Scores from turnovers

Round 2: Collingwood v Melbourne

Collingwood 8.7.55

Melbourne 3.7.25

Round 3: St. Kilda v Collingwood

St. Kilda 7.7.49

Collingwood 0.16.16

Pressure?

Source: Herald Sun

Turnovers can be a tricky stat. Sometimes it takes 1-2 minutes for a turnover to result in a goal.

I tend to call it a turnover goal if no-one from our team gains a possession b/w the time we turnover the ball and the time the opposition score a goal. Is that reasonable?

Also, what if our player runs into an open goal or has an easy set shot, and misses. The opposition then rebound and score a goal from the kickout without a melbourne player touching the ball. Is that also a turnover goal?

What are you getting at WJ? I don't understand...

Turnovers can be a tricky stat. Sometimes it takes 1-2 minutes for a turnover to result in a goal.

I tend to call it a turnover goal if no-one from our team gains a possession b/w the time we turnover the ball and the time the opposition score a goal. Is that reasonable?

Also, what if our player runs into an open goal or has an easy set shot, and misses. The opposition then rebound and score a goal from the kickout without a melbourne player touching the ball. Is that also a turnover goal?

I'm pretty sure that first bit's the definition of 'turnover goal'.

I think the point is to categorise each goal kicked in terms of how the team gained possesison of the ball.

The three categories are 'Stoppages', 'Turnovers' and 'Kick-ins'. So your second paragraph would be a 'kick-in' goal.

It is how well a team adjusts to the turnover; it's how they cope psychologically with losing the ball after working hard to get possession and how resilient they are.

Also depends where the t/over occurs

Scores from turnovers

Round 3: St. Kilda v Collingwood

Collingwood 0.16.16

Source: Herald Sun

The most interesting part of that is they kicked 16 straight points from turnovers!!!! How is that possible???

What are you getting at WJ? I don't understand...

Seems clear enough to me. Collingwood couldn't capitalise on turnovers and managed to score 16 behinds in these situations suggesting that St. Kilda was able to maintain pressure on their opponents. Had Melbourne been able to apply the same pressure the week before it could have been a different result. I'm sure that will come with more experience.

Just shows that when Didak, Medhurst and Davis aren't firing, Collingwood are nothing.

Another interesting stat;

Bailey has a record of 2-26 in games played before round 14.

Edited April 10, 201015 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

Seems clear enough to me. Collingwood couldn't capitalise on turnovers and managed to score 16 behinds in these situations suggesting that St. Kilda was able to maintain pressure on their opponents. Had Melbourne been able to apply the same pressure the week before it could have been a different result. I'm sure that will come with more experience.

Did you watch the StKilda / Collingwood game?

Some of the difference between the Melbourne / Stkilda games but some was just bad kicking by collingwood vs StKilda relative to against Melbourne. From a Melbourne perspective the facts are that if collingwood kicked as badly against us as they did against StKilda we would have won, vice verse Collingwood would have have beaten Stkilda if they had maintained the accuracy they achieved against Melbourne.

Seems clear enough to me. Collingwood couldn't capitalise on turnovers and managed to score 16 behinds in these situations suggesting that St. Kilda was able to maintain pressure on their opponents. Had Melbourne been able to apply the same pressure the week before it could have been a different result. I'm sure that will come with more experience.

But most people felt we applied a fair amount of pressure last week. That's why I don't really get the relevance of this stat.

Scores from turnovers

Round 2: Collingwood v Melbourne

Collingwood 8.7.55

Melbourne 3.7.25

Round 3: St. Kilda v Collingwood

St. Kilda 7.7.49

Collingwood 0.16.16

Pressure?

Source: Herald Sun

Wha?