Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
And if you think that it is purely statistical then no doubt our low conversion rate at present is unsustainably low? So just as we had to drop, now we don't have to do anything but wait for it to improve?

Is this meant to be a serious question or facetious nonsense?

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Is this meant to be a serious question or facetious nonsense?

"Unsustainably high" was a nonsense statement so I thought I'd continue the thread.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They kicked 15.14 and missed some easy chances. But their accuracy is not stellar this year, however they are not relying on that.

But in the wet it was miles ahead of us. And the accuracy is improving ominously as the confidence grows. Even St Kilda went through the same pattern last year until we burst the bubble.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
"Unsustainably high" was a nonsense statement so I thought I'd continue the thread.

Okay then, if it is such nonsense, how many teams in the past few years have managed to maintain conversion accuracy over 57% for more than a couple of years? How many teams manage that high in a year? How many manage more than 59% (our mark in 2003)? What is average? What is the lowest in the past few years? What is the highest?

You must know these things if you think my comment was nonsense...

Of course our accuracy will probably improve as it is very bad at the moment. That doesn't mean that it was not unsustainable high in 2003.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But in the wet it was miles ahead of us.

So would anyone's have been, however what does that have to do with 2003 being unsustainably high?

And the accuracy is improving ominously as the confidence grows.

Whose accuracy is improving ominously?

Of course accuracy is partly linked to confidence, as so much is. However, that still doesn't mean we would be able to sustain the 2003 accuracy levels.

Even St Kilda went through the same pattern last year until we burst the bubble.

Are you basing that on anything or making it up? As it happens, in the rest of the H&A season after we beat them, St Kilda's accuracy was higher than in the first part of the season. They were pretty accurate beforehand too and there is no trend upwards. It was accurate from the begiining of the year.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Challenge number one is to create a couple of genuine goal kicking options other than Hall. Magic should provide one of them in due course but we need more. It will deliver goals to them but the main beneficiary in the longer run should be Hall.

I think this is even more critical than accuracy (which is very important also).

If you adjust most of the players' goalkicking to be similar to their 2003 accuracy, then our number of goals per game increases from 11.5 to 13.2. This is still below the competition average of 13.7, on par with our opposition's average, and well below our 2003 average of 14.5.

We need more shots at goal, as noted before.

Typically you expect 26 scoring shots per game, with the better teams normally managing 27-29. We currently have 24. In 2003 we managed 25.

[liz]

And add to that the fact that many of our "scoring shots" have been rushed behinds - not genuine shots just touched on the line but the opposition taking it through with ease because of the way it has come into the forward line.

I know most teams will have a few of these but we seem to have had a lot for the last few weeks.

The lack of a decent crumber is also making it easier for the opposition.

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by liz
The lack of a decent crumber is also making it easier for the opposition.

Isn't that how Carlton did it in '95?

[Young Blood]

Its true that our accuracy has been down this year. But its a symptom of our problems - not the cause. In each of our losses this year we have been the poorer side.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Young Blood
Its true that our accuracy has been down this year. But its a symptom of our problems - not the cause. In each of our losses this year we have been the poorer side.

That's right. We can lament the poor kicking for goals as much as we like, but there are bigger problems.

Even with reasonably accurate kicking, we still would have lost against West Coast (8 less shots excluding rushed behinds), Melbourne (4 less), and Adelaide (6 less).

[giant]

Originally posted by liz
And add to that the fact that many of our "scoring shots" have been rushed behinds - not genuine shots just touched on the line but the opposition taking it through with ease because of the way it has come into the forward line.

I know most teams will have a few of these but we seem to have had a lot for the last few weeks.

The lack of a decent crumber is also making it easier for the opposition.

Liz, I've noticed this (the # of rushed pts) as well & I doubt that this is taken into a/c in assessing accuracy. [Not sure what this is indicative of, other than more evidence that we're not taking contested marks or crumbing well] Against Melb we also had 2 (maybe 3?) touched on the line.

That said, it's clear we're missing shots we would've kicked last year and neither Hall nor MOL are kicking with confidence.

[NMWBloods]

There seems to be a sudden leap to latch hold of rushed behinds to partly excuse our poor conversion because we had a lot in one game (6 against Melbourne). We have had 14 RBs for the year. Take these out and our conversion accuracy improves from 45% to 50%. Big improvement but still clearly the worst in the competition.

As a comparison, Essendon (the next least accurate) have had 15 RBs, the Kangaroos (the most accurate) have had 9 RBs, and Melbourne (the second most accurate) have had 15 RBs.

So, 14 RBs is not extraordinarily high. Proportionally, applying our number of RBs in 2003 to our 2005 scoring shots, we would have had 11 RBs - not enormously different to now.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
There seems to be a sudden leap to latch hold of rushed behinds to partly excuse our poor conversion because we had a lot in one game (6 against Melbourne).

I knew someone here would have the stats so well done. My point was simply that w/o RB our conversion would look better, which you've confirmed, but that there is still clearly a lack of confidence with set shots in particular, which you've also demonstrated from the stats.

[Legs Akimbo]

Re: Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

Originally posted by Rod_
Swans don't have depth and won't if we don't continue playing these medium to average guys. We never will!

Astute comment.

Before the season started I thought we had depth. I looked at the fixture and decided we could win 18 games. I was wrong on both counts.

Our 'depth' is in smalls and medium size defensive players who do not influence games in their own right. This is bad policy. I'd rather have 4-5 high quality game busting match-winners, another 10 second tier players, a few card-board cut-outs, and be 'forced' to leave space for new bloods each week.

Why?

1. Because to win the flag you have to have luck with injuries - that's the way of it. Having 'depth' in so-so players only ensures middle-of-the-ladder placing when injuries do occur. Better to fall in a heap for reasons that I don't need to spell out.

2. It makes it necessary to play new players in the real stuff, not Canberra. We can make a much earlier judgement on the quality of players whereas the current policy (3 years in Canberra) just breeds mediocrity and slows development and turnover.

4. As several others have noted, champions make the middle rung guys look a lot better.

4. I like watching exciting footy, not error riddled defensive stoppage laden muck.

In retrospect, drafting Spriggs was a huge mistake because it has meant a middle range player has ended up playing a lot of reserves footy - either Spriggs, fosdike or someone else. It has prevented some of the younger group getting much needed experience. Ditto not trading on some of our middle range small-medium types (ie. Fosdike, Buchanon, Schiender, etc). Our predicament is a symptom of some dumb thinking over the last 12 months.

However, I feel that the current slide down the ladder and comment on style of play is good for the club. It will bring about a rethink of our drafting policy and team structure. Whether Roos is part of that remains to be seen.

1. Trade some of the middle level players for 1st round selections
2. Give the younger blokes some game time
3. Open up and simplify the game plan starting now

Finally, is it coincidence that we sue the main draft for little guys and use the rooky draft for bigger bodies?

[Go Swannies]

Re: Re: Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Ditto not trading on some of our middle range small-medium types (ie. Fosdike, Buchanon, Schiender, etc). Our predicament is a symptom of some dumb thinking over the last 12 months.

The most exciting young new player I have seen for the Swans was Schneider when he burst onto the scene in R1 of 2003. We know he is not playing well - but we also know he can. Isn't it early to think of trading him? If he went on to be a star for another team, that would fill acres of threads on RWO.

Also, Buchanan has done some good stuff. He's now a mediocre player in a mediocre team. Let's wait to see how he plays when (if?) the team is on song.