Finally a Sensible Article

[stevej]

Re: Finally a Sensible Article

Originally posted by Schneiderman
"But I still think it's probably a little surprising that people don't really understand how we won it. I still think there's a lot of myths, not just about us but about the way footy's played ? It doesn't disappoint me or worry me, but I still think there is a misunderstanding as to how we've achieved what we have and how we actually play."

Game style, lucky with injuries etc, etc, etc. PPPFFFTTT.

I was interested to hear Phil Gould on the Commonwealth games show last night talking about the Aussie womens swim team and how they have grown a team culture for an individual sport hence their sucess over the past couple of years. Not unlike the culture that the swans have built since roosey took over.

TEAM culture = 90%
Everything else =10%

Our great strength is our willingness to do it for the team. This is what will hold us in good stead again this season.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
Here's my assessment of the teams as they stood at Sept 05 along a very scientific analysis with absolutely no research to back it whatsoever.

5 pts - Best in competition
4 pts - Top 4
3 pts - 5-8
2 pts - 9-12
1 pt - 13-16

Along these dimensions:

Backs/Forwards/Midfield & Followers/Bench & beyond (depth & felxibility)/Coaching staff (including game plan, support staff etc)

Hence I'd rank the 5 teams that were actually a prospect of winning the flag last year as follows:

Swans:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 5
M&F - 4
B&B - 4
CS - 5
TOTAL = 22

WCE:
Backs - 3
Forwards - 2
M&F - 5
B&B - 4
CS - 4
TOTAL = 18

Adelaide:
Backs - 5
Forwards - 3
M&F - 4
B&B - 3
CS - 4
TOTAL = 19

Saints:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 4
M&F - 4
B&B - 5
CS - 3
TOTAL = 20

Geelong:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 3
M&F - 3
B&B - 3
CS - 4
TOTAL = 17

From this incontravertible analysis, we can see that the Swans were indeed the best team in the competition and deserved to win the premiership nws Denham's & NMW's thoughts to the contrary.

Excuse me but where have I said we didn't deserve to win the premiership. For that matter, where did Denham say that in his article?

Some comments on your 'analysis'.

How does a team scoring scoring the third lowest number of goals in the competition score 5/5 for its forward line. On paper it's a 5, but in practice it's a 4 and the only reason it's not a 3 because of the low output is that is an I50 problem, which is the midfield.

I would rate the Swans midfield as 3.

Hence, Swans score = 20.

I would say Saints' backs should be 3 and their B&B 3, but their midfield and forward lines are 5. Hence their score is 19.

Arguable whether the Swans' bench is stronger than Adelaide's or Geelong's.

Can someone outside this 5 win in 2006? Sure

And how is that different to all the assessments placing the Swans around 4th or 5th?

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]Excuse me but where have I said we didn't deserve to win the premiership. For that matter, where did Denham say that in his article?

Ah, I was just engaging in some selective editing & generalisations - thought you'd appreciate these as "good journalism".

Some comments on your 'analysis'.

How does a team scoring scoring the third lowest number of goals in the competition score 5/5 for its forward line. On paper it's a 5, but in practice it's a 4 and the only reason it's not a 3 because of the low output is that is an I50 problem, which is the midfield.

Too obvious - forward line potency is about more than kicking barrels of goals - it's about flexibility, accuracy, diversification etc. If it's just pts for then WCE would be #3 & the Dogs #2 - I don't think that's right.

I would rate the Swans midfield as 3.

Tough one, probably borderline but that means you'd have the Cats or someone else above us. I'd disagree but without vehemence.

Hence, Swans score = 20.

I would say Saints' backs should be 3 and their B&B 3, but their midfield and forward lines are 5. Hence their score is 19.

Arguable whether the Swans' bench is stronger than Adelaide's or Geelong's.

I figure that the likes of Schauble, Vogels & a few others would have got games at those clubs.

And how is that different to all the assessments placing the Swans around 4th or 5th?

Nice to see you're not above a bit of selective editing yourself.

[NMWBloods]

Ah, I was just engaging in some selective editing & generalisations - thought you'd appreciate these as "good journalism".

And why is that?

Too obvious - forward line potency is about more than kicking barrels of goals - it's about flexibility, accuracy, diversification etc. If it's just pts for then WCE would be #3 & the Dogs #2 - I don't think that's right.

The aim of a forward line is to kick goals. Ours looks great on paper, but doesn't kick a bagful. That's what matters in the end.

I figure that the likes of Schauble, Vogels & a few others would have got games at those clubs.

Maybe.

Nice to see you're not above a bit of selective editing yourself.

The only "selective editing" part was mistakenly excluding the part I was really responding to which was "Most likely tho, it will come from this 5". You think the premiers will come from the 5 you listed. It seems that many journalists and punters wouldn't disagree, however they would disagree with order. How is that selective editing?

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The aim of a forward line is to kick goals. Ours looks great on paper, but doesn't kick a bagful. That's what matters in the end.

Ultimately yes, but if one is going to try to rank different aspects of a team's components you sometimes have to consider less obvious measures.

If one looks at efficiency rate - ie converting I50s into goals - the Swans would be right up there. If you consider "scoring shots" instead of goals, I suspect the conversion rate would be outstanding compared to every other team. Of course, that discounts the accuracy factor, so it is of only partial relevance.

On the other hand, something that I noticed from last year's stats was that although the Swans were almost last on the I50 measure, they were in the top couple for marks inside 50. That may indicate that the Swans forwards are exceptional marks. Alternatively it may indicate that while the midfield doesn't get the ball forward as often as we might like, when it does, it does so with accuracy and system so that the forwards can mark relatively easily.

So maybe our midfield's attacking skills are maligned more than they should be.

Not really sure what my point is. Probably just that trying to measure different components of the team without acknowledging all the measures are interrelated is fraught with danger.

[NMWBloods]

I agree there are lots of factors to consider, such as the # of I50s that I mentioned above and the marks I50 you said.

However, the objective is to kick more goals than your opposition and that's the game in a nutshell.

If you aren't kicking many goals then either the midfield or the forward line or both aren't doing something right.

[Frog]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
If you aren't kicking many goals then either the midfield or the forward line or both aren't doing something right.

But if you still win the game because the opposition kicked less than you, is it still said that the forwards/midfield didn't do their job or did the backs have a blinder or was there actually a game of football going on in amongst the statistics collecting ?

[NMWBloods]

Or possibly the spectators charged the ground through boredom and so you won 3 goals to 2 when the game was called off in the middle of the third quarter!!

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Frog
But if you still win the game because the opposition kicked less than you, is it still said that the forwards/midfield didn't do their job or did the backs have a blinder or was there actually a game of football going on in amongst the statistics collecting ?

Or it could possibly mean that the forwards and midfielders were amongst the backs, dare I say it, flooding.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Or it could possibly mean that the forwards and midfielders were amongst the backs, dare I say it, flooding.

Or if you are any other team than Sydney, getting numbers behind the ball.