Goaltracker 2019

[Lods]

Goal Tracker 2019

Another year…
Last year we went backwards in terms of Goals scored!
What about this year?
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 2018 to 2019?

After Round 1

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

2018  
Goals-15 Behinds 5
Percentage 78.5% (For- 95, Against- 121)

2019
(Target 2018-Goals 192- Behinds 201- For 1353)

Goals- 9 Behinds 10
Percentage 66% (For-64 Against 97)


Goalkickers
(Target 2018- Charlie Curnow  34-20 -224)

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

2019
McKay 2
Fasolo 1
C. Curnow 1
McGovern 1
Murphy 1
Fisher 1
Thomas 1
Newman 1

[Lods]

After Round 2

2017
Goals-23 Behinds-15
Percentage 70.2% (For- 153, Against- 218)

2018 
Goals-24 Behinds 18
Percentage 73% (For- 162, Against- 222)

2019
(Target 2018-Goals 192- Behinds 201- For 1353)

Goals-20 Behinds 16
Percentage 73.5% (For 136, Against 185)

Goalkickers
(Target 2018- Charlie Curnow  34-20 -224)

2018
Wright 7
Curnow 7
Garlett 2
Fisher- 2

2019
McKay 4
McGovern 3
Fasolo 2

[Lods]

After Round 3

2017
Goals-30 Behinds-30 (We once kicked this score in one game  )
Percentage  80.8 %  (For- 210, Against- 260)

2018 
Goals-35  Behinds 28
Percentage  73.9 % (For- 238, Against- 322)

2019
(Target 2018-Goals 192- Behinds 201- For 1353)

Goals- 30 Behinds-30 (There’s that score again )
Percentage  75.5% (For-210, Against-278)

Goalkickers
(Target 2018- Charlie Curnow  34-20 -224)

2018
C.Curnow 9
Wright 7
Casboult 5
Garlett 3
Fisher- 3

2019
McKay 5
E.Curnow 5
McGovern 4
Murphy 2
Fasolo 2
Fisher 2

Odd statistic...
In round 2 1969 we scored 30-30-210 against Hawthorn.
After 3 rounds in both 2017 and 2019 we're locked on that total for the three games so far.

Goals are down on last year to this point...but defence looks better.
As a result we're slightly ahead on percentage after 3 rounds.

[Lods]

After Round 4

2017
Goals-42  Behinds-40 
Percentage  79.4%  (For- 292, Against- 368)

2018 
Goals-39  Behinds 34
Percentage  61.2 % (For- 268, Against- 438)

2019
(Target 2018-Goals 192- Behinds 201- For 1353)
Goals-38 Behinds 39
Percentage 79.2% (For 267 Against 337)

Goalkickers
(Target 2018- Charlie Curnow  34-20 -224)

2018
Curnow 9
Wright 8
Casboult 5
Garlett 5
Fisher- 3

2019
McGovern 7
McKay 5
E Curnow 5
Cripps 3
Fisher 3

So there’s something to hang our hat on here…still the 4 losses but...
We’re one point behind our “points for” total after round 4 last year.
Of more significance our defence is looking strong and we’re a hundred points better in terms of "points conceded" than last year.

4 goals + per game.
As a result our percentage has improved significantly after the same number of games.(61.2% to 79.2%)

In the first 4 games last year we conceded
121 v Richmond
101 v Gold Coast
100 v Collingwood
116 v North
(4 Times in 4 games over 100)

So far this year we’ve only conceded
97 v Richmond
88 v Port Adelaide
93 v Sydney
59 v Gold Coast
No 100 point games by us…but none by the opposition either.

Gains in one specific area, but still an improvement in measurable terms.

[DJC]

Interesting Lods, but that has to be seen in the context of low scoring games across the board, as Dennis Cometti points out:

“We had a lot of rule changes in the off-season designed to increase scoring,” Cometti said. “Well, after four rounds, I can tell you we’re losing ground here because currently the average team score is 81 points a game. The last time it was lower was 1967.

“In this season so far, teams have scored over 100 points 14 times — the same time last year, we had the number at 26.”

Are our gains actual, or a product of the rule changes?  I suspect that our defence is a lot more effective than it was last season.  Although our forward line looks dysfunctional, it can’t be too bad if we’re matching last year’s scores - unless everyone else has been dragged down to our level  :-\

[Lods]

Interesting Lods, but that has to be seen in the context of low scoring games across the board, as Dennis Cometti points out:

Are our gains actual, or a product of the rule changes?  I suspect that our defence is a lot more effective than it was last season.  Although our forward line looks dysfunctional, it can’t be too bad if we’re matching last year’s scores - unless everyone else has been dragged down to our level  :-\

Lets look at in relation to other sides.

We're 18th best for "points for"
But 11th best for "points conceded"....last year we were last.
So yes, we're considerably better

As for the forward line....all they're matching is the worst performance by a Carlton attack since we went to  22 game season.
It's bad!

[flyboy77]

Lets look at in relation to other sides.

We're 18th best for "points for"
But 11th best for "points conceded"....last year we were last.
So yes, we're considerably better

As for the forward line....all they're matching is the worst performance by a Carlton attack since we went to  22 game season.
It's bad!

Blame the coaches for that one!

[Dave]

Lets look at in relation to other sides.

We're 18th best for "points for"
But 11th best for "points conceded"....last year we were last.
So yes, we're considerably better

As for the forward line....all they're matching is the worst performance by a Carlton attack since we went to  22 game season.
It's bad!

To be honest, I am not surprised. We have good potential with the tall forwards but not the smalls.

Gibbons, Polson, Ed Curnow and other makeshift small forwards are not working for us. Yes, Curnow had 1 game whereby he kicked 4 goals but does anyone really think it will happen again anytime soon? I miss players such as Eddie, Garlett, Rice, Heaver, Yazz, Troy Bond, Luke O'Sullivan etc who are natural forward line players with good goal sense.

The media focus has been on the talls not working together. That is only part of the problem and one I think that will work itself out soon. Having small forwards that do not kick goals is a major issue and a weakness in the recruiting strategy thus far. We have recruited injury prone small forwards in Fasolo and Pickett. They are still getting injured and/or are not good enough. LeBoi has never been good enough. In all other areas we have enough potential and there is hope. We have neglected/half heatedly focussed on this area and need to get it right asap.

Tall forwards are a centrepiece but without good crumbing forwards to support them, it is going to be hard to kick a score big enough to consistently win games.

[Thryleon]

Interesting Lods, but that has to be seen in the context of low scoring games across the board, as Dennis Cometti points out:

Are our gains actual, or a product of the rule changes?  I suspect that our defence is a lot more effective than it was last season.  Although our forward line looks dysfunctional, it can’t be too bad if we’re matching last year’s scores - unless everyone else has been dragged down to our level  :-\

Can I just say, that the tinkering of the rules is doing more harm than good (its a position I have held for years)??

How do we expect a young inexperienced team get better in a situation where the game is transformed every year by rule changes??


Geelong are going to win a flag, because they keep having a team of experienced players, with a solid foundation of game plan and culture, which is conducive to being best able to make minor tweaks to take advantage of said rule changes.

[DJC]

Can I just say, that the tinkering of the rules is doing more harm than good (its a position I have held for years)?? Yes, rule changes generally produce counter-intuitive results and often fail to give appropriate credit for coaches’ ability to develop tactics to negate the changes.

How do we expect a young inexperienced team get better in a situation where the game is transformed every year by rule changes??I’m not sure that rule changes have much impact; younger players will make poor decisions regardless of the rules.  Perhaps a more pertinent question is how do we expect supporters to appreciate the game when the AFL is constantly attempting to transform it?


Geelong are going to win a flag, because they keep having a team of experienced players, with a solid foundation of game plan and culture, which is conducive to being best able to make minor tweaks to take advantage of said rule changes.I’m not sure that they will win the flag but they do have a well-balanced list and plenty of depth.  In fact, they are considerably better than I thought.  Of course, they do have a considerable home ground advantage on their side too!