Eade : We flooded too much

[NMWBloods]

Last year we were 9% below the average - that's 51 shots per year or just over 1 goal per game. That could be quite meaningful in the end result. Also, it's a comparison to the average not the top sides - we are well below the top sides.

[Sean]

*Silly question posted without looking at chart. Please ignore.*

[cruiser]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Here is a chart.

That's really interesting - thanks. Am not surprised to see such a spike in 87. Those three consecutive big scoring games at the SCG that year helped. It was also one of Capper's best years.

[ScottH]

Do you have that sort of data for any other clubs, Bloods? So we can see who are above avg and below avg teams.

[NMWBloods]

I could probably produce it eventually - take a little while to do though.

Also, just comparing the Swans against the top quartile each year since 1972, we are still at our one of worst lows.

In 1972, the top 3 averaged 635 shots per season, we had 483 (76%).

From 1973 to 1979, the top 3 averaged 673 shots, we had 600 (89%).

From 1980 to 1985, the top 3 averaged 707 shots, we had 640 (91%).

From 1986 to 1988, the top 4 averaged 686 shots, we had 700 (102%).

From 1989 to 1995, the top 4 averaged 659 shots, we had 578 (88%).

From 1996 to 2001, the top 4 averaged 630 shots, we had 584 (93%).

From 2003 to 2005, the top 4 averaged 610 shots, we had 527 (86%).

In 2004, the top 4 averaged 618 shots and we managed 503 shots (81%). This is equal with 1993 and the lowest since 1972.

We've virtually never been a high scoring team, however I think under Roos we are around our lowest levels. Given the talent in the team is far superior than when we had some of our lowest efforts, it does say there is something wrong.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Given the talent in the team is far superior than when we had some of our lowest efforts, it does say there is something wrong.

Given the talent in the FWD line, now, you would expect much more, too.

[NMWBloods]

Yep!

BTW - here is a similar chart for Essendon.

Not hugely different in terms of trend shape, although it is higher on average.

[ScottH]

Yep, 'cept for the late 70's and a few glitch years most are above.

Also interesting to note that the AFL Avg has come down since about '94 and stayed down, except for 2000.

[ROK Lobster]

Back on topic. Terrific gamesmanship from Rockett. Wants to turn it in to a shoot-out. Roos will go the other way. Expect a dour game Sunday ladies and gentlemen.

[NMWBloods]

When have you even followed a topic!!

Should be a very interesting game!!

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
When have you even followed a topic!!

Only when no one else does. And at least one of those !'s should be a ?.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We've virtually never been a high scoring team, however I think under Roos we are around our lowest levels. Given the talent in the team is far superior than when we had some of our lowest efforts, it does say there is something wrong.

This might be asking a bit much but do you have other stats that relate to those that you have posted. Things like Inside 50s, Marks Inside 50 and so on.

It might be interesting to see if our Inside 50s relate to goals or if the problem is actually caused by our forward line not being as good as we think.

For example, I've had the feeling this season that we are getting the ball inside 50 quite a bit - comparable with most other teams - but we aren't converting. It's only a feeling though - haven't seen any stats to confirm it.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sean
This might be asking a bit much but do you have other stats that relate to those that you have posted. Things like Inside 50s, Marks Inside 50 and so on.

It might be interesting to see if our Inside 50s relate to goals or if the problem is actually caused by our forward line not being as good as we think.

For example, I've had the feeling this season that we are getting the ball inside 50 quite a bit - comparable with most other teams - but we aren't converting. It's only a feeling though - haven't seen any stats to confirm it.

Back in 2003 we were one of the lowest ranked teams for getting the ball inside the forward 50 but one of the best (if not the best) for converting inside-50s into goals.

The problem with interpreting many of these stats is that it is hard to say whose "fault" something is purely by looking at the numbers. You have to have watched the games, or go into far more detailed analysis of the stats looking, for example, where in the forward 50 the ball is delivered.

One of the reasons our forward line looks to be more efficient in 2003 was because when the ball did arrive there, it was frequently via rapid movement from the HBF through the midfield and delivered centrally. So a larger proportion of the time marks were taken in the central zone rather than deep in the pockets and it was more likely that a forward would be able to lead into space or just be faced with a one-on-one contest rather than having the ball bombed onto their heads or being sent wide.

Thus it is impossible to divorce the efficiency of the forward line with the performance around the rest of the ground.

[Schneiderman]

Ah NMW, your love of stats. Yet you know well they can be twisted, and you did that well once again.

Lets just dissect your figures to show just how irrelevant they really are. Picking your own figures for the years where we came closest to our current plight under Paul Roos:

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

Finished (out of 12) 12, 9, 12, 8, 5, 8, 10 for an average of 9th. Won 52/154 games (34%) and only bettered 50% for the year once (1977), LAST twice!

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

Finished (out of 12) 6, 9, 7, 11, 10, 10 for an average of 9th. Won 55/132 games (42%) and only bettered 50% for the year twice (1980, 1982)

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

Finished (out of 14) 7, 13 and (out of 15) 12, 15, 15, 15 and 12 (out of 16) for an average of 13th. Won 39/154 games (25%) and only bettered 50% for the year ONCE (just - 1989). LAST thrice in a row!

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

Finished (out of 16) 4th and 6th for an average of 5th. Won 31/48 games (65%) and bettered 50% for the year every time (2005 not included).


So you see that having shots for goal is not as important as it seems. We did only marginally worse in the 89 to 95 period yet had a horrible run of seasons. We did marginally better from 73 to 79 and on to 85, yet at the end of the season were in much worse shape.

The simple fact is that we have won more games than we have lost over the last two years, despite our total shots on goal. We have had fewer blowouts either way, and have done well with the team we have. Sure its not exciting, but its not excitingly depressing either.

[Sean]

Originally posted by liz
Back in 2003 we were one of the lowest ranked teams for getting the ball inside the forward 50 but one of the best (if not the best) for converting inside-50s into goals.

I do recall that being the case and it's quite interesting because most people think we were playing more attacking then than we are now. Also, most people would probably consider that our midfield was better then with Cressa still playing and Maxfield and Williams a couple of years younger.

Thus it is impossible to divorce the efficiency of the forward line with the performance around the rest of the ground.

Very true.

What I'm trying to work out is the actual cause for the low number of shots. If we are getting the ball inside 50 a lot this season then it's not the game plan's fault - it's either skill errors in terms of delivery or a problem with our forward structure. If we aren't getting the ball inside 50 much then clearly it's not the forward's fault - it's either the game plan or midfielders that are at fault. A bit simplistic I know but I like stats