Season defining Tiges v Dogs - Game Day Thread | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Season defining Tiges v Dogs - Game Day Thread

someone does an "expected score" based on where shots are taken from. grain of salt and all, but the "expected score" had us winning by 3 points.
it was noticeable watching the game, a lot of their shots were from 40-50 out an angle, that heavily contributed to their inaccuracy.

The AFL app has a really good graphic that shows where shots are taken from.

They had 21 shots at goal and had 5 either touched or rushed. So they actually kicked 7.14 from their 21 shots (7.19 for the game).

Of those 21, only 7 were taken in the area of the ground you really want to kick from, centre of the ground between those roughly 45 degree angles coming out of the goal. They kicked 1 from outside 50 and 15 from the pocket. Contra that with us, and that same area (the 45 - ie the corridor) we had 15 of our 23 shots (we had 1 rushed which adds to the 24 scoring shots we had in total).

15 vs 7 kicks from inside the corridor compared to the dogs having 15 from the pocket compared to us having only 7 from the pocket. Most media pundits seem too stupid to mention this, they just say something like the numbskulls they are that "if they'd kicked better they'd have won". How about kicking into the corridor where it is much easier to kick goals from.

They did the same against the Swans. 10 in the pocket compared to 3. 6 either rushed or touched compared to 2 for the Swans. Thats the running pattern, not that they kick poorly, its that they kick from much harder areas to kick goals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
The AFL app has a really good graphic that shows where shots are taken from.

They had 21 shots at goal and had 5 either touched or rushed. So they actually kicked 7.14 from their 21 shots (7.19 for the game).

Of those 21, only 7 were taken in the area of the ground you really want to kick from, centre of the ground between those roughly 45 degree angles coming out of the goal. They kicked 1 from outside 50 and 15 from the pocket. Contra that with us, and that same area (the 45 - ie the corridor) we had 15 of our 23 shots (we had 1 rushed which adds to the 24 scoring shots we had in total).

15 vs 7 kicks from inside the corridor compared to the dogs having 15 from the pocket compared to us having only 7 from the pocket. Most media pundits seem too stupid to mention this, they just say something like the numbskulls they are that "if they'd kicked better they'd have won". How about kicking into the corridor where it is much easier to kick goals from.

They did the same against the Swans. 10 in the pocket compared to 3. 6 either rushed or touched compared to 2 for the Swans. Thats the running pattern, not that they kick poorly, its that they kick from much harder areas to kick goals.

I am constantly amazed at the lack of analysis of this. One of Richmond's tactics is to force the opposition forwards wide and possibly the best example of this was the 2019 QF. Everyone said Brisbane wasted opportunities and kicked inaccurately, but when you look at where Brisbane were shooting from and where we were shooting from it is chalk and cheese.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The AFL app has a really good graphic that shows where shots are taken from.

They had 21 shots at goal and had 5 either touched or rushed. So they actually kicked 7.14 from their 21 shots (7.19 for the game).

Of those 21, only 7 were taken in the area of the ground you really want to kick from, centre of the ground between those roughly 45 degree angles coming out of the goal. They kicked 1 from outside 50 and 15 from the pocket. Contra that with us, and that same area (the 45 - ie the corridor) we had 15 of our 23 shots (we had 1 rushed which adds to the 24 scoring shots we had in total).

15 vs 7 kicks from inside the corridor compared to the dogs having 15 from the pocket compared to us having only 7 from the pocket. Most media pundits seem too stupid to mention this, they just say something like the numbskulls they are that "if they'd kicked better they'd have won". How about kicking into the corridor where it is much easier to kick goals from.

They did the same against the Swans. 10 in the pocket compared to 3. 6 either rushed or touched compared to 2 for the Swans. Thats the running pattern, not that they kick poorly, its that they kick from much harder areas to kick goals.
Great insight posh....thanks!
 
Finally finished watching the game after being off the grid. Finally functioning fwd line. I'd forgotten how good Lynch is. JR not ready to retire. Baker and Balta contributing. Parker desperate all night. I noticed our tackling was excellent. Dow is doing enough. Pickett backs it up week in week out
Backline played well too. Broad, Rioli, Short. Plus all the talls held their own.
Prestia an instant impact. gets the ball a lot.