Swans fail to hit the target

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NMWBloods
    Taking Refuge!!
    • Jan 2003
    • 15819

    #31
    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!
    Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

    "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

    Comment

    • Sean
      On the Rookie List
      • Sep 2003
      • 327

      #32
      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.

      Comment

      • Mark
        Suspended by the MRP
        • Jan 2003
        • 578

        #33
        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 ?

        Comment

        • NMWBloods
          Taking Refuge!!
          • Jan 2003
          • 15819

          #34
          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).
          Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

          "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

          Comment

          • timthefish
            Regular in the Side
            • Sep 2003
            • 940

            #35
            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
            Last edited by timthefish; 17 June 2005, 04:42 PM.
            then again, i think it would be worth trying 15-16 players on field so what would i know

            Comment

            • timthefish
              Regular in the Side
              • Sep 2003
              • 940

              #36
              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.
              then again, i think it would be worth trying 15-16 players on field so what would i know

              Comment

              Working...