General Warriors 2014 Stats

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
ROUND 21

Quite a comprehensive victory against a woeful Raiders outfit. Only the 2nd time this season we have ever had 100% green stats. Last time being Round 11 against the Titans. It is in fact only the 2nd time since I started doing match stats in this format since 2013. Both under Coach Cappy.

Warriors vs Canberra Rnd 21 2014 details.png

Warriors vs Canberra Rnd 21 2014 player stats.png

Warriors vs Canberra Rnd 21 2014 where stats.png


Warriors vs Canberra Rnd 21 2014 when stats.png

 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz
Interesting to see that vs Manly there were 56 completed sets for the whole game and against the Sharks only 49.
When you consider that there was also 6 tries in the Manly game (which eats up a lot of time taking the conversions) and only 5 in the Sharks game then the time wasting tactics by the Sharks becomes apparent.
 
God I hate those ineffective tackle stats. You can have some make some desperate, diving tackle on a player who's hit a gap, and hold them up long enough for more defence to arrive, but if the ball carrier flings some panicked offload 10m backwards to nobody, the tackle still gets classed as ineffective.

Meanwhile, you can have someone get steamrolled in nearly every tackle, but if others join the tackle and they hold on, then they get a positive stat from it.
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Missed tackles

1. Titans - 728
2. Knights - 683
3. Panthers - 660
4. Tigers - 657
5. Eels - 630
6. Raiders - 589
7. Roosters - 569
8. Broncos - 565
9. Warriors - 564
10. Manly - 559
11. Storm - 545
12. Sharks - 535
13. Dragons - 531
14. Bulldogs - 484
15. Cowboys - 472
16. Rabbitohs - 402
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defence
God I hate those ineffective tackle stats. You can have some make some desperate, diving tackle on a player who's hit a gap, and hold them up long enough for more defence to arrive, but if the ball carrier flings some panicked offload 10m backwards to nobody, the tackle still gets classed as ineffective.

Meanwhile, you can have someone get steamrolled in nearly every tackle, but if others join the tackle and they hold on, then they get a positive stat from it.

You're just upset coz they make your boyfriend mannering look bad:playful:

Your right tho and I'm sure if it was done with a bigger sample size ( eg the last couple of years) u would get a better reflection of how effective mannerings tackles are.
I'd hate to be tackled by him- it'd be like getting thrown round by a world class judoka- gotta hurt.
 
You're just upset coz they make your boyfriend mannering look bad:playful:

Your right tho and I'm sure if it was done with a bigger sample size ( eg the last couple of years) u would get a better reflection of how effective mannerings tackles are.
I'd hate to be tackled by him- it'd be like getting thrown round by a world class judoka- gotta hurt.
Ha! Yeah, there's a fair bit of that upset in there! It's a crack up though, to look at stats after a game and see a player who you think did really well featuring in a 'bad stat'.

I remember a game a few years ago where I was so impressed with Matulino's tackling for the game that I looked at his stats, thinking his tackles must have reached a ridonculous level, and he wasn't even our third best! Watched a replay, and still came away with the impression that his tackling had single-handedly won us the game.

Bloody statistics. They're shit unless they work in my favour.
 
I'm no trading expert but that looks like a consolidation. The failure to make a higher high (double top) along with the higher lows in 2014 (creating a triangle) the break would be to the prevailing trend line ie. bearish
That's a good analysis.

We suffered through a major crash sending us into a bear market beginning at the end of 2012/start of 2013 and what we are experiencing now is hopefully not a dead cat bounce....

One more win for a breakout....
 
Nah. Just spotted it when I was given a tour and snapped the pic real quick. Had to ask a player after what it all meant. Probably wasnt meant to post it :locktopic:...
It's a very interesting insight and you can see where the KPI's come in, there is obviously more involved in the players meeting their KPI's but it's one of those tools that would assist players in upping the 1 percenters..great stuff brother..
 
Let's just say the dead cat bounce is actually a short squeeze so the break out is imminent. Just like the Warriors, I wouldn't put my money on it though ;)
I think the underlying fundamentals have changed for the good and the technicals are only just starting to reflect this.

The real question for me is "would Buffet buy?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: eX | Machina
I think the underlying fundamentals have changed for the good and the technicals are only just starting to reflect this.

The real question for me is "would Buffet buy?"

Well Buffett's mantra is "buy and hold forever". So from that perspective, if WB bought into the Warriors from inception in 1995 he probably would have lost his title as "the oracle of Omaha" by now or just moved to Melbourne.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonno
Warriors V Knights: Round 23....
2ebwqih.jpg


Johnson had a few shocking passes and some bad reads on defense, but managed to make more positive plays than negatives with his 8 tackle breaks, 2 offloads, 1 line break, 2 errors and no missed tackles. Tomkins is still our most consistent player in this stat with only one game in the negatives.
16a8fte.jpg

Mannering was our best on defense, but let the team down with his 3 penalties...
30c7y9g.jpg

Mateo had the highest work rate from his 37 minutes with .79 efforts per minute, and Matagi upped his work rate with his shortened 25 minutes of game time.
2hoyas0.jpg

No forward averaged over 9 meters per hit up.

It was a lazy effort from the Warriors who didn't really show up ready for battle. The attack was fine as usual, with some minties moments, but really it was the intensity of the defense, and the poor attention to detail that cost us the win...
 

Inruin

Contributor
Warriors V Knights: Round 23....
2ebwqih.jpg


Johnson had a few shocking passes and some bad reads on defense, but managed to make more positive plays than negatives with his 8 tackle breaks, 2 offloads, 1 line break, 2 errors and no missed tackles.
3 shit passes, a bad read in defence, had a very poor game. That's why I dislike this Player Quality graph you use because it is not an accurate reflection of reality. I mean Mannering is constantly a negative quality player. That has to tell you something about the quality and accuracy of this measurement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz
3 shit passes, a bad read in defence, had a very poor game. That's why I dislike this Player Quality graph you use because it is not an accurate reflection of reality. I mean Mannering is constantly a negative quality player. That has to tell you something about the quality and accuracy of this measurement.
It's only one metric that gives a piece of the story. His tackle stats were great for that game. As was his work rate.

And when you consider that we've only won one game this season with a combined team negative score (-1 v the panthers), it's pretty important that our players try to keep themselves in the positive as best they can IMO...

One less shit pass from any of our players and we might have won that game...