Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

[Legs Akimbo]

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

Originally posted by Go Swannies
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.

Fair point - agreed Schnieder was good in his first year. Subsequently he has been played out of position. He's also had injury problems and I think his lack of stamina has been in evidence, although being played away from the forward line is again at issue there. You don't see St Kilda playing Milne as an onballer. Roos seems to want everyone to play in the Midfield!

On the other hand, if Schnieder doesn't go, someone of the same ilk should. If you wait until you you know a player is a dud before using them in trades, then you've cocked up.

How do you think the St Kilda fans feel about swapping BBB for Del Santo and whoever the other bloke was they got. It's called a non-zero sum game - everyone wins. In this case, possibly not least of all Schnieder.

[NMWBloods]

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

Any chance you are going to respond further on this, or was it simply a cheap shot...

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Any chance you are going to respond further on this, or was it simply a cheap shot...

No it wasn't a cheap shot. Well not completely. It annoyed me when I read it as it suggested that excellence is unsustainable. It comes from an assumption that one team can't continue to kick more accurately than the others (and without a change of forwards). Perhaps long term you are right - James Hird has recently shown that his level of excellence is unsustainable, at least as he gets older and more injury prone.

You can't break it down to all averages and means. Otherwise you'd have to accept the rest of my statement that right now the Swans level of inaccuracy is well below other teams. So that, too, should rise to a mean level over time. Or why should a high level be unsustainable and a low level not?

Of course, over time team and coach changes should level the whole competition, all else being equal. In the past things were far from equal. They are now much more equal so we should be able to presume that the Swans will win their fair share of premiership flags. Perversely, in a year when the competition is remarkably even, the Swans are blowing their chances to be there at the end when their finals experience could be an advantage against other finals teams that don't have it.

But "unsustainably high" suggests embracing mediocrity (albeit statistically). The Lions performance over the past three years has been unsustainably high - as we see this year. But it brought them three premierships. Equally, I can't see why the skills of Hall, O'Loughlin and Davis can't give us a higher conversion rate than other teams. They did in the recent past. I don't see why we should accept the inevitability of decline within a season or from one season to the next. Over years, sure. But even now I keep waiting to see the sure kicking that made us such a force in 2003.

[liz]

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). 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.

Wasn't meant as an excuse from me, merely an observation - or more accurately a hunch rather than anything based on detailed analysis.

Also, there are rushed behinds and rushed behinds - some that come from genuine goal scoring opportunities that don't come off and some that arise from situations where a goal was never likely to occur.

My observation was really meant to suggest that the number of scoring shots we have had in a few games doesn't really represent the number of true opportunities the forward line has created. I think that latter statistic is a more important one than rate of conversion rate (measured simply by the goal to behind ratio) because the more opportunities you create the more you are going to score goals, even if your goal/behind ratio looks poor.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
No it wasn't a cheap shot. Well not completely. It annoyed me when I read it as it suggested that excellence is unsustainable.

It doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that an unbelievably high level is not sustainable for a length of time. That's not the same thing as saying excellence is not sustainable for a period of time (although it of course is limited too).

It comes from an assumption that one team can't continue to kick more accurately than the others (and without a change of forwards).

It is unlikely that a team can remain a long way ahead of the rest of the competition and remain there for a number of years. It hasn't happened before. In fact it hasn't even gone close to happening. That tends to suggest there are valid reasons why not.

Perhaps long term you are right - James Hird has recently shown that his level of excellence is unsustainable, at least as he gets older and more injury prone.

Lots of things affect excellence, particularly in scoring goals, and changes in a few of them can have a knock-on effect and bring the averages that bit lower.

You can't break it down to all averages and means.

You can't necessarily predict with great accuracy, however it's not unreasonable to get trend ideas.

Otherwise you'd have to accept the rest of my statement that right now the Swans level of inaccuracy is well below other teams. So that, too, should rise to a mean level over time. Or why should a high level be unsustainable and a low level not?

Yes, I did agree that our current goal kicking accuracy is so low it is bound to rise over time. I have seen this for other teams too. However, I suspect that there is more downward pressure than upward pressure on accuracy - it's much harder to regularly kick goals than miss. Still, it's a very professional competition these days, so the conversion levels don't say extraordinarily low for long either.

Of course, over time team and coach changes should level the whole competition, all else being equal. In the past things were far from equal. They are now much more equal so we should be able to presume that the Swans will win their fair share of premiership flags. Perversely, in a year when the competition is remarkably even, the Swans are blowing their chances to be there at the end when their finals experience could be an advantage against other finals teams that don't have it.

Things are much more even now, which is why I find our performance in a year of such opportunity frustrating. However it is only people who don't understand analysis who actually think you can use it to directly predict anything. There are so many more variables involved that it is simply used as a guide.

Nevertheless, in some cases it is so compelling that it provides a strong case - for example a team might kick 20+ goals 6 weeks in a row, but the evidence suggests this is not sustainable. Common sense suggests it's not also, for a variety of reasons.

But "unsustainably high" suggests embracing mediocrity (albeit statistically).

No it's not. That is a massive misunderstanding of what I said. I said the 2003 level was unsustainably high. Only 6 times in 10 years, that's 6 times out of 160 teams, has 59% or more accuracy been managed. Sydney is the only team to do it twice and the last time was back in 1998.

Only 19 times out of 160 has more than 57% been managed. Sydney and St Kilda are the only teams to have done it in consecutive years and no one has done it for three.

There is a reason for this - it is very hard to maintain that ultra high level.

That doesn't mean I believe you have to drop back the being average (which is not really the same thing as being mediocre). The average level is 54%. A team might drop back to say 55%, maintain it there and then move back up. That is not accepting mediocrity - in fact it is doing extremely well as few teams even go close to that.

However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that maintaining an incredibly high 59% for a number of years is unsustainable.

The Lions performance over the past three years has been unsustainably high - as we see this year. But it brought them three premierships.

Yes, but they did it without an incredible accuracy margin. They relied on a variety of different factors, such as player skill, strength, game plan, etc. In fact their conversion ratio was below average in each of their flag years - they relied more on having a lot of scoring shots (first or second for each of those three years) than needing to make every one count.

Equally, I can't see why the skills of Hall, O'Loughlin and Davis can't give us a higher conversion rate than other teams. They did in the recent past. I don't see why we should accept the inevitability of decline within a season or from one season to the next. Over years, sure. But even now I keep waiting to see the sure kicking that made us such a force in 2003.

Other teams also have professional players who kick well, so equally they should expect higher than average conversion ratios too. The league is full of highly professional players who practice their kicking for goal extensively and so the average level is actually very good, not mediocre.

I want our conversion ratio to increase, and I expect it will because at 45% it is pretty much at the lowest level of any team in the past decade. However, as I noted elsewhere, more importantly I want to see us have more shots at goal. The team that wins the flag may not always be the most accurate, but they usually have a lot of shots at goal.

In the past decade, the eventual premiers have scored more than 28 times per game every time (usually around 30), except for Adelaide who were about 27. This year we've had 24, in 2004 we had 23, and in 2003 just under 25. Under Eade it was between 26 and 27 every year.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Wasn't meant as an excuse from me, merely an observation - or more accurately a hunch rather than anything based on detailed analysis.

Also, there are rushed behinds and rushed behinds - some that come from genuine goal scoring opportunities that don't come off and some that arise from situations where a goal was never likely to occur.

My observation was really meant to suggest that the number of scoring shots we have had in a few games doesn't really represent the number of true opportunities the forward line has created. I think that latter statistic is a more important one than rate of conversion rate (measured simply by the goal to behind ratio) because the more opportunities you create the more you are going to score goals, even if your goal/behind ratio looks poor.

I had just noticed that a few people had started raising it as part accuracy discussion, probably because we had a few against WC (although they had more) and an awful lot against Melbourne.

I agree that the RB can distort accuracy and it does depend on their type, however I think stats on that may be difficult to get. I have often noticed that a lot of RBs can be a good sign as it shows your opponents are under pressure. However, there are obviously exceptions to that.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I had just noticed that a few people had started raising it as part accuracy discussion, probably because we had a few against WC (although they had more) and an awful lot against Melbourne.

I agree that the RB can distort accuracy and it does depend on their type, however I think stats on that may be difficult to get. I have often noticed that a lot of RBs can be a good sign as it shows your opponents are under pressure. However, there are obviously exceptions to that.

Rushed behinds are also a sign that your forwards aren't taking marks.

And you need to consider the other side of the coin - out of bounds on the full when shooting for goal. We have a few of those, too but they don't show on the goal/behind figures.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
Rushed behinds are also a sign that your forwards aren't taking marks.

Yep - it can indicate a lack of crumbing.

And you need to consider the other side of the coin - out of bounds on the full when shooting for goal. We have a few of those, too but they don't show on the goal/behind figures.

Sure, but there are typically not a lot of them per game. On average you get about 2 per game. Not enormously different to the number of RBs actually, just slightly less.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
You can't break it down to all averages and means.

Yes you can and I think you should try and get a copy of a book called "Moneyball" and then get back to me.

In anycase lets not beat around the bush, the accuracy of our shots at goal aren't the reason we aren't winning, nor is the amount of rushed behinds a factor - its because our midfield and defence have changed so much from how the played and lined up in 2003, that not only has our accuracy at goal gone down, but so has the amount of ball going into the forward 50 and the amount of shots on goal.

Part of the problem is that we have gone from a free flowing gameplan in 2003 to a controled style of play in 2004 and this season. The suggestion by Schneiderman that the 2005 Swans are the same team using the same gameplan as 2003 is so wrong and mis-guided that I'm sitting here beating my head against the keyboard.

You want a key difference Schneiderman?? I'll give you one and that Leo Barry. No longer does he attack off Half Back like he did in 2003, setting up attack after attack. Since he has become more of a man on man defender (a role he has done ever so well) the amount of drive and attack of Half Back is gone and in turn the pressure to provide that drive and attack has effected the game of Tadhg Kennelly who now is the key focus of other teams, who block him coming out of defence like he did in 2003, by trying and dragging him close to goal and making him accountable.

Our problem is a simple one to fix gameplan wise and could be done this week if Roos wanted. But a reason why a change in gameplan won't change things that much is that we don't have the talent in midfield to mix it with the best (Attack wise. As pointed out by some others the midfield isn't chipping in with goals like they did. How offen have you seen Williams burst out of the centre, towards goal and slot one though? Same with Schneider, Kennelly and even Kirk and Jude) and our defence is all over the shop because of key injuries and players used in positions that DON'T suit the team or at the very least other players within that them.

Our problems aren't basic like some put them down to. They are complex and will take time to fix, but at this stage all we can do is change the gameplan, get the team as fit as possible and pick a team based on form and give some rookies a chance to prove if they have talent first of all and the can fill a need teamwise (attacking goalkicking midfielder for a start).

Confidence isn't the problem, goalkicking isn't, nor is it the coach. Its a mixture of factors that will see us fall down the ladder unless things start to change. I will add that this is how Roos has to prove himself now (despite what Footyhead says, sacking Roos now WON'T solve matters). If not by the end of next season a debate can be entered into whether or not Roos has the abilty to lead us to a premiership.

No need for rash decisions or throwing the baby out with the bath waters (despite my call for team selection changes, that's a slowly slowly process with underperforming, suspended or injured players dropped).

Lets get behind the team, hope for the best and if that mean we miss the finals and fall down the ladder then fine, as long as we try as hard as we can and make some process (remember in some cases you have to go backwards to go forwards) I don't really care. I just want the team to start to plan towards a proper charge at a premiership, not a quick fix like we have followed for the best part of a decade.