Terry Wallace predicts us to make the GF

[Damien]

Only caught the end of it, but on Fox Footy 2004 Preview, Terry Wallace just predicted us to make the Grand Final this year. Believes we have players in the right age group etc.

Seems the 'would be Swans coach' holds no bad feelings towards the club, which is pretty professional of him considering the bashing some of the swans fans dished out in 2002!!.

Shwatta predicted us as 6th.

Their biggest concern was the fact that we were 15th overall last year getting into the 50 - and that we couldn't again rely on a freakish conversion rate.

Anyone who saw it all please correct me if I missed anything.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Terry Wallace predicts us to make the GF

Originally posted by Damien
Their biggest concern was the fact that we were 15th overall last year getting into the 50 - and that we couldn't again rely on a freakish conversion rate.

This would be one of my main concerns - the midfield. It averages less possessions, clearances and Inside 50s than most other teams. Part of that might be due to the SCG, but that only goes a small way I would guess. Fortunately we have a very potent forward line, however I'd feel more comfortable getting them the ball more often.

[liz]

Re: Re: Terry Wallace predicts us to make the GF

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This would be one of my main concerns - the midfield. It averages less possessions, clearances and Inside 50s than most other teams. Part of that might be due to the SCG, but that only goes a small way I would guess. Fortunately we have a very potent forward line, however I'd feel more comfortable getting them the ball more often.

Possessions, per se, doesn't concern me overly. I haven't done the analysis to back this up, but my guess would be that there is a negative correlation between success and possessions. I know that at one point well into last season the Lions had the lowest possession count of any team. And the Roos under Pagan were very good with not many possessions,

But certainly getting first hands on the ball more often would help (and I know I've said this ad nauseum).

As for our "freakish conversion rate" I guess we'll find out this season whether or not last was actually abnormal. If I were a betting lady I'd say not - it's the one part of our line-up that I have absolute, total, utter confidence in.

[penga]

Re: Terry Wallace predicts us to make the GF

Originally posted by Damien
'would be Swans coach'

dont you mean, "would be Blues coach"?

while we do need to step it up in clearances; our low average of possessions and inside 50s are due to our more direct 'up the guts' play... while there were some pretty spectacular shots at goal last season, you would probably find most of our shots on goal are more in front on average than any other team

[sharpie]

Interesting that they nominated Jarrad Sundqvist as a player to watch.

[Mike_B]

They were spot on with the 'At the Crossroads' players - Nicksy and Warfe...

[Reggi]

Originally posted by Mike_B
They were spot on with the 'At the Crossroads' players - Nicksy and Warfe...

I would have thought way beyond the crossroads.

Lizz - they pointed out that Sydney had the greatest conversion rate from inside 50s since statistics have been gathered.

Did say it was because we could move the ball so quickly - maybe we don't just bomb the ball in.

That said we went from 3rd to 15th for inside 50s

They nominated that we need a midfield playmaker.

Jude Bolton was nominated as the great blonde hope

[TheHood]

Re: Re: Terry Wallace predicts us to make the GF

Originally posted by penga
while we do need to step it up in clearances; our low average of possessions and inside 50s are due to our more direct 'up the guts' play... while there were some pretty spectacular shots at goal last season, you would probably find most of our shots on goal are more in front on average than any other team

Is it unreasonable to suggest that:

a. We do avoid the boundary line more under Roosy then we did under (lets play the flanks) Rocket?; and
b. Our fast (and I mean fast) running game allows us the use of the middle corridor (hate that term for some reason, as well as running the lines, hate that too)?

Its a cliche a bit, but are we confident and quick enough to carry the nut up the guts and therefore deliver it in front and closer to goal?

If so then our conversion rate is not freakish in the slightest. It could however be said that it expells a hell of a lot of energy and we have to be a "freakishly" fit unit to do it for 22 Rounds plus finals.

Oh thank the lord for Goodesy!

[NMWBloods]

The Swans tend to kick more goals from general play than other sides. 61% of our goals (2nd highest), cf average of 57%.

We kick fewest goals from frees - 5% (lowest), cf average 9%.

From marks - 34%, right on average.

Our goals from snaps is also one of the highest (3rd), at 16%, cf 15% average.

We are the best converter at >30m and <50m - we make 64% of shots, cf 54% average.

Our percentage of shots in front are below average, at 57%, cf 60% average, and makes us among the lowest.

Our percentage of shots from 45deg is above average, 39%, cf average of 34%. We are one of the highest.

Shots from the boundary line are 5%, above average of 4%, equal 4th in highest proportion.

We are very accurate at converting each of these:
In front - 70% (ave 64%), 2nd highest
45 deg - 58% (ave 55%), 2nd highest
Boundary - 54% (ave 44%), 5th highest

In terms of "difficulty of goals." [definition below]

Porportion of shots:
Reg 56% (60%), Hard 34% (31%), Easy 9% (9%).

(League averages in brackets).

Conversions:
Easy - 100% (ave 96%), 2nd highest
Hard - 54% (ave 50%), 3rd highest
Reg - 68% (ave 64%), highest

Definitions
"Easy" refers to shots within 30 metres and in front of goal or on angle less than 45%
"Hard" refers to shots at goal that are greater than 50m, on difficult angle (eg. boundary) or combination of both
"Regulation" refers to all other shots that should be reasonable to expect successful conversion for an AFL player

So from the above statistics, nothing anyone has said above about us getting easier shots or more shots in front due to our style of play is correct. If anything we have harder shots, take more shots in play and take more snap shots than average.

What is getting us wins is that our goal kicking is remarkably accurate, which again raises the issue that people in the media keep referring to yet people here keep dismissing, is can our guys continue to be so accurate.

In terms of total shots at goal, we come in 10th, with 497 against the average of 506. If our incredible accuracy falls back a bit, this statistic will be of major importance and reflects on our midfield.

[chammond]

Conversions:
Easy - 100% (ave 96%), 2nd highest

Er . . . what percentage did the highest get?

What is getting us wins is that our goal kicking is remarkably accurate, which again raises the issue that people in the media keep referring to . . .

But the 'media' continually referred to it from about round 8 onwards last year. Every time we kicked a few points in a row, the pundits would declare that our flukey conversion rate had ended. Even Leigh Matthews said that it was only a matter of time . . . . Yet the forward line just kept on keeping on!

Some team has to have the best conversion rate. Why shouldn't it be the Swans, if we can keep our forward group intact?

Mind you, if you took Plugger out of the equation, the Swans would possibly have had the worst conversion rate for most of the previous decade. Maybe it's just our turn now?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
Er . . . what percentage did the highest get?

Same, but more shots.

But the 'media' continually referred to it from about round 8 onwards last year. Every time we kicked a few points in a row, the pundits would declare that our flukey conversion rate had ended. Even Leigh Matthews said that it was only a matter of time . . . . Yet the forward line just kept on keeping on!

Some team has to have the best conversion rate. Why shouldn't it be the Swans, if we can keep our forward group intact?

Mind you, if you took Plugger out of the equation, the Swans would possibly have had the worst conversion rate for most of the previous decade. Maybe it's just our turn now?

Some team does have to, but not normally by such a strong margin and without any obvious reason, such as the ones people were suggesting but were incorrect about.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Some team does have to, but not normally by such a strong margin and without any obvious reason, such as the ones people were suggesting but were incorrect about.

All the suggestions make sense.

But I reckon the most obvious answer makes the most sense: Hall, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe, Schneider and Davis are all bloody good set shots for goal, and Williams, Kirk, Bolton (and Cressa) are very good shots on the run.

Which makes a strong argument that we can keep it up.

[NMWBloods]

Yep - I agree that most of them* are all very good shots at goal. I just hope they continue to be so.

* - some exceptions - Bolton is not so good on the run nor Kirk from a set shot. I think Schneider is a bit mixed.

[Nico]

I am sure someone will have stats to refute my observation, but under Eade I was constantly frustrated at the poor kicking for goal.

Take Plugger out of the equation, as mentioned previously, and we were shockers. So why the big turnaround?

Could it be the coach?

I seem to remember when he took over he said he was going to teach them how to play footy. I don't think last year was any fluke. They kicked goals with great confidence and almost an iron discipline.

[NMWBloods]

Under Eade, from 1996-2001 we kicked 1917 goals and 1585 behinds, so a goal accuracy of 54.7%. Our opponents kicked 1709.1607, or 51.5%.

During this period (96-99), Lockett 349.159 (68.7%).

Adjusting for his kicking, during 96-01 we kicked 1568.1426 and our accuracy was thus 52.4%.

In 2003 we kicked 320.222, which is an accuracy of 59.0%. Our opponents kicked 270.242, or 52.7%.

During 2003, the league accuracy was 54.6%.

From 96-01, the league accuracy was 53.6%.