Glaring weakness in defence

[beelzebub 22,225]

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

Just confirming this is referring to players in the backline? because in terms of top draft picks, and players who should be 'elite' I find it hard to swallow that we don't have enough elite players...?

Salem and Hibberd id rate as elite ability. Only Pig manages to apply it week in week out. Salem wafts between good weeks and ' was he playing ?'  Hunt  might be anything but still raw with patches of 'wow' 

Jetta... probably AA currently. Lucky for us.

Oscar and Frosty ..works in progress.

So yes, i reckon our back 50 could use a bit more....'eliteness' ...for sure. No ?

Edited July 31, 2017 by beelzebub

[daisycutter 28,452]

On 30/07/2017 at 0:14 PM, jnrmac said:

I have said all year our defence leaks goals. Yet again we got taken to the cleaners.

The elephant in the room are our key tall backs. Hibberd has had a great year. Jetta is outstanding, Hunt has done well but OMac and Frost while doing some good things have been toweled up by bigger bodied tall fwds like Brown, Roughhead, Walker, Daniher, Reiwoldt, Casboult, Hawkins etc

We desperately need a Lever.

Facts are:

1. teams score 53% of the time they enter our fwd 50 - last in the AFL

2. We lose 35% of defensive one on ones - last in the AFL

You cannot win finals with a defence like that. In fact you will struggle to make finals.

OMac is simply a liability. May become a footballer one day but gets outbodied regularly, has no urgency or intensity and frankly plays a lot of dumb football. He flies to spoil and either misses the ball or or hits it straight into a dangerous spot like the corridor. Plenty on here bang on about what a massive improvement he has made this year but I maintain if we had a decent tall back he wouldn't be playing.  

Frost has some great attributes but makes a lot of errors spoiling. leaving his man, fumbling and taking on more than he can chew.

We cannot take a contested mark to save ourselves. We rank 17th in contested marks. Clearly we have had to move TMac to the fwd line and so rob our defence but the evidence is pretty clear that he makes a good forward and so won't be returning any time soon.

Until we fix our defence we aren't going anywhere. Throw the kitchen sink at Lever.

you're right, we get killed by tall fwd markers too often

would love lever, but at 194cm i have reservations whether he solves the genuine-tall marker problem

[jackaub 1,402]

2 hours ago, DeeMfc said:

If our mids aren't lowering their eyes when delivering inside forward 50 then put TMac back to take the big forwards and slot Joel Smith in at full forward.

How many more weeks before they "lower their eyes" Claptrap

[Umpire Please 120]

On 30 July 2017 at 2:18 PM, beelzebub said:

Something desperately wrong with a defence setup that ever requires Nev to have to take on Brown !!

Not sure who were worse...players or coaches.

Neither up to the task yesterday. Smacked botties all round i think.

Would it have been too much for the coaches to do a couple of training sessions at Casey leading up to this game, given we were going to play in Hobart then Canberra in the middle of winter. Surely that ground would have given the team a more realistic conditions to see how the game plan might work at windy, cold and possibly wet grounds ! That last quarter was school boy football mistakes, not playing in front when defending into the wind and thinking kicking with the wind it would all just happen for them. So I blame the coaches for not preparing the team and the players for not doing some basics in those conditions. 

[binman 37,761]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The earth is flat. If you read the OP you will see the problem I have highlighted. you simply cannot argue against the fact clubs score on 53% of occasions they go inside 50 against us. The worst in the AFL.

We also lose 35% of one on ones in our defence, the worst in the AFL. If you want to shut your eyes and ignore that go ahead. I prefer to be realistic about what strengths and deficiencies we have.

That we have largely kept teams to manageable scores is, I would say, a result of two of our defenders having AA-type seasons - Jetta and Hibberd.

I'm glad you agree that we have largely kept teams to manageable scores. A good stat indicating the back six are doing okay. To suggest the reason is that we have two of the back six in AA form is quite frankly, silly. Maybe if it was under 12's but not in the elite football competition in the land. All players in a back six have to be playing their role or we would be getting cricket scores kicked on us. Which we are not. And if they can't play their role they will not be picked. 

Take Saturday. Jetta and Hibberd both had their worst games for weeks yet we still kept them to 76 points, despite the lack of pressure from the mids. 

The reason we have largely kept teams to manageable scores - and did once again on Saturday - is that the zone defensive system they have in place largely works very well. 

Your stats indicate there are issues, for sure. But your assumptions that the cause of those issues being the personnel is wrong. We give up easy goals and concede one on ones when our zone breaks down and/or the opposition exploit the inevitable mismatches that occur.   Often though we give up goals and marks not because of the defence but, like on Saturday, the mids simply are not putting enough pressure on and the ball comes in quickly and players are able to target the kick. The two occasions Brown marked with Jetta as his direct opponent were perfect examples of this.

Zones take a long time to develop and are high risk. At the start of the season you could see they didn't really have it working, but it has been much better for the last 6-7 weeks. It will be better gain next year with the benefit of another Goodwin pre season.

Zones require all players on the field to be providing maximum pressure. We have been variable this year and our losses have corresponded to a drop off in pressure from the mids - both roos games being prime examples. This puts enormous pressure on the back six and creates scoring opportunities.

I have no doubt they have targeted lever, not because he will take the power forwards. He won't. But because he is the perfect player for the zone set up Goodwin is obviously committed to sticking with. Perhaps to the chagrin of old school footy fans who still see football as one one one contests down back..

I agree we need to improve our defensive work. And lever will be huge for us. his ability to read the play and come to contest as the third man up - sometimes to spoil, sometimes to intercept mark, will be really help improve the our ability t stop the power forwards. But our defence is not our glaring weakness. And you stats do not 'prove' that it is. 

Edited July 31, 2017 by binman

[KingDingAling 3,589]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

you're right, we get killed by tall fwd markers too often

would love lever, but at 194cm i have reservations whether he solves the genuine-tall marker problem

Lever is tremendous. What a talent. At 194cm's he has a great leap. I have zero concerns about his height. I never actually thought Lever would be up for grabs - but he hasn't re-signed. Maybe he is up for grabs. He did seem adamant mid year that he was just waiting for the CBA to be announced, and then signing sounded as if it was a mere formality. But, he still hasn't signed. So assuming he is on the market he would be a good get. The 194 cm's I don't think is a concern, if anything it is a positive, because Lever could play stints in the midfield. We haven't seen that yet from him at the Crows, but that is what he is capable of.

Edited July 31, 2017 by KingDingAling

[binman 37,761]

5 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

Lever is tremendous. What a talent. At 194cm's he is a great leap. I have zero concerns about his height. I never actually thought Lever would be up for grabs - but he hasn't re-signed. Maybe he is up for grabs. He did seem adamant mid year that he was just waiting for the CBA to be announced, and then signing sounded as if it was a mere formality. But, he still hasn't signed. So assuming he is on the market he would be a good get. The 194 cm's I don't think is a concern, if anything it is a positive, because Lever could play stints in the midfield. We haven't seen that yet from him at the Crows, but that is what he is capable of.

I reckon he could also go up forward

[DubDee 20,338]

I ain't no expert but it seems like its not just the tall backs themselves but rather the set-up and zone.  how many times did we see Jetta on a 6 foot 6 bloke!   play the zone but the talls have to keep an eye on their man FCS

and that is why a smart key back like Lever would solve a lot of problems. the lack of footy IQ in our talls is an issue which is in part down to age/experience (hopefully)

who wants patton this week???

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

On 30/07/2017 at 0:14 PM, jnrmac said:

I have said all year our defence leaks goals. Yet again we got taken to the cleaners.

The elephant in the room are our key tall backs. Hibberd has had a great year. Jetta is outstanding, Hunt has done well but OMac and Frost while doing some good things have been toweled up by bigger bodied tall fwds like Brown, Roughhead, Walker, Daniher, Reiwoldt, Casboult, Hawkins etc

We desperately need a Lever.

Facts are:

1. teams score 53% of the time they enter our fwd 50 - last in the AFL

2. We lose 35% of defensive one on ones - last in the AFL

You cannot win finals with a defence like that. In fact you will struggle to make finals.

OMac is simply a liability. May become a footballer one day but gets outbodied regularly, has no urgency or intensity and frankly plays a lot of dumb football. He flies to spoil and either misses the ball or or hits it straight into a dangerous spot like the corridor. Plenty on here bang on about what a massive improvement he has made this year but I maintain if we had a decent tall back he wouldn't be playing.  

Frost has some great attributes but makes a lot of errors spoiling. leaving his man, fumbling and taking on more than he can chew.

We cannot take a contested mark to save ourselves. We rank 17th in contested marks. Clearly we have had to move TMac to the fwd line and so rob our defence but the evidence is pretty clear that he makes a good forward and so won't be returning any time soon.

Until we fix our defence we aren't going anywhere. Throw the kitchen sink at Lever.

Just for my own clarity... are you saying the back 6 are costing us games or it'sjust a weakness?

Because i think both questions have 2 slightly different answers 

[dtrinh 71]

I agree that Lever would be ideal, but what are people's thoughts on him playing a key defensive post. At Adelaide, Lever plays a third man up. He has Talia and Hartigan to play one on one with the bigger bodies and he can read the play and come up third man to intercept mark. We haven't seen him play as the main man in defence which is exactly what we need. 

I think the options we have are: 

1. Find a key position defender in the 2nd leagues

2. Recruit from other teams for KEY defenders: Looking around the other teams what are people's thoughts on Alir Alir from sydney. Played key defensive post last year. I am not as concerned about his rebounding, he isn't the best decision maker either but a much more solid defender than OMac. I don't mind Frost- he puts in 110% every time he plays. You see him chase, tackle, smother and spoil. He does make bad decisions, but with more experience back there and a better key defensive post with him should be more steady. 

It seems TMac is going to be trialled as a key forward for a while so without him to guide a backline then we need someone else to come in. 

[Gunna’s 1,775]

Both of those stats point to the midfield. The game is all about pressure. If you allow the opposition mids to kick without any pressure, they can put the ball exactly where they want (hands of their forwards).    

Lever is just a more aerial Hibberd. Both are very good defenders, but both won't stop the likes of Brown, Daniher, etc. if playing man on man. 

Omac will again put on muscle in the off season. He will be a Talia or May and will be able to handle the gorillas, but that will be in time. There is no one else coming through, and if Garland were fit, I think I'd prefer Omac.

 

 

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. 

There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13  we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. 

Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. 

No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

Seems few want to read the OP. It describes a weakness in our defence. I didn't understand it to say the defenders lost the game. A number of concurrent issues

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

17 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Seems few want to read the OP. It describes a weakness in our defence. I didn't understand it to say the defenders lost the game. A number of concurrent issues

I think people are now discussing is that weakness because of our defenders or because of the way the team plays? For mine nearly every team would have the same weaknesses if the opposition is allowed to move the ball as quickly away from stoppages/the center and we've allowed lately.  

[binman 37,761]

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Seems few want to read the OP. It describes a weakness in our defence. I didn't understand it to say the defenders lost the game. A number of concurrent issues

Not much of a glaring weakness or indeed much of a problem if it is not  costing us games. Our drop off in pressure seems to be more of a glaring issue.

The op also makes the point that we are easy to score against and give up easy msrks because of weaknesses in our defensive personell. Others have made, to my mind, convincing arguments tbat assessment is wrong, that there are other reaons for these issues.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Again Bin % is marginally adequate ( if you squint ) 

We have a way to go. Good thar your content. Sleep well.

 

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Seems few want to read the OP. It describes a weakness in our defence. I didn't understand it to say the defenders lost the game. A number of concurrent issues

Like a few have said.... you can't blame 6 players for defence now days. It's too simplistic of a discussion.

The defenders and our game plan rely on pressure up field and all over the ground to stop defensive enteries/scores. Without pressure up feild they get exposed, which is what i think the op is pointing out.

Im not trying to argue with u bb. Just pointing out it depends exactly what the op is saying depends on the response.

If u try to understand the press and how goody wants us to play it, its not a back 6 issue per say. It's an 18 man team defence issue not just the back 6.

But also i agree there is an issue with the back 6 size and experience wise. Im not saying the op is wrong 

My overall point is you can be critical but its harsh just to focus on the back 6. Especially considering how we play... defensive stats imo are misleading when analysising them individualy as it's a Team Defense not a traditional back 6 defence.

I dont even think goody wants to stop specific players ie brown. He wants pressure to create turnovers and scoring opportunities.

Goody knows teams will score and i don't think it's about stopping them. Its about us creating opportunity.

Also if we lose clearences etc our game plan starts to get exposed which goes in line with ehat the op is saying but again it's a slightly different discussion and not a back 6 issue

Edited August 1, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[Wiseblood 24,636]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Not much of a glaring weakness or indeed much of a problem if it is not  costing us games. Our drop off in pressure seems to be more of a glaring issue.

The op also makes the point that we are easy to score against and give up easy msrks because of weaknesses in our defensive personell. Others have made, to my mind, convincing arguments tbat assessment is wrong, that there are other reaons for these issues.

You are all over this topic, binman, and you have been spot on in most of your assessment.  To simply blame our tall backs for the issues we have it short sighted, naive and show a distinct lack of understanding about our defensive game and the zone we are using.

[Demons1858 1,657]

The other player that will strengthen our defence is actually a forward.

If we recruit Mitch McGovern (out of contract) then TMac goes back. Problem solved with some cash to spare.

Strategically, we should be making market rated offers to both McGovern and Lever so that one of them falls out of their salary cap. 

[jnrmac 18,914]

13 hours ago, Gundogmillionaire said:

Both of those stats point to the midfield. The game is all about pressure. If you allow the opposition mids to kick without any pressure, they can put the ball exactly where they want (hands of their forwards).    

Lever is just a more aerial Hibberd. Both are very good defenders, but both won't stop the likes of Brown, Daniher, etc. if playing man on man. 

Omac will again put on muscle in the off season. He will be a Talia or May and will be able to handle the gorillas, but that will be in time. There is no one else coming through, and if Garland were fit, I think I'd prefer Omac.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. 

There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13  we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. 

Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. 

No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them. 

Those that blame the midfield are simply wrong. We are 3rd in total clearances. We are third in centre clearances. We are 5th in total stoppages.

We are last in defensive one on ones.

Teams score 53% of the time they go into their 50m. Last in the AFL.

Keep blaming the mids, or the fwds or the seagulls but you are wrong.

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

32 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

 

Those that blame the midfield are simply wrong. We are 3rd in total clearances. We are third in centre clearances. We are 5th in total stoppages.

We are last in defensive one on ones.

Teams score 53% of the time they go into their 50m. Last in the AFL.

Keep blaming the mids, or the fwds or the seagulls but you are wrong.

You can't throw a blanket of statistics over you're arguement. How about the final qtr on Saturday? I havent looked at the stats but from my eye i reckon we lost clearances and got beaten up around the ball. So your point is moot if im right, stats are general you need to be specific. You cant point at a trend for the yr and apply it to one game because it may not actually refect what happened.

Goody and other media analysts have discussed this year how we play. If you can't discuss how the team plays and how that affects you're arguement it's a waste of time.

Its very easy to say we were out marked and exposed on Saturday... and we were , you're 100% spot on.

What ppl are trying to say is you can be a simpleton and focus on one area of the game or discuss the whloe situation not just the end result. 

For example did our turnovers creat their scoring opportunities or was it stoppages it was it just ben brown?

It's really up to u. Maybe you just have no undestanding and thats ok too 

 

[Chris 2,892]

18 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

You can't throw a blanket of statistics over you're arguement. How about the final qtr on Saturday? I havent looked at the stats but from my eye i reckon we lost clearances and got beaten up around the ball. So your point is moot if im right, stats are general you need to be specific. You cant point at a trend for the yr and apply it to one game because it may not actually refect what happened.

Goody and other media analysts have discussed this year how we play. If you can't discuss how the team plays and how that affects you're arguement it's a waste of time.

Its very easy to say we were out marked and exposed on Saturday... and we were , you're 100% spot on.

What ppl are trying to say is you can be a simpleton and focus on one area of the game or discuss the whloe situation not just the end result. 

For example did our turnovers creat their scoring opportunities or was it stoppages it was it just ben brown?

It's really up to u. Maybe you just have no undestanding and thats ok too 

 

Agreed. You can mount a very strong case that we were out marked on the weekend due more to the delivery coming in than the act of the defender. In reality both were at play but the defenders life gets so much harder when the delivery is coming in with little no no pressure, which is down the mids who had a very off day pressure wise. Clearances are a useless stat when looking at pressure as it is only the clearance, it doesn't show if the ball was then turned over and run down the other end with little or no pressure, and pressure is what makes the delivery bad and makes the back men be able to do their job better. 

Using the number of times a team scores per 50 entry is also useless unless you add the number of entries into 50. In reality the back 6 press up to around our half forward line, if they are working well with the mids and putting the pressure on the number of inside 50 for the opposition drop, but the may score easily if they actually get there. 

[Demons1858 1,657]

22 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Salem and Hibberd id rate as elite ability. Only Pig manages to apply it week in week out. Salem wafts between good weeks and ' was he playing ?'  Hunt  might be anything but still raw with patches of 'wow' 

Jetta... probably AA currently. Lucky for us.

Oscar and Frosty ..works in progress.

So yes, i reckon our back 50 could use a bit more....'eliteness' ...for sure. No ?

Agree. Our defence is not elite but probably not that bad either given the low-ish scores against. Defensive systems have worked more times than not this year.

We no longer have the gapping holes in our list we once had but we do have form slumps and talent levels. So we should rightly be talking about what we need to do to become elite in more positions across the ground in view of future finals.

With our key backs still developing (and somewhat unknown commodities) an established defensive or forward tall would be helpful to lift our teams 'elite-ness'.

[binman 37,761]

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Again Bin % is marginally adequate ( if you squint ) 

We have a way to go. Good thar your content. Sleep well.

 

Huh? Where did i say i was content? I would love for our % to be higher. But more the point i am furious that about our two losses against the roos and the one against freo. All were a result of poor mid  pressure, not our defensive 6. We win those 3 games and we make top 4. So, hardly content.

People talk about brown hurting us? Look at his four goals. Three were gifted because of poor pressure - and a break down in the zone. Tbe fourth was a failure by the defenders to spoil his pack mark in the goal square. So tbey can wear that one. But our tallest player, gawn, can wear some blame as well as he was in that pack and should have go to the ball.

Sleep well? Patronising much

[loges 6,002]

5 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. 

There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13  we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. 

Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. 

No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them. 

I think your last sentence sums it up.