Stats are funny things.
I don't think you'd get a lot of argument that our 2017 team is better than our 2016 team but...
If you look at it in really simplistic terms you could say that the improvement in our goal tally from 2016 to 2017 is all down to Casboult being a bit more accurate ;D
Posts: 4,608
Threads: 16
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
6 smashings last year by 10+ goals.
Only 2 this year (so far). To achieve that with a younger team is a real achievement.
Posts: 6,898
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
0
(08-22-2017, 01:59 AM)jeza link Wrote:6 smashings last year by 10+ goals.
Only 2 this year (so far). To achieve that with a younger team is a real achievement.
Yep. This is what I go on. 6 v 2 humiliating Monday's. That's progress in my book
Coming together is the beginning.
Keeping together is progress.
Working together is success.
Henry Ford.
Posts: 11,378
Threads: 70
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
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.
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
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.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
Posts: 16,688
Threads: 248
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(08-23-2017, 04:54 AM)LP link Wrote: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.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?” Oddball
