The Hard Road To The Premiership

[flyboy77]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...rmat=1500w

For those who are interested here is the graphs showing the relationships between scoring shots and winning rate. We are actually an outlier on this graph due to our poor defence over the period meaning we needed more scoring shots to win games than most other teams.

This is 16 years of recent data and it held true last year. On average, to win 50% of your games [11 per year] you need to average around 25 shots per game. If you have less than 20 you are unlikely to win more than 4 games per year. We averaged 18 in the back half of the year, so if the aim is to win 8-9 games this year we would need to improve this to around 23 shots, or a 30% improvement on our recent trend. That equates to roughly 60 more goals than we scored last year.

That's a big improvement delta in the absence of a proven KPF goal kicker, and realistically i can't see it happening when relying on 2nd year draftees with an average of about 10 games each to their name.

My personal view is also that until you get a few decent, smart forwards in your team your forward entries are usually going to be terrible. Opp defences these days are very fit, well drilled and organised, and we are very easy to set up against because we don't have multiple marking threats and players who can draw opponents away from the ball. The obvious example of this is Hawthorn, who have a great balance of athletic talls, mid sized marking players [Gunston] and smaller players [Rioli, Bruest, Puopolo, Shields].

StATS can be such BS, can't they.

You say, oh a 30% INCREASE IN SCORING SHOTS (18 to 23).

Looking at that another way, that is only 1.25 extra scoring shots a quarter which is SFA if your midfield is winning more battles than not.