[ACoochy]

Magpies/Saints 197.5

Past 10 occasions these two have met the total hasnt come close to above number.

Sure, the pies have some defensive issues but the saints dont have a superstar forward line that the bombers do.

So why then is this number so high, anyone??

[shari91]

I think the books are expecting both teams to get stuck because of their low clearance rate. Pies have the strength to capitalise on St Kilda's relatively young team and the Saints can rely on the Pies' crappy defensive issues as you mentioned. Not enough for me to take the over though.

[Coopertrooper]

Our defence has been a worry from the start, but the saints probably won't expose the lack of small defenders we have (even minus Toovey). Our forwardline is capable of perhaps scoring heavily against a side like the saints. If they're putting this sort of total up, they're probably expecting Collingwood to cover the line. Hard to know what to make of it.

[dRavidC]

Magpies/Saints 197.5

Past 5 occasions these two have met the total hasnt come close to above number.

Sure, the pies have some defensive issues but the saints dont have a superstar forward line that the bombers do.

So why then is this number so high, anyone??

possible inflation due to high PPG from both sides in recent games

[ACoochy]

Thanks for the input guys.

Going all the way back to '09 the total hasnt gotten close between the pair.

Heading into round 6 and last week saw momentum finally swinging back toward the under (6-3 i believe) as defensive structures are being finetuned and the longevity of the season ahead is being realised.

Would have expected that to continue here and failing to see a legitimate reason as to why history shouldn't repeat again.

[Puda]

[ACoochy]

lol Puda, help me find this trap pal cos im looking but dont see no tarp

What, fundamentally is so different from these two teams between 2009 to now in terms of players and personnel?

[Coopertrooper]

lol Puda, help me find this trap pal cos im looking but dont see no tarp

What, fundamentally is so different from these two teams between 2009 to now in terms of players and personnel?

It also has a lot to do with form I think. The Collingwood backline in 2009-2010 was the best in the league, now it is leaking heavily (the media focus on it this week has been particularly strong). The saints were also very good defensively, almost doing enough to win the premiership in 2010, but has since fallen apart. The form of Fisher and co has been terrible, Goddard is gone, Gram too, and players like Gilbert have lost all confidence. The loss of Maxwell from the Collingwood defence has been huge, we've looked lost down back. It is something I've seen more being at the game than watching the replay on TV. He sets the defence up, and is our master of covering the hole.

On the flip-side, the saints attack has been poor in recent years, bar from a small patch of form for Riewoldt. Milne doesn't look the same, and their other little guys like Schneider were the key to St kilda's previous successes. Collingwood's attack is very strong in terms of the talls, with the Cloke/Lynch combo working very well in my view. But the midfield has stopped chipping in with goals, with less impact from Thomas and Swan on the scoreboard.

Which effect will be larger? I'd say the defensive issue will be, but enough to cover the line? I'd say no, but probably won't be putting anything on it myself. It is a tough one to judge.

[ACoochy]

It also has a lot to do with form I think. The Collingwood backline in 2009-2010 was the best in the league, now it is leaking heavily (the media focus on it this week has been particularly strong). The saints were also very good defensively, almost doing enough to win the premiership in 2010, but has since fallen apart. The form of Fisher and co has been terrible, Goddard is gone, Gram too, and players like Gilbert have lost all confidence. The loss of Maxwell from the Collingwood defence has been huge, we've looked lost down back. It is something I've seen more being at the game than watching the replay on TV. He sets the defence up, and is our master of covering the hole.

On the flip-side, the saints attack has been poor in recent years, bar from a small patch of form for Riewoldt. Milne doesn't look the same, and their other little guys like Schneider were the key to St kilda's previous successes. Collingwood's attack is very strong in terms of the talls, with the Cloke/Lynch combo working very well in my view. But the midfield has stopped chipping in with goals, with less impact from Thomas and Swan on the scoreboard.

Which effect will be larger? I'd say the defensive issue will be, but enough to cover the line? I'd say no, but probably won't be putting anything on it myself. It is a tough one to judge.

Sharp post Trooper.

In addition, another reason why i like the under is because this Pies team has not shown the ability to keep the pressure on for a full 4 quarters.

Example, round 3 and the Tigers game where Cloak booted a career high 7 goals in a 113-79 win. Sure, the Pies had that awesome 3rd quarter but where was that pressure in the 1st half and after the 3rd term? A in-form Pies team wouldve kept the foot down and dominated to a 10-12 goal win.

Can see this being a 188 total kinda game, which is still crazy high for a Saints/Pies match-up. Predict pies to dominate and switch off after getting a 8 goal buffer. So long as the momentum doesnt switch too much into St.Kilda's favour under should be safe imo.

[Coopertrooper]

Yeah, fitness has been an issue. Can't play 4 quarters of pressure football when about 1/3 of the team is lacking the fitness to play the game out.

Looks like it is in to 195.5, must have already been a nibble.

[hedgejob]

Etihad is a high scoring ground. Normally at least 1 team gets at least 100 points per game.

[ACoochy]

Etihad is a high scoring ground. Normally at least 1 team gets at least 100 points per game.

Indeed. Avg total scores so far this season at Etihad is around 203 i think.

Not sure if i want to touch this now.

[Gee]

lol Puda, help me find this trap pal cos im looking but dont see no tarp

What, fundamentally is so different from these two teams between 2009 to now in terms of players and personnel?

1. broke $365 openers are soft. Down to 194.5 now.

2 and 3. Its a Friday night game involving Collingwood at Etihad (perfect conditions). I can't imagine many casual punters would want the under, so the over will most likely be shaded slightly.

4. AFL teams are averaging 98 points per game this season. That is up from 91-92 points per game from 2009 - 2012. Stoppages have declined, so we have a much more open game. The flood and zones are basically dying too. Teams can work through it. Fundamentally, that is what is different.

5. Pies are allowing over 100 points per game this year and scoring about 100.

6. Apart from the wet weather debacle last Anzac day, Saints have been involved in some high scoring games. In the loss to GC, they kicked 10.17 (would have gone miles over with straight kicking).

That is all I have to say.

[Lookingtostart]

Umps will allow the game to flow more in this one. Plus what others have mentioned.

[thecattery12]

Colingwood aren't the defensive unit they used to be and neither are St. Kilda. Both teams are playing a different style of football under different coaches so you can't really use data from when Malthouse and Lyon were coaching. 197.5 still looks a bit high though.

[Coopertrooper]

Sportsbet have it at 201.5, $1.88. After the move through the week to bring it to the low 190's too. The value is now there for those who want to take the under!

[ACoochy]

Knew I should have gone with my gut lol

[Puda]

Got the under and 1-39

[shari91]

Knew I should have gone with my gut lol

Son of a bitch, me too. I read Gee's post yesterday and thought this is exactly the kind of stuff a book would want us to focus on by setting that total. All the stats from AFL.com perfectly set up to make someone think it'll be a high scoring game. Total of 180 ffs

[Coopertrooper]

A bit of a weird game. The total was probably about right in the end - we just didn't put our good first quarter onto the scoreboard, so the total was probably 10 points off what it should have been. A nice cash for everyone who did go with the under