Hall v Neitz - Most goals

[CHF]

Originally posted by penga
this is what i was getting at, thanks to nick's analysis...

http://redandwhiteonline.com/content.php?id=233_0_2_0_C

not much to hang your hat on



my glasses are seeming pretty clear now eh, yours getting rosier and rosier!!!

care to retort?

I am not hanging my hat on that stat.

You asked for a justification for saying that the game would be closer an a percentage booster for your team and I have done that.

We can, as I stated in my agrument, only play and beat the teams you are schedule to play.

I will test the rosieness of my glasses come lat Saturday evening.

As a note: The age 'expert' tipsters all tip the Swans except for one. Average winning margin picked as around 3-4 goals. a couple have less than a goal, and the one that went for the Dees have them winning by 8 pts.

[penga]

Originally posted by CHF
We can, as I stated in my agrument, only play and beat the teams you are schedule to play.

but your form has been against these cellar-dweller (except port) sides to which you have been praising

the 6-10 record of your opponents could well be the reason why you are playing so well

[liz]

Originally posted by sharp9
We didn't massively overpossess, Lizz. There were about four occassions in the match where we didn't move slickly out of defence. On about twenty other occassions we either went very quickly or used A LOT of possessions to engineer a man in space....that's not over possessing, that's confidence that repeated quick use of in close skill will give you the reward of being able to run forward in numbers.

Far rather that than kicking quickly to an Ablett/O'Keefe/Schneider one out contest on the wing.

Hall BTW

We had almost 400 possessions, yet only created 30 or so scoring shots. To me that represents, prima facie, over possession. To back this up:

- essentially our game plan hasn't changed since last year (or doesn't appear to have)

- last year we were close to the lowest in the league for total possessions over the season despite our lofty finish (indicating we should have had more of the ball than most of our opponents)

- this year we are second to this point of the season.

That suggests to me that, even within the context of our game plan, we are touching the ball "too often".

There was a thread last week about the team's tendency to hand-ball and I came out with a strong support of that tactic. I stand by that so far as moving the ball out of defence, or even the way we clear the ball from stoppages in the middle of the ground.

However, there were many occasions on Sunday that a player running through the midfield, in the corridor, in space, handballed sideways to an almost stationary or slow running team mate as soon as they had the ball, without even looking forward to see if there was a target forward in space. Fosdike, in particular, was guilty of this as was Willo a couple of times.

This was a tendancy that Steve picked up on in the previous thread and the evidence on Sunday supported his observation. In the final quarter, especially, a lot of those handballs started going astray.

I'm not advocating a change in the way the Swans play - just a slight tweak to not get "handball happy" in the midfield. With the dominance we had last week and the way the forward line was functioning, we should have created closer to 40 or 50 scoring shots, not 30, I reckon.

[CHF]

Originally posted by penga
but your form has been against these cellar-dweller (except port) sides to which you have been praising

the 6-10 record of your opponents could well be the reason why you are playing so well

Hey penga,

each of the teams we have beaten, Port included we have beaten convincingly.

I pointed out this fact in my original response.

Richmond by 10 goals.
Doggies by 2 goals after kicking 12.25
Port by 8 goals.

The fact that they have gone 6-10 in their other games is, to my mind, is irrelavent. I put that stat in the same basket as I place the stats of 2002 and 2003 when I am looking at Round 5 2004.

Please address my original response to your post.

[NMWBloods]

What's amazing about the game against the Kangaroos is that we had only 46 Inside 50s. With 390 possessions, that's a staggering 8.5 possessions per I50. At least when we got it in there (as Dermott said and Liz commented on in another thread) we were efficient, as we had scoring attempts on 76% (which is huge!!) of the I50s (39% goals, 26% behinds, 11% misses).

The high level of possessions per I50 does indicate we did overpossess a little in the midfield. We run a very fine line between fiddling around with ball and getting ourselves into trouble, and moving the ball very swiftly and effectively and wrong-footing our opponents.

[penga]

Originally posted by CHF
Hey penga,

each of the teams we have beaten, Port included we have beaten convincingly.

I pointed out this fact in my original response.

Richmond by 10 goals.
Doggies by 2 goals after kicking 12.25
Port by 8 goals.

The fact that they have gone 6-10 in their other games is, to my mind, is irrelavent. I put that stat in the same basket as I place the stats of 2002 and 2003 when I am looking at Round 5 2004.

Please address my original response to your post.

what do u wnat me to address?

the point is though that those teams that you have beaten convincingly are not convincing teams themselves... additionally, all games have been at the 'g... i suggest that you have had a pretty soft draw to date...

whereas we have had:

gabba (can you talk down brisbane's team please)
scg (fremantle only beat the wobbles away - granted they still have travel issues)
scg (faced geelong after a good kick up the arse and cressa helped their cause)
manuka (we have a pretty ordinary record at this ground and faced the "in-form team of the comp")

i think that your performances can not be drawn on yet as good form due to your opponents that you have faced

[CHF]

penga,

I can see that this is not going anywhere so I will be around on Monday morning to discuss it further.

Good luck to you and ya team on Saturday.

[penga]

Originally posted by CHF
penga,

I can see that this is not going anywhere so I will be around on Monday morning to discuss it further.

Good luck to you and ya team on Saturday.

i take that as an agreement with me that you have had a soft draw then...

[Bleed Red Blood]

Hall.

[CHF]

Take it any way you like penga.

But try taking the rose coloured glasses off and re-reading the thread.

My opinion is, that of the three games we have won, we have won each one convincingly against one team that was undeafeated, one that had won by 9 goals the previous week and one that, with a little luck could have won their two previous games.

That is what I am basing my belief that we have some pretty good form going into Saturday night's game.

[Ganjaman]

Both sides are showing decent form. I reckon this match will be close one.

My tip is Bazza will kick 5 and Neitz 3. With the Bloods taking the 4 points.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by hemsleys
Hall

Um err, I changed my mind I think Neitz will kick atleast 6 and Hall mmm maybe only 4.

[penga]

humble pie time

CHF

the game as i predicted it only lasted for the first quarter

your prediction was true for the remainding three - they dug deep and came up with the W

i think i can confidently say - without looking at any stats yet - that the demons SMASHED us out of the middle

[CHF]

Re: humble pie time

Originally posted by penga
CHF

the game as i predicted it only lasted for the first quarter

your prediction was true for the remainding three - they dug deep and came up with the W

i think i can confidently say - without looking at any stats yet - that the demons SMASHED us out of the middle

Thanks penga,

I enjoyed the game. Our boys played as I expected. Pressure all over the ground with Our forwards having a decisive edge over your defence.

We paid a price though with injuries to both McDonald and Wheatley.

Any win interstate is pure gold, and against a team that was in form as Sydney was it is even better.

Good luck for the rest of the season and it will be interesting to see the return bout.