Posts Tagged ‘Slaughtneil’

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
Advertisements

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