Secondary Goal-kickers Stat

[midaro]

Nothing you didn't already know, but hey...

.....................Games..Goals..Ave
Michael O'Loughlin...6......9......1.5
Nick Davis...........7......11.....1.6
Adam Schneider.......5......8......1.6

18 of a possible 36 games.
Add 30 odd goals to our season and where would we be?

I think there's something in that for all of us...

[liz]

It's not quite that simplistic, because you'd have to consider removing the seven goals from each of Saddo and Nicks, who have each spent time up forward that they might not have, had all of Schneids, Magic and Davis been around for each game.

Schneider and Davis are actually tracking ahead in their average goals per game stat this year compared to last, though for Davis that is misleading given that 8 of his 11 goals have come in just a game and a half of football.

O'Loughlin's GPG average is just over a goal lower than for last year, which might be contributed to by the fact that he's been in an out and hasn't really had a chance to get into the groove yet. But his goal kicking stats are quite uneven, in that he will tend to kick one or two in most games, but then get the odd haul of five or six that really bumps his average up. He hasn't had one of those games yet this year but I'm sure there are a couple just around the corner.

Overall the team is 26 goals down on where it was after 12 games last year, but remember that we saw that amazing accuracy last year. I don't have comparable figures for total shots on goal (though I know I could get them from Mike's stats) but my back of the envelope calculation suggests that they are tracking about the same.

But as I wrote in a POTW article a couple of weeks back, I think it has been the leakage at the other end that has been more telling than a let down at the scoring end.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by midaro
Add 30 odd goals to our season and where would we be?

Originally posted by lizz
Overall the team is 26 goals down on where it was after 12 games last year

We would have kicked another 2 goals a game on average. If we add 2 goals per game:
* we would have beaten Brisbane in round 1 by 10 points.
* We would have drawn with Melbourne in round 5.
* We would have beaten the Bombers in round 6 by 2 points.
* We would have lost to Richmond in round 7 by a point.

We would be 8 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses, and third on the ladder (with Melbourne just above us on percentage)

Of course, this is just speculation. But it does show that we can be up there if we have a good season. I think we will slip under the radar again in 2005, and 2005 will be a better season for us than 2003. Think of all those kids we've got running around, getting game time and experience. How many of them will have 25 to 50 games by round 1 next year?

[NMWBloods]

I think Liz's general point is right.

This year we have kicked 155.137.

Our opponents have kicked 155.122.

Last year to rd 12 we kicked 181.115.

Our opponents have kicked 145.125.


Therefore we have had only 4 less scoring shots than last year. However, our opponents have had 7 more scoring shots.

Last year our accuracy was 61% against our opponent's 54%.

This year our accuracy was 53% against our opponent's 56%.


Some people underestimated the enormous benefit we gained last year from our phenomenal conversion. Added to that, a little less midfield pressure, a tougher time in the back half, plus less of our own goals have contributed to more goals by opponents.

Also, I don't think there is a single game we've lost this year due to bad kicking.

A few subtle differences in accuracy and no. of shots from last year turns an 8-4 season with a net point differential of +206 into a 6-6 season with a net point differential of +15.

Note the gap in the net points differential between the seasons is 191, of which 146 are accounted for by Carlton last year and Port this year.

We've been close this year, but not had the personnel at times and ability/attitude at other times to close out games.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Also, I don't think there is a single game we've lost this year due to bad kicking.

Arguably the Brisbane game.

I don't have the Lions score to hand for that game, and it may well be that their accuracy was no better than ours. But throughout their period of dominance, the Lions have not been great converters in front of goal. They tend to get high scores because they create so so many scoring opportunities, rather than making the most of those they have.

Stats on their own don't reflect the quality of the goal kicking because they don't distinguish between the "acceptable" misses and rushed behinds, and the real missed sitters. My (admittedly now hazy) memory of that game is that we missed five or six really simple shots on goal that should have been nailed. The Ball miss is the one that we remember, but there were many others throughout the game.

[NMWBloods]

That is the only game that could be argued we lost due to inaccuracy, however Brisbane kicked 11.14 to our 11.12. We missed some easy ones, but I seem to recollect they did too (they certainly missed some sitters last year when we beat them at the Gabba).

Over the past three year's Brisbanes accuracy has been 54%, which is only average. But, as you suggest, they combine reasonable accuracy with a lot of shots - they have been in the top 2 for total scores in that time - and good defence - they have been in the top 5 for lowest scores against.

[Go Swannies]

At the trivia night one of the questions was "who was the Swans' third highest goal scorer - and how many goals did he kick?" The answer was Nick Davis with 30-ish goals. Nick then called to Magic that he would have kicked more if he'd given him the ball more often. It was very funny at the time - he later complained that he never got to play full forward because somehow the goal square is now Aboriginal sacred land with Magic as the custodian.

[Mike_B]

We have kicked 155.113 of our boots this year (the other 24 behinds have been rushed). This is compared with 181.96 (with another 19 rushed) to the same point last year.

So 1043 points this year compared to 1182 at the same point last year (excluding rushed behinds) from only 9 less scoring shots. So accuracy is a big difference this year compared to last - 57.8% compared with 65.3%.

Unfortunately I don't have the stats on the other teams in the league based on scoring excluding rushed behinds for a comparison of scoring shots actually kicked by each team.

[Thunder Shaker]

I think the point with the accuracy underscores how fortunate we were last year. Had we had an average conversion rate last year, instead of the best in the comp, we would have finished maybe seventh or eighth.

Two things have happened to us this year that place us lower on the ladder this year than last year:
(1) Our conversion rate has gone from the best last year to about average this year.
(2) We have had a lot more injuries this year.

The consequence of (1) is that we have lost a few close games that we would have won had we had last year's conversion rates (Brisbane by 2 points, Essendon by 10 points, Melbourne 12 points, Richmond 13 points). We didn't lose those games due to bad conversion as NMW pointed out. Instead, had we had last year's conversion rate we would have kicked maybe an extra 15 points of score (3 extra behinds converted to goals), thus winning us an extra 4 games. That would have put us second on the ladder, behind St Kilda on percentage.

In light of that, I actually think we've made a bit of progress this year compared to last year - our kids are getting game time. All we need is a side close to full strength, and we would be a tough challenge for most sides.

[swansrule100]

the main point isnt the comparison of goals for or against its the fact that at the moment we are 6 wins and 6 losses and hanging on for dear life in the 8 and last year we were 7 and 4 and considered a genuine premiership threat

our forwards can only be as good as the midfield allows them to be

my point?? well nothing im just posting

[NMWBloods]

I can't even begin to point out all the flaws in this post...

[Nico]

I think Midaro's basic premise has merit. Over the years top sides have had multiple, consistent goalkickers. This includes sides that did not necessarily win the flag.

A team with specialist, consistent goalkickers always performs in the upper half of the ladder. When those players get injured their replacements may pereform OK but they don't have the same impact.

I recall back in the 80's the Bulldogs had a gun forward line of which Jim Edmond was one. They had a huge haul of goals between them for a season or 2. When that forward line was split up for various reasons the Dogs went backwards in a hurry.
It was so obvious, and they could not find replacements.

[Snowy]

Your point is valid Liz, but when they measure games by goals they should also consider game time. A few of those players have actually spent a lot of their game time on the bench due to injuries.

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I can't even begin to point out all the flaws in this post...

*punches you in the head *

my point is who cares what u score.... if u score 30 every week and win thats all that matters

last year we were a premiership chance at the moment we could easily miss the finals or just make up the numbers thats the major difference :P

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrule100
*punches you in the head *

my point is who cares what u score.... if u score 30 every week and win thats all that matters

last year we were a premiership chance at the moment we could easily miss the finals or just make up the numbers thats the major difference :P

So you don't 'punch' me again, I'll point out what I was referring to:

"the main point isnt"
"my point?? well nothing im just posting"

So first you say you have a point, then you say you have no point, but just posting. Which is it?

"the main point isnt the comparison of goals for or against its the fact that at the moment we are 6 wins and 6 losses and hanging on for dear life in the 8 and last year we were 7 and 4 and considered a genuine premiership threat"

Firstly, the easy one - we were 8 & 4 this time last year. Secondly, no one really considered us a genuine premiership threat.
Thirdly, of course the goals for and against matter as that's what determines who wins. It can provide some degree of explanation of why a team is performing better or worse.