Slowest in the comp

[ignoramus]

They're just theories. If Chris Hoyne was the smartest man in football he wouldn't be working for Champion Data.

A lot of analysis is made to fit the result. Fremantle aren't winning so they find the metric of slow ball movement to explain it, by using a supposed new measurement that they haven't used before. It's great for boffins but what does it say about their past formula for analysis.

When we're winning they'll find a retrospective reason to say why we're good. In 2022 Champion Data told us that we were the best team for scoring after a turnover in our defensive 50m. i.e. winning it in our D50 and taking down to the other end to score. That might have been true on the average data for when we had a block of wins, but it was destroyed by Collingwood in the semi final.

Yes! Finally. Stats are reflections of what happened, not of why it happened. Claims about why what happened happened are hypotheses that certain correlations are indicative of causation. That’s not to say that those hypotheses are worthless and can be ignored or rejected. It simply means that they don’t put an end to the need for critical analysis.

 

[Paracleet]

No need for an essay to explain this. That guys job is sales. Grab some lagging indicators and peddle them out to support narratives that already exist. I mean there is clearly a market for it, it's exactly what many people in here want to hear very obviously.

If there was merit to it we'd be finding it out by picking it out from a table CD had published where it showed all teams and its correlation with actual performance. Dragged out as talking point without context on a radio show? Just bullshit.

Hell I mean surely anyone can understand, from his own words (and without seeing the rest of the data), that this metric can only have a very weak relationship with performance if we managed to finish 5th in 2022 while still being bottom four in his little category.

Okay so I wrote an essay afterall, but this stuff shits me.

 

[millsy]

They're just theories. If Chris Hoyne was the smartest man in football he wouldn't be working for Champion Data.

A lot of analysis is made to fit the result. Fremantle aren't winning so they find the metric of slow ball movement to explain it, by using a supposed new measurement that they haven't used before. It's great for boffins but what does it say about their past formula for analysis.

When we're winning they'll find a retrospective reason to say why we're good. In 2022 Champion Data told us that we were the best team for scoring after a turnover in our defensive 50m. i.e. winning it in our D50 and taking down to the other end to score. That might have been true on the average data for when we had a block of wins, but it was destroyed by Collingwood in the semi final.

And Geelong under Chris Scott were apparently really slow but somehow they've also been a finals team for the past 15 he has coached them, so how much better have they got since they changed it. Was it their premiership year they got it going fast, or was it last year when they made the prelim., or was it the year in between when they missed the finals. So they had it, then they lost it and now they've got it back, except for 2025 Rd 2 vs St Kilda - wtf happened there? Or someone will tell me fast ball movement is a new tactic now, and that the ball movement was much so slower back in 2011 when Geelong won the premiership.

We all know the competition isn't even in terms of playing teams each other twice. There's just too many variables - like who we play, where we play, who is missing from our B23 team, who is missing from the opposition's B23 when they play us, what were the conditions we played in, etc. And in explaining his findings "the smartest man in football" seems to be conflating the 2 games this season, with the last 4 games we lost in 2024 and with the last few seasons. At which point exactly were we on the bottom. It fits that we're on the bottom in 2025 because we're 2nd last on the AFL ladder, but speed of ball movement can't be the be all and end because we sat around the Top 6 for most of last season.

If it's based on averages, if you play one game with really fast ball movement how quickly does your average suddenly spike up. Every team makes plans to stop the opposition ball movement. It's part of getting the ball back in the "they've got it", "we've got it" or "it's in dispute" scenarios and as often as moving it fast beats the defense there's also playing too fast that you constantly cough the ball up to the opposition set up.

Just a reminder that Champion Data also had the Richmond team that won 3 premierships in 4 years, rated by their analysis on identifying premiership teams based on performance as a middle of the ladder, outside the Top 8 team.

Are you disagreeing with the data captured as being an effective measure of ball movement, or more that it's theoretical if there's any correlation to performance?

 

[Docker82]

No need for an essay to explain this. That guys job is sales. Grab some lagging indicators and peddle them out to support narratives that already exist. I mean there is clearly a market for it, it's exactly what many people in here want to hear very obviously.

If there was merit to it we'd be finding it out by picking it out from a table CD had published where it showed all teams and its correlation with actual performance. Dragged out as talking point without context on a radio show? Just bullshit.

Hell I mean surely anyone can understand, from his own words (and without seeing the rest of the data), that this metric can only have a very weak relationship with performance if we managed to finish 5th in 2022 while still being bottom four in his little category.

Okay so I wrote an essay afterall, but this stuff shits me.

There’s always a place for statistics IMO but let’s be honest, any one statistical measure is insufficient to provide the whole story in pretty much every sport.

This just says we move it slow which everyone can see anyway. I don’t see it as picking on us but more justifying why journalists/pundits can predict us to finish top six but we’re still rather sh**. This guy is presenting his data on shows with those journalists/pundits also working on them after all.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I thought it was an interesting segment. I'm not as interested in raw speed metrics, as they don't fully capture what's happening on the field. When you break down the elements that contribute to the speed at which a ball travels in the game, I believe there are three key factors:

1. Skill execution
2. Positioning
3. Strategy

The element I think is entirely within JLo's control is strategy. It's quite clear that JLo prefers to keep the ball under control (slow and methodical), allowing his defenders to set up defensively. As Hoyne pointed out, this approach works well in the H/A rounds, but not in finals. I would argue that this is because most teams lack the skill to move the ball effectively against a set defence from HB. The stronger teams are now willing to concede the F50 entry because they have the skills to break through a zone defence (forward press). Considering that 80% of the game in finals is contested, the control-based movement style from HB isn't ideally suited to the finals.

As others have mentioned, this stat doesn't necessarily reflect a team's success. However, it does hint at underlying issues that may be holding a team back.

 

[Jezzitizle]

I think it's a legitimate interesting thread. I am surprised they feel the need or even can accurately use stats to measure it though, despite this bloke's claim that he now has the technology it still seems like one of those things where the eye test is still going to be more accurate than a stat.

The eye test is we're slow.

But as the guy himself said in the end that doesn't matter if you score. Last year Sydney were the second slowest team but in the top 2 for scoring. If we could score playing slow, who cares?

What worries me as much is what it means for our defensive set ups. It was obvious using the eye test last week that Sydney are still playing slow, like we are. Whereas the week before Geelong were playing fast and destroyed our defensive set up.

Geelong and Sydney had an identical number of inside 50s - 55. But we conceded 22 goals versus 9 goals. So in the end the problem is actually the game plan against fast teams where we leak score.

People moan about the coach's lack of dare with the ball in hand and sure we're a slow team in that respect. To me as much of a worry is that he is still employing the same defensive principles he was using as the defensive assistant coach at Collingwood a decade ago. But the game has changes a lot since, I'm worried we can't defensively handle the teams that play fast like Geelong.

I think it is partly a work rate thing, we have too many players happy to cruise in defence.

 

[Paracleet]

There’s always a place for statistics IMO but let’s be honest, any one statistical measure is insufficient to provide the whole story in pretty much every sport.

This just says we move it slow which everyone can see anyway. I don’t see it as picking on us but more justifying why journalists/pundits can predict us to finish top six but we’re still rather sh**. This guy is presenting his data on shows with those journalists/pundits also working on them after all.

I actually don't think we are 'slow' as such. I also strongly suspect his definition of slow has been pulled together from the stats using a method that was designed to produce the answer he wanted.

My view is what people are calling slow ball movement is in fact a difference in fundamental approach (and one we are not alone in using), and that the main perspective people have on the 'gameplan' is flawed. Where I think it is flawed is in people are looking at it as if all teams were more or less playing the same way and we are deliberately opting to have slow ball movement in order to reduce risk. Where as in reality teams, like in all football like sports (other than American football which is more like a game where you get to hit each other every 4 or 5 minutes than a sport) you have at the highest tactical level a choice to focus on playing with the ball or without ball. I.E. you can build up to a score, or try and win the ball back and score. If you are doing the former then by the metrics of how fast the ball moves from the back of centre (at least in Australian football where if you play with the ball you defend the front half, not your half) is always going to be 'slow' because the opposition players are going to be in the space. If you are looking to turn the ball over then you are doing it higher up the field, less opposition between you and the goal = faster. Its not in vacuum though, you have to win the ball first! There is a trade off
In my mind they are equally valid choices, you can't have all 18 teams tying to play a turn over gamer through pressure in the middle third then kicking forward to players running ahead of the contest or to forwards in and open forward line one on one. I don't actually feel qualified to judge if the detail of our gamplan is working, its not obvious even to some professional football coaches let alone us mug punters as there are too many interrelated features.

My qualm and question over JLo is not then are we planning the right game plan, but more a) has he implemented it successfully (watching on the weekend I just get this idea we just aren't gelling right, guys seem out of position just a bit too often and b) is the choice of plan the right one for the players we have. For instance I can't help thinking that having two young star fast great lead up and ground level key forwards who are not overly tall, and resting ruckman who is athletic and with a great leap and great at ground level but not vice like hands, that perhaps whatever our plan is it should involve getting it in into a forwardline that's open as often as possible...

 

[bellie4pm]

No people find it annoying when new threads are opened for subjects that don't deserve their own thread. It's an etiquette thing and keeps the forum tidy.

Threads should only be created for genuine new topics.

May just be your pov rather than a fact? If so, bit more respect for the way others look at things (not wrong just different to yours) may work better

 

[TheMcManusNose]

I mean I would give more credence to people disputing this if the eye test didn't scream WE ARE ****ING SLOW AT MOVING THE BALL