AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
With all respect, they beat Melbourne, who really should have won with the number of scoring shots, and also won by 7 points against GWS again with more scoring shots.
Ouch! I note that you play the bottom 5 teams from last year a combined 6 times, which is one more than us, but still not anything to write home about, so it does look like you have a tough draw.
No we didn't. Of Melbourne's 15 behinds, 8 were from kicks from outside 50m, mostly on angles (and 3 were touched before crossing the line), two were from kicks from about 48m out on 45degree angles, two were from rushed snaps around the body from next to, or very near the boundary line and one was rushed through after a soccer kick from a few inches from the boundary line, next to the behind post.
No we didn't. Of Melbourne's 15 behinds, 8 were from kicks from outside 50m, mostly on angles (and 3 were touched before crossing the line), two were from kicks from about 48m out on 45degree angles, two were from rushed snaps around the body from next to, or very near the boundary line and one was rushed through after a soccer kick from a few inches from the boundary line, next to the behind post.
That's 13 of their 15 behinds that were from positions where you have a very low % chance of scoring a goal and of course 2 of their 6 goals were also from kicks from outside 50m, so I think it's very fair to say that while Melbourne may have had more scoring shots than us, it doesn't really matter when you're having them from spots that you are very unlikely to kick a goal from. For them to have won, they would have to have kicked the equivalent of about 5 goals from outside 50m. Good luck with that as a poorly skilled side!
It would be like playing a basketball game where you're just taking shot after shot from outside the 3 point line, or from "almost impossible" spots, while the other team take the time to work the ball into more dangerous spots, but as a result have less shots, because the deeper you go the more chance there is that the other team will intercept the ball, as they are protecting those more dangerous areas much more. You will score goals if you get through them though.
As for yesterday, like last week, we basically stopped trying to score for the last 15 minutes or so of the game and just basically looked to defend our lead from that point and as a result, GWS were able to score quite a few points in that last few minutes, but again most of them were not from dangerous spots, because we had by that stage stacked our defence, which made it very hard for them to score goals.
The fact that we had stacked our defence meant that when we inevitably won the ball when it entered their forward 50, we then had no-one to kick it to when we tried to clear it out of there and GWS had a wall of 3 or 4 across the centre line who could then pump it back into their forward 50, but where it would again be met by our wall of 3 or so spare inside their F50 and as a result they found it very hard to kick a goal, with it being so crowded and all. That went on for most of the last 15 or even 20 minutes of the game and as a result GWS were able to rack up the points, but struggled to kick a goal.
Mission accomplished, as it was all we needed to do to ensure the win. It was far different to most of the earlier parts of the game when GWS generally had a very open forward line and as a result were able to score goals relatively easily and like us, were very accurate.
So, very lucky my ass. It's called good defence and not letting the other team have many shots for goal from dangerous spots, something I dare say Richardson has been teaching us to do all summer and something that half our team learned very well how to do under Ross Lyon. They can have about as many shots for goal as they like as long as they're from long range, on tight angles, or under a lot of pressure, as long as we kick more when we go down the other end, which we did in both these games.
This is like Adelaide, They have some really good guys at the top. but poor depth
Saints got lucky.No we didn't. Of Melbourne's 15 behinds, 8 were from kicks from outside 50m, mostly on angles (and 3 were touched before crossing the line), two were from kicks from about 48m out on 45degree angles, two were from rushed snaps around the body from next to, or very near the boundary line and one was rushed through after a soccer kick from a few inches from the boundary line, next to the behind post.
That's 13 of their 15 behinds that were from positions where you have a very low % chance of scoring a goal and of course 2 of their 6 goals were also from kicks from outside 50m, so I think it's very fair to say that while Melbourne may have had more scoring shots than us, it doesn't really matter when you're having them from spots that you are very unlikely to kick a goal from. For them to have won, they would have to have kicked the equivalent of about 5 goals from outside 50m. Good luck with that as a poorly skilled side!
It would be like playing a basketball game where you're just taking shot after shot from outside the 3 point line, or from "almost impossible" spots, while the other team take the time to work the ball into more dangerous spots, but as a result have less shots, because the deeper you go the more chance there is that the other team will intercept the ball, as they are protecting those more dangerous areas much more. You will score goals if you get through them though.
As for yesterday, like last week, we basically stopped trying to score for the last 15 minutes or so of the game and just basically looked to defend our lead from that point and as a result, GWS were able to score quite a few points in that last few minutes, but again most of them were not from dangerous spots, because we had by that stage stacked our defence, which made it very hard for them to score goals.
The fact that we had stacked our defence meant that when we inevitably won the ball when it entered their forward 50, we then had no-one to kick it to when we tried to clear it out of there and GWS had a wall of 3 or 4 across the centre line who could then pump it back into their forward 50, but where it would again be met by our wall of 3 or so spare inside their F50 and as a result they found it very hard to kick a goal, with it being so crowded and all. That went on for most of the last 15 or even 20 minutes of the game and as a result GWS were able to rack up the points, but struggled to kick a goal.
Mission accomplished, as it was all we needed to do to ensure the win. It was far different to most of the earlier parts of the game when GWS generally had a very open forward line and as a result were able to score goals relatively easily and like us, were very accurate.
So, very lucky my ass. It's called good defence and not letting the other team have many shots for goal from dangerous spots, something I dare say Richardson has been teaching us to do all summer and something that half our team learned very well how to do under Ross Lyon. They can have about as many shots for goal as they like as long as they're from long range, on tight angles, or under a lot of pressure, as long as we kick more when we go down the other end, which we did in both these games.
I think I should have hawks on 21 wins, must have skipped a tab. more than likely though those top 3 teams will lose 1-2 more games. I pretty much just picked them over every other team.
West Coast and Freo 1 a piece. Essendon/WC 1 a piece, Essendon/Freo 1 a piece. Hawks to lose to the Dockers in perth, and maybe West Coast. But like I said, middle tier teams I posted as losses.
Our losses being Essendon/WC/Freo/Hawks/Geelong
Very much disagree.
Please get serious, you don't get to just swap one guy from one team into the other like in a junior footy game to even it up and we were missing 1800 games (the equivalent of 9 "200 gamers") and 1300 goals experience from our last game in 2013 to that game against Melbourne in R1 (some are obviously gone now, but the rest were unavailable for selection) and as has been widely acknowledged we were without our current 3 best "mids" and also our best "key defender" (who between them have won 6 B&F's, made 6 AA teams and won a Norm Smith Medal), all of whom are far better than someone like Dawes, who is very average at football.
No one is suggesting that we are going far, we're just in the early stages of a rebuild, but we're going to be a lot more competitive this year than most expected, all things being equal.
You fell over the line against one of the worst teams ever, because you were carried by 1 player. That's exactly my point.
Not really should win the next 3 (Geelong, Richmond, North) be 4-1 and up and away.
Not sure if serious? If you are, your kidding yourself if you think Collingwood will beat Geelong and Richmond atm, North will be 50-50
