Little Stat

Post by **boncer34** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:23 pm

Just an interesting stat I picked up in the paper.
We lost 13 games by an average of under 26 points.
Not that great is it? Untill you put this into the equation:
Llyod averages 24 by himself.

antcl · Post by **antcl** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:25 pm

If Lloyd had played, Lucas would have played away from goal, so he wouldn't have scored as many.

Don't delude yourself too much.

ZRS · Post by **ZRS** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:28 pm

yeah, antcl is right, although lloyd may have cintributed 24 extra points per game, that decreased the oppurtunity and therefor the the scoring of others.

but we would have been better off without a doubt. cant wait to have him back out there.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 pm

He would've made a big difference; we might've pressed for the top 8 if he was there. But he wouldn't have won us every game we lost by 24 points or less for reasons that have already been stated.

Sol · Post by **Sol** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:54 pm

We came 4th in inside 50's this year. Lucas has kicked 60 before in the same season Lloyd kicked 100 so what makes anyone think Lloyd wouldnt have made that 24 point per game difference.

I just hope he plays next year and proves those who think he wouldnt make THAT MUCH difference wrong. Im sure he will.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:00 pm

Sol wrote:We came 4th in inside 50's this year. Lucas has kicked 60 before in the same season Lloyd kicked 100 so what makes anyone think Lloyd wouldnt have made that 24 point per game difference.

I just hope he plays next year and proves those who think he wouldnt make THAT MUCH difference wrong. Im sure he will.

Dude, the year those 2 kicked 100+ and 60 was 2000; that was the best season in history. I don't know for sure, but in 2000 my guess is we lead inside 50's by a country mile. Whatever we did in 2000 is barely relevant to what we're capable of as a team in 2006.

No one's denying Lloyd wouldn't have made a big difference. But it's a complete fallacy to say that we would've won all the games we lost by 24 points or less (e.g. Lloyd's average contribution per game) if he was there.

Malky · Post by **Malky** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:16 pm

What you need to do is compare Lucas' average points contributed per game with and without Lloyd and then combine the two.

Pretty sure you'll see we would have still lost most of those 18 games this season.

Royza · Post by **Royza** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:41 pm

Would also need to factor in the accuracy of Lloyd & the effect it would've had on all the cheap coast-to-coast goals we let the opposition get this yr. Add to that, if we had've won a few early games we would've had more to play for during the season.
Also, Lloyd would've taken the best defender & made it easier for the other forwards.
& it always makes a difference to have the captain in!

Sol · Post by **Sol** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:02 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
Sol wrote:We came 4th in inside 50's this year. Lucas has kicked 60 before in the same season Lloyd kicked 100 so what makes anyone think Lloyd wouldnt have made that 24 point per game difference.

I just hope he plays next year and proves those who think he wouldnt make THAT MUCH difference wrong. Im sure he will.
Dude, the year those 2 kicked 100+ and 60 was 2000; that was the best season in history. I don't know for sure, but in 2000 my guess is we lead inside 50's by a country mile. Whatever we did in 2000 is barely relevant to what we're capable of as a team in 2006.

No one's denying Lloyd wouldn't have made a big difference. But it's a complete fallacy to say that we would've won all the games we lost by 24 points or less (e.g. Lloyd's average contribution per game) if he was there.

yah fair enough. I agree we wouldnt have won all the games we lost by 24 points or less, but I definately think we would have scored more heavily in a number of games. Again this would not necesarily mean a win on all occasions (but definately some). My point is that Lloyd could contribute his 24 points without a significant loss in contribution from Lucus IMO.

Another interesting stat in the HUN today was that our oppositions disposal's were 80% effective and despite the fact our opposition probably had the ball more than we did (makes sense) we were one of the lowest in tackles. This says a great deal about our lack of defensive pressure all over the ground.

Put simply, we may have scored more often with Lloyd, but the ball comming back to the centre may have resulted in more scores against with that lack of pressure applied there.

Tackling and defensive pressure better be no.1 with a Bullet in preseason training for next season or we will get bags kicked against us again.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:48 pm

antcl wrote:If Lloyd had played, Lucas would have played away from goal, so he wouldn't have scored as many.

Don't delude yourself too much.

maybe in defence???? saved a few goals aswell

no-one will ever no i guess

Post by **boncer34** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:25 pm

antcl wrote:If Lloyd had played, Lucas would have played away from goal, so he wouldn't have scored as many.

Don't delude yourself too much.

No delusion. Stating a fact.
Lucas wouldnt have played up forward if we had Lloyd and Johns.

DONISBEST · Post by **DONISBEST** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:09 pm

Consider this scenario, If Loyd had played we may have scored more goals rather than points that were kicked from set shots missed throughout the season and very costly in tight games. Therefore we would also not have been caught out in defence by quick kick ins by oppositon sides.
Look at the ratio of goals to points by those up forward who did not kick true this year.
Just a thought???

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:16 pm

The fact that we had Lloyd may have stopped the midfield f****** around with the ball in the middle?

Oh well, its all over with now. Time to get preparing for 2007.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:38 pm

Look at it this way. Lucas had teh best defender week n and week out. When Hird was playing he had teh second. With Llyod in the side, Lucas gets teh second and Hird gets the third best defender. Put Johns in from the side and Aker on the flank. Thats a pretty dangerous forward line.

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:03 am

There are lots of ifs and buts, so it's hard to work it out in the end - all hypothetical. But one thing certainly stands out for me and that's the number of behinds we scored.

Initially, I thought the new kick in rule would benefit us greatly, with Fletch kicking long bombs to the centre before the opposition knew what was happening. But in the end I think the new rule nearly killed us. We scored so many behinds and with such an inexperienced side, the opposition were able to get it all the way down the field without us even touching it on MANY occasions - the so-called "coast to coast" goal.

Something to work on over the pre-season and I'm sure it will be much better next year if we get Fletch at one end and Lloydy at the other end on the park every week.

Crowny · Post by **Crowny** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:38 pm

If Lloyd had played Essendon would get pretty close to four more goals a game. For one thing 4th in inside 50s, there would be an improved conversion rate and taking the best defender which otherwise Lucas or CJ would have got.

Plus as Captain he would have been able to help steady the ship in tight games like the St Kilda match, maybe both Richmond matches, both Carlton games, the first Collingwood game, the first Hawthorn game, the Melbourne game (when they had more scoring shots in the first quarter but couldnt capitalise) so thats potentially seven and a half more wins there which would put them well clear of the bottom.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:12 pm

I think you have to assume that whoever replaces Lloyd or a range of players id going to account for the majority of Lloyds missing goals. I actually believe Lloyds efficiency and excellence will really only aaccount for between 6-18 points. As such we certainly would have won a few more games. However, my feeling is that we lost too many games we should have won Lloyd or no Lloyd

uptick · Post by **uptick** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:16 pm

It's one thing to be within a few goals of the opposition, it's quite another to outplay them by the 4 or 5 goals and win by a goal or two, it gets expodentially harder to register each major, imv.

Sartorius · Post by **Sartorius** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:16 pm

We still scored very well. We scored more than any other team in the bottom eight. I think its our lack of defence, both in the middle and in defence that gave us problems

uptick · Post by **uptick** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:35 pm

Yep. Not accountable enough.

Gossy wrote:We still scored very well. We scored more than any other team in the bottom eight. I think its our lack of defence, both in the middle and in defence that gave us problems