JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Not a patch on 2012 for consistency

Playing in patches: Round 1-9.

Playing in patches: Round 1-9.

Each AFL season throws up its new bits of jargon. ''Patchy football'' is rapidly becoming the phrase of the moment. But unlike some popular terminology you hear, this one actually has plenty of substance to it.

Look at the AFL ladder and you would expect the top teams to be those which had spent the vast bulk of game time in front. And vice versa.

That was certainly the case in 2012 when, at this stage of the season, five of the top six teams were those which had led their games the longest.

But this season is throwing the measurement askew, underlining the coaches' view that it's getting a lot harder to stay on top for four quarters, let alone from week to week.

The two most obvious examples are North Melbourne and Geelong. The Kangaroos have so far spent 68 per cent of game time in front, second only to Hawthorn, which stands well clear on top with 82 per cent.

But the difference couldn't be more stark, the Hawks riding high on top of the ladder at 8-1, while North is 13th (3-6). As we saw so dramatically last Sunday against Adelaide, when North loses control of the play, it also loses complete control of the scoreboard. Not surprisingly, the Roos rank a lowly 13th for points conceded thus far.

Geelong, meanwhile, would be the source of some envy at Arden Street. The Cats are ranked just ninth for minutes in front, at 57 per cent. They also rank only ninth for quarters won, 18 from a possible 36.

Yet Geelong's bottom line is a win-loss record of 8-1 and second on the ladder, behind Hawthorn on percentage only.

Like North Melbourne, Richmond is also paying a high price for its lapses in games. The Tigers have won one more quarter of football than Geelong this season, and having led for 64 per cent of game time, are behind only the Hawks and Roos for percentage of time spent in front.

Yet they remain 10th on the ladder. Against Collingwood, Richmond won two quarters and narrowly lost another. But in the other, game-killing, 30 minutes, it conceded eight goals while scoring just two.

Against Geelong, it trailed by five points at half-time before being outscored by 11 goals to five in the second half.

Even the model of consistency that is Sydney has been prone to patchiness this season, managing to blow a 27-point lead against Fremantle a fortnight ago to barely escape with a draw, a point not lost on Sydney assistant coach John Blakey, speaking on SEN before the Swans played Collingwood last Friday night.

''We've been playing good football, but just haven't put four quarters together,'' Blakey said.

''It's been similar for Collingwood, and you've even heard Chris Scott talking about it with Geelong. Although they've won their games, even they haven't been consistent within quarters.

''I think the game has changed a little bit again in the way the ball is moved. I guess the new rules, the ‘in the backs’ and the ‘[too] highs’ in a way keep the ball flowing. It seems that teams have opportunities and windows to score now, and you can see when they do that, they can score really quickly, so we’re adapting all the time, and hopefully we’ll get back to our best soon.”

Sydney is actually better placed now (6-2 plus a draw) than at this stage last season (6-3), yet had won more quarters last season despite leading for less time in games.

The top team after nine rounds last year, West Coast, had won 27 quarters to 2013 leader Hawthorn's 24, despite only having led for 72 per cent of game time, compared with the Hawks' 82.

And at this stage in 2012, three sides had led games for more than 70 per cent of game time. Now, there's just one.

Nothing says patchy footy more effectively than these sorts of numbers. And that in this AFL season, if you don't take your more limited opportunities, you're likely to end up regretting it a lot more too.


3 comments so far

  • "Patchy" will have its season, and then be replaced by another catchword. It's human nature.

    Of far greater importance is how so many journalists, professionals who see themselves as wordsmiths (well, I hope they do), brainlessly accept these examples of ugly language:

    ~ "impact", when "influence" and "effect" is far better;

    ~ the almost moronic overuse of "issue" (particularly in that ultra-moronic "addressing the issue") - leave that braindead stuff to politicians and their parasitic spinmeisters;

    ~ inability to distinguish "reticent" and "reluctant", or "flout" and "flaunt", "alternate" and "alternative" (see below), and complicity in the destruction of any distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested";

    ~ unthinking acceptance of how politicians deceitfully & dishonestly use "reform", when at best it's just "change".

    (Don't mind the occasional use of "regular season" to save too much repetition of "home and away / H&A season". But "table" for "ladder" should be anathema. As for the odious "alternate^ strip" - yuk!!)

    Journos, ever heard of quotation marks? Ever had even the briefest of thoughts about enclosing reform in them, or using [sic], as ways of letting readers know that you are not sucked in by their BS?

    Leonard Colquhoun
    Date and time
    May 30, 2013, 1:55PM
    • Wow! An English lesson with my footy (sic) football

      the elder
      Date and time
      May 30, 2013, 8:59PM
      • The conclusions reached in this article might be considered valid if the used they are based on were useful. The data set is not useful because each team has not played all of the other teams. Thus, with an incomplete data set, the article takes a wild leap and assumes that each team's performance ability is equal. The number of quarters won or the time spent in the lead during a game by any team is dependent not only on that team's ability but also on the strength of the opposition. Unless each team's inherent 'strength' is calculated into the equation or each team has played all the other teams, no data set can get close to providing enough information to reach the conclusions arrived at in this article.
        Measuring that a Hawthorn, say, spent four quarters ahead of a GWS, say, but won only two of those quarters and then comparing that result to a game between North and Port, say, in which North wins three quarters and is ahead until the final second when Port kicks a winning goal on siren after a sizzling comeback quarter does not make a losing North a better side than a winning Hawthorn because it has won more quarters or a losing GWS a better side than a winning Port for the same reason.
        That kind of interpretation of data only leads to more confusion but ends up highlighting why the preseason, and week-to-week, predictions of so many media 'experts' turn out to be so very wrong.

        Date and time
        May 31, 2013, 12:03PM

        Make a comment

        You are logged in as [Logout]

        All information entered below may be published.

        Error: Please enter your screen name.

        Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

        Error: Please enter your comment.

        Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

        Post to

        You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

        Thank you

        Your comment has been submitted for approval.

        Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

        Follow Us on Facebook

        Featured advertisers