Even angrier with BBB now....

[NMWBloods]

You say we need more goals. We got more goals. We lost.

Yes - unusual situation.

[swantastic]

We're 13th in goals scored in the competition. The only three teams below us are 14-16th on the ladder. Same thing I bang on about most weeks.

We're also 13th in scoring shots per game and 12th in accuracy.

Everything about our offensive game sucks.

What's keeping us in contention is that we are first in defence - lowest scores, lowest number of scoring shots, opposition accuracy.

But as we have seen, this is a risky strategy and may no longer be enough.

If we step up our accuracy really that should be enough because we dont really lose by much.

Maybe our accuracy has some thing to do with pressure there fore a lot of rushed behinds which contributes to our inaccuracy.

You dont need to score heaps of goals to win games but you need a tight defence.

A good defence goes a long way to winning a game.

[goswannie14]

If we step up our accuracy really that should be enough because we dont really lose by much.

Maybe our accuracy has some thing to do with pressure there fore a lot of rushed behinds which contributes to our inaccuracy.

You dont need to score heaps of goals to win games but you need a tight defence.
A good defence goes a long way to winning a game.

Both preferably would be my suggestion.

[swansrule100]

If we step up our accuracy really that should be enough because we dont really lose by much.

Maybe our accuracy has some thing to do with pressure there fore a lot of rushed behinds which contributes to our inaccuracy.

You dont need to score heaps of goals to win games but you need a tight defence.

A good defence goes a long way to winning a game.

we have a good defence in terms of scores against because we just bottle up and play containment football, we dont make a good enough effort to win the game

[NMWBloods]

Looking at the rounded average scores for the top 10 sides:

Geelong 17.15.117 - 11.12.78

Hawthorn 18.15.123 - 13.10.88

Bulldogs 20.12.132 - 14.11.95

Adelaide 15.13.103 - 12.11.83

St.Kilda 14.11.95 - 14.10.94

Sydney 13.12.90 - 11.12.78

Nth Melb 14.11.95 - 14.13.97

Collingwood 16.14.110 - 15.12.102

Port Adel 15.12.102 - 15.11.101

Brisbane 14.15.99 - 15.11.101


We're obviously playing a different game to most of the others.

Note also if for each team you can take out the largest winning score, our averages are far more affected than any of the other sides.

[swantastic]

Looking at the rounded average scores for the top 10 sides:

Geelong 17.15.117 - 11.12.78

Hawthorn 18.15.123 - 13.10.88

Bulldogs 20.12.132 - 14.11.95

Adelaide 15.13.103 - 12.11.83

St.Kilda 14.11.95 - 14.10.94

Sydney 13.12.90 - 11.12.78

Nth Melb 14.11.95 - 14.13.97

Collingwood 16.14.110 - 15.12.102

Port Adel 15.12.102 - 15.11.101

Brisbane 14.15.99 - 15.11.101


We're obviously playing a different game to most of the others.

Note also if for each team you can take out the largest winning score, our averages are far more affected than any of the other sides.

Not much different to the best team going around ATM,Geelong so we cant be doing much wrong.

So if we kick 3 goals more per game we would win nearly all our games.

[NMWBloods]

Not much different to the best team going around ATM,Geelong so we cant be doing much wrong.

So if we kick 3 goals more per game we would win nearly all our games.

We're 5 goals off the best team. Adjust for the single best games and we're 6 goals away.

We're 2-3 goals away from most of the other good sides in scoring ability.

[swantastic]

We're 5 goals off the best team. Adjust for the single best games and we're 6 goals away.

We're 2-3 goals away from most of the other good sides in scoring ability.

No we are not, we are 3 goals at best away.With our tight defence that makes up for it.

The average of goals kick for the winning score was 15.6 so if we kick 16 with our defence no worries.

[NMWBloods]

No we are not, we are 3 goals at best away.With our tight defence that makes up for it.

The average of goals kick for the winning score was 15.6 so if we kick 16 with our defence no worries.

I'm not sure what you mean. Geelong's defence is as good as ours and they score 4-5 goals more than we do.

[swantastic]

I'm not sure what you mean. Geelong's defence is as good as ours and they score 4-5 goals more than we do.

Ours and Geelongs are the best defences,so if we can kick 3 more goals and we keep them to 78 points and we kick our average score we will win.

I'm not just talking about Geelong i'm talking about all the other teams as well.

The average of goals kicked for the winning score was 15.6 so if we kick 16 with our defence at average 78 points per game for the opposition then we shouldnt have any worries.

[SimonH]

Looking at the rounded average scores for the top 10 sides:

[stats]

We're obviously playing a different game to most of the others.

The stats don't bear out the claim. Every other side (bar the Woods) that isn't in the top 3 is kicking 1 or 2 more goals a week than Sydney. That's one goal or two goals across four quarters.
The Woods kick 3 more goals, but give up 4. I for one wouldn't want to swap places with them; if you do, you're on an interesting side of the 'entertainment vs success' argument.

Percentages from 2005-7 just confirm the trend of this year: Sydney tend to score slightly less than teams around us on the table, but concede less by at least the same margin.

Minor round figures comparing Sydney with the 4 teams who bracketed them on the premiership table (2 above, 2 below):
2005: finished 3rd. 287 goals for, 245 against. Average of surrounding sides: 321 goals for, 264 against.
2006: finished 4th. 304 goals for, 240 against. Average of surrounding sides: 323 goals for, 260 against.
2007: finished 7th. 297 goals for, 246 against. Average of surrounding sides: 282 goals for, 270 against.

Even in the most extreme year (2005), an average attacking difference of 1.5 goals/game is not such that you could expect the two sides to be playing different games. Two goals can be kicked in a minute; one and a half presumably in even less time! 2007 was particularly notable because teams who finished 11th, 12th, 13th and 15th all kicked well over 300 goals; whereas all teams finishing 6th-10th kicked in the 200s. A bit of a kick in the teeth for the theory that if you're a mid-level side, you should attack your way to success.

Your subsequent arguments simply establish that we aren't playing to the standard of the top 3 sides. Looking at the column on the far right-hand side of the ladder headed 'premiership points' should be the only statistic you need to see to establish that one.

If we win more, our average for and against will start to look better and better. If we hit a streak of form and make it to 9-1-3 at the split round, I guarantee that by then our average goals kicked/game will be better than 14, and better than most of the comp. It's a symptom, not a cause.

'Disregarding the highest score' is misleading unless there's any particular reason to do so. And there isn't, because a team that plays a consistently dour negative style shouldn't be capable of getting a big score against any opposition.

In fact, you can make an argument that when trying to identify a team's style (i.e. what it's trying to do), the maximum score is at least as instructive as the average. It tells you what the team is capable of, if everything is going in its favour.

On the flipside of that point, when was the last time that Sydney gave up 20 goals in a game? My quick flick-through reveals that the answer to that one is 'round 12, 2004' when we played a dominant Port in Adelaide with an injury-cruelled defence lacking Leo Barry, Schauble and Saddington and so were reliant on the efforts of the likes of Mark Powell, Heath James and a very very raw LRT as big defensive bodies. We've given up 18 goals about 3 times in the last 3 years including last w/e (and the 2007 elim final). I would pretty safely bet that nearly 4 years without conceding 20 goals would be a current record defence streak among AFL teams, and possibly even the record streak for the last generation or so.

Go on. Run through the scores kicked against Sydney over the last 3 or 4 years. If we kick 14 goals every game (and yes, that is a big 'if' with this Sydney side), we are going to win a lot, lot more than we lose. No strategy on a football field gives guaranteed success, but Sydney's approach is far more tried and tested than it is "risky".

[NMWBloods]

The stats don't bear out the claim.

Different game = we score less and we stop our opposition scoring = we maintain the lockdown game, which other teams aren't playing.

'Disregarding the highest score' is misleading unless there's any particular reason to do so. And there isn't, because a team that plays a consistently dour negative style shouldn't be capable of getting a big score against any opposition.

The reason is that it was a particular outlier for us, but not so much for the others.

In fact, you can make an argument that when trying to identify a team's style (i.e. what it's trying to do), the maximum score is at least as instructive as the average. It tells you what the team is capable of, if everything is going in its favour.

Or that it's an outlier.

Go on. Run through the scores kicked against Sydney over the last 3 or 4 years. If we kick 14 goals every game (and yes, that is a big 'if' with this Sydney side), we are going to win a lot, lot more than we lose.

I don't need to do the numbers - I've provided that stat numerous times.

No strategy on a football field gives guaranteed success, but Sydney's approach is far more tried and tested than it is "risky".

I say it is risky because it hasn't been a great method against top teams.

[SimonH]

Different game = we score less and we stop our opposition scoring = we maintain the lockdown game, which other teams aren't playing..

Yes, but my point is simply that your observations as a viewer may bear out the claim that Sydney play a "lockdown game" where others don't (unless they're forced into it by Sydney). The stats don't bear out the claim. All they establish is that Sydney matches are on average slightly lower scoring, but not so substantially that you can go to a Sydney match confident that it will involve fewer goals than any other match that round.

The reason is that it was a particular outlier for us, but not so much for the others.

Or that it's an outlier.

But the term 'outlier' only explains away anything statistically if you're, say, selecting random numbers, or you have some rational reason why the outlier may not be a true representation of what's going on (e.g. sampling error in a poll). It doesn't generally apply to a real game of football played on a field in front of an audience. The Swans' highest scoring game for 2008 establishes that the 2008 Swans team playing the 2008 Swans gameplan (which we're all agreed is pretty similar to the 2004-7 gameplan!) is capable of kicking 22 goals against an AFL opponent. That's a fact, not an anomaly.

I say it is risky because it hasn't been a great method against top teams.

I think we can both just let the record against top teams over the last 4 or so years speak for itself on that one. Suffice to say I don't agree with you.

[Nico]

I'm not angry at Hall im angry at his x missus for getting him so pissed off that he snaps and belts Staker.

With Hall in the team for the last two weeks IMO we would have won both.

We would have been 5-2 not a crappy 3-3-1

Correctumundo! The stupid thing about the whole episode is they were reported to have been separated for 12 months, then he crawls back and reckons he didn't fix up the shiela in Fiji.

Time for him to take up boxing so some loser can belt some sense into him.

[NMWBloods]

but not so substantially that you can go to a Sydney match confident that it will involve fewer goals than any other match that round.

Yet they are regularly one of the lowest scoring teams for the season so the smart money is for them to be in the bottom half of goals kicked per round.

I think Sydney play a lockdown game more often against top 8 sides and a freer scoring game against lower sides. Again, many teams do that to some degree, but Swans do it more.

But the term 'outlier' only explains away anything statistically if you're, say, selecting random numbers, or you have some rational reason why the outlier may not be a true representation of what's going on (e.g. sampling error in a poll). It doesn't generally apply to a real game of football played on a field in front of an audience. The Swans' highest scoring game for 2008 establishes that the 2008 Swans team playing the 2008 Swans gameplan (which we're all agreed is pretty similar to the 2004-7 gameplan!) is capable of kicking 22 goals against an AFL opponent. That's a fact, not an anomaly.

But it depends on other things, such as who they are playing and std dev. If one team kicks 12 goals 5 weeks in a row and another side kicks 8 goals 4 weeks in a row and 28 goals one week, then saying they each average 12 goals per game is rather misleading.

I think we can both just let the record against top teams over the last 4 or so years speak for itself on that one. Suffice to say I don't agree with you.

In the past 2 and a bit seasons it's 8-1-17. It's 14-14 for the two years before that. Over that time, extracting finals alone is 6-4 (but 3-5 without Davis!).