Eade : We flooded too much

[Schneiderman]

Hows this for a stat to date (2005):

Team Kicks Handballs Disposals
Sydney 1321 891 2212
Opponent 1412 730 2142

Team Marks Tackles HO
Sydney 551 406 260
Opponent 609 393 301

Team Goals Behinds
Sydney 86 108
Opponent 98 80

[liz]

Originally posted by Sean

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

We do seem to be bombing the ball into the forward line a lot more this year than the previous couple, where the focus was more on chipping it around until a forward found space and presented himself. Ironically this is what many people on this board were screaming out for.

While it has some benefits, it also means that more of the forward entries are going aimlessly to space, to congested contests (and we're not a great team for pack marks) or are easily able to be picked off by a spare man in defence.

I don't think this tactic plays to the forward line's strengths. There are some good one-on-one contested markers there, but we don't have a Jon Brown or Nick Riewoldt and nor do we have any smart crumbers. Whether this is the fault of the forwards or not is debateable. I guess it does indicate that while we think we have a good forward line on paper, it is lacking an element or two.

[ROK Lobster]

liz Posted: 18th May 2005 03:04 AM

It seems Liz has been influenced by her AFL heroes and has started popping the no doz.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
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.

Number of shots is important that's why invariably the top teams have a lot as I showed. In our earlier efforts you'll notice that we were typically below 100% - that's below average, which is not good. Then coupled with that we had poor defence, thus making things worse, hence why we finished so low.

Now we are even worse at getting the ball into our forward line and having a scoring shot. We do better though because we were more accurate than we were in the past plus our defence is better.

As I also noted, yet you conveniently ignore yet again, it's a very rare occurrence for a team to make the top 4 and not have lot of shots at goal. This makes our task very difficult unless we generate some more scoring attempts.

However, my original point ("Simply goes back to my old points - we are too defensively minded") was that Roos is playing a defensive style of game. Given our shots at goal are around our lowest ever (plus stoppages are miles higher than for everyone else) the evidence appears to support this contention.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Hows this for a stat to date (2005):

Are you going to actually comment on what you think they mean...