Let’s have a look at what the data says about what was working for the Tigers as they built their lead over the first two periods, and what didn’t work so well in the second half.
The first thing to look at is raw efficiency and Rochester was making good use of the ball in the first half.
In quarter one the Tigers recorded a 61 per cent disposal efficiency, succeeding in 23 of 46 kicks and 17 of 20 handballs in the period.
This improved further in quarter two with a 64 per cent overall efficiency, 30 of 56 kicks and 18 of 19 handballs finding their target.
These numbers dropped off significantly in quarters three and four with Rochester only managing a 54 per cent disposal efficiency in both terms.
The third saw 26 of 47 kicks (55 per cent) and only 11 of 21 handballs (52 per cent) find their mark, while in the final term the Tigers completed a dismal 15 of 41 kick attempts (37 per cent), while their handball accuracy rebounded to 23 of 30 (76 per cent).
Kyabram consistently performed more efficiently than the Tigers, managing a 68 per cent disposal efficiency for the match.
Rochester overcame its mediocre numbers in the first half but when efficiency dropped further in the second, the Bombers were able to pounce.
The Rochester midfield seized control of the game over the first two periods, forcing 26 turnovers in the midfield and giving up only 21 of its own in the half.
The latter stages saw this turn around, particularly in the final term, when the Tigers turned the ball over 15 times in the midfield to just nine times from the Bombers.
The Bombers moved the ball better than their opponents, taking 14 to 12 uncontested marks in the third quarter and having a massive +14 (19-5) in the stat in the final period.
This led to increased pressure on the Tigers’ goal in the second half as Kyabram was +7 in inside 50s (26-19) after Rochester was +12 in the statistic (30-18) in the first.
This led Rochester to log only three marks inside 50 for the half after taking nine over the first two quarters, while Kyabram improved from five in the first half to 10 in the second.
Rochester’s first half vs Kyabram
Disposal efficiency (quarters one and two)
Rochester: 61%, 64%
Kyabram: 65%, 71%
Turnovers: 42 to 40
Midfield turnovers: 21 to 26
Inside 50s: 30 to 18
Marks inside 50: 9 to 5
Uncontested marks: 38 to 46
Rochester’s second half vs Kyabram
Disposal efficiency (quarters three and four)
Rochester: 54%, 54%
Kyabram: 71%, 66%
Turnovers: 43 to 34
Midfield turnovers: 24 to 17
Inside 50s: 19 to 26
Marks inside 50: 3 to 10
Uncontested marks: 17 to 33
9°C