Swans fail to hit the target

[ScottH]

Swans fail to hit the target Deja Vu, Where have I read all this before?

[cruiser]

Hmmm, I wonder. Actually, I can recall Scott's fatuous argument in response to my post where he stated that accuracy didnt matter so long as you kicked enough points to win. So which season do you prefer Scott, 2005 or 2003?

Seriously though, Sydney's inacuracy until just a couple of games ago was causing me to almost tear my hair out. As Wally May use to say, bad kicking is bad footbal.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by cruiser
Hmmm, I wonder. Actually, I can recall Scott's fatuous argument in response to my post where he stated that accuracy didnt matter so long as you kicked enough points to win. So which season do you prefer Scott, 2005 or 2003?

Accuracy doesn't matter, but it makes winning a lot easier.

It was interesting on Fri night, the commentators stated that WC had the least posters this yr, while their opponents, the bombers had the most. Seeings as they are at opposite ends of the ladder!!!

We must have quite a few too, Hall had atleast 2 on Sun, and we seem to be more accurate at hitting them than missing them.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by ScottH
We must have quite a few too, Hall had atleast 2 on Sun, and we seem to be more accurate at hitting them than missing them.

I reckon that if they awarded 8 points for hitting the post, Sydney might be on top of the ladder this year! I recall we hit the post six times at one home game.

[Snowy]

Would it have something to do with the observation that the posts at the SCG have more padding than elsewhere?

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by Snowy
Would it have something to do with the observation that the posts at the SCG have more padding than elsewhere?

That might only be a factor if the posters had been near the base of the post, where the padding is. I reckon they have mostly been high.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by cruiser
I reckon that if they awarded 8 points for hitting the post, Sydney might be on top of the ladder this year! I recall we hit the post six times at one home game.

That was against the Bombers, wasn't it.

[timthefish]

i've been thinking for a while that perhaps we should get rid of the "behind".

behind posts were originally put in as a statistical measure (much as our 50m is at the moment). later it was realised that they could be used to determine tie-breaks neatly if they were awarded a minor score. however, back then the number of goals was much fewer than is the case now and as a result ties were much more frequent. these days ties would still happen much less frequently than in soccer or league if only goals were counted.

it would also stop my mates bagging the "one point for a miss" which isn't entirely unfair (although they generally accept the tie-breaker idea as a good one in its time).

furthermore, it would make the game a lot more compatible with present football infrastructure in nsw and queensland. Sure the posts on a rugby field are the wrong distance apart and the field is way too short for seniors but it could make junior footy a bit simpler to set up.

if the behind posts were removed, posters that went in could be goals and those that go out, out. the ones that smack into the posts and rebound into play could be "play on" (awesome).

it would also cut the opportunity for rushed behinds which i accept as part of the game but a little bit lame.

[liz]

Originally posted by timthefish

it would also cut the opportunity for rushed behinds which i accept as part of the game but a little bit lame.

Doesn't the existence of rushed behinds complicate your suggestion though? What happens if it's touched but goes through the big sticks?

[NMWBloods]

To some degree we were lucky in 2003 to kick so well. Of course there is skill involved as well, but a high degree of luck to kick such an absurdly high %. As noted at the time and since, it was not really repeatable and our bigger problem was, and continues to be, lack of scoring shots.

Roos said recently that our very high percentage meant that we performed much better than expected in 2003 and was a bit misleading to use as a benchmark. This is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about us playing above ourselves that year (which some people didn't get!!).

[ugg]

So are we playing "below ourselves" considering the poor conversion rate and yet we're outside the top 4 on %?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ugg
So are we playing "below ourselves" considering the poor conversion rate and yet we're outside the top 4 on %?

A conversion rate of less than 50% for most half decent AFL teams would be playing "below ourselves", yes.

As I've noted before, you can finish reasonably well by just beating the weaker teams. However, to go further you have to be able to beat stronger teams and regularly, and play consistently good football in high pressure matches for a number of weeks. This is not something we typically do.

[Jeffers1984]

The fact that most of our forward leads are to the wide pockets may be causing our terrible conversion rate.

[ugg]

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

[NMWBloods]

And also their angle.

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