Football is a game of opportunities. How did your team use theirs in 2017?

I believe swans and Geelong wasted another year after spending buckets of money .

Actually it does.

Inside 50 – Moving the ball from the midfield into the forward zone. Excludes multiple entries within the same chain of possession.

A d I checked in here the other day and aligee was going all political. It’s got back to Aussie rules talk now . Has he been red carded ?? Bring back the gee ...

The flaw in using inside-50s is that it doesn't account for the ball coming-in and out. A team might get an inside 50 and hold it there. Have multiple opportunities from the single inside-50. Another team might get it in, see it come straight out, then get it in, then straight out. One team could be having 6 chances from a single inside 50 and another 6 changes from 6 different inside 50s. Very overrated metric the inside 50.

Hey Adam, this is really great! You've essentially pulled apart the components of what I call a team's Offensive Efficiency Rating and Defensive Efficiency Rating - which I first put into the ether here: http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/17/bucking-the-trend-hawthorn-will-be-flag-favourites-again-this-season/ - except I roll them all up into one number which is then standardised against the rest of the competition in the given year. I find it a really useful framework to help keep tabs on the competition as a whole, and a useful comparitor for how teams have changed between years.

I’ve mentioned it before but it’s worth repeating now; the Pies were mid table or better in almost all the measured stats, but their ladder finish was worse. That points to very poor coaching. Buckley simply does not use the players to his advantage. He wants the team to play his way rather than tailoring a game plan to suit the players he has.

I am pleased with the fact that Collingwood is hardly mentioned, if at all. What that means to us Maggies that there is room for improvement across the board and we couldn't have been any worse. That augers well for this year because I am absolutelyconvinced that all the KPIs that you have brandished above will be put to the sword.

It's possible that that's F agan long term strategy but that's yet to play out. From memory the Saints had a number of stinkers in front of goal in 2017. I'm not sure what drives it but it suggests if they can fix that part of the game they might find the extra couple of wins they need to play finals. On the other hand, I'm doubtful they can continue to rely so heavily on a fairly shallow midfield.

Interesting thoughts, Tom. I can't tell if it's a good thing that the Lions regularly score on the counterattack. I mean, it's poor in the sense that they're getting themselves into that position so regularly given their terrible inside-50 conceded numbers, but i guess it's a quirky testament to their defence + midfield that they can get it the other end quite well to get themselves into scoring positions? Or am I thinking about this wrong? Also, the thing that strikes me the most with the Saints is their horrifyingly poor accuracy. It shows, somewhat, here: they're decisively midrange in their forward-50 entry numbers, pretty decent in converting them into scores (49%), but awful at converting them into goals (less than half).

Interesting read Adam. I like that you hold back from drawing too many sweeping conclusions. My suspicion is that my Lions look like they're quite efficient in turning inside 50s into goals because they tend to score most on the counterattack, when there's space in the forward area. That they have by far the most inside 50s conceded supports that theory. West Coast are probably up there largely due to the quality of their forwards. Melbourne's accuracy really stands out as driving their forward efficiency. It'll be interesting to see if that continues to hold. It's easy to look at these numbers and reinforce one's own existing views so I'll try to avoid that. The thing that surprised me a little was that Richmond are the most defensively efficient team. It strengthens a view I've always been sceptical of; that they were the best organised and structured team in 2017 and that's why they won the flag. I'm also a bit surprised how poor the Saints look. Their midfield would be the strongest area of the ground but I didn't think they were quite that reliant on it.

To be honest, I have no idea either. I thought Cat was talking about Richmond and Sydney's respective ranking of 3rd and 6th defensively, which is actually their ladder positions at the end of the H&A season. However, Sydney finished 3rd in 'opportunities conceded', whilst Richmond finished 6th, which I later thought Cat might have been referring to, but unfortunately this makes even less sense since it's the reverse. Oh well, I've had zero sleep over the past 36 hours - time for a nap.

Interesting read, Adam. If Brisbane can create more opportunities and tighten up their defence, they will be the team to watch. Going by these stats, the Blues need to tighten up across the entire field. As much a worry as Freo. Interesting to see the defence stats are very similar to ladder position.

That makes me feel a bit dumb. To be fair, though: everything I say still makes sense. Sydney is ranked third for least inside 50s conceded, and Richmond is sixth (so, coincidentally the same numbers, but just swapped). That's what I assumed Cat was talking about, my bad!

Scrub that last comment. I see what Cat is getting at. The table is difficult to follow.

An interesting hypothesis there, AD, but I think you'll find a much simpler answer. It's their respective ladder positions at the end of the H&A season. No idea why the tables have been collated like this though.

They're third and sixth for conceding inside 50s, but they're very good (first and second) at limiting the amount of goals and scores that result from their opponents inside 50s. Whereas you have Port and the Bulldogs - who conceded the least amount of inside 50s - but have comparatively terrible stats for the amount of times teams are regularly scoring when they get inside inside 50s. So, you're right on that Richmond and Sydney aren't as good at limiting how many their conceding, they're good at limiting scoring opportunities from their concessions, and Port and the Bulldogs are excellent at limiting how much they concede, but not how much they limit scores from inside 50s. If that makes sense?

I find your tables and narrative don't match up. For example, you mention Richmond as the best defence and Sydney as next bet but in the table they are ranked 3rd and 6th respectively. I appreciate all the work that went into collating the numbers just a bit confused.

Your first paragraph is frighteningly relatable to me, yikes. It's a fantastic, and very interesting, article though, Adam. It's an excellent look at the teams performance through the year, and there's more than a few surprises. I'm pleasantly surprised by Brisbane's offensive prowess - almost 50% of the time they're inside 50 they're going for a score, and 55% of the time they're getting one. That'll be pleasing news to them. The offensive performance of both Port and the Bulldogs doesn't surprise me, though. It was obvious that consistency and their attack were major issues for them, and it shows here. Collingwood and Richmond, as well. I recall mentioning in my GF live blog that it'll be Richmond's defence versus the Crows' offence, and here's some statistical proof.