Re:Accuracy

[swantastic]

Has this contributed to our position on the ladder?
Swans Goals Points
283 264

All other Clubs Goals Points
kicked against us so far. 236 182

As you can see our accuracy in front of goals has beed our down fall,with just 52% approx accuracy.

[JudesaGun]

I think this is the most overlooked aspect of our season to date. In so many games, our performance has looked ordinary merely because we have not kicked straight. Plus a few close ones, we shouls have won and we'd be absolutely fying at the moment - both on the ladder and in the eyes of the RWO faithful.

[DST]

Re: Re:Accuracy

Originally posted by swantastic
Has this contributed to our position on the ladder?
Swans Goals Points
283 264

All other Clubs Goals Points
kicked against us so far. 236 182

As you can see our accuracy in front of goals has beed our down fall,with just 52% approx accuracy.

Our inability to win a couple of close games that we won in 2005 has cost us that extra win we had in 2005.

But all up, considering we have not played as well as last year we have done okay to at least be pushing for a top 4 spot come round 22.

I also hold high hopes that we can turn it on when it matters in finals are well and win the close ones.

DST

[cruiser]

Originally posted by JudesaGun
I think this is the most overlooked aspect of our season to date.

I dunno about that. Its bene raised in threads here a number of times during the season. Its infuriated me in a number of games this year and I've raised the matter on RWO.

[tawfiq]

i must admit some shots are difficult, but when you see our 2nd best forward, "magic" miss a set shot from 15 m directly in front against port adelaide, it really does frustrate as a supporter, whilst it doesnt have an impact on those games, it has had an impact in 3 games, melbourne, st.kilda and west coast, if we had won all those (we lost them all by less than a goal and due to in accurate kicking, then we probably wouldve been 1st on the ladder, if not 1st, top 3 guaranteed

[NMWBloods]

It possibly cost us wins against Melbourne and Collingwood. With these two as wins, we'd have third wrapped up with a shot at first or second.

[AnnieH]

17 behinds is 102 potential percentage boosting points, and in a competition where you have six teams separated only by a few percentage points, percentage is a major factor. Why is it ignored?
Accuracy must be improved before we hit the finals.

[garethb83]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
17 behinds is 102 potential percentage boosting points, and in a competition where you have six teams separated only by a few percentage points, percentage is a major factor. Why is it ignored?
Accuracy must be improved before we hit the finals.

I agree accuracy has been a problem, but isn't it wins and losses that are now the deciding factor, our % is superior to all the other teams around us?

[ScottH]

It is an issue, however, you still only need to kick more behinds than your opponent.


Our accuracy comparison to opponent.

                 SS     Opp     Diff   Result
Essendon	57.1	73.9	-16.8	L
PortAdelaide	44.0	 48.4	-4.4	L
Carlton	        57.1	57.9	-0.8	W
Melbourne	48.1	 68.2	-20.0	L
Geelong	        46.9	65.0	-18.1	W
Brisbane	55.6	50.0	 5.6	W
Richmond	70.0	52.9	 17.1	W
Bulldogs	54.8	70.0	-15.2	W
Hawthorn	79.2	36.8	 42.3	W
Kangaroos	64.0	 50.0	14.0	W
St Kilda	46.7	41.2	 5.5	L
Collingwood	40.7	 56.0	-15.3	L
Fremantle	38.7	69.2	-30.5	W
Adelaide	36.4	57.7	-21.3	L
West Coast	45.0	 40.9	4.1	L
Richmond	45.2	38.9	 6.3	W
Port Adelaide	37.0	 46.7	-9.6	W
Essendon	54.8	61.1	-6.3	W
Melbourne	56.0	 76.9	-20.9	W
Geelong	        50.0	70.0	-20.0	L
Brisbane	51.9	60.0	-8.1	W

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by garethb83
I agree accuracy has been a problem, but isn't it wins and losses that are now the deciding factor, our % is superior to all the other teams around us?

I agree that % isn't so much an issue at this late stage of the game (cause ours is pretty healthy this year compared to last and compared to the rest of the competition), and wins & losses will be our deciding factor, what I think I'm trying to say is that the boys HAVE to start kicking true.

I adore the ground Micky O walks on ... but to miss from 15m straight in front is heartbreaking (I'm sure for him, as well as the rest of us).

Johnny Longmire ... are you listening?
A bit of extra goal kicking training for the lot of them wouldn't go astray.

[SwallowdaFonz]

Funny, isn't it, how our perception of how well the Swans played can come down to goal-kicking?

Kick 15.8 and we win the game - Swans playing great. Kick 8.15 and we lose - Swans playing poorly. It would take a cool head to judge the team's performance separate from it's accuracy in front of goal (acknowledging that this accuracy is of course itself a key element of the team's performance).

I reckon the Swans rarely dominate games with possession and great ball movement. This makes our goal-kicking accuracy even more important to percpeption of performance. Yet it often comes down to inches either side of the goal post.

Well, OK, maybe its more like many feet the wrong side of the goal post . . .

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by SwallowdaFonz
Funny, isn't it, how our perception of how well the Swans played can come down to goal-kicking?

Kick 15.8 and we win the game - Swans playing great. Kick 8.15 and we lose - Swans playing poorly. It would take a cool head to judge the team's performance separate from it's accuracy in front of goal (acknowledging that this accuracy is of course itself a key element of the team's performance).

I reckon the Swans rarely dominate games with possession and great ball movement. This makes our goal-kicking accuracy even more important to percpeption of performance. Yet it often comes down to inches either side of the goal post.

Well, OK, maybe its more like many feet the wrong side of the goal post . . .

.... and sometimes smack ON the goalpost.
Good point.
A score of 98 is a "good" score (IMO) ... a score of 63 is ok, depending on if it was a low scoring game and the winners won by a goal, or 63 would suck if the winners beat us by 100.
Goals win games ... or a behind when you're Tony Lockett.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
17 behinds is 102 potential percentage boosting points, and in a competition where you have six teams separated only by a few percentage points, percentage is a major factor. Why is it ignored?
Accuracy must be improved before we hit the finals.

It's actually only 85 points - you score 17 points from 17 behinds, but 17 goals would be 102 points. So the net loss is 102-17 = 85.

At this stage of the season, the 5 or so percentage points we have over St Kilda and Collingwood would not be bridged unless there was in excess or a 200pt turnaround. So in this case, the lack of accuracy isn't the issue when it comes to percentage, but more in terms of perhaps costing us a win in close games.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
17 behinds is 102 potential percentage boosting points, and in a competition where you have six teams separated only by a few percentage points, percentage is a major factor. Why is it ignored?
Accuracy must be improved before we hit the finals.

SORRY ... MY BRAIN THINKS FASTER THAN MY FINGERS CAN TYPE.

I meant to say 17 GOALS is 102 potential percentage boosting points.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
A score of 98 is a "good" score (IMO) ... a score of 63 is ok, depending on if it was a low scoring game and the winners won by a goal, or 63 would suck if the winners beat us by 100.
Goals win games ... or a behind when you're Tony Lockett.

Goals do win games. I think 15.8 is an "okay" score (although not too bad as an average).

A score of '63' (whatever the goal/behind mix) is crap.

I also look at number of scoring shots. At an absolute minimum I expect 25 while good teams managed 26-28 regularly.

On that basis, you should average above 100 points.

As I mentioned a little while ago, 13 goals is our cut-off point (lower than the 100 point mark I mention above because we play such boring stoppage-ridden footy). We nearly always win when we kick 13 goals or more. And we often lose (can't recall the ratio - maybe half?) when we kick less.