Glaring weakness in defence

[binman 37,989]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:54 PM, jnrmac said:

Any tragics out there still trying to defend our defenders?

Coll took 7 marks in their fwd 50 in the first quarter. Cox and Grundy smashed us.

Look i'm over it Jnr. I couldn't really care less anymore. But honestly i don't understand how you can see things so black and white, no pun intended.

Yes the pies took 7 marks in their forward 50 and yes Cox and Grundy smashed us. But honestly, i don't mean to be rude but it just way to simplistic to simply blame the defenders for this.

They were poor as it turns out. Only jetta of the back six got close to a pass mark. The rest were average particularly Hibberd, Tmac and Hunt. Ironically enough despite this we still kept them to under 100 points (just) and once again couldn't muster a winning score.  

But for god's sake the midfield pressure was appalling in the first quarter, when all the damage was done. Woeful. We were down 10 contested possessions at quarter time. Ten!. We were at least that many tackles down. We didn't lay our first tackle until the 20 minute mark of the fist quarter. 20 minutes of AFL football without a single tackle! We only laid 3 for the whole first quarter. Unforgivable. 

Grundy smashed us? No wonder given Gawn barely could stay with him all day. Gawn's defensive pressure was appalling. His job is to ensure the opposition ruckman don't swan in their forward line and get easy marks.  Martin also toweled him up. I just hope injury is to blame. 

There is lot of love for lever on this site and i'm also keen to get him. But their defence gave up 100 points against a low scoring side and were dominated in the first half. Was that because they their defence as poor? No of course not. It was because as we could all see, like us against the pies, the crows simply did not apply anywhere near enough pressure all over the ground, but particularly through the mid field.  

Lever won't help a jot if we play like we did last Saturday. And if we don't bring the required pressure every game we also won't fully benefit from his real skill which is his intercept marking. Like Rance he is at his most dangerous when the opposition are forced to kick under pressure into their 50 like we were by Brisbane and the Pies. Such kicks rarely hit targets or go to a forwards advantage and are easy picking for players like Lever, Rance and dare i say it Howe.

Sides putting more pressure on than us than we do on them mean that it is not just down back we get out marked. We got out marked all over the bloody ground for the last 9 games of thew season.

But sure Jnr blame the defenders, in particular the talls. And let yourself believe that lever will fix our problems. Knock yourself out.

For me i'd rather take a more nuanced, dare i say it modern approach to analysing what the problem is and therefore what the solution might be. As Goody will be no doubt.

I think a really good question is the one BB alludes to above. Is our zone system the right one? And the corollary does our game plan measure up?  Our game plan completely depends on manic pressure. As we have seen since the dogs game any drop off in that pressure exposes our zone defence, in part because as BB notes it allows teams to move the ball quickly through the corridor.

Lever will help no doubt as he will cut off some attacks but we saw in the crows wc game it still won't be enough if we don't apply sufficient all team pressure. 

The other problem with our game plan and aggressive zoning is that poor disposal and turnovers exposes us on the rebound, much more so than say the pies or teams with less aggressive zones. 

Buckley has been often been criticized for not being tactically savy or up with modern approaches. An example is he plays a much more traditional man on man defence. But the advantage of that approach is that it offers protection against quick ball movement and turnovers as defenders are better placed to avoid getting caught in no man's land. We saw this on Saturday when they were able to stymie us and not allow forward space even when we moved the ball quickly. Dunn thrives on this approach and played really well on Saturday. 

I really wonder if Goody's game plan is the right one. It is very taxing and depends on having players who do not tun the ball over a lot. But i also wonder if our wretched run with injuries should be factored in when assessing its effectiveness as should the fact that it is far from bedded down and is work in progress.

I hate to say it but Richmond are playing exactly the game we aspire too. Manic pressure all over the ground. Pressure that means sides dump kick into their forward half and often into the tigers hands. Intense forward pressure that traps the ball there. Aggressive zone defence. Unusual forward leading patterns. Cross the ball and hold it until there is an opening and then move the ball super fast and run in waves. Hard gut running, particularly defensive running. But they have a great run with injury and have by in large better users of the a ball. Still they are the template for us.  And i expect we will look to use that template.

But i'm out. I'm not going to comment any more on this topic. Let's agree to disagree and move on to trade rumours and who to draft. 

 

 

 

[Fat Tony 4,403]

^ Great post.

I'm not as sold on OMac as you, but he has improved this year and shown enough to convince me he will come good in time. 

[old dee 22,848]

23 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

funny how we ( any number of people)  see things differently

Im the reverse here.  I think fundamentally the essential players are actually here already for a decent forward line.  Hogan, Jeffy ( though needs a rocket at times )  Milkshake , Hannan , Pedo McDonald T.  A few lads like Weed and Johnstone to come in at some point when more capable.  Harmes  might improve  I see the HOW we play forward ans more the thing to be bettered. We dont do thi swell..it seems rather adhock. if there IS  style and plans here it's escaping this viewer.

I see two areas of concern though with defence. We have no capacity to stem king tides when opposition decide to run the gauntlet of the corridor. Zones work to areas and fail down the guts  ( imho ) . Also the 'rearguard press is fallible  if your opponent has the capacity to back themselves going "over the top" Here you need the abilty to quickly shut down players as well as deny passage and the ball. Zoning is akin to spectator football in this respect and if caught out wrong footed by the ball flying over your head its too little too late afterwards.

Here , thats us, Dees, need better tools of defence. We need the ability to teach players to identify the nature of incursion and automatically adapt. If a fwd needs manning up it needs to be done pronto.Currently we are very good at watching the other team mark a ball!!

Do we have the manpower on board to do this right at the  moment..Not how player X or Y might be in 25 games time...but now. No ..by my calcs we are 2 short of the ideal. We need a Lever type...we also need a REAL FB.  Now this might surprise some but I reckon with another 5-7 kg  and a change in role good ol Oscar could do this. It would in some fashion be a simpler if arduous role. Leave it to the Hibberds and Levers to cut off supply , intercept and set up Hunt for the reversed assault . If not Oscar..then 'someone' imported.

Happy to have differing thoughts here Old

oh..addendum. Some will straight away scream  Watts !!  I actually see him as neither a fwd or a back..Id like to see him develop as some sort of winger/come outside mid. A link man  who CAN go fwd..who is excellent at disposal , is a better mark when not so quite congested in traffic and is the most reliable of any demon with a ball in front of the sticks anywhere up to 55m out. But he doesnt need to be a FWD to do this..just my opinion

It is all just our opinions bb. Perhaps it is not a KPF but we need another forward who kicks goals regular. This year we seem to depend on players from the mid field or further afield kicking goals. When they have not we have been beaten. 

What we need is players like Kent who kick goals on a regular basis not once every five games and average more than eight games a year. In other words A durable more reliable Kent. 

I think overall we need a bit more depth, currently our list still falls away fast after the top 20. 

I am probably in a very small group but I reckon we have played better this year without Gawn compared to when he has played is that just me?

[Moonshadow 16,163]

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

Bombers will re sign him.

Like Hibberd and Melksham Red?

[beelzebub 22,225]

14 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Like Hibberd and Melksham Red?

fair to say a whole different set of circumstnace and opportunity. Dons made finals..he might be attracted by that 

[junk 342]

When J.Smith was playing down back,our backline seemed to be more secure. Next year I think that J.Smith should become a mid,he is quick and shows skill. O.Mac could go to the wing, to some people he looks slow but he isn't. Jetta should be used up forward,may replace Garlett or used in combo. Perhaps Maynard could then play in defence. Not sure if T.Mac is a forward or Defender. What about this crazy idea when Gawn rucks Watts is the rover.This move may confuse the opposition,if Watts doesn't hold and held onto he get a free. Also rucking in our forward zone we use Pedo or T.Mac,Gawn goes to a forward pocket. To be a great team you need great mids,a changing game plan,smarter players etc.

[Binmans PA 26,021]

Our glaring weakness is still our midfield, I'm afraid. If we're not winning the ball and are off even a little bit, the opposition mauls us on the rebound, leaving our defence wide open. I've been saying this for a while, but we're still missing 2 further A graders to compliment Oliver, Viney, Tyson, Jones, Petracca, Salem, Brayshaw, Lewis and if I'm being very kind, Bernie Vince. 

With Vince and Lewis on their last legs (particularly the former), we're really going to need to address this soon.

Oscar, Frost, Jetta, Hibberd, Hunt with Lever and TMac as swingman is fine for the moment. The midfield still struggled against weak opposition but reasonable midfields. This says it all for me. When Petracca, Salem and Brayshaw can play longer minutes in the midfield, we'll appear deeper, but we need reinforcements now. 

[jnrmac 18,953]

On 8/31/2017 at 3:09 PM, old dee said:

I think our defence is ok. IMO our forward line is our weak link. We desperately need a KPF to help out Hogan. Yes I know we have one but he is not AFL quality. 

You haven't been listening OD...

[binman 37,989]

2 hours ago, A F said:

Our glaring weakness is still our midfield, I'm afraid. If we're not winning the ball and are off even a little bit, the opposition mauls us on the rebound, leaving our defence wide open. I've been saying this for a while, but we're still missing 2 further A graders to compliment Oliver, Viney, Tyson, Jones, Petracca, Salem, Brayshaw, Lewis and if I'm being very kind, Bernie Vince. 

With Vince and Lewis on their last legs (particularly the former), we're really going to need to address this soon.

Oscar, Frost, Jetta, Hibberd, Hunt with Lever and TMac as swingman is fine for the moment. The midfield still struggled against weak opposition but reasonable midfields. This says it all for me. When Petracca, Salem and Brayshaw can play longer minutes in the midfield, we'll appear deeper, but we need reinforcements now. 

Yep 100% agree. Really only Oliver is an A grader ATM. Plus we have focused so much on contested ball winners we really lack outside skill. 

As you say any side with really good midfields hurt us, even if they are otherwise not that strong. Brisbane, North and the pies come to mind.

But the situation was made worse by Gawn's dramatic drop off in form and influence. He must have been carrying injuries as he first half of the Port game was the only time post his hammy he was anywhere near his best. And then he got injured again. And Ports midfield dragged them back into the game. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

A F  Im sure our Midfield doesnt help out our defence at times. In a fashion as I see that it only serves to highlight how poorly the defence works at times.  The Corridor is not our Defence's friend

[DeezNuts 624]

On 31/08/2017 at 3:37 PM, binman said:

Look i'm over it Jnr. I couldn't really care less anymore. But honestly i don't understand how you can see things so black and white, no pun intended.

Yes the pies took 7 marks in their forward 50 and yes Cox and Grundy smashed us. But honestly, i don't mean to be rude but it just way to simplistic to simply blame the defenders for this.

They were poor as it turns out. Only jetta of the back six got close to a pass mark. The rest were average particularly Hibberd, Tmac and Hunt. Ironically enough despite this we still kept them to under 100 points (just) and once again couldn't muster a winning score.  

But for god's sake the midfield pressure was appalling in the first quarter, when all the damage was done. Woeful. We were down 10 contested possessions at quarter time. Ten!. We were at least that many tackles down. We didn't lay our first tackle until the 20 minute mark of the fist quarter. 20 minutes of AFL football without a single tackle! We only laid 3 for the whole first quarter. Unforgivable. 

Grundy smashed us? No wonder given Gawn barely could stay with him all day. Gawn's defensive pressure was appalling. His job is to ensure the opposition ruckman don't swan in their forward line and get easy marks.  Martin also toweled him up. I just hope injury is to blame. 

There is lot of love for lever on this site and i'm also keen to get him. But their defence gave up 100 points against a low scoring side and were dominated in the first half. Was that because they their defence as poor? No of course not. It was because as we could all see, like us against the pies, the crows simply did not apply anywhere near enough pressure all over the ground, but particularly through the mid field.  

Lever won't help a jot if we play like we did last Saturday. And if we don't bring the required pressure every game we also won't fully benefit from his real skill which is his intercept marking. Like Rance he is at his most dangerous when the opposition are forced to kick under pressure into their 50 like we were by Brisbane and the Pies. Such kicks rarely hit targets or go to a forwards advantage and are easy picking for players like Lever, Rance and dare i say it Howe.

Sides putting more pressure on than us than we do on them mean that it is not just down back we get out marked. We got out marked all over the bloody ground for the last 9 games of thew season.

But sure Jnr blame the defenders, in particular the talls. And let yourself believe that lever will fix our problems. Knock yourself out.

For me i'd rather take a more nuanced, dare i say it modern approach to analysing what the problem is and therefore what the solution might be. As Goody will be no doubt.

I think a really good question is the one BB alludes to above. Is our zone system the right one? And the corollary does our game plan measure up?  Our game plan completely depends on manic pressure. As we have seen since the dogs game any drop off in that pressure exposes our zone defence, in part because as BB notes it allows teams to move the ball quickly through the corridor.

Lever will help no doubt as he will cut off some attacks but we saw in the crows wc game it still won't be enough if we don't apply sufficient all team pressure. 

The other problem with our game plan and aggressive zoning is that poor disposal and turnovers exposes us on the rebound, much more so than say the pies or teams with less aggressive zones. 

Buckley has been often been criticized for not being tactically savy or up with modern approaches. An example is he plays a much more traditional man on man defence. But the advantage of that approach is that it offers protection against quick ball movement and turnovers as defenders are better placed to avoid getting caught in no man's land. We saw this on Saturday when they were able to stymie us and not allow forward space even when we moved the ball quickly. Dunn thrives on this approach and played really well on Saturday. 

I really wonder if Goody's game plan is the right one. It is very taxing and depends on having players who do not tun the ball over a lot. But i also wonder if our wretched run with injuries should be factored in when assessing its effectiveness as should the fact that it is far from bedded down and is work in progress.

I hate to say it but Richmond are playing exactly the game we aspire too. Manic pressure all over the ground. Pressure that means sides dump kick into their forward half and often into the tigers hands. Intense forward pressure that traps the ball there. Aggressive zone defence. Unusual forward leading patterns. Cross the ball and hold it until there is an opening and then move the ball super fast and run in waves. Hard gut running, particularly defensive running. But they have a great run with injury and have by in large better users of the a ball. Still they are the template for us.  And i expect we will look to use that template.

But i'm out. I'm not going to comment any more on this topic. Let's agree to disagree and move on to trade rumours and who to draft. 

 

 

 

@Binman this is really good analysis/questions to ask mate. Just what the coaches need to being doing really! Goody certainly can 'switch players around' (and out of position I might add) but really, we need more tools in the bag to switch tactics. How that gets communicated in time on the field, well difficult to say.

One of my concerns with the high hand-pass keepings off game is that most hand passes seem to go to a static player. When we hand pass between running players, we cut teams apart. But static is just stupid... we get choked, pressured easily, and we make an error, and then it's a turnover. 

Clarry is the only exception (coz he's a freak) and can hand pass like no other...

I wonder what he'd be like in the F50, darting a pass from a pack to a free Garlett?

 

 

[Binmans PA 26,021]

10 hours ago, binman said:

Yep 100% agree. Really only Oliver is an A grader ATM. Plus we have focused so much on contested ball winners we really lack outside skill. 

As you say any side with really good midfields hurt us, even if they are otherwise not that strong. Brisbane, North and the pies come to mind.

But the situation was made worse by Gawn's dramatic drop off in form and influence. He must have been carrying injuries as he first half of the Port game was the only time post his hammy he was anywhere near his best. And then he got injured again. And Ports midfield dragged them back into the game. 

I worry that Gawn is a one-hit-wonder, much like Jamar was. I hope I'm wrong.

[Binmans PA 26,021]

10 hours ago, beelzebub said:

A F  Im sure our Midfield doesnt help out our defence at times. In a fashion as I see that it only serves to highlight how poorly the defence works at times.  The Corridor is not our Defence's friend

Yeah, well, bb, it's not really up to our defenders to block the corridor and ensure mids can't run through it at will or opposition forwards can't lead into open space. 

As we all know (but I feel we sometimes forget), modern footy utilises 18 man team defence, not a 6 man defence. If the half forwards or deeper forwards don't lay tackles and the mids fail to set up adequately to block or slow the play through the middle, the defence has ot incredibly tough. It's a really shallow analysis to blame our goals on our defence. We can blame specific players if they fail to win critical one-on-ones or make poor decisions, or turn the ball over, but the majority of the time, it is our poor team defence that enables the opposition to score.

[GoD's67 111]

3 hours ago, A F said:

I worry that Gawn is a one-hit-wonder, much like Jamar was. I hope I'm wrong.

How many times do you hear, player xyz had a great or interrupted pre season and correspondingly had a good or bad season. Gawn missed 10-11 weeks during the season and then had the umpires change the interpretation of the rules that hurt him.

Give him a break.

Similarly for Hogan, people who want to trade him, you must be kidding! Will be a gun.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

20 hours ago, A F said:

Our glaring weakness is still our midfield, I'm afraid. If we're not winning the ball and are off even a little bit, the opposition mauls us on the rebound, leaving our defence wide open. I've been saying this for a while, but we're still missing 2 further A graders to compliment Oliver, Viney, Tyson, Jones, Petracca, Salem, Brayshaw, Lewis and if I'm being very kind, Bernie Vince. 

With Vince and Lewis on their last legs (particularly the former), we're really going to need to address this soon.

Oscar, Frost, Jetta, Hibberd, Hunt with Lever and TMac as swingman is fine for the moment. The midfield still struggled against weak opposition but reasonable midfields. This says it all for me. When Petracca, Salem and Brayshaw can play longer minutes in the midfield, we'll appear deeper, but we need reinforcements now. 

Attribute diversity is the glaring weakness through our midfield. I would consider Viney and Oliver A-grade contested ball winners with Jones not far behind. Petracca and Brayshaw were A-grade contested ball winners in their draft year so you'd expect them to develop into A-grade AFL ball winners too. We have one of the best contested ball winning midfields within the comp when everyone is on the park. 

The problem is that so many of them share the same weaknesses. Running ability (including both power and speed), decision making and footskills. That spells disaster if your midfield group are having a particularly bad kicking day. 

The opposition mauls us on the rebound when we either directly turn the ball over or even kick to a 50/50 at times. The first quarter against Collingwood was indicative of this and was symbolic of the way we'd been playing for the last month. 

That's one issue. Another is the fact that we were playing Brayshaw and Tyson out of position and had one too many of Harmes and ANB playing in positions thaT need to be filled by specialist types.

Again, ANB, Tyson and Brayshaw were all prolific under-aged contested ball winners who were centre square starters and they similarly all share similar strengths and weaknesses. Tyson is not a wingman. ANB is not a small forward. Brayshaw is not a half-back. 

I believe those three playing those positions were a great hindrance to the way the modern game needs to be played.

And then there's our defence. Which is something I've said my piece on. But let's just put it this way; regardless of how many turnovers we make further up the ground or how fast the ball is coming into our defensive 50 etc, there will always be players who can defend much better than others. Hibberd and Jetta are proof of that. They rarely lose contests and they generally always kill the ball. 

The more defenders both tall and small you have that display these traits, the better your defensive group will be no matter what's happening further up the field. And the fact is, we leak too many oppo scoring opportunities through our key defenders' lack of ability to defend well. Fact.

Edited September 2, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[DeeZee 6,731]

I'm always concerned when people say give them time to develop ,re OMac etc...

If you're serious and pushing for finals you cannot afford that luxury,the penny has to drop at some stage. 

Casey is where they should be developing until they bang down the door.

You don't see people "developing" in the Premier league or in most other top level sport for that matter.

[Binmans PA 26,021]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Attribute diversity is the glaring weakness through our midfield. I would consider Viney and Oliver A-grade contested ball winners with Jones not far behind. Petracca and Brayshaw were A-grade contested ball winners in their draft year so you'd expect them to develop into A-grade AFL ball winners too. We have one of the best contested ball winning midfields within the comp when everyone is on the park. 

The problem is that so many of them share the same weaknesses. Running ability (including both power and speed), decision making and footskills. That spells disaster if your midfield group are having a particularly bad kicking day. 

The opposition mauls us on the rebound when we either directly turn the ball over or even kick to a 50/50 at times. The first quarter against Collingwood was indicative of this and was symbolic of the way we'd been playing for the last month. 

That's one issue. Another is the fact that we were playing Brayshaw and Tyson out of position and had one too many of Harmes and ANB playing in positions thaT need to be filled by specialist types.

Again, ANB, Tyson and Brayshaw were all prolific under-aged contested ball winners who were centre square starters and they similarly all share similar strengths and weaknesses. Tyson is not a wingman. ANB is not a small forward. Brayshaw is not a half-back. 

I believe those three playing those positions were a great hindrance to the way the modern game needs to be played.

And then there's our defence. Which is something I've said my piece on. But let's just put it this way; regardless of how many turnovers we make further up the ground or how fast the ball is coming into our defensive 50 etc, there will always be players who can defend much better than others. Hibberd and Jetta are proof of that. They rarely lose contests and they generally always kill the ball. 

The more defenders both tall and small you have that display these traits, the better your defensive group will be no matter what's happening further up the field. And the fact is, we leak too many oppo scoring opportunities through our key defenders' lack of ability to defend well. Fact.

I think if you look at a number of goals conceded against the scum in Round 23, you'll find they were off the back of stoppages. Our midfield was terrible that day.

And I think our KPDs improved as the year went on at minimising mistakes, learning when to go up or stay down, who would cover out the back and knowing when to kill the ball. I think they were developing good synergy back there until the back end of the year, when Frost had a horror month and couldn’t stop consistently making heinous mistakes.

Either Frost rediscovers his touch or Lever and Omac are the ones. I think (despite your criticism) Omac got better and better as the year went on and will be better for having another 20 games under his belt. He's a much better field kick than his brother and that makes him a much more reliable defender.

Meanwhile, Tommy has found his niche up forward and had he gone back and nailed that goal late in the Collingwood match (as he had done the entire second half of the year), we'd be playing finals on percentage.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree here, Steve.

 

[Fat Tony 4,403]

3 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Attribute diversity is the glaring weakness through our midfield. I would consider Viney and Oliver A-grade contested ball winners with Jones not far behind. Petracca and Brayshaw were A-grade contested ball winners in their draft year so you'd expect them to develop into A-grade AFL ball winners too. We have one of the best contested ball winning midfields within the comp when everyone is on the park. 

The problem is that so many of them share the same weaknesses. Running ability (including both power and speed), decision making and footskills. That spells disaster if your midfield group are having a particularly bad kicking day. 

The opposition mauls us on the rebound when we either directly turn the ball over or even kick to a 50/50 at times. The first quarter against Collingwood was indicative of this and was symbolic of the way we'd been playing for the last month. 

That's one issue. Another is the fact that we were playing Brayshaw and Tyson out of position and had one too many of Harmes and ANB playing in positions thaT need to be filled by specialist types.

Again, ANB, Tyson and Brayshaw were all prolific under-aged contested ball winners who were centre square starters and they similarly all share similar strengths and weaknesses. Tyson is not a wingman. ANB is not a small forward. Brayshaw is not a half-back. 

I believe those three playing those positions were a great hindrance to the way the modern game needs to be played.

And then there's our defence. Which is something I've said my piece on. But let's just put it this way; regardless of how many turnovers we make further up the ground or how fast the ball is coming into our defensive 50 etc, there will always be players who can defend much better than others. Hibberd and Jetta are proof of that. They rarely lose contests and they generally always kill the ball. 

The more defenders both tall and small you have that display these traits, the better your defensive group will be no matter what's happening further up the field. And the fact is, we leak too many oppo scoring opportunities through our key defenders' lack of ability to defend well. Fact.

I agree with the view that our midfield lacks balance and we need to inject some class. 

But I don't agree with your views on Brayshaw and ANB. ANB has improved significantly this year and his running ability helps enable our outnumbering game plan. And why can't Brayshaw play a high half back role? It is the easiest position in football. I see similarities with the moves of Toby Green forward and Corey Enright back. 

[Farmer 683]

On 30/07/2017 at 8:04 PM, jnrmac said:

Where has anyone said Oscar should be dominating? Yours is such a gratuitous and condescending post. We all know OMac is young and hasn't played many games. You don't need to be Capt Obvious to work that out. He may well turn out to be very good. I personally don't think so but I am not writing him off. He doesn't have any traits that mark him out as a decent defender. He wouldn't be in the team if we had a better option.

The fact is we have a leaky defence and we are woeful at contested marking and defending one on one. We won't go anywhere until we fix it. And if OMac doesn't make it, we don't have much coming behind him to plug the gap.

Well I think your basic premise is wrong. We had 1934 points kicked against us. Nine teams had more. A group of my mates have been rubbishing Oscar, so  in the last few matches we watched him closely.  They have eventually conceded that he has not been the cause of our problems. An issue is that Tom has been going back and forward and his form, when back, has suffered. Look again, if you can bear to do so, at our last match. Oscar was better than Tom when Tom was playing back.

its not being patronising or even rude to point out that Omac is awfully young and inexperienced in key position terms. I think he has improved remarkably and will be a star. A critical decision for the club is what it wants to do with Tom. If he's going to play CHF next year, we must retain Frost and Lever becomes a high priority, or if he's not available I wouldn't mind Jackson Trengove. But if Tom is going to play CHB, I would still keep Frost ( who in footy terms is still young) and I would concentrate on recruiting  real midfield pace 

[Farmer 683]

6 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Attribute diversity is the glaring weakness through our midfield. I would consider Viney and Oliver A-grade contested ball winners with Jones not far behind. Petracca and Brayshaw were A-grade contested ball winners in their draft year so you'd expect them to develop into A-grade AFL ball winners too. We have one of the best contested ball winning midfields within the comp when everyone is on the park. 

The problem is that so many of them share the same weaknesses. Running ability (including both power and speed), decision making and footskills. That spells disaster if your midfield group are having a particularly bad kicking day. 

The opposition mauls us on the rebound when we either directly turn the ball over or even kick to a 50/50 at times. The first quarter against Collingwood was indicative of this and was symbolic of the way we'd been playing for the last month. 

That's one issue. Another is the fact that we were playing Brayshaw and Tyson out of position and had one too many of Harmes and ANB playing in positions thaT need to be filled by specialist types.

Again, ANB, Tyson and Brayshaw were all prolific under-aged contested ball winners who were centre square starters and they similarly all share similar strengths and weaknesses. Tyson is not a wingman. ANB is not a small forward. Brayshaw is not a half-back. 

I believe those three playing those positions were a great hindrance to the way the modern game needs to be played.

And then there's our defence. Which is something I've said my piece on. But let's just put it this way; regardless of how many turnovers we make further up the ground or how fast the ball is coming into our defensive 50 etc, there will always be players who can defend much better than others. Hibberd and Jetta are proof of that. They rarely lose contests and they generally always kill the ball. 

The more defenders both tall and small you have that display these traits, the better your defensive group will be no matter what's happening further up the field. And the fact is, we leak too many oppo scoring opportunities through our key defenders' lack of ability to defend well. Fact.

I entirely agree with you on one point. We were being slaughtered in the middle, yet Tyson played most of the first half on the wing. Whatever one says about his disposal, he gets first hand on the ball very frequently.  I just couldn't understand it. Hannan and Salem in the middle, Tyson on wing. Why?

[gawndog 10]

On 8/31/2017 at 8:06 PM, ENYAW said:

O.Mac could go to the wing, to some people he looks slow but he isn't.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[What 18,810]

On 31/08/2017 at 8:06 PM, ENYAW said:

When J.Smith was playing down back,our backline seemed to be more secure. Next year I think that J.Smith should become a mid,he is quick and shows skill. O.Mac could go to the wing, to some people he looks slow but he isn't. Jetta should be used up forward,may replace Garlett or used in combo. Perhaps Maynard could then play in defence. Not sure if T.Mac is a forward or Defender. What about this crazy idea when Gawn rucks Watts is the rover.This move may confuse the opposition,if Watts doesn't hold and held onto he get a free. Also rucking in our forward zone we use Pedo or T.Mac,Gawn goes to a forward pocket. To be a great team you need great mids,a changing game plan,smarter players etc.

Is it opposite day?

[jnrmac 18,953]

1 hour ago, Farmer said:

Well I think your basic premise is wrong. We had 1934 points kicked against us. Nine teams had more. A group of my mates have been rubbishing Oscar, so  in the last few matches we watched him closely.  They have eventually conceded that he has not been the cause of our problems. An issue is that Tom has been going back and forward and his form, when back, has suffered. Look again, if you can bear to do so, at our last match. Oscar was better than Tom when Tom was playing back.

its not being patronising or even rude to point out that Omac is awfully young and inexperienced in key position terms. I think he has improved remarkably and will be a star. A critical decision for the club is what it wants to do with Tom. If he's going to play CHF next year, we must retain Frost and Lever becomes a high priority, or if he's not available I wouldn't mind Jackson Trengove. But if Tom is going to play CHB, I would still keep Frost ( who in footy terms is still young) and I would concentrate on recruiting  real midfield pace 

Well its clear then, if your mates have settled it. What exactly is the cause of our problem as you would see it? Because I know what I see and the simple stats in the OP make it irrefutable.

We are terrible at one on ones in the defensive 50. The worst in the league in fact. Not even in dispute.

Given Jetta and Hunt are excellent one on one defenders that doesn't leave too many does it? And when we get thrashed by the likes of Daniher, Brown, Grundy (when fwd), Cox, Walker and Buddy its pretty obvious where the problem is.

Some here are trying to argue that our defence is great and its our midfield that is the problem. It doesn't hold water and our clearance stats are pretty good (we are 4th for overall clearances, 4th for centre clearances and 6th for stoppages). Some don't want to see that and their perogative. But its wrong. Its wrong with what we see week after week and its wrong with the stats that make it clear as day.

As for this statement about OMac "I think he has improved remarkably and will be a star". I'm afraid you are delusional if you really think that. He has improved no doubt. No one I have read has denied that. But he is barely adequate as a defender and has no urgency or physical presence.

Edited September 3, 2017 by jnrmac

[binman 37,989]

2 hours ago, Farmer said:

Well I think your basic premise is wrong. We had 1934 points kicked against us. Nine teams had more. A group of my mates have been rubbishing Oscar, so  in the last few matches we watched him closely.  They have eventually conceded that he has not been the cause of our problems. An issue is that Tom has been going back and forward and his form, when back, has suffered. Look again, if you can bear to do so, at our last match. Oscar was better than Tom when Tom was playing back.

its not being patronising or even rude to point out that Omac is awfully young and inexperienced in key position terms. I think he has improved remarkably and will be a star. A critical decision for the club is what it wants to do with Tom. If he's going to play CHF next year, we must retain Frost and Lever becomes a high priority, or if he's not available I wouldn't mind Jackson Trengove. But if Tom is going to play CHB, I would still keep Frost ( who in footy terms is still young) and I would concentrate on recruiting  real midfield pace 

Good post Farmer. The bottom line this season is we did not score enough. To put our defence into the proper perspective we only had 100 or more points scored on us 5 times for the season. Five. In one of those games we won . Two were early on when all teams were scoring high (with the cats swamping us after we lost gawn at half time) and the last one was the rampant crows when we ran out of legs. 

No question Tmacs younger brother was better when Tmac went back. I think he will end up being the better player full stop. I have watched him closely all season and he is better kick and decision maker who makes very few errors. As evidence of this i i have little doubt he will poll well in the bluey.

I have been told that the club is very confident about him eventually being the better player than Tmac. This was a big factor in why, much to one posters immense frustration, they let Dunn and did not see the need to replace him with a stop gap whilst they were wating for Lever to compliment him down back.  

A star? I think he has the ability but has long way to go. But what gives me enormous confidence is he is a kid. Only 21 and since making his debut in 2016 has barely missed a game such is the confidence the club has in him. He is tracking fantastically and well ahead of his brother at the same age - indeed ahead of many players of his size at comparable stages. He will fill out and put on 5-10kg more muscle and be a beast in years to come.

A star is a big call but i'll tell you something for free. If it comes to pass you will have earned a great deal more credit in the talent spotting stakes than predicting a top draft pick will become one. Lever for example. 

[jnrmac 18,953]

On 9/3/2017 at 6:26 PM, binman said:

Good post Farmer. The bottom line this season is we did not score enough.

Yep. 9 more points and we would have been playing finals.