Our percentage.

[footyhead]

in 2003 we had the best conversion ratio in the league, for goals scored to
1 pointers.
Leigh mathews questioned wether we could sustain it through out the year and we did drop off a little in that dept later in the seasone.
My question is, what happens if our conversion drops back to more "average" proportions next year??
Are we going into our forward 50 enough ?? can we win games with the current set up and just a little less luck ??
I worry that a number of factors may have combined to show us up in a slightly better light than we may yet deserve. Sure, we one a lot of games in 2003, but as we have seen before, good form in front of goal can be a fickel phenomea.
who knows ?? Maybe Roos is an inspirational and confidance instilling genius and he will become known for producing freakishly high converting teams !! well I hope so, cos we are not going forward enough for mine.

[liz]

Our conversion rate had two separate elements.

One was accuracy in shooting for goal and that was pretty much maintained throughout the season. There was a short period late-mid season where the team fell off a little but by the end our accuracy percentage was up at the low 60s %, clearly the best in the league.

The other factor was converting forward 50 thrusts into scoring opportunities, and again we were right up there with the best. There were numerous games where our inside-50s were much lower than the opposition, yet we had as many scoring shots.

Can these be maintained? You'd have to worry if we were overly reliant on scoring accuracy because teams can get the yips collectively. However, we had a pretty good spread of goal kickers, with all the midfield chipping in for their 10-20 and three secondary forwards all scoring 30+. The ability of Davis, Schneider, O'Keefe and Hall - in particular - to shoot well from tightish angles was a factor but another was that we had a lot of shots from very scorable positions - ie not too far out and on a decent angle.

This is a result of the game plan as much as anything - ie getting the ball quickly to a leading forward in space. When the ball rebounds quickly from defence and moves the length of the ground at speed, the forwards don't have to lead into the pockets to get their marks. The conversion of forward 50s into scoring opportunities is also a result of the game plan.

Therefore, if the team is able to execute the plan as well next year as last, both stats should be sustainable.

That said, it would still help considerably if we were able to get the ball into the forward 50 more often in the same manner, and for that we need to get better at centre clearances. Kirk is the only Swan who is consistently able to do this.

I know we lack depth in the tall defender department but at least our first choices are able to do their job - ie limit the opposition AND provide the necessary rebound. However, even with our best midfield brigade on the ground we are weak in the clearance department and is arguably the most critical area where improvement is required.

That's why, IMO, finding an inside midfielder in the mould of Mitchell who can win the ball in the centre should be the top recruitment and/or development priority.

[footyhead]

lizz ,
what may i ask do you think would be Abletts preferable position were he to play to what you see as his potential this year ??

[liz]

Originally posted by footyhead
lizz ,
what may i ask do you think would be Abletts preferable position were he to play to what you see as his potential this year ??

Ablett just needs to focus on getting himself in the 22 and take whatever ground time he is given. He's likely to find himself thrown around a bit, depending on where he is needed. IIRC he was touted as a wingman when he was recruited - with a long, raking kick (ala Maxfield) and supposedly pacy. He hasn't really demonstrated much evidence of that pace at AFL level, but there could be fitness issues there.

I'd love to see him make it - he was my sponsored player this season (as a Redback) and hence I took a bit more notice of him than before. But I don't think we've really seen enough of him at AFL level to know where he fits in. The most impressive thing about him in the preliminary final was his contested marking. Combined with his long kicking, that suggests he might find himself playing a ROK type role, maybe on a half forward flank or in a pocket, taking his turn with short bursts on the ball. However, he's a fair bit shorter than Pebbles, and ideally we need him to transform himself into a midfielder.

Will be an interesting one to watch. He needs to start by working really hard in the pre-season and then taking it from there.

[chammond]

Ablett's lack of pace probably means that, unless he can turn himself into a Greg Williams type on-baller, he's going to be competing for a spot as a flanker - a tough assignment in the current team.

But on the positive side, he's a strong mark on the lead and overhead, and a superb kick with either foot. His defensive skills are pretty good also.

Early in 2004, he will possibly be competing with Sundqvist (who is faster but less skilled IMO) for that 22nd spot in the team. The pre-season comp will be his big chance to shine, I guess.