The Bradley Story.

Post by **boncer34** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:01 pm

After reading most of the dribble on here over the past couple of days I decided to actually sit down and watch the game with one focus in mind. Kepler Bradley, I sat down did the stats and analysed his game for those interested in the other side of the debate heres my findings. Please note that the / seperates quaters so 6/5/3/2 means 6 in the first 5 in the second etc etc. Now my stats may not be 100% accurate but I can say they are at the very least 95%:
Kicks- 3/2/1/3
Handpasses- 3/1/4/4
Possesion under pressure- 3/2/3/3
Possesion without Pressure- 3/1/2/4 (thought 65% of his possesion were without pressure? Where's the knobjockey who guaranteed that? Reality is more like 47% or something)
Possesion without Pressure turned into Pressure ie. Slow decision making- 0/1/0/0 (How many times did he get run down after marking again?)
Underpressure Direct Turnover- 0/1/0/1
Contested Mark- 0/0/0/1
Uncontested Mark- 1/2/0/3
Under Pressure pass to teammate under pressure- 1/1/0/3
Under Pressure pass to teammate without pressure- 2/1/3/0
Uncontested Dropped Marks- 0/0/0/0 (Hmm interesting. Would've sworn he'd fumbled numerous sitters?)
Contested Dropped Marks- 1/1/0/0 (The Betts one he was running back with the flight of the ball and Eddie had the sit, I still counted it but situation is interesting)
Goals- 1/0/0/0
Points- 0/0/0/0
Frees For- 1/0/0/0
Frees Against- 0/1/0/0 (Yes that was the one he was run down on but watch the situation again, he backed himself and it didnt pay off. Aren't we ment to encourage the boys to back themselves?)
Hit the Target- 5/1/5/5
Missed the Target- 1/2/0/2
Without Pressure possesion to teammate under pressure- 0/1/0/1
Without Pressure possesion to teammate under no pressure- 2/0/2/3
Tackles- 1/0/0/0 (Worry but the one he did lay was sensational)
Turnovers he Forced ie laying a tackle- 1/0/0/0
No Pressure Turnover- 0/1/0/0 (But wait he misses the target reguarly?)

Interesting isn't it? By no means am I suggesting Bradley is anything special but hell looking at something objectively without the old biased glasses on and look at what comes up. 21 touches, still to expensive with 5 t/o but hell not so bad after all? Of course this will be dismissed as rubbish but it might penetrate someones brain.

Oh and Gringo made a special note of looking at Jobe for you, you know those 3 turn overs he made that resulted in Carlton goals? Well we must have been looking at different games buddy coz yes he made 3 turnovers but Carlton goals? Nope, but still keep bleating you may hit a correct fact eventually.

Any confusion on what some of the stats mean feel free to ask and I'll hopefully be able to clear things up for you.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:10 pm

I've been waiting to read this all day since you indicated that it was coming and damn interesting reading it is.

It appears from the stats that you have supplied that Bradley might have actually played a reasonable game.

21 possies and five turnovers seems to mean that 16 of his possessions were effective.

I watched the game and thought he did OK but after reading the crap on here the last few days, I could have sworn that Bradley single handedly lost us the game.

Thanks Bonce for taking the time to put some accuracy into the argument.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:24 pm

Interesting information. Would be even more interesting to be able to see what was going on outside of what we can see on a replay (ie TV). How far did othe rplayers have to runs to make a possession effective, etc?

Not knocking your stats, just wondering about extra information you only get by being at the park.

Post by **boncer34** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:31 pm

I can see your point Boyler and sadly my stats only go so far. But that said I think a lot of people talk a lot of shit and this to a point proves my theory.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:33 pm

Yeah I'd agree with that. Quite a few irrational, subjective views... but then that's opinion.

Post by **boncer34** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:12 pm

Coz I'm certain you'll visit and attempt to troll the thread DC I'm still waiting to hear what your bet is?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:16 pm

Seems like a painstaking task - well done bonce.

I'm sure gringo will find some other stats for you though.....like "he looks like a hermit crab on ecstasy" or "I'd rather see the Olsen twins play" or "he caused 8 goals to be kicked against us" etc, etc

andrewb · Post by **andrewb** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm

Great post Bonce, glad I waited up.

Here's some more stats on Bradley - a comparison of his first three seasons as compared to the great man Fletch...

Year Player Matches K H Avg Disposals M Avg Marks T Avg Tckls G B Rat Avg
1993 Fletcher 17 128 45 10.2 43 2.5 24 1.4 0 0 715 42.1
2004 Bradley 5 23 33 11.2 11 2.2 9 1.8 1 0 211 42.2
1994 Fletcher 13 76 41 9 27 2.1 10 0.8 2 0 449 34.5
2005 Bradley 19 137 127 13.9 99 5.2 18 0.9 4 4 1062 55.9
1995 Fletcher 22 199 101 13.6 94 4.3 23 1 4 3 1205 54.8
2006 Bradley 21 164 104 12.8 103 4.9 17 0.8 8 3 1129 53.8

Note that in Fletcher's first three years we won a premiership and two pre-season premierships. He also had some reasonable guys around him in Mark Harvey, Gavin Wanganeen and Mark Thompson.

Contrast that to Bradley who has been playing for a team in decline (8th, 13th, 15th) in a deteriorating backline that has sat behind one of the least effective midfields in the competition.

Stats can lie, but in this case they are remarkably similar and in my opinion only auger well for Kepler's future. Hopefully our "supporters" will stay off his back this season.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:18 am

A whole lot of ridiculous number crunching that amounts to not much.

Comparing Fletcher a full back to Bradley is just not sensible. Of course your stats are better if you play up the ground.

If only it was as simple as pulling the stats out. Scotty West would have 23 Brownlows by now!

Sol · Post by **Sol** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:53 am

Windy_Hill wrote:A whole lot of ridiculous number crunching that amounts to not much.

Comparing Fletcher a full back to Bradley is just not sensible. Of course your stats are better if you play up the ground.

If only it was as simple as pulling the stats out. Scotty West would have 23 Brownlows by now!

Right, Right and spot on! Stats tell you nothing, only the ability to get the ball in the first place. I was at the game amongst the carlton supporters (to the right of the cheer squad unfortunately) who dont even know Bradley, and they laughed everytime he went near the ball asking me who he was especially when he couldnt mark 'IN POSITION' against Eddie Betts.

Those stats just prove to me not to bother looking in the stats section of the HUN for anything other than a preview of my Dream Team score.

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:42 am

boncer34 wrote:After reading most of the dribble on here over the past couple of days I decided to actually sit down and watch the game with one focus in mind. Kepler Bradley, I sat down did the stats and analysed his game for those interested in the other side of the debate heres my findings. Please note that the / seperates quaters so 6/5/3/2 means 6 in the first 5 in the second etc etc. Now my stats may not be 100% accurate but I can say they are at the very least 95%:
Kicks- 3/2/1/3
Handpasses- 3/1/4/4
Possesion under pressure- 3/2/3/3
Possesion without Pressure- 3/1/2/4 (thought 65% of his possesion were without pressure? Where's the knobjockey who guaranteed that? Reality is more like 47% or something)
Possesion without Pressure turned into Pressure ie. Slow decision making- 0/1/0/0 (How many times did he get run down after marking again?)
Underpressure Direct Turnover- 0/1/0/1
Contested Mark- 0/0/0/1
Uncontested Mark- 1/2/0/3
Under Pressure pass to teammate under pressure- 1/1/0/3
Under Pressure pass to teammate without pressure- 2/1/3/0
Uncontested Dropped Marks- 0/0/0/0 (Hmm interesting. Would've sworn he'd fumbled numerous sitters?)
Contested Dropped Marks- 1/1/0/0 (The Betts one he was running back with the flight of the ball and Eddie had the sit, I still counted it but situation is interesting)
Goals- 1/0/0/0
Points- 0/0/0/0
Frees For- 1/0/0/0
Frees Against- 0/1/0/0 (Yes that was the one he was run down on but watch the situation again, he backed himself and it didnt pay off. Aren't we ment to encourage the boys to back themselves?)
Hit the Target- 5/1/5/5
Missed the Target- 1/2/0/2
Without Pressure possesion to teammate under pressure- 0/1/0/1
Without Pressure possesion to teammate under no pressure- 2/0/2/3
Tackles- 1/0/0/0 (Worry but the one he did lay was sensational)
Turnovers he Forced ie laying a tackle- 1/0/0/0
No Pressure Turnover- 0/1/0/0 (But wait he misses the target reguarly?)

Interesting isn't it? By no means am I suggesting Bradley is anything special but hell looking at something objectively without the old biased glasses on and look at what comes up. 21 touches, still to expensive with 5 t/o but hell not so bad after all? Of course this will be dismissed as rubbish but it might penetrate someones brain.

Oh and Gringo made a special note of looking at Jobe for you, you know those 3 turn overs he made that resulted in Carlton goals? Well we must have been looking at different games buddy coz yes he made 3 turnovers but Carlton goals? Nope, but still keep bleating you may hit a correct fact eventually.

Any confusion on what some of the stats mean feel free to ask and I'll hopefully be able to clear things up for you.

There's five minutes of my life I won't get back. What a waste of time. And for the record, Watson's turnovers cost us goals and, on three occasions, directly led to Carlton goals. Numerous people watching the game with me commented on it.

You can forget about Kepler getting anywhere near the firsts in any meaningful capacity this year. He's junk, pure and simple.

Leigh · Post by **Leigh** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:34 am

You cant discard Kepler for the whole season based on one preseason game on the wing, where he got over 20 possesions and a goal. although made a few turnovers.
His first Real game on the wing this year, will only improve carltons pressure on all players was generally good, forcing turnovers.
Bradley has done enough to start year in firsts, younger players will need to impress in seconds to take his spot. Although a run in the two's could be good to improve his confidence. So is not playing on the centrehalf forward monsters of AFL.

How come no one has mentioned Ryder handpassing to opposition twice which resulted in direct goals?
Altho Ryder also showed flashes of Brilliance, Mark which he just held onto for umps. And that sprint in the defence when he passed smaller players and picked up the ball one handed was awesome.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:56 am

Great stuff Bonce you know you have made a great argument when all the Nay sayers have no comeback other than to divert the situation to some other meaningless event.

I reckon this should be done every week on players that get unwarrented bagging like Keps has this week. We are supporting a TEAM after all!!!

And Leigh my fellow Tasmanian friend... That is the single most difficult thing I have ever tried to read!!!

Royza · Post by **Royza** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:55 am

Definitely not as bad as people have made out. I think he's a victim of image. He looks dorky so people assume he'll stuff up.

DC · Post by DC » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:51 am

A whole lot of ridiculous number crunching that amounts to not much.

Comparing Fletcher a full back to Bradley is just not sensible. Of course your stats are better if you play up the ground.

If only it was as simple as pulling the stats out. Scotty West would have 23 Brownlows by now!

Well said Windy.

Anyone who watched the game would know that KB was horrible, and aside from the goal he kicked had zero impact on the game.

Definitely not as bad as people have made out.

LOL. He was.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:54 pm

Royza wrote:Definitely not as bad as people have made out. I think he's a victim of image. He looks dorky so people assume he'll stuff up.

I dont think he would look half as Dorky of he could kick a footy like Mark Mercuri.

He looks dorky coz he does stuff up.

If anyone can dig out the Draft Report prepared on Kepler all those years ago it made pointed reference to his lack of balance and coordination.

A disturbingly prophetic observation tha was entirely ignored by Dodoro and Co.

Doctor Fish · Post by **Doctor Fish** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:26 pm

Nice work Bonce... It can be hard to see through your own bias sometimes. What you've done here is probably the only way to show this to some...

=D> =D> =D>

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:17 pm

What we need to understand about bradley is this. Every time he as the ball, it looks like he is about to turn it over. Alot of his posession don't go to our advantge, whether they are direct turn overs or not. Chip kicks, short handballs and things like that, which stats do not show.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:25 pm

Essendon4eva wrote: Alot of his posession don't go to our advantge, whether they are direct turn overs or not. Chip kicks, short handballs and things like that, which stats do not show.

Sounds like you're talking about Andrew Welsh...

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:06 am

Awesome work Bonce, I'd go so far as to say it is positively Boncerific.

Andrewb, also makes for some interesting reading. Windy, Kep may not have played FB the whole time but he's had some pretty big defensive roles.

Funny how people who can't find any stats to back their opinion up will then state that they mean nothing.

Except Gringo who when challenged to produce evidence of his claims states. Some dudes around me said the same thing........ Must be true then.

Stats are not the be all and end all but they can be used to make useful conclusions.

Bombertalk

The Bradley Story.

The Bradley Story.

Re: The Bradley Story.