2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think our biggest issue is not converting scoring shots when we have the momentum. Against Geelong obviously but also early on against Freo before we kicked 7 goals in the 2nd quarter. Also the first 10 minutes of the last quarter against Freo. 

The gameplan seems to be working well enough to win games, we're just not kicking enough goals when we have the chance.

Agreed, mate. Goody is probably feeling a little unlucky too. Our conversion under Roosy was usually what kept us in games. Now poor conversion is costing us games. I'd rather be in the latter category, obviously.

Another stat: Our tallied first quarters are sitting at 9.14 v 16.8 (that inaccuracy again) and I think we're running at about 3-10 for goals kicked after the 29th-minute mark of quarters. Also, we've had a couple third-quarter lapses after the break. Learn to switch on a bit better and we start winning more games.

On 16/04/2017 at 1:29 PM, rpfc said:

 

Scoring Shots

Currently 4th in the league, up from 12th last year and really quite promising. We have had an extra 3.5 shots at goal this year. As an aside - Sydney has had 7.6 less shots at goal this year...

Summary

To much finessin' with the ball is evident from those numbers of UPs but we are steady in I50s and up in shots at goal. Lot of noise at this point, but it might mean - in an even season - that we create enough to beat enough teams to get into September. I will say - dropping 4 CPs a game is quite a bit of a drop. I would worry if that doesn't correct.

I'm struggling with this statistic. Is it up because we've been inaccurate? In other words, is (say) three shots at goal but all scoring behinds really better than one shot which scores a goal?  I would have thought not. And does it go up because scoring more behinds means the ball's in the forward 50 more because each behind means the ball is being kicked in from the goal square rather than starting in the centre square?

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm struggling with this statistic. Is it up because we've been inaccurate? In other words, is (say) three shots at goal but all scoring behinds really better than one shot which scores a goal?  I would have thought not. And does it go up because scoring more behinds means the ball's in the forward 50 more because each behind means the ball is being kicked in from the goal square rather than starting in the centre square?

It might be noise.

They are just the numbers - if we can keep up those numbers is to be seen.

Unfortunately a high possession game plan puts a higher focus on skill execution, and we know we are not there yet.  Turnovers will continue to haunt us

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:23 AM, A F said:

Agreed, mate. Goody is probably feeling a little unlucky too. Our conversion under Roosy was usually what kept us in games. Now poor conversion is costing us games. I'd rather be in the latter category, obviously.

Actually it was our defense. We had fewer scoring shots and were under less pressure to score because we tended to be on top defensively. We get so much of the ball now that we're struggling with two-way running again.  I think our backline holds up very well considering. Problem lies in transition out of our forward line, which I actually put down to Gawn's absence.  Our mids need to work extra hard, and realised that in the 3rd quarter last week. 

9 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm struggling with this statistic. Is it up because we've been inaccurate? In other words, is (say) three shots at goal but all scoring behinds really better than one shot which scores a goal?  I would have thought not. And does it go up because scoring more behinds means the ball's in the forward 50 more because each behind means the ball is being kicked in from the goal square rather than starting in the centre square?

Another way of looking at it though is after a goal the ball reverts to a 50/50 contest whereas after a behind the opposition gets control of the footy. So we are more likely to regain possession following a goal.

I wonder how many scores we've kicked following a behind without the ball exiting our 50/forward half. 

Not sure if I'm regurgitating, so apologies if so.

the key stat I like out of this is that we have similar i50's to last year with an extra 3.5 shots on goal per game. Not bombing it into the fwd line nearly as much which really [censored] me off last year.

Still too early to worry about clearance delta. Don't mind the big increase in UP, we look good when we move it quickly forward through short accurate kicking. MUCH better than years gone by when we would get locked into our half back line and either lob it down the line or do circle work until we turned it over. 

33 minutes ago, small but forward said:

Not sure if I'm regurgitating, so apologies if so.

the key stat I like out of this is that we have similar i50's to last year with an extra 3.5 shots on goal per game. Not bombing it into the fwd line nearly as much which really [censored] me off last year.

Still too early to worry about clearance delta. Don't mind the big increase in UP, we look good when we move it quickly forward through short accurate kicking. MUCH better than years gone by when we would get locked into our half back line and either lob it down the line or do circle work until we turned it over. 

Yeah, I think there'll be a bit of a readjustment over the next 12 months or so and we'll see the UP's and CP's even up a bit. But I like how we started with an emphasis on CP's under Roos and now the UP's seem to be the focus of Goody's. Once our ball use develops, we'll be really hard to beat, in the Hawthorn model, because if it continues, we just won't let the opposition have the ball.

On 17 April 2017 at 4:40 PM, Little Goffy said:

How are we doing on the stat for 'getting numbers into defense when there's almost not time left to go and we're holding onto a tiny lead'?

Has it improved since the Saints game (Rnd 11 2015)?

Wow, funny how some things just keep stinging. That one still feels like it was near the end of last season, just a few games ago, not some 20 months ago.

Unfortunately we failed at the very next hurdle here LG. The coaches place so much emphasis on stoppage work/set plays, moving the ball inside and up through the corridor quickly, slow possession play around the back and switches to fat sides etc....they forgot one of the most important aspects or didn't drill it hard enough... how to protect a lead with only a minute or two left.

The rest is great and needs emphasis but useless if you end up losing the close ones once your nose is in front. All that franatic effort, chasing, goal kicking, tackling etc etc for a big sack of nothing.

24 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

The rest is great and needs emphasis but useless if you end up losing the close ones once your nose is in front. All that franatic effort, chasing, goal kicking, tackling etc etc for a big sack of nothing.

A very long bow - but I've been pondering if 'all that frenetic effort, chasing, tackling,' and our #1 poz for pressure acts has any bearing on goal-kicking accuracy? Like the winter biathletes in a broad sense. If someone can direct me toward the annual team stats for forward/midfield 'pressure acts', I can do a comparative and see if there's a correlation between high-energy footy and poor goal-kicking accuracy.

11 hours ago, Skuit said:

A very long bow - but I've been pondering if 'all that frenetic effort, chasing, tackling,' and our #1 poz for pressure acts has any bearing on goal-kicking accuracy? Like the winter biathletes in a broad sense. If someone can direct me toward the annual team stats for forward/midfield 'pressure acts', I can do a comparative and see if there's a correlation between high-energy footy and poor goal-kicking accuracy.

That sounds like hard work and no g'tee you wld find a strong correlation Skuit. I reckon the pros are getting paid pretty good coin. Let them go earn it ☺️