Scoring Anomalies – Round 13

Written by The Salamander on June 21 2019

It doesn’t quite fit with the ’round 13′ theme, but a few people were wondering about Essendon’s Dylan Clarke last night: 15 touches (7 kicks at 71 percent efficiency, 8 handballs at 100 percent), 7 contested possessions, 167 metres gained, 26 pressure acts (including 6 tackles), 5 clearances, 2 inside-50s, 3 score involvements, and 0 clangers for 59 points. He didn’t have a huge night by any means, but those stats look like more than a 59-point game to me.

Moving on, Dane wanted to know in his Round Review why Dustin Martin only got 108 points for 32 touches (21 kicks at 62 percent, 11 handballs at 91 percent), 641 metres gained, 5 inside-50s, 6 score involvements, 2 goals, 9 marks (2 intercepts), 3 clearances, and 19 pressure acts, including 4 tackles. What likely held him back was only having 7 contested possessions, as well as 5 clangers. One interesting thing I did note from the stats is that although he was credited with 32 disposals, he only had 30 possessions – does CD perhaps count knock-ons as disposals now?

In the same game, Sydney Stack got 102 points for 22 disposals (12 kicks at 75 percent, 10 handballs at 90 percent), 7 contested possessions, 388 metres gained, 6 score involvements, 0.2 from 3 shots at goal, 6 marks (1 contested, 2 intercepts), 22 pressure acts (including 4 tackles), and 1 high-five to the opposition. His score was no doubt helped by his having 0 clangers and 4 score launches, but comparing their respective stats, was Martin’s game really only 6 points better?

Dane also wondered about James Worpel: 34 disposals (18 kicks at 67 percent, 16 handballs at 88 percent), 453 metres gained, 6 score involvements, 7 clearances, 8 inside-50s, 16 pressure acts (but only 2 tackles), for 97 points. In what is becoming a very common theme this year, it looks like it was the lack of tackles to go with his high disposal count that held him back.

Finally, Shane Mumford attended 106 ruck contests on the weekend, of which he won 49 percent, resulting in 52 hitouts (19 to advantage). He also had 10 disposals (2 kicks at 50 percent, 8 handballs at 75 percent, 8 contested, 52 metres gained), 4 clearances, 6 score involvements (including 5 score launches), 1 mark (contested), 16 pressure acts (6 tackles), and 3 clangers (all frees-against), for just 117 points. By my calculations, the hitouts-to-advantage alone should be worth 95 points; 6 effective handballs is another 9 points, plus 4 points for the effective kick gets him to 108. He did give away 3 free kicks, but he was actually awarded 4 himself, so that balances out as another +4 points, or 112. Throw in the contested mark (+6), and he should be on 118.

That means he got -1 point for 6 tackles, 10 other pressure acts, 4 clearances, plus directly launching 5 scoring chains. If that’s not a scoring anomaly, I don’t know what is! He did lose a contested one-on-one, which might have cost him a few points, but beyond that, the only thing I can think of is that he was subjected to some very harsh scaling.

Either that, or Champion Data just hates him.

Were there any scores that seemed off to you on the weekend? Were they as off as Mumford’s? Let us know in the comments below!


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

2 thoughts on “Scoring Anomalies – Round 13”

  1. One of my favourite segments of the week, it’s almost like the club’s that complain that a player is getting too much attention and the next week gets a million free kicks. Watch Mummy when he next play’s , CD your on notice! Wasn’t like the game was that lopsided last week


  2. Just regarding Martin having more disposals than possessions: since writing this, it has occurred to me that another possible explanation for the discrepancy is that he may have kicked the ball off the ground a couple of times, without first taking possession. This would certainly explain the gap.

    But I still think it raises an interesting question: should CD record a deliberate knock-on as being a disposal?



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *