When have you even followed a topic!!
Should be a very interesting game!!
When have you even followed a topic!!
Should be a very interesting game!!
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Only when no one else does. And at least one of those !'s should be a ?.Originally posted by NMWBloods
When have you even followed a topic!!
This might be asking a bit much but do you have other stats that relate to those that you have posted. Things like Inside 50s, Marks Inside 50 and so on.Originally posted by NMWBloods
We've virtually never been a high scoring team, however I think under Roos we are around our lowest levels. Given the talent in the team is far superior than when we had some of our lowest efforts, it does say there is something wrong.
It might be interesting to see if our Inside 50s relate to goals or if the problem is actually caused by our forward line not being as good as we think.
For example, I've had the feeling this season that we are getting the ball inside 50 quite a bit - comparable with most other teams - but we aren't converting. It's only a feeling though - haven't seen any stats to confirm it.
Back in 2003 we were one of the lowest ranked teams for getting the ball inside the forward 50 but one of the best (if not the best) for converting inside-50s into goals.Originally posted by Sean
This might be asking a bit much but do you have other stats that relate to those that you have posted. Things like Inside 50s, Marks Inside 50 and so on.
It might be interesting to see if our Inside 50s relate to goals or if the problem is actually caused by our forward line not being as good as we think.
For example, I've had the feeling this season that we are getting the ball inside 50 quite a bit - comparable with most other teams - but we aren't converting. It's only a feeling though - haven't seen any stats to confirm it.
The problem with interpreting many of these stats is that it is hard to say whose "fault" something is purely by looking at the numbers. You have to have watched the games, or go into far more detailed analysis of the stats looking, for example, where in the forward 50 the ball is delivered.
One of the reasons our forward line looks to be more efficient in 2003 was because when the ball did arrive there, it was frequently via rapid movement from the HBF through the midfield and delivered centrally. So a larger proportion of the time marks were taken in the central zone rather than deep in the pockets and it was more likely that a forward would be able to lead into space or just be faced with a one-on-one contest rather than having the ball bombed onto their heads or being sent wide.
Thus it is impossible to divorce the efficiency of the forward line with the performance around the rest of the ground.
Ah NMW, your love of stats. Yet you know well they can be twisted, and you did that well once again.
Lets just dissect your figures to show just how irrelevant they really are. Picking your own figures for the years where we came closest to our current plight under Paul Roos:
Finished (out of 12) 12, 9, 12, 8, 5, 8, 10 for an average of 9th. Won 52/154 games (34%) and only bettered 50% for the year once (1977), LAST twice!Originally posted by NMWBloods
From 1973 to 1979, the league averaged 620 shots, we had 600 (97%).
Finished (out of 12) 6, 9, 7, 11, 10, 10 for an average of 9th. Won 55/132 games (42%) and only bettered 50% for the year twice (1980, 1982)From 1980 to 1985, the league averaged 647 shots, we had 640 (99%).
Finished (out of 14) 7, 13 and (out of 15) 12, 15, 15, 15 and 12 (out of 16) for an average of 13th. Won 39/154 games (25%) and only bettered 50% for the year ONCE (just - 1989). LAST thrice in a row!From 1989 to 1995, the league averaged 622 shots, we had 578 (92%).
Finished (out of 16) 4th and 6th for an average of 5th. Won 31/48 games (65%) and bettered 50% for the year every time (2005 not included).From 2003 to 2005, the league averaged 557 shots, we had 527 (96%).
So you see that having shots for goal is not as important as it seems. We did only marginally worse in the 89 to 95 period yet had a horrible run of seasons. We did marginally better from 73 to 79 and on to 85, yet at the end of the season were in much worse shape.
The simple fact is that we have won more games than we have lost over the last two years, despite our total shots on goal. We have had fewer blowouts either way, and have done well with the team we have. Sure its not exciting, but its not excitingly depressing either.
I do recall that being the case and it's quite interesting because most people think we were playing more attacking then than we are now. Also, most people would probably consider that our midfield was better then with Cressa still playing and Maxfield and Williams a couple of years younger.Originally posted by liz
Back in 2003 we were one of the lowest ranked teams for getting the ball inside the forward 50 but one of the best (if not the best) for converting inside-50s into goals.
Very true.Thus it is impossible to divorce the efficiency of the forward line with the performance around the rest of the ground.
What I'm trying to work out is the actual cause for the low number of shots. If we are getting the ball inside 50 a lot this season then it's not the game plan's fault - it's either skill errors in terms of delivery or a problem with our forward structure. If we aren't getting the ball inside 50 much then clearly it's not the forward's fault - it's either the game plan or midfielders that are at fault. A bit simplistic I know but I like stats
Hows this for a stat to date (2005):
Team Kicks Handballs Disposals
Sydney 1321 891 2212
Opponent 1412 730 2142
Team Marks Tackles HO
Sydney 551 406 260
Opponent 609 393 301
Team Goals Behinds
Sydney 86 108
Opponent 98 80
We do seem to be bombing the ball into the forward line a lot more this year than the previous couple, where the focus was more on chipping it around until a forward found space and presented himself. Ironically this is what many people on this board were screaming out for.Originally posted by Sean
What I'm trying to work out is the actual cause for the low number of shots. If we are getting the ball inside 50 a lot this season then it's not the game plan's fault - it's either skill errors in terms of delivery or a problem with our forward structure. If we aren't getting the ball inside 50 much then clearly it's not the forward's fault - it's either the game plan or midfielders that are at fault. A bit simplistic I know but I like stats
While it has some benefits, it also means that more of the forward entries are going aimlessly to space, to congested contests (and we're not a great team for pack marks) or are easily able to be picked off by a spare man in defence.
I don't think this tactic plays to the forward line's strengths. There are some good one-on-one contested markers there, but we don't have a Jon Brown or Nick Riewoldt and nor do we have any smart crumbers. Whether this is the fault of the forwards or not is debateable. I guess it does indicate that while we think we have a good forward line on paper, it is lacking an element or two.
liz Posted: 18th May 2005 03:04 AM
It seems Liz has been influenced by her AFL heroes and has started popping the no doz.
Number of shots is important that's why invariably the top teams have a lot as I showed. In our earlier efforts you'll notice that we were typically below 100% - that's below average, which is not good. Then coupled with that we had poor defence, thus making things worse, hence why we finished so low.Originally posted by Schneiderman
So you see that having shots for goal is not as important as it seems. We did only marginally worse in the 89 to 95 period yet had a horrible run of seasons. We did marginally better from 73 to 79 and on to 85, yet at the end of the season were in much worse shape.
The simple fact is that we have won more games than we have lost over the last two years, despite our total shots on goal. We have had fewer blowouts either way, and have done well with the team we have. Sure its not exciting, but its not excitingly depressing either.
Now we are even worse at getting the ball into our forward line and having a scoring shot. We do better though because we were more accurate than we were in the past plus our defence is better.
As I also noted, yet you conveniently ignore yet again, it's a very rare occurrence for a team to make the top 4 and not have lot of shots at goal. This makes our task very difficult unless we generate some more scoring attempts.
However, my original point ("Simply goes back to my old points - we are too defensively minded") was that Roos is playing a defensive style of game. Given our shots at goal are around our lowest ever (plus stoppages are miles higher than for everyone else) the evidence appears to support this contention.
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Are you going to actually comment on what you think they mean...Originally posted by Schneiderman
Hows this for a stat to date (2005):
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks