Saintschampions08 wrote: What i'm saying is that we missed a lot of shots because of the crap entries to the 50, which is a reason for the amount of shots we had.
So missing a set shot is due to a crap entry into the 50 area or missing a shot running into an open goal must mean that we entered the 50 in a crappy way
I don't know the behind analysis against Geelong but I would have thought that the majority of behinds we kicked had nothing to do with our quality of entry into the 50 but loads to do with a shiteful goal kicking skills
I also would have thought a shot at goal from an entry into the 50 area is a good entry into the 50
Saintschampions08 wrote: If you just bomb it into the 50, or kick it badly, you're bound to have a lot of behinds.
It's not a case of: We had 35 scoring shots, so we could have kicked 20 goals 15.
I beg to differ in this case against Geelong it should been the case of us kicking better because the majority of shots we missed were very very gettable and unfortuantely this should have been a case of us kicking 19.12 not 13.16 with 2 out on the full from 30m set shots
Saintschampions08 wrote: The reason Geelong are so accurate week in week out, is not only that they're players are capable in front of goal, but also they get optimal delivery.
Just because you get a centremetre perfect pass doesn't mean you are going to kick better for goal - kicking for goal is a self taught skill it has nothing to do with the dude who passed it to you
Saintschampions08 wrote: In soccer, you can have more shots then an opponent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can have more goals. The same applies here.
And it is very rarely the case - only 1 game this year out of 32 has a losing team had more scoring than a winning team (Crows vs Bullies -Rd 1) and it was only 2 more shots and they lost by 3 points