Why is it that we get labelled as "flooders"????

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Yes it's funny how we were less "attacking" in 2000 and 2001 straight after Mr Lockett retired....

Wouldn't it be lovely if Roos could plonk a 100 goal a season icredible hulk in the goal square for a few seasons.

We have a pretty decent CHF now.

Take Hall and Lockett out of each side and the Eade's Swans still kick more goals on average.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Brandon
I thought that the fairest comparison would be to use the placing in terms of "points for" for the year to compare the two coaches. Using the AFL's historical archives, what I came up with were:

Don't think that's a fair or good comparison.

You've got to look at the lists at the time.

As already noted Plugger was a huge influence on the goals and the style of play.

[Brandon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The Swans squad in the last couple of years under Eade was pretty ordinary so hardly surprising they couldn't kick too many goals.

By the time the team had been reconfigured Eade had lost them.

By your argument then there's no way to compare the two, because there's no way to assess "squad strengths" without becoming subjective. Is Roos less attacking because of the coach, or because of the players? (As Chow-Chicker pointed out, Roos did not have access to one Mr Lockett for his coaching career.)

What about taking 2002? Both coaches had the same squad that year.

After 12 rounds - 13th
After 22 rounds - 8th

You could argue that Eade had lost the confidence of his players then, but that's the closest you're going to get to comparing coaches with the same squad strength.

[Layby]

Roos has more hair

Eade has less hair

I think this is the best indicator of who would be more defensive !

[Brandon]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
Don't think that's a fair or good comparison.

You've got to look at the lists at the time.

As already noted Plugger was a huge influence on the goals and the style of play.

I agree.

Stats are really not the ideal way to compare anything, especially since what personnel is available is such a big influence as well. Do we have more players who have better defensive abilities but less attacking abilities now compared to back then? Are opposition defenders/defensive structures better now than back then? A million things could affect how it looks, even if you were to pick out random games from Eade's era and compare them visually with games from Roos' era.

Hey, it's an interesting exercise though (sometimes)

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We have a pretty decent CHF now.

Take Hall and Lockett out of each side and the Eade's Swans still kick more goals on average.

Yes but if we talk about averages, Lockett averaged 103 goals per season and Hall averages 66 goals per season. That's a big difference. You mean to say that Eade's team still outscores Roos' with this fact? Show me the money....well, in fact you have, and I don't see a 40 goal discrepancy in the comparitive years you supplied (Except for the 1998 and 2005 comparitive years).

[Damien]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Yes but if we talk about averages, Lockett averaged 103 goals per season and Hall averages 66 goals per season. That's a big difference. You mean to say that Eade's team still outscores Roos' with this fact? Show me the money....well, in fact you have, and I don't see a 40 goal discrepancy in the comparitive years you supplied (Except for the 1998 and 2005 comparitive years).

I think if Hall played the same role he could get 100 goals too.

However, pointing out Lockett's goals for a season doesn't come close to proving what side was more attacking or defensive. It actually strengthens the argument that we were more attacking under Eade or why else could he kick that many goals.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
The phrase 'attacking' (in the context used in this thread) refers to the defensive attitude of the team and as from defensive positions - the movement of the ball up the ground into the forward 50 (that's how I'm interpreting it anyway).

These stats reflects the mentality within the forward 50 (including the influence of T.Lockett). Eades forwards relyed more on contested marks - leads to pockets etc - where Roos have a more patient buildup. When was the last time a long bomb was put to the top of the swannies goal square?

This why.

[liz]

Originally posted by Damien
I think if Hall played the same role he could get 100 goals too.

No way. Lockett was in a class of his own in what he did. Hall has nothing like the same instinct of when to lead in the forward 50 as Lockett did, and isn't as good a one-on-one mark. He has other attributes that Lockett didn't have, and I think his role in the current team is arguably as important as Lockett's was, but that is because he plays to his strengths, rather than trying to be a poor-man's Plugger.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Damien
I think if Hall played the same role he could get 100 goals too.

However, pointing out Lockett's goals for a season doesn't come close to proving what side was more attacking or defensive. It actually strengthens the argument that we were more attacking under Eade or why else could he kick that many goals.

Because he was a 191cm, 112kg phenomenon.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Because he was a 191cm, 112kg phenomenon.

As opposed to a 195cm, 102kg phenomenon.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Brandon
By your argument then there's no way to compare the two, because there's no way to assess "squad strengths" without becoming subjective. Is Roos less attacking because of the coach, or because of the players? (As Chow-Chicker pointed out, Roos did not have access to one Mr Lockett for his coaching career.)

What about taking 2002? Both coaches had the same squad that year.

After 12 rounds - 13th
After 22 rounds - 8th

You could argue that Eade had lost the confidence of his players then, but that's the closest you're going to get to comparing coaches with the same squad strength.

I was simply comparing them over their terms as coach.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
As opposed to a 195cm, 102kg phenomenon.

Stats don't uncover a "phenomenon". He's not in the same league as Lockett. Locket averages 37 more goals a season. Any coincidence in the fact that the Swans score ranking in 2000 and 2001 were worse than during the Lockett years 1995-99?

[Brandon]

Originally posted by liz
No way. Lockett was in a class of his own in what he did. Hall has nothing like the same instinct of when to lead in the forward 50 as Lockett did, and isn't as good a one-on-one mark. He has other attributes that Lockett didn't have, and I think his role in the current team is arguably as important as Lockett's was, but that is because he plays to his strengths, rather than trying to be a poor-man's Plugger.

Someone may have to correct me on this if I'm wrong, but Hall played as a Plugger-like FF for much of 2002, did he not? I seem to remember being quite unimpressed at the time with this man who was meant to be Plugger's replacement (unrealistic expectations, I know).

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Yes but if we talk about averages, Lockett averaged 103 goals per season and Hall averages 66 goals per season. That's a big difference. You mean to say that Eade's team still outscores Roos' with this fact? Show me the money....well, in fact you have, and I don't see a 40 goal discrepancy in the comparitive years you supplied (Except for the 1998 and 2005 comparitive years).

I already did.

Excluding Lockett, Eade's team kicked 236 goals per season.
Excluding Hall, Roos' team kicked 232 goals per season.

Which tends to suggest they are fairly similar in that regard.

Which goes back to my original point that it is not the case that Eade is significantly more defensive than Roos.

What is interesting though is if you take out the influence of 1996 and 2003. Then if you compare 1997-1999 with 2004-2006, with Lockett and Hall excluded, Eade's team kicked 244 goals per season against Roos' team of 215.