Archive for the ‘Club’ Category

Ballyboden St. Enda’s V Clonmel Commercials 2016 Club Championship Semi Final

February 18, 2016

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Normal time (60 minutes)

Team Possessions Attacks Shots Scores Exp Pts
Ballyboden 44 29 22 0 – 10 11.38
Clonmel 44 35 20 0 – 10 9.74

 

Extra Time

Team Possessions Attacks Shots Scores Exp Pts
Ballyboden 20 16 11 0 – 05 5.79
Clonmel 17 5 3 0 – 00 1.31

Not quite a game of two halves but there was a distinct change in how the game played out in extra time. During the opening 60 minutes there was no great difference between the teams despite the fact that Ballyboden had an edge in attacks and Expected Points. Come extra time however Ballyboden absolutely dominated proceedings restricting Clonmel to just the three shots over that 20 minutes.

Dipping the toes into the subjective it looked like Clonmel collectively panicked. At half time of extra time they were *only* two points down but they seemed to enter “chase” mode quite early. Their mind-set obviously wasn’t helped by the ending of normal time, when they must have felt they’d “blown” it, whilst the dark clouds were further enhanced with Quinlivan’s black card early in extra time.

An example of this chasing can be viewed in and around half time of extra time. Clonmel had eight consecutive possessions where they did not manage to get control of the ball inside Ballyboden’s 45. Six of those possessions were lost by sending 50:50 (or worse) balls into Ballyboden’s half despite not having Quinlivan at the apex of their attack.

To those not fully acquainted with the club scene these games tend to revolve around “star” names. Players we recognise from the county scene. For Ballyboden this was Durkan, MacCauley & Keaney but the two outfield players can thank their “lesser light” team mates for pulling the draw out of the fire.

In the 58th minute, two points down, Keaney struck a disastrous free, converted ~98% of the time, straight into the goalkeeper’s hands. That could have proved ruinous for Ballyboden’s chances so late in the game but down a man they managed to turn over the subsequent possession inside Clonmel’s 45 – only for MacCauley, of all people, to get stripped by Clonmel’s Gary Moore.

Ultimately Ballyboden prevailed but either intervention could have been devastating.

 

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Exp Pts
Ballyboden 21 0 – 07 9.10
Clonmel 19 0 – 07 8.06

Not one shot on goal, over the 80 minutes, from either team.

Shooting in general was below standard. If Castlebar maintain their defensive discipline in the final, and restrict the flow of scores from frees, then Ballyboden will have to be a lot more accurate in the final to maintain any form of scoreboard pressure.

One quirk of the game was Ballyboden’s shot clustering (see shot chart below). I say quirk because they righted the ship in extra time but during the opening 60 minutes the vast majority of their shots from play came from a very narrow patch on the right hand side around the 20m line.

 

Shots from deadballs

Team Shots Scores Success Rates Exp Pts
Ballyboden 12 0 – 08 67% 8.07
Castlebar 4 0 – 03 75% 2.99

Two ways to view the above. Clonmel’s discipline was left wanting or conversely, looking towards the final, Ballyboden’s was excellent.

The discrepancy in totals is somewhat skewed by what happened in extra time. Ballyboden had four shots from frees thus reducing the 60 minute gap to four. Still Ballyboden only conceded four shots from frees in 35 attacks (for comparative purposes Castlebar conceded five in 45 attacks).

Ballyboden’s shooting was average overall but this includes that horrendous miss from Keaney towards the end of the game. Take that abnormality out and Ballyboden scored 0 – 08 when they were expected to score 7.08.

Kerin was excellent converting all five of his attempts.

 

Kickouts

Ballyboden’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack Shot
Ballyboden 9 60% 5 5
Clonmel 6 40% 6 5
Clonmel’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack Shot
Ballyboden 8 27% 7 6
Crossmaglen 22 73% 14 6

The kickout stats are completely skewed. Ballyboden did not have one kickout during extra time whilst Clonmel had eleven – with eight of them going short.

As the aforementioned panic became all-encompassing Clonmel gave up two short kickouts at the end one of which Keaney converted. During the original 60 minutes their short kickout routines were fine however. They had eight in total scoring 0 – 02 from same. Of the other eleven contestable kickouts Ballyboden won five scoring 0 – 03 from same.

Ballyboden went short on 4 (27%) of their 15 kickouts though one went out over the sideline. Of the remainder Ballyboden won the possession stakes 6 – 5 whilst both scored 0- 02 directly from those possessions.

 

Shot Charts

Ballyboden’s shooting
Ballyboden shooting (V Clonmel 16 club SF)

Clonmel’s shooting
Clonmel shooting (V Ballyboden Club SF)
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, black = normal time from play, white = Extra Time

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Exp Pts
J Kennedy (Clonmel) 4 2 50% 1.80
S Molony (Ballyboden) 4 1 25% 1.79
D Davey (Ballyboden) 4 0 0% 1.64
A Kerin (Ballyboden) 3 2 67% 1.27
J Lonergan (Clonmel) 3 2 67% 1.24
I Barnes (Clonmel) 3 1 33% 1.30
Advertisements

Castlebar V Crossmaglen 2016 Club Championship Semi Final

February 16, 2016

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Shots Scores Exp Pts
Castlebar 41 28 22 0 – 13 14.58
Crossmaglen 45 29 26 0 – 12 14.98

One thing that the numbers cannot measure is grit.

Castlebar were on the end of an absolute blitzkrieg in the first 20 minutes. When Jamie Clarke popped over his second point to make it 0-08 to 0-3 Crossmaglen led the possession stakes 21 – 13 and were 14 – 7 ahead in shots. Indeed by the 7th minute Crossmaglen had unleashed 7 shots and had seen a Jamie Clarke effort dribble just past the post. Castlebar on the other hand had entered Crossmaglen’s 45 just once during that opening assault.

It is to their immense credit that they were still in the game at half time let alone managed to overhaul Crossmaglen.

 

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Exp Pts
Castlebar 12 0 – 07 6.16
Crossmaglen 21 0 – 08 10.91

Crossmaglen had two very good goal chances in the first half. Alongside the aforementioned Clarke opportunity Murtagh had an effort cleared off the line after rounding the keeper. Had either gone in Crossmaglen may well have been out of sight. As it was Crossmaglen, upon the restart, struggled to reproduce their first half output manufacturing just the seven shots from play and scoring 0-02.

What of Castlebar? They struggled for long periods. They went a full 16 minutes in the first half without a point attempt from play. In the second half they managed just the five shots from play with one in the last 20 minutes.

There is the argument that they weren’t manufacturing shots from play as Crossmaglen were fouling. Whilst there in this to explain their suppressed numbers the sense I got as the game progressed was that Castlebar were not being denied opportunities through Crossmaglen’s fouling but rather were being handed easy chances through Crossmaglen’s rashness. They will want to produce more against Ballyboden in the final.

One quick note on Jamie Clarke. It is a shame we won’t see his unique skillset in an Armagh jersey this year. I’m not sure I have seen any player take as many shots from the “wrong” side – and as effectively – as Clarke did here. Five of his seven shots were taken with the left foot from the left side of the pitch. He scored 0-04 from those five shots with some of them coming from a very acute angle.

 

Shots from deadballs

Team Shots Scores Success Rates Exp Pts
Castlebar 10 0 – 06 60% 8.42
Crossmaglen 5 0 – 04 80% 4.07

Not a vintage deadball day but then comparing a heavy winter ball, on a soggy pitch, against intercounty Summer football is probably unfair. Still nothing can excuse that missed free from the 20m line!

Douglas had nine deadball attempts converting 67% (0 – 06). This is in line with Summer averages however on the whole his chances were of the easier variety as shown by the fact that he was expected to score ~7.4 points from those nine attempts.

 

Kickouts

Castlebar’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack Shot
Castlebar 11 50% 6 6
Crossmaglen 11 50% 8 8
Crossmaglen’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack Shot
Castlebar 8 44% 6 4
Crossmaglen 10 56% 6 6

A relatively even battle aided somewhat by the fact that both teams eschewed the short kickout; there was just two in total both coming from the Crossmaglen keeper.

Given the fact that Crossmaglen converted 90% of all their attacks into a shot it is no surprise to see that they were very good at getting a shot off once the kickout was won. Looking ahead Castlebar will be a bit concerned at just how easily Crossmaglen could manufacture scores from set ball. 0-10 of Crossmaglen’s total emanated from kickout possessions with 0-06 coming from the 11 Castlebar kickouts they won.

Although they won just as much primary ball Castlebar were not as good at manufacturing an end product. 0 – 07 of their total score came directly from possession won on kickouts with 0-03 coming from the opposition’s kickout.

 

Shot Charts

Castlebar’s shooting
Castlebar shooting (V Crossmaglen 16 club SF)

Crossmaglen’s shooting
Crossmaglen shooting (V Castlebar club SF)
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, red = attempt at goal, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Exp Pts
J Clarke (Crossmaglen) 7 4 57% 4.19
P Durkan (Castlebar) 3 3 100% 1.24
S Kernan (Crossmaglen) 3 2 67% 1.31
N Lydon (Castlebar) 3 1 33% 1.41
N Douglas (Castlebar) 3 0 0% 2.04

Castlebar Mitchells V Breaffy 2015 Mayo County Final

October 27, 2015

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Castlebar 48 39 81% 30 77% 4-10 47% -0.966
Breaffy 49 34 69% 20 59% 0-09 45% -0.787

Both teams had the same amount of possession and were relatively even in the accuracy stakes. That though is where the similarities end. Breaffy struggled mightily to convert their possession into shots & scores; they scored 0.18 points per possession whereas Castlebar produced 0.46pts per possession. Breaffy’s inability to produce shots – manufacturing a full ten less than Castlebar – did not just occur in the second half when they were chasing the game. In the first half they attempted ten shots from their 23 possessions. The second half also returned 10 shots albeit from 26 possessions.

We don’t have many club games charted however Castlebar’s numbers tend to stack up against Corofin’s, possibly the best club in the country, in the Galway SFC final. In that game Corofin won by a similar margin with a possession count of 50 and attack & shot rates of 70% and 74% respectively. Where Castlebar will have to up their game is in their shooting. Corofin had a Success Rate of 62% and a weighting of +3.90 against Mountbellew. Here Castlebar were ~1 point below expected despite scoring 4 – 00 from five goal attempts.

 

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Castlebar 24 4-06 42% -0.226
Breaffy 14 0-05 36% -1.440

As stated above Castlebar were ruthlessly efficient when going for goal. Their five goal attempts had a combined weighting of +2.31. This however means that their point attempts were quite poor returning a combined Success Rate of 32% (6 from 19) and a weighting of -2.54. They were also very “right-sided” in their shooting. As the shooting chart below shows only two, or 11%, of their shots from play came from the left – and even then they were as much central as left.

Breaffy? They only managed three shots from play until the 29th minute when Walsh, and then Seamús O’Shea, popped over points just before half time. None of their five first half point attempts were inside the 20m line.

At the start of the second half Breaffy had three quick goal shots with one hitting the post and another getting blocked on the line. The lack of return from this salvo seemed to knock the heart out of their fight as it was ~20 minutes before they had another shot, of any description, from play.

 

Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
A Walsh (Castlebar) 4 0-03 75% -0.30
N Douglas (Castlebar) 2 0-01 50% -0.44
C O’Shea (Breaffy) 2 0-02 100% +0.46
R Hennelly (Breaffy) 2 0-01 50% +0.13
T O’Reilly (Breaffy) 2 0-01 50% +0.07

Breaffy’s reliance on the deadball early in the first half foreshadowed the drop off in the second. Five of their first seven shots were from deadballs and whilst Conor O’Shea and Hennelly scored two absolute peaches you felt it was never sustainable.

Castlebar were a combined four from six. They converted all those they would have been expected to get whilst missing the two longer range attempts

 

Kickouts

Castlebar’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack % Shot %
Castlebar 8 50% 8 100% 6 75%
Breaffy 8 50% 7 88% 5 63%
Breaffy’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack % Shot %
Castlebar 8 40% 8 100% 6 75%
Breaffy 12 60% 8 67% 4 33%

Breaffy “won” the kickout battle but the returns here, unsurprisingly, mirror those overall in that they struggled to convert that possession into shots.

Castlebar had the first three kickouts and lost all three. They were quick to recognise that landing the ball between the 45 & 65 was ultimately playing into the O’Shea’s so the fourth one went short. Thereafter, whilst they didn’t employ the short kickout, they did angle the longer ones to give themselves a better opportunity to compete. After those first three they then won six of their next eight which denied Breaffy any sort of platform to build from. Still it will be of some concern that they only managed to score 1
point from their 16 kickouts.

They were however much more productive on the opposition’s kickouts. Breaffy were more inclined to use the short kickout. We missed where the ball landed on three occasions but of the other 17 Breaffy went short on five occasions. Of the remaining 12 that went past the 45 Castlebar won 7 scoring 1 – 02.

 

Shot Charts

Castlebar’s shooting
Castlebar shooting v Breaffy 2015

Breaffy’sshooting
Breaffy shooting v Castlebar 2015
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, red = goal attempt, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
N Douglas (Castlebar) 6 3-00 50% +0.53
D Kirby (Castlebar) 5 1-03 80% +1.69
C O’Shea (Breaffy) 4 0-02 50% +0.08

Corofin V Mountbellew-Moylough 2015 Galway County Final

October 14, 2015

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 50 35 70% 26 74% 16 62% +3.898
Mountbellew 45 31 69% 25 81% 12 48% -0.887
Avg (70 mins) 37.0 28.7 77.7% 14.7 51.2%

95 possessions, in a 60 minute game, is quite high. Pro-rated over 70 minutes that’s somewhere in the 105 – 110 range which compares favourably with the 96, 95 & 102 recorded in the three All Ireland semi-finals earlier in the year. Now undoubtedly this elevated volume is aided by the kick passing approach of both teams but that is still a high octane game for club football in October.

Mountbellew-Moylough will have their regrets, as we will observe later, but ultimately it was Corofin’s accuracy that carried the day. Especially on goal chances. Corofin had six attempts at goal scoring 3-00, Mountbellew-Moylough had five returning with just the one point to show for it.

Tell me if you’ve heard this before – goals win games.

 

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 21 13 62% +4.242
Mounbellew 16 4 25% -2.530
Avgs (70 mins) 21.4 9.7 45.3%

Mountbellew-Moylough will be disappointed with all three goals they conceded. The first came from a tapped kickout that saw Steede carry the ball unchallenged for a good 30 metres before rifling home. Someone had to come out and meet him. The second came after good defensive plays from Mountbellew-Moylough saw them twice dispossess Corofin in an attacking position only to kick a resulting free straight to a Corofin man. The final goal came when the game had ebbed away but still Farragher was out towards the sideline when the full back dived in. Stand Farragher up and he most likely will recycle the ball allowing the defence to reset.

With just one shot less Mountbellew-Moylough did have their chance none more so than at the start of the second half. There they completely stifled Corofin managing to attempt eight shots in a row before Ian Burke’s fisted point in the 41st. Again, much to Mountbellew-Moylough’s regret I’m sure, they only scored 0-02 in this period of dominance.

From there on in their attack completely floundered to the extent that they did not score from play in the entire second half.

What of Corofin? Yes they were much more clinical on their goal chances (not forgetting Sice’s disallowed effort in the first half) but their point taking on top of this was sublime converting 67% (10 from 15); compared to inter county returns the expected haul from those 15 shots is 11.5 points.
Ian Burke had an immediate impact when he came on scoring 1 – 03 from his five chances whilst Martin Farragher also bagged 1-03 from his five as well as laying Burke’s goal on a plate.

 

Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
J Leonard (Corofin) 2 1 50% -0.41
Martin Farragher (Corofin) 1 1 100% +0.40
L Silke (Corofin) 1 0 0% -0.50
C Kenny (Mountbellew) 7 7 100% +1.74
B Donnellan (Mountbellew) 1 1 100% +0.53
M Daly (Mountbellew) 1 0 0% -0.62
team avgs (70 mins) 7.2 4.9 68.7%

An excellent day from Mounbellow with a combined Success Rate of 89% (8 from 9) and a weighting of +1.64. Kenny was the chief architect converting all seven of his attempts. That weighting shows that when compared to inter county matches Kenny would have been expected to get ~0-05 from his seven attempts.

A below par effort from Corfin converting 60% (3 from 5) though they converted those they would have expected to; the two they missed were both from further out around the 45.

 

Kickouts

Corofin’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack % Shot %
Corofin 10 59% 7 70% 6 60%
Mounbellew 7 41% 6 86% 4 57%
Mounbellew’s kickouts Won % Turned into an attack % Shot %
Corofin 12 55% 7 58% 5 42%
Mountbellew 10 45% 5 50% 5 50%

Not much by way of variance in Mountbellew-Moylough’s kickouts. All bar the very last kickout travelled past the 45 whilst 68% (15 of 22) went past the 65. Of the 15 that went long Corofin came out on top 8 – 7 which is essentially as expected (50:50 kickouts end up being 50:50 shocker!)

Based purely on the numbers Corofin look like they were in control of their own kickouts however they were far from secure. Mountbellew-Moylough won two of four short kickouts attempted as well as four of nine mid-range kickouts. Again much to Mountbellew-Moylough’s regret they did not manage to score a point from those six kickout wins.

 

Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting
Corofin shooting v Mountbellow 2015

Mountbellew-Moylough’sshooting
Mountbellow shooting v Corofin 2015
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, red = goal attempt, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Martin Farragher (Corofin) 5 4 80% +2.08
I Burke (Corofin) 5 4 80% +1.88
E Finnerty (Mountbellew) 5 1 20% -1.10
R Steede (Corofin) 3 2 67% +0.66
C Kenny (Mountbellew) 3 1 33% -0.04

Corofin V Slaughtneil 2015 Club Championship Final

March 19, 2015

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 50 34 68% 25 74% 15 60% +1.205
Slaughtneil 44 31 70% 22 71% 7 32% -5.128
Avg (70 mins) 37.0 28.7 77.7% 14.7 51.2%

Attack Rates, and Shot Rates, were quite even showing that both teams moved the ball inside the opposition’s 45, and also got shots off once in there, at very similar rates. For all that Corofin had 6 extra possessions having three shots less, whilst not ideal, is not insurmountable. It was what the teams did with their shots that was the difference.

Slaughtneil’s weighting is somewhat skewed by (a) the fisted attempt in close to goal that went wide and (b) the missed penalty late in the game but there is no hiding from the fact that their shooting was just not up to scratch. Symptomatic of this was that they had six players try one shot apiece – all six missed. A further three players had two attempts at goal missing both.

Like in their semi-final (Success Rate of 60% off 15 shots) Corofin were very accurate producing returns above the inter county average. Indeed their whole performance was very similar to their last outing against St. Vincent’s where they produced a stat line of 49 possessions, 32 attacks, 25 shots and 15 scores.

1st Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 32 23 72% 17 74% 9 53% +0.212
Slaughtneil 25 15 60% 9 60% 3 33% -1.752

2nd Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 18 11 61% 8 73% 6 75% +0.993
Slaughtneil 19 16 84% 13 81% 4 31% -3.376

The game completely slowed down in the second half with a total of 37 possessions as against the 57 produced in the first half. Slaughtneil showed great fight, producing five more shots in that second half, but again their aforementioned lack of accuracy undid their efforts.

Whilst Corofin were deadly accurate in that second half the damage was done in the first where they just blitzkrieged Slaughtneil. There was a 15 minute period where Slaughtneil did not have a shot (from ~8th min to the ~23rd). In this period Corofin got off ten shots scoring 1-05 and effectively built a lead they would not relinquish.

 

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 19 10 53% +0.750
Slaughtneil 16 4 25% -3.621
Avgs (70 mins) 21.4 9.7 45.3%

Four from fifteen when going for points just won’t do it. It was not as if they were trying absolute spectaculars either as only two of their shots were outside the 20m line on the wings. Also I only charted five of the point attempts having pressure applied – the shooting boots were just not on.

Despite being behind for a large portion of the game Slaughtneil did not have an attempt on goal until the 59th minute – something the stout Corofin defence can take a lot of credit for as it was late in the second half before St. Vincents had a shot at goal (from play) as well.

Whilst Corofin’s goal was what put real scoreboard pressure on Slaughtneil it was Lundy’s burst of three point in under 90 seconds mid-way through the first half that really underlined the difference in the teams. He was deadly accurate for Corofin over the two games with a combined stat line of 7 points from 10 attempts (weighting of +2.069); simply outstanding accuracy when the average return is c45%.

 

Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
G Sice (Corofin) 4 4 100% +0.786
L Silke (Corofin) 2 1 50% -0.331
C Bradley (Slaughtneil) 3 1 33% -0.916
P Kelly (Slaughtneil) 1 1 100% 0.163
Paul Bradley (Slaughtneil) 1 1 100% +0.064
C Doherty (Slaughtneil) 1 0 0% -0.818
team avgs (70 mins) 7.2 4.9 68.7%

Over the semi-final and final Gary Sice was seven from seven from frees with a weighting of +1.176. That sort of reliability is priceless.

Bradley gets somewhat badly treated given his three attempts were all in and around the 45m line but having converted the first you would have high hopes of getting one from the subsequent two attempts.

 

Kickouts

Corofin’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 11 69% 7 64% 6 55%
Slaughtneil 5 31% 3 60% 2 40%
Slaughtneil’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 10 56% 8 80% 7 70%
Slaughtneil 8 44% 7 88% 6 75%

In the aforementioned 15 minute spell, where Corofin scored 1-05, they hemmed Slaughtneil in winning four of the kickouts that resulted from the six scores. It was somewhat surprising that Slaughtneil did not try to relieve the siege by getting their hands on a short kickout or two. It was obvious that their strategy was not working when they lost 8 out of their first 11 kickouts but they never deviated. Indeed in what must be a record in such back to back high profile games Slaughtneil didn’t hit one short kickout in either the semi-final or the final.

Although one of their short kickouts went astray Corofin were always in control of their own ball.

 

Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting
Corofin shooting v Slaughtneil

Slaughtneil’s shooting
Slaughtneil shooting v Corofin
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
M Lundy (Corofin) 4 3 75% +0.882
G Bradley (Slaughtneil) 4 3 75% +0.791
I Burke (Corofin) 4 1 25% -0.692

Austin Stacks V Slaughtneil 2015 Club Championship

February 24, 2015

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Austin Stacks 38 21 55% 16 76% 12 75% +2.323
Slaughtneil 42 31 74% 23 74% 15 65% +3.421
Avg (70 mins) 37.0 28.7 77.7% 14.7 51.2%

Although the scoreboard may have indicated otherwise Slaughtneil dominated this game. If you knew nothing else about the game and were told that Slaughtneil had ten more attacks, and seven more shots, you would deem it unlikely that Austin Stacks would have a free in the dying minutes to draw the game.

The penalties of course had a huge bearing on how the scoreboard was somehow out of synch with the game. However were we to remove these moves, and Slaughtneil’s goal attempts, then running the shots taken through 20,000 simulations Slaughtneil win this game 87% of the time. Indeed as shown below they win it by four or more point over 50% of the time.

Simulator results

Now you cannot just remove incidents from a game but as a theoretical exercise it just goes to show the dominance that Slaughtneil had.

1st Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Austin Stacks 17 10 59% 8 80% 7 88% +2.373
Slaughtneil 18 15 83% 11 73% 9 82% +3.145

2nd Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Austin Stacks 21 11 52% 8 73% 5 63% -0.05
Slaughtneil 24 16 67% 12 75% 5 50% +0.276

An interesting quirk, much like the Corofin-St. Vincents game, was just how accurate both teams were with their shooting in the first half compared to the second. I’m sure there are reasons – fatigue, adrenaline wearing off, tension (I’m no sports scientist!) but it is very noticeable and not something I have ever noticed at county level before. No explanation really – and a very small sample size – but interesting nonetheless.

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Austin Stacks 8 7 88% +3.612
Slaughtneil 18 11 61% +3.441
Avgs (70 mins) 21.4 9.7 45.3%

This is where Slaughtneil’s dominance really shines through. Yes Austin Stacks were truly exceptional when they took their shots (six players scored on their only attempt whilst O’Callaghan scored with one and hit the post with the other) but they just did not engineer enough shooting opportunities. Indeed the last attempt for a score from play they had was in the 41st minute.

Whilst Slaughtneil’s Success Rate is below that of Austin Stacks’ the similar weighting shows that they maintained excellent accuracy over the wider range of shots they did attempt.
Jordan and McKaigue scored good points with their only attempt but it was Chris Bradley who produced the best display converting three of his four shots for a weighting of +1.345

Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Paul Bradley (Slaughtneil) 5 4 80% -0.02
S Carroll (Austin Stacks) 4 3 75% -0.411
D Mannix (Austin Stacks) 2 1 50% -0.242
P McCarthy (Austin Stacks) 2 1 50% -0.636
team avgs (70 mins) 7.2 4.9 68.7%

In general 69% of deadballs are converted so it might seem odd that all four players returned negative weighting when there was a cumulative 69% Success Rate in this game. This leads to the heart of what the weighting is trying to achieve. Yes 1-08 was garnered from the 13 attempts but in reality more should have been scored given the relative ease of the attempts.

Only one of the penalties was converted when the average is 88%; six of the converted frees were in front of the posts from sectors 5 & 8 (see here for a breakdown of the sectors) whilst another was converted from inside the 20m line. All in the must/should convert range. That means that of the remainder only one of four was converted from what might be deemed moderately difficult positions.

Those that were converted were not of sufficient difficulty to make up for those that were missed – hence the negative weightings.

Kickouts

<stroAustin Stacks' kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Austin Stack 12 52% 4 33% 4 33%
Slaughtneil 11 48% 9 82% 6 55%
Slaughtneil’s Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Austin Stacks 6 46% 5 83% 4 67%
Slaughtneil 7 54% 6 86% 3 43%

Given that kickouts made up 45% of all possessions you would expect that the outcomes evidenced in the overall game would flow through to here. And they do – to an extent.

The level of possessions won are even and there is no great difference depending on who took the kickout. Neither team dominated. Slaughtneil, much like overall, were very good at getting the kickouts won into the opposition’s 45 however despite having six more attacks from possessions they only managed one more shot. Austin Stacks were more clinical with the kickout possession won – they just didn’t get enough of it into Slaughtneil’s 45.

Shot Charts

Austin Stacks’ shooting
Stacks shooting

Slaughtneil’s shooting
Slaughtneil shooting
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play,

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
C Bradley (Slaughtneil) 4 3 75% +1.345
B McGuigan (Slaughtneil) 3 2 67% +0.812
G Bradley (Slaughtneil) 3 2 67% +0.667

Corofin V St. Vincents 2015 Club Championship

February 17, 2015

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here

Overall

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 49 32 65% 25 78% 15 60% +1.004
St. Vincents 48 33 69% 20 61% 10 50% -0.346
Avg (70 mins) 37.0 28.7 77.7% 14.7 51.2%

Overall a pretty even game except for when it came to the sharp end of the attack.

Both teams had, relatively speaking, the same volume of possessions and attacks but Corofin were more adept at getting shots off and were also more accurate with the shots they attempted.

A quick note on the possession and shot volumes. The possession volume is a new metric but Kerry & Mayo combined for 96 possessions in their opening league encounter – over 70 minutes. 97 possessions over 60 minutes indicates just how free flowing the game was. Similarly pro rating an average of 37 attacks at inter county level to 60 minutes means that the average shots per team should have come in at 31.7 – these returns are bang on inter county standard.

1st Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 26 19 73% 16 84% 9 56% +0.606
St. Vincents 24 18 75% 10 56% 7 70% +1.896

2nd Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack % Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 23 13 57% 9 69% 6 67% +0.398
St. Vincents 24 15 63% 10 67% 3 30% -2.242

Interesting half on half comparisons. Corofin were brilliant in that first half getting 16 shots from 19 attacks whilst also returning well above inter county standard on their shooting. Returning a 56% Success Rate and a positive weighting whilst missing a penalty is very impressive!

St. Vincent’s execution in that first half matched Corofin’s overall excellence converting 70% of their shots. Quality on quality. Unfortunately for both the returns dipped in the second half however this was more troublesome for St. Vincents. They could not maintain the shooting accuracy only scoring three points from ten attempts. Without a significant uptick in shot production this drop off enabled Corofin to get over the line quite comfortably in the end.

Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 20 11 55% +1.368
St. Vincents 16 7 44% -0.366
Avgs (70 mins) 21.4 9.7 45.3%

Going for points both teams recorded 50% Success Rates; Corofin – 8 from 16 with a weighting of +0.47; St. Vincents 7 from 14 with a weighting of +0.31.

Corofin however scored 1-02 from their 4 goal attempts whilst St. Vincents returned nothing from their two attempts. This (and the penalties of course) was the real difference between the teams.

We can’t really leave here without mentioning Michael Lundy. He was on fire converting 4 of his 6 point attempts but it is the hidden stats, that won’t show up anywhere else, that are more impressive.

It was he who was fouled for Sice’s three free kick conversions. It was he who set up Farragher for the goal right after providing the pass into Sice for the penalty. Oh he also provided at least one assist that I saw. All immense. But what I liked best was Corofin’s third point and his first. It came immediately after Vincent’s totemic player, Darren Connolly, had gotten on the score sheet with a lovely point from the right. Next attack Lundy takes it upon himself to shoot. Consciously or otherwise it was a statement of intent and defiance.

Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
G Sice (Corofin) 3 3 100% +0.390
I Burke (Corofin) 1 1 100% +0.064
G Delaney (Corofin) 1 0 0% -0.818
T Quinn (St. Vincents) 3 2 67% -0.004
D Connolly (St. Vincents) 1 1 100% +0.064
team avgs (70 mins) 7.2 4.9 68.7%

All the regulation frees were converted.

The deadballs really revolved around the penalties. In three years 88% of penalties have been converted hence why Delany’s weighting is so negative – a penalty miss is rare enough. On the flip side Quinn’s weighting doesn’t really get a bump for converting his.

It was also interesting how both teams approached their respective 45s. St. Vincents took their time relying on Quinn (whose attempt dropped short) whereas Corofin took a quick one looking to engineer a shot closer in.

Kickouts

Corofin’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 9 56% 5 56% 5 56%
St. Vincents 7 44% 6 86% 3 43%
St. Vincent’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 8 47% 6 75% 4 50%
St. Vincents 9 53% 5 56% 3 33%

St. Vincents struggled here. Whilst they won the same volume of kickouts as Corofin they converted three fewer of these wins into attacks. Dig deeper again though and you’ll find that Corofin converted six of the nine shots that emanated from winning kickouts into points. St. Vincents? Only the one.

Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting
Corifin shooting

St. Vincents’s shooting
Vincents shooting
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play,

Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
M Lundy (Corofin) 6 4 67% +1.187
Michael Farragher (Corofin) 5 3 60% +0.979
I Burke (Corofin) 4 4 100% +1.365
D Connolly (St. Vincents) 3 2 67% +0.782
R Treanor (St. Vinvents) 3 2 67% +0.451