How do you rate the Dogs' attacking firepower?

[Mofra]

Even more strongly re state my case. When the balls to be won, Naughton's right up there but doesn't apply pressure when it's gone.

What?
Naughton is our best forward for chasing and applying pressure when the opposition have the ball.

[Dazza]

Yeah I'd have to agree he's probably marginally behind Weightman at pressuring f50 exits. Thank god we gave up the back off 5m rule this year

[GVGjr]

I can't make training this week (hope to go next week) but those trackside, can you watch to see if the forwards are leading to space or the pockets still. Might to hard to gauge if still only using half field for match sim though.
I hope we have better lead patterns this year.

I think we will get a better gauge on this next week.

[DadBod]

I had this beautiful thing written up going through stats and all that and then I accidentally pressed the back button on the phone and lost it all. So this time I did it on the computer and emailed myself.... many a swear word was said. This one isn't as in-depth stats.

This is how I read it in relation to our forward line.

1. We were the 10th best scoring side in 2023 with Brisbane (359), Pies (346), GWS (330), Port (330) and Melb (321) the top 5, Brisbane was a whopping 83 goals ahead of us on 276 (over 3 a week).
a. Brisbane had a conversion of 59%
b. Pies was 63%
c. GWS was 58%
d. Port was 56%
e. Melb was 59%
f. We were 56% (not too bad)

2. We were 10th for I50s with the top 5 being Brisbane (1471), Melb (1460), GWS (1453), Port (1416) and Carl (1389). Pies were a surprise with (1367) in 6th, we were 10th with - (1243). What?s that mean:
a. Bris had a shot every 2.4 entries.
b. Melb (2.6 entries)
c. GWS (2.5 entries)
d. Port (2.4 entries)
e. Carl (2.6 entries)
f. Pies (2.5 entries)
g. We were (2.5 entries)

3. We were 11th for Marks I50, 80 behind Brisbane with the top 5 being again, Bris, Pies, Geel, GWS, Port, Melb 6th.

4. We were second last in rebounds, only ahead of Geelong and were 9th for Rebounds against, but all the top rated teams had more rebounds against. What does that tell me? They had more confidence in their Mids and Backs that they were able to risk it for the biscuit. Their forwards were attacking as was their ball movement. We were slow, trying to protect our perceived weaknesses which was ball movement against, it just didn?t give our forward line a chance.

5. I think our forward line stacks up, and will only get better which bodes well, but we must move the ball. Everyone of those top 5 teams mentioned above move the ball with lightning speed, if we can do that, and improve our accuracy, everything else seems to stack up.

[D Mitchell]

I had this beautiful thing written up going through stats and all that and then I accidentally pressed the back button on the phone and lost it all. So this time I did it on the computer and emailed myself.... many a swear word was said. This one isn't as in-depth stats.

This is how I read it in relation to our forward line.

1. We were the 10th best scoring side in 2023 with Brisbane (359), Pies (346), GWS (330), Port (330) and Melb (321) the top 5, Brisbane was a whopping 83 goals ahead of us on 276 (over 3 a week).
a. Brisbane had a conversion of 59%
b. Pies was 63%
c. GWS was 58%
d. Port was 56%
e. Melb was 59%
f. We were 56% (not too bad)

2. We were 10th for I50s with the top 5 being Brisbane (1471), Melb (1460), GWS (1453), Port (1416) and Carl (1389). Pies were a surprise with (1367) in 6th, we were 10th with - (1243). What?s that mean:
a. Bris had a shot every 2.4 entries.
b. Melb (2.6 entries)
c. GWS (2.5 entries)
d. Port (2.4 entries)
e. Carl (2.6 entries)
f. Pies (2.5 entries)
g. We were (2.5 entries)

3. We were 11th for Marks I50, 80 behind Brisbane with the top 5 being again, Bris, Pies, Geel, GWS, Port, Melb 6th.

4. We were second last in rebounds, only ahead of Geelong and were 9th for Rebounds against, but all the top rated teams had more rebounds against. What does that tell me? They had more confidence in their Mids and Backs that they were able to risk it for the biscuit. Their forwards were attacking as was their ball movement. We were slow, trying to protect our perceived weaknesses which was ball movement against, it just didn?t give our forward line a chance.

5. I think our forward line stacks up, and will only get better which bodes well, but we must move the ball. Everyone of those top 5 teams mentioned above move the ball with lightning speed, if we can do that, and improve our accuracy, everything else seems to stack up.

Thankyou, DadBod, that's a mammoth effort, you've gone beyond just looking up stats, arranging and drawing conclusions, particularly given the frustration of losing data and having to start all over again, I know a bit about that, because of fecking, dud, Apple, iphone...ah, never mind. You and I are on opposite sides of the glass half full glass half empty divide. What your stats tell me is different from what they tell you.

Bolded bit. 10th at scoring; 10th inside 50s; 11th at marks inside 50; second last at rebounds (I don't quite understand "against").

They tell me that we don't get the ball inside 50 enough and when we do, we don't take marks or hold the ball in (that's my rebound query).

Isn't it your conclusion that the problem is slow movement of the ball into the forward line, which I agree with, and the solution is quicker ball movement and greater accuracy ? No argument there but it's the next step where we differ. I think it's the ineptitude of the forwards or the forward structure, not sure which, that dictates uncertainty upfield. I'll go further and add that our Richards/Johannisen/Daniel/Dale and mids spend more time defending than attacking because of ease with which the ball comes out of our F50 by oppo defenders, perhaps your rebounds against ? Lies, damned lies and statistics Michael Wheeler. Well done DB

[DadBod]

Thankyou, DadBod, that's a mammoth effort, you've gone beyond just looking up stats, arranging and drawing conclusions, particularly given the frustration of losing data and having to start all over again, I know a bit about that, because of fecking, dud, Apple, iphone...ah, never mind. You and I are on opposite sides of the glass half full glass half empty divide. What your stats tell me is different from what they tell you.

Bolded bit. 10th at scoring; 10th inside 50s; 11th at marks inside 50; second last at rebounds (I don't quite understand "against").

They tell me that we don't get the ball inside 50 enough and when we do, we don't take marks or hold the ball in (that's my rebound query).

Isn't it your conclusion that the problem is slow movement of the ball into the forward line, which I agree with, and the solution is quicker ball movement and greater accuracy ? No argument there but it's the next step where we differ. I think it's the ineptitude of the forwards or the forward structure, not sure which, that dictates uncertainty upfield. I'll go further and add that our Richards/Johannisen/Daniel/Dale and mids spend more time defending than attacking because of ease with which the ball comes out of our F50 by oppo defenders, perhaps your rebounds against ? Lies, damned lies and statistics Michael Wheeler. Well done DB

They're fair conclusions too. It is rebounds against, ie: how easy people move it from our forward line. I certainly agree that our fwd line set-up needs work, hopefully that's helped by speedier ball movement. Hopefully we'll see soon enough. Fingers crossed they fix the issues we see.

[Jumping Jones]

I bloody hope so