Adelaide went I50 11 more times yet still lost. What does that suggest?

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What does this say about the two sides' defences and forward lines?

All week I heard that Adelaide's forward line had a more efficient structure. About how Perrie, Hentschel, McGregor and Welsh were more dangerous than many realised.

All week I heard that WC's miserable forward line would struggle to kick goals against Adelaide's awesome defence.

All week I heard that WC had to dominate the midfield to have a chance.

But Adelaide had a 11 more forward 50 entries and were convincingly beaten.

What does that say about the prevailing analysis leading into this game?

 

[Paralowiepower]

To me it suggests the crows were flooding and had more defenders than forwards

 

[Corrosion]

To me it suggests that the Crows weren't efficient enough...pretty obvious.

 

[Ghostwriter]

No Carey, no Crows.

 

[Schneiderman]

But Adelaide had a 11 more forward 50 entries and were convincingly beaten.

What does that say about the prevailing analysis leading into this game?

Well firstly, they weren't "convincingly beaten". The faces on the Eagles supporters at the ground with 5 min to go showed that clearly.

Few people have ever knocked the WC defense mind you. Glass is a very good FB, you have an AA HBF with a unbelievable ability to read the play in Wirrpunda, and Hunter can take great marks.

All credit to Adelaide, as they kept at it right to the death. And with better kicking in that last quarter, they really should have been a lot closer.

It should make the GF a very interesting contest.

 

[TrewTIGER]

They went too wide and fiddled around with it. Needed more directness and perhaps a different set-up. Players are good enough, WCE just outplayed their game plan.

 

[Greg493]

But Adelaide had a 11 more forward 50 entries and were convincingly beaten.

What does that say about the prevailing analysis leading into this game?

******** poor analysis? Maybe done by Robert Walls

 

[lou22]

To me it suggests the crows were flooding and had more defenders than forwards

Adelaide should be proud of there efforts this year. They have been fantastic, they always have a go. They need another quality forward and i have heard a player named Ivan Maric could be the anwser in the coming years has a lot of talent.

 

[Free Willy]

I think it suggests they may make a major play for Fevola.

Midfield & Defence is strong enough, a quality forward would add a new dimension.

 

[Michael Moore]

What does this say about the two sides' defences and forward lines?

All week I heard that Adelaide's forward line had a more efficient structure. About how Perrie, Hentschel, McGregor and Welsh were more dangerous than many realised.

All week I heard that WC's miserable forward line would struggle to kick goals against Adelaide's awesome defence.

All week I heard that WC had to dominate the midfield to have a chance.

But Adelaide had a 11 more forward 50 entries and were convincingly beaten.

What does that say about the prevailing analysis leading into this game?

what is says is they over-ran you in the last and had they kicked straight you'd probably be having a good sook about now.

thankfully, they DO NOT have an established power forward and that was their undoing in the end.

 

[MickZu]

Umpires were against them.

 

[thewhippersnapper]

Pavlich to Adelaide = premiership.

 

[Rob]

Their short chipping game did not work when entering the forward line. Their midfield refused to get the ball down there quick enough and insisted on going short to poor options inside 50. It looks especially bad when there is a strong breeze, as the design of Subi ensures that the ball will swirl around. They would have been better off going long, quick and direct.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

1. Adelaide have a better defence.

2. Adelaide have a better forward line.

3. Adelaide won enough of the ball in the midfield to go I50 11 more times than WC.

If all these are true, why did WC win?

 

[Star]

To me it suggests it is a crap stat.

I like Carey's theory that inside 25m is more relevant

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

To me it suggests it is a crap stat.

I like Carey's theory that inside 25m is more relevant

Fair comment.

 

[MickZu]

1. Adelaide have a better defence.

2. Adelaide have a better forward line.

3. Adelaide won enough of the ball in the midfield to go I50 11 more times than WC.

If all these are true, why did WC win?

Umpires

 

[Jeffrey]

The diference between the two teams was what happenned when the ball hit the ground in the F50. Adelaide had some honest forwards who create contests but had no forward who could contribute whe the ball hit the ground. Wirrpunda, in particular, killed them.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

All it suggests to me is the only stat that REALLY matters is how many points you kick compared to the other team. The rest is purely academic.

 

[dA Crow]

1. Adelaide have a better defence.

2. Adelaide have a better forward line.

3. Adelaide won enough of the ball in the midfield to go I50 11 more times than WC.

If all these are true, why did WC win?

Because our delivery into the forward line was pretty poor. And you pushed a few players back, and it worked.

 

[Portia]

To me it suggests it is a crap stat.

I like Carey's theory that inside 25m is more relevant

Yeah, but following those lines, inside 20m, 15m, 10m, 5m is more relevant. To that I say, no ******** Sherlock.

Its pretty clear that the smaller the distance from goal, the more relevant it will be to scoring. However, 50m is a good distance for a kick, so it actually encompasses the possibilities for just about all scoring shots.

What you can take from the Crows having more Inside 50s would be a couple of the following.

* Inaccurate kicking by players
* Lack of marking power within the 50m arc
* Ineffective forward entry (entry to low-percentage areas of the 50m arc).
* Lack of space in the forward line
* Lack of distance in the players' kicks.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What you can take from the Crows having more Inside 50s would be a couple of the following.

* Inaccurate kicking by players
* Lack of marking power within the 50m arc
* Ineffective forward entry (entry to low-percentage areas of the 50m arc).
* Lack of space in the forward line
* Lack of distance in the players' kicks.

What about Adelaide's much vaunted defence?

How did they concede more goals than the WC defence?

 

[Ripper]

11 times more would indicate that Adelaide's midfield was in fact better on the day.

 

[hotpie]

It suggests that they fought the game out to the end, which is more than the StKilda players can say for themselves.

It was a mighty effort to survive the season so well with a makeshift forward line, and they nearly went the whole way. In the end they found out that they couldnt rely on Roo McLeod Edwards and Goodwin to carry them through the season.

Season 2005 for the Crows was one out of the box. They picked up a few new good players along the way as well as a good coach. They'll need to find a better forward setup (and a ruckman) to go the next step in a hurry before the above "big 4" retire.

 

[PortProudWA]

To me it suggests the crows were flooding and had more defenders than forwards

Ohhhhhhhhhh they just Choked, plain and simple.