POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 21

[Ante_Up 69]

3 minutes ago, praha said:

missing shots is part of the game. Saying "If we were more accurate we would have won" is the same as saying "If we'd scored more we would have won". You win and lose based on those metrics, and it may well be that our accuracy is more a reflection of the pressure being applied than it was simply us missing shots. I can't fathom how anyone that watched the second quarter could think we were the better side but simply missing shots. That was an abdolute pasting they gave us in the second quarter, and it won them the game.

Equally, though, kicking snags from 35 out should be bread and butter. At least at a better rate than 20% (4.16). 

[praha 10,267]

20 minutes ago, Ante_Up said:

Equally, though, kicking snags from 35 out should be bread and butter. At least at a better rate than 20% (4.16). 

True but it's also a reflection of the better team. They couldn't miss. We did. Sydney matched and better us for intensity, pace and spacing all game. They were down 2 players and that is imo a better metric of how we played than our inaccuracy.

[Rogue 585]

26 minutes ago, praha said:

I can't fathom how anyone that watched the second quarter could think we were the better side but simply missing shots. That was an abdolute pasting they gave us in the second quarter, and it won them the game.

What I find difficult to fathom is that you cannot acknowledge the fact that if we had kicked at our usual goal-kicking accuracy, or the league's usual goal-kicking accuracy, we would have won

[praha 10,267]

33 minutes ago, Rogue said:

What I find difficult to fathom is that you cannot acknowledge the fact that if we had kicked at our usual goal-kicking accuracy, or the league's usual goal-kicking accuracy, we would have won

How do you know? 

[layzie 28,520]

37 minutes ago, Rogue said:

What I find difficult to fathom is that you cannot acknowledge the fact that if we had kicked at our usual goal-kicking accuracy, or the league's usual goal-kicking accuracy, we would have won

Is that like saying that Sydney didn’t play well we just played sh*t? 

[Binmans PA 25,897]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Agreed but is that a coaching issue or an execution issue? If you agree that the coaches don't want us to give up easy i50 exits then it would stand to reason that that is not part of the gameplan and it is the players failure to execute that pressure and those structures which is the issue.

Good point mate. Tough to know. But they have certainly not fixed our zonal set up from opposition kick outs. I know that much and that's what's staggering to me.

[Wolfturdo 123]

10 hours ago, 3Dee said:

Apology accepted m8

I apologise. 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

10 hours ago, praha said:

missing shots is part of the game. Saying "If we were more accurate we would have won" is the same as saying "If we'd scored more we would have won". You win and lose based on those metrics, and it may well be that our accuracy is more a reflection of the pressure being applied than it was simply us missing shots. I can't fathom how anyone that watched the second quarter could think we were the better side but simply missing shots. That was an abdolute pasting they gave us in the second quarter, and it won them the game.

Missing a set shot from 30m out directly in front has nothing to do with physical pressure applied by the opposition. The gameplan is in place to create scoring opportunities. If the players miss a plethora of easy opportunities as they did Sunday how is that the fault of the gameplan/coach?

[jackaub 1,402]

18 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The game plan isn't working against the good teams. It's irrefutable.

There are also something like 18 times this year when a team has won the i50 count by more than 10 and lost. Melbourne are I think 5 or 6 of those. Our game plan sucks and falls apart under pressure. There is a reason why the best defending teams win flags. Until we can defend properly we are nowhere.

This week will be good. The no 1 team for efficiency inside 50s vs the 4th worse team for defending i50s. If you think the false dawn of winning 6 in a row against poor opposition is something to crow about you are sadly mistaken. Bombing the ball ito an outnumbered fwd line is just insanity yet we start every centre bounce with an outnumbered fwd line. But hey we have the no 1 clearance side in the comp. So we win clearances and turn it over in our fwd 50. Great game plan.

 

 

Such clarity JMac thank you!Its so bloody obvious. Thats why I am not on bpoard with the coach as he sticks to this bad plan relentlessly  and forces pressure on his players who deep down know it doesnt work

Thats the problem

[beelzebub 22,225]

We lost on Sunday because some bloke called Allir was on the wrong side...must have been. We kicked it to him all day !! Great matchups.. and a great plan all came together magnificently

It's like we're trying to take down an elephant with a 22. Just flawed thinking.

[Superunknown 3,307]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's fair enough, I'm not saying people can't have different thoughts on the coach. I just find it irritating when he's blamed for losses like the weekend when really the gameplan he has developed created enough opportunities for us to win (and against Cats x2 and Port too). The issue is the players conversion and execution rather than an inherent flaw in the gameplan. Not saying he's the perfect coach either, he has room to grow and things he needs to focus on developing this offseason.

I'm probably the opposite to you, I have a calm optimism about the coach and the club at the moment. I will be upset if we miss finals again but it's not the end of the club. We have 5-10 years with this group to really try and achieve the ultimate and change the course if the club to what I hope will become perennial contenders (a la Hawks, Cats, Swans over the last 15 years). So missing this year (especially on the back of last year's fiasco) would be upsetting but not disastrous in the larger scheme of things. The main concern I would have is it doesn't give our players the experience of playing in September. Of course the club needs to get to the point where every year we miss finals is unacceptable but we're still on that path that began with Ground Zero 2013.

All good points and well-reasoned.

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about Goodwin. I remain unconvinced, but time will tell. And really, I don't mind who is coaching as long as we are improving, learning, attaining new heights, reaching finals.

My point really was about my level of confidence with Goodwin - from afar and again, with no connection to the club, my lay observation is we appear to be making the same mistakes fairly regularly. Now whether that's gameplan or player habits or composure, it's up to the coach to take control of that and change things. (I recognise that these things can take time to ingrain.)

I'd also like to understand what the KPIs are for the coach. I.e. is it finals this year, 2019, what? I'd like to understand what the measures of success are. If nothing else, it might quell unnecessary blow ups about his tenure.

Thumbs up for the response.

[jnrmac 18,914]

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because the gameplan is working it's only the execution which is lacking. They believe the players will turn it around with better execution and win the game. When we played Essendon we kicked 4.7.31 to half time then 12.5.77 in the second half. The coach didn't panic and had faith the players knew what to do they just needed to fix how they did it. They knew that the gameplan worked and sticking to the gameplan gave us the best opportunity for success not just now but in the future

Really? The game plan is working? Was it the game plan to:

- to let Sydney score 7 goals in a row? Or 6 goals each in the 2nd and 3rd quarters?

- or let Sydney with 2 men down control the ball and smash us in uncontested marks because we were too lazy to close them down or control the ball ourselves?

- continually kick the ball to Aliir?

- let Heeney sit unattended in the backline during the last quarter and clean up every ball that came his way?

- let Geelong score 80 points in the first half of round 1 with 20 scoring shots from 24 entries into their fwd 50?

- win the i50 count against Hawthorn and lose by 63pts?

- get 5 i50s against the Tigers in the 2nd qtr and turn a 12 pt lead into a 20 pt deficit?

- let an average player like Mason Cox kick 5 goals?

- to win the i50 count against Port by 30. Yes 30! And still lose the game?

- to smash St Kilda by 12 in the i50s yet lose the game?

- to smash Geelong in the i50 count by 12 and lose the game?

As I said. It is irrefutable that the game plan doesn't work against the top sides.

Bombing the ball inside 50 to win the i50 count is fools gold. Great you are happy with it but I find it infuriating because we will never go anywhere when we can't defend or stop teams getting a run on.

5 games lost by 10 points or less will be held up high by some as proof we are doing things right ('oh that's what happened to the Tigers last year'). That stat hides a huge amount of rubbish football where we let teams get run ons and kick 5, 6 or 7 goals in a row.

The game plan sucks. You can find excuses for every one of the games we have lost against top sides. But they are just that, excuses. We repeat the same stupid mistakes time and time again when under pressure. 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

 

As I said. It is irrefutable that the game plan doesn't work against the top sides.

 

I couldn't disagree more.  I know you'll fall back on the 'we haven't beaten one yet' argument, but the statistics suggest that we can more than compete with the top sides.  We just haven't shown enough composure or the ability to think on our feet enough to execute it properly, nor do we take our chances often enough.

We get more inside 50s and more scoring shots in many of those games which suggests the game plan gives us plenty of opportunities to win games of footy.  We know that we need to fix the way in which we get the ball inside 50, and we know that we need to fix up the way we set up our defensive 50 when the opposition has the ball, although I think it hurt to lose Lever and then Hibberd for a month not too long after that just as things were ticking along superbly.

I won't deny that we need to make some tweaks to the overall gameplan, but the stats suggest that we are generating enough inside 50s to win these games of footy.  We just don't take our chances when we are presented with them and this allows those good sides to hurt us on the rebound.

I have faith, for the time being, that Goodwin can address this sooner rather than later (and by that I mean the offseason as it's hard to do mid-season) so that these issues occur far less than they do now.

[layzie 28,520]

53 minutes ago, -Ⓥ- said:

All good points and well-reasoned.

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about Goodwin. I remain unconvinced, but time will tell. And really, I don't mind who is coaching as long as we are improving, learning, attaining new heights, reaching finals.

My point really was about my level of confidence with Goodwin - from afar and again, with no connection to the club, my lay observation is we appear to be making the same mistakes fairly regularly. Now whether that's gameplan or player habits or composure, it's up to the coach to take control of that and change things. (I recognise that these things can take time to ingrain.)

I'd also like to understand what the KPIs are for the coach. I.e. is it finals this year, 2019, what? I'd like to understand what the measures of success are. If nothing else, it might quell unnecessary blow ups about his tenure.

Thumbs up for the response.

Probably in the same boat. I haven’t been sold on Goodwin as a match day coach. This does not mean I don’t like him or that I think we are better off without him, it purely means that I’m yet to go into matches with full faith that he’s going to make the right moves to get us over the line. I think he’s got great potential and clearly is still learning himself but surely its ok for us fans to be asking questions. Starting an extra behind the ball at centre bounces is one I’ve never been able to get my head around, we win that centre clearance into our 50 and it ping pongs out due to being outnumbered quite often. The only thing I can think of is are we trying to create a wall through the middle for when the ball comes back? Honestly got no clue on this one.

 

The jury is still out.

[old dee 22,815]

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Had Hogan kicked 3 goals instead of points, TMac converted his relatively easy set shots, Oliver Brayshaw Tyson Spargo all converted relatively easy set shots we would have won easily against the Swans. So the gameplan which gave us the opportunity to take those relatively easy shots at goal is in dire straits and it's not the poor skill execution of the players which missed those shots which is to blame?

I understand the frustration and anger over the weekends loss and all the close losses this year but don't let your emotion cloud your judgement. We have been outplayed 3 times this year, 2 of those games occurred in the first 5 weeks. Perhaps we will be outplayed again in the last 2 weeks, I'm not saying the gameplan and coaching is flawless. But I don't think on the evidence you can blame it for Sunday's loss (or the other close losses we've had this year bar maybe the Saints game).

And if my Aunty had balls she would be my uncle.

Sorry doctor but that just screams not good enough to me.

Why is it we all like to find reasons why we did not win when the obvious one is staring us in face.

Players not good enough to win the games and coaching that is less than wonderful are the reasons

[SFebes 4,692]

120 uncontested marks for the Swans shows massive holes in either the game plan, Goodwins lack of nous or stubbornness shows up once again and he should have put a lock on it early in the game.

Edited August 15, 2018 by MSFebey

[Jaded No More 57,674]

55 minutes ago, layzie said:

Probably in the same boat. I haven’t been sold on Goodwin as a match day coach. This does not mean I don’t like him or that I think we are better off without him, it purely means that I’m yet to go into matches with full faith that he’s going to make the right moves to get us over the line. I think he’s got great potential and clearly is still learning himself but surely its ok for us fans to be asking questions. Starting an extra behind the ball at centre bounces is one I’ve never been able to get my head around, we win that centre clearance into our 50 and it ping pongs out due to being outnumbered quite often. The only thing I can think of is are we trying to create a wall through the middle for when the ball comes back? Honestly got no clue on this one.

 

The jury is still out.

Completely agree.

The jury is very much still out, and IMHO Goodwin has until the middle of next season to prove that he can coach and improve on the issues we have seen repeatedly for two years now. Not to mention make finals. If he doesn't, I can't see how they can extend his contract.

He has all the talent and support at his disposal, and unlike years ago, there would be coaches falling over themselves to coach us and take our list to a premiership, which is very very possible in the current AFL environment.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

48 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

120 uncontested marks for the Swans shows massive holes in either the game plan, Goodwins lack of nous or stubbornness shows up once again and he should have put a lock on it early in the game.

This.

I saw a stat recently (can't find it now) where we score a lot from opposition turnovers. I think this goes to explain a lot as poor opposition teams generally don't have great skills we tend to capitalise on this, but a team like Sydney has good skills so we sat off waiting for a mistake that didn't come.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Clint Bizkit

[Mondê 525]

On SEN this morning Dangerfield was saying how playing on Sundays can be a bad thing, claimed that a lot of players watch football over the weekend and by Sunday they are mentally burnt out. 

Sure looked like that last Sunday. 

Stop watching footy boys!

[SFebes 4,692]

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This.

I saw a stat recently (can't find it now) where we score a lot from opposition turnovers. I think this goes to explain a lot as poor team generally don't have great skills we tend to capitalise on this, but a team like Sydney has good skills so we sat off waiting for a mistake that didn't come.

Yep he seems to be so hell bent on playing the zone and reluctant to change in games. Hawks, Pies and now Swans cut us up and he won't go man on man at any time. Port was another game in the last and Cats in Geelong.

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I couldn't disagree more.  I know you'll fall back on the 'we haven't beaten one yet' argument, but the statistics suggest that we can more than compete with the top sides.  We just haven't shown enough composure or the ability to think on our feet enough to execute it properly, nor do we take our chances often enough.

We get more inside 50s and more scoring shots in many of those games which suggests the game plan gives us plenty of opportunities to win games of footy.  We know that we need to fix the way in which we get the ball inside 50, and we know that we need to fix up the way we set up our defensive 50 when the opposition has the ball, although I think it hurt to lose Lever and then Hibberd for a month not too long after that just as things were ticking along superbly.

I won't deny that we need to make some tweaks to the overall gameplan, but the stats suggest that we are generating enough inside 50s to win these games of footy.  We just don't take our chances when we are presented with them and this allows those good sides to hurt us on the rebound.

I have faith, for the time being, that Goodwin can address this sooner rather than later (and by that I mean the offseason as it's hard to do mid-season) so that these issues occur far less than they do now.

Which stats suggest we can more than compete with the 'top sides'?

• More i50 - the ball often bounces out again.  It is often just ping-pong.  i50 to score conversion is a better measure.  We have been outdone on conversion rate in most losses.
• More scoring shots - doesn't look so good when 'rushed behinds' are removed because their defence set up better than our forwards or the defence pressure on 'snaps' is so high. 
• Goal/Behind ratio.  Can't be bothered redoing the scores but our poor goal/behind ratio isn't just set shot composure, it is also op defense structures/tactics and our forward structures/tactics.  They harass, we fumble.
• High contested possessions - terrific, except when the outplay us with the less taxing uncontested precision kicks/handballs and kill us because we can't get there to create a contest.  It is the controlled 'uncontested possessions' that hurt us when we lose.  Hawthorn, Sydney and to some extent Collingwood used this to perfection.  Note:  it is also how WCE beat Rich this year.
• Hit outs/Clearances - excellent at hitouts, except look at the losses vs Hawks, Sydney, Richmond - they forgo the hit outs and rove Max brilliantly to win the clearances so were able to neutralise our main weapon.  (Coll have Grundy who neutralised Max's impact).
• League high score for this year - Cumulative percentage of 74% against the top 9 teams.
• Tackling?  We have been out tackled in nearly every game against the 'top sides'

As that analysis shows, the top side's tactics to beat us have been very very similar:  Neutralise Max, control possessions, out tackle us, crowd our forward line, open up their own plus a few other tricks (especially from Collingwood). 

It is a pattern to which we have not found answers.  I've had a look at the games we lost to 'top sides' (and Geelong) this year and the measures I have noted above we have consistently been beaten on. 

And, just to rub salt into the wound the only club to not beat a 'top side' is Carlton.  There are two clubs who have beaten only one 'top side' are Collinwood and St kilda and in both cases it was us.

If you truly think a 'fix' here and a 'tweak' there are going to solve our problems against the way the top sides beat us then you are either not paying attention or not giving their team and their coaches enough credit. 

So please less of the 'faith' and the platitudes and provide some stats that suggest we can more than compete against the top sides (your words).  

Edited August 15, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Wiseblood 24,636]

7 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Which stats suggest we can more than compete with the 'top sides'?

• More i50 - the ball bounces out again more often than not.  i50 to score conversion is a better measure.  We have been outdone on conversion rate in most losses.
• More scoring shots - doesn't look so good when 'rushed behinds' are removed because their defence set up better than our forwards or the defence pressure on 'snaps' is so high.  Can't be bothered redoing the scores but our poor goal/behind ratio isn't just set shot composure, it is also op defense structures/tactics and our forward structures/tactics.
• High contested possessions - terrific, except when the outplay us with the less taxing uncontested precision kicks/handballs and kill us because we can't get there to create a contest.  It is the controlled 'uncontested possessions' that hurt us when we lose.  Hawthorn, Sydney and to some extent Collingwood used this to perfection.  Note:  it is also how WCE beat Rich this year.
• Hit outs/Clearances - excellent at hitouts, except look at the losses vs Hawks, Sydney, Richmond - they forgo the hit outs and rove Max brilliantly to win the clearances so were able to neutralise our main weapon.  (Coll have Grundy who neutralised Max's impact).
• League high score for this year - Cumulative percentage of 74% against the top 9 teams.
• Tackling?  We have been out tackled in nearly every game against the 'top sides'

As that analysis shows, the top side's tactics to beat us have been very very similar:  Neutralise Max, control possessions, out tackle us, crowd our forward line, open up their own plus a few other tricks (especially from Collingwood). 

It is a pattern to which we have not found answers.  I've had a look at the games we lost to 'top sides' (and Geelong) this year and the measures I have noted above we have consistently been beaten on. 

If you truly think a 'fix' here and a 'tweak' there are going to solve our problems against the way the top sides beat us then I'm not sure you are either not paying attention or not giving their team and their coaches enough credit. 

So please less of the 'faith' and the platitudes and provide some stats that suggest we can more than compete against the top sides (your words).  

Thanks for giving a thoughtful reply, LH.  I appreciate that.  I was hoping the person I responded to would do the same but, alas, I should have known better.

I'm currently at work so I'll delve into it a little more deeper when I get home, but it's only fair I try and back it up in someway.  I feel like I've brought it up before but there's no chance I'll find it from weeks ago, plus it's a bit outdated then.

I'll get back to you on this one.

[old dee 22,815]

13 hours ago, layzie said:

Is that like saying that Sydney didn’t play well we just played sh*t? 

That is fairly correct actually

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

42 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Thanks for giving a thoughtful reply, LH.  I appreciate that.  I was hoping the person I responded to would do the same but, alas, I should have known better.

I'm currently at work so I'll delve into it a little more deeper when I get home, but it's only fair I try and back it up in someway.  I feel like I've brought it up before but there's no chance I'll find it from weeks ago, plus it's a bit outdated then.

I'll get back to you on this one.

I was simply trying to get behind some of the narrative from our club reps, commentators and DL posters.  I wasn't having a go at you - your post provided that vehicle. 

It wasn't very obvious in my post but I was trying to use 'measures' ie that relate to an outcome which together tell a story, rather than raw statistics which at face value can look good but not say a lot, especially when used in isolation. 

It took me quite a while to wade thru AFL match day reports to develop the 'measures'.  And, as you have a young family there is no need to spend too much time on a response - I accept that you are a constant glass half full person.  I don't mind if you don't reply - we will probably only get bogged down in the minutiae or semantics, then agree to disagree or I just let you have the last word ... ?

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Wiseblood 24,636]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I was simply trying to get behind some of the narrative from our club reps, commentators and DL posters.  I wasn't having a go at you - your post provided that vehicle. 

It wasn't very obvious in my post but I was trying to use 'measures' ie that relate to an outcome which together tell a story, rather than raw statistics which at face value can look good but not say a lot, especially when used in isolation. 

It took me quite a while to wade thru AFL match day reports to develop the 'measures'.  And, as you have a young family there is no need to spend too much time on a response - I accept that you are a constant glass half full person.  I don't mind if you don't reply - we will probably only get bogged down in the minutiae or semantics, then agree to disagree or I just let you have the last word ... ?

 

I didn't think you were having a go at all!  I was genuinely appreciative of the response as I thought it was well written and brought up some valid points re: my earlier response.

I know I'm a glass half full person but I try hard to be as reasonable in my responses to things as possible.  As I've said, I readily admit their are holes in our structure and our game plan that need to be fixed for us to be able to compete with those teams above us.  But, I do think the basics of our game plan are very sound and can provide a platform for us to climb up the ladder if we are willing to make the changes.  I think Goodwin can be stubborn sometimes and this can harm that progression.

Thanks for the consideration re: having a young family as well.  Once the little one goes to bed though is the time in which I can get most things done.  But, again, I appreciate the response!