Re: Goaltracker Reply #195 – July 16, 2017, 06:37:24 pm Quote from: kruddler – on July 16, 2017, 05:32:49 pmOfficially our longest ever streak of NOT scoring 100 points in a game.27 matches in a row and counting...Can we admit we have a problem yet?Pathetic. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #196 – July 16, 2017, 07:51:15 pm Not surprised to hear that stat.Can't say it matters really.There is maybe two teams a week that score over 100 points.No easy beats any more either. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #197 – July 16, 2017, 07:55:04 pm Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on July 16, 2017, 06:20:03 pmWe have a problem with our midfield, even with a winning ruck we cant generate enough forward entries....dont have the list to play a high possession game either, too many poor decision makerswith poor execution skills...yes you are right when it does get forward we dont have the artillery to kick a winning score, only Wright could be classed as a reliable accurate kick and you could include Charlie Curnow as improving in that area but thats about it. Casboult is a good resting second ruck/forward but not a genuine KP Forward who can be relied upon....This is a bit of a misconception.We are not as bad as it appears when you break it down game by game.5 times this year we have won the inside 50 count. Bombers (by 22)Dees (2)Dees (3)Suns (10)Swans (4)3 times we have lost it by 4 or underSuns (-2)Pies (-4)Crows (-2)7 times we have lost it by 5 or moreTigers (-13)Tigers (-21)Port (-33)Saints (-22)GWS (-14)Kangaroos (-9)Dockers (-8)WinsLosses by under 3 goalsLosses by over 3 goals Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #198 – July 16, 2017, 08:05:05 pm But these numbers are purely quantitative, what about the quality of the entry? Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #199 – July 16, 2017, 09:06:01 pm Quote from: kruddler – on July 16, 2017, 05:32:49 pmOfficially our longest ever streak of NOT scoring 100 points in a game.27 matches in a row and counting...Can we admit we have a problem yet?We are Carlton, We don't rebuild! Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #200 – July 16, 2017, 10:49:42 pm Quote from: kruddler – on July 16, 2017, 07:55:04 pmThis is a bit of a misconception.We are not as bad as it appears when you break it down game by game.5 times this year we have won the inside 50 count. Bombers (by 22)Dees (2)Dees (3)Suns (10)Swans (4)3 times we have lost it by 4 or underSuns (-2)Pies (-4)Crows (-2)7 times we have lost it by 5 or moreTigers (-13)Tigers (-21)Port (-33)Saints (-22)GWS (-14)Kangaroos (-9)Dockers (-8)WinsLosses by under 3 goalsLosses by over 3 goalsInside 50's we are second lastClearances we are second lastContested ball wins we are 11thDisposal efficiency 14thOur midfield is overrated, we struggle at the clearances and even when we do get the ball we are very ordinary with it, contested footy is another poor figure and while I accept the I50's can be be looked at game by game and made to look better if you look at the stats overall its not conducive to kicking goals or giving our forwards many decent opportunities..Disposal efficiency is very poor given we all know the amount of keepings off we play and chipping the ball around.....The midfield needs a lot of work IMO.....havent got Kruezers stats but I would say our clearances are probably inflated by his stats which makes our genuine mids efforts even worse.. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #201 – July 17, 2017, 09:27:58 am Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on July 16, 2017, 10:49:42 pmThe midfield needs a lot of work IMO.....havent got Kruezers stats but I would say our clearances are probably inflated by his stats which makes our genuine mids efforts even worse..61 clearances and 42 inside 50s for Kreuzer in 2017 according to Footywire Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #202 – July 17, 2017, 09:46:27 am After 16 Games2016 Goals 166 Behinds 146-1142 (points against- 1448)Percentage 78.9%2017(Target 224-224-1568)Goals 170 Behinds 141-1161 (points against- 1411)Percentage 82.3 %Goalkickers after 16 games (Target 2016- Wright 22)2017Casboult 24 Wright 23Silvagni 15Gibbs 14Curnow 122016-Final figures after 22 roundsMatthew Wright-22Bryce Gibbs-18Levi Casboult-18Andrejs Everitt-17Dennis Armfield-16 Quote Selected Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 05:17:38 pm by Lods
Re: Goaltracker Reply #203 – July 17, 2017, 04:59:56 pm Quote from: flyboy77 – on July 16, 2017, 08:05:05 pmBut these numbers are purely quantitative, what about the quality of the entry?You are asking a different question.He stated we don't get the ball inside 50 enough. I showed otherwise. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #204 – July 17, 2017, 05:09:33 pm Our top 5 goal kickers are now 3 goals behind the top five of last year (assuming that the last year comparative is the whole year - Lods, can you confirm).We have both a better attack (19pts) and defence (37pts) than this time last year. 9 goals better over 15 rounds isn't much.Now that we are hit by injuries, it will be interesting to see if we fall away, like we did last year.The ability we have to butcher the ball (not skill errors - not sure if our players actually have the skills) particularly into the forward line or is amazing. I hope our delivery improves. I can forgive the defenders making some bad errors, because they seem to be consistently under high pressure with a heavy workload, thanks to some of the tripe that happens up the ground. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #205 – July 17, 2017, 05:16:34 pm Those goalkicking totals for 2016 are final figures. (22 rounds)2017 are totals after 16 games(I've added that clarification now)Wright was our leading goalkicker last year with 22Casboult and Wright have already gone past that total Quote Selected Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 05:40:03 pm by Lods
Re: Goaltracker Reply #206 – July 17, 2017, 05:24:00 pm Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on July 16, 2017, 10:49:42 pmInside 50's we are second lastClearances we are second lastContested ball wins we are 11thDisposal efficiency 14thOur midfield is overrated, we struggle at the clearances and even when we do get the ball we are very ordinary with it, contested footy is another poor figure and while I accept the I50's can be be looked at game by game and made to look better if you look at the stats overall its not conducive to kicking goals or giving our forwards many decent opportunities..Disposal efficiency is very poor given we all know the amount of keepings off we play and chipping the ball around.....The midfield needs a lot of work IMO.....havent got Kruezers stats but I would say our clearances are probably inflated by his stats which makes our genuine mids efforts even worse..I'm not saying our midfield doesn't need help.Its a chicken and egg type thing though.Do we play the type of game we do, keepings off, because...- we don't have the talent/nous in our forwardline to make position, and trap the ball in, so its swept away easily.- we don't have the talent/nous in the midfield to deliver to our forward efficiency.I'm also not so fussed on contested ball numbers because of the type of game we play. That stat would be better used in a game by game comparison also. Stats for teams vary based on game plan. Ranked against the other 17 teams will show a trend, but ranking against opponent tells a more complete story.For example, i haven't looked up the stats, but i'd suggest that Swans would be right up their in stoppage clearances despite having a poor start to the year, and missing Josh Kennedy for a few games. Reason...the style of play they play and the ground they play on. Leads to more congestion, stoppages and thus clearances.In years past, Geelong willingly gave up clearances by putting extra blokes behind the ball and swooping on the quick kick from them. Not sure if that is still the case though.Here is another stat for ya.Same deal as above but expanded further.On average, for the year we have a shot on goal (not including OOB) 44% of the time we get an inside 50.Our opponent, has a shot on goal 46% of the time.So in 100 entries inside 50, our opponent averages 2 more shots on goal compared to us. Now it could be argued that in that we'd kick the ball out on the full 2 more times out of a 100 than our opposition does. Point being, with the amount of inside 50's we get, and the amount of shots on goal that generates. We are basically on a par with our opposition. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #207 – July 17, 2017, 05:28:55 pm I50's mainly mean you have the ball roughly where you want it. It's not always the case that this automatically translates to a goal scoring opportunity, nor is it always the case that players are in optimum field position simply because the ball is inside 50. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #208 – July 17, 2017, 05:32:20 pm If you check out AFL tables, and use I50's as the ranking method you will see that Collingwood (for example) is 4th for i50's. Quote Selected
Re: Goaltracker Reply #209 – July 17, 2017, 05:39:25 pm @Paul....what is your point?I've just got through explaining how stats can show a style of gameplan and (in this style at least) are best suiting to 'vs opponent' comparisons.Your collingwood example is great. But they could lose the inside 50 count every week.So should it be celebrated that they are 4th?It is actually possible that a team who is last in inside 50's actually wins the inside 50 count every week too. Quote Selected
Topic: Goaltracker (Read 72183 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Goaltracker (Read 72183 times)
previous topic - next topic