Swans fail to hit the target

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
The whole arguement about conversion rate is a bit misleading - the key stat is how the shot was taken

1. Angle
2. Set shot vs snap at goal

I don't know if these stats are kept

Originally posted by ugg
An interesting statistic would be the amount of scoring shots from set shots/in-play.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And also their angle.

All that information is recorded, but it's not widely available.

But I do agree with your comments!

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

Given that the Swans game is only 1 out of 12 played, this "direct contribution" is not significant.

Each match has a direct contribution unless a team has too many losses - like Carlton. Port, Brisbane, the Bulldogs & Freo would all be above us and in the 8 if we hadn't beaten them.

[Mark]

So to summarise:

Teams that we beat 'LOST'

Teams that beat us 'WON'

And those teams above us:

Have either won more games or have a better %

And those below us:

Have lost more games or have a worse %

Is that right im so confused ?

[NMWBloods]

I think it's a bit more meaningful to look at performance against teams in and out of the 8.

Against teams in the 8, we are 0-5.

Against teams out of the 8, we are 7-0.

It's great we are finally winning the games we should, but now we need to perform better against the higher teams, particularly when you consider our average losing margin is 37 pts (13th best) and our average winning margin is only 25 pts (11th best).

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Your mates have no real clue when it comes to sport

i would love to see you discuss sport in general with these guys. the "point for a miss" line was hardly an axiom to my argument but it seems to have struck a nerve.

Different sports do things differently.

true. uncontested. my mates would agree with you i'm sure, but from hereon in i'll have to answer for them.

In archery the target is painted with a bulls eye that scores maximum points and then concentric circles of increasing radius and decreasing value. Do your mates advocate the removal of all the outer circles on the archery target and leave only the bulls eye?

archery and football are very different sports with different reasons for the graduation of scores. in archery, the scores go through a number of levels before the shot is valueless. archery also follows an enormous historical precedent of a highly accurate shot being of great worth (dead enemy) while a less accurate shot is still valuable (wounded, perhaps mortally, enemy).

Or what about the conversion after the try/touchdown in League, Union, Gridiron and Canadian football. What's the point of that? Do your mates also bag that?

no, but i fail to see the relevence. the shot for conversion is a completely separate movement in the game, rather than a consolation point. actually, the "try" got its name from being a qualification to have a "try" at goal and was for a good time not worth any points.

How about Gaelic football? The scoring there is 1 point for kicking the ball over the crossbar and 3 points for a goal (under the crossbar). Maybe your mates don't like the "over" either.

no, they like that i think. however, the "over" is something specifically targetted in gaelic football when the option at goal is unavailable, rather than intended as a consolation for a poor shot (yes some shots at goal miss and go over). i admire the simple introduction of this trade-off. when was the last time you saw somebody deliberately go for a behind and avoid the shot at goal? even plugger in '96 would have been aiming for the big sticks. malcolm blight's shocker doesn't count either.

Perhaps your mates are fond of the soccer way of doing things: only one scoring value, and lots of penalty shootouts after extra time.

no, they are indeed not fond of the soccer system (except for one tragic case). it simply is not necessary because the modern game would result in comparatively few ties if only goals were counted.

(rough typical values merely for the point of comparison)

soccer : 2-3 goals total per game
rugbys : 7-9 tries per game
afl : 22-25 goals per game

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Sean
Each match has a direct contribution unless a team has too many losses - like Carlton. Port, Brisbane, the Bulldogs & Freo would all be above us and in the 8 if we hadn't beaten them.

exactly my point.