Swans fail to hit the target

[Snowy]

Hall's set shot conversion has been down but a lot of the behinds have been due to snaps, some gettable, but many rushed.

[timthefish]

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

yeah, i hadn't quite thought that one through. i don't know what the policy used to be for "touched" goals. i guess either they become valid goals (consistent with soccer/hockey etc) or invalidated completely (letting defenders off too easily)

i guess i think that the present system is unnecessarily complicated and no longer achieves as often what it was intended to do (break goal ties). i withdraw my support for the rushed behind - it's a chicken@@@@ maneuver. it also seems unequal to me that a fingertip touch on the line is 83.3% effective as a mark on the line in terms of points saved. it also puts the defending team in a better situation off the next play. i may be flying in the face of many years of tradition, but this aspect of the game makes little sense in the modern context.

[Thunder Shaker]

We have lost two games this year through inaccurate kicking.

Round 2 vs Kangaroos - 2 more scoring shots, lost by 23 points

Round 5 vs Melbourne - 1 more scoring shot, lost by 34 points

On rushed behinds, the Wiz Cup rule is that rushed behinds count as 3 points. IMO, if the defender deliberately concedes a behind, it counts as 1 point but they don't get to kick it out. Instead, the ball is bounced at the end of the goal square to restart play.

The post should no longer be special. If it hits the post it should count if it goes in. If it does not go in, it should be treated the same way it is treated now.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
We have lost two games this year through inaccurate kicking.

Round 2 vs Kangaroos - 2 more scoring shots, lost by 23 points

Round 5 vs Melbourne - 1 more scoring shot, lost by 34 points

And similarly, we won 2 games through our opponents' innacurate kicking.

Rd 3 v. Brisbane - 4 less scoring shots, won by 6 points

Rd 9 v. W Bulldogs - 2 less scoring shots, won by 13 points

Certainly accuracy on these comparisons favours us more and again any focus on we simply need to improve our accuracy is very misleading.

[SwallowdaFonz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
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.

This stuff about the Swans only beating teams below them on the ladder can stop pretty soon - after Rd 15 (when every team has played each other once). I bet that the current ladder standings will not be greatly changed at that point, and we can take a bit more pride in the results on the scoreboard. It won't convince me that the Swans are playing well, but 5th or 6th spot would be an excellent result for much crap footy.

[Snowy]

The number of scoring shots is not always a totally accurate reflection of the match or who is the better team.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And similarly, we won 2 games through our opponents' innacurate kicking.

Rd 3 v. Brisbane - 4 less scoring shots, won by 6 points

Rd 9 v. W Bulldogs - 2 less scoring shots, won by 13 points

Certainly accuracy on these comparisons favours us more and again any focus on we simply need to improve our accuracy is very misleading.

Yes, I should have mentioned those games for completeness.

The inaccurate kicking has affected us though by reducing our percentage. Every goal that we miss decreases our end-of-year percentage by about 0.25% (5/2000).

We're 16th for accuracy: 48.2% (141/292).
St Kilda have average accuracy: 54.0% (167/309).
Melbourne are about the best: 56.2% (195/347)

For us to have St Kilda's average, we should have converted another 17 goals, or 1.39 goals per game.

For us to have Melbourne's average, it's another 23 goals, or 1.92 goals per game.

Had we scored the same number of times but with Melbourne's superior accuracy, our percentage would be 1112/1008, or 110.3%. That would put us above the Tigers, but still keep us out of the top four on percentage. Adelaide, who hold fourth spot, have a percentage of 122.4, but their accuracy is superior only to ours (15th best = 50.7% (152/300).

Conclusion: Accuracy doesn't seem to matter much.

[barry]

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


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).

I dont think we should take direction from rival codes.

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.

The point post is fairly inconsequential for junior games. You can just use a witches hat.

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.

Our game is the only game where you can conceed points. I like it. A great quirk. Maybe make it 2 or 3 points value though.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Snowy
The number of scoring shots is not always a totally accurate reflection of the match or who is the better team.

Absolutely not. Comparing scoring shots and deciding who should win primarily on that is quite likely wrong. It's really just a simple bit of a guess, not meant to be a proper analysis.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Conclusion: Accuracy doesn't seem to matter much.

I think it does matter, but it's not the most important thing. Increasing our % by 10pts may have a huge difference or it may make no difference. However, it would be better to have it than not.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
Our game is the only game where you can conceed points. I like it. A great quirk. Maybe make it 2 or 3 points value though.

You can do similar in other football codes - you can give up a safety in NFL for example.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by SwallowdaFonz
This stuff about the Swans only beating teams below them on the ladder can stop pretty soon - after Rd 15 (when every team has played each other once). I bet that the current ladder standings will not be greatly changed at that point, and we can take a bit more pride in the results on the scoreboard. It won't convince me that the Swans are playing well, but 5th or 6th spot would be an excellent result for much crap footy.

i think it's worth making the absurd point that the eagles are in the same circumstances of having only beaten teams that are below them on the ladder.

that the swans have beaten these "lesser" teams has directly contributed to their ladder position.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by timthefish
i think it's worth making the absurd point that the eagles are in the same circumstances of having only beaten teams that are below them on the ladder.

Okay then, because that is absurd, we can talk instead about beating teams outside the eight and losing to teams in the eight.

that the swans have beaten these "lesser" teams has directly contributed to their ladder position.

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

[Thunder Shaker]

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

snip

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).

Your mates have no real clue when it comes to sport. Different sports do things differently.

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?

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?

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.

These all have one thing in common: different scoring values that decrease the chance of a tie. Perhaps your mates are fond of the soccer way of doing things: only one scoring value, and lots of penalty shootouts after extra time.

[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, but I would expect that this year there have been less shots at goal from the 35 degree arc to the face of the goal and more snaps at goal. Look at ROK's abysmal scoring ratio and most have been from badly executed snaps.

So if you reframe the comparison to 2003 is this year we have been taking more shots from wide angles and having more inneffective snaps . This reflects the forwards leading to the pockets to avoid contested marks and a lower conversion rate on snaps. The latter is probably related to Scheider and Davis being absent for due to poor form and injury respectively, with Davis also being played further up the ground. ROKs loss of confidence probably hasn't helped either.

Actually, I think I just said in 200 words what everyone knows anyway. It did seem to me that last Sunday we were bombing it to the front of goals more often, not necessarily a bad thing with BBB and MOL both good contested marks. I'd also bring in Schneider and let him be a goal sneak again, not a midfielder.