Missing Tackles have no correlation to Conceding Points

I remember a few members on the forum concerned about how many tackles the boys have been missing. I actually thought our goal line defense against the Panthers was brilliant, which is why I am confident against the Dogs, they will struggle to score points.

That’s a very interesting graph.
Panthers and tigers , especially, buck the trend.
As you say that would be good goal line defence but also good scrambling defence.
They certainly have got a good culture of backing up their mates.

Just goes to show stats don’t tell you the whole picture.

Wasn’t Tolman the best prop in the game at one point in time according to Des? Haha.

Interesting graph thanks for making. I wonder how the graph would change with a larger data set - 5 seasons? Would we see more outliers or would we see more of a correlation.

@:

That’s a very interesting graph.
Panthers and tigers , especially, buck the trend.
As you say that would be good goal line defence but also good scrambling defence.
They certainly have got a good culture of backing up their mates.

I saw a graph produced by DT I think also showed us and Penrith concede the most penalties. Link & connection here I wonder?

This graph is interesting in points conceded however this may be a factor in our poor attack?
It’s clear our scramble is covering missed tackles and keeping the points conceded down, but is it causing fatigue…is it contributing to poor field position… Is it causing us to LOSE THE RUCK… and thus a flow on effect in our ability to put points on the board?

It exhausts you in attack though.

If you keep falling off tackles, you put in the effort to get there and your team mate has to put in to cover you.

Make the god damn tackle.

I wouldn’t say there’s no correlation? There appears a fairly obvious line running diagonally from bottom left to top right, i.e. generally speaking the more tackles you miss the more points you concede (what you would expect).

But there are obvious outliers like Tigers, Panthers, Bulldogs, Knights which shows that missed tackles aren’t the only driver of points conceded.

NRL showed an interesting video in an article yesterday about Maloney’s missed tackles. He’s up to 75 missed which is atrocious (next closest is Rochow with 51, Mitch Moses has 47), but they note that many of those MTs are a result of making decent body contact and stopping momentum, but without wrapping up the tackle, which counts against Maloney. His team-mates finish the tackle off. When they looks at the stats of missed tackles v line breaks, it turns out that Cooper Cronk is the worst in the competition.

Similarly there’s Milky’s argument that MTs impact attack, but there are teams that don’t follow that either. E.g. Penrith high MTs but 4th-best attack in the league; Warriors have 7th best attack.

What I personally find interesting, and if this is a graph done privately, congrats to OP because I love it, but I find interesting the clustering of this statistic. A lot of teams lie on the average line - Saints, Storm, Roosters, Rabbits, Warriors, Cows, Titans - about half the comp, which you might expect. Sharks, Raiders Manly not far off this trend either, so probably 11/16 teams sit on the trendline.

However there are two interesting clusters - the low MT / higher points bottom left (Saints, Sharks, Melb, Dogs) and average MT / high points top middle (Broncos, Eels, Knights, Raiders, Manly).

What this appears to say is teams with very low missed tackles still concede a fair number of points per set, i.e. there is a sort of minimum points you will concede even if you defend well. This makes sense, and Dogs are the outlier because they don’t miss many tackles, yet concede a lot of points. I wonder here if penalty goals are a factor, i.e. points conceded without missing a tackle. Or another possibility is that Dogs don’t miss many tackles, but when they do, the opposition is a high chance of scoring points.

The second cluster is the more interesting to me. It indicates that there’s a real sweet-spot in terms of conceding missed tackles and points; that if you have a low-to-average number of MTs, you can still concede a lot of points. You’ll note that probably 7-8 teams site above the trendline, i.e. more towards conceding points, and again this is probably an indicator of the fact that football teams generally concede a standard # of points per game, no matter how good their defence is (between 8-20 points on average).

But you’ll note that Tigers and Panthers appear less worried about MTs, that they are prepared to concede a lot of MTs and still defend the line. There’s probably a trend for these teams of conceding MTs in mid-field play rather than in the defending 20. But for those teams in cluster 2, they have average of better MTs, yet conceded high points. Perhaps if those teams focused less on MTs and more on swarm / cover defence, they’d concede less points?

12 teams above the line and 4 below so idk what the point of the thread is?

Ink and Milky nailed it any way- scarmbling defense can’t be considered a good defense.

our forwards aren’t going too bad but we are losing the ruck more often than not

I think it might have been Tim Sheens who said high missed tackles can often mean you’re attempting lots of tackles.

There are other variables at play too, like where on the field you miss tackles/are defending most often and whether other players can complete the tackle quickly.

I suspect line breaks conceded might be a better indicator?

Cool chart btw.

I wonder if bryce cartright letting someone run passed him was a missed tackle?

The graph suggests there is a correlation, we just buck the trend.

@:

Ink and Milky nailed it any way- scarmbling defense can’t be considered a good defense.

Why not?

I would have felt any defence that keeps points out is a good one?

@:

@:

Ink and Milky nailed it any way- scarmbling defense can’t be considered a good defense.

Why not?

I would have felt any defence that keeps points out is a good one?

I think a controlled, cohesive defense that contributes to winning the ruck is better, an attacking defense that forces oppositions into doing what they dont want to do, forces them into errors will assist in scoring points where hectic scramble doesnt as much

@:

@:

@:

Ink and Milky nailed it any way- scarmbling defense can’t be considered a good defense.

Why not?

I would have felt any defence that keeps points out is a good one?

I think a controlled, cohesive defense that contributes to winning the ruck is better, an attacking defense that forces oppositions into doing what they dont want to do, forces them into errors will assist in scoring points where hectic scramble doesnt as much

This.

Cohesive defensive patterns and execution is high percentage football. Scramble defence is like adlib attacking footy, looks good, can be effective, but doesn’t pay off as often as structured defence.

@:

@:

@:

@:

Ink and Milky nailed it any way- scarmbling defense can’t be considered a good defense.

Why not?

I would have felt any defence that keeps points out is a good one?

I think a controlled, cohesive defense that contributes to winning the ruck is better, an attacking defense that forces oppositions into doing what they dont want to do, forces them into errors will assist in scoring points where hectic scramble doesnt as much

This.

Cohesive defensive patterns and execution is high percentage football. Scramble defence is like adlib attacking footy, looks good, can be effective, but doesn’t pay off as often as structured defence.

I would put it to you that Tigers don’t begin with a scramble defence, it’s what they fall back to if momentum swings in favour of the opposition.

It gets a job done if we don’t have the platform or territory to maintain a controlled, ruck-winning defensive structure.

Broncos basically made the finals the past three years with incredible scramble defence at their goal-line.

We also have to acknowledge that we have 2 of the Top 4 worst missed tacklers in the game (per 80 mins not per minute played) and we don’t have a roster of dominant stick defenders. Probably only Lawrence, ET, Twal and Matulino (maybe Hooth) fall into that category. So we cop the MTs but still manage to have the 3rd-best defence in the league (just 1 point short of Panthers and 3 short of Dragons).

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme