Saying they are lucky, or "arseiest", is simply an ignorant way for rationalising your bias against them, or your understanding their team.As I write, they are currently busy squeaking it again… against Melbourne . Again.
Has there been anyone luckier?
Well then if bad kicking is bad footy and kicking set shots is that easy, that's saying that a hell of a lot of players out there really couldn't give a rat's about winning. I simply don't believe that.Nope. That's silly. It's easier to aim for a stationary area that is ten metres wide by however high you can kick it then it is to hit a target that is moving and only 2 metres high and a metre wide.
This is why forwards don't have any respect from their team mates. Goal kicking isn't harder than field kicking, that's ridiculous.
And if they do find field kicking easier then they should passing it to better positioned team mates right in front of goal.
No, they think the same as you. They don't have to work at it.Well then if bad kicking is bad footy and kicking set shots is that easy, that's saying that a hell of a lot of players out there really couldn't give a rat's about winning. I simply don't believe that.
Well this is a scandal of epic proportions. You're saying that uniquely, in a major senior professional football league, a number of highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals really don't give a stuff about their performance. Astonishing.No, they think the same as you. They don't have to work at it.
You don't hear soccer players using this bullshit excuse. Or the goal kickers from League and Union - they can crack 90% accuracy kicking it from similar positions.
Unless AFL players have some special learning disability peculiar to them, that is.
No, that's not what I said.Well this is a scandal of epic proportions. You're saying that uniquely, in a major senior professional football league, a number of highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals really don't give a stuff about their performance. Astonishing.
Might I just ask why you still follow the sport?
Thanks for the clarification.No, that's not what I said.
I said they don't have the professionalism of dedicated goal kickers in other sports.
I said it was cultural and clubs rarely focus on goal kicking practice or coaching.
I said that clearly you CAN achieve over 90% accuracy because other sports do it with more difficult targets or starting conditions.
I’m sure he’s proud of them, they’re playing great footy, but they were also a team who won at least one final in the preceding 3 years before last season, so that does show Bucks was doing something right & the players are more than capable..I wonder how FIGJAM Buckley feels about it all?
Probably going down the Mark Jackson/GS Warriors path and taking credit for it all.
We kicked well, but most of our shots were from really gettable positions. Melbourne missed a few sitters, but I feel like they were having way more shots from deep in the pockets.
There are a couple of principles that explain why it isn't a focus in AFL.Thanks for the clarification.
Still pretty scandalous, don't you think? Given the object of the game is to win by kicking more goals than the opposition.
I mean, motivation (like goal kicking) is a hugely complex area, and it wavers from time to time for all people, but I would have assumed everyone involved in a sporting team is doing pretty much their darndest at all times, to give themselves the elusive winning edge.
Anyway, probs for another thread. Play on.
Did you even watch the game? They scored at such an efficient rate because the ball was coming in at rapid speed through the corridor and most of the set shots were from directly in front.There is also an average goal kicking stat and I am willing to bet Collingwood don't average goal kicking at 71%. That was more of a one off that they won't be able to replicate much.
That's the key here - where the shots were taken. Still, that's how you win with almost 100 less disposals and 24 less inside fifties.Did you even watch the game? They scored at such an efficient rate because the ball was coming in at rapid speed through the corridor and most of the set shots were from directly in front.
Wait, what? Thought it was 21 to 24 scoring shots. Did I miss the extra 10 scoring shots Melbourne had?I still don't think Collingwood will win the premiership. They were out played last night, only having 21 scoring shots to 34. They were way more accurate than they would be in most games. Had both teams had their usual level of accuracy in front of goal Melbourne would have won comfortably as a difference of 13 in scoring shots is huge.
Love your work in this thread. Not because you’re defending the Pies but because you know your s**t and you’re so impartial and measured with your posts. Kudos.That's the key here - where the shots were taken. Still, that's how you win with almost 100 less disposals and 24 less inside fifties.
That is coupled with the 20 extra tackles and 10 extra inside fifty tackles by the Pies for the game - the Pies worked hard and smart.
99 times out of 100 a team that has such discrepancies in disposals, contested possessions, clearances and inside 50s loses that game. Not to mention having less contested marks and marks inside 50. It's simply incredible that Collingwood won.Did you even watch the game? They scored at such an efficient rate because the ball was coming in at rapid speed through the corridor and most of the set shots were from directly in front.
Keep fighting the good fight, old boy.The chances of Collingwood doing what they've done are something like 1 in 20,000. And that's being generous to Collingwood.
Premiership teams have won 59% of games decided by 11 points or less since 2010. (According to Big Footy poster Meteoric Ruse).
Collingwood has won the last 10 they played that were decided by 11 or less, dating back to round 6 against Essendon.
If the probability of winning each was 59% (same as the average premiership team), the chances of winning 10 in a row were 1 in 19,565.
Yes, Collingwood are lucky.
Last night, several times they were losing around the ground, but quickly got the ball inside 50 and kicked a goal in general play from 40 metres. At half time the margin flattered them.
They kicked 15.6. Lost inside 50's 65 to 41. Lost contested possessions 162 to 138. Lost centre clearances 21 to 7. Lost disposals 409 to 316. Lost contested marks 15 to 10. They were just ruthlessly efficient inside 50 and kicked straight.
They're playing with supreme self belief and it's fun to watch.
I think they'll get found out in finals. Their percentage is 106.3. Teams with a percentage under 110 are 5 wins and 20 losses over the last 25 finals games against teams with percentage over 120. (This year that's Melbourne, Geelong, Brisbane and Sydney). Average losing margin 47 points.
Finals brings extra intensity, and it's teams who prove themselves over 22 games with solid percentage who have the ability to rise an extra gear consistently over the month of September.
A Collingwood flag would be the greatest footy fairytale in recent memory including Doggies 2016.
But, after last night it no longer seems as absurd.
All they have to do is win 1 of their last 2, and top 4 is virtually guaranteed. And it's possible they could lose both and still make it. And at least 1 other top 4 team will be Victorian. Maybe 2. Meaning finals on the MCG.
Whatever happens, we've already witnessed incredible history being made.
I think the top 7 can beat each other on their dayThey are a 3-6 team currently sitting 2nd due to luck. Proof will come out in finals. I'd bet on them going out in semi finals
99 times out of 100 a team that has such discrepancies in disposals, contested possessions, clearances and inside 50s loses that game. Not to mention having less contested marks and marks inside 50. It's simply incredible that Collingwood won.
It's not like the Collingwood coaching staff wouldn't be aware of this.
Four goals from free kicks to Melbourne's none didn't hurt either. And I'm not saying they weren't there.
Of the 5 sides in the last 20 years to finish with a percentage of 110% and lower, 2 have gone on to win premierships. That’s quite a telling statistic too.A team with the 9th best percentage (106) isn't going to win the flag. It's the most telling statistic of all.
That said, 17th to top 4 is a great effort and the foundations are in place to be successful over the next few years.
Melbourne's midfield won't play better. They won't need to. Although, their forward 50 connection could improve.Equally, when Oliver is having 42, Trac 36, Brayshaw 32, Gawn 31 and Viney 30, Melbourne isn’t going to play better than they did last night. Huge scope for improvement for the Pies with those differentials. Add in Adams and Grundy, we’d have probably won by more. I’m only adding that last sentence in out of smugness.
If you’re not saying they’re not there, why mention them? There’s ways to achieve goals? Via stoppages, turnovers, frees etc. you’ve mentioned 4 from frees. That’s due to Collingwood’s immense pressure last night. The one thing that has KPIs you haven’t mentioned above alongside the ones you did. 11 of the top 14 players for pressure acts on the ground were Collingwood players. That tells me the Dees didn’t work as hard as the Pies, thus the result.
Of the 5 sides in the last 20 years to finish with a percentage of 110% and lower, 2 have gone on to win premierships. That’s quite a telling statistic too.