Richmond and Fitzroy, rounds 3 and 4, were soul-breaking.

I just wanted to point out the three games that were different from the others regarding scoring shots.

 

[1954]

Liked for use of the word swang

I heard those Brazilian swangers can really get it on!

 

[raptalia]

I thought at the time the killer was the first Freo game. The GWS game was another weird one where we went in with the mentality of trying to not lose by much. Those two plus the North cluster**** would be my three. Turn up to any of those and we play finals.

These pale into insignificance beside yesterday's events - those have the potential to screw us for years.

Yeah, we had beaten WCE at Optus but could not beat the Dockers at the same ground. i also had the feeling that loss would come back to haunt us.

The loss against Richmond at AO when they had four top players missing was another 'should have won' game. The fact is we do not dominate at the Adelaide Oval and the days of the Portress are well and truly gone.

 

[Capital Power]

It would be good if our administration could ask our football department very kindly if they could adapt the game plan to one that is suited to the ground on which we play 12 times a year. Would they be allowed to do that or does it need AFL signoff?

 

[ozph1870]

Richmond and Fitzroy, rounds 3 and 4, were soul-breaking.

I just wanted to point out the three games that were different from the others regarding scoring shots.

Trying to help you out. It's not like basketball where a team can make 18 of 20 free throws and beat a side that made 8 of 20 by a point, that side can then say yeah we missed the free throws that would have won us the game. It's not as simple as that. Just looking at raw numbers doesn't work in this instance. There is a reason why when a team is dominating the other they tend to score way more accurately, not all shots on goal are the same. Clean effective play v rushed pressured play has a big thing to do with it. Discard the WB and crows games, they destroyed us. The GWS game where it was close and we did miss simple shots, that's fair enough.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Swang haha you are a funny fella Gremio.

 

[Powerade 08]

IF... we won these games
THEN... we would have played finals

 

[Powerstufff]

......

Round 8, at home: Port 9.14:68 - 13.10:88 W. Lakes
Round 15, at home: Port 5.11:41 - 10.6:66 Footscray
Round 19, at home: Port 7.13:55 - 8.8:56 G.W.S.

The simplest reason why we haven't qualified for the Elimination Finals is our accuracy, of lack thereof, in those three home games.

No it's not. Well certainly not the 1st two.
Sometimes a behind is a fair crack at a goal that goes awry. And sometimes it is a stronger opposition swatting a few through for an easy kick-out. Or the result of a desperate team having a low percentage shot at goal because it is just not allowed close enough for a proper shot.
R8 the Crows were just better than us for the 1st three quarters and it looked like being a slaughter. But Howard up forward late meant we actually scored a few goals in junk time. There was never a point where I thought 'a bit more accurate and we'll win'.
R15 I see the logic in looking at that score now and saying it was simple inaccuracy but it wasn't, it was a contrast in motivation and professionalism in the two teams in horrific cold and wet conditions. That game alone defines why the Bulldogs deserve the last finals spot and we didn't.
R19 I guess your viewpoint cannot be argued against as one of about 3 standard shots on goal late would have won the game if it had gone through. But I can't leave it alone because for me it was such a mystifying and unnecessary loss. And if we had actually played some sort of forward structure instead of Robbie Gray v several taller defenders we'd have had several more goals and accuracy could go ^&*% itself.

 

[Powerstufff]

... That last game was proof that Lycett should never have been dropped in the 1st place.

It takes the thread off-topic but there was some reason for that, not form. Not that I'm claiming to know that reason.

 

[GremioPower]

Trying to help you out. It's not like basketball where a team can make 18 of 20 free throws and beat a side that made 8 of 20 by a point, that side can then say yeah we missed the free throws that would have won us the game. It's not as simple as that. Just looking at raw numbers doesn't work in this instance. There is a reason why when a team is dominating the other they tend to score way more accurately, not all shots on goal are the same. Clean effective play v rushed pressured play has a big thing to do with it. Discard the WB and crows games, they destroyed us. The GWS game where it was close and we did miss simple shots, that's fair enough.

I have watched all three games. Again, against Crowns and Dogs, they have "destroyed" us, until we got control of the game. In both, we build a comeback that fell short. In both, we had a dominance greater than the one the opposition had over us, but we couldn't hold on. In both, we kicked worse than they did

 

[Stryke]

For me it was Brisbane at Gabba, Richmond at AO and then Giants at AO.

Should have won all three. Lost all three in prototypical Hinkleyball fashion.

 

[Us against the rest]

Our skill level has killed us for years and is my biggest criticism of Hinkley.
He’s never been able to turn it around.

Very true, that's the one thing that hurts us the most, our skills.

 

[Us against the rest]

Richmond loss and the giants loss for me.

 

[Powerstufff]

For me it was Brisbane at Gabba, Richmond at AO and then Giants at AO.

Should have won all three. Lost all three in prototypical Hinkleyball fashion.

So what's 'prototypical'?
Each loss was different. Brisbane at the Gabba hit us with an astonishing scoring blitz with about 15 minutes to go. Almost impossible for the coaches to restructure then, if the players can't sort it out it's over. Richmond at AO we had the appearance of a forward structure but in the final quarter pretty well every mark kicked in was intercepted in the air, especially by Grimes. The minimalist/absent forward structure against the Giants at AO made me think the Mafia had money on GWS and had left the coaching staff pictures of their kids walking to school.