Backline Setup and Structure

[Demonised 1,198]

Keep an eye on the development of Harrison Petty. We could have a good one on our hands here.

[DeeZee 6,719]

Just being devils advocate here but Maybe they have their noses out of joint with Lever being on such big coin and upsetting the balance we had last year.

Not only is he getting paid more but he is forcing them out of their natural positions like Hibberd who used to float across half back but now has to play one on one.

[Lucifers Hero 36,984]

3 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

The latter/second point that is less clear cut to me is the way we setup as a defensive back six. In my opinion, 1) the aggressive zone that Goodwin has implemented is in no way conducive to the type of backmen we have who are meant to be executing this type of setup. Is it not obvious that in order to successfully execute an aggressive zone defence, you need one of two strengths as a backline unit, preferably both. Kicking skills/composure and speed?

2) I'd love to see us fall back and play a much less aggressive type of zone that suits players like Oscar, who I must admit was really good yesterday. He is a one-on-one defender. Not a zone playing key position defender. Lever would benefit from a tighter playing backline group, go and look at how Adelaide play and why he was so good for them. Lewis, Vince and Jetta would all benefit from playing closer to their opponents due to their lack of speed.

I can't understand it and 3) I really hope Goody can show some humility just like Hardwick did last year and rejig the backline structure. It's okay to be wrong as a coach.

Good post. 

Apologies for selective quoting - those highlights show the essence of the problem.

1)  The best coaches develop game plans to suit their team so even the weakest player can effectively play his role.  But Goodwin seems determined to stick to a game plan that doesn't match our squad so our lesser players perform poorly and the better players look average.  I totally agree with your comment that we don't have the players for an aggressive zone.  

Even if we don't go back entirely to one on one defending we must stop pushing all our defenders up to the midfield.  It is no accident other teams play with a 'press' but keep a formation in their back half.   

2) More than that.  I question whether the aggressive zone (or any zone) is suited to the width of the MCG.  It is 12 to 30 meters wider than other major AFL ovals. This makes it too easy for opp to get the ball to the outside and out the back. 

Of the 15 games we have played at the G under Goodwin we have won only 7:  In 2017 - Carlton (x2), Coll, Saints, Power, Lions.  In 2018 - North.  So we might win at the G against lesser teams but the aggressive zone just won't stand up against the better drilled teams or the better game day coaches. That is a shocking record on our Home deck.

Most teams have pared back their use of zones.  Even the Eagles tempered their 'web' after they were demolished in the GF by Hawthorn, a few years ago. 

We need a game plan that will win on the G!  We have enough history to show our current game plan with our current squad does not work there.

3) I fear that Goodwin is so committed to his game plan that he won’t change it regardless.  It could be lacks humility or doesn’t know how to fix the problems.  Both are a worry.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Redleg 37,478]

The closest player to the opposition goal should be a Demon, no matter where he is. 

Would have stopped half their goals at least yesterday. 

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

Coaches f'd up yesterday theres no doubt about that.

[Clintosaurus 6,411]

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The closest player to the opposition goal should be a Demon, no matter where he is. 

Would have stopped half their goals at least yesterday. 

Absolutely, and at least 4 or 5 of us in this thread have said the same thing. I really didn't like it at the JLT game in Hobart when the last defender was attacking side of the centre line when the ball was just inside forward 50. Even that day North got a few easy ones out the back. Shortening the field does not work in AFL. In soccer it does but that is on a narrow field and there is an offside rule.

[3Dee 1,153]

Despite getting run down (I put it down to lack of talk) I thought Frost was actually OK yesterday, his kicking in particular was noticeably improved hitting targets. 

[3Dee 1,153]

13 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The closest player to the opposition goal should be a Demon, no matter where he is. 

Would have stopped half their goals at least yesterday. 

[censored] amen

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

When we had the ball at half back. We looked upfield and our midfielders were tagged. No one free to run into space.

The result was to kick to a marked man, who would drop a mark. The hawks then grabbed the ball and had choices in the corridor all on their own.

It was basic football 101

[Skuit 9,112]

In my opinion we have some small problems with personnel in the forward and back-lines - mostly class up front (and in the middle as to delivery) and balance down back. But they are what they are for now. 

As to these individual areas, while there are some problems in each, they are for the most part a manifestation of the whole. Our mammoth inside-50 count, our lack of inside-50s against, and the difference in forward and defensive efficiencies are all the same thing.

You don't get one without the others. The footy department are banking on the our forward potency outweighing the defensive sacrifice  - in the hope that just some small improvements up for and down back can tip the balance. The question is whether this is possible with the aforementioned issues we have with personnel. 

But it all hinges on winning the contested and clearance battle - and when we fall apart here, and drop the tackle count like yesterday - the system will completely break down and get ugly. As to the three up at once factor - this I think is a result of our drive to win this battle: see ball get ball. They want the players to compete fiercely for every ball - such that it will equal a lack of composure at times. 

I don't know the remedy. We don't have the foot-skills to revert to a possession plan and when we eased the press last year we looked impotent at times. I would suggest slowing it up just a fraction going forward out of the centre - we're creating our own outnumbered flood and disorganisation on the opposition rebound. E.g. - a little less bombing it forward the second we get it. 

I don't know if our game-plan gamble will come off yet. For me it's too early to tell. But it will continue to get ugly at times until we get better, and we will continue to leak goals and be involved in close matches where we dominate possession. Goody was ahead of the curve in the style, but he's also pushing it beyond its current limits. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

4 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

When we had the ball at half back. We looked upfield and our midfielders were tagged. No one free to run into space.

The result was to kick to a marked man, who would drop a mark. The hawks then grabbed the ball and had choices in the corridor all on their own.

It was basic football 101

Yep...basic to nearly everyone... nearly 

[ProperDee 1,698]

5 hours ago, Demonised said:

Keep an eye on the development of Harrison Petty. We could have a good one on our hands here.

Yep. Seriously missing an elite key position defender.

[Older demon 2,166]

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

[shorty 233]

35 minutes ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

This has been going on for longer than Goodwin

[Earl Hood 5,787]

51 minutes ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

And what do we gain from such a high press? It’s one thing to rely on winning the contested ball in the midfield and relentlessly bomb the ball forward to rack up the inside 50 count and hope for a winning score, but does that need such a high press forward by the backs? As we have seen in our two loses the opposition can intercept and bomb back over our press with ease. 

On Sunday in the second half the Hawks set up a defensive ring behind our players in their half and we could not find a way out despite our attempts to barrel one out the back. However they were able to do so with ease. 

So after all that waffle my simple question is what do we gain from the high press and why is it part of our game plan? 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Earl Hood

[At the break of Gawn 3,474]

20 minutes ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

That's the side effect of the high forward press. It's a high risk game Goody plays. If the opposition gets past the forward press, the opposition forwards have heaps and heaps of space and run rings around our defenders. Take a look at JoM's soccer goal in the 3rd qtr, it was straight out of the"how to score against Melbourne" playbook. The Tigers' smalls will have a field day with that much space to run into to go past their.

The problem is that the press is way too high. Omac, Lever, Frost should be in the middle of the ground, not near our forward 50 when we have it in there. Hawthorn always had players down back way behind the ball so that when we did get it forward, they had the defenders already there.

The forward 50 entries are misleading as a lot of those are repeat entries and by that stage the forward 50 is so congested it's impossible to properly hit a target or take a contested mark. 

Goodwin just needs to cool the jets on the high forward press. He's placing too much faith on the players keeping it in our forward 50 winning every contest. To put it simply, he just needs to adopt a less aggressive game style. I can only hope that the Hawks game and all the commentary from Paul Roos and co will make him admit that the formation is too aggressive and it needs to change.

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

1 hour ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

^ There's your larger than life sample.

Cheers

On 3/27/2018 at 8:24 PM, ProDee said:

Perhaps just wait for a larger sample.  

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by stevethemanjordan

[rjay 23,867]

6 hours ago, 3Dee said:

Despite getting run down (I put it down to lack of talk) I thought Frost was actually OK yesterday, his kicking in particular was noticeably improved hitting targets. 

He cost us momentum and has no footy IQ...it's not lack of talk, it's lack of awareness and poor decision making.

Casey from now on unless we have injuries to cover.

 

[jnrmac 18,914]

7 hours ago, 3Dee said:

Despite getting run down (I put it down to lack of talk) I thought Frost was actually OK yesterday, his kicking in particular was noticeably improved hitting targets. 

His spoil to the goal square wasn't OK.

[BAMF 3,783]

11 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I wish to bring this issue up as a point of discussion even though I'm aware that many posters are talking about it in other threads.

Our two major problem areas are clearly our inability to convert inside 50's into genuine scoring opportunities and our inability to limit the opposition scoring when they enter their forward 50. 

For the former, the answer is seemingly more clear cut. We clearly lack players who possess high enough levels of composure, foot skills and smarts. Evidenced time and time again by our players entering the forward 50 with almost no care for what the outcome will be. Be it quick scrap kicks from stoppages from players like Petracca yesterday or pointless torpedos to a forward line that contains one key position height forward. This is not okay. I don't for one second believe that Goodwin has instructed our players to kick the ball aimlessly into our 50 in the hope that our crumbers will score from that type of play every single time. It is simply unsustainable and amatuer. There are so so many times I can see clear space for our players to kick into to the advantage of our forwards, but they simply don't. This issue hasn't been addressed at all since the beginning of the season. I believe it's a player issue and Goodwin must now either play two key talls in our forward line or send a heavy message to those who continue to move the ball into our forward line with no system to their thought. It's putrid.

The latter/second point that is less clear cut to me is the way we setup as a defensive back six. In my opinion, the aggressive zone that Goodwin has implemented is in no way conducive to the type of backmen we have who are meant to be executing this type of setup. Is it not obvious that in order to successfully execute an aggressive zone defence, you need one of two strengths as a backline unit, preferably both. Kicking skills/composure and speed?

Playing in an aggressive zone means you're guarding space rather than standing side by side to your opponent. Which also means you need fleet footed individuals who can read the play and have quick reaction times. Aside from Hunt and Frost who both lack composure and foot-skills anyway, we have nobody else in that backline who is quick. In fact, Lewis, Vince, Oscar, Lever and Jetta are all slow with Hibberd being the only one whose pace is good.. Out of that group, I'd say Lewis, Vince, Oscar and Hibberd are generally solid users of the ball however, Lewis is the only player who more often than not shows composure and calmness. The rest of our backline group are far too inconsistent with the way they handle pressure situations. (Although Lewis didn't exactly set the world on fire in that regard yesterday.)

Take spoiling as an example. Does anyone believe that Goodwin instructs 3 or 4 players to go up in a contest, all with the intention of spoiling the same ball whilst their opponents run amok once the ball hits the deck? How many times do we see opposition sides score easy goals because of this? That's only one example. But it is directly related to this defensive zone that we play. If our players don't have direct opponents as such, then your backline group need to have the utmost trust, composure and decision making skills in each other to know when to fly, or when not to etc.

I believe Goodwin needs to show some maturity and an ability to change when something isn't working and in my opinion, I'd love to see us fall back and play a much less aggressive type of zone that suits players like Oscar, who I must admit was really good yesterday. He is a one-on-one defender. Not a zone playing key position defender. Lever would benefit from a tighter playing backline group, go and look at how Adelaide play and why he was so good for them. Lewis, Vince and Jetta would all benefit from playing closer to their opponents due to their lack of speed.

I can't understand it and I really hope Goody can show some humility just like Hardwick did last year and rejig the backline structure. It's okay to be wrong as a coach.

As upset as I am with yesterday, I still hold hope that this group will click.

I'm certainly beginning to question some of Goodwin's plans though.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that this is you at your best.

Great post.

I really want to see the agressive attacking game plan reigned in. We open ourselves right up for a quick moving counter attack and we have been caught time and time again and it's been happening since Goodwin took over.

Why do we lose momentum and leak multiple goals? It's the game plan.

We lost to Geelong because we bombed it forward. They would switch and kick it quickly to their forwards advantage.

It's very similar to how we played under Bailey. Full throttle attack with gaping holes in defence. When it clicked under Bailey we looked like a million bucks, but then we would come up against a good defensive team who knew how to slow our momentum and thrash us the other way. I remember playing against Sydney when Tahdg Kennely let loose with both barrels post match saying that we would never beat the better teams with such a poor defensive attitude. Cam Mooney said the same thing on another occasion and I still hate him a bit for it because I knew he was right.

We actually have some great defenders now. The difference is the game plan which leaves us exposed, especially against a quicker smaller forward line. 

OMac has been good all year without being really good. (You have just been blind Steve)

Jetta hasnt been good.

Hibberd hasn't been good.

Frost has been terrible in my opinion.

Lever has been shocking.

Lewis. Playing Lewis as a spare defender means the opposition has a spare defender. Lewis isn't a great defender. He was a great midfielder.

He does 2 things well.

1. Sits 10-15m off the play and is there for the quick pass backwards which works as an 'out' when we are under the pump, and also means he has time to pick the right option.

2. Sits 10-15m off the play and directs players where to position and pass to. He provides great direction and probably leadership.

He is also pretty good at getting body contact on his opponent, but this isn't a real positive as he has to do this every time to match his opponents speed.

He is too slow to be playing loose and isn't tall enough to intercept.  I would rather have Lever as the spare back and bring Hunt back for the pace out of the backline.

[Krabo 15]

I blame Rawlings leaving as a backline coach and being replaced by Troy Chaplin as a 'defensive co-ordinator'.

[Binmans PA 25,899]

12 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

There should never be more than 2 go up at any contest. Someone should always stay down. The other thing that annoys me it the lack of an anchor that sits goal side of the last opposition player. Phil Davis does it for GWS and some other teams do it.

We play the anchor player a lot, but it often gets thrown out the window when the momentum goes against us.

Obviously, this is a pretty common thing in footy. Players going away from structures when the going gets tough. The great teams stick to their structures, no matter what is happening with the momentum or the scoreboard.

Having Vince and Lewis back there isn't great. Both are slow and neither are great leaders IMO.

12 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

I am not sure about going full man on man, but I agree we should look to hold our defence deeper. I think defending a bit deeper would help open up our forward line as well. 

Having multiple players flying for the ball is an issue but partly reflects the selection of OMac, Frost, Lever, Wagner and Hibberd in the same side.

I think a lot of our problems defending would disappear if we could be a bit more precise with our kicks inside 50. We are leaking a lot of goals from chains starting in our 50 and then the opposition getting over the back.

 

It's worth noting that I think we played a much deeper (less aggressive) press against Geelong and it enabled us to restrict scoring significantly in the second half. I don't think we should employ the high press anymore, at least not until we've got 2 KPFs in the team. I wonder if we've fallen into the higher press in recent weeks? Surely though, that would be a simple adjustment in quarter or at worst, at the breaks?

I understand the attempt to model our game on Richmond (the smaller forward line, the ruck rover ruckman, forward press), but it's not playing to our strengths though.

I'd consider going one-on-one a lot more often than we've tried. We've got a lot of guys who I'd usually back in to beat their man one-on-one. 

But I have a sneaking suspicion our current game plan may well work really well against Richmond, who basically get the ball forward at all costs and then press up to the next contest. Our aggressive press going back the other way, could well lock them in and at worst, catch them out in transition, as Hawthorn got us.

12 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What’s happened to Hibberd? 

I think like a lot of our defenders, he's playing reactionary football, rather than instinctive beat your man and then look to run and carry (vintage 2017).

He came straight in against Richmond last year and looked to be the outlet off half back. He's done that a few times this year, but nowhere near as much as last year.

This year he's looking to lock down a bit more and his run and carry is being stifled as a result. 

Likewise, Lever is being asked to lock down, rather than float within a deeper defensive set up.

12 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Lever benefitted from having a backline that played a less aggressive zone and a more one-on-one style setup which allowed him to play his natural role as an elite intercept player. He was number one in the comp. We're doing him no favours in the way we're playing as a defensive setup. No favours.

I'm similarly confused at why we'd go so hard after Lever and then play him in in a defensive structure that doesn't allow him to do what he does best. But this is nothing to do with him. It's to do with our style of defence.

It's the same with Oscar. After seeing him play so well yesterday, I can see him being a successful full back down the track once he builds his body a bit more. But again, playing him in a zone that needs players to guard space is not a strength of his. His strengths don't lie there. 

We need to rijig asap.

Good to see you've finally acknowledged Oscar, Steve. But I agree with the rest of your post. And I'd also add that Jetta, Hibberd and even Hunt have historically all been excellent one-on-one players. 

This is what I mean about not playing to our strengths. If we play that less aggressive press you've mentioned (which I agree with), it leaves more one-on-ones, but it also allows Lever to zone off his man.

I commend ingenuity from a coach, in fact I cried out for it for years. And it must be said that Goodwin and his FD have certainly tried a host of bold moves from the Diamond Defence to running the half forwards off the back of the square, to playing with no wings etc. I really like the inventiveness, but when it's not working and we actually have really good defenders (three of which were in the 40 man AA squad), it's time to play a different system that will play to their strengths.

I reckon it'd be interesting to see us employ the press we used against Geelong more often, which was far less aggressive than even 2017's press. But certainly, our current defensive system is far too all or nothing. It's kamikaze-like the way we race out and try to tackle the ball carrier and as we know, too often sides that have decent enough skills can pierce this zone.

12 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Hibberd seems to me to be playing further up the ground than he was last year. he was really the rock in the last line. Now he appears to be a link man.

 

I'd argue it's the other way around. He played all last year as the running back, but also got back to the last line at times. This year they seem to be trying to play him deeper and demanding more accountability. The same goes for Lever. And as I've said here, it's not playing to either of their strengths.

[Pennant St Dee 11,246]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

We play the anchor player a lot, but it often gets thrown out the window when the momentum goes against us.

Obviously, this is a pretty common thing in footy. Players going away from structures when the going gets tough. The great teams stick to their structures, no matter what is happening with the momentum or the scoreboard.

Having Vince and Lewis back there isn't great. Both are slow and neither are great leaders IMO.

It's worth noting that I think we played a much deeper (less aggressive) press against Geelong and it enabled us to restrict scoring significantly in the second half. I don't think we should employ the high press anymore, at least not until we've got 2 KPFs in the team. I wonder if we've fallen into the higher press in recent weeks? Surely though, that would be a simple adjustment in quarter or at worst, at the breaks?

I understand the attempt to model our game on Richmond (the smaller forward line, the ruck rover ruckman, forward press), but it's not playing to our strengths though.

I'd consider going one-on-one a lot more often than we've tried. We've got a lot of guys who I'd usually back in to beat their man one-on-one. 

But I have a sneaking suspicion our current game plan may well work really well against Richmond, who basically get the ball forward at all costs and then press up to the next contest. Our aggressive press going back the other way, could well lock them in and at worst, catch them out in transition, as Hawthorn got us.

I think like a lot of our defenders, he's playing reactionary football, rather than instinctive beat your man and then look to run and carry (vintage 2017).

He came straight in against Richmond last year and looked to be the outlet off half back. He's done that a few times this year, but nowhere near as much as last year.

This year he's looking to lock down a bit more and his run and carry is being stifled as a result. 

Likewise, Lever is being asked to lock down, rather than float within a deeper defensive set up.

Good to see you've finally acknowledged Oscar, Steve. But I agree with the rest of your post. And I'd also add that Jetta, Hibberd and even Hunt have historically all been excellent one-on-one players. 

This is what I mean about not playing to our strengths. If we play that less aggressive press you've mentioned (which I agree with), it leaves more one-on-ones, but it also allows Lever to zone off his man.

I commend ingenuity from a coach, in fact I cried out for it for years. And it must be said that Goodwin and his FD have certainly tried a host of bold moves from the Diamond Defence to running the half forwards off the back of the square, to playing with no wings etc. I really like the inventiveness, but when it's not working and we actually have really good defenders (three of which were in the 40 man AA squad), it's time to play a different system that will play to their strengths.

I reckon it'd be interesting to see us employ the press we used against Geelong more often, which was far less aggressive than even 2017's press. But certainly, our current defensive system is far too all or nothing. It's kamikaze-like the way we race out and try to tackle the ball carrier and as we know, too often sides that have decent enough skills can pierce this zone.

I'd argue it's the other way around. He played all last year as the running back, but also got back to the last line at times. This year they seem to be trying to play him deeper and demanding more accountability. The same goes for Lever. And as I've said here, it's not playing to either of their strengths.

Agree a lot with you and Steve especially favour adopting the deeper press over going man on man because we lack pace in our backline. 

No dramatic overhaul needed but pulling the team press back and defending as a team deep should allow the forward line to open up for Hoges and Garlett. Hannan Kent and Nibblers run along with Petraccas developing smarts may benefit from this. A bit more composure with our ball use and not leaving our defensive 50 wide open would certainly stem those poor runs of back to back goals we've been seeing

[Skuit 9,112]

6 hours ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

How many of those 25 games has Melbourne won under Goodwin Older Demon and how many would have we won if we'd backed off on the all-out attack? No one knows. But a positive win-loss coaching record is hardly a damning stat.

In the last year of the Roos' tenure we recorded 1991 points against. And last year we conceded ten goals less for a total of 1934 (while, for the record, in 2016 we scored 1994 points across the season which lifted to 2035 last year). We may be the easiest team to score against at times but that doesn't equate to greater scores against.

I know the majority of players have matured since, but if we go further back to 2015 in Roos' second year, before Goodwin was rumoured to be partially in charge of the game-plan, the figures were 1573 for and 2044 against.

Many quietly bemoaned the appointment of Roos because of his defense-first approach and the potential for boring footy. The footy world has also moved on since then to favour a more aggressive form of attack. Should we retreat and head back down that defensive path of yore so that we don't have to sweat the unsettling run-ons?

Most would say it's a matter of balance - but Goody is attempting to crack the code and lift us above the middle.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Skuit

[buck_nekkid 5,460]

11 hours ago, Older demon said:

The most damning stat was just posted by Gerard Whately on AFL 360. Under Goodwin and his all out attack game plan in the last 25 games we have allowed the opposition to score a run of unanswered goals  (4 or more) in 21 of those games.

Any wonder Roos has stated we are the easiest team to score against. Minimum of 4 unanswered goals and in some cases more. How can you possibly have aspirations for finals if you cannot defend. Goodwin and the coaching staff need to address this and back off on the all out attack. 

Only damning in context:

how many times have we had a run on of 4 or more goals?

how many times have other teams suffered such a run on.

how many games did we win or lose when it happened?

it is a worthless piece of cheap journalism without context.