Goal Accuracy

[NMWBloods]

I50 by itself can be misleading, although it can give you an idea of what is happening. However, as with all these stats you need to watch the games as well. Watching without referring back to stats also tends to produce many erroneous conclusions.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I50 by itself can be misleading, although it can give you an idea of what is happening. However, as with all these stats you need to watch the games as well. Watching without referring back to stats also tends to produce many erroneous conclusions.

To a certain degree. A muffed kick luckily to a man is the same as a great pick up, busting through a pack, and hitting a man 50m upfield lace up in the stats world.

I find you need to:
a) Go to a game to see off the ball action
b) watch the replay on tv to see close up action
c) Then verify your feelings with stats if neccesary.

[BonBon]

Originally posted by barry
I find you need to:
a) Go to a game to see off the ball action
b) watch the replay on tv to see close up action
c) Then verify your feelings with stats if neccesary.

Going to a game is a must because when you watch it on TV, you only see what the camera and tele shows, so you can't see what is going on elsewhere, which is annoying.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
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.

Fair enough. I do get the feeling that we are more attacking this year compared to last.

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'.

True but it's not the only way to go. We were top 4 in 2003 but we do seem to be the exception. I wouldn't write off our chances completely even if we do keep playing the way we are playing.

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.

The game plan was perfect the week before. You make a good point though - I just can't quite agree with it completely yet.

The main problem is that I can't see how we can completely control the way games are played - because apparently it's our game plan that is the problem. What the opposition does doesn't come into it. That's an exageration but listening to the criticism here and in the media you would think it's the case.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic.

[Sean]

Originally posted by barry
<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>

Most stats in Aussie Rules are "corruptable" but I think some can still be useful when looking at specifics.

The reason that I want Inside 50 stats is to simply answer the question are we more or less attacking.

For example, if we get the ball inside 50 100 times per match then we are probably playing quite attacking footy - even if we only end up with 10 goals. Whereas if we get it inside 50 30 times but kick 12 we are probably actually playing more defensively even though we score more. In the first example, skills or forward structure affects the stat in terms of how well we are playing but overall as a way of measuring how attacking our game plan is, it's useful - especially combined with other stats as NMW suggested.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sean
Fair enough. I do get the feeling that we are more attacking this year compared to last.

Yeah, I think that appears to be the case, which is promising at least. That's why I said "Our attack is currently below average, as it was very much last year".

True but it's not the only way to go. We were top 4 in 2003 but we do seem to be the exception. I wouldn't write off our chances completely even if we do keep playing the way we are playing.

I don't think our game plan of last year was going to stand up to pressure football over the long term. It needs more attacking and alternative options.

The game plan was perfect the week before. You make a good point though - I just can't quite agree with it completely yet.

Week before was against Essendon - not a stellar opposition.

The main problem is that I can't see how we can completely control the way games are played - because apparently it's our game plan that is the problem. What the opposition does doesn't come into it. That's an exageration but listening to the criticism here and in the media you would think it's the case.

To some degree teams can try to dictate the way a game is played. Certainly when it degenerates into a scrum, this is often driven by one team and we tend to be the common element.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic.

It is and it's good to have a reasonable discussion rather than a slanging match.

[sharp9]

What I didn't get round to saying because I spent so much time stat crunching, was that these statistics leave me VERY optimistic. It's so low it is simply NOT POSSIBLE for professional footballers to continue this way. To have got to 4 and 4 under these circumstances is a very encouraging effort.

If we had been having and average year (say 55%) then I think it is beyond doubt that we would have been 6 and 2 at worst.

Against the Kangas we had kicked 7.16 and were still leading by 16 points half way through the third quarter. If we were 10.13 then the gate was shut.

There is NO WAY the Roos would have got up from 33 points down when they had only scored 30 points to that point.

Against Melbourne, they may have had the silk, but they were well beaten in general play for most of the game....we had kicked 7.18 to be two goals behind half way through the fourth quarter. If we were 11.14 then we would almost certainly have won.

Against the Eagles who can tell. But at 1.6 to 1.2 Quarter time the game was nearly over. Our confidence shot etc. etc. At 3.4 to 1.2 it's definitely a 50/50 ball game.

We were totally outplayed by Adelaide. We were shocking and they were good.

Of course we are conveniently forgetting that we were totally outplayed by Brisbane except for the last quarter. So applying the theory evenly we might have to give that one back! don't forget they were 4.10 to 2.4 at half time....we kicked 13.9 for the game (11.5 in the second half ).

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
it's good to have a reasonable discussion rather than a slanging match.

You idiot.

[Bron]

Originally posted by ScottH
PS. Accuracy is not that important, if you always kick > 6 behinds per opponents goal!!

There is the easy way ... and the hard way ...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
You idiot.

Is that on topic?

Oops, nearly forgot...

[AussieAnge]

Just read in the Inside Football Weekly that last time we played the dogs we scored 12.21 - how's that for accuracy? At least we won!

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Week before was against Essendon - not a stellar opposition.

Sorry, I meant the week before last year's finals loss. We beat the Eagles as easy as St Kilda beat us.

I wasn't actually convinced that the game plan was the reason for the loss to St. Kilda anyway. It seemed to me at the time that they took a bit of a risk by leaving a lot of our players free - but they were just far too good around the stoppages and always seemed to come up with the clearance. This meant that they had free men all over the place, just like us, but they had the ball.

For example, Goodes got a lot of criticism for playing loose around the ground but the guy playing on him (Blake?) was doing the same thing. If our midfield was getting the clearances, Goodes would have won the game for us.

So, it was more a case of skills being the difference and perhaps Thomas being a bit more willing to back his players than Roos was. I hate this term but I think it was really a case of Roos being "out-coached".

When I see our game plan in action like it was last year against St. Kilda (S.C.G.), Brisbane, the Eagles (final) and others it makes me think that it's not the reason for our poor performances - skills are. Then again, maybe the opposite is true - our skills make a poor game plan occasionally look good. That second option seems to be more of a stretch.

[NMWBloods]

I commented somewhere else on the game plan - I think our skills and decision making are a much bigger problem.

[ScottH]

In the Sunday paper They listed the goals kicked by a team up to round 9.

1) Gee - 131 (Avg 14.5 goals)
2) Mel - 126
3) WB - 124
4) Ric - 123
5) WC - 119
6) StK - 118
7) Fre - 116
8) Kan - 106
9) Bri - 106
10) Haw - 105
11) Car - 104
12) Ess - 100
13) Ade - 96
14) Col - 92
15) PA - 89
16) Syd - 86 (Avg 9.5 goals)


ed: Thanks gilze.

[gilze]

I presume the Western Bulldogs are meant to be at 124 not 134, but gee tahts certainly not something to boast about, 9.5 goals per game! hopefully there will be lots of goals at the telstra dome over the next couple of weeks