Scoring Shots vs Geelong

[Devilhead]

Don't know if it has been brought up however not since Round 13 2006 when Geelong played Adelaide has a team had more scoring shots against Geelong (Adelaide had 42 that day)

We had 29 scoring shots (32 if you count the 2 out on the full and Bally's 35m miss in the last)

This is a good sign against the leagues best midfield and defence - with a little more accuracy in front of goals the game would have been a lot closer.

We should try to set ourselves a target of having no less than 30 scoring shots per match - if we can do this then not many sides will beat us

Just something positive - the fact that we did have 30 or so scoring shots

Am expecting a strong win this week with 30 -35 scoring shots (hopefully more goals than points)

[Saintschampions08]

The statistics aren't true of how the game was played.

Geelong looked comfortable.
Every time they were challenged, they stood up and kicked a few. They dominated the game after quarter time, they had more time to kick, they applied better pressure, chased harder...overall their intensity was 25% better then ours. Their skills were 50% better then ours. Their run was 25% better then ours.

Even though it looked respectable on the scoreboard, it wasn't. Geelong were almost 'toying' with us towards the end of the game.

[Frankie Boy]

I seriously think we get rattled in front of goal, if you look at the cats, they didnt miss much all day. Really think its the difference between a good team and an average one. Only early still but if we continue to miss easy shots like we have been those easier games we think that are coming up will be the same as what happened on saturday. Hate to be negative but it is reality!!!!!!

[Devilhead]

The statistics aren't true of how the game was played.

I never said otherwise

What the statistics do say is that we had 30 or so scoring shots which in 38 attempts is more than any other side has had when playing Geelong.

This is a positive considering they have perhaps the best midfield and defence in the league - it is something we can build on!!!

Geelong may have been in cruise control but that doen't mean that they are all of a sudden going to stop defending

Out 32 games so far this year 8 sides have lost when they have had 25 or more scoring shots and only one of those sides had over 30

Whereas on the hand 28 sides out of the 32 games have won when they have had over 25 scoring shots

So broken down very very approxiamately it seems you probably have around a 75 - 80% chance of winning if you have 25 or more scoring shots

We have to give ourselves this chance and set ourselves this target because if we can acheive this the %'s say we should finish top 8

[Saintschampions08]

The statistics aren't true of how the game was played.

I never said otherwise

What the statistics do say is that we had 30 or so scoring shots which in 38 attempts is more than any other side has had when playing Geelong.

This is a positive considering they have perhaps the best midfield and defence in the league - it is something we can build on!!!

Geelong may have been in cruise control but that doen't mean that they are all of a sudden going to stop defending

Out 32 games so far this year 8 sides have lost when they have had 25 or more scoring shots and only one of those sides had over 30

Whereas on the hand 28 sides out of the 32 games have won when they have had over 25 scoring shots

So broken down very very approxiamately it seems you probably have around a 75 - 80% chance of winning if you have 25 or more scoring shots

We have to give ourselves this chance and set ourselves this target because if we can acheive this the %'s say we should finish top 8

What i'm saying is that we missed a lot of shots because of the crap entries to the 50, which is a reason for the amount of shots we had.

If you just bomb it into the 50, or kick it badly, you're bound to have a lot of behinds.
It's not a case of: We had 35 scoring shots, so we could have kicked 20 goals 15.

The reason Geelong are so accurate week in week out, is not only that they're players are capable in front of goal, but also they get optimal delivery.

In soccer, you can have more shots then an opponent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can have more goals.

The same applies here.

[Devilhead]

What i'm saying is that we missed a lot of shots because of the crap entries to the 50, which is a reason for the amount of shots we had.

So missing a set shot is due to a crap entry into the 50 area or missing a shot running into an open goal must mean that we entered the 50 in a crappy way

I don't know the behind analysis against Geelong but I would have thought that the majority of behinds we kicked had nothing to do with our quality of entry into the 50 but loads to do with a shiteful goal kicking skills

I also would have thought a shot at goal from an entry into the 50 area is a good entry into the 50

If you just bomb it into the 50, or kick it badly, you're bound to have a lot of behinds.
It's not a case of: We had 35 scoring shots, so we could have kicked 20 goals 15.

I beg to differ in this case against Geelong it should been the case of us kicking better because the majority of shots we missed were very very gettable and unfortuantely this should have been a case of us kicking 19.12 not 13.16 with 2 out on the full from 30m set shots

The reason Geelong are so accurate week in week out, is not only that they're players are capable in front of goal, but also they get optimal delivery.

Just because you get a centremetre perfect pass doesn't mean you are going to kick better for goal - kicking for goal is a self taught skill it has nothing to do with the dude who passed it to you

In soccer, you can have more shots then an opponent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can have more goals. The same applies here.

And it is very rarely the case - only 1 game this year out of 32 has a losing team had more scoring than a winning team (Crows vs Bullies -Rd 1) and it was only 2 more shots and they lost by 3 points

[Saintschampions08]

What i'm saying is that we missed a lot of shots because of the crap entries to the 50, which is a reason for the amount of shots we had.

So missing a set shot is due to a crap entry into the 50 area or missing a shot running into an open goal must mean that we entered the 50 in a crappy way

I don't know the behind analysis against Geelong but I would have thought that the majority of behinds we kicked had nothing to do with our quality of entry into the 50 but loads to do with a shiteful goal kicking skills

I also would have thought a shot at goal from an entry into the 50 area is a good entry into the 50

In a way.

But if you watch the majority of our shots on goal, they were either:
From the pockets,
A long way out,
Under pressure.

I'm not saying these are the only reasons, but they contribute...it's not just the players having shots. Confidence and skill also have a big part to play.

So does the game style. If you compare us to Sydney of 05 (by Goals scored were roughly equal), they had 321 goals 287 behinds, for an accuracy of 53%.

Our percentage last year was around 49%, and this year its at 51.5%.

[saintsRrising]

What i'm saying is that we missed a lot of shots because of the crap entries to the 50, which is a reason for the amount of shots we had.

.

Bunkem..

A lot of our shots on goal were eminently gettable.

We had guys at some stages coming through the central corridor and missing for example.

If you look at a graphic of St Kilda Goals and Behinds were kicked from

http://xml.afl.com.au/swf/live_stats.ht ... D=10220402

you will note that on average most of our behinds were kicked closer to the central corridor than our goals were.



That is a lot of our behinds should have been goals.

[Devilhead]

Bottom line is and the point I was trying to make is that if you have 25 or more scoring shots you are likely going to win and considering we had 29 against the leagues best defence and midfield it is one positive we can take out of the game.

[saintspremiers]

Bottom line is and the point I was trying to make is that if you have 25 or more scoring shots you are likely going to win and considering we had 29 against the leagues best defence and midfield it is one positive we can take out of the game.

You should work at a Uni as an academic - they love theory and aren't much interested in the real world.

In the real world, our goal kicking is shambolic, and if you wanted to set a scoring shots target you'd be better off going for 35 not 25 given how pathetic we are from set shots, and how pathetic our midfielders are on the run when goal shooting!

[Goose is king]

The best sides dont need more scoring shots because they are structured better allowing their shots to be in dangerous spots and the opposition are forced to go wide.

[saintsRrising]

The best sides dont need more scoring shots because they are structured better allowing their shots to be in dangerous spots and the opposition are forced to go wide.

Have a look at the graphic I posted,,,,many of our behinds were from"dangerous spots".

[rodgerfox]

We had quite a few rushed behinds though, 5 I think.

[saintsRrising]

We had quite a few rushed behinds though, 5 I think.

Which is why if you count up the behinds on the graphic (and which I am referring too).....you get 11.

Add in the 5 rushed and manly touched behinds and you get 16.

So of the 11 behinds plotted and 13 goals the graphic shows that on average the behinds were kicked from easier locations than the goals.

i would add that the majority of golas and behinds were all kicked from very gettable locations,

Our conversion rate should have been much better.

[brown-coat]

This is an utterly useless statistic. This is not a good sign at all.

[saintsRrising]

It is not really a statistic...it just plots where the balls were kicked from on the oval.


Anyway it is not just the plot...it was my obervation at the game that we were missing many very gettable goals.

[Saintschampions08]

It is not really a statistic...it just plots where the balls were kicked from on the oval.


Anyway it is not just the plot...it was my obervation at the game that we were missing many very gettable goals.

I think a few of those shots were under pressure though.

But on the other side, a lot were terrible misses. One that strikes me in particular is Gram's (i think) shot from about 30m out, that he kicked low and was touched on the line.

[Devilhead]

We had quite a few rushed behinds though, 5 I think.

At least two of those were touched on the line including one from Montagna (could have been Gram) from 35 out which for him was a gimme

and sure its a bit academic and sure "we need to improve our kicking" however percentages don't lie and if we do improve our kicking and do have over 25 shots a game then we will more than likely win - and we are extremely capable of doing both those things

The players need to get back to basics and even a simple mind game like setting a target of having 7 - 8 shots a quarter no matter how simplistic it may sound may put them in a more aggressive frame of mind and make them work harder and become more desperate as a team in order to reach that target

[kaos theory]

The point of this post is valid...

IF all we improve/change from that game is better kicking for goal, it has a significnat effect on the end result. In otherwords, we are NOT talking about game plan here as something that could ignificantly change the result.

Kicking for goal is a basci skill, and its very poor effort on our part. I get the feeling our guys felt the pressure a little more than theirs when kicking for goal. They were confident & comfortable in their abilities, our guys seemed to feel the weight of the occasion more in front of goal...

[saintsRrising]

The Cats players ooze confidence and self-belief at present.