Analysing yesterday's game -

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

It seems the post match discussion thread is again full of the usual over-the-top comments regarding yesterday's loss so I thought I'd start a thread for those who wish to share some views on some of the deep-seeded issues that are obviously still with this club given yesterday's debacle. 

Couple of things to start. When you're up against a really proud side with an enormous supporter base who are hosting a 'stand by us' game at the MCG, it would be fairly obvious that as an opposition side, starting well and taking the crowd out of the game as early as possible would almost be dot-point numero one on the whiteboard... 

What happened? 

Here are two significant moments that contributed to the essendon snowball that quickly gathered speed pretty early on yesterday:

1: From as early as I can remember, they were running harder, tackling harder and executing their skills to a level above us. Why?

2: Tom McDonald's turnover directly resulting in Essendon's first goal. Crowd went up a gear and so did their side. 

After 10 minutes and even after the first goal for us, it was clear that they had us covered everywhere except at clearances and eventually that was the story of the entire afternoon. But before I go on to some more pressing issues I have about yesterday, I would like to say that these two points were the catalyst for Essendon to really believe that they were in with a chance. The crowd and their players lifted enormously.

As for point 1, I refuse to believe that this is a one off. Do we need reminding of the Nab challenge game against the Bulldogs? Was it not eerily similar early on? The young dogs side ran hard in numbers on the outside, were tackling more ferociously and were generally more efficient with the ball than us in that game and similarly to Essendon, had around 15 of their starting 22 players out. We almost had a full-strength side in. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that game for me was without doubt cause for concern and I made a point of it. What the dogs game and now yesterday has proved is the following: From our backline through to our midfield, we severely lack running power and speed, football smarts and disposal skills. It's alarming and enormously concerning. We're a really one-dimensional midfield. Almost all of our midfielders are contested ball winning players, most of them are one-paced and nearly none of them are damaging by foot. Also alarming. I completely understand that Roos and co wanted competitors but I recall saying a year or so ago that if we keep neglecting equally important attributes such as running power and kicking skills, we're going to stall. 

Evolutionarily speaking, has the Hawthorn model been completely forgotten? Contested ball winning isn't any more important than being efficient by foot nor being able to run hard both ways. All attributes are equally important and as a team there must be an equal balance if you're expecting to be a quality side which is why Hawthorn have been so dominant. The balance of attributes across their midfield is incredible and now the dogs are on the same path. Roos is still thinking Sydney 2005. Which brings me to my next point:

Paul Roos: I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I strongly believe he is past match day coaching. As posters have rightly noted, he was outmaneuvered yesterday. Embarrassingly so. Following on from my views about the way we've been drafting and recruiting, it's clear he is stuck in the 'Sydney of 2005' model of playing the game. His post-game pressers rarely shed light on anything. I think he's been huge for the club in regards to steering the ship, implementing elite behaviours within the club and assembling a great development coaching team but the sooner Goodwin takes over on match day, the better. 

Backline: Would love to know whether this is Roos or Rawlings idea, but this rotating of backmen on opposition players is simply a joke. I heard McDonald talk about it during the week. When asked if he was looking forward to getting redemption on Daniher, he answered something like 'the way we're playing defence this year is a bit different, it's not as much an individual battle'. McDonald has played his best games for this club when assigned a single opponent. Garland has played his best for the club when assigned a single opponent. Dunn has played his best when assigned a single opponent. What the [censored] is going on? Yesterday, Daniher took marks against Jones, Jetta, Garland and McDonald. There is absolutely zero organisation in our defensive group at present and it's contributing to poor performances. McDonald and Garland again played with an incredible amount of inconsistency. Jesus I hate to say it again, but will Garland contribute anything positive to the team again? Kicking, body language, aggression, run, leadership, anything? I'm becoming increasingly confused about his role at our club. He has no spark! Why we're trying to emulate Hawthorn's back six when we simply don't have the cattle I have NFI. If we want to improve our backline in a way that is going to be relevant for successful football next year we'll need to offload Dunn, bring in Hurley and another defender who can break lines and use the ball who can provide what Garland should be providing.

Forwardline: It will continue to suffer if the quality of the disposal going inside 50 remains the same. Kicking long to the disadvantage of Hogan and two opposition defenders. It simply comes back to my point about the types of players we have on our list and what their strengths are. I can deal with it from time to time as every supporter can. But game after game we're seeing it. It's deep-rooted. 

We have a long way to go. We're still broken in certain areas of the ground and the only way we'll see genuine improvement is through further list changes that contribute to a more 'balanced' team. We are missing far too many important attributes all over the ground.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by stevethemanjordan

[DeeZee 7,363]

I definitely agree on the rotating of back men tactic, McDonald should have been shoulder to shoulder on Daniher all game.

I alsobelieve that the game day coaching by us was deplorable as you could see what was happening all day but we refused to cover the outside runners

[Wells 11 5,381]

A good read stevetmj. Ive got a bit more love for Garlo than you but agree with most of the points you make. We were run off our feet against GWS for a half also and we are going to be on the end of some enormous beltings this year if we keep playing the same way, Its depressing really isnt it. Its not so much the fact that we lost to the drug cheats that hurts ( yes that bit does also) but its more the way we played and the way a single tall so utterly dominated us. 

[dazzledavey36 54,285]

Agree with everything you just said Steve. I too was worried after the doggies game and knew right after that match we were always going to get exposed badly for our lack of speed on the outside. But you spoke up about this exact issue back then and got absolutely howled down for it because it was a 'practise match'.

Your also wasting your time on Garland.. Been saying it for years what a liability he is to our team.. but apparently he has good leadership blah blah blah.....

[Slartibartfast 17,192]

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Been saying it for years what a liability he is to our team.. but apparently he has good leadership blah blah blah.....

No Dazzle, apparently the FD have full faith in him.  Or are you saying you don't trust Roos any more?

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

The delivery into the forwardline has been an issue for far too long. Not only are the F50 entries mostly poorly executed, they are more often that not directed at Hogan who is double or triple teamed. We need far more spread, giving Hogan a little more room which gives us more options a little wider. Cant believe im saying it but we would have scored more goals yesterday using Hogan as a decoy.

[dazzledavey36 54,285]

Just now, Baghdad Bob said:

No Dazzle, apparently the FD have full faith in him.  Or are you saying you don't trust Roos any more?

If the FD have faith in Garland then maybe its worth questioning it? because i am yet to see what he adds to this side. Leadership?? kidding yourself..

For example i dont mind Lumumba and thought his game was good for someone who has had no pre season. At least with him you know what your going to get. He is the only one that tries to take the game on and get it moving at all times. 

 

[Redleg 40,843]

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

For example i dont mind Lumumba and thought his game was good for someone who has had no pre season. At least with him you know what your going to get. He is the only one that tries to take the game on and get it moving at all times. 

 

You are happy with a bloke who drops marks and runs around like a headless chook and then with every single kick or handball, turns the ball over. Well I am not.

Lumumba is a liability to us and was all last year and yet Grimes, who granted can do a poor disposal, but is hard and fit, is overlooked.

 

[McQueen 17,864]

I still believe that we're progressing and yesterday was a calamity of issues some of which STMJ has detailed above.

The test of how far we've come will be the response from the group next week.

[dazzledavey36 54,285]

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You are happy with a bloke who drops marks and runs around like a headless chook and then with every single kick or handball, turns the ball over. Well I am not.

Lumumba is a liability to us and was all last year and yet Grimes, who granted can do a poor disposal, but is hard and fit, is overlooked.

 

It is a fair point you put up.. I guess i am only looking at it from an attacking point of view. I really do feel for Grimes. I still feel there is a spot somewhere because as you said he is one of our fittest and goes in hard. 

Defensive forward maybe? Couldn't have been any worse then Dean Kent and James Harmes who just let their opponents stroll right past them.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

This new deliberate out of bounds rule is working against us because we have a midfield stacked with contested ball winners and there are heaps less boundary throw ins now.

[JV7 2,350]

1 hour ago, DeeZee said:

I definitely agree on the rotating of back men tactic, McDonald should have been shoulder to shoulder on Daniher all game.

I alsobelieve that the game day coaching by us was deplorable as you could see what was happening all day but we refused to cover the outside runners

I don't think we do have this rotating backline. I'm not sure if Garland was moved to Daniher because McDonald was getting a touch up or Garland was covering for McDonald... McDonald does push up the ground and try to create some run & rebound which surely he hasn't just taken upon himself but why haven't the coaches pulled him up on it ? He is a good one on one defender whose sole job should be to shut down his opponent. He gets himself into trouble when he tries to run and create and instead of taking the first and easiest option he bites of more then he can chew and turns it over. Essendons first goal for example. Having said that we have more serious problems then Tom McDonald. 

Like others have said our midfield is too one paced. Our midfield is lazy. Sides these days concede outlet kicks to the wide half back/wing area but then they'll work hard to get numbers across the ground to stop that transition out that side of the ground. Round one the Giants did this and yesterday was more evident that we just do not work hard enough. We concede that outlet kick but then we don't work hard to press that side in, allowing essendon to waltz down the ground and allow easy delivery inside their forward 50 and with a key forward like Daniher running hot you can't stop it. 

In Roos first 2 seasons we were good at stopping that easy transition and we would hold sides up, forcing them to chip it back and forth. Now that we've added the attacking part of the game, everyone is running forward and then once it's bombed inside 50 and turned over (which is all we do kicking inside 50) the players don't work hard to push back. Whether that's a lack of fitness or desire.. Me thinks it's the latter. 

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by JV7

[leucopogon 1,519]

Heretier's brand of football must have opposition defenders just licking their lips. Bomb it long and HIGH, oh so HIGH, pack forms 9/10 times it comes back the other way. If you were pressuring the headless chook run, you'd just immediately run into space knowing the ball will be coming back towards you straight away. 

He needs to go, or if he's under instructions to do what he did yesterday, the bloke instructing him needs to go. 

[Watts Jurrah Dunn? 735]

The biggest issue for me is the complete lack of run, pace and kicking skill from our half backs and midfielders.  

There are only 4 blokes in the side that are very good kicks by AFL standard.  Vince, Watts, Salem, N Jones.  

We've got 1 bloke with genuine leg speed - Garlett.

Why on earth you would draft a 3rd tall (Hulett) and 18 year old beanpole (King) last year absolutely baffles me.  Surely speculative picks like this should have been used on the fastest outside players available, given our first two picks were an inside bull and a tall forward.

The club must have been very confident that Stretch and Hunt will come on.

I think we will have to package up one of our one-paced mids with our 2nd pick this year to try and get back into the first round, because there are still so many holes in the list.  

 

[praha 11,236]

This is basically a tl;dr version of the post-match thread, and could have been posted in there.

[leucopogon 1,519]

4 minutes ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

The biggest issue for me is the complete lack of run, pace and kicking skill from our half backs and midfielders.  

There are only 4 blokes in the side that are very good kicks by AFL standard.  Vince, Watts, Salem, N Jones.  

We've got 1 bloke with genuine leg speed - Garlett.

Why on earth you would draft a 3rd tall (Hulett) and 18 year old beanpole (King) last year absolutely baffles me.  Surely speculative picks like this should have been used on the fastest outside players available, given our first two picks were an inside bull and a tall forward.

The club must have been very confident that Stretch and Hunt will come on.

I think we will have to package up one of our one-paced mids with our 2nd pick this year to try and get back into the first round, because there are still so many holes in the list.  

 

Wonder if the FD know more than they're letting on about Hogan sticking around. If they know he's off at season's end, would make sense to have a couple of replacement options lined up (i.e. Wiedemen & Hulett).

Not the best sources, but Karl Langdon & Brad Hardie over here in the west are saying Hogan coming back to WA is a done deal.

Oh well, at least we'll probably be getting a first rounder in this years draft.

Edit: on this front, the Hogan back to WA thing, might explain his ordinary petulant performances thus far (lowering his currency to make a trade easier to get over the line at years end). I'd drop him to the twos.

Edited April 3, 2016 by leucopogon

[Satyriconhome 10,731]

3 minutes ago, praha said:

This is basically a tl;dr version of the post-match thread, and could have been posted in there.

Really, we lost, this is only the start, there will be at least another 3 or4 threads all saying the same thing, it's carthatic,  the next one will be who we need to draft to fill the glaring holes in the list

[Ethan Tremblay 30,826]

1 minute ago, leucopogon said:

Wonder if the FD know more than they're letting on about Hogan sticking around. If they know he's off at season's end, would make sense to have a couple of replacement options lined up (i.e. Wiedemen & Hulett).

Not the best sources, but Karl Langdon & Brad Hardie over here in the west are saying Hogan coming back to WA is a done deal.

Oh well, at least we'll probably be getting a first rounder in this years draft.

 

He has two years left on his contract, it wouldn't be at the end of this season. If it were a done deal, the players would know and wouldn't give him the time of the day. Langdon is the equivalent of a forum troll on radio. 

[leucopogon 1,519]

Just now, Ethan Tremblay said:

He has two years left on his contract, it wouldn't be at the end of this season. If it were a done deal, the players would know and wouldn't give him the time of the day. Langdon is the equivalent of a forum troll on radio. 

Let's say hypothetically that he is going to go back to WA, why would you keep him on the list until the end of his contract and end up with another Cam McCarthey situation? I'd move him on and be done with it already. The same logic applies to the Roos and Goodwin situation. Roos is gone at season's end, everyone knows it, why hang around? Just go and take the 1.5 million of AFL coin. 

[Little Goffy 14,463]

Coaching

- trying to be tricky and 'clever' when it isn't necessary. Reminds me a bit of the recruiting 2007-2011 - we had to be the smartest kid in the room, and didn't do the obvious steady efforts.

- a defective over-emphasis on getting numbers back. Keeping a couple of players in dangerous forward positions actually puts on defensive pressure by forcing the opponent to think about the lurking menace, and it also means that instead of string s of 'rebound, back in, rebound, back in' that only ends with a goal against us, we actually get the occasional breakaway from defence. The goal of defence is to get the situation to one where you aren't defending!

Players

- we have to nod to the disclaimer that there are a lot of young guys out there still. That does mean inconsistency and it does mean it is more likely there will be psychological fluctuations even within a game. But then...

- the leadership is still lacking. So much has been placed onto Hogan (which is of course absurd) that when he has a very bad day not only does it make it more likely he will drop his head, but it makes that body language all the more damaging to the other players.

Club psychology

Here it is, the one we all know. As a club, we routinely believe that 'the job is done already'.

- Got high draft picks? Wait five years, watch them enter new statistical categories for age and game splayed. Yay, a premiership for sure!

- Had our best ever preseason! Yay, we are going to have a great opening three rounds!

- Opponent riddled with injury and out of form? Yay, we are going to have an upset win!

- Going in favourites! Yay, we got this in the bag!

- Got a top-rated new coach with premiership experience! Yay! Respectability is ours at last!

As a club, Melbourne still believes that its destiny will be decided by outside forces.

Everything else pales into comparison. This is the defining feature of our football club. It has to change. We have to change it.

[Moneider96 1,045]

22 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Let's say hypothetically that he is going to go back to WA, why would you keep him on the list until the end of his contract and end up with another Cam McCarthey situation? I'd move him on and be done with it already. The same logic applies to the Roos and Goodwin situation. Roos is gone at season's end, everyone knows it, why hang around? Just go and take the 1.5 million of AFL coin. 

If Hogan is gone (whether it be this year or the next), I would prefer it if he just left now. It's not like he's part of our long-term future. I know I'm in the minority here.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Moneider96

[Mondê 525]

At the end of the day we are still a youthful squad prone to the occasional off day. Yes I am disappointed by the performance of the team yesterday but in all honesty we were due for a lapse, and I was not the slightest bit surprised by what was dished up yesterday.

We threw everything at the NAB challenge, in which we scrapped our way to a couple of wins against mediocre opposition. Someone earlier mentioned the alarm bells going off in the Bulldogs match, I couldn't agree more. They were severely depleted and taught us a lesson about intensity all over the park in that first half. I'm going to see how the next month pans out before I hit the panic button, but my hopes for anything more than 9 wins this season are relatively low given the state of our list.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Very good points STMJ and hard to disagree.

 

Really think one of Stretch or Hunt needs to come in to help with our outside run.

[Mydee 288]

2 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

A good read stevetmj. Ive got a bit more love for Garlo than you but agree with most of the points you make. We were run off our feet against GWS for a half also and we are going to be on the end of some enormous beltings this year if we keep playing the same way, Its depressing really isnt it. Its not so much the fact that we lost to the drug cheats that hurts ( yes that bit does also) but its more the way we played and the way a single tall so utterly dominated us. 

Reminiscent of Derek Kicket in the early nineties. Ah the humiliation of it all

[MadAsHell 4,212]

1 hour ago, leucopogon said:

Wonder if the FD know more than they're letting on about Hogan sticking around. If they know he's off at season's end, would make sense to have a couple of replacement options lined up (i.e. Wiedemen & Hulett).

Not the best sources, but Karl Langdon & Brad Hardie over here in the west are saying Hogan coming back to WA is a done deal.

Oh well, at least we'll probably be getting a first rounder in this years draft.

Edit: on this front, the Hogan back to WA thing, might explain his ordinary petulant performances thus far (lowering his currency to make a trade easier to get over the line at years end). I'd drop him to the twos.

The drafting of Mitch King last year made perfect sense given our current ruck situation.

 

Hulett I conceed was one from left field. However with an ageing Dunn, Garland, Pedersen and Dawes we're not exactly spoilt for talls.