Apologies for my simplistic approach ?

[Slayer]

Hey all
Yes i been reading with much joy some of the posts - and thought id add some comment. Is it the coach ? is it a certain player ? yada yada .....

I know the below summary becomes somewhat of a generalisation, and yes i know behinds also include rushed behinds or other reasons .... but im merely providing the over all trend. Do with it what u will but b4 u go questioning coaches .... players ..... and wives ( well maybe ) just remember the old golden rule. Bad kicking is bad football.

Generally speaking if you have 4 or more scoring shots u r bound to win, if its 3 or less the accuracy plays a HUGE factor irrespective of rushed etc

Seems kinda simplistic to say the accurate sides wins, seems almost obvious - but hey its just a reminder of howsimple the game really is (?)

Some stats for your enjoyment ................

Rd 4
One sided scoring ( shots at goals )
Geelong , hawks, adel Port, and Freo all had more scoring shots than there opposition and won ( comfortably )


Games were scoring shots were close, or the losing side had more scoring shots, simple formula applies – kick accurately or u lose.

Pies had more scoring shots ( by one ) but lost the game
accuracy rate : pies 42 % - lions 56 %
Dogs had more scoring shots than Essendon ( by one ) but lost the game
accuracy rate : Dogs 53 % - Essend 69 %
Saints had more scoring shots than Richmond ( by 4 ) but lost the game
accuracy rate : Saints 42 % - Tiges 77 %

Rd 3

One sided scoring ( shots at goals )
West coast, Pies, Port Adel and tiges all had more scoring shots than there opposition and won ( comfortably )


Games were scoring shots were close, or the losing side had more scoring shots, simple formula applies – kick accurately or u lose.

Ess had 29 scoring shots to carltons 30 but lost the game – close game – could have gone either way ?
accuracy rate : Ess 45 % - Blues 50 %
Dees and dogs had a close one. Dees had 2 more scoring shots and won – the accuracy made it all the more easy a win.
accuracy rate : Dees 74 % - Dogs 56 %
The team with most scoring shots won in both cases – sounds about right. But with only a few scoring shots separating teams it showed the value of accuracy.


Rd 2

One sided scoring ( shots at goals )
Freo, hawks and tiges all had more scoring shots than there opposition and won ( comfortably )


Games were scoring shots were close, or the losing side had more scoring shots, simple formula applies – kick accurately or u lose.

Pies had more scoring shots ( by one ) and won the game
accuracy rate : pies 59 % - Blues 50 %
Ess and melb had 2 scoring shots seprating them, in the end the dons blitzed – reasonaccuracy
accuracy rate : Dons 63 % - Dees 40 %
Saints v adel game, another example were 2 less scoring shots still wins the game.
accuracy rate : Saints 62 % - Adel 50 %
The port v lions game, port had 5 extra scoring shots and yet still lost.
accuracy rate : Port 38 % - lions 62 %


cant be bothered doing rd 1 - but u get the idea .....

[Culprit]

Good points slayer "bad kicking is bad football".

[AbsoluteTallant]

This focus on kicking for goal is comical to me. It's like saying 'we only lost by 14 points'. Whilst technically the margin was 14 points, we got back into it in what people are now referring to as 'junk time'. They say the Lions never give an inch, even in time on. Well I'd say they more or less stopped for 5 minutes at the end and this is when we made the amrgin slightly more respectable.

For all intents and purposes we got comprehensibly smashed in the third 'premiership' quarter and no further analysis can change that.

Even if we had kicked well when we dominated in the second and got a 30-40 point lead, the Lions would have come back.

I dunno, ok maybe I'm just 'negative' but blaming kicking for goal is a bit like blaming the umpires. In any one game of footy you know the umpires are going to make bad decisions but you know you just have to work harder to win anyway. To some extent it's the same with shots on goal - you have to accept that the side will never kick 100% accurate and realise this means that you need to get more inside 50s and more scoring shots.

I think that's more accurate - I'd like to see inside 50s and centre clearances etc. I reckon those stats will help tell a better story though stats can be used to prove any point as we know

[ramjet21]

fair point AT but you get 30-40 points up at half time as you suggest and the chances of what happened in the third Q diminish drastically. momentum and confidence in footy is huge. collingwood on a high, brissy thinking its gonna be a long road back to win. still possible of course and in brissy's case, theyre always going to fight on but accuracy in the first half could have seen a different result. doesnt change the fact we were not up to the pressure in the 2nd half of course, which is a real worry.

[AnthonyC]

Well AbsoluteTallant, I tend to disagree with your comments regarding "junk" time. I say that no side ever actually "stops". Sure they may waste time by playing kick-to kick but they don't actually leave the field. Possibly they "stopped" because they were spent. As you state though, yes we were smashed in the 3rd quarter unfortunately.

[understudy]

Williams and tarrant (the lead boots) have a lot to answer for in this respect.

This is where we miss the straight shooter nicky davis