Goal Accuracy

[Wil]

Way too simplistic to say our problems are merely accuracy in front of goal. I hope Roos doesn't think that if we kick straight in front of goals then everything will be better.

Stats do not take into account where the shots at goal were taken from. As I (and others) have said before we are taking much more difficult shots on goal than we used to (Due to poor leading/forward structure and poor delivery to the forwards).

Inside 50/Goal conversion might be a better stat to look at. But still not the whole definitive story. And anyway to play the "If only we kick straighter we would of won" game is valid for both teams. Surely part of the game is to let your opponents kick from goal at difficult angles. Clog up the easy areas and let them take the longer/tighter angle shots?

[cruiser]

Yes and no Will. I sit behind the goals and witnessed a number of missed easy shots at goal last Sunday. IMO, it is a big problem at the moment. We should have slaughtered both Essendon and Port. Our % is crap at the moment.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
If we'd kicked accurately, we might have beaten the Kangaroos but that's about it. Of course, Brisbane could argue that if they had kicked accurately we wouldn't have beaten them.

Hard to say. Matches change according to what happens during them. Kicking straight puts more pressure on the opposition. Take the Eagles match as an example. Weren't we 1.6 after the first quarter? Kick straight and the Eagles are down by about 30 points - that changes the whole match. As it was, we outplayed them in the first quarter and they were down by 4 points - they must have been feeling pretty good.

When we have 25 or more scoring shots in a game, we have a 9-1 record in the past season and a half (the exception was the Melbourne game this year, which included a very high number of rushed behinds).

I see your point but we have had 24 scoring shots twice this year and one more shot would not have won us either game. Kicking accurately may have - although probably not against the Crows.

I think winning through this method is not sustainable on a regular basis over the long term or in finals.

Not quite sure that I understand. We've been relatively successful doing what we do over the past 2.5 years. Do you mean that we won't win a flag by keeping our opposition to low scores? If so, you are probably right but the Eagles did win a couple of flags by keeping their opposition to low scores. They probably scored more than us though.

[giant]

Originally posted by Sean
If so, you are probably right but the Eagles did win a couple of flags by keeping their opposition to low scores. They probably scored more than us though.

Interesting point about the Eagles - Malthouse turned them from a bunch of highly-skilled underachieving show ponies into a dour & gritty Victorianesque bunch of battlers. West Aussies hated what this 'tothersider had done to their glamour boys - until of course they won 2 flags. Then they kinda forgave him.

Not suggesting however that Swans 2005 are a match for Eagles circa 1990

[NMWBloods]

Everyone talks about WC Eagles' efforts at producing low-scoring defensive contests to win flags.

That doesn't mean they didn't kick any goals or clogged the game down into a series of stoppages.

- they averaged 28.7 scoring shots per game in 1992 against a competition average of 28.5.

- they averaged 27.2 scoring shots per game in 1994 against a competition average of 26.1.

They managed to keep their opposition scoring shots to 21.9 and 20.7 in that time. So yes it is possible to keep your opposition to a relatively low number of scoring shots, but you need to be attacking as well. The combination produces flags, not just one.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Wil
Way too simplistic to say our problems are merely accuracy in front of goal. I hope Roos doesn't think that if we kick straight in front of goals then everything will be better.

Stats do not take into account where the shots at goal were taken from. As I (and others) have said before we are taking much more difficult shots on goal than we used to (Due to poor leading/forward structure and poor delivery to the forwards).

The confidence has got to come back as well, that will help. We've got to stop seeing guys like MOL giving off to Ablett for a shot under pressure when he has a set shot from 50 dead in front, or from Matthews when he is 20m out on a slight angle and 5m clear instead of giving off to Goodes for another shot under pressure.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sean
Hard to say. Matches change according to what happens during them. Kicking straight puts more pressure on the opposition. Take the Eagles match as an example. Weren't we 1.6 after the first quarter? Kick straight and the Eagles are down by about 30 points - that changes the whole match. As it was, we outplayed them in the first quarter and they were down by 4 points - they must have been feeling pretty good.

I see your point but we have had 24 scoring shots twice this year and one more shot would not have won us either game. Kicking accurately may have - although probably not against the Crows.

Against the Eagles, I'm not sure if 4 more scoring shots that were accurate in the first quarter would have made such a huge difference against a quality team at their home ground, particularly when you look at how dominant they were for the rest of the game.

Against the Crows, I think the game was there for the taking up to about a third of the way through the last quarter. Their run of goals came at the end and with a couple of extra goals earlier this may have made the difference.

Still, it's not a guarantee that we'll win - it's just an indicator to say that we do better when we attack the goals.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cruiser
Did you need a calculator to work that out?

Quality contribution as usual...

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

- they averaged 28.7 scoring shots per game in 1992 against a competition average of 28.5.

But still behind Geelong with 36, Footscray with 28.8, Hawthorn with 32.5, St. Kilda with 30.9, Carlton with 29.2 & Adelaide with 29. In fact, equal with Collingwood they were the least attacking side in the 6 and both were less attacking than the sides placed 7th, 8th & 9th (in terms of total points for).

Defence got them into a position to win the flag - perhaps more than attack?

Haven't looked that closely at '94.

but you need to be attacking as well. The combination produces flags, not just one.

Indeed. I think we've been relatively attacking this season - if we kicked straight we'd appear to be much more attacking. Also, if we had some crumbers things would look better.

I noticed that against the Eagles, they only had one goal from a mark (from memory) and 13 from general play. That shows how important it is to focus on the ball on the ground as well as in the air. Having goalkicking midfielders also helps with that of course.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Quality contribution as usual...

Its the response you deserved.

[NMWBloods]

What?!? No !

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Against the Eagles, I'm not sure if 4 more scoring shots that were accurate in the first quarter would have made such a huge difference against a quality team at their home ground, particularly when you look at how dominant they were for the rest of the game.

Yeah, I think we probably would have lost that one anyway but possibly being 30 points up at quarter time is a lot better than 4. Definitely would have created a different game though.

Still, it's not a guarantee that we'll win - it's just an indicator to say that we do better when we attack the goals.

I'm just not convinced that the scoring shots stat is the one that says whether we are attacking or defensive or a good team. Using your stats we were pitiful last year but we actually came fifth - perhaps a disappointment (it was for me) but still OK.

To me, Inside 50s would show whether we have a positive or negative game plan - skills and a poor forward structure could then account for the low number of shots.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sean
But still behind Geelong with 36, Footscray with 28.8, Hawthorn with 32.5, St. Kilda with 30.9, Carlton with 29.2 & Adelaide with 29. In fact, equal with Collingwood they were the least attacking side in the 6 and both were less attacking than the sides placed 7th, 8th & 9th (in terms of total points for).

Defence got them into a position to win the flag - perhaps more than attack?

Yep, I think that it was their defence that was key. However, my point is that you can't simply focus on one aspect. They were still capable of kicking reasonable scores, and their attack was about average in terms of scoring shots. Our attack is currently below average, as it was very much last year.

Keeping oppositions down to only about 22 shots per game is not unusual among top 4 teams, however most of them are also ahead of the pack for their own scoring, and you'd usually expect a differential of at least 4 scoring shots between your own and your opponents'.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sean
I'm just not convinced that the scoring shots stat is the one that says whether we are attacking or defensive or a good team. Using your stats we were pitiful last year but we actually came fifth - perhaps a disappointment (it was for me) but still OK.

To me, Inside 50s would show whether we have a positive or negative game plan - skills and a poor forward structure could then account for the low number of shots.

As in most analysis, using a range of statistics is far more meaningful - I just don't have I50 data.

Our game plan last year really seemed to rely on stopping our opponents scoring rather than scoring ourselves, and we saw how badly it unravelled in the semi final.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As in most analysis, using a range of statistics is far more meaningful - I just don't have I50 data.

<stats-rant>
As Leigh Matthews said, I50 is the most corruptable stat in the game. Barely worth the paper its written on.

The only stats that matter is ladder position at round 22, but I find percentage is a better indication of ability during the year than win/loss.

</stats-rant>