POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 6

[Moonshadow 17,676]

We get over the back and guys like Frost spray the ball into the AFL members wing from 15 out...

[jnrmac 20,058]

31 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Stats seem to suggest otherwise, jnrmac.

12 teams have played 6 games already. Of those 12, 6 of them have conceded more points than we have (Richmond, St Kilda, Fremantle, Port, Gold Coast, Hawthorn).

Brisbane has already conceded more than us and have a game to play today. If either Essendon or Collingwood concede 75-odd points, they'll both pass us too.

I said that last 4 weeks our defence has let in 21, 9, 14 and 20 goals. Not sure how you could say that stats seem to suggest otherwise.

I don't care what other teams have conceded. Why should you care? Its pretty obvious to any football watcher that defences are what make teams successful and get them to finals.

Our defence is a problem when we let goals in like that. Individually Salem gets beaten a lot one on one, Dunn is prone to off days like yesterday, TMac has poor disposal, Lumumba suffers and gets caught when the team doesn't spread. Our defence can get cut up very easily. If we are going to play shootout football we don't have enough defensive skill to win in the longer term.

 

 

[jnrmac 20,058]

12 hours ago, Redleg said:

We both had short breaks between games and the Saints brought in 3 fresh players. We brought in one, a first gamer. How did the 3 Saints go?

As with the Bombers game, we started stuffing up at selection, followed it with poor match day coaching, then poor skill and disposal and ended with a lack of effort, from most of the side.

Bingo. Membrey killed us. As did Acres.

 

[Bonkers 994]

17 hours ago, Dee Dee said:

There was a passage in the third quarter which summed up the whole game.

The ball was on the outer wing, and was deftly passed to Riewoldt. As he turned to take his kick three or four Saints players ran past with not a Melbourne player in sight. The ball was passed off and a goal scored. Easy! And sitting in the stand just above I felt mortified and very angry. And just one of many p*ss poor efforts.

I feel sorry for Hunt and Wagner, they were out of their depth today, but I feel angry at Dunn and McDonald, and they were shocking. We've got a few good kids, but they're of the medium size variety, gee, I hope OMac makes it, we really need him. I haven't lost faith yet in TMac but Dunny and H may be nearing there use by dates.

Pretty much the story of the game.

[olisik 4,060]

We need better backline depth

[Bonkers 994]

17 hours ago, P-man said:

Would've liked to be at the ground to get some kind of understanding as to how they managed to get so many players free when streaming forward. The amount of times we were outnumbered in defence was unfathomable, and was chalk and cheese from last week. You will cop a few out the back with the attacking game plan and if you can't trap it forward then you're in trouble. But today was crazy. If it was simply work rate then there seemed to be a lot of culprits.

The feeling is confusion more than anything. The best thing you can say is that it's another lesson learned, but we need to react better when the game is up for grabs.

From my observations many times the Saints players were willing to gamble that they would win the ball in a 50/50 & would cheat out the back running into open space to receive the ball was it was won in the contest. There were other times were we didn't apply enough pressure in our forward line & they would then cut through our zone with again numbers out the back or simply switch the ball around the outer side of the ground.

My conclusion on most occasions was that the Saints were willing to work harder than us. I'm not sure whether some of the players were tired or simply lazy but I there was definitely a lack or work rate throughout leading to numerous easy goals.

[DeeZone 9,813]

We need Oscar, Weeds or Hulett to develop real quick as we lack marking power and a bit of mongrel down back, remember Neita started his career at CHB he had great hands and could really roost it as well. I know that I shouldn't compare these boys with Neita but he had to start down back and it didn't do him any harm, we had a pretty impressive forward line at that time!!

[mauriesy 7,286]

9 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

From my observations many times the Saints players were willing to gamble that they would win the ball in a 50/50 & would cheat out the back running into open space to receive the ball was it was won in the contest.

It's not 'cheating out the back' to win the contested ball then kill your opposition in transition. If we won the contested ball better they wouldn't have been able to do it.

[Bonkers 994]

2 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

It's not 'cheating out the back' to win the contested ball then kill your opposition in transition. If we won the contested ball better they wouldn't have been able to do it.

Well if you're prepared to leave the contest & run towards your own goal without knowing the result of the contest I'd call it cheating out the back. I saw it happen numerous times. You can also call it backing your team mates to win a 50/50, if we had been good enough to win more of those contests it would have caused them problems back the other way. Will agree to disagree, cheers.

[picket fence 17,134]

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Can someone please try to explain in simple terms how this defence zone works, in theory.   Like having Jetta in a marking contest vs Reiwoldt?  I really don't understand.

Zone defence works on the theory that you block prospective avenues from your attacking  50 by putting your forwards  and others as designated in outposts!

The idea is that you may not bloke the first chip kick but your can sometimes effectively stop the second kick out of defence thus shortcircuit the next attack.

I NEVER liked it in any form of footy and when I coached I always played man on man defense thus forcing a contest! The problems percieved in this is that if opposition get the ball a quick team just all roll forward and create various options of ball delivery.

My view is if you play man on man you force the first kick to a contest! I reckon that is much more preferable than an instant and cheap first possesion which then invites a switch and whammo you are on your way!! We frequently get caught out that way!

Edited May 1, 2016 by picket fence

[beelzebub 23,340]

4 hours ago, picket fence said:

Coz they know more than us and are paid to know more, how logical is that eh??

Not sure if serious as the selectors plainly got it wrong.

It's not the you or I'd of this world highlighting that just the silent spectator called the SCOREBOARD . it's right ALL the time 

[titan_uranus 24,992]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I said that last 4 weeks our defence has let in 21, 9, 14 and 20 goals. Not sure how you could say that stats seem to suggest otherwise.

I don't care what other teams have conceded. Why should you care? Its pretty obvious to any football watcher that defences are what make teams successful and get them to finals.

Our defence is a problem when we let goals in like that. Individually Salem gets beaten a lot one on one, Dunn is prone to off days like yesterday, TMac has poor disposal, Lumumba suffers and gets caught when the team doesn't spread. Our defence can get cut up very easily. If we are going to play shootout football we don't have enough defensive skill to win in the longer term.

I was responding to your comment "our defence stinks". Maybe I should have bolded it.

Why should I care about what other teams concede? Because most elements of any team's game are relative. Funnily enough jnrmac, if you concede fewer points than your opponent on game day, you win. So when we conceded 14 goals against Richmond, we won by 30+ points. Why does 14 goals suddenly become a problem the following week?

If you're saying yesterday's defence was poor, you're absolutely right. Trying to extrapolate that into a season-long issue is iffy though because, as I said, the statistics show we're not at the bottom, or even that close to it, in terms of points conceded per game.

[Adam The God 30,217]

1 hour ago, Bonkers said:

From my observations many times the Saints players were willing to gamble that they would win the ball in a 50/50 & would cheat out the back running into open space to receive the ball was it was won in the contest. There were other times were we didn't apply enough pressure in our forward line & they would then cut through our zone with again numbers out the back or simply switch the ball around the outer side of the ground.

My conclusion on most occasions was that the Saints were willing to work harder than us. I'm not sure whether some of the players were tired or simply lazy but I there was definitely a lack or work rate throughout leading to numerous easy goals.

And when we don't stick tackles playing an 18 man press it is devastating. All these guys out the back are then free to do as they please.

I wouldn't call it cheating though. That's the basis for the gameplan. It's quite similar to ours really. You bank on your team mates winning the ball and get killed on the turnover if they don't. 

[jnrmac 20,058]

18 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I was responding to your comment "our defence stinks". Maybe I should have bolded it.

Why should I care about what other teams concede? Because most elements of any team's game are relative. Funnily enough jnrmac, if you concede fewer points than your opponent on game day, you win. So when we conceded 14 goals against Richmond, we won by 30+ points. Why does 14 goals suddenly become a problem the following week?

If you're saying yesterday's defence was poor, you're absolutely right. Trying to extrapolate that into a season-long issue is iffy though because, as I said, the statistics show we're not at the bottom, or even that close to it, in terms of points conceded per game.

I'm saying that wins can paper over some cracks. And our defence has some signficant cracks when it lets in goals like that. Happy for you to disagree but its not up to scracth by a long way IMO.

[beelzebub 23,340]

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

I'm saying that wins can paper over some cracks. And our defence has some signficant cracks when it lets in goals like that. Happy for you to disagree but its not up to scracth by a long way IMO.

Much lauding and chest puffing about our defence. Little warranted IMHO.  Much work still needed here. 

Watts used to headmy most frustrating list, it's now TMac

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

I still hope we can get Hurley.

[Bonkers 994]

39 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

And when we don't stick tackles playing an 18 man press it is devastating. All these guys out the back are then free to do as they please.

I wouldn't call it cheating though. That's the basis for the gameplan. It's quite similar to ours really. You bank on your team mates winning the ball and get killed on the turnover if they don't. 

That's another aspect from yesterday that was frustrating. There seemed to be a lot of broken tackles which as you said lead to free players. If we had stuck some of those tackles it would have lead to goal scoring chances the other way.

Perhaps cheating was the wrong word, but it's definitely a large gamble committing numbers well forward of the ball when you're not in possession.

[bluey 1,101]

Zone defence is a great idea, unless your Nev Jetta, Salem or Bug and Nick Reiwoldt or Joe Daniher or Rory Lobb decide to park themselves in the bit of land  you are minding.

 

[pinkshark 950]

21 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

I believe Oscar Wilde to be correct and you wrong.

 

No Deever,  what you said about Roos moving on is just stupid and embarrasingly reactionary.  And when you say stupid things you leave yourself open to sarcastic comments. Now when people, like yourself, are the victims of a sarcastic barb, people often pull out good ole Oscars famous quote, believing it to make them sound the more intellectual and eloquent.  In fact I would wager it is your consistent response to sarcasm.  Boring mate.  Besides which, consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.  

[Redleg 40,893]

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

What's with all the revisionism?

We did not look slow and certainly did not lack spread against Richmond or Collingwood (or North, for that matter). That's just complete rubbish.

As for bleeding goals, wtf? Richmond kicked 14 goals, the week before Collingwood just 9.

When we are on, we are fast, we spread, we score highly but we defend (hence the previous two weeks we scored over 100 points and won by 30+ points both times).

When we're not on, we are slow, we don't spread, we don't score enough and we don't defend (hence the losses to Essendon and St Kilda).

 

Thanks for calling my thoughts complete rubbish.

If you look at the goals we conceded against the Pies and Tigers, many of them were similar to yesterday, where of course more were scored, in the same manner. 

Call that complete rubbish if you like, but winning a game doesn't mean you haven't bled goals. I am talking about the simple, unopposed, uncontested, over the top, to the loose man type of goals.

If you watched yesterday you would see how most of the Saints goals were scored, it was the same in the last two games, but we happened to score more and win. 

It is not simply being on, structure plays a big part in it as well. We had none yesterday.

Skill errors also killed us yesterday.

[Redleg 40,893]

2 hours ago, mauriesy said:

It's not 'cheating out the back' to win the contested ball then kill your opposition in transition. If we won the contested ball better they wouldn't have been able to do it.

That's where our skill errors killed us. I just loved the 20-30 handballs to a team mate's ankles, or directly to a Saint. I also loved the many mis kicks.

[Redleg 40,893]

3 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

We get over the back and guys like Frost spray the ball into the AFL members wing from 15 out...

It's not easy to kick a football 15 metres between two big posts, 7 metres apart,  when that is all you do and you have been practicing it for the last 6 months.

[Redleg 40,893]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Bingo. Membrey killed us. As did Acres.

 

Gresham was pretty good too, according to the Coach.

[titan_uranus 24,992]

50 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Thanks for calling my thoughts complete rubbish.

If you look at the goals we conceded against the Pies and Tigers, many of them were similar to yesterday, where of course more were scored, in the same manner. 

Call that complete rubbish if you like, but winning a game doesn't mean you haven't bled goals. I am talking about the simple, unopposed, uncontested, over the top, to the loose man type of goals.

If you watched yesterday you would see how most of the Saints goals were scored, it was the same in the last two games, but we happened to score more and win. 

It is not simply being on, structure plays a big part in it as well. We had none yesterday.

Skill errors also killed us yesterday.

Technically, I called Fat Tony's opinion (that our midfield looks slow and lacks run and spread) rubbish, but if you want a change in language then I'll rephrase: I disagree with your opinion that we "bleed goals".

Yes, yesterday we let through far too many goals out the back of our press. But extrapolating that into broader comments that we bleed goals, or that our defence stinks, or that we lack run and spread through the middle is, I think, to revise what has taken place so far this year on the back of the most recent performance (which, by the way, happens the other way when we win and people think we're going to reel off 5 win a row and make finals).

We showed against North, Richmond and Collingwood (and, to a lesser extent, GWS) that when we apply ourselves properly, our game plan and structures lead us to outscoring our opponents (with relative ease, too). Yesterday (and against Essendon) we didn't work hard enough. That causes the structures to fall apart in areas (e.g. yesterday we pushed high up but didn't work back hard enough), leaving too much space in certain areas and leading to cheap goals to fast breaks.

I don't agree that we bled goals against Richmond (they never kicked any more than three in a row and the one time they did that was over a 10-minute period) or Collingwood (who never kicked more than two in a row). Yesterday was vastly different, with St Kilda putting on runs of goals at the start of the second and again in the middle of the third. That doesn't mean the previous two weeks were the same. It, to me, shows the difference between our application yesterday and the prior two weeks.

My frustration lies more with the inability to consistently play to the same standard (and, moreover, that we continue to have periods of unacceptable quality football, rather than just "poor" football), not with some deeper underlying defensive problem.

[Redleg 40,893]

36 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Technically, I called Fat Tony's opinion (that our midfield looks slow and lacks run and spread) rubbish, but if you want a change in language then I'll rephrase: I disagree with your opinion that we "bleed goals".

Yes, yesterday we let through far too many goals out the back of our press. But extrapolating that into broader comments that we bleed goals, or that our defence stinks, or that we lack run and spread through the middle is, I think, to revise what has taken place so far this year on the back of the most recent performance (which, by the way, happens the other way when we win and people think we're going to reel off 5 win a row and make finals).

We showed against North, Richmond and Collingwood (and, to a lesser extent, GWS) that when we apply ourselves properly, our game plan and structures lead us to outscoring our opponents (with relative ease, too). Yesterday (and against Essendon) we didn't work hard enough. That causes the structures to fall apart in areas (e.g. yesterday we pushed high up but didn't work back hard enough), leaving too much space in certain areas and leading to cheap goals to fast breaks.

I don't agree that we bled goals against Richmond (they never kicked any more than three in a row and the one time they did that was over a 10-minute period) or Collingwood (who never kicked more than two in a row). Yesterday was vastly different, with St Kilda putting on runs of goals at the start of the second and again in the middle of the third. That doesn't mean the previous two weeks were the same. It, to me, shows the difference between our application yesterday and the prior two weeks.

My frustration lies more with the inability to consistently play to the same standard (and, moreover, that we continue to have periods of unacceptable quality football, rather than just "poor" football), not with some deeper underlying defensive problem.

Agree with most of that. I probably used the wrong term when I referred to "bleeding " goals and really meant, allowing "easy uncontested goals."

However, it is clear, that when we had a turnover or loss of possession, or they gained a clearance, the Saints players were already running forward and even if we chased, which we did, we would not catch them and they would have loose men up forward inside their 50. 

The first thing that caused this was poor skill in handballing and kicking. The second was intensity at the ball and then the use of spread on gaining possession. The third was anticipation by the Saints that they would win the ball.

This is a high risk game strategy, I know and is so dependent on who gains possession and what you then do with the ball.

For those reasons I was so concerned about fresh legs and bringing in another strong clearance player, who with the loss of Brayshaw, to me was a fresh, young, Oliver.