Discussion Our Defence and Forwards

[Persevering Saint]

So, here's my thinking. At the most basic level, there's three parts to the game, geographically: defence, midfield, forwards. I am hearing a lot of us having a go at our forward structure at the moment: Essentially, 2.5 talls (Maister, Hickey, Riewoldt), 2 smalls (Milne, Saad), and 1 medium (Sippos). Now, I probably agree that I'd like Milne out for a rotating inside mid, but aside from that, look at this:

If we look at the ratio of forward 50 entries to scores, this gives us an idea of the potency of our forward line, or the strength of our backline. Forward 50 entries represent the opportunities given for a team to score. If a team has zero forward 50 entries, they could have the greatest forwards on earth and it wouldn't matter.

So, looking at the games since Sydney:

• SYDNEY: They had 58 in50s for 79pts = average of 1.36pts/in50. We had 50 in50s for 63pts = 1.26pts/in50. Therefore, we can argue that Sydney's forward line was more effective than ours, and their defence better than ours, but not by much.
• COLLINGWOOD: They had 48 for 103 = 2.14pts/in50. We had 45 for 77 = 1.71pts/in50. Clearly, they were better.
• CARLTON: They had 51 for 68 = 1.33pts/in50. We had 41 for 77 = 1.88pts/in50. We were significantly more effective than they were. I might also point out that our defence REALLY held up, based on that.
• ADELAIDE: They had 49 for 87 = 1.77pts/in50 - which, when you look at it, is pretty close to what we had when we LOST to Collingwood. But we had a TERRIBLE 41 for 47 = 1.14pts/in50! So our forward line stank, with Maister back underdone, Milera showponying, Riewoldt well held by Talia. But our backline - including the maligned Stanley - actually held the Crows well, given the amount of time the ball was in their half.
• BULLDOGS: Now we come to the cracker. They had 53 for 107 = 2.01pts/in50. BUT we had 39 in50s for 101 = 2.59 pts/in50. From that perspective, our forwards had a field day. That's even better than Collingwood in their game against us.

So a few other things. It seems that a healthy goal is +1.8pts/in50. If our defence gets the opposition under that, they've had a good night. I expected that our defence held up much better in the Bulldogs game rather than the Crows game, but this does not suggest this.

Part of me wants to highlight the low rate of return of both teams in the Sydney game, but the ground was so small, that may have been a factor.

But what I think it also shows, is that winning the centre has a massive effect on this stat, as well.

 

[The Punter]

It was clear early that we could have had the Doggies on the rack if only we got the ball into our forward line enough. They have a poor defence. But 39 inside 50s is a low number.

I would think the problem going by those statistics is we concede much too many inside 50s.

In the first game we won them 59-50, but lost clearances 30-40. That tells you that they got a lot of clearances, then turned the ball over in the middle of the ground and high half forward (before entering 50). Once entering 50 they were efficient and we were not. Would be interesting to see the depth of those inside 50s (how far inside they went).

Round 2 we lose the inside 50s 52-56, and win the clearances 34-31. Jack Hill the blind miner could tell you we butchered the ball that night.

Round 3 doesn't need much analysis. Clearances fairly even, inside 50s 62-42.

Round 4's stats look a lot like Round 2. I don't remember us being terribly inefficient, but Essendon's inside 50s were of quality, and they had 7 more of them.