The "No Forward Line" Myth

[Undeeterred 2,864]

I think there's not nearly enough criticism of Roos' seeming inability to come up with any viable Plan B, which in reality is what he is here for.

[nutbean 8,837]

I think there's not nearly enough criticism of Roos' seeming inability to come up with any viable Plan B, which in reality is what he is here for.

Harsh - when your put your foot down on the accelerator of your Lada and it doesnt go 160kph what's your plan B to make your Lada go like a ferrari ?

[jazza 1,323]

Harsh - when your put your foot down on the accelerator of your Lada and it doesnt go 160kph what's your plan B to make your Lada go like a ferrari ?

put a strip of electrical tape down the side,that will make it look like a GT and it will go faster.

[Fat Tony 4,437]

There are three issues contributing to our lack of scoring. 1) is our poor midfield, which is not winning enough ball. 2) is that we are too slow to transition the ball forward. 3) is our poor forward line. The issues are separate but interrelated. The third issue (our poor forward line) is clearly a factor, but the key issue is the second one IMO.

That is not to say we shouldn't change the forward line and Dunn should play forward this week and Pederson should go back to play on Giles or Patton. I would also persist with Howe forward and leave Watts on the wing.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,462]

Not sure i agree that we did not have anyone capable of winning up forward, I think our delivery into the forward 50 was pathetic, long kicks to out numbered forwards, crappy little passes into a congested forwards line that went to eagles players more often or not, or high little floating chip passes that were intercepted. our ability to delivery is the issue, we seem to be able to get the ball and take it down 75% of the field ok then fall apart in delivering it to our forwards. It obviously does not help when we end up with the opposition playing a spare man back.

I suspect you'll find that the opposition has a spare man back because we moved one of our forwards to strengthen the backline. It allowed Dunn to become the spare man in defence. We've been doing this for years (not always with Dunn as the spare, of course) and, in my view, it only works when there are less than two minutes to go in a quarter and you're trying to stop a score.

[Deez 298]

The forward line doesn't operate as it should.

they have had one preseason together - sort of, in between injury.

i would suggest that the fwds don't know how to read one another and therefore second guess there own leads and actions.

ideally they would all be leading in to open space, or at least away from each other, instead of remaining in the same areas, or just standing still while the ball is passed Around the 50 - eermagerd that was frustrating to watch, i almost blew a blood vessel.

Howe needs to direct traffic, he prob has the best footy brain in the fwd line.

its simple, smalls and med fwds make fast leads to open space.

leave immobile fwds sitting in the goal square, and when appropriate make decoy leads.

that could give us the shots on goal.

[Scipio 5,868]

We could score a lot more if we changed our mindset, stopped trying to pinpoint passes inside 50 to useless targets with pathetic kicking and had more cracks from long range. I know we've been taught a methodical approach, but we just need to try and blaze away and stand out. Just have a crack from long range. Dunn, Jones, Vince especially who are all capable of it but struggle to hit targets close to goal

I agree with this to a point. They shouldn't blaze away meaninglessly but the amount of times over the last two weeks where we've moved the ball to the flanks or CHF with speed and then waited 20 seconds to try and hit up a lead from a forward who can't really mark is ridiculous.

We should kick to the top of the square far more often and especially with quick ball movement, this could really expose some teams. Hopefully this could help Howe down forward and then if he or Fitz can bring the ball to ground, the small guys might actually have a chance.

[Demon Disciple 11,020]

A pet hate of mine, is when a forward entry is too deep in to the forward line, allowing the back-men to easily force it through for a behind. Plonk the ball 25m out and watch the back-men [censored] themselves. Get a big body to crash the pack (Pederson, all he would be good for), then get the crumbers to rove the ball. Simple? absolutely. Will it be effective? more than what we have got going at the moment, and good enough until we get some forwards back in to the fray.

[rpfc 27,501]

I think there's not nearly enough criticism of Roos' seeming inability to come up with any viable Plan B, which in reality is what he is here for.

You may think that is why he is here but it would be misdiagnosis of what our troubles have been.

We have not had a sufficient Plan A. This Plan B stuff is a smokescreen, if you are talking about tactics surrounding our impotent forward line - that is not why Roos is here.

If you are talking about the inability to have a second gameplan when things aren't going well - that is something Roos has publicly said he wants to avoid.

Apparently the players had been given multiple game styles to learn and that when Roos came in and said - we will play this way - the players quizzed him about what percentage of the game he meant...

He had to reiterate - 100%.

We have not developed a solid Plan A - that has been our downfall. the players have little trust in themselves and their teammates to execute and it shows when they hesitate with simple kicks and handballs and avoid moving the ball quickly for fear that their teammates (or themselves) will screw up.

He may put players in foreign positions but the style they will play will remain the same. Only the execution will (hopefully) change. They will get better, we will help them with a more capable forward line (hopefully), and we will see some hopeful progress.

Edited April 4, 2014 by rpfc

[ManDee 7,089]

Did we not have the same forward line last year?

We keep hearing from Roos (who ought to know) that Hogan, Dawes and Clark are out and we therefore have no forward line but how many games did they play last year?

Hogan - 0

Clark - 4

Dawes - 12

Granted we were equally [censored] last year but didn't we have the highest conversion rate for inside 50's in the comp? We also kicked decent scores in a number of games and this is with no midfield. Remember the fears about having too many forwards with Fitzy and Howe in good form?

I didn't watch the game last week but if you ask me it sounds like too much importance has been put on the 3 big forwards by those who ought to know and the other guys who were decent in the forward line last year have been forgotten about because last year is irrelevant due to a percentage of 54. All this talk then leaves the players with a boosted midfield and improved clearances and inside 50's but in doubt about who to kick it to because those who ought to know won't shut up about having no forward line. Hence the sideways and backwards ball movement leading to turnovers.

So that's 16 matches with a good forward plus add Gawn Jamar and Fitz playing well with Sylvia & Howe thrown in. That looks like a forward line.

[ManDee 7,089]

put a strip of electrical tape down the side,that will make it look like a GT and it will go faster.

No now it looks like Pederson

[Little Goffy 12,633]

I sat pretty close to goal, out in the open (except when huddled out of the storm) for the GWS v Sydney game. Both sides were seeking to whip the ball back from defensive 50, Mcveigh-style, for most of the game.

Of course it's just an impression, but GWS got quite a few goals running forward and bursting across the attacking 50.

They were also well served by their multiple key tall targets in that game. No, they didn't clunk a vast supply of contested marks inside 50, but time and again they brought the ball down and created a ground level contest or stoppage. There's no denying Devon had a blinder against the Saints, but when 174cm guys are kicking goals it is often from grabbing the opportunities when the forward line targets could keep the ball in dispute.

Also, after Smith's 6 for the season, the GWS goal tally is;

Jeremy Cameron, 5 goals,

Jonathan Giles, 4 goals

Jonathon Patton, 3 goals

Rest of team - 10 goals

So it is pretty much the tall forwards and a ruckman-forward, a crumber, and then one goal each from a collection of midfielders. The 'no forward line myth' is holding up pretty well.

That said, the rest of the OPs analysis is spot on and I can even add something to it. I'll even put it in bold since it is so f'ing shameful.

Western Sydney currently have ten players averaging 4 or more tackles per game.

Melbourne have Cross, Jones, and Spencer.

[ManDee 7,089]

The statistics don't lie.

Melbourne is ranked 10th in marks inside 50, whereas GWS in third-last with 7.5 per game.

So how are GWS averaging 14 goals per game?

The Giants rank 1st in clearances with 46, Melbourne averages 30. On game day, a statistic like that is damning.

It gets worse.

Melbourne is LAST in center clearances, while the Giants average 5 more with 13. They also average 33 stoppage clearances per game, 11 more than Melbourne (!!!)

They also average 7 more rebounds out of 50, with 38 per game. Can you imagine if those statistics remain honest on Sunday? The Giants will win by 8+ goals.

The reality is that a lack of a forward line is not really the issue: it is the team's inability to chase, and its inability to work hard enough to win a ball at the stoppages. Guys like Watts in the middle only make this worse.

The errors are another problem: if Melbourne makes an error forward of center, the Giants are really good at pushing it through the corridor. They did it well against the Swans, and in moments of flash against the Saints. We all saw against the Eagles the amount of errors Melbourne made in the corridor and in the forward line: on the counter-attack, the Eagles ran ran ran, while Melbourne stayed in 1st gear. They gave up.

Melbourne does not need every single tall to be playing to win. It needs to win the damn ball when it matters!

I thought with the use of statistics you could prove just about anything.

We have had more possessions than our opponents therefore we should win. That's obviously not true.

We are second for possessions in the AFL behind Essendon

Hitouts 10th

Clangers 11th

Handballs 2nd

Disposal efficiency 2nd

Tackles 17th , that's terrible but Hawthorn are worse!

Goals 18th

Contested marks 18th

So last at goals and contested marks that sounds like we lack tall forwards.

[TGR 1,367]

The statistics don't lie.

Melbourne is ranked 10th in marks inside 50, whereas GWS in third-last with 7.5 per game.

So how are GWS averaging 14 goals per game?

The Giants rank 1st in clearances with 46, Melbourne averages 30. On game day, a statistic like that is damning.

It gets worse.

Melbourne is LAST in center clearances, while the Giants average 5 more with 13. They also average 33 stoppage clearances per game, 11 more than Melbourne (!!!)

They also average 7 more rebounds out of 50, with 38 per game. Can you imagine if those statistics remain honest on Sunday? The Giants will win by 8+ goals.

The reality is that a lack of a forward line is not really the issue: it is the team's inability to chase, and its inability to work hard enough to win a ball at the stoppages. Guys like Watts in the middle only make this worse.

The errors are another problem: if Melbourne makes an error forward of center, the Giants are really good at pushing it through the corridor. They did it well against the Swans, and in moments of flash against the Saints. We all saw against the Eagles the amount of errors Melbourne made in the corridor and in the forward line: on the counter-attack, the Eagles ran ran ran, while Melbourne stayed in 1st gear. They gave up.

Melbourne does not need every single tall to be playing to win. It needs to win the damn ball when it matters!

Sometimes stats don't mean jack.

The first game GWS played was rain-soaked and you might remember lightening forced them off the ground. You aint going to take too many marks inside 50 in that environment.

Also, if you have talls or bonefide forwards inside 50, it allows the release kick or bomb entry when the mids are under pressure. It also allows you to go in there without the fear of an opposition mark and easy rebound. Patton, Cameron, Giles etc. weren't going to be out-marked with a high entry, even on a wet day. The same can't be said with our makeshift forward line.

The lack of forward line is an issue my friend. On paper, the worst in a while.

The lack of bonefide ruckman as well against the league's best also results in centre clearance against issues.

Sometimes you have to look deeper than stats.

[Brayshaw Self 847]

A pet hate of mine, is when a forward entry is too deep in to the forward line, allowing the back-men to easily force it through for a behind. Plonk the ball 25m out and watch the back-men [censored] themselves. Get a big body to crash the pack (Pederson, all he would be good for), then get the crumbers to rove the ball. Simple? absolutely. Will it be effective? more than what we have got going at the moment, and good enough until we get some forwards back in to the fray.

Agreed. Our inside 50s are either inside 10s which are easily rushed behind or barely inside 45s which are instantly rebounded and often cause a 2 goal turn around.