'The Problem'

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Let me preface this by surrendering to the fact that this topic may seem/be self-indulgent, but I feel a strong desire to spit it out and I'd also like to generate some discussion surrounding some of these problems that I see and I'm sure many others see.

As our list stands today, I feel as if Paul Roos has been able to squeeze everything he can out of each individual which is clearly why he's regarded as one of the best coaches in the league. He has been able to get our players to compete hard and has instilled a 'defend hard' attitude which is evidenced by many of the drills we've seen at training during pre-season and our ability to make it more difficult for opposition teams to score.

However, I would argue that we've also been extremely lucky in most of our wins as well as some games we're the difference in score was only a few goals. With the exception of the Port Adelaide game, the Western Bulldogs game, Carlton game and St Kilda game, here's a breakdown of the scoring shots both teams had in games previous as well as contested possession and inside 50 deferential.

GWS: 29 scoring shots

MELB: 12 scoring shots

Contested Poss: -9

Inside 50's: -20

GC: 31

MELB: 23

CP: -2

I/50: -3

SYD: 24

MELB: 13

CP: -5

I/50: -20

ADEL: 22

MELB: 15

CP: +8

I/50: -23

RICH: 29

MELB: 21

CP: +17

I/50: -9

COLL: 21

MELB: 13

CP: -11

I50: -14

ESS: 27

MELB: 18

CP: -32

I/50: -33

NM: 32

MELB: 16

CP: -11

I/50: -12

There are some very worrying signs when you look at the scoring shots of both teams and here are some things that come to mind when I look at that:

1. Clearly we've been extremely lucky both in games we've won, (Essendon, Richmond and Adelaide where really those teams lost the game themselves), and games we've lost by honorable margins but really they could have been frighteningly similar score-lines to some of last years games. (Collingwood, NM, Syd, GC and GWS).

2. The Contested Possession stat vs Inside 50 stat is a great one. Especially for us because it gives us a great understanding of where we break down as a footy side and what our weaknesses are. We are clearly, and I mean CLEARLY not struggling with winning the inside ball anymore. That's blatantly obvious by looking at the Contested Possession deferential above. Only in the Collingwood game is there a big CP difference. However, looking at the inside 50 count in games especially when measured against our disposals per match screams out the obvious. Ball Movement! (Or lack thereof). Let's break ball movement down into these three categories: Decision making, kicking ability/skill and player movement/spread. These are the three areas that absolutely kill us and are the direct causes of all of our losses and where we breakdown when trying to move the ball forward.

(Decision making can clearly be anything from deciding to switch a pointless ball when there are clearly a number of opposition players already guarding space on the switch side, or something like three Melbourne players going up to punch a ball and two opposition players staying down ready for the spill, or kicking long to a 50/50 contest when there are a number of short options available*)

* I'm sure this goes hand in hand with players who clearly don't possess great kicking and therefore are not willing to go for the shorter option. Something pretty much our whole backline suffer from.

Kicking skill and ability is also a massive concern. I almost can't comprehend the amount of players on our list who possess below average or average kicking and decision making skills. We have three elite kicks in our best 22 side who can make great decisions and execute the kicking skill beautifully and those three are Watts, Vince (who is obviously in his first year) and Salem (who is in his first year!). That is deplorable.

Running/spreading is the third category and it's still a work in progress but I still reckon it's secondary to being able to make great decisions and being able to kick well. If you look at our kick-outs you'll see we breakdown immediately as a side trying to move the ball forward. Sure Dunn has a great long and penetrating kick, but he clearly doesn't have the ability to hit up a short pinpoint pass as nearly all of our kicks are bombed long to the boundary and to a 50/50 contest. It's disgusting we are doing that. As for running and spreading in general play, of we had more players who could kick well and make sound decisions, we'd be moving the ball a lot quicker as those players trust in their abilities and it means games would open up and our players would be forced to get the spread and run as they would be rewarded for their running and spreading. When you have players like Grimes, McKenzie, McDonald, Frawley, Garland, Bail, Matt Jones and a host of others who either bomb to a contest because they don't trust themselves to hit up short targets most of the time, of course you're not going to notice other players push hard into space on different sides of the ground because it's as if they already know the players with ball in hand will not even attempt to kick it to the for fear of turning it over!!!

It's clear to me where our problems are. It's clear as [censored] day. We, the MFC, have far too many players who do not possess critical attributes such as decision making and kicking ability. We have a host of them from deep in the backline right through our midfield and still on our list at Casey trying to get a game. Roos has been able to get the most out of individuals when it comes to 'effort' but effort has got nothing to do with something you're naturally gifted at which is why I don't have an issue with Frawley leaving. Because our problem lies within the midfield and through a compo pick for him, we'll be able to bring in some class. Which is also why I refuse to congratulate players like McKenzie, Matt Jones, Nicholson etc. Players who give their all but absolutely cannot be on the list if we want to be there in SEPTEMBER one day.

Skill and decision making are traits that need to be shown from day one. Within the AFL, a club can't afford the time nor resources to be teaching nearly a whole list of players how to kick or giving them better advice about how to make the right decision. Posters and supporters who keep bringing up the fact the 'X player is only 21, he's got plenty of time to develop' need to understand that it's not the way the cookie crumbles at this level. Sure we'll have some players who are afforded the team to develop areas of their game that are weak if they are valued highly. But not every player. Some will go. And need to go. We should expect more. We should look at the bigger picture.

Holy [censored] that was long.

[Chook 15,013]

For the last several years, I've noticed that our losing margins seem to correlate with our scores from turnovers differential. Until we can get players in every line who can regularly hit teammates even under serious pressure, we will continue to lose to better skilled sides.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

Whilst I agree with your points, the i50 and shots on target aren't the be all and end all. For example against essendon the ball use by essendon into their 50 was useless and whilst they were having the better of their midfield battle it was purely our use going into our forward line that helped us score the win.

It's alsmost an argument that our decision making has been so good for pieces in games that we are able to score from far less i50. That being said our real problem is that we are one or two class midfielders short still. We lose the midfield battle meaning they can get it into their 50 but our defence and forward set ups are good enough to keep us in the game.

[What 18,810]

the problem is years of pathetic player development

Lucky thats being rectified now with Roosy, Stone and co.

But there will be bumps in the road such as last night as we still have many sub-standard footballers on the list

Cant wait for another huge clean out at seasons end and more of Paul Roos handpicked gems to come on to the list a la Bernie and Dom

Edited June 23, 2014 by hogans_heroes

[old dee 23,797]

the problem is years of pathetic player development

Lucky thats being rectified now with Roosy, Stone and co.

But there will be bumps in the road such as last night as we still have many sub-standard footballers on the list

Cant wait for another huge clean out at seasons end and more of Paul Roos handpicked gems to come on to the list a la Bernie and Dom

That covers it hh

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Yup, some players will go but we can't get rid of them all. Some players with good skills in defence etc. and great potential in other areas, such as Tom Mcdonald are worth putting the time and effort into.

Edited June 23, 2014 by The Song Formerly Known As

[nutbean 8,838]

the problem is years of pathetic player development

Lucky thats being rectified now with Roosy, Stone and co.

But there will be bumps in the road such as last night as we still have many sub-standard footballers on the list

Cant wait for another huge clean out at seasons end and more of Paul Roos handpicked gems to come on to the list a la Bernie and Dom

How much of a cleanout are you expecting

[nutbean 8,838]

For the last several years, I've noticed that our losing margins seem to correlate with our scores from turnovers differential. Until we can get players in every line who can regularly hit teammates even under serious pressure, we will continue to lose to better skilled sides.

Look at the stat in the paper from every game - most goals are always scored from turnovers.

But the best teams turn it over less or have such great defensive pressure that they get the ball straight back.

[jnrmac 20,104]

You are right. It was indulgent.

Just kidding, Its running. That was as clear as day on the weekend. We were second to the ball, didn't lead and were totally static. That puts pressure in the kicker, increases turnovers etc.

Roos is not telling them to play that way but its clear to me they are processing the instructions and are still scared of stuffing up. Hence the static nature of our play. That will change and our kicking to position will improve as well as our I50s.

[Chook 15,013]

Look at the stat in the paper from every game - most goals are always scored from turnovers.

But the best teams turn it over less or have such great defensive pressure that they get the ball straight back.

All that shows is how bloody important it is to maintain possession of the ball. Do that and you're halfway home already.

[deanox 9,935]

Interesting contrast between nutbean and Chook here. Both of you are saying the same thing "turnovers cost goals", but you are putting the emphasise on different things. One option is that we aren't good enough at disposing the ball. (with some of the OOF and cheap turnovers this year, I'd agree). The other is "retain possession of the ball" (and I think we've started to do that).

RE the second way, I see two ways of achieving this: one is working very hard to get into position to receive the ball (long leads, movement off the ball). The other is decision making (taking the first and quick option, but taking the right option. Summing up the risk between giving away possession by kicking to a contest vs taking a short option. etc.)

All of these need to improve.

For me, disposal will look between when we do the other things right. They can all kick a footy. If they make the right decisions, they'll look like superstars with elite kicking. They won't have improved their kicking, but they'll have stopped making bad decisions. That being said, a team of Jack Watts has more "good options" than a team of Dan Nicholsons, so better foot skills make it easier to choose a safe option.

The most important thing though is running hard. North out ran us today. We manned up v. well at times but they moved well off the ball. Everyone within 50 m of the ball would be manned up, but someone else would lead from 100 m away into space (space created by their team mates drifting out of the way). We don't do that sort of running and leading. We do well when we have a spare player to kick to, but we, as a team, don't work hard enough to create that option.

Edited June 23, 2014 by deanox

[Dockett 32 1,239]

I believe you make some good points. Some blokes yesterday seemed to lack confidence to make the decision to select the kicking option and instead looked to give it off. This can slow up ball movement, the recipient then has to quickly reassess the situation and yesterday that was often to give it off again. The timeframe to do all this isn't large and if you keep on doing the round about sooner or later it will fail you. Whilst I understand some of this may be due to a game plan to keep possession or open things up or whatever, if not executed quickly ,well and purposefully , the opposition is all over you like a flash. Not only that, the opposition do their homework and know the likely extractors, the givers off and the kickers and plan accordingly.

For instance lets say Cross ( and I'm not picking him out as he has the grunt to get it) gets a fair bit of the footy and prefers to, or is instructed to give it off, then the opposition may respond accordingly, realise its likely going to end up with Jones or Tyson and if they get this right, well the number of turnovers I believe is likely to increase.

Just a personal view.

[Axis of Bob 11,836]

Tldr.

I'm just appreciating the irony of a thread titled 'The Problem' having a long, rambling OP with no particular emphasis.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Tldr.

I'm just appreciating the irony of a thread titled 'The Problem' having a long, rambling OP with no particular emphasis.

Nobody else seems to have an issue regarding post, it's emphasis or lack thereof.

But no, good contribution Axis, really good.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

You are right. It was indulgent.

Just kidding, Its running. That was as clear as day on the weekend. We were second to the ball, didn't lead and were totally static. That puts pressure in the kicker, increases turnovers etc.

Roos is not telling them to play that way but its clear to me they are processing the instructions and are still scared of stuffing up. Hence the static nature of our play. That will change and our kicking to position will improve as well as our I50s.

But if it's running, there has to be a reason why there's a lack of movement, and what I alluded to was that I think there are players who don't have the ability and therefore trust in their skills to hit up leads and they're constantly bombing to a contest. And because of this predictable play that's been going on since Neeld was there, it means other players don't even bother running hard to create space or lead because they already know what the individual will most likely do.

[DeeSpencer 25,721]

Whilst the effort is there it's not simply plug and play more skill and we will be ok. There's still a short fall in the required running I believe. And by the I mean smart running.

Matt Jones still stands out with his attacking run. Dawes still stands out with his efforts to chase and apply forward pressure.

We know Kent, Salem, JKH have to build their tanks to get more ball. We know Viney and Tyson have to develop in to elite runners if they will be elite midfielders. They have to challenge Cross and Nathan Jones in the time trials. Same with Matt Jones who has to add muscle to not be shrugged off in tackles.

Someone like Nev Jetta has to make sure he has top quality fitness so he can not only defend hard but attack the game when we have the ball.

Jack Grimes has to add some muscle so he has some power in his game without losing speed or fitness.

North beat us by having more clean skills at times but they beat us a lot by how quickly they were able to spread away from contests and run both ways.

We still have to improve in pretty much every aspect of the game. I think people should realise Roos has given us a style and the point of that style is so it's used as a basis to build a team where everything is consistent game after game. The game plan itself isn't some magic to turn poor kicks, poor runners, poor marks etc in to a top team.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

The problem is we lack class around the ground but especially across half back and in the midfield.

[DeeSpencer 25,721]

But if it's running, there has to be a reason why there's a lack of movement, and what I alluded to was that I think there are players who don't have the ability and therefore trust in their skills to hit up leads and they're constantly bombing to a contest. And because of this predictable play that's been going on since Neeld was there, it means other players don't even bother running hard to create space or lead because they already know what the individual will most likely do.

It's a conundrum for every coach I'm sure. How do you emphasise the right structures that allow players to then choose the right options whilst still retaining a proper defensive structure.

All I know is that when the ball is in Vince, Watts, Tyson, N. Jones and a few others hands they have tried some things. I know that when we play away from stoppages it's been creative and sensible.

I definitely think we need more run from the mids and half forwards, and more half forwards who can lock the ball in so we have more confidence to go to them. At the same time this side is crying out for some skill from half back. I'm hoping Howe continues to learn and that Grimes is fixed some how.

One things for sure that against Carl, Richmond and Port we didn't look too predictable or structure. And on the other hand against Collingwood and other teams who dropped a man behind play we worried ourselves out of it and went super defensive. Against North we fell for the trap and neither played smart enough fast or slow.

[Cards13 9,117]

Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers. If we don't turn the ball over on the wing, in the middle or if lucky the half forward line we can get the ball inside 50.

As we have seen if we do get te ball in the 50 with any kind of speed and some half decent delivery we kick goals.

[thevil1 421]

Definitely out of contract & likely goners IMO: Nicholson, Strauss, Byrnes, Tapscott, Clisby, Blease, Barry. (7) Clark retirement makes 8 primary list changes.

Others still out of contract (at least they were at the start of this year): Frawley UFA, Bail, Kent, M. Jones, Terlich, McDonald, Cross. We'd definitely want to keep most of those guys still, even if a few of them are still depth rather than genuine top 22, there's only so much talent each off season available.

Depending on Frawley/trades etc, 8 changes is about right. I can't see us drafting past rounds 4 or 5 in this years National Draft. And we won't pickup more than a couple of FA's if we keep Frawley. Maybe throw in upgrades for Jetta & Georgiou? Harmes has been ok, but still a fair way off.

Priority numbers 1, 2 & 3 will be more silk, speed & spread in the midfield/flanks for sure!!! Roosy said as much in the media recently. And that should sort out the list balance & answer the OP's points pretty nicely I would've thought.

We'll definitely pickup a ruck/kpp prospect or 2 somewhere along the way also. 8 to 10 players turned over at seasons end for sure.

[PaulRB 6,388]

The problem is we are only 14 games into a new game style, new player roles and expectations. And when we play more experienced playing units who are better drilled than us, our game can become unglued.

On Sunday players disposed badly in part because:

a. they'd look up and see all options covered.

b. they look to set plays and see these were being anticipated

c. they were being covered in close so their recent get out of hand balling backwards was under intense pressure, reducing the time for players to consider options a. and b.

All of these are because we are EARLY in learning a new game plan and North did some research on us and choked us into increasing our errors.

The solution is more time playing together, learning to deal with what the Roos did to us, and developing the confidence to do it under pressure.

Edited June 23, 2014 by PaulRB

[beelzebub 23,380]

The problem is we are only 14 games into a new game style, new player roles and expectations. And when we play more experienced playing units who are better drilled than us, our game can become unglued.

On Sunday players disposed badly in part because:

a. they'd look up and see all options covered.

b. they look to set plays and see these were being anticipated

c. they were being covered in close so their recent get out of hand balling backwards was under intense pressure, reducing the time for players to consider options a. and b.

All of these are because we are EARLY in learning a new game plan and North did some research on us and choked us into increasing our errors.

The solution is more time playing together, learning to deal with what the Roos did to us, and developing the confidence to do it under pressure.

Theres a lot of sense in what you suggest. However its only part of the overview. The Roos game revolves around role playing. Some will simply not be up to it ( the ideal standard) as things go on. There will be turnover...and I dont just mean coming off the half back line, I mean list.

Roos is prepared to horse trade. Fasten seatbets.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

You are right. It was indulgent.

Just kidding, Its running. That was as clear as day on the weekend. We were second to the ball, didn't lead and were totally static. That puts pressure in the kicker, increases turnovers etc.

Roos is not telling them to play that way but its clear to me they are processing the instructions and are still scared of stuffing up. Hence the static nature of our play. That will change and our kicking to position will improve as well as our I50s.

I agree very much on the first part jnr

On the second, i think it's a little chicken and egg. Because we don't have enough players with the skill to deliver the ball accurately by foot, they are unwilling to take the opposition on, run forward and try and hit a lead up player (or even just kick it to a forward's advantage) as many just seem too scared of fluffing it and seeing the ball go over their heads for another goal.

Hence many of the lessor skilled players tend to instinctively look behind, instead of up the field or inside like the top players in the better sides do, as first priority. Either handballing behind or a short easy chip lateral or behind just to lay off and not have the potential embarresment of a big clanger on their hands. We also lack a turn of pace in order to break free of the man on the mark or the initial attempted tackle after playing on that would allow a player the extra time and space to get that forward hit up pass off successfully in most cases.

The above means we are forever sending the ball behind us with successive handballs and/or chipping sideways. We also overuse the handball when doing so as weprobably find it's just easier an easier method of hitting a short target in close. Handballing also puts more pressure on generally as it is a "play on" situation. Hawthorn also look to work the ball across their back half in a similar fashion to us with the switch etc (as do many others), trying to stretch their opponent and find holes as they work the ball forward. But they obviously utilise thier fabulous kicking skills, so much more than we do, to control the flow of the game. Take a mark and you have a choice. You can hold up play if you are covered or move the ball quickly again if the opportunity is there.

With a handball there isn't this luxury. You must play on. This allows clubs that are reasonably well drilled and skilled at defence to push up on us and hem our boys into our back half, playing much of the match there, just sweating on us to make our next turnover once we eventually try to make a move forward, which you eventually have to as you run out of defensive space behind.

It is no coincidence that we hold the record this year for the most number of yards gained, going backwards. It's somewhere around 1,700 yards lost going backwards with the ball. About 700 to 800 more than the next team if my memory serves me correctly.

This is all well and good if you have 2 or more half backs who have a great turn of speed/agility/ability to read the play, are able to break through lines and have decent disposal skills with the next kick towards the 50 meter area to player on the lead or inside 50 if they make it that far. Sydney are also in the top 3 for yardage lost with backwards ball movement. But they have Malceski and Shaw running amok much of the time, able to counter the severe reverse movement (comparatively) and move the ball out and through congestion off HB much quicker than we can at this point.

At this stage, we don't have one player i can think of that offers us this luxury and IMO this is why we have such a massive discrepancy in inside 50s differentials almost every week. I see T Mc and Garland trying to a degree, but falling well short on the skills, decision making and disposals much of the time. Although last year Garlo seemed to make some significant progress here. His injury has obviously set him back. An injury free pre season should see him turn this around.

In addition our forwards and the forward lineup are still a long way from offering us anything dangerous when we do make it inside 50 and in many cases the players making that last attempted kick have a long way to go with their delivery/decision making if we are ever going to kick winning scores on a regular basis against decent opposition like the Roos yesterday.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Rusty Nails

[Deecisive 1,709]

Steve you do a great disservice to our back men to say they cannot hit targets up with their short passes, i lost count of the number of times our backmen passed it directly to North.

Turnovers are obviously killing us probably because we do it so often. We are obviously too slow with our ball movement, players seem reluctant to play on quickly, when they run into space they are more often enough ignored as our players seem preoccupied with going sideways or backwards. Our slow ball movement kills any chance Dawes and co have of having an even contest with our opposition.

On a positive side if you can call it that, we have rarely had a game where all of our players have played a great game, Dawes puts in but has not had the direct scoreboard impact needed, Frawley the same as is Watts when he is up in the forward line. Crumbing forwards hmmm maybe one or two goals a game if we are lucky. Our backs do reasonably well, but tend to be kings of the turnover which keeps pressure on them and the scoreboard. Midfield, Viney has been quiet, Tyson up and down and even Nat Jones is getting a lot more attention.

So we do have a lot of upside given the fact that we have a lot of players really not doing all that well.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

The problem is we lack class around the ground but especially across half back and in the midfield.

Yes I agree. To simplify the complexities discussed here I think one or two classy half backs who can get the ball, break the lines and kick (think Birchell, Yarran, Stratten) would do wonders. Add another big bodied ball magnet in the middle and a fit Hogan up forward and things would start to really happen. Plus of course continued development of everyone under Roos and co for another two seasons to build fitness and the ability to run both ways for 120 minutes. Then maybe we start to really compete with the big boys.