TalkingCarlton
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Inaccuracy
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29993		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  aramari [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Inaccuracy
We're incredibly lucky our poor conversion hasn't really bitten us. We could easily be 4-3 or even 3-4.

Have a look at the 5 tight games we've played

11.18 - 12.9 v St k 29-21 scoring shots
12.15 - 10.11 v Syd 27-21
11.19 - 12.7 v Adel 30-19
6.13 - 7.8 v Ess* 19-15
14.20 - 13.6 v Rich 34-19

54. 85 - 54.41

That's crazy!

I cheated with the Essendon* game (that was the 3/4 time score), but it was a 5 goal straight last quarter that salvaged a draw, when we could have been comfortably ahead at 3/4 time.

So with that little cherry pick it turns out we've played those 5 games with a shocking 38.8% conversion vs 56.8% for the opposition.

I'm not sure what the average conversion is over the AFL but I reckon 56.8 would be thereabouts.

If we'd kicked as accurately as our opposition (nothing stellar, just average-ish) we'd have kicked 78 goals 61 behinds which is 24.20 (164 points) more than the opposition. Divide by 5 games and we win each game by an average of 33 points instead of by 9 (obviously get the extra two premiership points for the Essendon* game).

Our ladder position would still be 3rd, but only percentage off 1st with a possibility of playing for top spot next week. More importantly it would give us 2 games and % over 4th. Sigh...

Carl 7 6 1 804 for 548 ag 146.7%

So yeah, coulda woulda yada yada.

Is 4 and 3/4 games a big enough sample to discern a trend? I think it probably is.

What does it mean?

Maybe it means we have duff goal-kickers in the side? Sure, but not that bad...

Are we taking a disproportionate number of shots from scrambles, from pockets, are we kicking too many bombs to the goalsquare in hope, leading to rushed behinds??

Surely it's largely an issue with the forward line structure and quality of entries. Yes we're missing another quality tall forward. Does an in-form Henderson and/or Kreuzer make us a legitimate threat? Can our entries be tidied up in their absence?
Author:  Rexy [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
It means that simply not nearly enough focus is put on finishing the work that has taken place upfield. Very stark figures indeed.
Author:  dannyboy [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Rexy wrote:
It means that simply not nearly enough focus is put on finishing the work that has taken place upfield. Very stark figures indeed.


yet last year we were extremely accurate

I think it has more to do with structures, choices and fatigue.
Author:  aramari [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
dannyboy wrote:
Rexy wrote:
It means that simply not nearly enough focus is put on finishing the work that has taken place upfield. Very stark figures indeed.


yet last year we were extremely accurate

I think it has more to do with structures, choices and fatigue.


I was going to mention fatigue, but every team has to deal with the extra fatigue caused by the 3 on the bench rule. It didn't stop them from scoring quite accurately.
Author:  Laguna Legend [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
i reckon HOW and WHERE we're having our shots from is what they need to look at. Lots on angles (because the balls being brought in around the boundaries (thanks to collingwood style), and lots of snaps under perceived pressure
Author:  jimmae [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Rexy wrote:
It means that simply not nearly enough focus is put on finishing the work that has taken place upfield. Very stark figures indeed.

I think that also needs to be balanced with the fact that we're giving up a lot of soft goals over the top.

Both sets of statistics suggest that we're allowing too many numbers to push into our forward 50, both opposition and team mates alike.
Author:  Sydney Blue [ Thu May 12, 2011 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Posted this in the Judd thread- It will fix it

What our blokes need to do is take a look at Jonny Wilkinson when they are having their 40 shots at goal a week
have a look what Jonny is doing

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 791268.ece
Author:  aramari [ Thu May 12, 2011 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Sydney Blue wrote:
Posted this in the Judd thread- It will fix it

What our blokes need to do is take a look at Jonny Wilkinson when they are having their 40 shots at goal a week
have a look what Jonny is doing

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 791268.ece


Jonny was over-the-top, and he did cause chronic injuries through overtraining. But surely there's a happy medium.

One day a club will have the balls to allow their players to practise goal-kicking seriously. It might win them a flag.

If players kicked 3-5 times as many shots and improved accuracy from 50% to 60% they'd kick 3 goals a game more. I have no reason to think this is the correct relationship, but there is a level of training that would have a material effect on accuracy.

How many weeks injured would a club's players have to miss through injury to negate 3 goals per game which would translate to at least 2 or 3 wins over a season and maybe 12 percentage points on the ladder?

And this only includes improved goal-kicking, not field-kicking, which might also improve as a side-effect.
Author:  George Harris [ Thu May 12, 2011 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
So far we have been lucky and it has only cost us the 2 points against Essendon*.

But would have made life a lot easier for us and put away teams earlier if we had made the most of our opportunities.
Author:  bondiblue [ Thu May 12, 2011 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
aramari wrote:
dannyboy wrote:
Rexy wrote:
It means that simply not nearly enough focus is put on finishing the work that has taken place upfield. Very stark figures indeed.


yet last year we were extremely accurate

I think it has more to do with structures, choices and fatigue.


I was going to mention fatigue, but every team has to deal with the extra fatigue caused by the 3 on the bench rule. It didn't stop them from scoring quite accurately.


I think that the no. of shots at goal advantage comes from working harder than the opposition.
I'm sure we do, because there's times in every game we have absolutely blitzed the oppposition without putting them away.

It's amazing how difficult a 30 m shot for goal is after a 400 metre sprint.

I reckon we need to hit up leading players and have more set shots....and prferably not on acute angles.

I also believe that an inform Kreuzer / Henderson will mark some of those long bombs...Warnock should be but...who knows...he looks fatigued when at FF.
Author:  Juddy&theKruezers [ Thu May 12, 2011 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
aramari wrote:
Surely it's largely an issue with the forward line structure and quality of entries. Yes we're missing another quality tall forward. Does an in-form Henderson and/or Kreuzer make us a legitimate threat? Can our entries be tidied up in their absence?

Thats it there in a nutshell....can they be tidied up? You would hope so with obviously better system that has been employed to date. The key is to create space in the fwd 50....to do this there needs to be constant movement....we don't do this....our strategy going inside 50 is still very amateur and relies mostly on luck....that is we hope that we can force a spill and that our smaller forwards can mop up....the reason we have got over the line more often than not so far this year is because our mids and our defense have improved markedly over last year and the coaches responsible for these two areas should be commended....The forward 50 is the weak link at the moment....
Author:  BigBlueWave [ Thu May 12, 2011 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Bring back Fev .... :wink:
Author:  Princes Park Whistler [ Thu May 12, 2011 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
I don`t know why we didn`t retain Matt Lappin as our forward coach. I think he did really well in what would have been a difficult period post Fev. As Dannyboy said we were more accurate last year.
It`s also a fair nod of approval to be picked up by Coll`. If anything they are better up forward this year imo`.
Author:  Steve_C7 [ Thu May 12, 2011 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
If you look at the figures, I think we are second in time in f50. This means that we have very effectively employed the forward press. The by-product is that our forward 50 is very congested and is resulting in allot of rushed shots on goal.

Collingwood gets away with this as they have 2 big blokes that can crash packs and take the highly contested mark which can be any of cloke, dawes, jolly or brown. We need an inform Henderson, Kruiser and o'Hailpin to perform this role in order to get a better forward structure. The good news is that they will be back in the later part of the season and we have scragged our way to 3rd without them which is a good result.
Author:  club29 [ Thu May 12, 2011 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Teams that have played us have been very lucky we have not converted on our dominance.
I think we need one more preseason to get the true fitness to play this gameplan. We are missing plenty of easy shots from good ball movement on the break and also plenty of snaps from when we have to go deep due to the opposition being set in the back fifty.

Collingwood have Cloke and Dawes who can both kick goals from beyond 50. That help both in the fact they can do that and the fact that the opposition know they can do that so have to follow them out opening up their forward line.
Having said that they have only really got accurate over the last 12 months. Early last season they were terrible and their chat sites were filled with threads like this one.

When we move forward on the break the forward line works fine. When teams flood and get set we have trouble and seem to dropping the ball to close the line causing rushed points. I understand teams like to bomb long now and like to have plenty of forwards inside their fifty to make sure the press works and lock it in but dropping it 3 metres from the line is not good because it easily rush and posession turned over.

It will come. Firstly we get fitter so fatigue doesnt effect the easy shots, then we get confident and the snaps shot/ half chances will start going through, and then we will start flogging teams.

Should be a super accurate game coming up like that saints one last year.
Author:  Princes Park Whistler [ Thu May 12, 2011 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Steve_C7 wrote:
If you look at the figures, I think we are second in time in f50. This means that we have very effectively employed the forward press. The by-product is that our forward 50 is very congested and is resulting in allot of rushed shots on goal.

Collingwood gets away with this as they have 2 big blokes that can crash packs and take the highly contested mark which can be any of cloke, dawes, jolly or brown. We need an inform Henderson, Kruiser and o'Hailpin to perform this role in order to get a better forward structure. The good news is that they will be back in the later part of the season and we have scragged our way to 3rd without them which is a good result.
That`s a good point Steve.
A mate from work (Rich` supporter) watched Collingwood train on his way to MCG. He said their defenders were having real trouble getting it out of their own forward press and it looked chaotic/messy.
Author:  Blue4ever [ Thu May 12, 2011 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Steve_C7 wrote:
If you look at the figures, I think we are second in time in f50. This means that we have very effectively employed the forward press. The by-product is that our forward 50 is very congested and is resulting in allot of rushed shots on goal.


In a nut shell and as Jimmae stated a lot of soft goals are scored on the rebound with plenty of space for the opposition to move in to their forward line.
Author:  club29 [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Blue4ever wrote:
Steve_C7 wrote:
If you look at the figures, I think we are second in time in f50. This means that we have very effectively employed the forward press. The by-product is that our forward 50 is very congested and is resulting in allot of rushed shots on goal.


In a nut shell and as Jimmae stated a lot of soft goals are scored on the rebound with plenty of space for the opposition to move in to their forward line.


Isnt that the way it works with the press? If teams happen to make it over the press their goals seem easily got. It happens with collingwood too.
The good part is that the ball doesnt get through the press that easily and the press creates more scoring chances than the opposition get easy goals. Thats why we are winning even though we are inaccurate. The ball is near our goals for large portions of the game.
Author:  aramari [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
Blue4ever wrote:
Steve_C7 wrote:
If you look at the figures, I think we are second in time in f50. This means that we have very effectively employed the forward press. The by-product is that our forward 50 is very congested and is resulting in allot of rushed shots on goal.


In a nut shell and as Jimmae stated a lot of soft goals are scored on the rebound with plenty of space for the opposition to move in to their forward line.


Hmm, so a well executed press is a double edged sword then, balancing the positives with haphazard forward forays plus easy goals if escaped.

Time in f50 or time in forward half is therefore not enough info. A meaningful stat might be 'points scored per minute i50'
Author:  jimmae [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Inaccuracy
We push too far up, and this results in too many easy goals comparative to Collingwood, as well as a congested 50, and an easy time of it for the opposition from just shy of centre wing onwards.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/