Consistent football

[Oh When the Saints]

2006: (opponent's ladder position in brackets)
Round 12 = loss by 63 points (1st)
Round 13 = win by 70 points (13th)
Round 14 = win by 59 points (4th)
Round 15 = win by 3 points (16th)
Round 16 = win by 4 points (12th)
Round 17 = win by 103 points (10th)
Round 18 = loss by 39 points (2nd)
Round 19 = win by 23 points (9th)
Round 20 = loss by 58 points (4th)
Round 21 = win by 50 points (8th)
Round 22 = win by 51 points (13th)

8 wins, 3 losses.

Average winning margin = 45 points
Average losing margin = 53 points


2007: (opponent's ladder position in brackets)
Round 12 = win by 23 points (3rd)
Round 13 = win by 17 points (16th)
Round 14 = loss by 9 points (4th)
Round 15 = win by 2 points (9th)
Round 16 = win by 17 points (2nd)
Round 17 = win by 10 points (14th)
Round 18 = win by 0 points (10th)
Round 19 = loss by 17 points (6th)
Round 20 = win by 30 points (13th)
Round 21 = loss by 8 points (2nd)
Round 22 = win by 10 points (16th)

8 wins, 3 losses.

Average winning margin = 13 points
Average losing margin = 11 points


Conclusions:

• We have played football that allows us to remain competitive for four quarters with each team we have played.
• Our average losing margin has been reduced by a factor of nearly 5, and we only lose by a couple of goals when we do lose.
• We no longer beat teams by large margins, and our average winning margin has been reduced by a factor of over 3.
• The consistency and competitiveness of the side in all matches, regardless of opponent or circumstances, has improved, and the group seems more prepared to apply themselve each week, without a belting thrown in here and there.

Does this vindicate anything on the coach's behalf? On behalf of the playing group, the fitness staff?

I have no idea.


But it does vindicate my gut feeling that we have played bloody consistent football in the second half of this season.


Surely that can only augur well for 2008?

[rogerwa]

or if you look at it another way we have fallen over the line against the comp's bottom rung..not a good sign in anyones book
you will never play finals with a % under 100..even the swine are always up around the 115 mark

[Enrico_Misso]

Great piece of analysis OWTS.

The stats prove that in 2006 we played a more attacking brand of football.
It allowed us to blow away the lessor teams.
But it had the deficiency that we got found out big time against the top teams.

Lyon has recognised this deficiency.

His tighter more accountable (though less watchable) football means
- that we are always in the hunt against top teams - they don't blow us away.
- but the price we pay is that we never put a side away and that can come back to bite us like it did against the Dogs and Collingwood.

I think Ross Lyon would say, ignore the first half of the season when we had a disproportionate number of injuries and players were still learning the modified strategy.
The second half of the season proves we can mix it with every team.

Whilst it is not pretty to watch it probably means we have a better chance of winning a flag.

Personally I would sooner win 140-100 than 70-50 though both have the same %.
But the counter argument is that against a top team instead of being blown away 140-100, if you can keep it tight, then a couple of lucky breaks your way can win you the game.

[Oh When the Saints]

Expressed it better than I could Enrico.

I agree that it's not quite as good to watch ... BUT if it keeps you in every game (as it has since Round 11) then I reckon it probably gives you a better crack at winning a flag.