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

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
None of the players you mention play for Sydney. Therefore none of them work as hard as Hall. Simple, you idiot.

I've let that one go through to the keeper. That was a short, wide, crap delivery which will be smacked to the boundary, if not over it, if you bowl that @@@@ again.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
None of the players you mention play for Sydney. Therefore none of them work as hard as Hall. Simple, you idiot.

Ah, finally some sense.

[Brandon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The "insignificant difference", as I already stated, supports my point. Eade's Swans were not significantly more defensive than Roos' Swans, even taking out the Lockett factor.

Of course Eade's team kicked less goals in 2000-01 than they had previously - they were without Lockett. That doesn't mean it was Eade's game plan to play more defensively - he lacked a major goalkicker.

Yet even in that period Eade's Swans kicked more goals than Roos' Swans in 2004-05.

Eade might have lost Plugger - but he had other players kicking goals. Players like Ahmat, Goodes and Nicks were kicking goals back then, and midfielders like Maxfield, Williams, Cresswell, Schwass and Kelly were also kicking goals. Even Leo Barry was kicking goals back then (as a forward). There were cameos by Fitzgerald, of course, and perhaps one difference is that our ruckman Stafford (and Ball when he made it out onto the park) were goalkickers.

In a way, you might say that goalkicking midfielders made Eade look better than he did. Conversely, the lack of goalkicking midfielders made Roos look worse than he is during 2004/2005. In particular I remember our forward line having a ridiculously high % of our total score in 2005 (which actually reflects how I think AFL should be played)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Brandon
Eade might have lost Plugger - but he had other players kicking goals. Players like Ahmat, Goodes and Nicks were kicking goals back then, and midfielders like Maxfield, Williams, Cresswell, Schwass and Kelly were also kicking goals. Even Leo Barry was kicking goals back then (as a forward). There were cameos by Fitzgerald, of course, and perhaps one difference is that our ruckman Stafford (and Ball when he made it out onto the park) were goalkickers.

In a way, you might say that goalkicking midfielders made Eade look better than he did. Conversely, the lack of goalkicking midfielders made Roos look worse than he is during 2004/2005.

I really can't see a great deal of sense or relevance in these arguments.

[Brandon]

My point is that Eade had goalkicking midfielders to mask any deficiencies with his attack in 2000-2001 (an attack which still had a variety of forward options even with Lockett's loss). While in comparison, Roos' 2004-2005 forward line kicked more goals than Eade's forwards, but kicked less goals in total as a team because of the lack of any goalkicking midfielders. Bolton and Williams were our only goalkicking mids in 2004-2005, and their contributions were not great in these two years either. We kicked less goals in 2004-2005 compared to 2000-2001 not because of any difference in the gameplans, but because we didn't have the goalkicking mids to provide those extra goals.

You might argue that goals are goals regardless of who kicks them, but I tend to disagree - very seldomly do teams plan for midfielders to kick goals. They happen more by chance than by design (as in you have to have natural goalkicking mids, you can't just set up for it)

[NMWBloods]

I still don't think that affects my original comment.

There was some views stated that essentially Eade was a defensive coach, Roos was more attacking, Eade has changed now to be more like Roos, and Eade became more defensive later in his career.

I don't see any stats presented that strong support these views.

[Brandon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I still don't think that affects my original comment.

There was some views stated that essentially Eade was a defensive coach, Roos was more attacking, Eade has changed now to be more like Roos, and Eade became more defensive later in his career.

I don't see any stats presented that strong support these views.

Well, the last part of it is true - after the high of 1998, the Swans had a lower % of total competition goal rating every year until Eade's resignation in 2002. In 2003 our rating was restored to 6.6%, slightly higher than levels in 1997 and 1999 and certainly much higher than any of Eade's years after 1998. Our rating then dropped to 2000-2002-like levels in 2004-2005 before it rebounded to 6.4% this year.

In summary Eade was becoming less attacking after the high of 1998 (I suppose the worry was that the squad of 2001's attack was worse than 2000, and 2002's attack was worse than 2001), while the introduction of Roos did immediately bring us up back to a high level in 2003.

At WB, Eade has scored at levels roughly comparable to his best year (1998) at the Swans for both 2005 and 2006. Conversely, he has leaked more goals than during any of his years at the Swans.

Edit: Whether there's any influence in Eade's thinking from watching the 2003 version of the Swans, I don't know. There are certainly some similarities to be drawn between the 2 - the reliance on run from the backline to set up play, the poor performances in clearances, and increased use of mediums playing as talls. I suspect though that is just a general trend in the AFL game rather than any imitation.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Brandon
Well, the last part of it is true - after the high of 1998, the Swans had a lower % of total competition goal rating every year until Eade's resignation in 2002. In 2003 our rating was restored to 6.6%, slightly higher than levels in 1997 and 1999 and certainly much higher than any of Eade's years after 1998. Our rating then dropped to 2000-2002-like levels in 2004-2005 before it rebounded to 6.4% this year.

In summary Eade was becoming less attacking after the high of 1998 (I suppose the worry was that the squad of 2001's attack was worse than 2000, and 2002's attack was worse than 2001), while the introduction of Roos did immediately bring us up back to a high level in 2003.

Scoring shots don't give a strong indication of any increase in defensiveness.

Goals in 1999 are not lower than in 1997 or 1996.

Edit: Whether there's any influence in Eade's thinking from watching the 2003 version of the Swans, I don't know. There are certainly some similarities to be drawn between the 2 - the reliance on run from the backline to set up play, the poor performances in clearances, and increased use of mediums playing as talls. I suspect though that is just a general trend in the AFL game rather than any imitation.

I tend to agree (as well injuries taking away his tall options).

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Brandon
My point is that Eade had goalkicking midfielders to mask any deficiencies with his attack in 2000-2001 (an attack which still had a variety of forward options even with Lockett's loss). While in comparison, Roos' 2004-2005 forward line kicked more goals than Eade's forwards, but kicked less goals in total as a team because of the lack of any goalkicking midfielders. Bolton and Williams were our only goalkicking mids in 2004-2005, and their contributions were not great in these two years either. We kicked less goals in 2004-2005 compared to 2000-2001 not because of any difference in the gameplans, but because we didn't have the goalkicking mids to provide those extra goals.

You might argue that goals are goals regardless of who kicks them, but I tend to disagree - very seldomly do teams plan for midfielders to kick goals. They happen more by chance than by design (as in you have to have natural goalkicking mids, you can't just set up for it)

Absolutely correct, well said.

[Brandon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]Scoring shots don't give a strong indication of any increase in defensiveness.

Goals in 1999 are not lower than in 1997 or 1996.

I tend to agree (as well injuries taking away his tall options).

I might be looking at different figures to you (note that I'm only looking at H&A figures) - goals in 1999 were lower than 1996 and level with 1997, again using the % total goal of competition stat.

And you were the one who started the use of goals and scoring shots as a measure of attackiness earlier in the thread *points*

I suppose the great mystery for next season is, will Eade perservere with a similar structure as this year, or revert to a taller structure with Darcy available? If so, will it be more or less effective? The uncoventionalness of the WB attack contributed to many mismatches in their favour this year - will this advantage still be there? Will Eade try to rectify clearance problems by changing the midfield set up? All interesting problems not easily answerable during this time of the year.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
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.

Are you just blurting out figures just to suit your arguments or are they actual facts? The way I see it, 1996-1999 Lockett kicked 459 goals out of a total of 1277. Take that away and you get 818 goals. 2003 - 2006 Barry Hall kicked 296 goals out of a total of 1198. Take that away and you're left with 902 goals. That's 84 more goals to Roos' Swans than Eade's Swans without the respective target forward. Clearly, Roos had us playing a more attacking brand of footy.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Are you just blurting out figures just to suit your arguments or are they actual facts? The way I see it, 1996-1999 Lockett kicked 459 goals out of a total of 1277. Take that away and you get 818 goals. 2003 - 2006 Barry Hall kicked 296 goals out of a total of 1198. Take that away and you're left with 902 goals. That's 84 more goals to Roos' Swans than Eade's Swans without the respective target forward. Clearly, Roos had us playing a more attacking brand of footy.

Or Hall is not the greatest goal kicker of all time?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Brandon
I might be looking at different figures to you (note that I'm only looking at H&A figures) - goals in 1999 were lower than 1996 and level with 1997, again using the % total goal of competition stat.

That was meant to be "not noticeably lower" - 6.5% in '99 against 6.5% in '97 and 6.6% in '96.

And you were the one who started the use of goals and scoring shots as a measure of attackiness earlier in the thread *points*

I'm not saying don't use the stats I'm saying that neither clearly demonstrate the original premise, and the scoring shots especially don't show any decrease in attacking.

As for midfielders kicking lots of goals, that can be a strong indication of attacking play, as the Bulldogs and Eagles have shown of late.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Are you just blurting out figures just to suit your arguments or are they actual facts? The way I see it, 1996-1999 Lockett kicked 459 goals out of a total of 1277.

Really?

H&A

1996
Lockett 114
Swans 317

1997
Lockett 34
Swans 300

1998
Lockett 107
Swans 342

1999
Lockett 77
Swans 318

Total H&A 1996-99
Lockett 332
Swans 1277
Swans without Lockett = 945
Total AFL goals 19,094
Swans goals / total goals = 4.9%

2003-06 goals without Hall = 933
Total AFL goals 19,325
Swans goals / total goals = 4.8%

So, under Eade the Swans kicked more goals both per season in quantum and as a percentage of total competition goals. However, the difference is minimal, which was my original point - Eade was not clearly a more defensive coach than Roos is.

Take that away and you get 818 goals. 2003 - 2006 Barry Hall kicked 296 goals out of a total of 1198. Take that away and you're left with 902 goals. That's 84 more goals to Roos' Swans than Eade's Swans without the respective target forward. Clearly, Roos had us playing a more attacking brand of footy.

Clearly?

So who is blurting out figures now...?

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]Really?

H&A

1996
Lockett 114
Swans 317

1997
Lockett 34
Swans 300

1998
Lockett 107
Swans 342

1999
Lockett 77
Swans 318

Total H&A 1996-99
Lockett 332
Swans 1277
Swans without Lockett = 945
Total AFL goals 19,094
Swans goals / total goals = 4.9%

2003-06 goals without Hall = 933
Total AFL goals 19,325
Swans goals / total goals = 4.8%

So, under Eade the Swans kicked more goals both per season in quantum and as a percentage of total competition goals. However, the difference is minimal, which was my original point - Eade was not clearly a more defensive coach than Roos is.

Clearly?

So who is blurting out figures now...?

You conveniently left out the 110 goals he kicked in 1995. It's a matter of you shifting the figures around (moving the goal posts) so that the figures fit your story.