IMHO ... during todays game one thing struck me on more than one occasion.

We fail to "hurt" or "stamp a physical presence" on or opponents when the opportunity arises, fail to physically intimidate them in any way shape or form. We need an "Enforcer - Tough Guy".

Now I'm not saying we need to belt the living suit cases out of our opponents .... dont get me wrong.

However, we need to learn how to unsettle them, make them think twice about committing their bodies.

Especially around the clearances we need somebody who can protect the space in a "physical" way, somebody who we can swing onto our oppositions key mid-fields and mentally & physically shut them down. If nothing else make them think they are going to get physically hurt.

IMHO ... Collingwood gave us a very important lesson. What you lack in pure ability you can make up in endeavor and a willingness to work and protect your team mates. Collingwood are no where near the most skillful side we have played in the last 3-4 weeks. However, I was very impressed with their willingness to work for one another.

In the last 10 weeks of the year I would like to see us "set up the physical component to our game" .. because currently I just dont think we are respected by our opposition.

IMHO - If you dont have the skills you dont have them. However, endeavor and "physical" commitment by all players young and old is something that can be learnt and enforced as a team discipline.

IMHO ... Collingwood gave us a very important lesson. What you lack in pure ability you can make up in endeavor and a willingness to work and protect your team mates. Collingwood are no where near the most skillful side we have played in the last 3-4 weeks. However, I was very impressed with their willingness to work for one another.

IMHO - If you dont have the skills you dont have them. However, endeavor and "physical" commitment by all players young and old is something that can be learnt and enforced as a team discipline.

I can see your point but I totally disagree. For starters Collingwood are a very skillful and SMART team. Endeavor and physical commitment ALONE wont get you anywhere. Its not our endeavor of physical commitment that is the issue, we are just not skillful or smart enough ATM.

You can't just manufacture an "enforcer". Moloney is proof. He is hard at the ball, strongly built, bashes and crashes but intimidates nobody.

What we need are established players who are kings of their game and can exert genuine mental pressure on opponents and make them worry about them. Didak and players like that who make defenders conscious of how dangerous they are and then get in the mind of their opponent is what we need. We don't need smart asses but more players who know they have the attributes to put opponents off their game - there is a craft to it. Almost our entire team is an inconsequential group with no personality or pschological strength we need to change this. Unfortunately only once we become more dominant as a team will this grow - you can't force it, it just doesn't work because most oppositions are better than us atm.

screw that. i want someone that is hard at the player. whelan is the only player we have that you know is going to hurt the opposition when they have the chance.

We need 3 or 4 of these players.

With people like byron pickett it does make it really good to watch too

Plus we already have these sorts of players.

Morton and Newton (when he gets a game)

......

i miss david neitz :(

I am not surprised at all that we looked down on intensity and commitment, our most commited players were playing for Casey and intimidating their way to a victory, albeit a scrappy one.

Martin, missed his commitment and smarts in the backline. He is a pure stopper, positions himself well, has no intent to attack, rarely stuffs it up, they scored goals because the constantly had an extra player free in the forward line. Martin would have stopped at least a few goals.

Bartram, could have easily put the brakes on one of the small mid/forwards.

Miller, lifts the other forwards around him because he is a picture of aggression and commitment, Jack Watts would have walked a lot taller had Miller been by his side.

There is of course one recurring theme with the three players listed above; none of them can kick. They are a liability with the ball. I have no doubt we would have been much closer to the mark had all three played yesterday, but can we afford to carry players with poor disposal?

You hurt the opposition by your attack on the ball not the player. Posters pining for the "enforcer" just miss the point.

We dont win enough of the contested ball and yesterday we were not hard at the ball.

And Wheels looked a shadow of the shadow of the player he currently is. Looked completely overwhelmed and lost. His time in AFL is drawing to a close.

There is of course one recurring theme with the three players listed above; none of them can kick. They are a liability with the ball. I have no doubt we would have been much closer to the mark had all three played yesterday, but can we afford to carry players with poor disposal?

No.

Miller might have give us more effort up forward. Bartram would have scrapped better than some. And FWIW I would have had Martin in rather than PJ but for all that it would be p1$$ing around the edges at best.

On paper we did not have a bad side in but with exception of 1 or 2 players they all played badly.

A number of them who did play badly are the ones that can least afford to do so.

whelan played on brad dick - often caught behind or out of position... can never doubt his hardness but he is just a shadow of his former self.

we won enough hit outs but the ball was sharked because they were first to the ball...

you get points for hardness for your hea dover the ball and your clearance work.. today we were smashed in this component of the game!!

also, our lack of clean hands - the number of times that we fumbled whereas they were one grabbing all day!!

a reminder of last year!!

Collingwood are close to the most intense, pressure (that silly named "frontal pressure") based side in the comp but tell me when yesterday did they intimidate with there attack on the player? They pressure you into turn overs (see Didak, Alan on Davey then PJ both turned it over for goals to Didak) then there skill level is just exceptional. So far off where we are in both instances and not related to hitting bodies hard.

You hurt the opposition by your attack on the ball not the player. Posters pining for the "enforcer" just miss the point.

We dont win enough of the contested ball and yesterday we were not hard at the ball.

And Wheels looked a shadow of the shadow of the player he currently is. Looked completely overwhelmed and lost. His time in AFL is drawing to a close.

hahaha ... posters pining for an "attack on the ball" ... just dont get it.

Modern day AFL football is way, way more sophisticated than that - oh it would all be so easy if you only had tooooooo "attack the ball" - wrong, wrong, wrong.

Modern day football is all about pressure, perceived or actual, zoning, body placement - "attack on the ball" is kids stuff and only a piece in the puzzle. What you do off and around the ball is equally important as what you do with the ball.

Now the reason we dont get enough contested ball - simple our opponents do no fear us - they dont think twice about entering a physical contest against us. Take young Watts very first possession - not 1 but 3 magpies smash him to the ground - why? Oh ... yes "attack on the ball" BS - they "physically" wanted to intimidate him. When once did 3 Dees attack young Dick and physically man-handle him?

Now for all you slow kids out there ... I'm not saying belt the living suitcases out of them in an illegal way. I'm saying we need to up our intensity at the opposition in a legal "physical" manner.

IMHO in the past the Swans have been the bench mark for a team limited in ability by high in "physical" endeavor. However, in 2009 St Kildas improvement comes from both "perceived or actual" physical intimidation.

I'm not here to single out players - but a few need to think about upping the physical component of their game - just an idea.

Collingwood are close to the most intense, pressure (that silly named "frontal pressure") based side in the comp but tell me when yesterday did they intimidate with there attack on the player? They pressure you into turn overs (see Didak, Alan on Davey then PJ both turned it over for goals to Didak) then there skill level is just exceptional. So far off where we are in both instances and not related to hitting bodies hard.

Great point

Just saw this post- Collingwood are close to the most intense - you call it pressure I prefer "physical intimidation plus I agree with you its not just about hitting bodies hard.

- Exactly and no coincidence our "worst" two games of the year where against them.

hahaha ... posters pining for an "attack on the ball" ... just dont get it.

Modern day AFL football is way, way more sophisticated than that - oh it would all be so easy if you only had tooooooo "attack the ball" - wrong, wrong, wrong.

Modern day football is all about pressure, perceived or actual, zoning, body placement - "attack on the ball" is kids stuff and only a piece in the puzzle. What you do off and around the ball is equally important as what you do with the ball.

Now the reason we dont get enough contested ball - simple our opponents do no fear us - they dont think twice about entering a physical contest against us. Take young Watts very first possession - not 1 but 3 magpies smash him to the ground - why? Oh ... yes "attack on the ball" BS - they "physically" wanted to intimidate him. When once did 3 Dees attack young Dick and physically man-handle him?

Now for all you slow kids out there ... I'm not saying belt the living suitcases out of them in an illegal way. I'm saying we need to up our intensity at the opposition in a legal "physical" manner.

IMHO in the past the Swans have been the bench mark for a team limited in ability by high in "physical" endeavor. However, in 2009 St Kildas improvement comes from both "perceived or actual" physical intimidation.

I'm not here to single out players - but a few need to think about upping the physical component of their game - just an idea.

I think you are wrong. St Kilda have been well documented for having the best attack on the ball this year, as well as being the best tackling side and it has paid dividends.

You are naive to think that "attack on the ball" is lost in our game. At the end of the day, you have to provide a contest. You can't rely on positioning or zoning to always enforce the turnover agaisnt a good side, if you can't "attack the ball", you may as well be playing another sport."

There were still plenty of little one on one contests yesterday, where collingwood looked to be tougher and more aggressive at the ball, in addition to the fact that they had more support from their team mates, and they beat us by 11 goals in difficult conditions...

I think you are wrong. St Kilda have been well documented for having the best attack on the ball this year, as well as being the best tackling side and it has paid dividends.

You are naive to think that "attack on the ball" is lost in our game. At the end of the day, you have to provide a contest. You can't rely on positioning or zoning to always enforce the turnover agaisnt a good side, if you can't "attack the ball", you may as well be playing another sport."

There were still plenty of little one on one contests yesterday, where collingwood looked to be tougher and more aggressive at the ball, in addition to the fact that they had more support from their team mates, and they beat us by 11 goals in difficult conditions...

No problems. You make some very good points.

"You are naive to think that "attack on the ball" is lost in our game." - I'm not saying its lost I'm saying its evolved. Its now only a "piece in the puzzle" not the whole puzzle.

"At the end of the day, you have to provide a contest." - Yes, but what you do prior to entering the "contest" many times can effect the outcome of the contest.

You can't rely on positioning or zoning to always enforce the turnover agaisnt a good side, if you can't "attack the ball"

I'm not saying you "rely" solely on positioning or zoning. I never said you cant "attack the ball" However, its can't be your primary motive in 2009. In 2009 you must think opponent then ball on some occasions. You must make a "physical" contact with your opponent.

Hence my call for an "enforcer" or an increased physical presence against our opponents.

"you may as well be playing another sport." - Ahhh now there is an idea learn from other sports.

"There were still plenty of little one on one contests yesterday, where collingwood looked to be tougher and more aggressive at the ball" - equally as many contests where Collingwood where "tougher and more aggressive" at the man or to protect the space to win the contest.

"in addition to the fact that they had more support from their team mates" - Now your getting the idea!

Now to "St Kilda have been well documented for having the best attack on the ball this year, as well as being the best tackling side and it has paid dividends." Maybe "well documented" but poorly understood. Tackling is very, very important and a component of increasing your "physical" presence. However, and I hope I explain my self properly. Sometimes its better to protect the space than attack the ball you attack your opponent via a physical tackle. IMHO Cameron Ling is a master at it.

Anyway great points.

..........

Just saw this post- Collingwood are close to the most intense - you call it pressure I prefer "physical intimidation plus I agree with you its not just about hitting bodies hard.

- Exactly and no coincidence our "worst" two games of the year where against them.

Its amazing you laud Collingwood but you clearly dont understand why it happens. Thanks for the "sophisticated" spiel but I'll reduce it to bite size pieces for you. Football is about three basic phases

1. When you have the ball - Its elementary that good disposal, decision making under is vital

2. When they have the ball - Thats the area that you laud Collingwood and tackling and defensive pressure is important.

3. When the ball is an open contest - Thats one of the key areas where you hurt oppositions when you win possession of the ball through strength vigour and numbers at the ball. Its has many of the same attributes as 2.

Get over the physical intimidation hang up and you might have a chance of understanding what's actually going on.

IMHO ... during todays game one thing struck me on more than one occasion.

We fail to "hurt" or "stamp a physical presence" on or opponents when the opportunity arises, fail to physically intimidate them in any way shape or form. We need an "Enforcer - Tough Guy".

Now I'm not saying we need to belt the living suit cases out of our opponents .... dont get me wrong.

However, we need to learn how to unsettle them, make them think twice about committing their bodies.

Especially around the clearances we need somebody who can protect the space in a "physical" way, somebody who we can swing onto our oppositions key mid-fields and mentally & physically shut them down. If nothing else make them think they are going to get physically hurt.

IMHO ... Collingwood gave us a very important lesson. What you lack in pure ability you can make up in endeavor and a willingness to work and protect your team mates. Collingwood are no where near the most skillful side we have played in the last 3-4 weeks. However, I was very impressed with their willingness to work for one another.

In the last 10 weeks of the year I would like to see us "set up the physical component to our game" .. because currently I just dont think we are respected by our opposition.

IMHO - If you dont have the skills you dont have them. However, endeavor and "physical" commitment by all players young and old is something that can be learnt and enforced as a team discipline.

If we put all the suggestions together of what people think this club needs for the journey going forward we would have what is called the perfect footballer. However hate to rain on the parade here one of this kind does exist. Therefore how about a suggestion? How bout we stop whining about what the club hasn't got and begin to talk about what we do have. If you have close look at the players the club drafted in the most recent pool there are none who fit the bill of what you were just asking for. So unless you wish to be playing the same broken record for the next 10 years I suggest you go to the shop, look on the shelf and pick a new artist because the one you are playing at the moment isn't quite in the top ten really. And people et tired of artists who p;ay the same old whining tune.

Thanks thats all.

Its amazing you laud Collingwood but you clearly dont understand why it happens. Thanks for the "sophisticated" spiel but I'll reduce it to bite size pieces for you. Football is about three basic phases

1. When you have the ball - Its elementary that good disposal, decision making under is vital

2. When they have the ball - Thats the area that you laud Collingwood and tackling and defensive pressure is important.

3. When the ball is an open contest - Thats one of the key areas where you hurt oppositions when you win possession of the ball through strength vigour and numbers at the ball. Its has many of the same attributes as 2.

Get over the physical intimidation hang up and you might have a chance of understanding what's actually going on.

Yeah no problems ... you stick with your simplistic game plan. "attack the ball" ... I'm saying AFL football has evolved due mainly to the influence of "other sports" as another poster pointed out.

You just miss the whole point you are the one does not "understand why it happens" ... You state the simplistic bleating obvious yet you just dont get it.

Point 1 - You missed the vital word - PRESSURE ... How do you create pressure - you up your physical presence, both perceived and actual.

Point 2 - Yes, sorry I can look at the opposition and learn. Do you have a problem with that? IMHO Collingwood on many occasion played the "man" or created the space then won the ball. Smart, its not all about "attacking the ball"

Point 3 - BS - you sound like a little league coach - AFL football is way more sophisticated. "strength, vigour numbers to the ball" ... Sorry but again its not that simplistic. These days you must consider what your opponents are doing.

Get over the physical intimidation hang up and you might have a chance of understanding what's actually going on. - Thanks for that! Just merely a suggestion that we need to increase of physical presence.

If we put all the suggestions together of what people think this club needs for the journey going forward we would have what is called the perfect footballer. However hate to rain on the parade here one of this kind does exist. Therefore how about a suggestion? How bout we stop whining about what the club hasn't got and begin to talk about what we do have. If you have close look at the players the club drafted in the most recent pool there are none who fit the bill of what you were just asking for. So unless you wish to be playing the same broken record for the next 10 years I suggest you go to the shop, look on the shelf and pick a new artist because the one you are playing at the moment isn't quite in the top ten really. And people et tired of artists who p;ay the same old whining tune.

Thanks thats all.

Very good point I'm with you 100% I tried that but the "natives" prefer to discuss the negatives ... plus it was merely an observation ... with what we need to develop or possibly- "if you dont have one go and get one" ... What ala Hawthorn when they went a got - whats his name - Stuart Dew!

I'm not being negative - sorry if I came across that way. I'm just suggesting we need to develop (or recruit) a more physical presence to our game.

Collingwood are close to the most intense, pressure (that silly named "frontal pressure") based side in the comp but tell me when yesterday did they intimidate with there attack on the player? They pressure you into turn overs (see Didak, Alan on Davey then PJ both turned it over for goals to Didak) then there skill level is just exceptional. So far off where we are in both instances and not related to hitting bodies hard.

Good explanations as to why we received a 66 point drubbing.

PJ's skill errors directly resulted in goals. Failing to handball correctly - perhaps as the result of some pressure by Collingwood - is unforgiveable.

I don't see any Enforcer Tough guys at StKilda. What I see is a team that is well drilled, that keep their skill errors to a minimum, and their attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball is currently second-to-none. They set up well down back and are effective within the midfield with Ball and Hayes leading the way. They have some handy mature KPP's in Riewoldt and Kosi (can't be bothered spelling his surname) and two very experienced ruckmen in Gardener and King.

As has always happened this season and last. Our skill errors and turnovers through lack of 'nous' and application costs us. Ten-Fold at times. We have a midfield that is average. We lack genuine break neck speed in this department and more importantly lack enough skill to be effective enough to hurt opposition.

FCS give me a Scully and put in a fit and well Blease with games under their belts, let them blend in with some of the current midfield and watch us blossom.

........

Point 1 - You missed the vital word - PRESSURE ... How do you create pressure - you up your physical presence, both perceived and actual.

........

Not only did I mention "PRESSURE". Its critical to the piece. And you up your physical presence by doing all the things I said. Keeping arguing your semantics. Some will find it interesting and ground breaking.

I don't see any Enforcer Tough guys at StKilda. What I see is a team that is well drilled, that keep their skill errors to a minimum, and their attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball is currently second-to-none. They set up well down back and are effective within the midfield with Ball and Hayes leading the way.

Exactly. Well drilled disciplined side that applies heaps of pressure in the manner you prescribe. Geelong are the same.

QUOTE (Cards13 @ Jun 9 2009, 08:51 AM) *

Collingwood are close to the most intense, pressure (that silly named "frontal pressure") based side in the comp but tell me when yesterday did they intimidate with there attack on the player? They pressure you into turn overs (see Didak, Alan on Davey then PJ both turned it over for goals to Didak) then there skill level is just exceptional. So far off where we are in both instances and not related to hitting bodies hard.

Good explanations as to why we received a 66 point drubbing.

PJ's skill errors directly resulted in goals. Failing to handball correctly - perhaps as the result of some pressure by Collingwood - is unforgiveable.

I don't see any Enforcer Tough guys at StKilda. What I see is a team that is well drilled, that keep their skill errors to a minimum, and their attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball is currently second-to-none. They set up well down back and are effective within the midfield with Ball and Hayes leading the way. They have some handy mature KPP's in Riewoldt and Kosi (can't be bothered spelling his surname) and two very experienced ruckmen in Gardener and King.

As has always happened this season and last. Our skill errors and turnovers through lack of 'nous' and application costs us. Ten-Fold at times. We have a midfield that is average. We lack genuine break neck speed in this department and more importantly lack enough skill to be effective enough to hurt opposition.

FCS give me a Scully and put in a fit and well Blease with games under their belts, let them blend in with some of the current midfield and watch us blossom.

Yip nice post - "did they intimidate with there attack on the player?" - Ok this is just my perception. But I think Didak and Lockyer, like them or hate them are very smart footballers. What makes them "smart" IMHO they both have a habit of engaging their opponents ... its that sneaky little push or "physical' block they exert on the opposition sometimes well before the "real" contest begins. IMHO this is what we need to learn, improve and develop. Look its very subtle but very smart, and something I strongly believe can be taught and developed. Hence, my now what appears to be rather crude attempt at calling for an "enforcer tough guy"

As I said earlier - "its not about belting the living suitcases out of our opponents"

I don't see any Enforcer Tough guys at StKilda. What I see is a team that is well drilled, that keep their skill errors to a minimum, and their attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball is currently second-to-none. They set up well down back and are effective within the midfield with Ball and Hayes leading the way. They have some handy mature KPP's in Riewoldt and Kosi (can't be bothered spelling his surname) and two very experienced ruckmen in Gardener and King.

- 100% agree with you and could not disagree. But I think you could argue the whole St Kilda side has got tougher, you look at the way they hit the packs. Sometimes they over step the limit - "[censored] happens" but its their "physical" presence around the whole ground that impresses me. On TV this is highlighted by their physical tackling skills ... because ultimately the TV only follows the ball. However, as you say its both "attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball" is a better description to solving the "puzzle" yet not the complete solution.

I got to watch what I say about St kilda because some of the "natives" will take it the wrong way. Again I'm not saying belt the living suitcases out of our opponents ... no, no, no! PS Dont under estimate the value of some of their "lessor lights"

Very good point I'm with you 100% I tried that but the "natives" prefer to discuss the negatives ... plus it was merely an observation ... with what we need to develop or possibly- "if you dont have one go and get one" ... What ala Hawthorn when they went a got - whats his name - Stuart Dew!

I'm not being negative - sorry if I came across that way. I'm just suggesting we need to develop (or recruit) a more physical presence to our game.

Sorry Hang not trying to get stuck into you but I just don't agree. Old Fatso Dew at Hwathorn is not one of there hard blokes he is a skilled, penetrating kick and rarely puts pressure on opposition when they don't have the ball, when they do have the ball he then puts them under pressure with his kicking.

The Hawks have the likes of Lewis, Brown and Hodge who are the hard nuts. We have Jones, Moloney, McLean, Miller who are big strong bodies but they are not up to applying the pressure needed at AFL level now days. To slow, not the correct smarts, can't hurt teams on the turn over with foot skills or scoreboard pressure etc etc.

Yip nice post - "did they intimidate with there attack on the player?" - Ok this is just my perception. But I think Didak and Lockyer, like them or hate them are very smart footballers. What makes them "smart" IMHO they both have a habit of engaging their opponents ... its that sneaky little push or "physical' block they exert on the opposition sometimes well before the "real" contest begins. IMHO this is what we need to learn, improve and develop. Look its very subtle but very smart, and something I strongly believe can be taught and developed. Hence, my now what appears to be rather crude attempt at calling for an "enforcer tough guy"

As I said earlier - "its not about belting the living suitcases out of our opponents"

I don't see any Enforcer Tough guys at StKilda. What I see is a team that is well drilled, that keep their skill errors to a minimum, and their attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball is currently second-to-none. They set up well down back and are effective within the midfield with Ball and Hayes leading the way. They have some handy mature KPP's in Riewoldt and Kosi (can't be bothered spelling his surname) and two very experienced ruckmen in Gardener and King.

- 100% agree with you and could not disagree. But I think you could argue the whole St Kilda side has got tougher, you look at the way they hit the packs. Sometimes they over step the limit - "[censored] happens" but its their "physical" presence around the whole ground that impresses me. On TV this is highlighted by their physical tackling skills ... because ultimately the TV only follows the ball. However, as you say its both "attack on the ball and their attack on the opposition with the ball" is a better description to solving the "puzzle" yet not the complete solution.

I got to watch what I say about St kilda because some of the "natives" will take it the wrong way. Again I'm not saying belt the living suitcases out of our opponents ... no, no, no! PS Dont under estimate the value of some of their "lessor lights"

We agree on this one Hang... One of the things I get so p*ed off about in todays footy is the total lack of sheperds/blocking off the ball. I don't know how many times I see in games 2 or 3 players running next the ball carrier calling for hands off instead of looking around for someone to block to allow the ball carrier time to find a target, and this especially irks me when watching the Dee's we always do it and it generally leads to a turn over. GGGrrrrrrr I know the game has moved on but for goodness sakes it is a fundemental of our game that we need to really push with our team as it does give the ball carrier that extra 3/4/5 steps to find a target and I think we all know from what we have seen over the last 2 seasons our boys need all of the time in the world to find a fwd target.

Plus we already have these sorts of players.

Morton and Newton (when he gets a game)

......

Miller too, especially when he's playing with confidence.

(someone built like Dew would go a long way)