Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Goaltracker (Read 75421 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #255 –
Quote from: LoveNavy – on
Yep. This is what I go on. 6 v 2 humiliating Monday's. That's progress in my book ;)

We should have won that game against Melbourne. If it wasn't for Cripps breaking his leg and White's knee we definitely would have. That win would have made the ledger look a little better also. Really happy with the improved handball / run we've started to implement lately also.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #256 –
Looks a chance that our 4 main forwards may all hit 20+ . Won't see huge tallies from anyone in a sie that averages just 10.6 goals a games. It shows our forwards a at least making something from the limited scoring chances we have given we're a very defensive, low scoring side.

Hope now for a better spread of goalkickers as we become a little more of an attacking side in the future.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #257 –
Laj, are those ideas based on subjective opinion or objective fact.

On Stats Carlton is;

 - Top in kicks.
 - Bottom in handballs.
 - Bottom in disposals.

 - 3rd in Marks

 - 9th in Rebound 50.
 - 17th in Inside 50.

 - Middle on Overall Ratings.

That tells me we get the ball out of D50 very quickly with kicks, little run and carry, but cannot find a way of getting through the defensive zones. Sort of fits because we had more I50s than The Lions but generated less goals and less behinds. We offset that by having a very good defensive setup across the midfield which meant our R50s at 800 were way lower than the Lions 910.

To get that set of stats we must have been winning the ball in the midfield and then having very shallow entries. So I'd assert that means we need deeper F50 entries with better targets deep inside F50.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #258 –
Quote from: LP – on
To get that set of stats we must have been winning the ball in the midfield and then having very shallow entries. So I'd assert that means we need deeper F50 entries with better targets deep inside F50.

My impression is that many of our F50 entries are shallow and often wide.  Most of our kicks to the hot spot are from inside F50 and when our marking targets are covered.  Deep F50 entries are rare and often not to our forwards' advantage.  Charlie Curnow's great kick to Casboult on Saturday is a notable exception.  Kicks like that are virtually impossible to defend.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #259 –
Quote from: LP – on
Laj, are those ideas based on subjective opinion or objective fact.

On Stats Carlton is;

 - Top in kicks.
 - Bottom in handballs.
 - Bottom in disposals.

 - 3rd in Marks

 - 9th in Rebound 50.
 - 17th in Inside 50.

 - Middle on Overall Ratings.

That tells me we get the ball out of D50 very quickly with kicks, little run and carry, but cannot find a way of getting through the defensive zones. Sort of fits because we had more I50s than The Lions but generated less goals and less behinds. We offset that by having a very good defensive setup across the midfield which meant our R50s at 800 were way lower than the Lions 910.

To get that set of stats we must have been winning the ball in the midfield and then having very shallow entries. So I'd assert that means we need deeper F50 entries with better targets deep inside F50.

One thing that seems to get overlooked in this whole debate is that yes, our inside 50's are low. Compared to our opposition though, we win our fair share of inside50 battles on any given day.

This says 2 things.
1. We like to play the chip around until we can get a decent inside 50. No point blazing away to our disadvantage just to get an inside 50 stat.
2. We are getting games played on our terms.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #260 –
Quote from: LP – on
Laj, are those ideas based on subjective opinion or objective fact.

On Stats Carlton is;

 - Top in kicks.
 - Bottom in handballs.
 - Bottom in disposals.

 - 3rd in Marks

 - 9th in Rebound 50.
 - 17th in Inside 50.

 - Middle on Overall Ratings.

That tells me we get the ball out of D50 very quickly with kicks, little run and carry, but cannot find a way of getting through the defensive zones. Sort of fits because we had more I50s than The Lions but generated less goals and less behinds. We offset that by having a very good defensive setup across the midfield which meant our R50s at 800 were way lower than the Lions 910.

To get that set of stats we must have been winning the ball in the midfield and then having very shallow entries. So I'd assert that means we need deeper F50 entries with better targets deep inside F50.

Was just a subjective opinion in my case.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #261 –
Quote from: LP – on
Laj, are those ideas based on subjective opinion or objective fact.

On Stats Carlton is;

 - Top in kicks.
 - Bottom in handballs.
 - Bottom in disposals.

 - 3rd in Marks

 - 9th in Rebound 50.
 - 17th in Inside 50.

 - Middle on Overall Ratings.

That tells me we get the ball out of D50 very quickly with kicks, little run and carry, but cannot find a way of getting through the defensive zones. Sort of fits because we had more I50s than The Lions but generated less goals and less behinds. We offset that by having a very good defensive setup across the midfield which meant our R50s at 800 were way lower than the Lions 910.

To get that set of stats we must have been winning the ball in the midfield and then having very shallow entries. So I'd assert that means we need deeper F50 entries with better targets deep inside F50.

Most of the time we play seven back and only five forward......easy to win the ball across half back but the downside is less options to hit up down forward.
You need to be very quick and precise rebounding the ball to setup scoring opportunities...we dont do that well at clearances either especially with Cripps out so that also limits our goalscoring opportunities.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #262 –
Quote from: DJC – on
My impression is that many of our F50 entries are shallow and often wide.  Most of our kicks to the hot spot are from inside F50 and when our marking targets are covered.  Deep F50 entries are rare and often not to our forwards' advantage.  Charlie Curnow's great kick to Casboult on Saturday is a notable exception.  Kicks like that are virtually impossible to defend.

We find every conceivable way to stuff up f50 entries.

There is this mental block. The players just can't cope. But I am serious when I say that it's mental. Guys can hit 15 targets in a row and then butcher a simple pass into f50. It's one reason why I hate our supporters blaming our forwards - they don't get any service.

You can remember the good inside 50s because there are so few.
 

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #263 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Most of the time we play seven back and only five forward......easy to win the ball across half back but the downside is less options to hit up down forward.
You need to be very quick and precise rebounding the ball to setup scoring opportunities...we dont do that well at clearances either especially with Cripps out so that also limits our goalscoring opportunities.

I would have thought slow ball movement would help us advance up the field irrespective of how quickly we move the footy as we can push forward as a unit rather than just push the ball forward.

That slower game plan has many different mechanisms in it, but the main one is about finding space,  and slowing the tempo so the game is played on our terms.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #264 –
To Lods,

Thanks for this Goal Tracker. I have enjoyed reading it all seasons.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #265 –
Quote from: Blue Moon – on
To Lods,

Thanks for this Goal Tracker. I have enjoyed reading it all seasons.

Thanks BM...It actually hasn't been that hard to update.

Interesting to look back at some of the goal predictions at the start of the thread :-[

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #266 –
After 22 Games

2016

Goals 224 Behinds 224-1568 (points against- 1978)
Percentage 79.3%

2017(Target 224-224-1568)

Goals 232 Behinds 202-1594 (points against- 2038)
Percentage 78.2%

Goalkickers after 20 games (Target 2016- Wright 22)

2017
Casboult 34
Wright 30
Curnow 20
Silvagni 19
Gibbs 17


2016-Final figures after 22 rounds
Matthew Wright-22
Bryce Gibbs-18
Levi Casboult-18
Andrejs Everitt-17
Dennis Armfield-16

Summary
The last game was a bit of a setback for 2017 and put a dent in a few figures….

Points for 2017v 2016  +26
Points Against 2017v 2016 +60
Perecentage 2017 v 2016 -1.1%

We scored more points in 2017 but we also conceded more than 2016.

Our top 5 goal kickers improved on the totals of the top 5 in 2016…but given we only scored 8 more goals that means there was a lesser contribution from the other players…Wright’s improved total of 8 in 2017 equated to the whole difference.

We slipped back below Fremantle in the final round for "Points For"

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #267 –
Thanks Lods  :)

The pleasing aspect for me is that two of our top five goal scorers are second year players with a lot of improvement ahead of them.

We need to boost the totals of the top five, get more players above the 20 goal mark and get a greater spread of goal kickers.  If we can manage that we will have addressed other deficiencies.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #268 –
There is a chance we could lose both Casboult and Gibbs from that top 5.

You would hope McKay comes on for at least a 20+ total (hopefully more) but if we lose a few that's extra we have to make up.
To make finals we probably need about 280-290 goals in the regular season.

Re: Goaltracker

Reply #269 –
14 less scores in 2017. No idea how many rushed points are in this. This probably just bears out the other stats (eg i50)