SA Footy

3 questions arising from unusual stuff that's happened this year (in particularly recently):

1. What is the latest in the year that the bottom team, has had the best percentage of all of the sides outside of the final 5 (or final 4) positions? (North Adelaide this year made it to round 12; obviously they were bottom later than that, but as Port's percentage rocketed and West tumbled out of the 5, it stopped them from extending that run even further.)
2. What's the latest in the year that a team then-bottom of the table has beaten the then-top of the table team? (Obviously R17 in 2011; the theory being that it's more meritorious and less likely as the season rolls on, because early in the year a team can go top or crash to bottom just because of 1 or 2 big wins or unfortunate losses.)
3. Since the stat was kept, what's the heaviest 'defeat' that a club has suffered in the 'inside 50' count, but still won the game? (Norwood went 36:50 last weekend, according to the official SANFL stats.)

SimonH wrote:2. What's the latest in the year that a team then-bottom of the table has beaten the then-top of the table team? (Obviously R17 in 2011; the theory being that it's more meritorious and less likely as the season rolls on, because early in the year a team can go top or crash to bottom just because of 1 or 2 big wins or unfortunate losses.)

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Pick me!

An equal three way tie at Round 17:

1940, Glenelg d Sturt
1979, West d Port
2011, North d Central

Pseudo wrote:

SimonH wrote:2. What's the latest in the year that a team then-bottom of the table has beaten the then-top of the table team? (Obviously R17 in 2011; the theory being that it's more meritorious and less likely as the season rolls on, because early in the year a team can go top or crash to bottom just because of 1 or 2 big wins or unfortunate losses.)

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Pick me!

An equal three way tie at Round 17:

1940, Glenelg d Sturt
1979, West d Port
2011, North d Central

In 1940 Sturt won the flag and Glenelg the wooden spoon. In 1979 Port won the flag and West the wooden spoon, I hope that North at least can break the cycle this year.

SimonH wrote:3 questions arising from unusual stuff that's happened this year (in particularly recently):

1. What is the latest in the year that the bottom team, has had the best percentage of all of the sides outside of the final 5 (or final 4) positions? (North Adelaide this year made it to round 12; obviously they were bottom later than that, but as Port's percentage rocketed and West tumbled out of the 5, it stopped them from extending that run even further.)
2. What's the latest in the year that a team then-bottom of the table has beaten the then-top of the table team? (Obviously R17 in 2011; the theory being that it's more meritorious and less likely as the season rolls on, because early in the year a team can go top or crash to bottom just because of 1 or 2 big wins or unfortunate losses.)
3. Since the stat was kept, what's the heaviest 'defeat' that a club has suffered in the 'inside 50' count, but still won the game? (Norwood went 36:50 last weekend, according to the official SANFL stats.)

1) Sturt after Round 13 1994 had the 6th best percentage with 3 wins and 8 losses (47.55%)
2) 1940 technically is the latest outright, as that was the last minor round.
3) You'd have to ask PhilH this one - I've got no stats on inside 50s whatsoever.

Pseudo wrote:An equal three way tie at Round 17:

1940, Glenelg d Sturt
1979, West d Port
2011, North d Central

It depends on which way you look at it, but I suggest it's not really a three-way tie at all as Glenelg's win was in the last minor round and perhaps could be considered the most meritorious.

SimonH wrote:3. Since the stat was kept, what's the heaviest 'defeat' that a club has suffered in the 'inside 50' count, but still won the game? (Norwood went 36:50 last weekend, according to the official SANFL stats.)

A -14 differential wouldn't be anywhere near the top, but it raises an interesting point. Norwood this season is the only side to concede an average of less than 40 inside 50s per match, but in their last two games, they've won their matches on the back of losing the inside 50 counts 39-49 and 36-50. Prior to those two games, they won the inside 50 count 42-39 v Eagles but lost. So the key for them is to lose the inside 50 count!

Back to the original point at hand, I can say pretty confidently that a side would have, at some point in the last 100 odd years, won with an inside 50 count probably 30 less than their opponent.

Sturt beat Port in the 1976 GF by 41 points, yet lost the inside 50s 60-62.

North beat Sturt in the 2007 Elimination final by 7 points but had 13 less inside 50s.

Glenelg U17 beat Port U17 in 2007 by 1 point, yet had 17 less inside 50s (42-59). Later in the year, Eagles U17 had four more inside 50s than Norwood U17 yet lost by almost 50 points.

While this is an "almost", in 2006 North Adelaide beat Glenelg 21.20 (146) to 22.10 (142). North won the inside 50s 76-47. Had Glenelg went inside 50 one more time and kicked a goal to win, they would have done so with 28 less inside 50s!

Etc etc.

scott wrote:

SimonH wrote:

While this is an "almost", in 2006 North Adelaide beat Glenelg 21.20 (146) to 22.10 (142). North won the inside 50s 76-47. Had Glenelg went inside 50 one more time and kicked a goal to win, they would have done so with 28 less inside 50s!

It was closer than that even. With their last inside 50 Ben Mules who hadn't missed a goal all year missed from about 45 metres out. If he had goaled the Bays would have won with 29 less inside 50s. All ifs and buts though.

Yep, but if if and buts were candy and nuts then we'd have ourselves a picnic!

scott wrote:Back to the original point at hand, I can say pretty confidently that a side would have, at some point in the last 100 odd years, won with an inside 50 count probably 30 less than their opponent.

Sturt beat Port in the 1976 GF by 41 points, yet lost the inside 50s 60-62.

Well I would be amazed if a side has ever won a game with 30 fewer inside 50s (despite the 'nearly' Glenelg-North example given). And what's this about inside 50s being 62-60 in the '76 GF? Have you somehow managed to superimpose a hologram over the tape and then counted the entries?

I really do love the stats work you do on this site, scott, but in this case "pull the other one".

I'd suggest that the inside 50s were an estimate. I have seen Champion Data do the same on the 1979 VFL Grand Final.

No estimates spelly. I was provided with a bunch of historical DVDs for recording statistics and the 1976 GF was one of those matches.

Wouldn't really think it's that far-fetched as baggy8 seems to think.

scott wrote:No estimates spelly. I was provided with a bunch of historical DVDs for recording statistics and the 1976 GF was one of those matches.

Wouldn't really think it's that far-fetched as baggy8 seems to think.

I mean an estimate as to where the 50 metre line would have been, by using the centre square as a guide.

Ah yes. Estimating where the 50 is isn't really that hard. And as stupid as it sounds, inside 50s usually turn out being inside 46s or inside 48s. For example if a player kicks to 48 metres out and it's immediately spoiled back outside 50 then most statisticians wouldn't usually award that as an inside 50.

And it's a useless stat because of that though because it can be so easily manipulated. Actual time spent inside 50 either in possession or in total is a far greater indication of attacking dominance rather than how many times you've crossed an arbitrary line in the field.

True that. I suppose it is more of a measure to couple the Inside 50 stat with another, such as Inside 50s per scoring shot/goal or Inside 50s per mark to a forward player.

scott wrote:Ah yes. Estimating where the 50 is isn't really that hard. And as stupid as it sounds, inside 50s usually turn out being inside 46s or inside 48s. For example if a player kicks to 48 metres out and it's immediately spoiled back outside 50 then most statisticians wouldn't usually award that as an inside 50.

And it's a useless stat because of that though because it can be so easily manipulated. Actual time spent inside 50 either in possession or in total is a far greater indication of attacking dominance rather than how many times you've crossed an arbitrary line in the field.

Agree, also considering the 50mt line was introduced supposedly to help umpires gauge paying 50mt penalties, not keep stats. It could also be more useful to measure inside 30 or 25 or some way of gauging attacking depth and therefore more pressure on the defence to defend the goals and effort exerted in repelling the attack.

scott wrote:Ah yes. Estimating where the 50 is isn't really that hard. And as stupid as it sounds, inside 50s usually turn out being inside 46s or inside 48s. For example if a player kicks to 48 metres out and it's immediately spoiled back outside 50 then most statisticians wouldn't usually award that as an inside 50.

And it's a useless stat because of that though because it can be so easily manipulated. Actual time spent inside 50 either in possession or in total is a far greater indication of attacking dominance rather than how many times you've crossed an arbitrary line in the field.

Don't know what you're basing your assumptions on scott; an inside 50 is an inside 50 - simple as that. Well, I would make one exception to that when the defensive side takes the ball in there and out again without the attacking side touching it. And I don't know what you mean by "easily manipulated". Like most stats, it's an indicator, but I think it's a good one and it's easily measured and easily understood.

baggy8 wrote:Well I would be amazed if a side has ever won a game with 30 fewer inside 50s (despite the 'nearly' Glenelg-North example given).

Sturt vs Glenelg Preliminary Final 2009
Sturt 29 Inside 50s, Glenelg 60.

There would be other examples too.

Staggering!

West under 18's have had 3 draws this year, has any team ever done that before?

Norths' Under 17s had three draws in 1977.
Torrens' Under 19s had four draws in 1951, although they were short quarters, so it would have been a bit easier to get them then.