Eade : We flooded too much

[floppinab]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/AFL/Only-memories-will-flood-back-when-Eade-returns-to-SCG/2005/05/16/1116095907387.html

However, as he prepares to return to the SCG for the first time with his resurgent Western Bulldogs, he admits one misgiving: "If I look back now, we did flood too much."

I reckon it'd be a great idea for the SCG Trust to leave a big box of smashed handpieces in the visies coaches box as a nice gift

[BonBon]

One of the commentators said that Port couldn't do much because they had flooded.

[Schneiderman]

Thanks Rodney. Hindsight is a powerful weapon, even when used against yourself

[NMWBloods]

"While that might seem rich coming from Eade, he has always insisted his form of flooding was generally attacking, with players behind the ball running forward into space, not merely congregating around the opposition's tall forwards. The tactic for which the Swans have been criticised is their apparent flooding of the midfield and desire to create scrimmages."

I think this is a major difference between our flooding and that undertaken by most other teams.

Interesting that Roos says - "You think you can control the game and as I said, what I've learnt in 2? years is that the coach has not that much impact."

Yet, I think the coach can make a tactical difference - Eade certainly has in past games.

"As it is, on Sunday, he will for the first time jog up the stairs and into the visiting coach's box at the SCG - right next door to the one he would occasionally vandalise - and try to plot the Swans' downfall. "It could be a funny feeling," he says. "I haven't thought about it that much. But I'd like to think the supporters enjoyed my time in Sydney and what the club achieved. Mostly, I think about it that way."

LOL - good on you Rodney!!

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[i]"I think this is a major difference between our flooding and that undertaken by most other teams.

Flooding the midfield was a tactic used by Eade at his time at the Swans. It was not instigated by Roos.

[NMWBloods]

No, but I mean that we 'flood' all over the ground with the purpose of bottling the game up and forcing stoppages. Eade's midfield flood was more about placing pressure on the opposing midfield and forcing turnovers to create counterattacks.

Simply goes back to my old points - we are too defensively minded. We haven't kicked 20 goals or more since 2003. We've kicked more than 15 goals only 7 times in 39 outings.

And this is generally what Eade is saying and given we kicked more goals under him than under Roos, there is substance to this.

We had only 503 scoring shots in 2004. That is our lowest since 1972 when we won 2 games and managed only 483 scoring shots. Under Eade we averaged 584 per H&A season.

[giant]

Fairish point NMW. But of course if you're kicking straight you an afford to have less shots. When you're not kicking straight then the game plan does look awfully exposed.

[NMWBloods]

Yes, but that means you have no plan B. As I discussed in another thread, most sides don't rely on freakish accuracy to do well - they rely on having a lot of shots at goal.

No one finishing top 4 has less than 560 shots at goal, and typically it's 600 or more. An extra 60 shots at goal will normally mean another goal and a half per game - could make a difference of one or two wins in a season.

Last year we kicked straight yet our offensive production was still quite limited - we won mainly because we clogged up the game and made it hard for anyone to score. Of course, as well as being mind-numbingly boring, we saw how badly that can unravel.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We had only 503 scoring shots in 2004. That is our lowest since 1972 when we won 2 games and managed only 483 scoring shots. Under Eade we averaged 584 per H&A season.

And this had nothing to do of course with the fact that we had:

Tony Lockett - greatest FF ever
Paul Kelly - our best in-and-under midfielder since who knows when
Darryn Cresswell
Paul Roos - record number of AA guernseys
and Andrew Dunkley

With a spine and midfield like that, getting more scoring shots than we can now is no great accomplishment. The comparison between the teams would only be fair if the teams were the same.

The closest we can come in comparison is between Eade in 2002, and Roos in 2002/2003. I think Roos is miles in front.

[NMWBloods]

What about other sides who don't have those players who still manage more scoring shots than our low number? Typically at most 2 or 3 teams manage less than 500 scoring shots per year. How do all the others manage to have more than us then?

In 2000 and 2001 we still managed over 580 scoring shots, with no Lockett or Roos, or Kelly for half the time.

I'd also note that from '76-'85 we managed over 600 shots per game, and hardly a team of stars, and we even had more shots in ever other year since '72, as I noted and you conveniently ignored, than in 2004.

[bricon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods


I'd also note that from '76-'85 we managed over 600 shots per game

I gotta admit that's impressive.

[NMWBloods]

It was a very attacking time...

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'd also note that from '76-'85 we managed over 600 shots per [season], and hardly a team of stars, and we even had more shots in ever other year since '72, as I noted and you conveniently ignored, than in 2004.

The game in the '70's and '80's was a more attacking style of game than it is now. How do the 10 Victorian teams compare over the same time period?

A simple way to do the comparison is to add the totals for all clubs and then divide by the number of games. This will give the average per game.

[NMWBloods]

Yes, a more attacking and interesting game back then.

In 1972, the league averaged 590 shots per season, we had 483 (82%).

From 1973 to 1979, the league averaged 620 shots, we had 600 (97%).

From 1980 to 1985, the league averaged 647 shots, we had 640 (99%).

From 1986 to 1988, the league averaged 618 shots, we had 700 (113%).

From 1989 to 1995, the league averaged 622 shots, we had 578 (92%).

From 1996 to 2001, the league averaged 573 shots, we had 584 (102%).

From 2003 to 2005, the league averaged 557 shots, we had 527 (96%).

So, the Swans generally average below the league average. The only times above for 'extended periods' were in the 'relatively successful' mid to late 1980s period and under Eade. Last year's 91% was the worst since 1994.

The league average has definitely dropped, but a lot of this has been from the mid-table teams, while the high teams seem to have kept fairly high scoring shot levels.

Here is a chart.

[Mark]

Whilst i agree with your original assertion (ie we are currently too negative) those stats dont really refelect or substantiate your argument do they ?

We are basically around the mean (or thereabouts)

As you have already pointed out comparing last few years to 10/15 years ago is meaningless, as the game has changed so much in that time.

I know you love your stats, but the relevance here seems a bit moot ?