Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Goaltracker 2018
#1
Where will the goals come from?
How many will we get this year?
Who'll be the leading goalkicker?
Will we improve our percentage from 2017 to 2018?

After round 1 we have a bit of an indication that we'll be a more attacking side (even though we're only a goal up at this stage) ...will we maintain that?
Will the defence hold up?
Have a crack at a "Goaltracker" prediction.

Points scored-Goals -Behinds
Leading Goalkicker-Goals
Percentage-



After Round 1


2017
Goals-14  Behinds-5
Percentage  67.4% (For- 89, Against- 132)

2018  
(2017 Target 232 Goals- 202 behinds-1594)

Goals-15 Behinds 5
Percentage  78.5% (For- 95, Against- 121)

Goalkickers
(2017 Target Casboult  34)

2018
Wright 5
Curnow 5
Garlett 2
Casboult -1
Petrevski- Seton-1
Fisher- 1



Reply
#2
Fair to say we'll obliterate the scores for column of previous years. The truck will be not leaking goals at the other end.

Curnow and Wright off to fliers but I still think the improvement will be a broad spread. Silvagni, Casboult, Garlett, Lamb and Pickett when he comes back will all hopefully finish well up on last year's personal tally.

Lang, Kennedy, Cripps, Murphy should combine for a few also.
Reply
#3
We'll see.

Our much vaunted stingy defense of 2017 leaked 20 goals against Richmond last year, so we actually improved this year (they did have more scoring shots but I think we made life tougher).

I also think that we were very efficient with our scoring this year so we will see.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson
Reply
#4
Scoring shots doesn't always mean that much. It wasn't like they missed a string of set shots right in front. Our defense forced them into a lot of bombing from wide because we got the numbers back to cover.

But once they score a point they're good at locking it in so it's essentially far easier to score a string of points than 2 goals.
Reply
#5
We rushed quite a few as well I think
Reply
#6
(03-24-2018, 01:14 AM)jeza link Wrote:Scoring shots doesn't always mean that much. It wasn't like they missed a string of set shots right in front. Our defense forced them into a lot of bombing from wide because we got the numbers back to cover.

But once they score a point they're good at locking it in so it's essentially far easier to score a string of points than 2 goals.

They missed some very gettable set shots.

Dusty hit the post, he also blazed wide off a hand ball receive.

Cotchin popped it up in front of goal rather than shooting.

That's just what I can remember.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson
Reply
#7
(03-24-2018, 10:33 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:They missed some very gettable set shots.

Dusty hit the post, he also blazed wide off a hand ball receive.

Cotchin popped it up in front of goal rather than shooting.

That's just what I can remember.

I don't remember them missing many set shots - except for a couple from long range wide out from Reiwoldt and Cotchin (who is over-rated / can't kick over a jam tin / set shots appalling).
Reply
#8
(03-24-2018, 10:33 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:They missed some very gettable set shots.

Dusty hit the post, he also blazed wide off a hand ball receive.

Cotchin popped it up in front of goal rather than shooting.

That's just what I can remember.

They made more tough shots than they missed easier ones for sure.
Richmond didn't miss many you would pencil them in for that I can recall.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

[Image: blueline.jpg]
Reply
#9
(03-24-2018, 10:33 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:They missed some very gettable set shots.

Dusty hit the post, he also blazed wide off a hand ball receive.

Cotchin popped it up in front of goal rather than shooting.

That's just what I can remember.

Didn't miss easy ones.
Reply
#10
We had both Cripps and Dow miss very easy ones (the latter entirely).
Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)