Doggies has equal possession and a higher completion rate?

[ism22]

I dunno what to think about these numbers but:
- Doggies shared 50% of possession
- For 34% of the game no team had possession (go figure)
- Their completion rate was 74% (ours was 71%)
- They completed one more set (31 to 30)
- We made more tackles (353 v 328)
- We were penalised twice as many times (8 v 4)
- Brett Morris made the most metres and had the most line breaks (240) - dare I say he's pushing for Origin selection?!?!?
- Our biggest winning stats were metres run (1912 v 1437), post-contact metres (740 v 576) and kick return metres (214 v 142)

Is this a warning or a sign of an excellent team? Matty Johns was saying our footwork's what's winning games at the moment as even our big men will be constantly running lines and putting on steps...etc. Hate the guy but IMO he's probably nailed it. Last night was a pretty ordinary performance (completions SHOULD be 80%+... our rate was shyte because we were far too arrogant with the ball). However, the skills are there! Even with shyte completions and possession, we're making far more metres outta every run, which in aggregate over 80 minutes led to a 42-6 demolition of a team that otherwise looked like it matched us pretty evenly on paper.

IMO this should be a warning for us not to fark around when the opposition's giving us easy metres (coz for sure other teams won't be as easy to cut through as the Broncos + Doggiiiiz). However, it shows we've developed some frigging awesome skills that will serve us well throughout the season if we can keep this up + get the errors/arrogance outta our game.

[The Skeez]

Lol

[Random Rooster]

How could 34% of the game no team had possession?

[Bondicigar]

Stats are for bolstering weak arguments

[Bondicigar]

How could 34% of the game no team had possession?

Add breaks

[ism22]

Add breaks

Yeah... be interesting to analyse how much time is wasted per game and which teams have the 'shortest' games.

It's kinda shyte that 34% of the game was 'people taking a breather'.

[Rooster_6]

No way.. you can't win footy games without having the better completion rate... its all about completion rate.

Have we been lied to this whole time?

[Bondicigar]

No way.. you can't win footy games without having the better completion rate... its all about completion rate.

Have we been lied to this whole time?

Yes most of the time but not always.
the scoreboard will always tell you 100% if you have won or lost the game

[Bondicigar]

Yeah... be interesting to analyse how much time is wasted per game and which teams have the 'shortest' games.

It's kinda shyte that 34% of the game was 'people taking a breather'.

If you looked at all the stats and not the scoreboard you would think it would have been alot closer .
I agree its sign we have a great team.
the week argument would be the dogs played well, because they did get flogged., but they completed high and had a 50% share of possession.
Winning and controlling the ruck maybe was where that game was won and lost...

I like the post contact mtr stat. It measures effort and how hard a team is running.
We were a fair bit in front in that department.

[Rooster_6]

Yes most of the time but not always.
the scoreboard will always tell you 100% if you have won or lost the game

When you say most of the time what's the evidence?

Here is some food for thought for you

The Sydney Roosters have missed the finals once since 2013, but have won four minor premierships, played in three Grand Finals, and won the lot of them. They've done that by scoring the most points at 23.2 per gamewhile playing with the worst completion rate of all 16 teams at 73.8%.

https://www.statsinsider.com.au/nrl/...ompletion-rate

[ism22]

No way.. you can't win footy games without having the better completion rate... its all about completion rate.

Have we been lied to this whole time?

Well there's 2 points to it:
1. You can generally win close games but it's odd when you thrash somebody.
2. Our completion rate was low! While our attack was lethal, this means we squandered a lot of opportunities and the Doggies defence was so poor it didn't matter.

So I mean we thrashed them. However, there's a LOT of room for improvement and with such a low completion rate, we mighta struggled against a better team if we played like that.

It's not lies, it's food for thought.

[Bondicigar]

When you say most of the time what's the evidence?

Here is some food for thought for you

The Sydney Roosters have missed the finals once since 2013, but have won four minor premierships, played in three Grand Finals, and won the lot of them. They've done that by scoring the most points at 23.2 per gamewhile playing with the worst completion rate of all 16 teams at 73.8%.

https://www.statsinsider.com.au/nrl/...ompletion-rate

That's an amazing stat.
coach's always bang on about completion.
Hitting harder in defence and running harder is obviously more important...

[zac]

this has been true about us in the robbo era. i think in 2017 (when we came 2nd after round robin) we had a minority of possession in many or most of our games (i forget which).

defence has been our cornerstone and you can't have those sorts of figures without defending well.
on the other side of the coin, it shows we're willing to chance our arm a bit. again, you need to be able to get the ball over the line enough to get a fair return from the risks you've taken.

[elo]

Yes folks, the Doggies played about as good as they can and we smoked them by 6 converted tries whilst not playing our best.

We are that good.